STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

JEFFREY R. STERMAN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 82-1713

)

FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY, )

FLORIDA BOARD OF REGENTS, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a formal administrative hearing was conducted in this matter on November 22, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. The following appearances were entered: John D. Carlson, Tallahassee, Florida, appeared on behalf of the Petitioner, Jeffrey R. Sterman; Patricia A. Draper and Charles S. Ruberg, Tallahassee, Florida, appeared on behalf of the Respondent, Florida State University. In September, 1981, Petitioner filed a "Petition for Administrative Hearing and Affirmative Relief" with Florida State University. Petitioner therein alleged that he had been wrongfully denied a degree by the university.

By Order entered September 21, 1981, the university dismissed the petition. An appeal was taken to the First District Court of Appeal. The court reversed, holding that the university had improperly dismissed the petition without affording Petitioner an opportunity to establish the allegations set out in the petition at a hearing. Sterman v. Florida State University, 414 So.2d 1102 (1 DCA Fla. 1982). Thereafter, the matter was forwarded by the university to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of a Hearing Officer and the scheduling of a hearing. Final hearing was scheduled as set out above by notice dated August 31, 1982. A Motion for Default filed by the Petitioner was denied on the record at the final hearing.

Petitioner testified as a witness on his own behalf and called the following additional witnesses: Harry Lipner, James Kenneth Brewer, George Dawson, Lehman Barnes, and Thomas Denmark, all of whom are members of the faculty at Florida State University; and Charles McGarrah, the Graduate Coordinator at Florida State University. In addition to examining witnesses called by Petitioner, the Respondent called the following witnesses: James L. Gant and Russell H. Johnsen, members of the faculty at Florida State University. Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1, Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 15, and Respondent's Exhibit 1 were offered into evidence at the hearing and were received. Respondent's Exhibit 2 was offered into evidence and rejected.

The parties have submitted post-hearing legal memoranda which include proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The proposed findings and conclusions have been adopted only to the extent that they are expressly set out in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law which follow. They have been otherwise rejected as not supported by the evidence, contrary to the better weight of the evidence, irrelevant to the issues, or legally erroneous.

ISSUE

The ultimate issue to be resolved in this proceeding is whether the Petitioner should be awarded a doctor of education degree by Florida State University. Petitioner contends that he properly completed the requirements for the degree, that a valid offer of the degree was made to him, that he accepted the offer, and that the degree was then wrongfully withheld. The university contends that Petitioner did not meet the requirements for the degree and that no valid, enforceable offer of it was made to Petitioner.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. In 1976, Petitioner was admitted into the doctoral program in biology at Florida State University. He applied to transfer to the science education program and was admitted to the doctoral program in science education within the College of Education at Florida State University on June 24, 1977. He was pursuing a doctor of philosophy (Ph.D.) degree. Among the requirements that Petitioner needed to meet in order to receive the degree were successful completion of a diagnostic examination, completion of thirty-six resident hours of course work, course work in the field of statistics, a preliminary examination, approval of a prospectus for a doctoral dissertation, and presentation of an acceptable dissertation and a successful dissertation defense.

   
   

2. Following his admission into the Ph.D. program in science education, a supervisory committee was established for the Petitioner, and a major professor was appointed. It was the major professor's and supervisory committee's function to monitor Petitioner's progress and ultimately to make a recommendation as to whether petitioner should be awarded a degree.

   
   

3. By November 7, 1980, Petitioner had completed all of the requirements for a Ph.D. degree except for the presentation of his dissertation and the dissertation defense. These were scheduled to be conducted by the supervisory committee on November 7, 1980. Petitioner had been advised by at least two members of the committee that he might not be ready to present and defend his dissertation. Petitioner felt that he was.

   
   

4. On November 7, 1980, Petitioner met with his supervisory committee and presented and defended his dissertation. After his presentation, Petitioner left the room, and the committee evaluated the dissertation and defense. The committee unanimously concluded that the dissertation and defense were inadequate. The dissertation was not marginally inadequate. It was grossly below standards. The committee unanimously and appropriately concluded that the dissertation and defense were not acceptable, and that Petitioner had not met the requirements for a Ph.D. degree.

   
   

5. Petitioner's major professor felt that the Petitioner had devoted considerable time, energy, and hard work to the degree program. He was concerned that the effort not be totally wasted. He requested that the committee consider accepting the dissertation as adequate for the award of a doctor of education (Ed.D.) degree or a "master's specialist" degree, and that the committee recommend that Petitioner be awarded one of those degrees or that he be allowed to continue working toward a Ph.D. degree.

   
   

6. None of the members of the supervisory committee had had experience with the Ed.D. degree. They all considered it an inferior degree and felt that awarding it to Petitioner would constitute something of a "consolation prize."

   In fact, an Ed.D. degree from Florida State University is not intended to be an inferior degree. Its focus is somewhat different, but the requirements for obtaining the degree are basically the same. The committee was mistaken in considering the offer of such a degree to Petitioner. Indeed, the requirements for an Ed.D. degree being similar, and in some cases identical to those for the Ph.D. degree, Petitioner had not qualified for the award of an Ed.D. degree.

   
   

7. After the committee adjourned its proceedings on November 7, Petitioner's major professor discussed the committee's actions with Petitioner. He told Petitioner that pending proper approval, Petitioner would have the options of continuing to work toward a Ph.D. degree, or receiving an Ed.D. or master's specialist degree. It appears that the major professor was overly sensitive about the Petitioner's feelings, and he may not have bluntly advised Petitioner that he failed his dissertation, presentation, and defense. Petitioner considered his options and told his major professor that if it was possible, he would be amenable to accepting an Ed.D. degree. The major professor contacted administrative officials and was advised that the award of an Ed.D. degree would be possible. The major professor advised the Petitioner of that and told him that pending approval from the department chairman who had charge of the science education program, Petitioner could receive the Ed.D. degree. The major professor also advised Petitioner that some revisions would need to be made in the dissertation and that the title page would need to be retyped in order to reflect that it was being submitted in support of an Ed.D. degree. Petitioner complied with the direction to retype the first page, but made only minor revisions in the dissertation. Members of the supervisory committee signed off on the dissertation as being acceptable in support of an Ed.D. degree.

   
   

8. The matter was submitted to the department chairman. The department chairman read the dissertation and concluded that it was grossly inadequate. He determined that he would not authorize the award of an Ed.D. degree because Petitioner would need to be properly accepted into an Ed.D. program before he could be awarded such a degree, and additionally because he considered the dissertation inadequate to support an Ed.D. degree. This action was communicated to the supervisory committee. The committee met again and determined that since the Ed.D. degree could not be awarded, that Petitioner should be given failing grades for the dissertation, presentation, and defense. Prior to the department chairman's review of the dissertation, Petitioner had paid his fees and was anticipating being awarded an Ed.D. degree. Since it was not approved by the department chairman, the degree was not awarded.

   
   

9. Thereafter, the Petitioner opted not to apply to have his work considered in support of an Ed.D. degree or master's specialist degree. He continued working toward a Ph.D. degree for approximately six months. Ultimately, he decided to drop out of the program, and he initiated this proceeding.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

10. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this proceeding. Sections 120.57(1), 120.60, Florida Statutes; Sterman v. Florida State University, 414 So.2d 1102 (1 DCA Fla. 1982)

    
    

11. Petitioner contends that an offer of the Ed.D. degree was made to him by a person with actual or apparent authority to make such an offer, and that upon his acceptance of the offer, the university is required to award the

    degree. This contention is without merit. The authority for awarding degrees rests with the president of the university. Sections 240.227(20), 240.202, Florida Statutes. From the time that his major professor suggested the option of an Ed.D. degree to Petitioner, Petitioner was aware that approval by the department head would be required. To the extent that the offer made by the major professor could be considered a valid offer under contract law, the offer was expressly contingent upon approval by the department chairman. While the university does not appear to have any specific rule vesting the department chairman with authority to approve or deny a degree application, neither does the supervisory committee have that responsibility. The authority to award a degree rests ultimately with the university president. For some years, the university president has delegated that authority to the deans of the various colleges, and the deans of the various colleges have delegated that authority to their department chairmen. Petitioner's supervisory committee had no authority to offer an Ed.D. degree to him. Petitioner was aware that an offer of an Ed.D. degree was contingent upon approval of the head of the department. The head of the department properly concluded that Petitioner did not qualify for an Ed.D. degree.

    
    

12. It appears that this proceeding was generated in part by the major professor's sensitivity toward Petitioner's feelings. Petitioner was misled as to the quality of his work and as to his options. Nonetheless, no enforceable offer was made to Petitioner for an Ed.D. degree, and Petitioner does not qualify for the degree.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, hereby,

RECOMMENDED:

That a final order be entered by Florida State University denying Petitioner's application for award of an Ed.D. degree and dismissing the Petition for Administrative Hearing.

RECOMMENDED this 24th day of January, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida.

G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of January, 1983.

COPIES FURNISHED:

John D. Carlson, Esquire Woods, Johnston & Carlson 1030 East Lafayette Street Suite 112

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Patricia A. Draper, Esquire Charles S. Ruberg, Esquire Florida State University Suite 311, Hecht House Tallahassee, Florida 32306

Dr. Bernard F. Sliger President

Florida State University

211 Westcott

Tallahassee, Florida 32306

Docket for Case No: 82-001713

Orders for Case No: 82-001713