The Issue The issue is whether Respondent properly decided to deny Petitioner tenure and promotion.
Findings Of Fact On or about August 8, 1997, Petitioner began working for Respondent as an Assistant Professor in a tenure-earning position in the COE, Department of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation (DHPER). Because Petitioner was serving in a tenure-earning position, Respondent had to award her tenure by the end of six years of continuous full-time service or give her notice that Respondent would not offer her further employment beyond the end of the seventh year of employment. Petitioner received a copy of the applicable tenure criteria soon after she began her employment. The tenure criteria for scholarly publications required the following: (a) publish or show acceptance of at least three publications, including books, monographs, and articles in local, state, regional and national journals, which meet the peer-review process, not including abstracts/proceedings; (b) achieve additional publication credit, which may include individual citations in a text's quotes or credits for scholarly endeavors; and (c) present at least two papers at state, regional or national professional meetings. Petitioner also received a copy of Respondent's criteria for promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor. The criteria state as follows in relevant part: The minimum number of publications will be three (3), which must be in indexed refereed professional journals, of which at least two (2) must list the candidate as the primary author. This includes, not in addition to, chapters in books, monographs for national use, and books. Chapters will treated as journal publications. The number of publications will be cumulative. Respondent is required to provide its faculty members with an annual faculty evaluation. For faculty members in tenure-earning positions, Respondent also is required to provide an annual tenure appraisal. On April 24, 1998, Petitioner received her 1997-1998 faculty evaluation. The evaluation reflected Petitioner's poor rating for evidence of papers or articles published in professional journals and/or of books published. There is no evidence that Respondent provided Petitioner with an annual tenure appraisal for the 1997-1998 academic year. Each academic term, Respondent and each of its faculty members, in tenured and non-tenured positions, sign an Assignment of Responsibility Form. The form lists the credit and non-credit generating activities and assigns a percentage of the employee's designated effort for each activity. The total percentage of designated effort for each academic term should equal 100 percent for one full-time-equivalent (FTE) faculty. The credit generating activities are specific student classes/courses. An assignment to teach courses with more than cumulative credit hours in the same semester is considered an overload. Faculty members on a nine-month pay plan are never required to accept an overload assignment. Assuming responsibility for designated effort in excess of 100 percent is strictly voluntary. Instructors receive additional pay beyond their base salary when they accept an overload assignment. Respondent always gives its nine-month faculty the opportunity to teach extra classes as an overload before hiring additional staff. The same is true for teaching summer school. Respondent's nine-month faculty has first choice to earn additional pay by teaching classes in summer school before Respondent hires adjunct professors. The nine-month faculty is not required to teach summer school. The non-credit activities include the following: supervision of cooperative education; (b) clinical instruction; (c) other instructional efforts (non-credit); (d) research; (e) public service; (f) academic advisement; (g) academic administration; (h) university governance; (i) leave of absence with pay; and (j) collective bargaining release time. There is no set percentage of designated effort for any particular non-credit activity. Respondent's faculty can always request that some percentage of their designated effort be attributable to one of the non-credit activities, such as research. In such a case, Respondent would assign the faculty member less designated effort to other non-credit activities such as academic advisement. In every case, tenure-earning faculty members know or should know that Respondent expects them to begin working on research projects when they are hired in order to meet the tenure criteria for scholarly publications within the required time frame. This is true regardless of whether they elect to teach overloads or summer school and regardless of whether they request and receive a specific amount of designated effort for research each academic term. Other than as set forth below, there is no evidence that Petitioner ever requested Respondent to assign her a greater percentage of designated effort to research. On April 28, 1998, Petitioner signed the Assignment of Responsibility Form for the 1998 Spring semester. The form indicates that 86 percent of Petitioner's designated effort was spent teaching five classes for a total of 13 credit hours. Her only other assignment was academic advisement, which represented 14 percent of her designated effort. Petitioner agreed to teach during the 1998 Summer B semester. She taught two classes for a total of 3 credit hours, representing 64 percent of her designated effort. She had no other assignments that summer. For the 1998 Fall semester, Petitioner accepted a teaching overload. She taught six classes for a total of 15 credit hours, representing 99 percent of her designated effort. She also performed academic advisement for 21 percent of her designated effort. In the Spring semester of 1999, Petitioner taught five classes for a total of 13 credit hours, representing 86 percent of her designated effort. She was assigned to perform academic advisement for the balance of her time, equal to 14 percent of her designated effort. On April 28, 1999, Petitioner received her 1998-1999 faculty evaluation form. The form again reflected her poor rating for evidence of papers or articles published in professional journals and/or books published. On June 1, 1999, Petitioner received a tenure appraisal for the 1998-1999 academic year. The appraisal informed Petitioner that she needed to improve in the research category. Specifically, she needed to publish and present at least three to four research articles within a five-year period before applying for tenure. For the Summer B semester of 1999, Petitioner taught two classes for a total of four credit hours, representing 84 percent of her designated effort. She had no other assignments that summer. In the Fall semester of 1999, Petitioner taught seven classes for a total of 16 credit hours, representing 106 percent of her designated effort. She also performed academic advisement for an additional 20 percent of designated effort. For the Spring Semester 2000, Petitioner taught six classes for a total of 14 credit hours, representing 93 percent of her designated effort. She served as an academic advisor for an additional 20 percent of her designated effort. On April 26, 2000, Petitioner received her 1999-2000 faculty evaluation form. The form indicates that Petitioner's research and creative ability were not applicable. The record does not show that Petitioner engaged in any scholarly presentations or research and writing projects during the 1999- 2000 academic year. In the Summer B term of 2000, Petitioner taught one class for a total of one credit hour, representing four percent of her designated effort. She did not have any other assigned duties that summer. For the Fall semester 2000, Petitioner taught seven courses for a total of 14.5 credit hours, representing 91 percent of her designated effort. She also agreed to devote three percent of her designated effort in each of the following areas: (a) research; (b) public service; and (c) academic advisement. In the Spring semester of 2001, Petitioner taught six classes for a total of 14 hours, representing 93 percent of her designated effort. She also was assigned the following responsibilities: (a) five percent of her time in research; (b) five percent of her time in public service; and (c) 10 percent of her time in academic advisement. For the Summer A term of 2001, Petitioner taught two classes for a total of three credit hours, representing 62 percent of her designated effort. In Summer B term of 2001, Petitioner taught two classes for a total of three credit hours, representing 65 percent of her designated effort. She had no other assignments that summer. On July 5, 2001, Petitioner received her annual faculty evaluation for the 2000-2001 academic term. Petitioner received a fair rating regarding evidence of papers or articles published in professional journals and/or of books published. On August 27, 2001, Petitioner received her annual tenure appraisal for the 2000-2001 academic term. The appraisal acknowledges that Petitioner had improved significantly in the areas of research and scholarly activities. According to the appraisal, Petitioner had made several research presentations, submitted articles for publication, and choreographed several dance pieces for the Orchesis Dance Concert and public school activity programs. The appraisal stated that after a few of Petitioner's research articles were published, she would be on par for complete satisfaction of the scholarly publications requirements. The August 27, 2001, tenure appraisal also commended Petitioner for her public service work. At the same time, the appraisal warned Petitioner not to commit too much of her time to public service because she might neglect other tenure criteria areas. The appraisal advised Petitioner that it was extremely important to balance her time between teaching, research, and service. In the Fall semester of 2001, Petitioner taught five classes, for a total of 16 credit hours, representing 96 percent of her designated effort. She spent 20 percent of her designated effort working as an academic advisor. For the Spring semester of 2002, Petitioner taught six classes for a total of 14 credit hours, representing 93 percent of her designated effort. She divided the balance of her designated effort as follows: (a) five percent to research; five percent to public service; and (c) 10 percent to academic advisement. In the Summer A term of 2002, Petitioner taught two classes for a total of three credit hours, representing 65 percent of her designated effort. She had no other assignments that summer. For the 2001-2002 academic term, Respondent did not perform a faculty evaluation or tenure appraisal of Petitioner. Dr. Virden Evans, Chairman of DHPER, gave Petitioner copies of the evaluation forms and requested that she perform a self- evaluation before meeting with him to discuss her performance. Petitioner never returned the evaluation forms to Dr. Evans. On September 9, 2002, Petitioner submitted her applications for tenure and promotion, together with a portfolio to document her qualifications. The tenure application listed the following two research projects as in progress: (a) a 2001 project titled "Exercise Adherence Among African-American Females"; and (b) a 2002 project titled "Perceived Stress and Burnout of MEAC Track and Field Athletes." There is no evidence that Petitioner completed, or submitted for publication, a paper or article based on either of these research projects. The tenure application also listed a 2002 research project titled "An Assessment of NCAA D-1A Academic Advisors Salaries", naming Petitioner as a contributing, but not leading participant. The application indicated that the participants in the study submitted the research project for acceptance at the 2003 American Alliance of Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance (AAHPERD) 118th National Convention as part of its program and proceedings during a research consortium poster session. There is no persuasive evidence that the research project was accepted at the national convention in Baltimore, Maryland, as submitted. During the hearing, Petitioner presented evidence that the research project involving academic advisors salaries was submitted as a one-page abstract in May or June of 2002, and accepted in November or December 2002, for poster presentation at the February 2003 Southern District AAHPERD Convention, in Savannah, Georgia. There is no persuasive evidence that Petitioner timely provided Respondent with documentation of the abstract's acceptance as a poster presentation during a convention proceeding or that the research project resulted in a peer-reviewed written paper that was ever published other than as an abstract in the convention program. The tenure criteria at issue here specifically exclude abstracts/proceedings. Petitioner's tenure application listed several dance productions, naming her as the director and choreographer. It is apparent that Petitioner spent valuable time creating the dances, writing scripts for skits, designing costumes, etc. However, the greater weight of the evidence indicates that these creative activities are not scholarly publications in journals that meet the peer-review process. During the hearing, Petitioner presented evidence that she included a reference to her doctoral dissertation in her portfolio. The dissertation, entitled "A Comparison of Perceived Stress Levels of College Freshman Athletes and Non- Athletes" was published in 1987 by the Florida State University, College of Education, Department of Movement Science and Physical Education, in partial fulfillment of the requirement for Petitioner's degree of Doctor of Philosophy. The most persuasive evidence indicates that the dissertation is not a peer-reviewed scholarly publication in a journal or a book, completed by Petitioner within her tenure-earning time frame. Petitioner is credited as the author of one scholarly publication that meets the requirements of the applicable tenure and promotion criteria. In August 2002, Petitioner's article entitled "Introductory Activities in Elementary Physical Education Classes" was accepted for publication in the Winter 2003 Journal of the Florida Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance. In September 2002, Dr. Evans continued to serve as Chairman of DHPER. As a tenured professor, Dr. Evans attended some of DHPER's Tenure and Promotion Committee meetings but did not vote on Petitioner's applications for two reasons. First, he abstained because, as Chairman of DHPER, he would have to make a recommendation on the applications to the COE Tenure and Promotion Committee. Second, Dr. Evans had a close professional relationship with Petitioner and reserved his input on her applications, hoping that she would meet the publication requirements before he had to take a position. Dr. Janet Sermon, COE's Assistant Dean for Academic Affairs, was one of DHPER's tenured faculty members. In the fall of 2002, Dr. Sermon often was required to act on behalf of the COE's Dean or, occasionally, in the capacity of COE's Acting Dean in recommending approval or disapproval of tenure and promotion applications to the University Tenure and Promotion Committee. Therefore, she did not participate in DHPER's Tenure and Promotion Committee meetings. She did not vote on Petitioner's applications due to this potential conflict of interest. Coach Bobby Lang was one of DHPER's tenured faculty members. He was on medical leave during the fall of September 2002. The most credible evidence indicates that Coach Lang had notice of Petitioner's pending applications but chose not to participate in DHPER's Tenure and Promotion Committee meetings while on medical leave. Coach Samuel Bogan was one of DHPER's tenured faculty. His coaching schedule made it difficult for him to participate in DHPER Tenure and Promotion Committee meetings. Coach Bogan had notice about Petitioner's pending applications but was absent when the DHPER Tenure and Promotion Committee voted on her applications. DHPER had four other tenured faculty members: (a) Dr. Steve Chandler; (b) Dr. Maria Okeke; (c) Dr. Barbara Thompson, Chairperson of DHPER's Tenure and Promotion Committee; and (d) Dr. Joseph Ramsey. DHPER's Tenure and Promotion Committee met for the first time on September 16, 2002. The committee did not consider Petitioner's application at that meeting. The DHPER Tenure and Promotion Committee met again on October 2, 2002, to vote on Petitioner's tenure and promotion applications. Coach Bogan, Dr. Evans, Dr. Sermon, and Coach Lang were not present for reasons stated above. A secret ballot on Petitioner's tenure application resulted in two (2) votes to deny and two (2) abstentions. A secret ballot on Petitioner's promotion application resulted in three (3) votes to deny and one (1) abstention. In a memorandum dated October 3, 2002, Dr. Thompson advised Dr. Evans of the committee's decision to recommend denial of Petitioner's request for tenure and promotion. In a letter dated October 4, 2002, Dr. Evans advised Petitioner of the committee's vote to recommend denial of her applications. In a letter dated October 8, 2002, Dr. Evans explained to Petitioner that the committee based its recommendation on the apparent lack of a sufficient number of publications. Subsequently, Dr. Evans recommended approval of Petitioner's applications to the COE Tenure and Promotion Committee. Thereafter, the COE committee voted to recommend denial of both applications. Subsequently, COE's Dean recommended denial of Petitioner's applications to the University Tenure and Promotion Committee. The University committee voted to recommend approval of Petitioner's promotion application and denial of her tenure application. Dr. Fred Gainous was Respondent's President during the time that Petitioner's applications were pending. Dr. Gainous had the responsibility to nominate candidates for tenure to Respondent's Board of Trustees, the entity with the authority to make final decisions granting tenure. The Board did not consider applications for tenure without such a nomination. Dr. Gainous did not nominate Petitioner for tenure before Respondent's Board of Trustees. President Gainous had authority to make the final decision regarding Petitioner's application for promotion. Dr. Gainous took no action in this regard because Petitioner's promotion was a moot question in light of the denial of her application for tenure and the issuance of a terminal contract for the 2003-2004 academic term. In a letter dated March 31, 2003, President Gainous advised Petitioner that her application for tenure was denied and that she would not be offered further employment beyond the end of her seventh year of employment. The letter states that the action was based on Petitioner's failure to meet the publication requirements of the COE. Dr. Gainous sent Petitioner a letter dated June 3, 2003. The letter advised Petitioner that her application for promotion was denied.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying Petitioner tenure and promotion and terminating her employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of October, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 5th day of October, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Avery D. McKnight, Esquire Ruth Nicole, Esquire Florida A & M University 300 Lee Hall Tallahassee, Florida 32307-3100 Patricia A. Tucker 2802 Primrose Lane Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Elizabeth McBride, General Counsel Florida A & M University 300 Lee Hall Tallahassee, Florida 32307-3100 Dr. Fred Gainous, President Florida A & M University 400 Lee Hall Tallahassee, Florid 32307-3100
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent's teaching certificate should be disciplined for alleged violation of various provisions of Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B
Findings Of Fact Respondent Clayton McWilliams holds Florida teaching certificate number 653517, covering the area of substitute teaching, which is valid through June 30, 1994. He is 27 years of 1989, from Valdosta State College in Valdosta, Georgia. After a few brief months employment in retail sales in Tallahassee, Florida, Respondent returned to Madison, Florida, where he was born and lived prior to attending college. Respondent returned to Madison in August of 1989, after being contacted by the high school coach there regarding the possible employment of Respondent as an assistant coach at the high school from which Respondent graduated. He was employed in the 1989 County School Board. Subsequently, he was employed by the Board during the 1990 high school. Respondent served as an assistant coach during this period. While serving as a substitute teacher during the 1989 Respondent was responsible for a ninth grade science class. Female students M.B., R.B., J.D., and R.C., were in a group surrounding Respondent's desk, talking with Respondent. All the students in the group were curious about Respondent and asked him such questions as what are you going to coach, are you married, do you have a girl friend, and why did you come back to Madison? Respondent knew many of the students on a first name basis and, in the course of bantering with the group, responded at one point to the students' questions about his private life by asking the students about their social lives, if they kissed their boy friends with their mouths open, and if they used their tongues. There was general laughter from the students, although R.B. didn't think the question was "any of [Respondent's] business." This was the only question or comment that Respondent ever made that bothered R.B. R.B. regarded Respondent's conduct in the ensuing two years as "flirting" and "didn't ever think anything bad about it." The next year when R.B. was in the tenth grade (1990 photograph. Respondent later told R.B. that he stared at the photograph every night. When R.B. was in the eleventh grade and not a student in a class taught by Respondent, Respondent jokingly asked R.B. in the presence of D.C., her boyfriend at the time and an athlete with whom Respondent enjoyed a rapport, why she wanted to date such a "big, old dummy." There were other times that Respondent would see R.B., tell her that she looked nice, wink at her and blow her kisses. During the 1990 M.B., by asking her if she kissed with her mouth open, and would she teach Respondent how to do this. Respondent also told M.B. that she looked beautiful. M.B. was not a student in a class taught by Respondent. During the 1991-1992 school year, M.B. was a high school junior and a varsity cheerleader. Respondent continued to speak to M.B., although she was not his student, when he saw her on the school campus or at sporting events. He continued to ask M.B. about kissing with her mouth open, whether she would teach Respondent how to do this, and when could she teach him. M.B. declined to specify any time or place to meet with Respondent. M.B. did not disclose Respondent's behavior to anyone at this time. On one occasion, M.B. and other eleventh grade students, including her boyfriend, were in the high school library, ordering their class rings. Respondent became involved in conversation with the students and asked M.B. again about teaching him to kiss open would lose his job for M.B. Although he heard these comments, M.B.'s boyfriend considered Respondent to be joking. In the fall of the 1991 Wakulla County for a game which would determine whether the team could compete in the district championship playoff. Upon boarding the bus after the game for the trip home, Respondent was asked by M.B. if he was going to sit with her on the bus. He replied that he would if she saved him a seat. Respondent stored the athletic equipment which he was carrying, returned to the forward section of the bus and assumed the vacant seat beside M.B. Since the team had lost the game, most passengers on the bus were despondent. In the course of the trip, M.B. and Respondent leaned their heads against the back of the seat in front of them and Respondent talked about college and how being from a small high school had been difficult when he had attended the University of Florida before transferring to Valdosta State. Respondent had his hands between his knees as he talked and at one point placed it on M.B.'s knee or patted her knee. She, feeling discomfited by the gesture, brushed his hand away. This was the only time that Respondent touched a student where such touching was interpreted by a student to have sexual significance. Respondent testified that he patted M.B. because she acted as though "something had been bothering her" and characterized the pat as something he would give "football players or baseball players at school." Eventually, M.B. became sleepy and rested her head against the bus window. Respondent in a normal tone of voice offered to let her place her head on his shoulder, but M.B. declined. During the 1991 photographs. On the back of his photograph, Respondent wrote: M., I remember when I first saw you, you struck me as beautiful. I really think you are. You are truly special to me. Please know that I love you. Stay sweet and pretty. Love, Clayton. P.S., Please teach me sometime. Mary Rice, a teacher at the high school, began teaching there at approximately the same time as Respondent. Rice, like Respondent, was single. Rice, like Respondent, enjoyed informal relationships with some students, such as the cheerleaders for whom she served as staff sponsor. The cheerleaders, similar to many students who called Respondent by his first name, referred to Rice as "Mary". She became engaged in October of 1991 to Scott Alley, another teacher who occasionally substituted at the school. Rice and Respondent had a normal collegial relationship. Prior to Christmas of 1991, Rice and Respondent were in the school office discussing what they were getting their significant others for Christmas. Respondent told Rice that he would tell her what he was getting his girl friend for Christmas if Rice would have sex with him. Later in the day, Respondent got down on his knees in the hallway outside of Rice's classroom in the presence of students and asked Rice to "go with me before you get married". While Respondent meant that he wanted to have sex with Rice, he did not explicitly state such in the hallway. Later, Respondent sent Rice a note containing four blanks for letters. According to Rice, the note stated that Respondent would tell Rice what he was getting for his girlfriend for Christmas if Rice would " ". Rice assumed the four blanks to represent a sexually suggestive word. Rice stored the note in her desk drawer. She determined not to tell anyone about the note. In February of 1992, her fiancee, Scott Alley, discovered the note in the desk while he was substituting for Rice. He showed the note to Debra Wetherington, a school secretary, and later asked Rice about the note. Rice was startled that Alley had found the note and became upset. Later, in a telephone conversation initiated by Respondent, he discussed the note with Alley. Respondent apologized to Alley for any misunderstanding about the note, stating that he had written it merely to get a laugh from Rice. Respondent told Alley that he, Respondent, just flirted with everyone and that was "how I broke the ice with everyone." After Respondent's apology, the two men agreed to remain friends. Subsequently, the note was destroyed by Alley. Debra Wetherington, the secretary at the high school, frequently interacts with the teaching staff. Initially, Respondent and Wetherington enjoyed a good working relationship no different than those she shared with other teachers. She had known Respondent all of his life. Over a period of time, Respondent began to flirt with Wetherington, asking her about open mouth kissing. At these times, Wetherington ignored his remarks or laughed them off as a joke. When his behavior persisted, she told him that his conduct bothered her and that he should stop. She never told her husband or any one else about Respondent's attentions, hoping to resolve the matter without confrontation and embarrassment. On or about February 25, 1992, Respondent came into the school office and physically put his arms around Wetherington in a "bear" hug and, according to Wetherington, tried to put his tongue in her ear. Also present in the room were the school resource officer and another office worker. No eyewitness corroboration of Wetherington's allegation that Respondent attempted to put his tongue in her ear was offered at the final hearing and she had not reported this detail in an earlier affidavit regarding the incident. Respondent denies he attempted to put his tongue in her ear. Respondent's testimony is more credible on this point and it is not established that he attempted to put his tongue in Whetherington's ear. Wetherington later complained about Respondent's conduct to Lou Miller, the school principal. Miller called Respondent into her office, discussed the incident with him, and directed him to have no such contact with Wetherington in the future. Respondent apologized for his conduct, both to Miller and Wetherington. While Respondent and Wetherington had no further contact, Wetherington later asked another teacher, Tony Stukes, if Respondent was angry with her since she had not seen or heard from him lately. On or about March 24, 1992, Respondent saw M.B. in the hallway outside the door of his classroom while classes were changing. Respondent spoke to M.B. and told her that he had a dream about her. M.B. went to see Mary Rice, the cheerleading sponsor, who had earlier asked M.B. if she was having any problems with a teacher. Rice had taken this action following the discovery of Respondent's note in Rice's desk by Rice's fiancee. M.B. had confided in Rice about Respondent's previous flirtatious behavior toward her. Rice told her to write down future incidents. After relating to Rice the comment of Respondent about having a dream, M.B. was asked by Rice to go back to Respondent and find out more about the dream. M.B. went into Respondent's class where the students were working on a geography project. An overhead projector displayed the continent of South America on a board. Some students were tracing the projection on the board, preparatory to cutting the shape out of the board. Other groups were cutting out other continents. The lights in the room were turned on. Respondent was sitting at his desk, cutting out the Asian continent. M.B. went to a chair by Respondent's desk and sat down. M.B. was on her lunch break and was not a student in the class. However, in the context of the situation, her entry into the classroom was not that unusual. Respondent had on previous occasions entered an art class where M.B. was a student and had spoken with her or, on some of these occasions, had also spoken with the teacher in the class. After seating herself by his desk, M.B. asked Respondent to tell her about his dream. Respondent replied that he couldn't, but M.B. persisted. Finally, Respondent wrote on a piece of paper, "I had a dream about you and me." M.B. then wrote on the paper, "Well, what happened?" The rest of the written exchange is as follows: Respondent: "Well, all I remember is you were teaching me." M.B.: "Teaching you what?" Respondent: "Guess." M.B. "I don't know. Why don't you tell me what I was supposedly teaching you." Respondent: "How to kiss with my mouth open. I liked it, too. I woke up sweating and holding my pillow to my mouth." M.B. then took possession of the piece of paper on which she and Respondent had been writing, left the class and went back to see Mary Rice. M.B. discussed the matter with Rice. After this discussion, M.B.'s feelings about Respondent solidified and she determined that she detested Respondent. At Rice's suggestion, she then went to see Principal Miller. Miller and School Superintendent Eugene Stokes confronted Respondent with the note. Respondent stated he meant no harm by his conduct, recognized that he had a problem and needed help for his aberrant behavior. After a discussion of options, including suspension or resignation, Respondent thought about the matter overnight and submitted his resignation to Stokes on March 27, 1992. Respondent was told that the matter must be reported to the Professional Practices Commission. Respondent was, however, under the impression that his resignation would conclude the necessity for any further proceedings of a disciplinary nature. Until the time of his resignation, Respondent had received good evaluations. His contract was renewed annually. However, as expressed at final hearing by Miller and Stokes, they would not rehire Respondent in view of his past behaviors which now, in their opinion, would reduce his effectiveness as a teacher at Madison High School. Subsequently, Respondent was informed on May 28, 1992, that an investigation regarding alleged misconduct been instituted by the Professional Practices Commission. In August of 1992, Respondent sought and was appointed to a teaching position in Hawthorne, Florida, at the combined junior/senior high school in that city for the 1992 completion of course work for issuance of a five year teaching certificate from the State of Florida which he received in October of 1992. Dr. Lamar Simmons, the supervising principal at the school in Hawthorne, Florida, where Respondent is presently employed is acquainted with Miller. Simmons contacted Miller at the Madison High School, prior to employing Respondent. Miller informed Simmons that Respondent had been a satisfactory employee. Miller did not disclose Respondent's alleged misconduct to Simmons because she assumed Respondent was receiving professional help for his problem and that the issuance of Respondent's five year certificate indicated that further disciplinary proceedings by the Professional Practices Commission had been abandoned. Respondent later disclosed the instant disciplinary proceeding to Simmons. To date of the final hearing, Respondent continues to teach at the school in Hawthorne without apparent incident.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the third, fourth, and fifth count of the Administrative Complaint, and placing Respondent's teaching certificate on probation for a period not to exceed three years upon reasonable terms and conditions to be established by Petitioner, including the following requirements: That Respondent present himself for psychological evaluation by a qualified professional selected by Petitioner. That Respondent complete such course of psychotherapy as may be prescribed as a result of that evaluation. That Respondent assume the cost of such evaluation and subsequent therapy, if any. That Respondent enroll and complete a minimum of six hours of continuing education courses in the area of professional conduct for educators. That in the event that Respondent fails to comply with any of the terms and conditions of probation, Respondent's teaching certificate shall be subjected to a period of suspension not to exceed two years, and that compliance with these conditions of probation serve as the prerequisite for any reinstatement of Respondent's teaching certificate in the event that suspension for noncompliance with these conditions occurs. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of June 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of June, 1993. APPENDIX In accordance with provisions of Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, the following constitutes my specific rulings on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties: Petitioner's proposed findings 1.-12. Accepted. Rejected as to D.C.'s feelings, hearsay. Accepted. (Note: this is the second finding numbered 13.) Rejected as to "two or three times", accepted as to touching on the knee one time, on the basis of resolution of credibility on this point. (Note: this is the second finding numbered 14.) Accepted. Accepted in substance, not verbatim. 16.-18. Accepted. Rejected as to tickling reference since no sexual significance was ascribed by M.B. to this action, she did not supply a point in time when this occurred and inclusion would imply a significance not proven at the final hearing. Rejected, unnecessary. 21.-23. Rejected, subordinate to Hearing Officer findings on this point. 24.-42. Accepted, but not verbatim. 43. Accepted as to bear hug, remainder rejected on basis of creditibility. 44.-57. Accepted, but not verbatim. Respondent's proposed findings 1.-20. Accepted, but not verbatim. 21. Rejected, unnecessary. 22.-23. Accepted, but not verbatim. Rejected, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Margaret E. O'Sullivan, Esquire Department of Education 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Thomas E. Stone, Esquire Post Office Box 292 Madison, Florida 32340 Karen Barr Wilde Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practice Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Sidney H. McKenzie, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Should Respondent's tenure status be removed and he be terminated from employment with Hillsborough Community College because of the matters set out in the Amended Statement of Charges and Petition For Dismissal filed in this matter?
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the matters in issue herein, the Petitioner, Hillsborough Community College, was a public institution of higher education, with four campuses, two extension centers, three environmental centers, and several other operations located in Hillsborough County, Florida. Respondent, Professor Joseph P. Boyle, was a tenured faculty member on the instructional staff located at the Dale Mabry campus. He has been with the College for more than 20 years. The College's Board of Trustees ordinarily meets once a month at the Administrative Center on Davis Island. The meetings are open to the public, are publicized at least a week in advance, and are based upon a written agenda. Frequently, members of the public attend the meetings as do some faculty members, administrative staff and the press. The College President and the College Attorney also attend. At these meeting, the Board generally treats policy matters, expenditures, approval of consultant contracts, and audit reports, and there is also a provision for public comment. It is not at all unusual or inappropriate for Board members to be contacted by students, faculty members or the public about school matters. Joaquin M. Campo, the President and Chairman of a Tampa engineering firm, served as Board President from July, 1990 to July, 1991. He has been contacted by outsiders about matters and when that happens, he tries, as best he can, to follow up on the contact. It is his practice to respond to any personal contact and to any signed letter which, he immediately forwards to the College President for investigation. To the best of his recollection, Respondent had previously called him about something into which he made inquiry and thereafter, Respondent began to communicate with him regularly on a variety of matters. This did not annoy him at all, and in each case, he tried to get the answer to the Respondent's problem. On August 27, 1990, Mr. Campo received a letter from the Respondent complaining about comments purportedly made by President Paloumpis. If true, these allegations would be considered serious. Professor Boyle followed the first letter with phone calls and repeated additional letters, as a result of which, Mr. Campo asked him to come up with some hard evidence in support of his allegations. Campo made this request several times, and no such evidence was ever forthcoming. Finally, Campo asked the College's Auditor, Mr. Watkins, who reports directly to the Board of Trustees, to look into Boyle's allegations and report what he found. Mr. Campo chose the Auditor so there would be no chance of improper influence being asserted by anyone else. At the same time, Mr. Campo also contacted the Respondent and asked him to cooperate with Mr. Watkins. By letter dated September 13, 1990, he reiterated that request in writing. At no time did Professor Boyle indicate he would not cooperate with the Auditor. At the time he brought the Auditor in, Mr. Campo had not formed any opinion as to Boyle's allegations. Sometime later, in February, 1991, Mr. Campo received another letter from Respondent complaining about the mechanics of selection for appointment of the head of a department at the college. When he looked into these allegations, he found them to be untrue and, in fact, that that faculty member ostensibly appointed, Dr. Adams, had not been so appointed and had never applied for the position. Mr. Campo so responded to Mr. Boyle in writing and thereafter received another letter from the Respondent, dated February 22, 1991, which in a disrespectful and berating manner, scolded Mr. Campo for his reply and demanded an apology. Because this letter was incorrect and insulting, Mr. Campo advised Professor Boyle of his feelings. As it appears, however, this faculty member, Dr. Adams, was subsequently appointed Department head. Thereafter, by letter dated March 13, 1991, Mr. Boyle requested Mr. Campo resign as Chairman of the Board of trustees, citing alleged dereliction of duty and referring to nonexistent secret letters. That same day, Mr. Campo wrote to Professor Boyle and again asked him to come forward with proof to support his allegations and set a deadline of March 22, 1991 for him to do so. In writing this letter, Mr. Campo was trying to do his duty as Chairman to either prove or disprove allegations of wrongdoing and put them to rest. He got no response to the letter or any of the proof requested. All during this time, Mr. Watkins also was having his difficulties in dealing with Mr. Boyle regarding the investigation he had been requested to undertake. Immediately after being asked by Mr. Campo to look into Boyle's allegations, Watkins received a call from Mr. Boyle in which Boyle said Mr. Campo had asked him to meet with Watkins and provide the information. Boyle agreed to do so, but after several days, Watkins still had not again heard from Boyle. Though Watkins tried to contact Boyle, he found Boyle had no home phone and was only on campus at certain hours. Mr. Watkins went to the Dale Mabry campus during Boyle's office hours. When he arrived at Boyle's office, he found the door closed but he could hear voices from within. He knocked twice and a voice called out, "Who are you and what do you want?" When Watkins identified himself, Boyle opened the door, finished the phone call he was engaged in, and spoke with him. Boyle said he had not had time to collect the background information but that his letter to Mr. Campo stated the facts. When Mr. Watkins pointed out these were not facts but conclusions, Boyle agreed to get facts and said he would get back with Watkins in one week. Their agreement called for Professor Boyle to come to Watkins office with the information, but one day before the scheduled meeting, Boyle called to postpone it. Nonetheless, he showed up the next day without any independent proof, reasserted his position that his allegations spoke for themselves, and questioned Mr. Watkins' authority to conduct the inquiry. When Mr. Watkins explained his charter, Boyle dropped the subject. Mr. Boyle never did come up with any supporting proof of his allegations even though Mr. Watkins gave him several extensions of time. In fact, Boyle failed to contact Mr. Watkins again and when Watkins tried to reach him and couldn't, he again went to Boyle's office to see him. After Watkins waited for a lengthy time during which Professor Boyle dealt with students, Boyle finally stated he didn't have any time to deal with him. He stated he had been told by an unnamed party not to talk with Watkins, and left. Mr. Watkins reported to Mr. Campo both orally and in writing regarding the results of his efforts. Mr. Campo advised Mr. Watkins not to pressure Boyle too much because they really wanted the information. Finally, on November 6, 1990, Mr. Watkins again wrote to Professor Boyle asking for documentation supporting his allegations. Mr. Boyle neither responded with the documents nor requested more time, and Mr. Watkins has never received any documentation from Boyle in support of his charges. While Boyle cooperated at first, his attitude deteriorated to the point he was arrogant and uncooperative, and considering Watkins was working at the direction of the Chairman, even insubordinate. Finally, on November 19, 1990, Watkins wrote to Mr. Campo outlining the results of his efforts and the problems he encountered dealing with Professor Boyle. Thereafter, he was released from this investigation and has not, to this day, received any supplemental information from Professor Boyle. By letter dated March 27, 1991, Mr. Campo ordered Mr. Boyle to meet with him on April 9, 1991 at 2:00 PM in the College Administrative Office on Davis Island and to bring whatever support he had for the charges he had made. Mr. Campo made it clear this was not an optional meeting, and the Respondent's failure to appear would be considered to be insubordination. Nonetheless, Professor Boyle did not appear for the meeting nor did he either call in advance to seek a postponement or provide a subsequent explanation for his absence. On April 11, 1991, Mr. Campo again wrote to Mr. Boyle, pointing out the failure to appear on April 9 was insubordination, asking for an explanation in writing, and directing him to appear in person at the Administrative Office on Davis Island on April 22, 1991 at 2:00 PM. This letter also advised Boyle that if he could not make it, he was to advise Campo by phone no later than noon on April 22. Boyle neither showed up nor explained. April 9, 19, and 22, 1991 were work days when Professor Boyle could be expected to perform his duties. As Chairman of the College's Board of Trustees, Mr. Campo had the authority to direct any college employee to meet with him. His directions to Boyle to meet with him on those days were, therefore, lawful orders. Mr. Campo was present at the time and place scheduled for the meetings which he directed Professor Boyle to attend. To this day, Boyle has not explained his failure to appear as directed. Campo sought those meetings with Professor Boyle to get the facts surrounding the allegations Boyle had made. They were not designed to create a situation for which disciplinary action to get rid of Professor Boyle could be initiated. As a result of Professor Boyle's failure to appear as directed, Mr. Campo asked President Paloumpis to look into the matter to see if any action was appropriate. As a result, in June, 1991, Dr. Paloumpis recommended to the Board of Trustees that action to remove Boyle for insubordination be initiated. Mr. Campo agreed. At the open Board meeting where this matter was addressed, the Board, pursuant to discussion of the matter which had been published in advance on the regular publicized agenda, unanimously approved the recommendation to dismiss Professor Boyle. The Board meeting was publicized in advance along with the agenda, and Professor Boyle had the opportunity to appear before the Board to defend or explain his actions. He failed to do so. There is no evidence of any attempt to discharge Boyle because of his outspokenness. When Dr. Paloumpis received the copy of Professor Boyle's letter of complaint which Mr. Campo sent to him, he, also, wanted the matter looked into. At no time did he attempt to impede Watkins' investigation or, in fact, to speak with Watkins about it. As an administrator, he has been accused by others before of making bad decisions and of being unfair. He never takes such accusations personally, nor did he act on this allegation. His initiation of disciplinary action against Professor Boyle was taken at Mr. Campo's suggestion because of Boyle's insubordination. He reviewed the investigation and the succeeding failures by Boyle to meet with Mr. Campo and satisfied himself that grounds for discipline existed. Only then did he set the wheels in motion. On April 30, 1991, Dr. Paloumpis wrote to professor Boyle directing him to come to Paloumpis' office at 8:30 AM on May 3, 1991, normal business hours, to provide a doctor's certificate because Professor Boyle had a habit of calling in sick or having someone do it for him. Under the terms of the contract between the College and the union, the College has the right to have the faculty member submit to an independent medical examination under certain conditions. He also directed Boyle to contact his department head, Dr. Adams, by May 3, 1991, to set up the appointment with the doctor. Professor Boyle did not show up at either place on May 3, nor did he contact Dr. Paloumpis or anyone on his staff about it. Thereafter, on May 6, 1991, Dr. Paloumpis wrote to Professor Boyle asking for an explanation of his failure to appear as directed by him and by Mr. Campo. In this letter, he also gave Mr. Boyle an order to contact Ms. Bone, an executive assistant in Dr. Paloumpis' office to set up a time, at Professor Boyle's convenience, to meet with Paloumpis at Paloumpis' office. He also warned Professor Boyle that if he failed to appear, he, Paloumpis would recommend Dr. Boyle's suspension as a disciplinary action. Professor Boyle has never responded to this letter or complied with the directions therein. Dr. Paloumpis thereafter prepared the Petition for Dismissal and Explanation of Rights form and tried to serve them on the professor by regular US mail, by certified mail, and by process server. That copy sent by regular US mail was not returned undelivered, but the copy sent by certified mail was not accepted. The process server was able to effect service of the Petition on Professor Boyle, at his home, at 1:20 PM on June 28, 1991. It must also be noted that some of the letters to Professor Boyle which requested meeting with him were, in addition to being sent by mail, included in the envelope with his individual pay checks. When these checks were cashed, it was clear indication that Professor Boyle had received the meeting notices. None of the letters, all of which were also sent by US mail, were ever returned undelivered except for the copy of the Petition sent by certified mail. In addition to all the above, in the Fall of 1991, Dr. Paloumpis learned that several students had complained about Professor Boyle's behavior. Paloumpis received a call from the Dale Mabry campus that complaints had been received which had been put in writing and referred to the vice president in charge of that campus. When he asked what was going on, the complaints were referred to him. As a result of these complaints, Professor Boyle's supervisors recommended to Dr. Paloumpis that Boyle be placed on administrative leave because the pattern and manner of his relationship with his students indicated it would be better were he out of the classroom. Dr. Paloumpis' primary concern was for the students, many of whom wanted to drop the course they were taking from Professor Boyle. To do so, however, would be, for many of them, a financial and academic harship. Paloumpis wanted to avoid this, and as a result, Professor Boyle was relieved of his teaching duties and an adjunct professor brought in to teach the remainder of the course. This solved the students' problems and the complaints stopped. As a result of this reported aberrant classroom behavior by Professor Boyle, Dr. Paloumpis prepared the additional charges which were incorporated in the Amended Petition to Dismiss which he also submitted to the Board of Trustees. By memo dated September 23, 1991, Dr. Paloumpis notified Professor Boyle he was being placed on administrative leave with pay and that the new charges were being added to the Petition. At the same time, he notified Professor Boyle of his right to attend the Board meeting at which the additional charges were to be discussed. The charges were made an agenda item which was published and distributed. Professor Boyle did not appear at the Board meeting but was represented by counsel, Mr. Merkle. The Board heard the evidence relating to the additional charge and the presentation by Mr. Merkle on behalf of the professor. It nonetheless voted unanimously to add the new charge to the Petition for Dismissal. At no time has Professor Boyle ever given Dr. Paloumpis or any representative of the College any explanation of his allegedly aberrant classroom behavior which prompted the additional charge, save the presentation by Mr. Merkle at the Board meeting.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, recommended that Professor Joseph P. Boyle be discharged from employment as a tenured faculty member at Hillsborough Community College for gross insubordination. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of March, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of March, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: John M. Breckenridge, Jr., Esquire 2502 Rocky Point Road, Suite 225 Tampa, Florida 33607 Professor Joseph P. Boyle P.O. Box 327 Champlain, New York 12919 Robert W. Merkle, Esquire (Courtesy Copy) Merkle & Magri, P.A. 750 West Courtney Campbell Causeway, #1120 Tampa, Florida 33607 Martha K. Covington College Attorney Hillsborough Community College P. O. Box 31127 Tampa, Florida 33631-3127
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was first employed by the Liberty County School Board as a classroom teacher for the school terms 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74 as an English classroom teacher. For the school year 1974-75, the Petitioner was employed for a fourth year as a teacher by Respondent. In November of 1974, the Petitioner requested and was granted maternity leave through the end of the school year, i.e., June 6, 1975. It is undisputed that during the first three school years of the Petitioner's employment with Respondent, her employment was pursuant to an annual contract. However, what is in dispute, is Petitioner's claim that during her fourth year of employment with Respondent, such employment was pursuant to a continuing contract. According to Petitioner, the then principal at the school in which she was employed recommended that she be reappointed for her forth year of employment pursuant to a continuing contract as did the then superintendent of schools, Tom Fairchild. Thereafter, on May 4, 1974, the School Board met and voted favorably on the Superintendent' s recommendation. In this regard, the minutes of the May 4, 1974, meeting of the school Board do not disclose the contractual status approved by the Board, i.e., annual or continuing. 1/ During the summer of 1975, Petitioner advised her principal that she would not be returning for the 1975-76 school year. Accordingly, the principal employed another teacher to replace her. Shortly thereafter, Petitioner informed the principal that she had changed her mind and wanted to teach the 1975-76 school year. She was not, however, rehired, as the position had been filled. During the summer months of 1975, Petitioner had several conversations with her then principal, Jerry Johnson. Initially, during her conversations with Principal Johnson, Petitioner related to him that she thought that she would be returning to her position for the 1975-76 school year. During the latter part of July, Principal Johnson explained to Petitioner the necessity for her to make a final decision with respect to her returning to her position, since he needed to hire a replacement if she was not returning. At that point, Petitioner remarked that, "I think I need to take another year's leave." Mr. Johnson remarked, "Well, we hate that you are not coming back, but if you feel that's best for the baby, I'm supportive of you." Within a few days, Petitioner called Mr. Johnson back and advised, "just pretend I didn't talk to you the other day. I want my job back." At that point, Mr. Johnson remarked, "Vicki, I wish you had told me. I have just hired somebody else." To this, Petitioner remarked, "Well, what do you mean you just hired so00body else. I am on a continuing contract, you know." Mr. Johnson remarked, "Well, I know, but you've got me in an awkward position. This boy has got Board connections." Petitioner remarked, "Well, it couldn't have been more than a verbal agreement. He couldn't have signed anything yet because you don't sign a contract this early in the year." 2/ Mr. Johnson remarked, "Well, that's true but everybody is going to be awfully upset. I can't tell him he doesn't have a job now, and I've told him he has one." Later, Mr. Johnson asked Petitioner to submit a letter of resignation to which Petitioner never responded. Prior to the beginning of the school year in either late August or early September of the 1975-76 school year, Petitioner visited the principal's office in Bristol and explained to him that while she did not want to force the issue, via a lawsuit in a small community, she would appreciate it if she was given the first teaching position that cane open in the school system. (TR 23, 24 and 25.) The Petitioner testified that she was ready, willing and able to work during the 1975-76 school year. Petitioner received a call from Mr. Johnson during October of 1975 wherein he inquired if she was ready to return to work. Petitioner responded that she was ready and had been since the summer. Mr. Johnson indicated that he had a teaching position opening up; however, that position never materialized inasmuch as the teacher who was supposed to have resigned, Carolyn Larkins, needed an additional year of employment for retirement purposes. Petitioner was not assigned to a position at any time during the 1975-76 school year. Toward the end of the 1975-76 school year, Petitioner again informed her principal of her continuing request to be assigned. When no assignment was given her at the beginning of the 1975-76 school year, the Petitioner, out of economic necessity, accompanied her husband to Maine where he had obtained employment. Petitioner made it plain to her principal that she still sought employment with the Board and would return to Florida if and when an assignment was offered her. Finally, in November, 1976, approximately two months after the Petitioner left Florida, her principal assigned her to a teaching position and she returned and resumed teaching in the school system. Petitioner was given an annual contract for the 1976-77 school year and inquired why she was being asked to sign an annual contract. Her principal advised her that it was "customary" to do so. The Petitioner remained on the assignment the remainder of the 1976-77 school year. At the end of the 1976-77 school year, the present Superintendent of Schools, Laquita Shuler, recommended and the Respondent School Board approved, the Petitioner's continued employment. The Petitioner taught the entire 1977-78 school year. During the 1977-78 school year, Petitioner was again tendered an annual contract for execution which she refused to sign. Petitioner, before the School Board meeting in December, 1977, contended that she had a continuing contract and the Board took no action on her contention. At the end of the 1977-78 school year, Petitioner was not recommended for continued employment by the Superintendent. This was so, despite the favorable recommendation of her principal. Petitioner, at all times subsequent to the end of the 1977-78 school year, has been refused further employment by the Respondent. The Petitioner has made efforts to obtain employment during the interim; however, her interim earnings have been minimal. Since her separation from the Liberty County School Board, the Petitioner has been ready, willing and able to work.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, School Board of Liberty County, make the Petitioner whole for wages including her loss of pay during the 1975-76 school year, her pay from the start of the 1976-77 school year through November 16, 1976, when she was reassigned to her teaching position, her pay from the start of the 1978- 79 school year through the date of her reinstatement, as well as the expenses incurred by the Petitioner as a direct and approximate result of the Respondent's actions. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
The Issue Whether the suspension of Petitioner was for good cause shown as indicated in the letter of suspension dated August 19, 1976.
Findings Of Fact Ralph L. Wilson was suspended for a three (3) day work period August 20, 1976 through August 24, 1976. The certified mail letter to Mr. Wilson stated, "This suspension is caused by your unauthorized absence for the period August 10 through August 13, 1976." Appellant Wilson is an Accountant at Florida A & M University working under the direct supervision of William Schnitt, Acting Budget Officer at Florida A & M University. Vinod K. Sharma Associate University Comptroller at Florida A & M University, is the supervisor of William Schmitt. James R. Barrett, Comptroller of Florida A & M University, is the supervisor of Vinod K. Sharma. Appellant Wilson requested a leave of absence from his position to attend a church conference to be held in Lake City, Florida, on August 10-13 1976. His immediate supervisor, Mr. Schmitt, orally refused the request but advised Mr. Wilson that the denial could be appealed to Mr. Vinod K. Sharma. Mr. Wilson appealed in writing the denial by Mr. Schmitt on August 4, 1976 to Mr. Sharma. Mr. Sharma, on August 4, 1976, sustained the denial of the request citing as the basis an August 1, 1976 memorandum to all fund accountants from J. R. Barrett, University Comptroller, asking all fund accountants not to request annual leave during the period from August 3, 1976 through September 7, 1976. The Appellant called in sick on August 9, 1976. He also called in sick on August 10, 1976. He did not call in to explain his absence on August 11, 12, and 13, 1976. Appellant Wilson presented a memo signed by W. H. Baker, M.D., as follows: "8-9-76 Mr. Ralph Wilson visited my office today because of illness." There was uncontroverted testimony that Appellant Wilson attended a church meeting on August 11, 12 and 13, 1976, in Lake City, Florida. Evidence was submitted that Appellant Wilson was an active member of the conference in Lake City who served, according to a portion of the program for the conference, as a member of the Board of Examiners at said conference. Appellant Wilson was transferred to the Comptroller's Office on July 10, 1976. His job description included the following statement by Mr. Barrett: "Your immediate supervisor will be Bill Schmitt, who at his discretion, may assign you additional duties." Appellant Wilson admitted that he was in Lake City, Florida on August 11, 12 and 13, 1976, and took an active part in a church conference in Lake City during that period. He admitted that he knowingly violated the personnel rules of being absent without proper authorization. The Appellant contends that he is discriminated against by his supervisors in that a statement from the doctor is required of other employees and that he is required to bring in certification on sickness anytime that he is sick for more than two (2) days. Appellant contends that his duties assigned are not nearly as much as the Respondent claims them to be, that he was given no credit for coming to work before 8 o'clock or while he stayed at work while his supervisors went on coffee break daily from around 8:15 to 9:00 A.M., that each time he was going to be more than fifteen (15) minutes late he did call in and report the same. Appellant further contends that the Respondent did not prove that he was not sick on the days claimed. He stated he was sick August 9-13, 1976. Appellant Wilson was notified by mail that he was suspended for three (3) days by the Agency Head, President B. L. Perry, Jr. Said suspension notice stated that the suspension was for being absent without authorization. He was without authorized leave.
Recommendation Inasmuch as the Appellant has been orally reprimanded and reprimanded by written notice, it is recommended that the three (3) day suspension without pay be sustained. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of May, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Ralph L. Wilson Post Office Box 2392 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Bishop Holifield, Esquire Legal Department Florida A & M University Tallahassee, Florida 32307 Mrs. Dorothy Roberts Appeals Coordinator Department of Administration Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner, Gloria Godbolt, should be deemed, pursuant to Rule 22A-7.010(2), Florida Administrative Code, to have abandoned her position of employment with the Respondent, University of Florida.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations and admissions of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at hearing, I make the following findings of fact. At all times material to this case, the Petitioner, Gloria Godbolt, was a Career Service employee of the Division of Finance and Accounting of the University of Florida. The last position held by Petitioner with the University of Florida was that of a Clerk Specialist in the Payable and Disbursement Services Section of the Division of Finance and Accounting. Petitioner last reported to work at the University of Florida on April 25, 1986. On April 27, 1986, the Petitioner called her sister, Ella Godbolt, collect from the Broward County jail. The Petitioner asked her sister to call the Petitioner's supervisor and tell the supervisor that the Petitioner was sick. On April 28, 1986, and again on April 29, 1986, Petitioner's sister, Ella Godbolt, called the Petitioner's office to notify the Respondent that the Petitioner was sick and would not report to work on each of these two days. On April 30, 1986, Ella Godbolt told the Petitioner's supervisor, Grace Strawn, that the Petitioner was sick, that the Petitioner had a doctor's appointment for the following day, and that the Petitioner would not be at work for the rest of the week. The Petitioner called her sister the following Sunday night, May 4, 1986, and asked her sister to call the Petitioner's supervisor and tell the supervisor that the Petitioner would not be at work that week, and that the Petitioner would explain everything later. On Monday, May 5, 1986, Ella Godbolt again talked to Grace Strawn on the telephone and informed Strawn that the Petitioner would not be at work that week and that Petitioner would call later in the week to explain the reasons for her absence. The Petitioner did not call Grace Strawn during the week of May 5, 1986. From May 6, 1986, through May 16, 1986, both dates inclusive, neither the Petitioner nor anyone on her behalf communicated either orally or in writing with the Respondent to report that the Petitioner would be absent from work or to explain the reasons for the Petitioner's absence. The Petitioner was advised by her attorney Michael Swan, that she should not report the fact of her arrest and confinement to anyone. However, that advice was not given to her until approximately one week after her incarceration. From April 26, 1986, through May 16, 1986, the Petitioner was incarcerated in Broward County, Florida, and, because of that incarceration, was unable to report to work on any of those days. During her period of incarceration, the Petitioner had access to a telephone which could be used to make "collect" long distance calls and she also had available the means necessary to write and mail a letter to her employer. The Petitioner neither called nor wrote to her employer to report her absence or to request appropriate leave. Instead, the Petitioner arranged for her sister to call the Petitioner's employer during the Petitioner's first week of absence to falsely report that the Petitioner was sick and to request sick leave for her absence. Based on these false representations, the Petitioner was granted sick leave for the first week of her absence. On May 17, 1986, which was a Saturday, the Petitioner returned to Gainesville. Upon learning that some of the employees in her department were working that day, the Petitioner went to her workplace to ask about her job. Her supervisor, Grace Strawn, told the Petitioner that it was out of her hands. The Petitioner did not explain to Strawn that she had been incarcerated and had not been sick. Again, on May 19, 1986, when the Petitioner talked with Cynthia Fidalgo Evans, Associate University Controller, asking what she could do to get her job back, she misrepresented to Ms. Evans that she had been hospitalized in Broward County. It was not until May 30, 1986, two weeks after the Petitioner had been released from jail, that the Petitioner corrected the record by stating in a letter to William Zeanah, Assistant University Controller, that she had been incarcerated and not sick as previously reported. The Petitioner was aware that she had to let her employer know if she was going to be absent from work and obtain appropriate leave for her absence. She was also aware that three consecutive workdays of unauthorized leave were considered job abandonment by the Respondent. On September 15, 1980, when the Petitioner was first employed, she signed a statement acknowledging receipt of the Career Service Employee Handbook of the University of Florida. This handbook provides at page 27: If you must be unavoidably absent from your job (that is, other than planned vacations or personal business times that have been approved in advance), let your supervisor know as soon as possible on the first day of absence why you must be absent and when you expect to return. If your anticipated return date changes, keep your supervisor informed. Unapproved absences for three consecutive workdays are considered job abandonment and, therefore, voluntary resignation. . The Respondent has consistently notified employees who have been on unauthorized leave for three consecutive workdays that they are considered to have abandoned their jobs and to have voluntarily resigned from the Career Service system. The Respondent needed to know if and when it could expect the Petitioner to report to work in order to make appropriate arrangements to have her work done in a timely fashion during her absence. As a Clerk Specialist in the Payable and Disbursement Services Section of the Division of Finance and Accounting, the Petitioner processed the necessary documents to pay vendors for the foods and services they provided to Respondent. Petitioner's task was the last step performed by Respondent before submitting vendors' invoices to the State Comptroller for payment by the issuance of warrants. The Petitioner was therefore aware of the importance of her job and of Respondent's need to have her job performed within specified time constraints. Petitioner was further aware that the Respondent is required by law to process vendors' invoices during a 15-day period and that failure to do so could result in penalties being imposed against the Respondent and disciplinary action taken against employees who persistently fail to process vendors' invoices in a timely fashion. Due to Petitioner's long and continuous unreported absence, Petitioner's supervisor had to work two consecutive Saturdays with other members of her staff in order to process vendors' invoices within the five-day period allotted to her office to accomplish that task.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, I recommend the entry of a Final Order concluding that the Petitioner, Gloria Godbolt, was appropriately terminated for abandonment in accordance with Rule 22A-7.010(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ORDERED this 4th day of May, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3929 The following are my specific rulings on each of the proposed findings of fact submitted by each of the parties. It will be helpful to a complete understanding of the rulings which follow to know that there was a great deal of conflict in the testimony of some of the witnesses who testified at the hearing. Most, if not all, of the conflicts in the testimony have been resolved in favor of the version of the facts advanced by the Respondent. In resolving the conflicts in the testimony, I have taken into account a number of matters, the most important of which are: how logical or illogical the competing versions were, whether the testimony was consistent or inconsistent with other reliable evidence, whether the witness had an interest in the outcome of the case, the extent to which the witness' credibility was impeached by prior inconsistent statements, if any, and, of course, the demeanor of the witness while testifying. It should also be noted that the finding that the Petitioner was the instigator of the false reports of her illness that were passed along to the Petitioner's employer is a finding based on the most reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence. Rulings on Petitioner's proposed findings Accepted in part and rejected in part. Rejected portion relates to what Ella Godbolt told the supervisor. Accepted in part and rejected in part. Rejected portion relates to what Ella Godbolt told the supervisor. Accepted in part and rejected in part. Rejected portion relates to what the Petitioner told her sister to do. Accepted in substance with minor modifications in the interest of accuracy. Rejected as not supported by credible evidence. Accepted, with additional findings in the interest of clarity and accuracy. Rejected as irrelevant to the disposition of this case. Rejected as irrelevant to the disposition of this case. Rejected as not supported by credible evidence and as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as not supported by credible evidence and as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted in substance. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Accepted in substance. Accepted in substance. Accepted, with additional findings in the interest of clarity and accuracy. Rulings on Respondent's proposed findings Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. First four sentences of this paragraph are rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Last two sentences are covered in the explanatory comments at the beginning of this Appendix. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Accepted. Accepted, with exception of last sentences and quoted material which are rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. First sentence of this paragraph accepted. Second sentence rejected as unnecessary surplusage. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Carla D. Franklin, Esquire Rodney W. Smith, P.A. Post Office Box 628 Alachua, Florida 32615 Isis Carbajal de Garcia, Esquire Associate General Counsel 207 Tigert Hall University of Florida Gainesville, Florida 32611 Augustus D. Aikens, General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the University of Florida acted inappropriately in determining that Dr. Nancy Norvell's performance as an Assistant Professor was insufficient to meet the criteria for tenure and promotion.
Findings Of Fact The College of Health Related Professions of the University of Florida consists of nine departments, including the Department of Clinical and Health Psychology. Dr. Richard R. Gutekunst is dean of the college. Dr. Nathan W. Perry is chairman of the referenced department. Students in the Department of Clinical and Health Psychology are graduate level students pursuing advanced degrees in the study of abnormal behavior. The department operates a clinic which provides counseling services to appropriate individuals and is utilized as an instructional tool. Clinical instructors supervise student clinicians providing treatment to patients. Such students include graduate students from within the department and interns from outside the University. In April, 1984, Dr. Nancy K. Norvell was, by letter from Dr. Perry, offered employment as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Clinical and Health Psychology. Dr. Norvell accepted the offer and was hired, effective July 20, 1984. According to Dr. Perry's letter of April 16, 1984, Dr. Norvell's duties were "clinical teaching, research and assigned clinical responsibilities on the Adult Consult and Liaison Service and in the general Adult Clinic." Dr. Perry also advised that she would teach the Adult Psychopathology course during the Fall `84 semester. The April 16 letter stated that Dr. Norvell would be evaluated at least once annually in terms of performance of assigned duties and responsibilities. The letter advised that such evaluations were considered in recommendation and final decisions on tenure, promotions and salary. The letter stated that "[t]he criteria for promotion or for the granting of tenure shall be relevant to the performance of the work which the faculty member has been employed to do and to his performance of the duties and responsibilities as a member of the University committee." The letter also outlined the criteria relevant to the granting of tenure, identified as "broad categories of academic service" including instruction, research, and service. As identified in the, letter of April 16, "instruction" includes regular classroom teaching, direction of thesis and dissertations, academic advisement, extension activities, and all preparations for this work including continuing education. "Research" includes publications and other "creative" activities. "Service" includes public, professional, and University activities. Each semester, faculty members of the Department of Clinical and Health Psychology are assigned teaching, research, and service duties, expressed as percentages of employment responsibilities. Such assignments are communicated by memo to the individual faculty members. Dr. Norvell was aware of her assigned responsibilities each semester. During the 1984-85 school year, Dr. Norvell's duties were assigned as 62% teaching, 35% research, and 3% service. Typically, faculty members are evaluated by their students towards the end of each term. Such evaluations are performed in accordance with standardized procedures, which the University has adopted by administrative rile. Students assign overall numerical scores from 1 to 5 for the course and for the instructor, with 1 being the tops of the range. Instructors are not present during the evaluation. Results are not provided to the instructors until after course grades are determined. Such procedures provide anonymity to Dr. Norvell's students evaluated her performance in accordance with such procedures. During the Fall 1984 term, Dr. Norvell taught Adult Psychopathology, a required course for all department students. In the confidential evaluation, her students rated the course as 1.11 and her instruction as 1.11 above the respective department mean of 1.71 and 1.49. During the Spring of 1985, Dr. Norvell taught an elective course. An elective course is conceived by the instructor who teaches the course. The students who enroll in elective courses are generally interested in the subject matter. In the confidential evaluation, her students rated the course as 1.25 and her instruction as 1.25, above the respective department mean of 1.71 and 1.56. Students frequently rated elective courses higher than required courses. Dr. Norvell's first year was ,productive, according to Dr. Perry's letter of evaluation, dated June 26, 1985. In his letter, he stated that she "performed well in the range expected for progress towards tenure." The evaluation noted that Dr. Norvell's clinical billings were lower than other faculty members. Clinical billings are a measure of time spent in clinical teaching, but are not reflective of quality. Dr. Norvell's teaching included both clinical and classroom activities. Dr. Perry attributed the low billings to her recent arrival and expressed his anticipation that she would have no difficulty in increasing her billings. During the 1985-86 school year, Dr. Norvell's duties were assigned as 59% teaching, 33% research, and 8% service. In October, 1985, Dr. Perry became aware of conflicts between Dr. Norvell and clerical staff related to preparation and completion of written case reports. Dr. Perry wrote a letter to Dr. Norvell expressing his concern, advising that certain procedures would be instituted, and stating, "[e]ven with their adoption, it will still be necessary to relate to the staff with courtesy and understanding of their total work loads." During the Fall 1985 term, Dr. Norvell again taught Adult Psychopathology. In the confidential evaluations, her students rated the course as 2.44 and her instruction as 2.44, below the respective department mean of 2.37 and 226. By letter of evaluation dated June 25, 1986, Dr. Perry commended Dr. Norvell's research. He further noted her substantially increased clinical billings. However, Dr. Perry stated that her professional judgement was unsatisfactory, and that her negative attitude towards faculty colleagues and staff was "problematic." The evidence shows that from the beginning of her employment with the University until the end of academic year 1985-86, Dr. Norvell was assigned responsibilities as Chief of the Adult Consult Liaison Service. Dr. Perry testified that Dr. Norvell was to be supervised by Dr. Alan Glaros, Director of the Medical Psychology Service and the Pain and Stress Management Clinic. Dr. Glaros and Dr. Norvell recalled their relationship as that of equals. There was friction between Drs. Norvell and Glaros, at least to a degree that Dr. Perry found unacceptable. Following the academic 1985-86 period, Dr. Perry relieved Dr. Norvell of her responsibilities as Chief, in part because Dr. Norvell and Dr. Glaros were unable to work together to Dr. Perry's satisfaction, and because of a departmental reorganization. Dr. Perry subsequently did not assign any service responsibilities as part of Dr. Norvell's employment. During the 1986-87 school year, Dr. Norvell's duties were assigned as 65% teaching, 35% research, and 0% service. During the Fall 1986 term, Dr. Norvell again taught Adult Psychopathology. Her students rated the course as 2.00 and her instruction as 1.70. The respective department mean scores were 1.93 and 1.78. By evaluation letter dated June 3, 1987, Dr. Perry noted that Dr. Norvell's teaching and research continued to be productive. He commended her on receipt of an award for excellence in consulting research. Dr. Perry stated that her participation on a minority recruitment trip represented "outstanding university service." He also noted that her attitude and relationships with colleagues and students was much improved. During the 1987-88 school year, Dr. Norvell's duties were assigned as 53% teaching, 47% research, and 0% service. During the Fall 1987 term, Dr. Norvell again taught Adult Psychopathology. In the confidential evaluations, her students rated the course as 2.82 and her instruction as 2.91, below the respective department mean of 1.87 and 1.75. At hearing, Dr. Norvell asserted that the poor evaluation was caused by the specific class of students enrolled in her course during the Fall `87 term. As support for the assertion, Dr. Norvell provided testimony from another instructor, no longer at the University, who had received poor evaluations from supposedly the same group of students. The evidence does not establish that the poor were due to the specific class of students. On January 11 and 12, 1988, Dr. Perry met with Dr. Norvell to discuss the results of the Fall `87 student evaluation. He expressed concern with her attitude towards students as reflected by the individual student comments in the evaluations. (At that time, the department mean had not been calculated.) Dr. Perry also expressed his opposition to Dr. Norvell's practice, of which Dr. Perry had become aware, of soliciting student evaluations in addition to the department's standardized confidential evaluations. Dr. Perry believed the practice to be inappropriate, and, at hearing, stated that the practice could have resulted in inflation of the scores resulting from the standardized evaluations. While Dr. Norvell's activity may have been inappropriate, the assertion that such could have resulted in inflated student evaluations is unsupported by evidence. During the January 11-12 meetings, Dr. Norvell asked Dr. Perry if he would support her application for tenure. A faculty member at the Assistant Professor level eventually receives tenure or is terminated following the sixth year of employment. Dr. Perry replied that he could not support her application at that time. By letter to Dr. Perry, dated January 13, 1988, Dr. Norvell wrote that a review of the data "suggests that 89% of all students who have taken the adult psychopathology course regard me as adequate or better." Dr. Norvell stated that she appreciated his concern and requested a formal evaluation of her teaching, including clinical practice. By letter to Dr. Perry, dated January 19, 1988, Dr. Norvell expressed surprise at Dr. Perry's January 12 statement of nonsupport for her tenure application. Dr. Norvell stated, "I am eager to address any issues that you feel are of concern and would like any problem areas articulated so that I may work to correct any existing problems." She further requested that he provide "specific guidelines for remedying those particular problems." By letter to Dr. Norvell, dated January 21, 1988, Dr. Perry expressed "some surprise and considerable disappointment" in Norvell's letter of January In the letter, Dr. Perry recalled, at length, the discussions of January 11-12. According to the letter, the discussions included her use of additional, non-confidential, student evaluations, and her attitude towards students. Dr. Perry stated that students had become apprehensive at the fact that she requested evaluations prior to the close of the course, and that she personally collected written comments from students. He enumerated the reasons he recalled Dr. Norvell having given for the poor evaluation. Dr. Perry also discussed her previous course ratings and his disagreement with her interpretation of the evaluation scores. In concluding the letter, Dr. Perry stated that his concern is not her teaching ability, but her performance. He states that her "teaching performance and your combative rather than collaborative attitude regarding the evaluation is of serious question. As I said in our discussion, I do not want to prejudge the broader tenure evaluation, but if I had to vote at this time, I would not be able to support your candidacy." By letter to Dr. Norvell dated February 10, 1988, Dr. Perry noted that the letters appear to have crossed in mailing, and that he had not received her letter of January 19 prior to his writing of the January 21 letter. He noted that the department mean had become available and that Dr. Norvell's evaluation scores were below the mean. He again stated his recollection of the earlier meetings and, in response to her request for examples of her behavior, wrote "in our discussions, I ha[ve] given you numerous examples of your behavior that I considered to reflect your attitude." Subsequently, Dr. Norvell sent a letter to Dr. Perry, dated March 8, 1988, identical to her letter of January 19, in which she requested specific identification of her problems. Dr. Perry had previously responded to her request. Dr. Norvell was either unable or unwilling to accept his comments. By evaluation letter dated June 21, 1988, Dr. Perry stated that Dr. Norvell's research and clinical teaching remained productive. He acknowledged her service on university committees was appreciated. However he started that her course teaching and her judgement were unsatisfactory. He further expressed his displeasure with her response to his concerns, and referred to the previous series of letters exchanged. He stated that, although previously there had been improvement in her relationships with colleagues and students, additional improvement was required. Dr. Perry's June 21 letter advised that his concern was "with the great variability in your performance over time and your difficulty in objectively looking at your own role in this variability. Unless individuals can scrutinize their own behavior, it is difficult for them to make any improvement permanent. The improvement is also destined to be temporary to the extent that it is based upon compliance to administrative authority rather that a genuine acceptance that improvement is needed." Although matters related to tenure are supposedly confidential, knowledge of Dr. Norvell's tenure situation appears to have been widespread among faculty and some students. Dr. Norvell discussed the matter with faculty members. Dr. Perry found it necessary to discuss the situation with non-tenured instructors who were aware of the approaching Norvell tenure deliberations and who were personally concerned about tenure practices. During the Summer 1988 term, Dr. Norvell taught an elective course. Her students rated the course as 1.00 and her instruction as 1.00, above the respective department mean of 1.50 and 1.61 respectively. In the Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, a faculty member in Dr. Norvell's position may submit a tenure application in either the fifth or sixth year of employment. Generally, a candidate for tenure applies once. An assistant professor will usually apply for promotion to associate professor concurrently with the tenure application. Dr. Perry suggested to Dr. Norvell that she delay her application until her sixth year. Such would have permitted Dr. Norvell to teach the Adult Psychopathology course again and would have provided an additional set of student evaluations to be considered. Dr. Perry believed such course of action to be advisable in response to the poor evaluation from the Fall 1987 class. Dr. Norvell chose to submit the application in her fifth year. In October, 1988, Dr. Norvell began to prepare her tenure and promotion application. A candidate for tenure is responsible for preparation of the package of materials which are reviewed by appropriate personnel. Dr. Norvell's package included biographical and professional information, letters of professional recommendation, standardized student evaluation results, and previous employment evaluations. The package was completed by early November, 1988. Dr. Norvell's tenure package also included letters written by students supportive of her application. The inclusion of such letters, while unusual, was not prohibited. Dr. Norvell did not review the letters. There is no evidence that Dr. Norvell personally solicited the letters. While several witnesses testified that they believed the inclusion of the letters to be inappropriate, the evidence does not establish that the inclusion of the student letters materially affected the tenure deliberations. There is disagreement as to the availability of evaluations received from Dr. Norvell's clinical students. At hearing, Dr. Perry testified that such evaluations were received from Dr. Norvell's clinical students during the period of her employment and were available for her review. Dr. Perry testified that Dr. Norvell's clinical evaluations during her first two years were below average, but not to a significant degree. He also testified that, during that period, he did not inform Dr. Norvell that such clinical evaluations were below average. Dr. Norvell was apparently not aware that such evaluations had been performed. There is no evidence that actual clinical evaluations were considered by the tenure committee or that such evaluations materially affected the committee's deliberations. Such evaluations were not included in Dr. Norvell's application. Tenured faculty appropriately based their opinions of Dr. Norvell's clinical instruction on personal knowledge of her performance in the clinical practice. Applications for tenure are reviewed by department faculty at a scheduled meeting. The application is discussed and tenured faculty vote by secret ballot. Eight faculty members were eligible to vote on Dr. Norvell's tenure application. Applications for promotion are considered at the same time. All faculty members holding the rank sought by the applicant or higher are eligible to vote by secret ballot on the promotion issue. Nine faculty members were eligible to vote on Dr. Norvell's promotion application. The faculty meeting and balloting occurred in November 8, 1988. At the faculty meeting, Dr. Perry initially expressed his opposition to Dr. Norvell's candidacy. Dr. Perry conceded that her research was distinguished, but argued that neither her instruction nor service were of like quality. Dr. Perry had previously attended all but one faculty meeting related to a tenure decision, and had previously expressed his opinion at such meetings. He had not previously opposed a tenure application. Dr. Norvell asserts that Dr. Perry acted inappropriately in speaking against her application at the faculty meeting during which the Norvell application was considered. The evidence does not establish that Dr. Perry's opposition to Dr. Norvell's application was based on factors other than his personal opinion as to whether she had attained a level of distinction in two of the three criteria for tenure and promotion. There is no evidence that Dr. Perry's opinion affected the deliberations any more than the opinion of any other faculty member. The evidence does not suggest that the outcome of the secret ballot would have been otherwise had Dr. Perry not expressed his opinion. Given the faculty's apparent knowledge of the situation prior to the meeting, it is doubtful that any faculty member entered the meeting unaware of Dr. Perry's opposition to the application. Some of the tenured faculty who participated in the meeting testified at hearing. Of those testifying, one admitted to having felt pressured by Dr. Perry's actions at the meeting, but nonetheless voted in favor of Dr. Norvell's tenure application. One faculty apparently considered his antagonistic personal relationship with Dr. Norvell in reaching a decision and abstained from voting on the tenure issue. Had he voted in favor of her tenure application, as he admitted was probable up until shortly before the faculty meeting, it would have been entitled to additional review. In fact, as discussed below, the application was forwarded for additional review. The abstention by the referenced faculty member was irrelevant. The remainder of the faculty members testifying generally found either her teaching, her service, or both, to be unsatisfactory. The vote on Dr. Norvell's tenure application was three for, three against, and two abstentions. The vote on Dr. Norvell's promotion application was six for, two against, and one abstention. Promotion is rarely granted in cases where a tenure recommendation is negative. Although Dr. Norvell asserted that the results indicate that Dr. Perry pressured faculty to vote against her tenure application, and that the faculty voted otherwise on the promotion application, the evidence does not support the assertion. It is more likely, as witnesses testified, that the favorable vote on promotion was with due regard to her distinction in research. Subsequent to consideration and voting by department faculty, applications for tenure and promotion may be forwarded to the college level for further consideration if either the department faculty or the department chairman recommend an award of tenure. If the application receives a negative recommendation from both the faculty and department chairman, the application is not forwarded. However, given the circumstances of this situation, the Norvell application was forwarded for college level review even though neither the tenured faculty nor department chairman Perry recommended the granting of tenure. Applications for tenure and promotion within the College of Health Related Professions are reviewed by the college dean and the advisory Tenure and Promotion Committee. The committee members represent the several departments in the college. Six tenured faculty members, two of whom had participated in the previous tenure meeting, were members of the committee which considered Dr. Norvell's application. Dr. Perry was one of the persons on the committee. Due to the circumstances of the case, Dr. Perry was instructed, either by the college dean, the committee, or both, that he was not to participate in the college level deliberations. Generally, the appropriate department chairman forwards the application package with a transmittal letter and fully participates in the process. Dr. Perry initially decided not to provide such a transmittal letter. Upon learning that Dr. Perry would not be writing a letter, Dr. Norvell wrote and mailed a letter of her own to the college dean and committee members. Dr. Norvell's letter, dated November 23, 1988, expressed her opinion towards Dr. Perry. Dr. Norvell's letter charged that Dr. Perry's opposition to her application was of a personal nature, and stated "[i]f the tenure committee and Dean of the College of Health Related Professions is willing to objectively review my credentials I know I will receive tenure and promotion." After learning that Dr. Norvell had delivered her letter, Dr. Perry wrote a transmittal letter, dated November 14, 1988, in which he addressed Dr. Norvell's application for tenure and explained the rationale for his opposition to her application. Dr. Perry attended the committee meeting and read the letter to the members. He thereafter excused himself and did not participate in the deliberations or the vote. The committee reviewed the tenure package prepared by Dr. Norvell. Following the discussion, the committee voted by secret ballot. The result of the vote on the tenure application was five against and one absent. The result of the vote on the promotion application was five abstentions and one absent. One member of the committee testified that he abstained on the issue of promotion because promotion was rarely awarded without tenure, and saw no reason to do otherwise. Dr. Norvell asserts that Dr. Perry acted inappropriately in speaking against her application at the College meeting during which the Norvell application received further consideration. Dr. Perry was prepared to submit the application to the committee without further comment. He subsequently chose to do write the letter in response to Dr. Norvell's letter accusing Dr. Perry of personal bias. The evidence does not establish that under the circumstances, Dr. Perry's letter was inappropriate. Following the committee vote, the Norvell application was submitted to the Dean of the College of Health Related Professions, Dr. Richard Gutekunst, for review. Dr. Gutekunst reviewed the committee's recommendation and the application package. He determined that, although Dr. Norvell's research was acceptable, her teaching was inconsistent and unsatisfactory. He also determined her service to be undistinguished. He denied the application for tenure and promotion. The University of Florida has adopted rules which identify the requirements for tenure. Rule 6C1-7.019(3), Florida Administrative Code, provides that the criteria for the granting of tenure shall be relevant to the performance of the work which the faculty member has been employed to do and to the faculty member's duties and responsibilities as a member of the University community. The criteria recognize three "broad categories of academic service" including instruction, research, and service. To attain tenure, a faculty member must achieve "distinction" in at least two of the three "broad" categories. "Distinction" is defined as "appreciably better than the usual college faculty member of the candidate's present rank and field". During Dr. Norvell's employment with the University of Florida, her primary responsibilities were teaching and research. Beyond the service expected of all faculty members, such as participation on departmental committees and attendance at meetings, Dr. Norvell had minimal service responsibilities. Though minimal or no service duties were assigned to Dr. Norvell during her employment at the University, she performed minor service activities and was commended on her service in the annual evaluations. Dr. Norvell asserts that such service should be considered as part of the tenure evaluation. The administrative rules state that tenure criteria is applied in relation to the duties for which the candidate was employed. Accordingly, Dr. Norvell's service is minimally relevant to the tenure decision. Even if it the evidence does not establish that such service was appreciably better than the usual college faculty member of the candidate's present rank and field. The University concedes that Dr. Norvell's research was distinguished. Accordingly, to receive tenure, Dr. Norvell must also achieve distinction in instruction. The evidence does not establish that Dr. Norvell's instruction was of distinguished quality. As judged by the student evaluations obtained confidentially from students in her classes, and from faculty familiar with Dr. Norvell's clinical practice, Dr. Norvell's teaching was inconsistent. The evidence fails to establish that Dr. Norvell's instruction was appreciably better than the usual college faculty member of the candidate's present rank and field. In claiming that Dr. Perry acted in opposition to her application for personal reasons unrelated to her qualifications for tenure and promotion, Dr. Norvell related anecdotal information which she asserted demonstrated his personal bias. The evidence does not support her claim that Dr. Perry acted for personal reasons.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the University of Florida enter a Final Order dismissing the Petitioner's petition for tenure and promotion. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 9th day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of March, 1990. APPENDIX CASE NO. 89-0144 The Petitioner filed proposed findings of fact which included, identified as "notes", comments as to the reliability of testimony and evidence. Such "notes" are regarded as argument and are rejected as subordinate. The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified in the Recommended Order except as follows: 12. Rejected, not supported by the cited testimony. Dr. Perry did not evaluate her service as outstanding in her first year. He did commend her in her third year on her outstanding service related to the minority recruitment trip, a year in which she had no assigned service responsibilities. 13-14. Accepted as to the statements excerpted from the letters of evaluation, however, it is noted that additional information was included in the evaluations which was less favorable. Rejected, not supported by greater weight of evidence. Rejected, contrary to the evidence and to the Petitioner's assertion that Dr. Glaros was not Dr. Norvell's supervisor. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of evidence. Rejected, immaterial. Issue is whether Petitioner met the criteria for award of tenure. The reference to clinical evaluations is rejected, irrelevant. Reference to Dr. Perry's discussions with "junior" faculty is rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence. 28. Rejected, Dr. Bauer's favorable vote would have permitted further review of application, which occurred despite his abstention, immaterial. 29-30. Rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence. 31. Although the Findings of Fact note the Petitioner's election as Teacher of the Year, such is found to be less persuasive or reliable that standardized student evaluations. 34. Rejected. The greater weight of evidence establishes that Dr. Perry was instructed not to participate and did not participate in the college level deliberations. The evidence does not establish that he was instructed not to attend. 35-36. Rejected, unnecessary. The fact that committee members would consider the department chairman's opinion to be persuasive does not establish that Dr. Perry acted, inappropriately in expressing his opinion of Dr. Norvell's qualifications. Dr. Perry's letter was written in response to Dr. Norvell's allegations of personal bias. 37. Rejected. Not supported by greater weight of evidence. 39-41. Rejected. Not supported by greater weight of evidence. Respondent The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified in the Recommended Order except as follows: The reference to clinical evaluations is rejected, irrelevant Rejected, unnecessary. 19. The reference to clinical evaluations is rejected, irrelevant. 27. The reference to clinical evaluations is rejected, irrelevant. Last sentence rejected, unnecessary. 34. Rejected, irrelevant. 35-36. Rejected, unnecessary. 42-43. Rejected, irrelevant. The referenced vote had no effect. 44-46. Rejected, cumulative. 56. Rejected as to the mariner in which Dr. Perry received notification that he was not to participate in the committee deliberations, immaterial. 58. Rejected, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: John Lombardi, President Office of the President University of Florida Tigert Hall Gainesville, Florida 32611 Rodney W. Smith, Esq. Law Offices of Rodney W. Smith, P.A. Post Office Box 628 Alachua, Florida 32615 Barbara C. Wingo, Esq. Office of the General Counsel University of Florida 207 Tigert Hall Gainesville, Florida 32611
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as the parties' factual stipulations, the following relevant facts are found. Miami-Dade Community College is a public educational institution operated by the District Board of Trustees. Its North Campus has an enrollment of approximately 14,000 students, and employs approximately 340 professional faculty and administrators and 300 clerical personnel. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent Joseph T. King was employed on an annual contract basis as an instructor in the Division of Occupational Careers, Business Data Processing Department, at the North Campus. As pertinent here, his latest annual contract was for the period from August 1984 to August 2, 1985. That contract has not been renewed and did not create the expectancy of employment beyond August 2, 1985. As pertinent to this proceeding, the organizational administrative structure of the North Campus, in descending order, is as follows: the President of the College, the Campus Vice-President, the Dean of Academic Affairs, the Associate Deans of the various divisions, the department Chairpersons and instructors. The North Campus Vice-President is the chief administrative officer at that campus and is responsible for providing broad leadership and administrative direction for all of the campus programs and services. The Dean of Academic Affairs is the chief academic officer and is responsible for the faculty and for providing the planning, development, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of the various instructional divisions. During the time periods relevant herein, Dr. Lukenbill was the Dean of Academic Affairs and Dr. Kelly was the North Campus Vice-President. Dr. Lukenbill had been employed at the college since 1972 and was appointed as the North Campus Dean of Academic Affairs on January 28, 1985. Dr. Kelly, having served in various levels of college administration for 23 years, was appointed as the North Campus Vice-President during the first week of February 1985. The Acting Associate Dean of the Division of Occupational Careers was Blanca Gonzalez. Within this Division is the Department of Business Data Processing, chaired by Lincoln Andrews. The Respondent King was an instructor in that Department. From January 30, 1985 through February 17, 1985, Respondent was unable to work due to medical reasons. On February 11, 1985, Respondent was advised by telegram from the Director of Personnel Services that he would be required to present a physician's statement to the Associate Dean of his Division substantiating that he is physically able to resume his duties. During the period between January 30, 1985 and February 17, 1985, Respondent did hand-deliver a letter from himself to the College President on January 30, had one dinner engagement, made two visits to a former faculty member's home and had one faculty member in his home. February 18 was a school holiday. At approximately 8:00 a.m. on February 19, 1985, Respondent returned to the North Campus and reported to Associate Dean Gonzalez' office for the purpose of providing documentation regarding his ability to return to work. With him was Harry Forster, a former faculty member who had been terminated and had been asked not to return to the campus. Respondent presented Ms. Gonzalez with certain documentation from his physician and requested her to sign a receipt for the documents. Ms. Gonzalez signed and returned the documents to the Respondent and the conversation between them concluded. At that point, Mr. Forster told Ms. Gonzalez that he wanted to speak with her about the Chairperson of the Business Data Processing Department. Ms. Gonzalez then telephoned Mr. Lukenbill, the Dean of Academic Affairs, and asked him to come to her office to join the meeting because she felt the Academic Dean should be a part of the discussion which Mr. Forster desired to initiate. Having been recently appointed as Academic Dean, and Respondent having been on sick leave since January 30, 1985, Dr. Lukenbill had not met Respondent prior to February 19, 1985. As he walked into Ms. Gonzalez' office, he introduced himself to the Respondent and shook his hand. A discussion thereafter ensued between Dr. Lukenbill, Mr. Forster and Ms. Gonzalez, with the Respondent taking no part in the discussion. The matters discussed by Mr. Forster related to his concerns or beliefs regarding certain activities and personnel at the College. They did not involve the Respondent, though both the Respondent and other administrators had previously heard the allegations made by Mr. Forster. At the conclusion of the discussion between Forster, Lukenbill and Gonzalez, Dr. Lukenbill turned to the Respondent and stated that he would like to have a few words with him and asked if he had a few moments. His purpose in initiating that discussion was a combination of courtesy, to establish a rapport with a faculty member he had just met, and to assure himself that Respondent was physically able to resume his duties as an instructor. It was not unusual for Dr. Lukenbill to speak directly with faculty members, in spite of the organizational it chain of administrative command. In response to Dr. Lukenbill's invitation to talk together, Respondent produced his attorney's business card and responded that he would not speak with Dr. Lukenbill. Respondent then left Ms. Gonzalez' office with Mr. Forster, and attended his scheduled classes. For some time prior to February 19, 1985, Respondent had been involved in a contract dispute with the College concerning his salary. His retained attorney had written a letter dated February 14, 1985, to President McCabe regarding this matter and had requested a response within five days. Respondent was of the impression that he should not speak to college administrators concerning his contract dispute or the Forster allegations in the absence of his attorney. When Dr. Lukenbill asked to speak with the Respondent on the morning of February 19, neither he nor the Respondent mentioned Respondent's salary or contract dispute with the College. Dr. Lukenbill had no knowledge of the February 14 letter from Respondent's attorney to President McCabe. While Respondent testified that he would have spoken to Dr. Lukenbill had Dr. Lukenbill advised him that he wished to discuss academic matters with him, the evidence is clear that Respondent did not express this to Dr. Lukenbill nor did he inform Dr. Lukenbill that he only did not feel at liberty to discuss his salary dispute or the Forster allegations in the absence of his attorney. Dr. Lukenbill did not intend to speak with Respondent concerning either Respondent's contract dispute with the College or the allegations made by Mr. Forster. He had previously heard those allegations and felt that they concerned matters unrelated to the Respondent. Dr. Lukenbill was concerned that Respondent's refusal to speak with him created a situation whereby he, as the Dean for Academic Affairs, could not fulfill his responsibilities of managing the assignment of faculty and the conduct of classes. For this reason, he contacted Vice- President Kelly after the February 19 incident and expressed his concern that Respondent's refusal to speak with him impaired his ability to carry out his responsibilities. Dr. Kelly was also concerned and puzzled about Respondent's refusal to talk with the Dean, and agreed that the situation needed to be immediately resolved. At approximately 11:00 a.m. on February 19, 1985, Dr. Lukenbill instructed Ms. Gonzalez to deliver a note to Respondent requesting him to come to Dr. Kelly's office to meet with Dr. Kelly and Dr. Lukenbill at 11:30 a.m. Ms. Gonzalez had a memorandum prepared and attempted to have it delivered to Respondent's lab. The evidence is conflicting as to the time of the attempted delivery and as to the Respondent's schedule of classes and/or labs on that particular day and time. Respondent did attend two of his classes on the morning of February 19. In any event, the memorandum of February 19 was not delivered to the Respondent. On the morning of February 20, 1985, Dr. Lukenbill again requested Ms. Gonzalez to prepare and deliver a note to Respondent requesting him to meet with Dr. Lukenbill and Dr. Kelly in Dr. Kelly's office at 12:15 p.m. Ms. Gonzalez prepared the memo and attached the similar memo of the previous day. Neither memo stated the reason or purpose of the scheduled meeting. The February 20 memo and attachment were delivered to the Respondent during his scheduled class, and Respondent appeared at Dr. Kelly's office at the scheduled time. Vice-President Kelly had never met Respondent prior to February 20, 1985. He was aware that there had been some problems with faculty members missing classes in the Respondent's Department and had heard the Respondent's name in this regard. His concern, however, on February 20 was to attempt to understand and remedy the Respondent's refusal to speak with his Academic Dean on February 19. Dr. Kelly had no knowledge of Respondent's contract dispute with the College and perceived no connection between Mr. Forster's allegations and the Respondent. Respondent appeared at the February 20 meeting with Dr. Kelly and Dr. Lukenbill and the three individuals sat at a small conference table. Respondent immediately placed a tape recorder on the table and asked if there were any objections to the meeting being taped. Drs. Kelly and Lukenbill both indicated they had no objection. Respondent turned on the tape recorder, taped some background information and then indicated to the others that they could proceed with the discussion. It is undisputed that the discussion began with Dr. Kelly stating that they wished to speak with the Respondent about what occurred on the previous day. What Dr. Kelly was referring to, and what Dr. Lukenbill understood to be the purpose of the meeting, was the Respondent's refusal to speak with his Academic Dean on February 19. In response to Dr.,Kelly's opening statement, Respondent threw his attorney's business card on the conference table and refused to speak to the Vice-President or the Academic Dean. Dr. Kelly explained to the Respondent that he considered Respondent's behavior, both then and on the previous day, to be inappropriate, intolerable and a very serious matter. He informed the Respondent that if he were not going to speak with Dr. Kelly or Dr. Lukenbill, there would be no way Respondent could remain on campus and that he would recommend his suspension to the College President. Respondent inquired as to whether Dr. Kelly was ordering him to leave the campus; Dr. Kelly responded that he was requesting him to leave the campus and Respondent then left Dr. Kelly's office. Respondent offers the explanation that, since the notice of the February 20 meeting did not set forth the subject matter or reason for the meeting, he had no way of knowing what Dr. Kelly meant by stating that he wished to discuss what occurred on February 19. This explanation is not credible and does not justify his conduct of refusing to speak to his college administrators. First, even if Respondent had been instructed by his attorney not to discuss his contract dispute in her absence, there is a conflict in the evidence as to whether Respondent's contract or salary dispute was ever mentioned during the February 20 meeting. Dr. Kelly was not even aware of such a dispute. While Respondent testified that he himself inquired as to whether the meeting had anything to do with his contract, he further testified that Dr. Kelly responded that he did not want to talk about a contract dispute but instead wanted to talk about what happened with Dr. Lukenbill the previous morning. Thus, even accepting the Respondent's versions of the February 20 meeting, it is clear that Respondent understood, at some point in time, that the intended purpose of the meeting was to discuss Respondent's refusal to speak with Dr. Lukenbill. Respondent never offered any explanation to Dr. Kelly or Dr. Lukenbill as to why he would not speak to them. It is clear that the meeting started and ended with the key administrators of the North Campus expressing their desire to have Respondent explain to them and change his position concerning his unprofessional behavior on that day and the previous day. Respondent's own fears or concerns regarding either his contract dispute or the Forster allegations do not excuse his willful and continued failure to communicate with the top two administrators responsible for his employer's functions and operations. By telegram dated February 20, 1985, Dr. McCabe, Petitioner's President, advised Respondent that he was suspended without pay pending Dr. McCabe's recommendation for dismissal to the District Board of Trustees. By letter dated March 1, 1985, Dr. McCabe advised Respondent that he would recommend Respondent's termination at the March 26, 1985, District Board meeting based upon the charge of gross insubordination. At that meeting, the District Board suspended Respondent without pay pending the termination proceedings. The Petition and Notice for Dismissal was served on April 2, 1985, and Respondent requested a formal hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent Joseph T. King be dismissed from employment retroactively to the date of his suspension for gross insubordination. Respectfully submitted and entered this 20th day of December, 1985. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 1985. APPENDIX The proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner and the Respondent have been approved and/or incorporated in this Recommended Order, except as noted below: Petitioner: 7 and 8. Rejected as to date of February 19, 1985, due to evidence to the contrary. 32. Partially rejected, no competent, substantial evidence regarding Respondent's schedule between 11:00 and 11:30 a.m. 51. Rejected, irrelevant and immaterial. Respondent: P. 3, last full sentence Rejected, not a factual finding. in last paragraph. Last paragraph beginning Rejected, not a factual finding on P. 3. And irrelevant and immaterial. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald M. Middlebrooks, Esquire and Nancy E. Swerdlow, Esquire Steel, Hector and Davis 4000 Southeast Financial Center Miami, Florida 33131-2398 Neil Flaxman, Esquire Flaxman and Flaxman, P.A. 2600 Douglas Road, Suite 311 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Dr. Robert H. McCabe, President District Board of Trustees Miami-Dade Community College 11011 Southwest 104th Street Miami, Florida 33176
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, Petitioner received his salary from two sources: the University of South Florida College of Medicine and the James A. Haley Veterans Administration Medical Center (Haley V.A.). As a special condition of his employment with the University, Petitioner also received a salary supplement which was derived through the College of Medicine Faculty Practice Plan. In consideration for the supplement, Petitioner agreed to assign all rights to fees or other compensation for medical services rendered by him during his employment term to the College of Medicine Faculty Practice Plan (Practice Plan). In spite of the wording of the employment contract with the University, Petitioner has never been expected to assign his salary from his position at the Haley V.A. to the Practice Plan. V.A. salary is excluded from the assignment process because of the relationship between the Haley V.A. and the University. The Haley V.A. is an institution that operates as a "Dean's Hospital". Essentially, this designation means that a V.A. Hospital and a College of Medicine in the same locale operate under a personnel and resource sharing policy. For example, if a surgeon is needed by both the Haley V.A. and the University, the two institutions will share in his or her appointment. The individual's salary is paid proportionately by each institution based upon their respective need for his or her services in a forty hour work week. The time is broken down into segments measured by eighths (8ths) known as full time equivalents (FTEs). A forty hour work week consists of 8/8 FTEs. The dual appointments of a physician under the sharing agreement customarily occur in the following manner: An advisory board known as the "Dean's Committee" at the College of Medicine recommends the dual appointment to the V.A. Hospital. The Professional Standards Board at the hospital evaluates the applicant after he or she has completed a separate application for employment with the Veterans Administration. Once a recommendation for appointment and salary level from the Professional Standards Board is received by the Medical Center Director, the applicant is either granted or denied the V.A. appointment. If an appointment occurs, the University then enters into an employment contract for the remaining FTEs with the physician. Although the two institutions work together and have parallel staffing in many of their Departments, each institution is responsible for hiring and managing its own employees. This autonomy is required because the institutions have different missions. The Petitioner accepted dual appointments to the University's College of Medicine and the Haley V.A. in 1979. His original appointments were for 5/8 FTEs as Staff Surgeon in Peripheral Vascular Surgery at the Haley V.A. and 3/8 FTEs as an Associate Professor of Surgery at the University. Petitioner's employment at the Haley V.A. began on June 1, 1979. His employment at the University began on September 1, 1979. Petitioner's clinical competence, research and development accomplishments, surgical skills and teaching abilities are unassailable in both institutions. The attempted attacks on these talents during hearing were ineffective. When Petitioner assumed his responsibilities at both institutions, he eventually became head of the vascular surgery program at the Haley V.A. and Director of the Division of Vascular Surgery with the College of Medicine, a parallel position. Although Petitioner's services were originally allocated as 5/8 FTEs to the Haley V.A., both institutions knew his career goals were always focused upon his teaching position at the University and his administrative responsibilities there as Director of the Division of Vascular Surgery. During his early years at both institutions, Petitioner's responsibilities at each facility grew and became more demanding. Petitioner naturally focused on his primary career goals at the University and delegated many of his V.A. responsibilities to extremely competent physicians under his direction. In 1986, the Chief of Surgery at the Haley V.A. took steps to enforce the required tours of duty for academic doctors with V.A. appointments. Audits at another Dean's Hospital had revealed that the academic staff there had been lax in fulfilling the time requirements demanded by their individual employment contracts. This administrator did not want a similar occurrence at his hospital. On November 16, 1986, the Chief of Surgery asked the V.A. doctors he supervised to sign an affirmation of intent to work the amount of hours required by their individual appointments. Petitioner signed the affirmation and acknowledged that he would work 50 hours at the Haley V.A. during every two week time period, in accordance with his 5/8 FTEs V.A. appointment. Petitioner was unable to meet these hourly requirements during the biweekly time allocations. He voluntarily reduced his V.A. appointment from 5/8 to 4/8 FTEs, effective May 8, 1988. After his V.A. appointment reduction, Petitioner was still unable to meet the biweekly time requirement of 40 hours at the Haley V.A. Administrators at the V.A. wanted him to be physically present in the hospital during the time he spent on V.A. matters. Petitioner believed he was unable to comply with this requirement because of his obligations at the University. As Director of Vascular Surgery, he was responsible for the vascular surgery portion of the Residency Program at the Bay Pines V.A. Hospital in St. Petersburg and the Tampa General Hospital in downtown Tampa. On June 15, 1988, the Acting Director of the Haley V.A. corresponded with the Chairman of the Department of Surgery at the University. The Chairman at the University was notified by letter that a decision had been made to terminate Petitioner's V.A. appointment. The anticipated termination date was July 16, 1988. A discussion with the Chairman regarding this matter was requested by the Acting Director at the V.A. The Chairman replied to this letter on June 28, 1988. He advised the Acting Director that he had placed the matter on the Surgery Mini-Dean's Committee meeting scheduled for July. Petitioner did not receive copies of the correspondence between the Acting Director at Haley V.A. and the Chairman of the Department of Surgery at the University. Petitioner was not aware of the discussions between the University and the V.A. regarding the further reduction of his FTEs at Haley V.A. On August 23, 1988, Petitioner was advised in writing that his salary for the 1988/89 academic year had been budgeted at $145,000.00. This figure included his salary from the Haley V.A., the State of Florida and other funds within the USF Department of Surgery which were derived through the College of Medicine Faculty Practice Plan. He was also approved to receive a salary supplement of $30,000.00 should his productivity and funds in the Division of Vascular Surgery allow for this additional amount. These additional funds would have come from profits made within the Division and assigned to College of Medicine Faculty Practice Plan, according to the usual operating procedure. On August 24, 1988, Petitioner was offered his tenured 3/8 FTEs at the University. The length of the appointment was from August 8, 1988 to August 7, 1989. His salary from the Florida Legislature funding lines was scheduled as $23,801.00. As a special condition of employment, he was advised that his salary may be supplemented with funds derived through the College of Medicine Faculty Practice Plan, in consideration of his agreement not to engage in patient case activities other than as a faculty member. Petitioner accepted the contract on September 1, 1988. On September 27, 1988, Petitioner was advised by the Chairman of the Department of Surgery at the University that the Haley V.A. wanted to make changes in his appointment at that institution. On November 21, 1988, the Chief of Staff at the Haley V.A., the Dean of the College of Medicine and the Chairman of the Department of Surgery had a meeting regarding Petitioner's 4/8 FTEs at Haley V.A. Petitioner was not aware of the meeting nor was he invited to attend. The chief of staff at the V.A. advised the University that he was going to ask Petitioner to resign 3/8 of his remaining FTEs at the V.A. effective December 4, 1988. If he had failed to agree, the action would be taken administratively. The Dean told the Chairman of the Department of Surgery that he would approve supplementing Petitioner's total salary from funds received through the College of Medicine Faculty Practice Plan. The Dean and the Chairman agreed to restore Petitioner to the salary level he would have received that academic year if he had not had 3/8 FTEs from the Haley V.A. removed from his compensation. Although a letter was sent to Petitioner requesting resignation of a portion of his FTEs, he did not resign his 3/8 FTEs on December 4, 1988. On December 5, 1988, his V.A. appointment was converted to an intermittent appointment of 1/8 FTE by the Director of the Haley V.A. The Dean of the College of Medicine authorized a salary adjustment for Petitioner at the University. Petitioner was to be paid a salary equaling the level of salary he had expected for the year prior to the V.A. action. This additional salary compensation was derived through the College of Medicine Faculty Practice Plan. During the 1988/89 academic year, Petitioner was allocated the same total amount of compensation from all sources after his V.A. FTEs were reduced because of the approved increase in his compensation from the College of Medicine Faculty Practice Plan. Petitioner filed a grievance against the University for the reduction of his V.A. FTEs on February 3, 1989. The grievance filed with the University has no basis in law or fact because the Haley V.A. has the right to reduce the FTEs of its own employees. When one of the parties to the "Dean's Hospital" personnel sharing policy decides it does not want to continue to assign a certain number of FTEs to an employee, the other institution does not have a concomitant responsibility to provide that employee with a forty hour work week. The shared employee has two separate employment contracts. Petitioner has been continuously aware that his employment at the Haley V.A. was separate from his employment at the University. In his Memorandum to the Chairman of the Department of Surgery dated October 3, 1988, he wrote: ". . . that any decision regarding changing (sic) in my appointment status with the V.A. is entirely their responsibility." After the Haley V.A. reduced Petitioner's appointment to an intermittent 1/8 FTE, he was required by the Chairman of the Department of Surgery to cooperate with the Haley V.A. in the establishment of its vascular lab. He was also instructed to assist in the assignment of shared lab technicians under the "Dean's Hospital" sharing agreement. These two tasks were part of his duties as Director of the Division of Vascular Surgery. A meeting between Petitioner, the Department Chairman and administrators from the Haley V.A. on February 1, 1989, did not bring about a resolution of the conflicts between Petitioner and the V.A. regarding the hospital's creation of its own vascular lab. The Chief of Staff at the Haley V.A. wrote a letter to the Chairman of the Department of Surgery and made a proposal regarding the proposed sharing agreement on the vascular lab directly to him. This letter was received by the Department of Surgery on February 14, 1989. On March 1, 1989, the Chairman of the Department of Surgery had a meeting with Petitioner. By way of memorandum dated March 1, 1989, Petitioner was directed by the Chairman to pursue activity that would lead to a resolution of the problems between his Division and the Haley V.A. In particular, Petitioner was directed to assist in the establishment of a vascular laboratory at that facility. He was given four weeks to demonstrate he was complying with these directives. He was also advised that if the Chairman did not have evidence that these directives were being followed, he would ask Petitioner to step down as the Director of the Division of Vascular Surgery. On April 27, 1989, Petitioner was informed by the Chairman of the Department of Surgery that he was being removed as Director of the Division effective May 1, 1989. The reason given for his removal was that the Chairman had not detected any significant resolution of the problems cited in the memorandum. On May 1, 1989, the Chairman took over the administrative duties of the Division. The Chairman of the Department of Surgery had the authority and discretion to remove Petitioner as Division Director. Petitioner filed his second grievance on May 18, 1989, to challenge his removal as Division Director. This grievance urges that his removal as Director was an improper action based upon the following: 1) His removal was an act of retaliation in response to his filing the earlier grievance; 2) The Chairman of the Department of Surgery was incorrect in his determination that Petitioner had not attempted to resolve his differences with the Haley V.A.; and 3) The action was unconstitutional in that it interfered with his academic freedom and freedom of speech. Petitioner's removal was not related to the filing of the first grievance. There was no evidence presented at hearing to demonstrate that Petitioner took affirmative steps to resolve the conflict with the Haley V.A. about the V.A. vascular lab after he was directed to do so by the Department Chairman. Petitioner's academic freedom and freedom of speech were not violated by the Chairman's directives issued to Petitioner in his role as an administrator. The directives were given because the Division of Vascular Surgery was not fulfilling its obligations under the sharing agreement between the two institutions. When the directives were given, the Chairman advised Petitioner that his faculty position would not be affected by his response or lack of response to these administrative directives. The controversy with the Haley V.A. about the creation of its own vascular lab was the only problem Petitioner was directed to cure to maintain his position as Director. Based upon that representation from the Chairman, the allegations about other misdeeds or misconduct are rejected as matters which are irrelevant and immaterial. Petitioner did not have contract, tenure or traditional academic rights in the administrative appointment as Director of the Division of Vascular Surgery. Division Directors within the Department of Surgery serve at the will of the Chairman. A reasonable explanation was presented for Petitioner's removal from his administrative position. There was just cause for the Chairman's action. Petitioner's perception that his removal from the directorship was a disciplinary action is without merit. It was an administrative decision predicated upon the University's need to comply with the sharing agreement. One of the main reasons Petitioner objected to the establishment of a vascular lab at the Haley V.A. was that the lab would compete with the University lab and reduce its income. This, in turn, would affect the budget of the Division of Vascular Surgery and the contributions it would be able to make to the College of Medicine Faculty Practice Plan. All of the money previously received in Petitioner's Division from the vascular lab work done on behalf of the Haley V.A. would remain in house. As a result, the salary supplements received by Petitioner through the College of Medicine Faculty Practice Plan, would decrease in amount. Petitioner actually received $145,000.00 in salary from the state funding line and the College of Medicine Faculty Practice Plan during the 1988/89 academic year. In negotiations regarding Petitioner's annual salary for the 1989/90 academic year, the Chairman of the Department of Surgery agreed to pay him a salary of $145,000.00. These funds were to be provided through state funds at 3/8 FTEs and funds derived from the College of Medicine Faculty Practice Plan. The Chairman had the discretion to disburse the Faculty Practice Plan funds in this manner. Petitioner relied upon the representation that he would receive $145,000.00 as his salary when he began the 1989/90 academic year at the University on August 9, 1989. A written employment contract for the 1989/90 academic year was not placed into evidence. In order to receive a salary of $145,000.00, Petitioner's state salary had to be supplemented monthly with $9,326.33 in Faculty Practice Plan funds. This occurred during the first quarter of the academic year. On September 22, 1989, the Chairman sent a written memorandum to Petitioner which advised him that an adjustment was being made to reduce the amount of money he received from the Faculty Practice Plan by $1,893.33 per month for the remaining three quarters of the 1989/90 academic year. This would amount to a salary reduction of $17,039.97. As his reason for the reduction, the Chairman cited the financial condition of the Division of Vascular Surgery and Petitioner's removal as Director. A third grievance was filed by Petitioner after he received the memorandum about his salary reduction. The Petitioner has continuously predicted that the Division's financial condition would suffer as a result of the loss of two vascular surgeons and the loss of the profits from V.A. vascular lab business that was formerly conducted at the University lab. Ordinarily, the Chairman has the discretion to adjust monthly salary supplements derived through the College of Medicine Faculty Practice Plan based upon the financial condition of a Division and its contributions to the Plan. This occurs because salary supplements are given to the medical faculty if they have contributed to the Practice Plan and the money is available. In this case, however, the Chairman had earmarked salary funds for Petitioner through the Plan. These funds were not a supplement, they were part of Petitioner's total salary compensation from the University. The College of Medicine chose to compensate Petitioner in this manner instead of using 8/8 FTEs provided by the State Legislature. The University has the right to decide how Petitioner's employment at the institution is funded. Petitioner is entitled to an additional $17,039.97 in salary compensation derived through the College of Medicine Faculty Practice Plan for the 1989/90 academic year.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: The first grievance should be dismissed as the University lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter. The Chairman's decision to remove Petitioner as Director of the Division of Vascular Surgery in the second grievance should be upheld. Petitioner does not have a protected property interest in the position. Petitioner should be awarded $17,039.97 in salary pursuant to his employment contract with the University during the 1989/90 academic year. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of November, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of November, 1992. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact in his suggested Recommended Order are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #6. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #1-#2. Rejected. Insufficient evidence. See HO #52. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #29-#33. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted for the academic year 1989/90. See HO #49-#58. Rejected. Contrary to the evidence. See Conclusions of Law. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #39 and #46. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #32-#33, #39 and #40. Rejected. Contrary to fact and law. See HO #43-#44. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #40. 15. Accepted 1988/89 and 1989/90. See HO #48 and #58. 16. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See Conclusions of law. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Current employment status beyond the scope of this hearing. Otherwise, accepted. See HO #6. Generally accepted. See HO #3-#5. Accepted. See HO #3. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #3. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #49-#50. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #22, #25 and #45. Accepted. See HO #20. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted as to Division Directors. The rest is irrelevant. See HO #35. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #40. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #11. Accepted. See HO #13. Accepted. Rejected. Self serving and irrelevant. Petitioner was not required to defend against such allegations in this proceeding. See HO #7. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Petitioner was not required to defend against such allegations in this proceeding. See HO #7. Accepted. See HO #13. Accepted. See HO #14. Rejected. Hearsay. Irrelevant. See HO #5. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #23. Accepted. See HO #23. Accepted. Rejected. Immaterial. See HO #7 and #14. Rejected. Improper conclusion. Petitioner was not required to defend against such allegations in these proceedings. Accepted that Petitioner's V.A. FTE reduction was a V.A. decision. Accepted. See HO #5. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO #22 and #24. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO #22 and #24. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #22 and #24. Accepted. See HO #25. Accepted. See HO #47. Accepted. See HO #5. Accepted. See HO #47. Accepted. See HO #47. Rejected as to causation. Not sufficiently established at hearing. Accepted. See HO #30. Accepted. See HO #32. Accepted. See HO #35 and #40. Rejected. Immaterial. See HO #7 and #42. Accepted. See HO #33 and #39. Rejected. Not established at hearing. See HO #7 and #42. Accepted. See HO #25. Rejected. Speculative. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO #42. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #49-#58. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #49-#58. Rejected. Immaterial. See HO #42, #55-#56. Rejected. Immaterial. See HO #7 and HO #42. Accepted. See Conclusions of Law. Accepted. See HO #26. Accepted. See HO #36. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #55. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Jeremy E. Gluckman, Esquire Gluckman & Newman, P.A. 100 Twiggs Street, Suite 220 Tampa, FL 33602 William M. Blackshear, Jr., Department of Surgery, MDC, Box 16 12901 North 30th Street Tampa, FL 33612 Thomas M. Gonzalez, Esquire Robin E. Greiwe, Esquire Thompson, Sizemore & Gonzalez 109 North Brush Street, Suite 200 Tampa, FL 33601 Joline Micelli-Mullen, Esquire University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Avenue Tampa, FL 33620 Bryan Burgess, General Counsel University of South Florida ADM Building 250 4202 Fowler Avenue Tampa, FL 33620-6250 Jeannette Abin Marcus, Clerk Univeristy of South Florida Administration, Room 250 Tampa, FL 33620-6250 Francis T. Borkowski, President University of South Florida Administration, Room 250 Tampa, FL 33620-6250 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400
The Issue The basic issue in this case is whether the employer, School Board of Alachua County, committed an unlawful employment practice within the meaning of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by discharging or otherwise discriminating against Ms. Bates on the basis of her handicap. At the commencement of the hearing the Petitioner moved for a judgment on the pleadings or a determination that the facts were not in dispute on the basis of the respondent having failed to file an answer in accordance with Rule 22T- 9.008(5)(a), Florida Administrative Code. The Hearing Officer reserved ruling on the motion and provided the parties an opportunity to present their evidence. Both parties presented the testimony of witnesses and both parties offered exhibits. On March 17, 1988, a transcript of the hearing was filed and on March 28, 1988, both parties filed proposed recommended orders containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Careful consideration has been given to the parties' post-hearing submissions during the formulation of this Recommended Order. Specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact are contained in the Appendix which is attached to and incorporated into this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the testimony of the witnesses, and on the exhibits received in evidence, I make the following findings of fact: The Petitioner, Ann Bates, began employment with the Respondent, School Board of Alachua County, on August 15, 1983, as a classroom aide assigned to Stephen Foster Elementary School. In August of 1985, she was transferred to the A. Quinn Jones Center and assigned to the classroom of a teacher named Sue Clarey. The Principal at A. Quinn Jones Center had initially contacted the Petitioner and asked her to work at his school. The Petitioner continued to be employed by the Respondent until March 14, 1986. The Petitioner's last job title was Paraprofessional II. On February 28, 1986, the Petitioner saw Dr. W. Alvin McElveen and was given a definite diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. This diagnosis was confirmed by Dr. Richard Cunningham in early March, 1986. Petitioner has been a patient of Dr. Richard Cunningham for approximately four and a half years. In March of 1986, Dr. Richard Cunningham did not place any restrictions on Petitioner's employment. Petitioner's duties as a Paraprofessional II at A. Quinn Jones included feeding and tutoring students, as well as assisting the teacher in general clerical and administrative tasks. At all times the Petitioner was able to satisfactorily complete the job duties of a Paraprofessional II. On March 3, 1986, the Petitioner notified Mr. Jeff Jones, the Principal at A. Quinn Jones Center, that she had been diagnosed as having multiple sclerosis. In March of 1986, the Petitioner took six days off from work on sick leave (March 4, 5, 6, 7, 10 and 11) and returned to work on the morning of Wednesday, March 12, 1986. On March 12, 1986, the school secretary, Ms. Dorothy Emo, placed a handwritten note in the Petitioner's school mailbox, which stated, in substance, "Please see Mr. Jones at your convenience." It was the common practice of the Principal to speak informally with any employee who was returning from more than a day or two of sick leave to ascertain how the employee was doing and to make sure that the employee felt well enough to return to work. On the morning of Wednesday, March 12, 1986, the Petitioner left the classroom, informing the teacher that she was going to see Mr. Jones, and went to the front office. She met with Mr. Jones at about 10:00 a.m. In the Principal's office, the Petitioner expressed her frustration with her medical condition and stated that it was her desire to resign her employment. In response to the Petitioner's expressed desire to resign, Mr. Jones asked the school secretary to bring in a "resignation form," which she did. It was a new form, with which the Principal was not familiar. The Petitioner and Mr. Jones then discussed her leaving employment and the effect it would have on her ability to collect unemployment compensation. Both the Petitioner and Mr. Jones believed that a voluntary resignation would preclude her from being able to receive unemployment compensation. This belief, as it turned out, was erroneous. The Respondent School District had recently revised its separation form to include all three types of separations (voluntary resignation, involuntary termination, and retirement) on one form. Previously, resignation and terminations were processed on separate, different forms. The Principal, Mr. Jones, had never used this particular separation form. Further, the Principal had never used any separation form which indicated that an employee was being involuntarily terminated. He was also unsure what was meant by the term "involuntary termination." The Petitioner and Mr. Jones believed, albeit erroneously, that for the purpose of permitting the Petitioner to separate from employment and also collect unemployment compensation, the "involuntary termination" selection was the appropriate choice. This was by their mutual agreement. Mr. Jones had the form prepared in that manner and then he and the Petitioner signed the form. Mr. Jones gave a copy of the signed form to the Petitioner (which was contrary to the normal procedure) and then forwarded the original of the form to the district office for processing. Mr. Jones also called Will Griffin, the district supervisor of personnel, informed him of Ms. Bates' resignation, and told him that the form was en route. The above-mentioned form was received by Mr. Griffin around noon on March 12, 1986. Upon reviewing the form, he realized that it had been filled out incorrectly and he immediately so advised Mr. Jones by telephone and told Mr. Jones that the Petitioner would have to complete the proper section of the form. The Respondent's School District's procedures are that "involuntary termination" is used for only three types of separation: (a) dismissal of an employee, (b) job abandonment by an employee, or (c) deletion of a position. A school principal does not have the authority to involuntarily terminate an employee or to fill out a form to that effect. The "involuntary termination" form was, therefore, a nullity and of no effect. That form was not processed by the district office staff and was never acted on by the School Board. Principal Jones told his school secretary of the error on the form and asked her to prepare a corrected form. The corrected form indicated that Petitioner was resigning and was not being involuntarily terminated. The corrected form was signed by the Petitioner and the Principal on March 14, 1986, and it was then processed by the district office. At its regularly scheduled meeting on April 15, 1986, the Respondent School Board acted on the Petitioner's resignation and accepted it in a routine manner. At the time the Petitioner signed the second form on March 14, 1986, she did not indicate to the Principal in any way that she had changed her mind about wanting to resign. If the Petitioner had objected and had not signed the resignation form, she would have remained employed by the Respondent. At any time prior to the School Board's formal approval of a resignation, an employee may withdraw a resignation. At no time prior to the School Board's action on April 15, 1986, did the Petitioner withdraw her resignation or notify Mr. Jones or any other representative of the School Board of any change of mind regarding her resignation. At the time of the Petitioner's resignation, no steps had been taken by Principal Jones, or by any other representative of the School District, to dismiss the Petitioner from her employment. At that time the possibility of dismissing the Petitioner had not even been discussed. The Petitioner applied for and was awarded unemployment compensation on the basis that she had resigned her employment for health reasons. It is the policy and practice of the Respondent to provide all employees with a written notice of deficiencies on a job performance warning record before any dismissal action is begun. It is also the Respondent's policy and practice that prior to initiation of dismissal proceedings, an employee's immediate supervisor takes steps to try to resolve any problem before referring the matter to the district supervisor. Employees are normally suspended with pay pending an investigation of the basis for proposed dismissal, and actual dismissal is only carried out by the School Board after the employee has been given an opportunity for a hearing. None of these things took place with regard to the Petitioner, because the School Board was not trying to and did not dismiss her. The Respondent has a policy of providing for grievances by its employees who believe they have been treated unfairly. The Petitioner did not file a grievance with the School Board.
