STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

SCHOOL BOARD OF MIAMI-DADE )

COUNTY, FLORIDA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 06-1755

)

LISSA NAPPIER, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice a formal hearing was held in this case on July 12, 2006, by video-teleconference with the parties appearing from Miami, Florida, before J. D. Parrish, a designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Jean Marie Middleton, Esquire

Miami-Dade County School Board

1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400

Miami, Florida 33132

For Respondent: Mark Herdman, Esquire

2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684

Carol R. Buxton, Esquire

140 South University Drive, Suite A Plantation, Florida 33324

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether the Respondent, Lissa Nappier, committed the violations alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges and, if so,

whether such allegations are just cause for termination of her employment with the School Board.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This case began on May 10, 2006, when the Petitioner, School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida (Petitioner or School Board), took action to suspend and initiate dismissal proceedings against the Respondent, Lissa Nappier. The Petitioner claims that there is just cause for the termination of employment based upon the Respondent’s misconduct and violations of School Board rules.

More specifically, the Petitioner alleged that Respondent submitted documents to the District’s Director of Compensation Administration for the purpose of obtaining additional credential payment when she did not complete additional academic work to support a credentialed increase; processed her prior academic work to Rochville University, an unaccredited university, to obtain a doctorate degree; and failed to use appropriate professional judgment and integrity such that her effort to receive additional pay did not reflect credit on herself or the community.

The Respondent timely disputed the allegations. The Respondent requested a formal administrative hearing in connection with the charges and the matter was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings on May 12, 2006. The case was then scheduled for hearing for July 12, 2006.

At the hearing, the Petitioner presented testimony from the

Respondent, Everardo Verguizas, Norman Santana, Neyda Navarro, and Joyce Castro. Petitioner’s Exhibits 1-4, and 7-19 were admitted into evidence. The Respondent testified in her own behalf. The transcript of the proceeding was filed on August 28, 2006. The parties timely filed Proposed Recommended Orders that have been fully considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order. It should be noted that the style of this matter previously misrepresented the spelling of the Respondent’s name. The style has been corrected to reflect the correct spelling.

The Respondent’s name is Lissa Nappier.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Petitioner is a duly constituted entity charged with the responsibility and authority to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within the Miami-Dade County Public School District. As such, it has the authority to regulate all personnel matters for the school district.

2. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent, Lissa Nappier, was an employee of School Board and was subject to the disciplinary rules and regulations pertinent to employees of the school district.

3. The Respondent’s employment relationship with the Petitioner began in 1984 when she was retained as a temporary instructor. In 1988 she was hired as a permanent teacher and was assigned to Homestead Senior High School where she has continued service until the instant issues emerged. From 2004 until the

   time of her recommended termination, the Respondent was employed as the Student Activities Director at the school.

4. Prior to the instant matter, the Respondent has had no disciplinary issues or actions.

5. As a condition of her employment with the Petitioner, the Respondent is subject to the terms and conditions of a contract between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade (UTD contract).

6. Article XXIV of the UTD contract provides for credential payment to encourage employees of the School Board to pursue further studies and expertise in their respective fields. Such pursuit enhances the quality of education for students in the school district.

7. At all times material to this case, the credential payment increase for a teacher with a doctorate degree was $7000. The effective date for the implementation of the credential payment is computed “after completion of eligibility requirements, as indicated on the transcript by the issuing university.”

8. The UTD contract further provides that:

   
   

   Completion of eligibility requirements shall be defined as: (a)filing an official M- DCPS/UTD application for credential payment with the Office of Human Resources (receipt acknowledged and dated by M-DCPS); and (b) completion of course work/degree requirements prior to the date of the quarter for which payment is requested, as indicated by the date on the transcript, or other appropriate evidence provided by the university. M-DCPS

   shall notify all new employees of the availability of the credential payment programs and the procedures for making application.

   
   

9. Under the heading “Eligibility,” the UTD contract also states:

   To qualify as graduate level, credit must have been earned after the applicant was granted the Bachelor’s degree and must be clearly identified as such.

   
   

10. Pursuant to the UTD contract,

    
    

    Applicants whose applications are disapproved shall be notified that they may appeal the decision to the committee by resubmitting and supplying such additional and germane information and/or documentation as will be helpful in reaching a decision regarding the appeal. The decision of the committee is final and not grievable or arbitrable.

    
    

11. On or about April 8, 2004, the Respondent submitted a note to the Petitioner’s Office of Compensation Administration that stated:

    Enclosed please find my official transcript for my Doctorate Program. Along with the transcript is a verification form. My employee number is 152174. Thank you for your attention in this matter, and with the necessary adjustments with payroll.

    
    

12. Attached to the note described above, was a document purportedly from Rochville University. The Rochville document contained the words “Official Transcript” and purported to indicate that the Respondent had completed the noted courses.

    The document represented the Respondent had obtained a “Doctor of Arts (Major: Education).”

13. Also attached to the note described in paragraph 11 was a form purportedly executed by the Rochville University Registrar and President that stated:

    This is to verify that Lissa A. Nappier has successfully completed the Doctor’s Program from Rochville University in the year 2004.

    
    

14. In order to obtain the “Doctor of Arts” from Rochville University, the Petitioner submitted her transcripts from Brenau College, Nova Southeastern University, the requisite fees required by the school, and a summary of her 18 years of teaching experience to Rochville. Rochville University is an “on line” institution. The Respondent did not complete additional course work, did not write a thesis, and did not attempt to verify that Rochville University was an acceptable, accredited school prior to paying her fees for the degree and submitting the documents to the Petitioner for credential payment. It is unlikely that Rochville is an accredited university. Its academic claims are related to its status as an accredited “on line” institution.

    For approximately $600.00 the Respondent received a doctorate degree.

15. After reviewing the Respondent’s documentation, the Petitioner denied the credential payment increase. The Respondent did not challenge or seek additional review of that denial.

16. The matter was referred to the Petitioner’s Office of the Inspector General because the Respondent had “submitted a

    transcript to obtain credential payment for an advanced degree using a transcript from an unaccredited university.”

17. None of the courses depicted on the Rochville University transcript that was appended to the Respondent’s note were actually for course work completed by the Respondent while attending (even online) Rochville classes. None of the hours for the courses depicted on the Rochville University transcript were earned while attending (even online) Rochville classes.

18. The Respondent knew or should have known that a credible doctor of arts degree requires more than the submission of prior coursework, life experience, and the payment of fees. Moreover, the Respondent did not present evidence of any “life experience” that would entitle her to a doctor of arts degree from any accredited university. That Rochville University accepted the Respondent’s experience and prior academic work as sufficient to award a doctorate degree dishonors the hours of work that are, in reality, required of post-graduate students who obtain doctorate degrees from reputable institutions.

19. Although technically truthful in Respondent's representation to the Petitioner, the Respondent’s request for credential payment was clearly not supported by credible academic achievement. The Respondent attempted to obtain credential payment using a non-creditable source. This was a tremendous lapse of good judgment. The Respondent, did not, however represent that Rochville University is an accredited university.

    She only represented that she had obtained a doctorate degree from that entity. Her lapse of judgment was in attempting to parlay her worthless degree into a credential payment increase. Her effort failed due to the attentive review of her request.

20. At the time the Respondent was going through a divorce and needed additional income. The online approach to obtaining the doctorate degree appeared to be an easy, affordable alternative. The Respondent did not verify that Rochville University was accredited by any national accreditation source or that the university was acceptable to the School Board for purposes of obtaining a post-graduate degree.

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

21. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, these proceedings. §§ 120.569 and 120.57(1), Fla. Stat. (2006).

22. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof in this cause to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent committed the violations alleged. See McNeil v. Pinellas County School Board, 678 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).

23. Section 1012.56, Florida Statutes (2006), provides that in order to be eligible for a teaching certificate in Florida that a bachelor’s or higher degree from an accredited institution of higher learning must be obtained. If the Department of Education has identified a non-accredited institution as having a quality program, a bachelor’s degree from that entity may be

    acceptable. In this case, Rochville University has not been accepted by any credible source as an accredited institution for higher learning.

24. Pursuant to School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21:

    
    

    All persons employed by The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves, both in their employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system.

    
    

25. Additionally, all School Board employees are obligated to comply with the Code of Ethics. See School Board Rule 6Gx13- 1.213.

26. The Code of Ethics mandates that an educator strive to achieve and sustain “the highest degree of ethical conduct.” Further, an educator is called to “strive for professional growth” and seek “to exercise the best professional judgment and integrity.” See School Board Rule 6Gx13-1.213.

27. Section 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2006), provides, in pertinent part:

    . . . All such contracts, except continuing contracts as specified in subsection (4), shall contain provisions for dismissal during the term of the contract only for just cause. Just cause includes, but is not limited to, the following instances, as defined by rule of the State Board of Education: misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, or conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude.

28. In this case “misconduct in office” is the underlying claim. That is, that the Respondent’s submission of the request for credential payment based upon a degree from Rochville University constitutes misconduct.

29. Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009 defines misconduct in office 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.

    
    

30. In this state educators are held to a high standard of ethical behavior. It is concluded that the Respondent’s behavior in submitting the online degree in order to obtain credential payment violated that standard. Nevertheless, it is also found that the incident complained of was an isolated event that should not discredit 18-plus years of meritorious service to the school district, including the time that has elapsed since the incident complained of occurred. In essence, the Respondent is guilty of attempted stealing. She submitted documents that might have passed under a less observant reviewer. Had she obtained the credential payment, the school district would have wrongfully rewarded her effort. But that did not happen. The school district did not approve the payment. The Respondent did not gain from her act. In fact, the Respondent paid for what amounts to a worthless degree. Were she more appreciative of the

seriousness of her act and demonstrated some level of remorse, a lesser penalty might be appropriate. Instead of taking responsibility for the lapse of judgment, the Respondent argued that her father (a former school district employee) had suggested the course. It would not matter if 2000 friends, co-workers, or family members suggested the scheme. Wrong is wrong. Short of termination of her employment, the Respondent should be disciplined for misconduct in office.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a Final Order sustaining the Respondent’s suspension without pay for the amount of time it deems appropriate, but returning the Respondent to full employment thereafter.

S

DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of September, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

J. D. PARRISH 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 29th day of September, 2006.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Dr. Rudolph F. Crew, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board

1450 Northeast Second Avenue, No. 912

Miami, Florida 33132-1394

Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1244

325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

John L. Winn

Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514

325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

Jean Marie Middleton, Esquire School Board of Miami-Dade County

1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400

Miami, Florida 33132

Carol R. Buxton, Esquire Florida Education Association

140 South University Drive, Suite A Plantation, Florida 33324

Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A.

29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110

Clearwater, Florida 33761

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: 06-001755

Orders for Case No: 06-001755