The Issue The issues in these consolidated cases are as follows: (1) whether Respondents employed Lorene Walker, who had contact with scholarship students and who did not meet the requisite criteria to pass the Level 2 background screening as required by section 1002.421(1)(m) and (p), Florida Statutes (2019), and if so, what is the appropriate remedy; and (2) whether Respondents engaged in fraud in violation of section 1002.421(3)(d) and, if so, whether Petitioner should revoke Respondents' participation in several Florida Scholarship Programs.1
Findings Of Fact Parties, People, and Programs The Department is the government agency charged with administering numerous state scholarship programs pursuant to section 1002.421, Florida Statutes. The Department operates or has administrative responsibilities for the Gardiner Scholarship Program, the John M. McKay Scholarships for Students with Disabilities Program, the Florida Tax Credit (FTC) Scholarship Program, and the Family Empowerment Scholarship Program. See §§ 1002.385, 1002.39, 1002.394, and 1002.395, Fla. Stat. The Gardiner, McKay, FTC, and Family Empowerment scholarships defray tuition and other qualified educational expenses for eligible students who attend charter, private, or other eligible schools in the state of Florida. The Department also operates or administers the Hope Scholarship Program, which provides tuition assistance to victims of school bullying so that they can enroll in another school. See § 1002.40, Fla. Stat. The scholarship funds are awarded to eligible students to be used at eligible schools. The Commissioner is the agency head of the Department and has the authority to revoke or suspend a school's eligibility to receive scholarship monies on behalf of eligible students. The Independent Education and Parental Choice Office, also referred to as the School Choice Office (Office), is a section of the Department which oversees several school choice options outside Florida's public school system. The Office also oversees the administration of various scholarships programs under chapter 1002. The Office is in regular contact with schools that participate in these scholarship programs. Respondents have been operating as private schools for approximately six years. Since the 2013/2014 school year, they have been found eligible and participated in numerous scholarship programs pursuant to section 1002.421. Respondents operate two campuses: (1) School Code No. 4015 located at 1056 North Pine Hills Road, Orlando, Florida (Pine Hills Campus); and (2) School Code No. 8827 located at 5308 Silver Star Road, Orlando, Florida (Silver Star Campus). The Schools serve 40 to 50 scholarship students and receive approximately $200,000 per year in scholarship funds. Judith Shealey is the owner of the Schools. She carries the title of Executive Director, Principal, Headmistress, and/or Owner. Ms. Shealey has family members who are students and teachers at the Schools. Compliance Requirements As explained by RaShawn Williams, the Office, parents, and eligible schools work closely together to access the scholarship funds. The parents apply for the scholarships through the designated agency and enroll their students directly with an eligible school. The school is responsible for enrolling the student in the scholarship program awarded to that student. Essentially, the student must be deemed eligible to receive scholarship funds, and the school must be eligible to receive those scholarship funds. If a private school is deemed ineligible by the Office for participation in a scholarship program, the students at that school do not lose their eligibility for scholarship funds. Rather, they simply cannot use those funds to enroll in the ineligible school. As private school participants in the Florida Scholarship Programs, the Schools were required to register with the State through the submission of a Private School Annual Survey; and then apply for eligibility through the submission of a yearly Scholarship Compliance Form (Compliance Form). The Compliance Form specifies numerous governing statutory requirements including: (1) submitting background screenings for officers, directors, or other controlling persons; (2) certifying all staff with direct student contact have passed an FDLE Level 2 background screening; and (3) terminating or denying employment to all persons who cannot meet this requirement. The Compliance Form is completed by applicant schools online, and then a signed and notarized hard copy is mailed to the Office. The relevant portions of the Compliance Form are found in "Section 4," and involve background checks: * Has each Owner, Operator, and Chief Administrative Officer undergone a Level 2 background screening through the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and submitted the results to the Florida Department of Education in accordance with section 1002.421(1)(m), Florida Statutes? (Reports must be filed with the private school and made available for public inspection). * * * * Have all employees and contracted personnel with direct student contact submitted their fingerprints to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement for state and national background screening in accordance with section 1002.421(1)(m), Florida Statutes? * In accordance with section 1002.421(1)(m), Florida Statutes, does the school deny employment to or terminate an employee or contracted personnel with direct student contact if he or she fails to meet the background screening standards under section 435.04, Florida Statutes? * In accordance with section 1002.421(1)(m), Florida Statutes, does the school disqualify instructional personnel and school administrators from employment in any position that allows direct contact with students if the personnel or administrators are ineligible under section 435.40, Florida Statutes? A "No" answer on any of the above questions would, if unresolved, result in a private school's ineligibility for scholarship funds. The evidence establishes that the Schools answered "Yes" for sections 4A, 4C, 4D, and 4E on the notarized Compliance Forms that were submitted on December 18, 2018, and December 11, 2019. In addition to certifying the information above on the Compliance Forms every year, an eligible school must submit to the Office screening documentation for directors, principals, board members, administrators, and officers as part of the renewal of participation in the scholarship programs. Screening documentation related to other employees must be maintained by the schools and is usually only reviewed by the Office during an audit or a site visit of the school. There is no dispute that the Schools never listed Lorene Walker as an administrator for the Schools. There is no dispute the Schools never submitted any background screening information for Ms. Walker until specifically requested by the Office in November 2019. Employment of Lorene Walker Lorene Walker was hired by the Schools in 2013.3 She had children and/or grandchildren who attend the Schools. The Schools claim Ms. Walker was hired from an entity known as "Career Source." Although Ms. Walker believed that she had been cleared to work at the Schools, there is no employment file or documentation that she had undergone the Level 2 background screening required by law before being employed at the Schools. Originally, Ms. Walker worked as a "floater." As a floater, Ms. Walker cooked, cleaned, and did whatever the school needed at the time. It is unclear whether she had direct contact with students in this position. 3 Ms. Walker testified she began working there in 2015, but later stated she started in 2013. Ms. Shealey indicated by 2014, Ms. Walker had transitioned into the current position. Regardless, in 2014, Ms. Walker transitioned into a more active role at the Schools. Although the Schools claim in response to the Complaints that she was simply an administrative assistant to Ms. Shealey, the evidence establishes that Ms. Walker was the Administrator for the Schools during the time relevant to the Complaints. She reminded teachers to send out grades, attended meetings, oversaw the lunch program, and prepared school-related and financial documentation. Ms. Walker was also responsible for the Schools' students' enrollment into the scholarship programs. As Administrator, Ms. Walker also had authority, either explicit or implicit, from the Schools' owner, Ms. Shealey, to represent the Schools when dealing with the Office. She worked directly with Ms. Williams on compliance issues, including fire safety, health inspections, and completion of the Annual Survey and Compliance Form for the Schools. Ms. Walker also responded to requests for information from Ms. Williams and others in the Department. It was clear Ms. Walker was integral to the operation of the Schools. Ms. Shealey and Ms. Walker were the only two individuals with access to the Schools' email accounts that were used to correspond with the Department. The emails from one of the email addresses usually contained Ms. Shealey's signature block indicating either the title of "Principal" or "Headmistress." Ms. Walker's signature line identified her title as "Administrator." Before being hired by the Schools, Ms. Walker had been arrested for numerous offenses between 1978 and 2001 in Florida. Although most of these offenses were dismissed, dropped, and/or abandoned, she pled nolo contendere to and was found guilty of a 1994 charge for unlawful purchase of a controlled substance, a second-degree felony in violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1993). The 1994 charge is a disqualifying offense which rendered Ms. Walker ineligible to be a school employee.4 There was no evidence that Ms. Walker had obtained an exemption for this qualification. As noted above, the Schools never disclosed Ms. Walker's importance in their operations in their Compliance Forms. Prior to November 2019, the Schools had never provided any screening documentation for Ms. Walker to the Office as part of the yearly compliance process. Investigation and Complaints On or around October 14, 2019, the Department received a complaint from another state agency concerning possible abuse by an employee of the School at the Pine Hills campus. Although the abuse investigation was handled outside of the Office, the Office opened an inquiry into the Schools' compliance with background check requirements and other issues. Whitney Blake conducted the investigation on behalf of the Office. The first step in this inquiry was a letter from Ms. Blake's supervisor, dated October 25, 2019, requesting (among other things) a list of all employees (including both teachers and other personnel) and results of current FDLE Level 2 background screenings for all employees. 4 Section 435.04, Florida Statutes, provides the following in relevant part: (2) The security background investigations under this section must ensure that no persons subject to the provisions of this section have been arrested for and are awaiting final disposition of, have been found guilty of, regardless of adjudication, or entered a plea of nolo contendere or guilty to, or have been adjudicated delinquent and the record has not been sealed or expunged for, any offense prohibited under any of the following provisions of state law or similar law of another jurisdiction: * * * (ss) Chapter 893, relating to drug abuse prevention and control, only if the offense was a felony or if any other person involved in the offense was a minor. On November 4, 2020, Ms. Walker sent the Department a list of all the Schools' staff, including herself as "Administrator," along with the results of her background screening, revealing her previous disqualifying offense. On November 15, 2019, Ms. Blake attempted to contact Ms. Shealey by phone because she was concerned that Ms. Walker, who was the disqualified employee, was the person sending the information from the School. When she called the Schools and requested to speak with the owner (Ms. Shealey), the person who answered purportedly claiming to be the Schools' owner did not have a distinguishable accent. Ms. Shealey was known to have a strong accent, whereas Ms. Walker did not. Regardless, on this call, Ms. Blake instructed the person on the other end of the phone line that the Schools would need to terminate Ms. Walker immediately because of her disqualifying offense. On that same day, Ms. Blake then sent a follow-up email to the Schools (at both email addresses utilized by the Schools) indicating there were outstanding items that had not been provided as requested in the October 25 letter. She also specifically requested proof Ms. Walker was no longer at the Schools. Specifically, the Department stated: Upon review of the Level 2 background screenings, it was determined Lorene Walker has disqualifying offenses pursuant to section 435.04, F.S. An employee or contracted personnel with direct student contact means any employee or contracted personnel who has unsupervised access to a scholarship student for whom the private school is responsible. To certify compliance with this requirement, please submit a signed statement indicating Lorene Walker's employment at your school has been terminated or that individual's role with your school no longer puts he/she in proximity to scholarship students. Your attention to this in the next five days will preempt any further action on our part. (emphasis added). That same date, November 15, 2019, the Schools emailed one of the items requested by Ms. Blake, an abuse poster, to the Office. Although Ms. Walker testified she did not send the email, it had her signature block and was from one of the Schools' two email accounts to which she had access. The undersigned finds Ms. Walker sent this email to Ms. Blake. On November 18, 2019, the Schools sent another item previously requested by Ms. Blake, the teaching qualifications for a teacher, to the Office. Again, although Ms. Walker claimed she did not send the email, it had her signature block and was from one of the Schools' two email accounts to which she had access. The undersigned finds Ms. Walker sent this email to Ms. Blake. Ms. Blake did not receive any proof that the Schools had removed Ms. Walker from her position within five days as requested in the November 15 email to the Schools. As a result, on November 22, 2019, Ms. Blake emailed the Schools reiterating the requirements of section 1002.421, and repeating her request for a signed statement that Ms. Walker had been terminated or had no contact with scholarship students. Ms. Blake also added: "Failure to turn in the requested documentation could impact your school's ongoing participation in the Scholarship Program." During this time, Ms. Blake spoke to Ms. Shealey numerous times on the phone regarding the outstanding requests related to another teacher and the signed documentation that Ms. Walker had been removed from her position. Ms. Shealey indicated it would be difficult to remove Ms. Walker due to Ms. Walker's oversight of the school and her familiarity with the scholarship student information. After Ms. Blake did not receive the requested proof of Ms. Walker's removal from the Schools and two other items related to a teacher, the Office issued a Notice of Noncompliance on December 5, 2019. On December 19, 2019, Ms. Shealey sent to Ms. Blake one of the outstanding items related to the teacher by email. There was no mention of Ms. Walker and no signed proof that Ms. Walker had been removed from her position. The next day, Ms. Blake wrote an email to Ms. Shealey indicating that she did not have authority to exempt Ms. Walker from the background screening requirements. She again asked for the outstanding information related to the other teacher and a signed statement indicating Ms. Walker had been removed and no longer had proximity to scholarship students. On December 23, 2019, Ms. Shealey emailed Ms. Blake that the teacher for which there was an outstanding request had resigned and no longer worked for one of the Schools. Ms. Blake responded with yet another request for the signed statement indicating Ms. Walker had been terminated or was no longer in proximity to scholarship students. In response, Ms. Shealey sent an email to Ms. Blake with an attached letter. The letter titled "Termination of your employment" and dated December 9, 2019, indicates that Ms. Shealey terminated Ms. Walker during a meeting held on December 9, 2019. The letter is unsigned. Ms. Shealey indicated in the text of the email that it was the hardest letter she had to write. Being concerned that they had not received a signed statement, Ms. Blake and Ms. Williams requested that a site visit be conducted at the Pine Hills Campus. A visit was scheduled for February 5, 2020, and the Schools were provided notice of the site visit by certified mail, email, and telephone. Additionally, the Schools were provided a checklist of the documents that should be provided to the inspector during the site visit. On February 5, 2020, Scott Earley from the Office conducted the site visit at the Pine Hills Campus. When he arrived, Ms. Shealey was not there and none of the documentation previously requested had been prepared for review. Mr. Earley testified that once Ms. Shealey arrived, she did not know where all the requested documents were, nor could she produce all of them. For example, when asked about a necessary health form, Ms. Shealey indicated that Ms. Walker would know where the document was, but she could not locate it. Mr. Earley did not recall Ms. Shealey stating during the inspection that Ms. Walker was working from home, but she gave Mr. Earley the impression that Ms. Walker's background screening issue had been resolved. Regardless, the Site Visit Staff/Consultant Worksheet filled out for the February 5 site visit does not disclose Ms. Walker as a member of staff or contracted personnel with the Pine Hills Campus. Although Ms. Walker was not at the Pine Hills Campus during the site visit, Mr. Earley believed based on his observations and conversations with Ms. Shealey that Ms. Walker was still employed by the Schools as a director or principal. Almost two weeks later on February 20, 2020, Petitioner filed the Complaints against the Schools. It was not until March 11, 2020, in response to the Complaints that the Schools submitted for the first time a signed copy of a termination letter dated December 9, 2020. Even after the Complaints had been served on the Schools, however, it was unclear what Ms. Walker's involvement was with the Schools. There may have been some confusion because Ms. Walker had been seen after her purported termination on campus. Ms. Walker claimed she was on campus only to pick up her children and grandchildren. Testimony from two of the Schools' teachers indicated that they noticed Ms. Walker was no longer at the Schools, but knew she was taking care of the Schools' paperwork from her home. Neither teacher could establish a date certain for when Ms. Walker stopped working on campus and/or when she began working at home. Prior to the filing of the Complaints in these proceedings, there was no evidence that the Schools ever reported to the Office that Ms. Walker had been working from home. Nothing in the Petition filed on March 4, 2020, indicates Ms. Walker was still employed at the Schools. It was not until March 11, 2020, in response to the Complaints that the Schools submitted for the first time a signed copy of a termination letter dated December 9, 2020. As part of the March 11 submission, Ms. Shealey sent a signed statement indicating she had not terminated Ms. Walker, but rather "had her work from home." This was the first time Ms. Shealey indicated to the Office that Ms. Walker was still working for the Schools. In the Motion filed April 10, 2020, the Schools indicated they were unaware of the specifics of the Level 2 background screening requirement, and that, once aware, "we took action immediately and terminated the employee in question." There was no indication in the body of the Motion the Schools continued to employ Ms. Walker to work at her home. Attached to the Motion, however, was the same letter submitted on March 11 indicating Ms. Walker was working from home. In the Amended Petition filed on May 15, 2020, the Schools state Ms. Walker was terminated: "I terminated Ms. Lorene Walker due to the Department's information in order to come into compliance with the Florida Department of Education." "I rectified this deficiency by terminating Ms. Walker." "Ms. Lorene Walker was terminated on December 9, 2019, as advised by Whitney Blake." Although the Amended Petition does not explicitly state Ms. Walker continued to work for the Schools at home, it does leave room for this interpretation: "As of December 9, 2019, Ms. Lorene Walker no longer works in the Lion of Judah facility." It is unclear on what date Ms. Walker stopped working from home for the Schools. What is clear is that at the time of the final hearing she was no longer working at the Schools in any location or in any capacity. ULTIMATE FACTUAL DETERMINATIONS The greater weight of the evidence establishes Ms. Walker, in her role as Administrator, should have been disclosed to the Office as an "operator" or "a person with equivalent decision making authority." The Schools were required to send her background screening documentation to the Office as required by the Compliance Form and section 1002.421(1)(p), and they did not. The Schools employed a person with a disqualifying offense in violation of sections 1002.421(1)(m) and 435.04(2)(ss). Specifically, the Schools employed Ms. Walker from 2014 (if not earlier) through December 2019 (if not later) in a position in which she was in the vicinity of scholarship students, knowing that she had been found guilty of a felony and without obtaining or providing documentation related to a Level 2 background clearance. The Schools continued to allow Ms. Walker to remain in a position that placed her in the vicinity of scholarship students after receiving notification of her ineligibility for almost a month (if not more). The greater weight of the evidence establishes the Schools engaged in fraudulent activity, to wit: (1) Ms. Shealey falsely represented to the Office that the Schools complied with Section 4 of the Compliance Form for 2018 and 2019; (2) the Schools falsely obscured Ms. Walker's role at the School and her criminal background; and (3) the Schools failed to honestly disclose Ms. Walker's employment status when they claimed to terminate her on December 9, 2020, but failed to inform the Office that they had retained (or rehired) her to work at home. The Schools made these statements of material fact either knowing they were false or in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the representations, which were false.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commissioner enter a final order (1) upholding the suspension; and (2) revoking the eligibility of Lion of Judah Academy (4015) and Lion Of Judah Academy (8827) to participate in the following Florida Scholarship Programs: John M. McKay Scholarships for Students with Disabilities Program, Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Program, Gardiner Scholarship Program, Hope Scholarship Program, and/or Family Empowerment Scholarship Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of November, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HETAL DESAI 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 3rd day of November, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Jason Douglas Borntreger, Esquire Department of Education Suite 1544 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32310 (eServed) Judith Shealey Lion of Judah Academy 1056 North Pine Hills Road Orlando, Florida 32808 Shawn R. H. Smith, Esquire Law Office of Shawn R. H. Smith, P.A. Post Office Box 547752 Orlando, Florida 32854 (eServed) Chris Emerson, Agency Clerk Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1520 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Richard Corcoran Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue The issue is whether the following rules are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority: Florida Administrative Code Rules 64B1-2.008; 64B1-6.002(1), (4) (only the following language: "is responsible for filing provider approval applications and"), (5), (8) (only the following language: ". . .n approved"), and (10) (only the following language: "individual,"); 64B1-6.005(4); 64B1-6.006(1), (8) (only the following language: "approved"), and (11); 64B1-6.007(1) and (2); and 64B1-6.008(1) and (2).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner received his degree in Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine in 1997. He subsequently obtained a license, under Chapter 457, Florida Statutes (2003), and is now an acupuncture physician, practicing Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine. Petitioner has been a member of numerous acupuncture organizations. Respondent has approved Petitioner, individually, as a continuing education provider, under provider number BP02-92. To obtain such approval, Petitioner has twice paid Respondent $100 for a two-year approval as an acupuncture continuing education provider. Respondent has also approved the Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine National Coalition Corp. (NCC), which is a Florida for-profit corporation, as an acupuncture continuing education provider. Incorporated on March 3, 2003, NCC has paid Respondent $100 for approval as an acupuncture continuing education provider. Petitioner and David Sontag are the sole officers, directors, and shareholders of NCC. Each shareholder owns half of the company's stock. The purpose of NCC is to raise the standards of the acupuncture profession nationally, including educational standards, and to support the advancement of "acupuncture and oriental medicine." NCC has about 300 members residing in Florida and 1000 members nationally. Membership, which is free, entitles the member to benefits, such as access to information on the NCC website and negotiated discounts from other service providers, but not to rights in governing the corporation. Respondent has approved NCC as a "State or National Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine Organization," pursuant to Section 457.107(3), Florida Statutes (2003). In November 2001, Petitioner coordinated an acupuncture continuing education program in Fort Lauderdale for another provider. In 2002, Petitioner sponsored an acupuncture continuing education program in Florida on electro-acupuncture. On August 23, 2003, Petitioner taught a weekend acupuncture continuing education program sponsored by NCC. Petitioner obtained Respondent's approval for the electro-acupuncture course, but the process took nine months to complete. However, the record is insufficient to determine the cause or causes for the delay and, thus, who was responsible for it. At least 60 days before conducting the course, Petitioner paid the $50 program approval fee and submitted the approval forms. When Petitioner inquired about the approval, Respondent's executive director advised him to provide the course, pending approval. Petitioner thus was unable to advertise the course as approved by Respondent and instead advertised only that the sponsor had applied for Respondent's approval. Nearly 100 persons attended the electro-acupuncture course, paying $65 each. However, Petitioner netted only $350 on the program because of the expenses in advertising the program, renting a hotel, and other items. NCC obtained Respondent's approval for its course in August 2003 within two weeks of submitting its application. NCC submitted the required forms and the required $100 check. Persons attending the NCC course received their acupuncture continuing education credits from Respondent. Petitioner is substantially affected by the rules that he has challenged. Petitioner has sponsored an acupuncture continuing education course and, as an employee, taught another course that was sponsored by NCC. It may be reasonably expected that Petitioner will participate in future acupuncture continuing education programs in one or both of these capacities. The rules concerning a filing fee for approval require a modest fee, but NCC's net on the one course for which detailed financial information was provided suggests that the provider is substantially affected by even a modest fee, given the relatively little profit that ensued from that course. In their entirety, the subject rules in this case are as follows (challenged portions underlined): 64B1-2.008 Continuing Education Program Approval Fee. The continuing education program approval fee shall be $50. Specific Authority 457.104, 457.107(3), Florida Statutes. Law Implemented 457.107(3), Florida Statutes. History–New 5- 12-87, Amended 9-15-92, Formerly 21AA-2.008, 61F1-2.008, 59M-2.008, Amended 10-15-97. 64B1-6.002 Definitions. “Approved” means acceptable to the Florida Board of Acupuncture. “Board” means Florida Board of Acupuncture. “Committee” means Committee on Continuing Education of the Board. “Contact Person” means one who is responsible for filing provider approval applications and insures compliance with these rules, maintains complete rosters of participants, and is knowledgeable about the provider’s program(s). “Correspondence Program” means an approved program offered by mail with a defined course of study to be completed by the participant for which an evaluation of performance is made and a rating of satisfactory or unsatisfactory completion of the course is given by the provider. “Credit Hour” means a minimum of 50 minutes and a maximum of 60 minutes of class time. One-half (1/2) credit hour means a minimum of 25 minutes and a maximum of 30 minutes of class time. “Department” means the Department of Health. “Participant” means an acupuncturist who attends a program presented by an approved provider in order to achieve the stated objectives of the program. “Program” means a planned educational experience dealing with a specific content based on the stated objectives. “Provider” means the individual, organization or institution conducting the continuing education program. Specific Authority 456.013, 456.025, 456.033, 457.104, 457.107(3) Florida Statutes. Law Implemented 456.013, 456.025, 456.033, 457.107(3), Florida Statutes. History–New 2-24-88, Formerly 21AA-6.002, 61F1-6.002, Amended 1-16-97, Formerly 59M-6.002. 64B1-6.005 Standards for Approval of Continuing Education Credit. A continuing education program must contribute to the advancement, extension or enhancement of the licensee’s skills and knowledge related to the practice of acupuncture and oriental medicine. Programs should concern the history and theory of acupuncture, acupuncture diagnosis and treatment techniques, techniques of adjunctive therapies, acupuncturist-patient communication and professional ethics. All continuing education courses are subject to evaluation and approval by the Board to determine that the continuing education course meets the criteria established by the Board which has final determination as to the number of hours of acceptable credit that will be awarded for each program. Each program offered for continuing education credit must be presented or taught by a person who at a minimum holds a bachelor’s degree from an accredited college or university or a post-secondary education institution licensed by the State of Florida, with a major in the subject matter to be presented; or has graduated from a school of acupuncture, or has completed a tutorial program which has a curriculum equivalent to the requirements in this state and was approved by a state licensing authority, a nationally recognized acupuncture/oriental medicine association or a substantially equivalent accrediting body, and has completed three (3) years of professional experience in the licensed practice of acupuncture; and has a minimum of two (2) years teaching experience in the subject matter to be presented, or has taught the same program for which approval is sought a minimum of three (3) times in the past two (2) years before a professional convention, professional group or at any acupuncture school, or has completed specialized training in the subject matter of the program and has a minimum of two (2) years of practical experience in the subject. In order to meet the continuing education requirements, the continuing education program submitted by the licensee must meet the criteria established by the Board. No credit will be given for programs which are primarily devoted to administrative or business management aspects of acupuncture practice. To receive credit for programs on HIV/AIDS, the program must be, at a minimum, two (2) hours in length and must address the areas mandated in Section 456.033, F.S. The Board accepts HIV/AIDS programs presented or conducted by the Department of Health and programs approved by other professional regulatory boards for the health professions. Continuing education programs related to laboratory test or imaging findings shall be designed to provide course content on the clinical relevance of laboratory and diagnostic tests and procedures as well as biomedical physical examination findings and to advance, extend or enhance the licensee’s skills and knowledge related to the safe and beneficial use of laboratory test and imaging findings. Specific Authority 456.013(9), 456.033, 457.104, 457.107(3), Florida Statutes. Law Implemented 456.013(9), 456.033, 457.107(3), Florida Statutes. History–New 2-24-88, Amended 8-6-89, Formerly 21AA-6.005, 61F1-6.005, Amended 3-18-97, Formerly 59M- 6.005, Amended 6-1-99, 1-7-03. 64B1-6.006 Requirements for the Provider. Each provider shall: File all information necessary for provider and program approval on Forms DOH/AP007, Continuing Education Course Approval Applications, DOH/AP006, Continuing Education Provider Approval, which are hereby incorporated by reference and will be effective 2-18-98, copies of which may be obtained from the Board office. Insure that the continuing education program(s) presented by the provider complies with these rules. Maintain a complete, alphabetized, legible roster of participants for a period of 3 years following each program presentation. Maintain a “sign-in” sheet and a “sign- out” sheet with the signatures of participants. Provide each participant with a certificate certifying that the participant has successfully completed the program. The certificate shall not be issued until completion of the program and shall contain the provider’s name, title of program, date of program, location, and number of credit hours. Notify the Board of any significant changes relative to the maintenance of standards as set forth in these rules. Ensure that no person receives credit for the same program more than once. Notify the Board of any change in the presenters or instructors of any approved program, and demonstrate the new instructor meets the criteria set forth in subsection 64B1-6.005(2), F.A.C. Designate a contact person who assumes responsibility for each program, and who is knowledgeable about each program. The contact person shall notify the Board of any significant changes in programs or a lapse in the maintenance of standards. In a correspondence continuing education program, each provider is responsible for obtaining from each certificateholder a signed statement which states that the participant did in fact read the material, performed the exercises and took the examination personally. A clearly defined refund policy shall be in the flyer. There shall be adequate personnel to assist with administrative matters and personnel with competencies outside content areas in cases when the method of delivery requires technical or other special expertise. Providers shall maintain records of individual offerings for inspection by the Board; records shall include subject matter, objectives, faculty qualifications, evaluation mechanisms, credit hours and rosters of participants. Specific Authority 456.013, 457.104, 457.107(3), Florida Statutes. Law Implemented 456.013, 457.107(3), Florida Statutes. History–New 2-24-88, Amended 7-25- 88, Formerly 21AA-6.006, 61F1-6.006, Amended 3-18-97, Formerly 59M-6.006, Amended 2-18-98. 64B1-6.007 Preapproved Providers. Subject to the requirements of Rule 64B1-6.005 and subsections 64B1-6.007(3) through (5), F.A.C., the Board approves for continuing education credit programs offered by: (a) The Continuing Education Committee of the American Association of Oriental Medicine (AAOM); (b) The Florida State Oriental Medicine Association (FSOMA); (c) Individual member schools of the Colleges of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine (CCAOM); and (d) The National Alliance for Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine. A nonrefundable processing fee of $50 must be submitted with each registration of course offering. Each program offering shall contain: A detailed program outline or syllabus; A current curriculum vitae of each speaker or lecturer; The procedure to be used for recording attendance; and Evidence of meeting all the requirements of Rule 64B1-6.005, F.A.C. Upon processing of a program offering, the Board will assign an identification number to that program. Upon receipt by the provider of the course identification number, the provider may identify the program as “approved by the Florida Board of Acupuncture for purposes of Continuing Education Credit” in any flyer or other advertisement. Specific Authority 456.013(7), (8), (9), 457.104, 457.107(3), Florida Statutes. Law Implemented 456.013(7), (8), (9), 457.107(3), Florida Statutes. History–New 2- 24-88, Formerly 21AA-6.007, Amended 7-4-94, Formerly 61F1-6.007, Amended 4-10-97, Formerly 59M-6.007. 64B1-6.008 Process for Program Approval. Each program to be offered by an approved provider must be approved by the Board. Applications for approval Form DOH/AP007, Continuing Education Provider Approval, which are hereby incorporated by reference and will be effective 2-18-98, copies of which may be obtained from the Board office shall be submitted to the Board Office at least 60 days prior to the date of presentation. Each program application shall contain: A detailed program outline or syllabus; A current curriculum vitae of each speaker or lecturer; The procedure to be used for recording attendance; Evidence of meeting all the requirements of Rule 64B1-6.005, F.A.C.; and A nonrefundable fee of $50.00. Upon approval of a program, the Board will assign an identification number to that program. If approved, the provider may identify the program as “approved by the Florida Board of Acupuncture for Purposes of Continuing Education Credit” in any flyer or other advertisement. Specific Authority 456.013(7), (8), (9), 457.104, 457.107(3), Florida Statutes. Law Implemented 456.013(7), (8), (9), 457.107(3), Florida Statutes. History–New 2- 24-88, Formerly 21AA-6.008, 61F1-6.008, Amended 1-16-97, Formerly 59M-6.008, Amended 2-18-98. The forms mentioned in Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B1-6.006(1) involve two approval processes. Form DOH/AP007, which is also mentioned in Rule 64B1-6.008(1), is the application for Respondent's approval of the provider. Form DOH/AP006 is the application for Respondent's approval of the program. Form DOH/AP007 comprises two pages of instructions, a copy of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B1-6.005, and a four- page application. The instructions state: "Application Fee: $100 (Non- Refundable). The remainder of the instructions explain the items set forth in the application. The checklist at the end of the instructions restates the requirement to submit a $100 check or money order. The first page of the application states: "$100 non- refundable application fee." It asks whether the application is a "renewal application." The first page also asks the name of the "organization" and its "continuing education director," as well as contact information, such as mailing address. The first page asks four questions: Does your organization monitor attendance to assure those in attendance have been present for the entire program for which they receive credit? Does your organization assign an identifiable person to be present at continuing education activities who is responsible for recording attendance? Does your organization have facilities available to store records for at least 3 years? Have you attached a curriculum vitae for each instructor? The first page concludes with an affidavit signed by the continuing education director, although not notarized, and stating that he or she represents that the information in the completed form is accurate and will comply with the rules contained in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 64B1-6.006. The second page of the application is a certificate of completion. It requests the name, license number, and address of the licensee attending the program; the name and address of the provider; and the site, course title, continuing education hours awarded, and name of the instructor. The third page of the application is Form C: Course Offering Data Form. This page requires the provider to list the educational objectives of the course and the continuing education hours and subject matter for each objective. The form also requires the identification of the teaching methods. The fourth page of the application is Form D: Course Offering Data Form. This page requires the provider to list the name and job title of each instructor and his or her relevant education and experience. Form DOH/AP006 is the application for Respondent's approval of the program. Form DOH/AP006 comprises one page of instructions, a copy of Florida Administrative Code Rules, 4B1-6.005 and 64B1-6.008, and a three-page application, the last two pages of which are identical to the last two pages of the Form DOH/AP007 application. The first numbered instruction requires: "Prior to offering or advertising a continuing education course, the provider must have registered by way of submitting this application: the course, along with any materials to be offered and the name and qualifications of the instructor . . .." This instruction warns: "If you have failed to submit all of the above, you will not be eligible to offer the course for continuing education credit. NO RETROACTIVE CREDIT IS GRANTED BY THE BOARD." The second numbered instruction requires the provider to submit any material to be used in a home-study course. The third numbered instruction requires a "nonrefundable fee of $50" with "each program application." The first page of the application requires identifying information for the provider and program, as well as disclosure of whether the course for which approval is sought is a previously approved course with a new or additional instructor, a new course, or a previously approved course with different credit hours. The first page also states that instructors must meet the qualifications of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B1-6.005(2)(a) or (b).
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's lottery prize is subject to an outstanding debt owed to Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Respondent applied for a student loan in the amount of $2,500 under the Florida Guaranteed Student Loan Program in an application dated August 8, 1986. Respondent needed the loan to pay the cost of her attendance at Roffler Hair Design College (school) for the period of September 1986 through January 1987. Petitioner guaranteed Respondent's loan. The loan number is 0000522112. Glendale Federal Savings and Loan Association (Glendale) issued the loan proceeds in two equal disbursements. The first disbursement took place on or about September 26, 1986. The second disbursement took place on or about November 7, 1986. Glendale subsequently sold the loan to Student Loan Marketing Association/Student Loan Services (SLS). The loan accrues interest at the rate of eight percent (8%) per year unless Respondent is in deferment status, i.e. attending school on a minimum part-time basis. In this case, Respondent dropped out of school for a period of time in 1987. On or about June 25, 1987, the school returned $632.52 of the Respondent's loan to the lender. This sum represented the unused portion of Respondent's loan. Respondent's account was credited accordingly. The last day that Respondent attended the school was May 27, 1988. By letter dated September 1, 1988, SLS notified Respondent of the repayment schedule for her loan. Her first payment was due on December 27, 1988. Respondent made no payments on the loan to Glendale or SLS. Accordingly, SLS declared Respondent's loan in default and filed a claim dated August 14, 1989, with Petitioner. On February 20, 1992, Petitioner, as guarantor of the loan, paid SLS for Respondent's defaulted student loan. On that date, the claim principal was $1,864.48 ($2,500 less the $635.52 credit) and the outstanding interest due was $469.95. After Petitioner acquired the loan, the outstanding interest was capitalized resulting in a balance of $2,334.43. This sum accrues interest at the rate of eight percent (8%) per year. Respondent made no payment on her loan after Petitioner acquired it until a portion of her lottery winnings was applied to her account. By letter dated August 31, 1998, Petitioner notified the Department of Lottery about Respondent's outstanding defaulted loan in the amount of $3,561.89, including principal and interest. Petitioner requested the Department of the Lottery to transmit a portion of Respondent's prize money to be credited toward Respondent's debt. Thereafter, the Department of the Lottery transmitted $3,561.89 of Respondent's prize money to Petitioner. By letter dated September 14, 1998, Petitioner notified Respondent that it was in receipt of $3,561.89 of her $5,000 lottery prize. Petitioner applied Petitioner's winnings to her outstanding balance. Respondent has applied for and received at least one other loan which is held by the United States Department of Education (USDE) in the Federal Direct Consolidation Loan Program. The loan which is the subject of this proceeding is not the same loan which is held by USDE.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner was authorized to apply $3,561.89 of Respondent's lottery prize toward her outstanding debt for a student loan. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 12th day of May, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald E. Stowers, Esquire Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dollie M. Tunsil 5813 Pompano Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Tom Gallagher Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Petitioner, David Oness, is eligible to receive the remuneration from the 2015 state of Florida Best and Brightest Scholarship program.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Oness is employed by the SCSB and is in his 11th year as a teacher at Sarasota High School. The 2015 Florida Legislature Appropriations Act created the Best and Brightest Teacher Scholarship Program (the scholarship), chapter 2015-232, p. 27, Item 99A. The eligibility pre-requisites for applying to and being awarded the scholarship (up to $10,000) were established in the scholarship. The scholarship provided the following: Funds in Specific Appropriation 99A are provided to implement Florida's Best and Brightest Teacher Scholarship Program. The funds shall be used to award a maximum of 4,402 teachers with a $10,000 scholarship based on high academic achievement on the SAT or ACT. To be eligible for a scholarship, a teacher must have scored at or above the 80th percentile on either the SAT or the ACT based upon the percentile ranks in effect when the teacher took the assessment and have been evaluated as highly effective pursuant to section 1012.34, Florida Statutes, or if the teacher is a first-year teacher who has not been evaluated pursuant to section 1012.34, Florida Statutes, must have scored at or above the 80th percentile on either the SAT or the ACT based upon the percentile ranks in effect when the teacher took the assessment. In order to demonstrate eligibility for an award, an eligible teacher must submit to the school district, no later than October 1, 2015, an official record of his or her SAT or ACT score demonstrating that the teacher scored at or above the 80th percentile based upon the percentile ranks in effect when the teacher took the assessment. By December 1, 2015, each school district, charter school governing board, and the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind shall submit to the department the number of eligible teachers who qualify for the scholarship. By February 1, 2016, the department shall disburse scholarship funds to each school district for each eligible teacher to receive a scholarship. By April 1, 2016, each school district, charter school governing board, and the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind shall provide payment of the scholarship to each eligible teacher. If the number of eligible teachers exceeds the total the department shall prorate the per teacher scholarship amount. Mr. Oness timely filed an application to participate in the scholarship. Mr. Oness was evaluated as “highly effective” pursuant to section 1012.34, Florida Statutes. Mr. Oness was raised and educated in Canada. Mr. Oness did not take either the ACT3/ or the SAT4/ when he went to college, as it was not necessary in Canada. Mr. Oness took the ACT in Las Vegas, Nevada, on September 12, 2015. On “The ACT® Student Report” (pages 6 and 7 of Exhibit A), it recorded Mr. Oness’s ACT score as: Composite Score 24 U.S. RANK 74%|STATE RANK 81% No credible testimony or evidence was received from any authoritative figure from the ACT entity or otherwise that clearly establishes what is meant by the “STATE RANK” percentile. The form provides: U.S. Rank and State Rank: Your ranks tell you the approximate percentages of recent high school graduates in the U.S. and your state who took the ACT and received scores that are the same as or lower than yours. It remains unclear whether the term “STATE RANK” means: the state of Nevada, where Mr. Oness took the ACT; the state of Florida, where Mr. Oness lives and works; or some other state. On November 13, 2015, SCSB’s Human Resources Salary Specialist, Mary McCurry, advised Mr. Oness that he did not qualify for the scholarship award “because your ACT test scores do not reflect the 80th national percentile or higher.” Mr. Oness asked Respondent to review the non- qualification determination by e-mail dated November 13, 2015, and received an e-mail in return from the SCSB’s Employee Relations and Equity Administrator, Al Harayda, advising that the DOE provided “the percentiles that we had to use” in determining eligibility. The DOE provided guidance to the SCSB that “the national percentile score should be used to meet eligibility requirements.”
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Sarasota County School Board enter a final order that Petitioner is not eligible for a Best and Brightest Scholarship. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 29th day of March, 2016.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, who is employed as an occupational therapist by a local school board, is considered a “teacher” eligible for the 2015 State of Florida Best and Brightest Scholarship Program.
Findings Of Fact The 2015 Florida Legislature Appropriations Act created the Best and Brightest Teacher Scholarship Program, chapter 2015- 232, p. 27, Item 99A. The eligibility pre-requisites for applying to and being awarded the Scholarship (up to $10,000) were established in the Scholarship. The Scholarship provides as follows: Funds in Specific Appropriation 99A are provided to implement Florida's Best and Brightest Teacher Scholarship Program. The funds shall be used to award a maximum of 4,402 teachers with a $10,000 scholarship based on high academic achievement on the SAT or ACT. To be eligible for a scholarship, a teacher must have scored at or above the 80th percentile on either the SAT or the ACT based upon the percentile ranks in effect when the teacher took the assessment and have been evaluated as highly effective pursuant to section 1012.34, Florida Statutes, or if the teacher is a first-year teacher who has not been evaluated pursuant to section 1012.34, Florida Statutes, must have scored at or above the 80th percentile on either the SAT or the ACT based upon the percentile ranks in effect when the teacher took the assessment. In order to demonstrate eligibility for an award, an eligible teacher must submit to the school district, no later than October 1, 2015, an official record of his or her SAT or ACT score demonstrating that the teacher scored at or above the 80th percentile based upon the percentile ranks in effect when the teacher took the assessment. By December 1, 2015, each school district, charter school governing board, and the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind shall submit to the department the number of eligible teachers who qualify for the scholarship. By February 1, 2016, the department shall disburse scholarship funds to each school district for each eligible teacher to receive a scholarship. By April 1, 2016, each school district, charter school governing board, and the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind shall provide payment of the scholarship to each eligible teacher. If the number of eligible teachers exceeds the total the department shall prorate the per teacher scholarship amount. The Scholarship does not define the word “teacher.” Petitioner, who timely filed an application for the Scholarship, contends that she is a “teacher” and is therefore eligible for the award. Respondent and Intervenor contend that Petitioner is an occupational therapist, and, as such, she is not considered a “classroom teacher,” which is the target group that the Legislature intended for the teacher scholarship program to cover. Petitioner contends that even if the Scholarship is limited to “classroom teachers,” she meets the statutory definition of a “classroom teacher” and is therefore eligible to receive the Scholarship. It is undisputed that the 2015 Scholarship language is vague as to whether the Scholarship is limited to classroom teachers. In 2016, the Legislature made it clear that the award is intended to only cover “classroom teachers.” Legislation enacted in subsequent legislative sessions may be examined to ascertain legislative intent. See Crews v. Fla. Pub. Emp’rs Council 79, AFSCME, 113 So. 3d 1063, 1073 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)(citing Dadeland Depot, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 945 So. 2d 1216, 1230 (Fla. 2006)). Recently, the Governor signed chapter 2016-62, Laws of Florida. Section 25 of chapter 2016-62 enacts section 1012.731, Florida Statutes, the Florida Best and Brightest Teacher Scholarship Program.1/ Section 1012.731(2) provides that the “scholarship program shall provide categorical funding for scholarships to be awarded to classroom teachers, as defined in s. 1012.01(2)(a), who have demonstrated a high level of academic success.” The Legislature's amendment of the language, just a year after the first appropriation, confirms that the Legislature intended the award to go to "classroom teachers," as defined in chapter 1012. Petitioner was hired by Respondent as an occupational therapist. She has worked as an occupational therapist for Respondent for approximately 17 years. Petitioner does not hold a Florida teaching certificate and her position as an occupational therapist does not require a Florida teaching certificate. Instead, Petitioner is licensed by the Florida Department of Health, which has jurisdiction over ethical violations committed by occupational therapists licensed in Florida. In her position as an occupational therapist, Petitioner reports to Respondent’s director of Pupil Support Services, who supervises all therapists within Sarasota County Public Schools. Petitioner’s stated job goal is “[t]o facilitate the handicapped student’s independent functioning in the school setting.” Petitioner’s performance responsibilities, as set forth in her job description, are to: Conduct appropriate evaluation of students referred for possible exceptional student education needs and prepare reports of the evaluation and findings. Plan intervention and service delivery programs to meet student’s individual needs. Implement and direct interventions essential to meeting targeted students’ needs. Provide information and consultative services to appropriate personnel in support of students with disabilities. * * * Establish schedules for meeting with students, conferencing with parents and assisting in rehabilitation techniques. Provide resources to all stakeholders involved in the evaluation, identification of student needs and rehabilitation of students. Petitioner delivers therapeutic services individually or in a small group setting, in a room assigned to her, or in a classroom, usually at the same time a teacher is delivering instruction to the entire class. Petitioner completes “lesson plans,” which are referred to in the therapy setting as “plans of care.” Plans of care differ in substance from lesson plans prepared by teachers because lesson plans set out a teaching plan for the entire class, whereas plans of care set out therapeutic goals and activities directed to one student that complies with the goals set forth in a student's Individualized Education Plan (IEP). As an occupational therapist, Petitioner is responsible for maintaining a “class roster,” which is referred to in the therapy setting as a “caseload.” Occupational therapists maintain a caseload for student accountability purposes and for Medicaid billing purposes. Petitioner’s therapy sessions are assigned a “700” course code, which correlates in the Florida Department of Education's course directory to “related services.” Joint Exhibit O is an example of courses offered to students by Respondent. The course list includes math, language arts, physical education, science, social studies, art, Chinese, music, and occupational therapy. Petitioner is listed as the “teacher” for the occupational therapy course. Unlike the other listed “teachers,” Petitioner is not instructing students in a subject area; she is delivering a service. See § 468.203(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (2015). Succinctly stated, the difference, in this context, between “occupational therapy” and the other listed “courses,” is that occupational therapy is not a subject area that a student learns about; it is a service that a student receives to help them to achieve independent functioning. Although listed as “course” by Respondent, occupational therapy, as compared to the other listed “courses,” is not a “course” within the meaning of section 1012.01(2)(a).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Sarasota County enter a final order finding Petitioner ineligible for the Best and Brightest Teacher Scholarship Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of April, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN 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 April, 2016.
The Issue Whether the Respondent discriminated against the Petitioner by refusing to hire him for a vacant position because of his age.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a white male approximately 65 years of age at the time of the hearing, and was 63 years of age when he applied for the position. The Respondent is a state funded university with tens of thousands of students which provides housing for male, female, married, unmarried, undergraduate, and graduate students. This housing is managed and administered by the Respondent. On or about June 26, 1992, the Respondent advertised an opening for employment as a Resident Housing Coordinator, position No. 60584 (the position). The Petitioner timely applied for the position. The position was vacant as a result of the resignation of the incumbent employee. The position had been advertised by various means. The job vacancy notice stated the minimum qualifications and job description of the position. The minimum qualifications for the position were a masters degree or a bachelors degree with two years of experience. The standardized application used by the Respondent asked for the applicant's degrees and the dates it conferred. The application does not ask for the applicant's age. The Petitioner listed his degrees but did not indicate the year in which they were conferred. Ms. Granger, Coordinator of University Relations, Employment and Recruitment, reviewed the various applications for the position. Ms. Granger annotated the Petitioner's application in a handwritten marginal note to check the Petitioner's degree dates. Ms. Granger sent the Petitioner's application to the University housing office for review by Ms. McCluskey-Titus because the Petitioner met the minimum qualifications for the position. In addition to the application, the Petitioner sent a curriculum vitae which indicated his considerable experience to include recently managing a dormitory at a Florida junior college. That position had duties similar to those required for the position for which he was applying at the University. Ms. McCluskey-Titus reviewed the applications for the position in her capacity as Associate Director of the University housing. Ms. McCluskey-Titus manages the 14 on-campus residential halls housing over 4,000 students. The Resident Housing Coordinator oversees developmental programing and is responsible for student activity budget. The Coordinator assists in researching information on student residents and coordinates certain central office functions. The Resident Housing Coordinator is responsible for the administration and management of a residential hall which houses 400 to 600 students. The Resident Housing Coordinator selects, trains and supervises the student housing assistants. The Resident Housing Coordinator is the Chief Judicial Officer of the building, and administers justice for housing infractions. From the dates of the Petitioner's degrees, it is clear that he is an older individual. Ms. McCluskey-Titus described the position as an entry-level position and indicated that these positions are generally sought by individuals beginning a career in university housing management. She indicated that the applicants for these positions are generally young. The Petitioner's vitae indicates that he has a bachelors of arts in psychology and sociology, a masters in education, and had completed the course work for a doctorate in education at Florida State University. The Petitioner's work experience included teaching, speech, drama, history and reading; being a Principal; assisting in establishing a job corp training program; working overseas for the United Nations, the World Bank, and various U.S. agencies; coordinating the energy management program of the Florida Department of Transportation; managing his own consulting business; and most recently was director of resident halls at Chipola Junior College for 14 months. The Petitioner's synopsis of his experience points out his varied career and highlights his work at Chipola Junior College. Ms. McCluskey-Titus selected Sara Steyer to fill the position for which the Petitioner had applied. Ms. Steyer was born on March 24, 1968. Ms. Steyer's experience included managing a residents hall for two academic years; serving as a resident assistant for three academic years; and experience while in school in student affairs related areas, to include freshman orientation, fraternal organizations, and the University's judicial process. Ms. Steyer received a masters degree from Bowling Green State University in student personnel management. The position at FSU was her first position after receiving her masters degree. Ms. McCluskey-Titus has hired no applicants who are over the age of 30 for positions in the University housing office. Ms. McCluskey-Titus assessed the applicants, looking for people who had degrees in student personnel, a relatively-recent degree field, and people who were beginning a career in this area. Ms. McCluskey-Titus was looking for an applicant with experience as a dorm leader as an undergraduate, and a degree in college student personnel and a background in student affairs. These criteria were not part of the stated education and experience for the position. The criteria utilized by Ms. McCluskey-Titus resulted in the consideration of only young people, just beginning their careers. The selection criteria used by Ms. McCluskey-Titus excluded older applicants. The criteria used as a basis by Ms. McCluskey-Titus were not those developed by the employer on the basis of job related necessities. Ms. McCluskey-Titus admitted that FSU did not have any mid-level career positions into which to promote these young people, and that this resulted in a high turnover of the employees who were hired in entry-level positions. Although it is not stated on the Petitioner's curriculum vitae, he did possess experience in student government and related areas during his undergraduate training. He did not include these in his curriculum vitae because of the more extensive experience which he has had since leaving school. Ms. McCluskey-Titus was aware that it would have been illegal to advise applicants that they were looking only for young people.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission find that the Respondent discriminated against the Petitioner and enter its Final Order directing the Respondent to cease from such discriminatory activities and directing the Respondent to place the Petitioner in a position as Resident Housing Coordinator. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of January, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 26th day of January, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-4647 The Petitioner filed a lengthy post hearing brief which was read and considered; however, it did not follow the format required by the rules and it is not possible to identify the facts offered by Petitioner which were rejected or adopted. The Respondent filed a proposed order which was read and considered. The following states which of the proposed facts were adopted, and which were rejected and why: Respondent's Recommended Order Findings Para 1 Para 1, 3 Para 2 Para 5, 6 Para 3 Para 1, 4 Para 4 Para 8 Para 5 Para 9, 11, 12 Para 6 Para 12. Although specialized degrees have been developed since WW II, these degrees built upon the work which was part of already acknowledged academic fields. Psychology and sociology are the precursors of more specialized degrees in college student personnel management. Para 7,9,10,11 Irrelevant. These hires were the result of the same approach used in the instant case with the same result. Para 8 See findings in 18, 19, 21 Para 12 Para 17 Para 13 Para 17, and rejected in part as argument. Para 14 Irrelevant. Para 15 See 20-22 Para 16 Irrelevant because Ms. McCluskey-Titus made the actual hiring decision. Para 17 Irrelevant. Para 18 Irrelevant in part, covered in 20, 21, 23 in part. Para 19 Statement of Case. COPIES FURNISHED: D. Paul Sondel Route 10, Box 646 Tallahassee, Florida 32310-1169 Robert B. Jurand, Esquire Associate General Counsel Florida State University 540 West Jefferson Street Tallahassee, Florida 32306-1612 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, Esquire General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issues in this case are (a) whether Respondent committed fraud in seeking to obtain funds from the McKay Scholarship Program, thereby warranting Petitioner's summary suspension of payments to Respondent; and (b) whether Petitioner should revoke Respondent's participation in the McKay Scholarship program for failing to comply with applicable laws.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Muskateer's Academy, Inc. ("MAI") is a Florida corporation that, at all times relevant to this case, operated a private school known as Muskateer's Academy ("Muskateer's"). MAI was closely held by Erick and Jacqueline Cermeno, a married couple. Together, they ran the school, holding (and sometimes swapping) various titles of importance, such as "principal" and "superintendent," which signified their supervisory roles. Located in Hialeah, Florida, Muskateer's served mainly at-risk students who, for one reason or another, were unable or unlikely to succeed in the public school system. On paper, the school's tuition was quite steep. The undersigned infers, however, that few parents, if any, actually paid the "sticker price" for tuition and other expenses that Respondent reported to the Florida Department of Education ("Department") in its student fee schedules, which charges totaled $24,000 per year, per child. Rather, the undersigned infers that, for most students at least, Respondent agreed to accept as payment in full whatever amount was available annually for a particular student under the John M. McKay Scholarships for Students With Disabilities Program ("McKay Scholarship Program"). Respondent operated two separate high schools at Muskateer's. One was a "regular," four-year high school that followed the traditional model, where instructors taught various academic subjects to classes of students, who attended classes for the purpose of learning academic subjects from their teachers. In this high school, tests were given periodically, as a means of measuring the students' mastery of the material. The other program was an "accelerated" high school where each student worked individually, at his own pace. Teachers played a relatively small part in this program, doing little but overseeing the "testing room" in which the students took tests——their primary scholastic activity. Students received course credit for passing tests.1 At the relevant times, there were three or four teachers at Muskateer's. To be a teacher there, a person did not need a bachelor's degree. Instead, MAI was willing to hire individuals having some type of educational background, preferably including at least 40 college credits, more or less. One of the teachers at Muskateer's was Amneris Mesa, whose brother, O. F., attended the school for some period of time. As will be seen, O. F. is one of the key figures in the instant dispute. In August 2006, the Department's Office of Independent Education and Parental Choice ("Choice Office") received a complaint about Muskateer's, the gravamen of which was that MAI was continuing to receive funds under the McKay Scholarship Program for former students who had stopped attending the school. The Choice Office, which administers the McKay Scholarship Program, referred the complaint to the Department's Office of Inspector General ("OIG") for investigation. The OIG's investigation led to the discovery of evidence sufficient to persuade the Commissioner of Education ("Commissioner") that MAI had engaged in fraudulent activity with regard to the McKay Scholarship Program. Consequently, on November 1, 2006, the Commissioner issued an Administrative Complaint against MAI, which charged MAI with fraud and other violations of the laws governing the McKay Scholarship Program. At the same time, the Commissioner immediately suspended all payments to MAI under the McKay Scholarship Program. Being thus cut off from its primary source of revenue, MAI closed Muskateer's on November 18, 2006. As of the final hearing, the school had not reopened. The Commissioner's present case against MAI hinges on allegations that, to induce the payment of funds under the McKay Scholarship Program, the company falsely represented to the Department that three students——O. F., N. P., and C. M.——had "reenrolled" at Muskateer's for the 2006-07 school year, when in fact two of them (O. F. and N. P.) previously had graduated, and the third (C. M.) had dropped out midway through the preceding school year. MAI disputes these allegations, and hence the focus of the hearing largely was on whether the three individuals in question had attended Muskateer's during the 2006-07 school year. Before addressing the contested factual issues, however, a brief examination of the McKay Scholarship Program is in order, to provide context for the findings of fact that will follow. The McKay Scholarship Program affords a disabled student the option of attending a different public school from the one to which he is assigned, or, if he is eligible, the opportunity to receive a scholarship to defray the cost of attending a private school of choice. Once awarded, a McKay scholarship remains in force until the student returns to a public school, graduates, or turns 22, whichever first occurs; provided, however, that he does not drop out, which would render the student ineligible for the scholarship, at least during the period of non-enrollment. To participate in the McKay Scholarship Program, a private school must meet certain conditions as well. Inasmuch as the Commissioner has alleged that MAI failed to comply with some conditions of continued eligibility, the relevant ones will be discussed in greater detail below. For the moment, however, it is sufficient to note that McKay scholarship funding is potentially available to most private schools operating lawfully in the state, for the program is designed to be inclusive in this regard. A private school that wants to participate in the McKay Scholarship Program must notify the Department of its interest and submit information demonstrating compliance with the eligibility requirements. This information——and other data necessary to secure the disbursement of scholarship funds——must be transmitted to the Department electronically, through forms available online to registered users, at a secure website maintained by the Department. To access this site, a private school must first obtain a unique code and establish a confidential password, both of which must be entered correctly in order to logon to the Department's secure web page. If the parent of an eligible student chooses the private school option and secures a place for his child at the private school of choice, then the parent must notify the Department of his decision before the child begins attending the private school. After receiving such notice, the Department verifies the student's enrollment in the private school, obtains from the private school a schedule of the tuition and fees, and receives from the student's school district a "matrix of services" reflecting the student's special educational needs. The maximum amount of the McKay scholarship for a particular student is the lesser of (a) the "calculated amount" (which is roughly equal to the estimated cost of educating the student in the public school to which he is assigned) or (b) the actual amount of the private school's tuition and fees.2 The amount of the student's scholarship is deducted from his public school district's total funding entitlement.3 McKay scholarship payments are made in four equal amounts during the school year to which the scholarship applies. The payment dates are September 1, November 1, February 1, and April 1. Payments are made by warrant payable to the student's parent. The Department mails each warrant to the private school of the parent's choice. The parent is required restrictively to endorse the warrant, authorizing the funds to be deposited only in the private school's account.4 To remain eligible for the McKay scholarship, the student must have regular and direct contact with his teacher(s) at the private school's physical location. Thus, ahead of each payment (after the initial payment), the private school must verify, through the Department's secure, password-protected website, that the student continues to be enrolled in, and to attend, the private school. It is in connection with this ongoing duty to verify continued enrollment and attendance at the private school that MAI is alleged to have engaged in fraudulent activity, namely, reporting to the Department that O. F., N. P., and C. M. were still enrolled in, and attending, Muskateer's when, in fact, they were not. The undersigned will now turn to these allegations, which lie at the heart of this matter. But first: It must be acknowledged that the evidence is in conflict concerning the historical facts relevant to the allegations of fraudulent activity. Given the evidential conflicts, the undersigned supposes that reasonable people might disagree about what happened here. Ultimately, however, it falls to the undersigned, rather than a group of hypothetical "reasonable people," to resolve the evidential conflicts and settle the disputed issues of material fact. Thus, to the extent that any finding below (or herein) is inconsistent with the testimony of one witness or another, or with some documentary evidence, the finding reflects a rejection of all such inconsistent testimony and evidence (none of which was overlooked, disregarded, or ignored) in favor of proof that the undersigned deemed, in the exercise of his prerogatives as the fact-finder, to be more believable and hence entitled to greater weight. O. F. In January 2006, halfway through the 2005-06 school year, O. F. was enrolled as a student of Muskateer's. He began attending the accelerated high school on January 26, 2006. At the same time, his sister, Ms. Mesa, started working for MAI as a teacher in the regular high school. About five months later, O. F. graduated from Muskateer's. O. F. participated in a graduation ceremony on June 3, 2006, and, according to the transcript maintained in his student file, O. F. was awarded a diploma or certificate on that date. The transcript notwithstanding, it is undisputed that O. F. did not actually receive his diploma until several months after his graduation date. MAI contends that it withheld O. F.'s diploma because he had not finished all the tests necessary for graduation. The undersigned finds, however, that the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that O. F. had not finished his degree requirements as of June 3, 2006; indeed, the greater weight of the persuasive evidence is to the contrary. Accordingly, MAI's assertion that O. F. did not graduate from high school at the end of the 2005-06 school year is rejected. On May 26, 2006, MAI reported to the Department, through the Department's secure, password-protected website, that O. F. had reenrolled in Muskateer's for the 2006-07 school year, and that he would resume attending the school on July 1, 2006. On the same date and in the same manner, MAI reported that O. F.'s tuition and fees for the upcoming school year would total $24,000. These representations were made for the purpose of obtaining funds from the McKay Scholarship Program. The foregoing representations regarding O. F.'s reenrollment in Muskateer's for the 2006-07 school year were false. Moreover, the greater weight of the evidence persuades the undersigned that, more likely than not, the individuals responsible for making these representations——namely Mr. And Mrs. Cermeno——actually knew that the representations were false, or they recklessly disregarded the truth or falsity of the matters asserted.5 Despite having graduated, O. F. returned to Muskateer's on three or four occasions in September and October 2006, at which times he took a few tests that he had previously taken and passed. This happened because the Cermenos refused to give O. F. his diploma unless he retook these tests——a condition that was repeated both to O. F.'s mother and his sister (the teacher).6 The undersigned infers that, more likely than not, the Cermenos used the threat of withholding O. F.'s diploma as a means of coercing his "attendance" at Muskateer's during the 2006-07 school year, to create plausible deniability in the event the charge were brought (as it was) that MAI had fraudulently sought to obtain McKay scholarship funds for O. F. At any rate, post-graduation "attendance" such as O. F.'s——to retake exams for no apparent legitimate reason——is not the kind of regular attendance that would support the reasonable inference that the student had enrolled for the 2006-07 school year.7 N. P. N. P. enrolled in Muskateer's on May 3, 2004, and began attending classes in the accelerated high school on August 16, 2004. He graduated (at least in the ceremonial sense) at the end of the 2004-05 school year but never received a diploma. N. P. testified that he never returned to Muskateer's as a student after he (ceremonially) graduated. In other words, N. P. claims that he was not a student of Muskateer's during either the 2005-06 school year or the 2006-07 school year. N. P.'s testimony in this regard is corroborated by the testimony of his aunt (and legal guardian), Altagracia Moreta. Additionally, N. P.'s testimony is corroborated by the absence of well-kept, reliable documentation——such as enrollment registers and attendance records——attesting to his ongoing attendance at Muskateer's after the 2004-05 school year. The undersigned considers the lack of such documentation to be a telling fact. Consequently, although there is conflicting evidence, the undersigned finds that, more likely than not, N. P. did not attend Muskateer's during the 2005-06 and 2006-07 school years, as he testified. On May 4, 2005, MAI reported to the Department, through the Department's secure, password-protected website, that N. P. had reenrolled in Muskateer's for the 2005-06 school year, and that he would resume attending the school on August 8, 2005. On the same date and in the same manner, MAI reported that N. P.'s tuition and fees for the 2005-06 school year would total $24,000. These representations were made for the purpose of obtaining funds from the McKay Scholarship Program. On May 26, 2006, MAI reported to the Department, through the Department's secure, password-protected website, that N. P. had reenrolled in Muskateer's for the 2006-07 school year, and that he would resume attending the school on July 1, 2006. On the same date and in the same manner, MAI reported that N. P.'s tuition and fees for the 2006-07 school year would total $24,000. These representations were made for the purpose of obtaining funds from the McKay Scholarship Program. The foregoing representations regarding N. P.'s reenrollment in Muskateer's for the 2005-06 and 2006-07 school year were false. Moreover, the greater weight of the evidence persuades the undersigned that, more likely than not, the individuals responsible for making these representations——namely Mr. And Mrs. Cermeno——actually knew that these representations were false, or they recklessly disregarded the truth or falsity of the matters asserted. C. M. In July 2004, C. M. registered to attend Muskateer's. He began attending the accelerated high school on August 16, 2004. C. M. testified at hearing (via deposition) that he continued to attend Muskateer's while this proceeding was pending, having been in class there as recently as "yesterday" (January 17, 2007). C. M. did not know what courses he was currently taking or how many other students currently were attending Muskateer's. (Recall that Muskateer's closed its doors on November 18, 2006, and, as of the final hearing, had not reopened).8 Whatever credibility C. M. still possessed after giving testimony such as that just described was shredded when Petitioner impeached him with a prior inconsistent (actually, contradictory) statement. On August 22, 2006, C. M. told the OIG's investigator that he had stopped attending Muskateer's in December 2005 and never returned. The investigator made an audio recording of C. M.'s statement, which was received in evidence, but C. M. was not under oath at the time he gave the statement. The undersigned finds that C. M. is not a believable witness, and his testimony, being unreliable and unpersuasive, is given no weight.9 The documents in C. M.'s disorderly (and seemingly incomplete) student file are likewise insufficient to establish, to the required degree of persuasiveness (namely, that the fact is more likely true than not), the dates on which C. M. attended Muskateer's as an enrolled student. The bottom line is that the evidence is insufficient to permit the undersigned to make a finding as to when (or whether) C. M. stopped attending Muskateer's (prior to its closure on November 18, 2006).10 Lacking sufficient proof regarding the dates during which C. M. attended Muskateer's as a duly enrolled student, it is impossible to determine whether MAI engaged in any fraudulent activity with regard to C. M. Determinations of Ultimate Fact The greater weight of the evidence establishes that, to induce the state to disburse McKay scholarship funds for the benefit of O. F., MAI engaged in fraudulent activity, to wit: MAI intentionally reported to the Department that O. F. had reenrolled in Muskateer's for the 2006-07 school year, while either (a) knowing that this representation of material fact was false or (b) recklessly disregarding the truth or falsity of this material representation, which was, in fact, false. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that, to induce the state to disburse McKay scholarship funds for the benefit of N. P., MAI engaged in fraudulent activity, to wit: MAI intentionally reported to the Department, on separate occasions, that N. P. had reenrolled in Muskateer's for the 2005-06 and 2006-07 school years, while either (a) knowing that these representations of material fact were false or (b) recklessly disregarding the truth or falsity of these material representations, which were, in fact, false. The greater weight of the evidence is insufficient to establish that MAI engaged in fraudulent activity in connection with its efforts to obtain McKay scholarship funds for the benefit of C. M. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that, by failing to keep and maintain complete and orderly records of enrollment and attendance, MAI failed to meet its obligation under Section 1002.39(8)(a), Florida Statutes, to comply with all of the requirements set forth in Section 1002.421, which mandates that private schools participating in the McKay Scholarship Program must, among other things, conform to all the requirements outlined in Section 1002.42, Florida Statutes, including Section 1002.42(4), which directs that private schools must prepare and keep attendance records in accordance with the provisions of Section 1003.23(2), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commissioner enter a final order (a) suspending payment of McKay Scholarship funds to MAI in connection with the 2006-07 school year (b) revoking MAI's participation in the McKay Scholarship Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 2nd day of April, 2007.
