Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Criminal Justice Standards And Training Commission enter a final order: Dismissing, as moot, the petition of Margherita Renzi insofar as it seeks a determination of prospective eligibility for salary incentive monies under Section 943.22, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1984); and Dismissing, as having no merit, the petition of Margherita Renzi insofar as it seeks a determination of retroactive entitlement to salary incentive payments before October 1, 1984, under Section 943.22, Florida Statutes (1983). RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of April, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 2nd day of April, 1985.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner received his M.A. degree from New School of Social Research, Graduate Faculty of Political and Social Science in New York, New York, in sociology. He received further training in counseling as part of a Ph.D. program in clinical psychology at the Florida Institute of Technology. He is scheduled to receive his Ph.D. this year, having completed all coursework. Petitioner worked as a counselor under the supervision of Dr. Limbillo of the Naples Community Hospital Mental Health Clinic, in 1973 and 1974. He also worked as a counselor under the supervision of Dr. Hughes from 1975 to 1977 and Dr. Roca from 1977 to 1979.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a marriage and family therapist by exception. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, 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 27th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel D. Peck, Esquire Suite A-204, Park Square 4089 Tamiami Trail, North Naples, Florida 33940 Drucilla Bell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Respondent, Lissa Nappier, committed the violations alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges and, if so, whether such allegations are just cause for termination of her employment with the School Board.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a duly constituted entity charged with the responsibility and authority to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within the Miami-Dade County Public School District. As such, it has the authority to regulate all personnel matters for the school district. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent, Lissa Nappier, was an employee of School Board and was subject to the disciplinary rules and regulations pertinent to employees of the school district. The Respondent’s employment relationship with the Petitioner began in 1984 when she was retained as a temporary instructor. In 1988 she was hired as a permanent teacher and was assigned to Homestead Senior High School where she has continued service until the instant issues emerged. From 2004 until the time of her recommended termination, the Respondent was employed as the Student Activities Director at the school. Prior to the instant matter, the Respondent has had no disciplinary issues or actions. As a condition of her employment with the Petitioner, the Respondent is subject to the terms and conditions of a contract between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade (UTD contract). Article XXIV of the UTD contract provides for credential payment to encourage employees of the School Board to pursue further studies and expertise in their respective fields. Such pursuit enhances the quality of education for students in the school district. At all times material to this case, the credential payment increase for a teacher with a doctorate degree was $7000. The effective date for the implementation of the credential payment is computed “after completion of eligibility requirements, as indicated on the transcript by the issuing university.” The UTD contract further provides that: Completion of eligibility requirements shall be defined as: (a)filing an official M- DCPS/UTD application for credential payment with the Office of Human Resources (receipt acknowledged and dated by M-DCPS); and (b) completion of course work/degree requirements prior to the date of the quarter for which payment is requested, as indicated by the date on the transcript, or other appropriate evidence provided by the university. M-DCPS shall notify all new employees of the availability of the credential payment programs and the procedures for making application. Under the heading “Eligibility,” the UTD contract also states: To qualify as graduate level, credit must have been earned after the applicant was granted the Bachelor’s degree and must be clearly identified as such. Pursuant to the UTD contract, Applicants whose applications are disapproved shall be notified that they may appeal the decision to the committee by resubmitting and supplying such additional and germane information and/or documentation as will be helpful in reaching a decision regarding the appeal. The decision of the committee is final and not grievable or arbitrable. On or about April 8, 2004, the Respondent submitted a note to the Petitioner’s Office of Compensation Administration that stated: Enclosed please find my official transcript for my Doctorate Program. Along with the transcript is a verification form. My employee number is 152174. Thank you for your attention in this matter, and with the necessary adjustments with payroll. Attached to the note described above, was a document purportedly from Rochville University. The Rochville document contained the words “Official Transcript” and purported to indicate that the Respondent had completed the noted courses. The document represented the Respondent had obtained a “Doctor of Arts (Major: Education).” Also attached to the note described in paragraph 11 was a form purportedly executed by the Rochville University Registrar and President that stated: This is to verify that Lissa A. Nappier has successfully completed the Doctor’s Program from Rochville University in the year 2004. In order to obtain the “Doctor of Arts” from Rochville University, the Petitioner submitted her transcripts from Brenau College, Nova Southeastern University, the requisite fees required by the school, and a summary of her 18 years of teaching experience to Rochville. Rochville University is an “on line” institution. The Respondent did not complete additional course work, did not write a thesis, and did not attempt to verify that Rochville University was an acceptable, accredited school prior to paying her fees for the degree and submitting the documents to the Petitioner for credential payment. It is unlikely that Rochville is an accredited university. Its academic claims are related to its status as an accredited “on line” institution. For approximately $600.00 the Respondent received a doctorate degree. After reviewing the Respondent’s documentation, the Petitioner denied the credential payment increase. The Respondent did not challenge or seek additional review of that denial. The matter was referred to the Petitioner’s Office of the Inspector General because the Respondent had “submitted a transcript to obtain credential payment for an advanced degree using a transcript from an unaccredited university.” None of the courses depicted on the Rochville University transcript that was appended to the Respondent’s note were actually for course work completed by the Respondent while attending (even online) Rochville classes. None of the hours for the courses depicted on the Rochville University transcript were earned while attending (even online) Rochville classes. The Respondent knew or should have known that a credible doctor of arts degree requires more than the submission of prior coursework, life experience, and the payment of fees. Moreover, the Respondent did not present evidence of any “life experience” that would entitle her to a doctor of arts degree from any accredited university. That Rochville University accepted the Respondent’s experience and prior academic work as sufficient to award a doctorate degree dishonors the hours of work that are, in reality, required of post-graduate students who obtain doctorate degrees from reputable institutions. Although technically truthful in Respondent's representation to the Petitioner, the Respondent’s request for credential payment was clearly not supported by credible academic achievement. The Respondent attempted to obtain credential payment using a non-creditable source. This was a tremendous lapse of good judgment. The Respondent, did not, however represent that Rochville University is an accredited university. She only represented that she had obtained a doctorate degree from that entity. Her lapse of judgment was in attempting to parlay her worthless degree into a credential payment increase. Her effort failed due to the attentive review of her request. At the time the Respondent was going through a divorce and needed additional income. The online approach to obtaining the doctorate degree appeared to be an easy, affordable alternative. The Respondent did not verify that Rochville University was accredited by any national accreditation source or that the university was acceptable to the School Board for purposes of obtaining a post-graduate degree.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a Final Order sustaining the Respondent’s suspension without pay for the amount of time it deems appropriate, but returning the Respondent to full employment thereafter. S DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of September, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of September, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Rudolph F. Crew, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, No. 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1394 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 John L. Winn Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jean Marie Middleton, Esquire School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Carol R. Buxton, Esquire Florida Education Association 140 South University Drive, Suite A Plantation, Florida 33324 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761
The Issue Whether the petitioner has "completed undergraduate work" and is, therefore, eligible for a license by endorsement to practice medicine in Florida pursuant to Section 458.313 and 458.311.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner attended undergraduate school at the University of Puerto Rico. The University of Puerto Rico is an accredited United States university. He graduated with a medical degree from La Universidad Autonoma de Guadalajara, Mexico, and returned to the University of Puerto Rico from January 21, 1930, to December 20, 1980, to satisfactorily complete the Fifth Pathway Medical Program at the Mayaquez ;~ledical Center in Puerto Rico. Petitioner is a licensed physician in Georgia, Michigan and Puerto Rico. He successfully passed the FLEX and obtained a weighted average of 76. Petitioner attended the University of Puerto Rico from July, 1972, until December, 1975. He did not obtain any degree from the University of Puerto Rico, but he testified, and it was so stipulated, that he completed his pre-med undergraduate work. Petitioner was fifteen hours short of obtaining his degree when he withdrew from the University of Puerto Rico to attend medical school. Although petitioner had completed all the required courses in his pre-med program, he needed fifteen hours of credit in electives before he could complete his undergraduate work and obtain his degree. There was no evidence presented that the University of Puerto Rico considered the completion of the required pre-med courses as constituting the completion of undergraduate work at that institution. In her affidavit, which was entered into evidence by stipulation, the Executive Director of the Board of Medical Examiners stated that the board has consistently interpreted Section 458.311(3)(a) as requiring a diploma or official transcript showing that an undergraduate degree has been awarded as the only evidence of successful completion of undergraduate work. She further averred that, to the best of her knowledge and belief, no applicant for medical licensure pursuant to Section 458.311(3) had been licensed who had not submitted a diploma or official transcript showing that an undergraduate degree had been awarded.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying the petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of August, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Divisign of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of August, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Frederic A. Buttner, Esq. 112 West Adams Street Barnett Bank Building Jacksonville, FL 32202 Arden M. Siegendorf, Esq. M. Catherine Lannon, Esq. Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite LL04 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Medical Examiners 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent is and at all times has been a licensed physician, holding Florida license number ME 0029977. He has been licensed in Florida since about 1976. G.L. is 73 years old. He has a third grade education. Previously, he was a farmworker in the fields. He is at most barely literate. In any event, he would not appreciate the meaning of a document of the type described below. G.L. and his companion, A.M., who is 59 years old and unemployed, had been patients of Respondent for about eight years at the time of the subject incident. From time to time, Respondent has lent his patients money, such as for transportation or medicine. Respondent's daughter, who serves as his office manager, has even provided transportation for patients in order to get them to the office and back home. On certain occasions, Respondent has lent G.L. money or paid for his medicine, although the amounts involved were not significant. On many other occasions, Respondent provided G.L. with free medication by giving him samples. Respondent did not keep track of the amounts involved because of the unlikelihood of any repayment. Between 1980 and the time of the incident, G.L.'s total charges for medical services rendered by Respondent were less than $5000. Medicare or Medicaid paid for about 80% of these costs. In May, 1986, G.L. suffered injuries as a result of an automobile accident. Respondent treated G.L., who had a balance due of about $824 at the time in question. Respondent referred G.L. to Franklin Douglas McKnight, who also served as Respondent's attorney, for representation in the recovery of damages for personal injuries. By January, 1987, Mr. McKnight was close to settling the case. At this point, Respondent visited Mr. McKnight and said that G.L. had agreed to pay Respondent a percentage of the settlement. The net amount that was estimated to be due G.L. was roughly $25,000, and Respondent was claiming $12,500. Mr. McKnight informed Respondent that he could not pay him a percentage and, in any event, could not pay him anything unless G.L. signed a letter authorizing the disbursement to Respondent. Mr. McKnight showed Respondent a simple example of such a letter. Respondent then prepared a letter for G.L. to sign. The letter stated: To Whom It May Concern: For past services, medical, social and humane assistance and personal loans rendered to me [G.L.] and my family during last many years. We hereby agree that the sum of $12,500 ... may be deducted from the net proceeds recovered as a result of the automobile accident, of date 5-30-86. I, [G.L.] Hereby thus authorize you, Mr. Douglas McKnight, (My representing Lawer) to disburse above amount out of net proceeds to Dr. Prem N. Tandon, M.D. without reservations. Thanking you: [Signed by G.L. and A.M. as witness.] During an office visit, Respondent presented the letter to G.L. and A.M. for their signature. Little if any meaningful explanation accompanied the signing. G.L. and A.M. signed the letter based on their trust of Respondent as their physician. When Respondent delivered the signed letter to Mr. McKnight, he told Respondent that he would not disburse any sums to Respondent without the consent of G.L. at the time of disbursement. G.L. later refused to honor the disbursement letter. Confronted with conflicting claims to nearly $12,000 of the settlement proceeds, Mr. McKnight interpleaded the sum in Orange County Circuit Court. Respondent has been disciplined twice previously. In a Final order dated February 27, 1984, Petitioner found Respondent guilty of violating Section 458.331(1)(r), Florida Statutes, by unlawfully prescribing to himself two legend drugs, Nembutal and Ritalin. Petitioner imposed an administrative fine of $200 and placed Respondent on probation for one month. In a Final Order dated June 15, 1988, Petitioner found, Respondent guilty of various statutory violations concerning generally recordkeeping requirements with respect to controlled substances. Petitioner imposed an administrative fine of $1500, reprimanded his license, required him to attend 60 hours of Category I Continuing Medical Education courses in legal aspects of dispensing controlled substances, and restricted his license by prohibiting him from dispensing drugs in an office setting and maintaining drugs for the purpose of dispensing until he complied with certain conditions concerning recordkeeping requirements.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of violating of Section 458.331(1)(n), Florida Statutes, suspending Respondent's license for six months, and imposing an administrative fine of $5000. ENTERED this 3rd day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 3rd day of May, 1989. APPENDIX Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Petitioner 1-3 Adopted. 4 Adopted in substance. 5-7 Adopted. Adopted except as to the mischaracterization of the document as a promissory note. Rejected as irrelevant, contrary to the greater weight of the evidence, and recitation of testimony. Whether G.L. was able to read is beside the point. He was incapable of understanding the meaning of the document that he signed. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as cumulative and, to the extent not cumulative, irrelevant. 12-15 Rejected as recitation of testimony and subordinate. 16-17 Adopted in substance. 18 Rejected as recitation of evidence and legal argument. 19-21 Rejected as recitation of testimony and subordinate except that the first sentence of Paragraph 21 is adopted. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as recitation of testimony. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Adopted. Rejected as cumulative and, to the extent not cumulative, irrelevant. Rejected as legal argument contrary to the cited statutory definition of the practice of medicine. Rejected as recitation of testimony. Adopted in substance. Treatment Accorded Respondent's proposed Findings 1-4 Adopted. 5-6 Rejected as subordinate. Adopted. Rejected as irrelevant and, to the extent implying that G.L. understood the meaning of the document that he was signing, against the greater weight of the evidence. 9-10 Rejected as irrelevant. See Paragraph 9 in preceding section. 11-14 Adopted. 15 Adopted in substance. 16-19 Adopted in substance except that the first sentence of Paragraph 16 is rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as irrelevant. First sentence adopted. Second sentence rejected as irrelevant. Adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Board of Medical Examiners Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Kenneth D. Easley, Esq. General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 David G. Pius, Esq. Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Joseph M. Taraska, Esq. Launa K. Cartwright, Esq. Taraska, Grower, Unger and Ketcham, P.A. Post Office Box 538065 Orlando, FL 32853-0065 =================================================================
The Issue Petitioner's charge of discrimination dated April 13, 1995, alleges that the Orange County Public Library discriminated against her on account of her race and disability: by terminating her for tardiness, by refusing to accommodate her disability but accommodating other employees, and by more closely monitoring and scrutinizing her. The issues for resolution in this case are whether the alleged discrimination occurred and if so, what relief is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Aundra Jones (Ms. Jones), was hired by the Orange County Public Library in December 1990. Her primary duty as a circulation clerk was shelving books. At the time that she was hired, Ms. Jones completed a medical history form that revealed no medical problems and no limitations to her normal functions. Ms. Jones received her first personnel rating on March 6, 1991. On a scale of 1-9, with 9 being the top rank, she received a score of 5 in all areas except interpersonal relations, in which she received a score of 6. Ms. Jones's next rating was March 12, 1992. She received mostly 5's, two 4's, and a 1 (the lowest score possible) in attendance. Her supervisor noted that Ms. Jones's attendance record was poor and needed improvement as she had missed 132.5 hours in a 12-month period. Nevertheless, she was recommended for, and received, a one-step merit increase in salary. On December 13, 1992, the library initiated a punctuality policy for all employees. This policy provided that each employee was required to be at his or her work station without delay at the scheduled time. Any delay that was not approved in advance was considered a "tardy." Even though some tardiness might be understood, a record of eight or more tardies, regardless of duration or cause, within an annual merit review cycle, would result in a written warning and may result in a final warning or termination. In January 1993, Ms. Jones took a second job as a reservationist at Steiganberg Reservation Services. Her shift began at 6:00 p.m. and she was scheduled to work there approximately 25 hours a week. In February 1993, Ms. Jones sustained some unspecified job injury and was required to stay home for several weeks to recover. She was told by her doctor to lift no more than five pounds and, since that would be virtually impossible at the library, she and the library staff agreed that she should recover at home from what was classified as a temporary condition. On April 6, 1993, Ms. Jones received her annual personnel rating summarized as "needs improvement." She was rated "1" in attendance and punctuality, and her supervisor noted that she used 112 hours of sick leave in 1992 and was tardy ten times between March 1992 and March 1993. On November 17, 1993, Ms. Jones's supervisor met with her and gave her a verbal warning with regard to her punctuality. By this time she had received eight tardies in the first six months of her annual review period. One of the tardies was a "scheduled" absence for a doctor's appointment, however, and this occasion was not a basis for later discipline of Ms. Jones. A special evaluation in March 1994 noted continued attendance problems, requiring leave without pay when all accrued vacation, sick, and floating holiday time had been exhausted. On April 25, 1994, Ms. Jones received her annual personnel rating, an "unsatisfactory," with scores of "1" in performance, attendance, and punctuality. Prior to this rating the library had placed Ms. Jones on Family Medical Leave on several occasions. It also attempted to adjust Ms. Jones's scheduled days so that she could go to the doctor on her days off, but she said she needed time with her family and preferred to have weekends off. A change in job assignment at the library was offered, but the hours conflicted with Ms. Jones's night job, and she refused the change. On May 12, 1994, Ms. Jones's doctor, a rheumatologist, diagnosed her condition as fibromyalgia and noted on her work status form that Ms. Jones should have light duty for two weeks and that the restriction would be temporary. The library accommodated this and other temporary restrictions, including restrictions on lifting, standing, and full-time shifts, over the next several months. The library terminated Ms. Jones on January 16, 1995. By that time she had been late to work eight times in the first eight and a half months of her annual review cycle. The library did not penalize Ms. Jones for her appointed medical absences, but rather applied its policy described in paragraph 4, above, to her chronic tardiness. There is no credible evidence that the library singled out Ms. Jones based on her race or physical condition. Between November 1994 and April 1998, the library terminated nine employees who were not African-Americans for violations of its punctuality policy. During her employment with the library, Ms. Jones applied for, but was denied, transfer to several positions. In no case was she denied the transfer because of her race or physical condition. In fact, as found above, she was offered and she refused a transfer to a less physically-demanding position at the circulation desk. Ms. Jones auditioned with other candidates for a position as storyteller. Her audition was unsuccessful as she was nervous and forgot the story at various times. Ms. Jones was also interviewed for other promotions. In one case another African-American employee received the promotion, and in the other cases, the library presented unrefuted evidence that more qualified candidates were hired. Ms. Jones felt that her physical condition should have warranted her being given a parking space in the library garage. However, the spaces there were assigned according to seniority and there were no spaces available for her. For a temporary period she had a handicapped parking sticker but this was withdrawn by her physician when she no longer met the guidelines. Ms. Jones alleged that the head of circulation, Wendi Jo Bost, harassed and belittled her on account of her race and physical condition. Ms. Bost was involved with Ms. Jones's immediate supervisors and Ms. Jones in attempting to remediate the persistent attendance problems. After Ms. Jones did not respond to a request for suggestions on accommodating the need to schedule doctors' appointments, Ms. Bost changed her days off. When Ms. Jones complained that she wanted Saturdays to spend with her family, Ms. Bost accommodated that request. Ms. Bost was a well-trained, experienced, and competent professional librarian. She routinely hired and promoted African-Americans. Her no-nonsense style of management extended to all employees, without consideration for race or physical condition; she was criticized at times by employees, including whites and non-disabled employees, for her strict management style. There is scant evidence in the record of this proceeding of Ms. Jones's disability. A monograph on fibromyalgia syndrome, received in evidence without objection, reflects that the pain and fatigue of the disease tends to come and go. It is a chronic condition, but neither fatal nor crippling. Ms. Jones sought medical treatment from a series of different health care providers and sought relief in a variety of treatments. She plainly became frustrated at her inability to obtain lasting relief. While she missed work frequently on account of her condition, she concedes that most of her tardiness was not the result of her illness. Moreover, Ms. Jones considered herself able to perform her duties at the library while at work there and maintained a series of part-time jobs as well as her full-time library employment. She is, and was, able to perform normal household chores. At hearing, Ms. Jones did not identify any specific limitations of activity based on her diagnoses of fibromyalgia, except an inability to be out in the sun.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter its Final Order dismissing the Charge of Discrimination or Petition for Relief by Aundra Jones against the Orange County Public Library. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Aundra Jones, pro se 510 Auburn Avenue Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714 Mary Wills, Esquire 255 South Orange Avenue Suite 801 Orlando, Florida 32801-3452 Susan K. McKenna, Esquire Garwood, McKenna, McKenna & Wolf, P.A. 31 North Garland Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Dana Baird, Esquire Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-7082 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-7082
The Issue This case concerns the administrative prosecution by the Petitioner against the Respondent through an Administrative Complaint and amendment to that Administrative Complaint. The original statement in the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of purchasing a forged transcript, which transcript indicated that the Respondent had completed requirements for a masters degree from the Florida A & M University and had received that degree, and that the Respondent in turn used the forged transcript to fraudulently receive a certification from the Florida Department of Education, Office of Certification, to the effect that the Respondent purportedly violate Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, in particular, for reason that the Respondent has committed an act of gross immorality, used fraudulent means to secure a teacher's certificate, and engaged in conduct which seriously reduces her effectiveness. The Respondent is also accused of violating Section 231.09, Florida Statutes, for failing to provide a proper example for students and to have violated Chapter 6B-1, Florida Administrative Code, by not practicing her profession at the highest ethical standard. By amendment to the Administrative Complaint, the Respondent is also accused of violating Subsection 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, by being charged with uttering a forgery and for that charge being adjudicated guilty of a felony and placed on three years' probation, due to her plea of nolo contendere to felony charges. Adjudication in this matter allegedly was made on August 3, 1981.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, by Administrative Complaint and the amendment to that complaint, attempts to discipline the Respondent by action in revocation or suspension of the teacher's certificate of Diane E. Ladson, or other appropriate action. The Respondent having been afforded the opportunity for a formal hearing pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, availed herself of that opportunity and the formal hearing was conducted on September 10, 1981. At present the Respondent is the holder of a teacher's certificate issued by the State of Florida, Department of Education, No. 377074, issued on July 30, 1979, and valid through June 30, 1979. The actual transcript of credit hours earned from Florida A & M University may be found in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. At present, the Respondent is an employee of the Duval County, Florida, School System. She was hired to work as a teacher in Duval County on August 14, 1975. On August 14, 1979, she presented the masters level certificate issued by the Florida Department of Education to the officials in Duval County, which was an upgrade in her status and, through the presentation of this credentials change, it ostensibly entitled her to approximately $1,000.00 additional compensation. This was the amount to be paid in the 1979-80 school year and through August 1980 of the 1980-81 school year, and is a pay differential between this teacher at the masters level rank of certification as contrasted with the teacher at a bachelors level of certification employed by the Duval County School System. The exact differential is that between $9,725 and $10,550 per year. Ladson in fact received $998.25 additional compensation, which she had not repaid. Since the time of her involvement in the purchase of an illegal graduate degree, the Respondent has been charged in the Circuit Court in Leon County, Florida, under the provisions of Section 831.02, Florida Statutes, with uttering a forgery, a third degree felony and entered a nolo contendere plea to that offense. For this plea, the defendant was adjudged guilty and placed on probation for a period of three (3) years. The terms of disposition of the Respondent's case may be found in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 17, admitted into evidence, which is a copy of the judgment of guilt and placement of the defendant on probation. At present, the Respondent is being used as a substitute teacher in the Duval County School System and as an employee in the library services of that school system. Her most recent evaluation, as well as those evaluations made of her performance during the pendency of her service with the Duval County School System, has shown her to be a satisfactory employee.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the license rights of the Respondent to teach in the State of Florida and the associated certificate No. 377074 be permanently revoked for the violations as established herein.1 DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of October 1981 in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 16th day of October 1981.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether and how the Education Practices Commission (EPC) should discipline the Respondent on charges that she submitted another teacher’s work to earn an endorsement to her teacher certificate for English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL).
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Kimberly Bank, holds Florida educator certificate 993098, which expires on June 30, 2018. She is certified in English and reading. During the 2012-2013 school year, she was employed by the OCPS as a reading teacher at Oakridge High School. In January 2013, the Respondent and a fellow Oakridge reading teacher named Charnetta Starr enrolled in an online course through CaseNEX to earn credit towards an ESOL endorsement to their teaching credentials. ESOL endorsements were required for their jobs. Ms. Starr completed all required course work, including participation in online discussions, journal entries, and workbook submissions, and earned credit for the course. The Respondent began the CaseNEX class, but stopped participating after a few weeks and was told by the course facilitator that she was being withdrawn from the class. The course ended on April 24, 2013. On May 2, 2013, the Respondent emailed Ms. Starr to ask her to provide the Respondent with Ms. Starr’s course work, which Ms. Starr emailed to her. The Respondent enrolled to take the CaseNEX class again during the summer of 2013. She copied Ms. Starr’s journal entries and workbook submissions from the January course and submitted them verbatim as her own work for course credit during the summer course. The submissions struck the course facilitator as being very familiar, and her investigation revealed that they were exact copies of Ms. Starr’s submissions. The facilitator reported this to her supervisor. The Respondent was again withdrawn from the class, this time for violating course prohibitions against plagiarism. The Respondent and Ms. Starr were reported to OCPS, which reprimanded them and suspended them for three days. The Petitioner initiated separate, but virtually identical administrative cases to discipline the educator certificates of both the Respondent and Ms. Starr. The Petitioner agreed to settle Ms. Starr’s case for a reprimand and $750 fine, and the EPC accepted the settlement, because Ms. Starr was not perceived to have used the Respondent’s work product, but only to have allowed her work product to be used by the Respondent. Ms. Starr testified that she agreed to the settlement but actually does not believe her actions were wrong or violations because she did not know the Respondent was going to plagiarize her work and submit it for credit. Because the Respondent was perceived to have used Ms. Starr’s work product and submitted it as her own for CaseNEX course credit, the Respondent’s administrative case proceeded, with the Petitioner seeking to fine her, suspend her educator certificate, and place her on probation. The Respondent contends that she and Ms. Starr collaborated on all of Ms. Starr’s journal entry and workbook submissions with the intention that each would submit the identical work as their own. Initially, the Respondent contended that this was permissible “collaboration” under the CaseNEX honor code and course requirements. Later in the hearing, the Respondent seemed to concede that it was against the honor code and the course’s requirement that each teacher taking the course had to submit his or her own original work. At that point in the proceeding, she seemed to be taking the position that her conduct mirrored Ms. Starr’s and that her discipline should be the same (i.e., that she should not be suspended). In her proposed recommended order, the Respondent again took the position that her conduct was permissible collaboration under the CaseNEX honor code and the course’s requirements and that no discipline should be imposed. The evidence was clear and convincing that the work submitted by the Respondent for credit in the summer 2013 CaseNEX course was not the product of collaboration between her and Ms. Starr. The Respondent testified that she and Ms. Starr collaborated by jointly doing work for the course from the very beginning of the January 2013 course with the intention of each submitting their joint work product for credit. Yet, it is obvious that the Respondent’s work submissions prior to her withdrawal from the January 2013 course were not the same as Ms. Starr’s. The Respondent testified that she collaborated with Ms. Starr throughout the January 2013 CaseNEX course. She testified that they produced joint work for them both to submit for credit in the course. She testified that after she was withdrawn from the January course, she continued to collaborate and produce joint work product with Ms. Starr, and that it was understood that the Respondent would submit the work as her own when she retook the course. The Respondent testified that she misplaced and lost her thumb-drive with a digital copy of the joint work product and asked Ms. Starr to send her a copy as an attachment to an email, which Ms. Starr did on May 2, 2013. Ms. Starr testified that the Respondent emailed her to ask for a copy of Ms. Starr’s work product from the January CaseNEX course and that Ms. Starr complied on May 2, 2013. Ms. Starr testified that this was her own personal work product, not joint work product. She denied knowing that the Respondent intended to plagiarize and submit it as her own. She testified persuasively that there were other legitimate uses the Respondent could have made of the work besides plagiarizing it. Where there is conflict between the Respondent’s testimony and Ms. Starr’s testimony, the Respondent’s is rejected as being false, and Ms. Starr’s is credited as being the truth. The evidence was clear and convincing that Ms. Starr did her own work throughout the January 2013 course. None of the work submitted by Ms. Starr for credit in the January 2013 course was produced jointly with the Respondent. If the Respondent were telling the truth, and she and Ms. Starr collaborated on their work submissions, her early submissions for the January CaseNEX course would have been identical to Ms. Starr’s. They were not. On the other hand, some of her submissions during the course she took during the summer of 2013 were identical to Ms. Starr’s submissions. For this and other reasons, Ms. Starr’s testimony was more credible than the Respondent’s when their testimony was in conflict. The Respondent attempted to attack Ms. Starr’s credibility by use of a screen shot of an incomplete and out-of- context cell phone text message exchange between them on June 13, 2013. At 11:25 a.m. on that date, Ms. Starr texted the Respondent: “OK. Did you sign up for the online modules for the $1000? Let’s start working on them so we can get paid on 7/31.” The Respondent answered: “Girl I have started. The kids do 2 hrs in the computer lab and I do the modules. They are easy but looooooong!” Ms. Starr replied: “OK. Send me any info you have for it please.” The Respondent texted: “You just watch a video and answer 2 multiple choice questions. Skip through the video and go to the questions. You can try as much as you want. There”. There was no evidence as to what preceded or followed the exchange. When Ms. Starr was confronted with the text exchange on cross-examination, she understood that it was being presented to impeach her testimony that the Respondent contacted her about providing the Respondent with their supposedly joint work product from the January CaseNEX course. In her haste to vehemently defend herself, Ms. Starr failed to realize that the text message exchange actually had nothing to do with her providing the Respondent with her work product from the January course, but was about a different course they were taking to earn bonus pay, and she testified incorrectly that it was the Respondent who initiated the text message exchange that was in evidence. The cross-examination failed to impeach the essence of Ms. Starr’s testimony. The evidence was that the Respondent is a good teacher. She performed satisfactorily both at Oakridge before the CaseNEX cheating incident and at Conway Middle School after it. Nonetheless, it is clear that her effectiveness as an employee of the school district was seriously impaired by her plagiarism and cheating on the June 2013 CaseNEX course. For one thing, she was reprimanded and suspended for three days. For another, she did not get the ESOL endorsement that was required for the job she held at Oakridge. Since the Respondent was guilty of plagiarism, and Ms. Starr was less culpable, it is reasonable for the Respondent’s discipline to be harsher than Ms. Starr’s. A period of suspension is reasonable. Based on the EPC records of discipline imposed in similar cases that were officially recognized in this case, it appears that it has been the practice of the EPC to impose a one-year suspension, in addition to a fine, probation, and a requirement to take a college-level course in ethics, for a teacher who admits to plagiarism and cheating in a CaseNEX ESOL endorsement course. In the Respondent’s case, a longer period of suspension is warranted due to the Respondent’s dispute of the charges and her false testimony.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the EPC enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty as charged, suspending her educator certificate for 18 months, placing her on probation for two years with conditions to be determined by the EPC, requiring her to take a college-level course in ethics under terms and conditions determined by the EPC, and imposing a fine in the amount of $750. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of June, 2016.
The Issue The issue is whether the School Board has just cause to terminate Respondent’s employment.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has worked for the Polk County School District (District) in various capacities –- e.g., classroom teacher, physical education instructor, dean of students, assistant principal –- for the past 20 years. Respondent has been an assistant principal for the past 11 years, and at the time of the suspension giving rise to this proceeding, he was an assistant principal at Homer K. Addair Career Academy. Respondent has a Master’s degree in educational leadership from Nova Southeastern University (Nova), and he is certified in that field by the Florida Department of Education (DOE). Respondent is in the District’s “principal pool,” which is the program from which principals are selected for the District’s schools. He has also served as a “teacher recruiter” for the District. Respondent and another assistant principal, Jennifer Dean, started talking about pursuing doctorate degrees together at some point between the summer of 2004 and April 2005.1 Respondent and Ms. Dean are neighbors and close friends. They attend the same church, and their families regularly spend time together. Ms. Dean is the Respondent in the related DOAH Case No. 06-0683. The primary reason that Respondent and Ms. Dean were interested in obtaining doctorate degrees was to enhance their standing in the principal pool so as to give themselves a better chance of being hired as school principals.2 Respondent also believed that a doctorate degree would help him get a teaching position at a college or university. Respondent and Ms. Dean credibly testified that they were unaware that they would be eligible for $1,750 pay supplements from the District if they had doctorate degrees. Respondent and Ms. Dean looked into the doctoral program at Nova and several other traditional universities in the area, but they determined that those programs were not suitable for their needs because of the cost of the programs and the time that it would take them to obtain degrees. Respondent looked into several online universities that offered doctoral degrees, including Belford University (Belford). He learned about Belford through a “pop up” advertisement while he was browsing on the Internet. In September 2005, Respondent sent Ms. Dean an e-mail referring her to Belford’s website and told her that “I think this may be the program for us.” Belford is described on its website as a “virtual university with administration offices located in Humble, Texas,” and according to the website, Belford is accredited by “two renowned accreditation agencies on-line education, namely the International Accreditation Agency for Online Universities (IAAOU) and the University Council for Online Education Accreditation (UCOEA).” Notwithstanding Belford’s accreditations and its characterization of itself as a “virtual university,” Belford’s website includes a number of statements that call into question its legitimacy as an educational institution, such as: “Get a degree for what you already know!”; “No admissions. No attendance. No hassle.”; “Add degrees to your resume in just 7 days and open avenues to promotion and better jobs!”; and “Get all your money back if you do not get approved!” The website explains that to obtain a doctorate degree from Belford, an applicant must have “at least 8 years of work or life experience relevant to [his or her] desired major.” That eligibility requirement “may be satisfied in any of the following ways: prior job experience in any field; previous educational achievements; employer-sponsored training and attendance of workshops; participation in organizations, both professional and non-professional; personal goals, lifestyle, hobbies, and travel; participation in volunteer activities and community service; and independent reading, viewing, listening or writing.” A doctorate degree can be received from Belford “without attending classes or taking admissions anywhere.” Respondent reviewed the information on Belford’s website, and he also contacted Belford by phone to get additional information about its doctoral program and its accreditation status. When he called Belford, Respondent was told that its degrees were accepted “worldwide” but he was told that information as to whether Belford’s degrees were accepted in Florida was “confidential.” Ms. Dean told Respondent that she contacted Lois Schuck, the District’s certification specialist, regarding whether a doctorate degree from Belford would be accepted for certification purposes. Respondent did not have any direct communications with Ms. Schuck on the issue. Respondent relied on Ms. Dean’s representation that Ms. Schuck told her to go ahead and get the degree from Belford and then submit it for a determination as to whether it would be accepted for certification purposes. However, as detailed in the Recommended Order in DOAH Case No. 06-0683, the evidence was not persuasive that Ms. Schuck actually gave Ms. Dean that advice. On or about November 10, 2005,3 Respondent applied for a doctorate degree from Belford by filling out the form on Belford’s website. In the boxes provided on the form, he entered information detailing his education, work, and other life experiences. The information Respondent provided to Belford included his resume, a five-page summary of his life experiences, and the materials that he put together as part of the application process for the principal pool. He did not submit transcripts or other official evidence of his Bachelor’s or Master’s degrees to Belford. Respondent did not attend any classes at Belford, nor did he prepare or defend a dissertation in order to obtain his doctorate degree from Belford. He received the degree based solely on the package of information described above. Respondent testified that the information that he submitted to Belford to obtain his degree accurately reflected his education, work history, life experiences, and other qualifications. The School Board offered no evidence to the contrary and, indeed, its witnesses acknowledged that they had no reason to believe that the information Respondent submitted to Belford was inaccurate.4 Respondent obtained the base-level doctorate degree, which according to Belford’s website costs $549. The degree was issued to Respondent within two weeks of the time that he applied for it, and Respondent was not required to pay for the degree until he was advised by Belford that he would receive the degree based upon the information submitted. A traditional doctorate degree, such as a Ph.D., takes several years to receive, costs thousands of dollars, and involves extensive coursework as well as the preparation and defense of a lengthy dissertation. Respondent’s “official transcript” from Belford reflects that he was awarded a Doctor of Arts degree with a major in educational administration on November 10, 2005. The transcript makes no reference to the fact that the degree was based upon “life experiences” rather than a traditional course of study. Respondent’s transcript includes a grade point average (GPA) of 3.18. Unlike Ms. Dean, Respondent was not interested in a higher GPA, which cost more money. Respondent’s transcript lists eight courses with specific grades -- from “A” to “C+” -- awarded for each course. Respondent testified that he did not attend those courses, and that it was his understanding that the grades shown on the transcript were based upon the information that he submitted to Belford, which reflected the extent of his experience in the areas identified in the course descriptions. On November 29, 2005,5 Respondent and Mr. Dawson met with Ms. Schuck to give her copies of their Belford transcripts for certification purposes. Ms. Schuck was unable to process the transcripts for certification purposes at that time because they did not include the date that the degrees were awarded. She handed the transcripts back to Respondent and Ms. Dean during the meeting and advised them to get her dated transcripts.6 Respondent and Ms. Dean obtained dated copies of their transcripts from Belford, and Ms. Dean sent them to Ms. Schuck through interoffice mail. Ms. Dean testified that she called Ms. Schuck to confirm that she received the degrees and to check on their status. Ms. Dean testified that Ms. Schuck told her that she had received the degrees and that she had given them to Ms. Butler for processing. Ms. Dean passed that information along to Respondent. Ms. Dean’s testimony regarding her conversation with Ms. Schuck was not persuasive. Indeed, the more persuasive evidence establishes that Ms. Schuck never received the dated transcripts, but rather that they were received by Pam Merritt, an administrative assistant in the District’s personnel office. Ms. Merritt put the transcripts in Judy Butler’s in- basket for processing. Ms. Butler’s responsibilities include processing salary changes for District staff. Ms. Butler is not responsible for reviewing transcripts or degrees for certification purposes. That review is done by the District’s certification office and is supposed to occur prior to the transcript or degree being forwarded to the personnel office for purposes of a salary change. Ms. Butler assumed that Ms. Dean’s degree was in her in-basket for purposes of a salary change even though there was no cover letter or other directions with the transcript. She did not see Respondent’s transcript because it had somehow gotten affixed to Ms. Dean’s transcript. Ms. Butler placed Ms. Dean’s salary change on the agenda for the Salary Classification Committee (SCC), and on January 26, 2006, the SCC approved a $1,750 salary supplement for Ms. Dean based upon her Belford doctorate degree. On January 28, 2006, Ms. Butler discovered Respondent’s transcript as she was pulling apart the documents from the SCC meeting for inclusion in a package for the Superintendent to review. On that same date, she e-mailed Respondent congratulating him on the award of his degree and advising him that his degree would be placed on the agenda for the SCC’s next meeting “so that [Respondent] can begin getting the supplement of $1,750.” Respondent assumed from this e-mail (and the representations given to him by Ms. Dean) that the salary change was being processed because his degree had been reviewed by Ms. Schuck and that it had been accepted for certification purposes. However, as noted above, Ms. Schuck had never received the degree. Ms. Butler sent a copy of the e-mail to David Lauer, the District’s assistant superintendent for human relations. Mr. Lauer received the e-mail on January 31, 2006, when he returned to the office. Mr. Lauer knew Respondent, and he was surprised to learn that he had obtained a doctorate degree. He asked Ms. Butler to give him the documentation related to Respondent and Ms. Dean, which she did. Mr. Lauer reviewed the Belford website for approximately 45 minutes and determined that it was a “diploma mill” and that the doctorate degrees obtained by Mr. Dawson and Respondent were “bogus.” Mr. Lauer also spoke with Ms. Schuck and asked her to determine whether Belford is an accredited university for DOE certification purposes. Ms. Schuck did so by e-mailing Mandy Mims, her contact at DOE. Ms. Mims advised Ms. Schuck that “Belford is not accredited by any agency recognized by the U.S. Dept. of Education, so degrees earned would not be appropriate for certification purposes.” Mr. Lauer was “flabbergasted” by the situation, and because he considered the submittal of bogus degrees to be “so serious and so contrary to what we believe in as educators,” he went directly to the Superintendent, Dr. Gail McKinzie, instead of first speaking to Respondent and Ms. Dean to get their side of the story. Mr. Lauer reported the situation to Dr. McKinzie on February 1, 2006. That same day, Dr. McKinzie reviewed the Belford website for approximately an hour and came to the same conclusions as Mr. Lauer regarding Belford and the nature of Respondent’s and Ms. Dean’s doctorate degrees. On February 3, 2006, Respondent was called to a meeting with Dr. McKinzie and Mr. Lauer. Dr. McKinzie told Respondent that she was going to recommend that the School Board fire him because he had misrepresented his professional qualifications though the submission of the Belford degree. The meeting lasted approximately five minutes. Respondent was not given a meaningful opportunity to explain his side of the story at the meeting and, prior to the meeting, Respondent had no indication that the validity of his Belford degree was in question. To the contrary, he was under the impression -- through representations made by Ms. Dean and his interpretation of Ms. Butler’s e-mail -- that his degree had been accepted by the District and DOE. By letter dated February 8, 2006, Dr. McKinzie informed Respondent that she had recommended to the School Board that his employment be terminated. The letter advised Respondent of his right to request an administrative hearing, and Respondent timely did so through a letter dated February 10, 2006. The School Board approved Dr. McKinzie’s recommendation at its meeting on February 14, 2006, and Respondent has been suspended without pay since that date pending the outcome of this proceeding. The negative characterization of Belford and its degrees by Mr. Lauer and Dr. McKinzie is reasonable based upon the evidence of record. For example, in addition to the statements from the website referred to in Finding of Fact 12 that should put a reasonable person on notice that Belford is not a legitimate educational institution, a degree from Belford can be obtained in as little as one week; the applicant is allowed to select his or her GPA, with a higher GPA costing more money; the applicant is not required to pay for his or her degree until after learning that the degree will be issued; the applicant is allowed to select his or her graduation date, with back-dating available at an additional cost; Belford will “introduce [a major] as a new addition to [its] doctorate curriculum” if the major sought by the applicant is not on Belford’s list of majors; Belford does not require transcripts or other proof beyond the applicant’s representations that he or she has received lower degrees (e.g., Bachelor’s and Master’s) prior to awarding a higher degree (e.g., Doctorate); and a base- level doctorate degree from Belford costs only $549.00. It is unreasonable for anyone, and particularly someone like Respondent who has 20 years of experience in the education system, to believe that Belford is a legitimate educational institution or that a doctorate degree from Belford is a legitimate educational degree that would be accepted as such by DOE or the District. Thus, it is inferred that Respondent knew or should have known that a doctorate degree from Belford is not a legitimate educational degree that could be used to enhance his standing in the principal pool or bolster his professional qualifications. Respondent’s conduct was slightly less egregious that Ms. Dean’s because, unlike Ms. Dean, Respondent did not make any affirmative representations to the District about completing a “doctorate program,” and Respondent relied upon Ms. Dean’s representations about the substance of her alleged conversations with Ms. Schuck. Nevertheless, it is clear from the evidence that Respondent was attempting to misrepresent and improperly bolster his qualifications through the submission of a “doctorate degree” from Belford that he knew or should have known was not a legitimate educational degree. Respondent’s decision to purchase a doctorate degree over the Internet calls into question his judgment as well as his respect for the educational process, which, in turn, raises serious doubts about Respondent’s ability to be effective in the school system. Indeed, it is clear from the totality of the evidence -- and particularly the testimony of Dr. McKinzie and Mr. Lauer -- that Respondent’s ability to be an effective leader (as assistant principals and aspiring principals are supposed to be) in the District has been significantly impaired through his submission and continued defense of his Belford degree as a legitimate educational degree.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Polk County School Board issue a final order terminating Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of July, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 21st day of July, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Kenneth D. Humphrey holds a postgraduate rank II teaching certificate, No. 302258, issued by the Department of Education. In the spring of 1975, respondent was employed as a counselor at Palmetto Senior High School in Dade County, Florida. Judith Ann Ewerling was a tenth grade student at the school, and one of respondent's counselees. On May 16, 1975, respondent invited Ms. Ewerling to lunch. They left the school parking lot together in respondent's car. Respondent drove to his house ostensibly to pick up some papers. When they arrived, respondent invited Ms. Ewerling inside, offered her a drink, saying he didn't have any mixers, and asked her if she smoked marijuana. Marijuana was on the premises in plain view. He then announced he was going to ravish Ms. Ewerling's body. An hour and a half of sexual activity, including respondent's ejaculation of semen into Ms. Ewerling, then ensued.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner revoke respondent's teaching certificate. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of August, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire 101 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Kenneth D. Humphrey 15245 S. W. 108th Court Miami, Florida 33157
