The Issue Whether Petitioner qualifies for licensure by examination as a psychologist.
Findings Of Fact From 1968 to 1972, Petitioner, Shirley Czukerberg (Czukerberg), attended Anahuac University in Mexico City, where she studied for the degree of Licentiate in Psychology. She left Anahuac University before receiving the degree. In 1973, Czukerberg received a Bachelor's of Arts degree in psychology from New York University in New York. In 1975, Czukerberg received a Master of Arts degree in psychology from New York University. In 1977, Czukerberg obtained the title of Clinical Psychology Specialist by completing a two-year, post-graduate program through the University of Costa Rica. In the post- graduate program in clinical psychology, students complete 40 credits of academic coursework and 20 credits of practice and training at a hospital. In 1978, Czukerberg obtained the title of Clinical Psychologist from the School of Physicians and Surgeons of Costa Rica. In 1991, Czukerberg published a book in Mexico City entitled Polvo de Anos (Dust of Years) about the coming of age in women. Czukerberg is highly regarded by the psychiatrist at her exempt-setting employment and by others familiar with her work. On June 21, 1995, Czukerberg submitted an application to the Respondent, Department of Health (Agency), formerly Agency for Health Care Administration, for psychologist licensure. By letter dated July 19, 1995, the Agency advised Czukerberg that her application had been received and that she needed to submit the following documentation: Transcripts for all graduate level coursework you completed. Transcripts must be sent directly to our office from the university(ies). We have received transcripts from: Education Coursework Sheet must be completed. ADDTIONALLY YOU MUST ATTACH A PHOTOCOPY OF THE COURSE DESCRIPTION FOR EACH COURSE. COURSE DESCRIPTIONS MUST BE PHOTOCOPIES FROM YOUR SCHOOL CATALOG. Program analysis form, completed and signed by the Chairman of the department in which your doctoral program was housed, even if your program was approved by the American Psychological Association. (from school) On August 31, 1995, staff of the Agency told Czukerberg that her file was still incomplete and that the only transcript that had been received was from New York University. Czukerberg was also advised that because she was a foreign student that she would need to have her educational credentials evaluated by a credentialing agency. On October 9, 1995, the Agency again sent Czukerberg a notice that her application was incomplete and that the documentation requested must be received by the Agency by December 18, 1995, for the April 17, 1996, examination. In addition to the information which had been previously requested the notice also stated: All foreign education must be accompanied by a certified English translation. In addition, please have a degree equivalency determination completed and submitted to this office by one of the certified credentialing agencies listed in the application previously sent to you. As of November 2, 1995, the Agency had not received the additional documentation. Czukerberg was again told that she needed to submit the documentation and that she needed to have her educational credentials evaluated. By letter dated January 23, 1996, the Agency sent Czukerberg a new application package to comply with the new application procedures, which required that verification of her educational credentials be made by the director of an APA accredited psychology program. The letter stated: What you must submit at this point to complete your file is your doctoral level transcripts, verification of your supervised experience as outlined in the application materials, and verification of whether or not your educational credentials were comparable to an APA approved program at the time of your graduation. I referred you to either Dr. Evelyn Diaz of the Miami Institute of Psychology or Dr. Frank DiPiano of Nova University for the review of your educational credentials as is now allowed by rule of the board. You are not restricted to either of the above for this review; you may have your educational credentials reviewed by the director of any doctoral psychology program accredited by the APA. Further information about this is included in application materials that are forthcoming. There is also the Domestic Violence form that must be submitted; instructions regarding that are on the form. Czukerberg retained Josef Silny & Associates, Inc. (Silny), to do an evaluation of her educational credentials. By letter dated September 6, 1996, Silny opined that "Ms. Czukerberg has the equivalent of four years of undergraduate study in Psychology at a regionally accredited U.S. institution of higher education." In a letter to the Agency dated September 9, 1996, Dr. Donald K. Routh, Director of Clinical Training for the Department of Psychology at the University of Miami, gave the following opinion on Czukerberg's educational credentials: In my opinion, Ms. Czukerberg has completed a course of training in clinical psychology equivalent to that offered by the University of Miami's APA-approved Ph.D. program in clinical psychology. The equivalence of her training to ours in terms of coursework, master's thesis, practicum and internship was obvious. The only question in my mind was whether she could be regarded as having completed the equivalent of a doctoral dissertation. I do believe that the book, Polvo de Anos, (the English translation of the title would be: "Dust of Years") published in 1991 by Editorial Diani, in Mexico City, is comparable in scope and contribution. In forming his opinion, Dr. Routh had not evaluated the level of difficulty of the courses taken by Petitioner, had not reviewed a syllabus from the University of Costa Rica, and had not read the book Czukerberg had written years after she had graduated from the University of Costa Rica. At the final hearing, Dr. Routh admitted that his opinion was equivocal. In 1997, while Czukerberg's incomplete application was still pending, the rules for establishing the equivalency of a degree from a foreign university were again amended. Czukerberg was advised that in addition to the other requirements outlined in the January 23, 1996, letter, the rule required an evaluation of educational credentials by a credential's evaluation service acceptable to the Agency. On March 21, 1997, the Agency received a letter from Czukerberg, along with several items including a portion of Silny's evaluation. Czukerberg expressed her hope that the Agency would soon review her application. As of May 2, 1997, Czukerberg's application was still incomplete. The Agency had not received the official transcript from the University of Costa Rica nor had it received verification of her supervision. The incomplete application was forwarded to the Agency's credentials committee, who tabled the matter for consideration by the full Board of Psychology. On June 6, 1997, the Agency voted to deny Czukerberg's application for licensure by examination. In a letter to Josef Silny & Associates, Inc., dated July 7, 1998, the Director of the Graduate Program in Clinical Psychology at the University of Costa Rica opined on the degrees that are awarded by the University of Costa Rica in Psychology and stated: In reply to your fax of 07-06-98, I proceed to answer the questions you ask me: The University of Costa Rica does not offer a Doctor Degree in the field of Psychology. There are Licentiate and Master Degree Programs in different areas of Psychology and Graduate Studies in Clinical Psychology. The University of Costa Rica offers Doctor in Philosophy Degrees in other sciences and two types of Masters Degrees: Academic and Professional. The first one emphasizes research in a specific area. The second emphasizes practical training in skills and abilities on a specific area. At the present time the Graduate degree in Clinical Psychology is equivalent to a Professional Master Degree, which is the highest degree a student can obtain in the field of Psychology. We are not aware if in other countries, due to the number of hours of practice and academic courses required, and the time dedicated to training, as I mentioned in my previous fax, said degree could be the equivalent to a Doctor of Clinical Psychology Degree. Furthermore, I would like to clarify that, in order to be accepted in the Graduate Program in Clinical Psychology, the Psychologist must have a Licentiate Degree in Psychology and be a member of the Association of Psychologists. Bachelor Degrees in Psychology are not accepted. In reply to Point 2, I insist on the following: Graduate studies in Clinical Psychology are the highest level studies that can be done in Costa Rica. There are no Doctor Degree Programs in any area of Psychology. After reviewing the correspondence from the University of Costa Rica, Silny re-evaluated Czukerberg's educational credentials and issued another report dated August 10, 1998, in which Silny gave the following opinion: In summary, it is the judgment of Josef Silny & Associates, Inc., International Educational Consultants, that Ms. Czukerberg [sic] education in Mexico and Costa Rica is the equivalent of four years of undergraduate study in Psychology, and completion of the U.S. degree of Master of Science in Clinical Psychology earned at a regionally accredited institution of higher education in the United States. The Agency accepts educational evaluations performed by Silny. The degrees which Czukerberg received from the University of Costa Rica are not equivalent to a Pys.D., an Ed.D. in psychology, or a Ph.D. in psychology.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Shirley Czukerberg's application for licensure by examination for a psychologist. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 23rd day of November, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Kaye Howerton, Executive Director Board of Psychology Department of Health 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0788 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Donna Erlich, Esquire Office of the Attorney General Administrative Law Section The Capitol, Plaza 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Shirley Czukerberg, pro se 5809 Northwest 21st Way Boca Raton, Florida 33496
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.
The Issue The issue for consideration is whether the Petitioner, Donna B. Lopez, is qualified to sit for the examination as a mental health counselor in Florida by virtue of her education and experience.
Findings Of Fact In April, 1985, the Petitioner, Donna B. Lopez, filed an application with the Florida Board of Psychological Examiners, (Bgard), to sit for examination as a mental health counselor. In paragraph 7 of the application, which called for a listing of all post-secondary psychology related education, Petitioner indicated that she received a degree as psychologist with a major course of study in psychology from the Universidad Nacional de Rosario, Esquela de Psicologia, in Rosario, Argentina, which school was accredited by the Universidad Nacional del Litoral in the Republic of Argentina. Petitioner graduated from that school on December 30, 1971. When the application was received by the Board, it was evaluated by Ms. Biedermann, who determined Petitioner did not qualify to sit for the requested examination because the university from which she received her degree was not accredited in accordance with state requirements that the applicant have a Master's degree from a university accredited by an agency approved by the United States Department of Education. To make the evaluation, Ms. Biedermann used two documents to determine accreditation; the 1981-1982 edition of Accredited Institutions of Post Secondary Education (Programs/Candidates), a directory of accredited institutions and programs published for the "Council on Post-Secondary Education" of the American Council on Education and Accredited Post-Secondary Institutions and Programs, published by the United States Department of Education in September, 1980. Supplements to the latter are published in the Federal Register and during the evaluation, Ms. Biedermann considered not only the basic document but also the then current edition of the Federal Register. Petitioner's university was not listed as an accredited university by any of the documentation either at the time of evaluation of the application or at the time she graduated in 1971. Consequently, Ms. Biedermann advised Petitioner that her application to sit for the examination had been denied. Another reason for rejection of Petitioner's application was that Ms. Biedermann was unable to determine if Petitioner's degree was equivalent to a Master's degree in the United States. Included with Petitioner's application was a translation into English of a Spanish language document which constitutes a description of her course work, but it is not an official transcript. Nonetheless, Ms. Biedermann called the United States Department of Education to inquire if there were any schools in Argentina accredited by United States approved agencies and was advised that there were not. Petitioner attended undergraduate school in Rosario, Argentina, graduating from a five year course of study with the degree of Psychologist in 1971. Thereafter, she completed a three year internship in a mental health center in Buenos Aires during which time she did a series of rotations throughout the different departments of the center. From there she went into private practice in Buenos Aires and was a member of a psychiatric team in a hospital from 1973 through 1978. During this time she was supervised by a psychiatrist who is a member of the American Psychiatric Association. In 1979 she settled in Miami, becoming an American citizen in 1986. After her arrival, she applied to the Dade County Board of Psychologists, then the accrediting agency, and was issued an occupational license as a psychologist in late 1979 or 1980. She thereafter practiced as a psychologist in Dade County until 1981 when the Florida Legislature passed the current statute, (Section 490.005) governing the licensing of psychologists and various sub-disciplines. In the 1950's, the original Chapter 490 of Florida Statutes licensed psychologists at the Doctorate level only. In 1979 this statute sunsetted and from 1979 to 1981, at least in both Dade and Broward Counties the county occupational license was issued to almost anyone applying for it without a prior demonstration of qualification. In the memory of Dr. Jospeh R. Feist, who was instrumental in the process designed to cure this situation, approximately 800 occupational licenses were issued in the first six months of this period: a figure the same as the total number of licenses issued statewide under the prior licensing statute in the prior twenty years. In 1979, the Dade County Commission passed an ordinance to revoke the occupational licenses issued during the hiatus period and established qualifications for licensing. It also created a board to review applicants. Dr. Feist was appointed as Secretary of the board which was made up of six members, all of whom were Ph.D's. In the course of this service, Dr. Feist became acquainted with Petitioner who applied sometime during 1980. The board recommended approval of her application. In Dr. Feist's opinion, Petitioner's course work was at or beyond the Master's level in the United States. The Board, however, did not inquire into whether Petitioner's university was properly accredited here. Dr. James E. Gorney is a clinical psychologist who is also an assistant professor of psychiatry at Cornell University Medical Center. As a part of his duties, he participates in the training program for post-doctoral psychologists and for 11 years or so, has examined the transcripts of numerous individuals possessing both Master's and Doctor's degrees in psychology. He got to know the Petitioner when they were both selected to serve on a prestigious international panel in New York City made up of university teaching psychologists hand picked by the conference leaders. Dr. Gorney has reviewed Petitioner's course work and based on it and his personal knowledge of her work and experience, he is of the opinion that she possesses the equivalent of a Master's degree from Cornell. Her program far exceeds any program for a Master's degree in psychology Dr. Gorney has seen anywhere in the United States and is the equivalent of a Doctoral program. It surpasses many programs approved by the American Psychiatric Association. Every area is covered and many related areas normally covered in Doctoral programs are included providing a very broad range of experience. Dr. Gorney's opinion is reinforced and supported by the deposition testimony of Dr. Muller whose experience with Petitioner and evaluation of her credentials leads him to conclude that her course work is the equivalent of at least a Master's degree.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's application to take the examination for licensure as a mental health counselor be denied. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of August, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 28th day of August, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: John L. Britton, Esquire BRITTON & KANTNER, P.A. Barnett Bank Building, Suite 1203 One East Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Phillip B. Miller, Esquire Robert D. Newell, Esquire 102 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Linda Biedermann, Executive Director Board of Pschological Services 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Honorable Van B. Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether respondent, an assistant professor at Miami-Dade Community College, should be dismissed on grounds of willful neglect of duty, gross insubordination, and incompetency as alleged.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Joan Humphries, earned a bachelor's degree from the University of Miami, a master's degree in counseling and guidance from Florida State University, and a Doctorate of Philosophy in experimental psychology from Louisiana State University. (Testimony of Humphries.) Before coming to Miami-Dade Community College, she worked as a psychological consultant at Louisiana State Hospital and taught at the University of Miami. She has been employed by the College for approximately 15 years--since October, 1966. (Testimony of Humphries.) First employed by the College as a part-time instructor, she soon became a full-time instructor of introductory psychology courses. She is now a tenured assistant professor and was granted a continuing teaching contract by the College. (Testimony of Humphries.) During her years at the College, she received annual performance evaluations from the chairperson of her department--now named the Department of Behavioral Studies. Until 1978, she was evaluated as a competent instructor. Her 1970 evaluation stated: Dr. Humphries continues to do an excellent job of teaching PSY 207. She has been most helpful in orienting new faculty members [and] is a most dependable and valuable member of the psychology faculty. (P-75.) In 1971, David Powers, her new department chairperson, recommended her for promotion and gave her this evaluation: Joan Humphries possesses excellent knowledge of her subject field. Her course is extremely well planned out and organized. She is quite fair in her grading techniques, . . . (P-78.) In 1972, she was rated as "outstanding" in professional status, growth, and development; "competent" in her performance as a faculty member; and as giving "more than most" in ancillary services to the College. In 1973, Dr. Powers again rated her as competent and described her professional strengths and goals: Professional Strengths: Joan displays an in-depth knowledge of behavioristic psychology. Joan is competent in utilization of audiovisual materials and psychological equipment. She is conscientious in meeting her office hours. She has originated several ideas for obtaining both community involvement and enrollment in future psychological courses. Joan involves her students in community activities by requiring a ten hour out-of-class service project. Professional Goals: In order to maintain larger retention rate, Joan should develop a diversity of instructional strategies including greater enthusiasm in teacher presentation. She should place less emphasis on objective testing and involve more subjective methods for student evaluations, [i]ncluding student feedback on course activities and evaluative tools should be meaningful for her students. This summer she will be acting chairman of a committee for a parental education course to be offered in the fall. (P-82.) In 1974, Dr. Powers again rated her as a "competent" faculty member and "outstanding" in professional status, growth, and development. He recommended her for promotion and described her professional strengths: Professional Strengths: Joan is showing even more enthusiasm [sic] toward the college this year than last year. She has developed many innovative ideas including a proposed psychology laboratory, courses associated with the county judges and for the education of elderly citizens within the community, and a rationale for a four day college work week. Joan helped increase the fall term departmental productivity figure by conducting a large section of 100 Psychology 211 students. She has incorporated a formal student evaluation system into her course. She not only participates in community betterment but requires her students to spend at least 15 hours working on a community project. In determining the student's grade, this year, she has placed greater emphasis upon student involvement in projects, experiments, and oral presentations. In her classes Joan includes recent relevant research findings in order to clarify psychological concepts. She has devoted many hours toward coordinating the senior citizens program and the parent education course. She is an active sponsor of Phi Lambda Pi and continually invites guest speakers into her classes. Joan actively engages in scientific research and she has recently written an article for the Journal of Parapsychology. Joan is recommended for promotion to Associate Professor, Senior. Professional Goals: Joan should be a good resource coordinator for utilization of the new Alpha Theta Cyborg. This coming year the department could use her for teaching a couple sections of Psychology 212. Her ideas for meeting the community's needs are practical and worth implementing. Joan should perhaps develop a written syllabus in outline form to give to all of her students at the beginning of the course. Joan would like to initiate and teach a course in recent psychological developments, i.e., biofeedback, hypnosis, and brain research. (P-89.) She was not promoted, however, because she had not yet completed the required three years in grade. She appealed the College's failure to promote her. Although she subsequently satisfied the three-year requirement, she has not been promoted. She attributes this to discrimination by the College because of her earlier appeal. In 1975 and 1976, she was rated "competent" but given specific suggestions for improved performance (P-119.) In 1977, she was rated as a "competent" faculty member who contributed "more than most" in ancillary services to the College, and recommended for promotion. But, "some reservation" was indicated concerning her professional status, growth, and development. (P- 235.) In 1978, her new department chairperson, Gerald L. Sicard, rated her as "competent;" described her as a dedicated psychologist who gave enthusiastic lectures; and noted that evaluations by her students were generally positive. (P-315.) She was rated "unsatisfactory" by the evaluations completed in 1979, 1980, and 1981. The Charges: Eleven Specific Allegations of Misconduct The College's charges against respondent--willful neglect of duty, gross insubordination, and incompetency--rest on eleven specific allegations of misconduct. The findings of fact which follow are organized under the pertinent allegation. Alleged: Over a period of years, the respondent has demonstrated belligerence toward those in authority. Respondent has not demonstrated a pattern of belligerence or hostility toward her College superiors. Her supervising department chairperson, Mr. Sicard, had difficulty defining the term at hearing. When pressed, he gave as examples her desire to tape record conversations when meeting with a supervisor, her writing of memoranda when an issue could be easily resolved by an office conference, and her refusal to sign a performance evaluation form because she did not agree with it. Such conduct illustrates her distrust of her supervisors and the persistence with which she advocated her views; they do not demonstrate belligerence. Neither, according to her students, did she exhibit belligerence toward her supervisors in the classroom environment. 7 College administrators became irritated with her obvious distrust, her persistence, and her unwillingness to compromise; two examples: (1) When her fellow faculty members selected a common course textbook for use in introductory psychology, she resisted and stubbornly advocated another choice. (2) During 1978, Mr. Sicard learned that respondent was offering extra grade points to students who campaigned for enactment of the Equal Rights Amendment ("ERA") to the U.S. Constitution. Students who desired to campaign against the ERA were not, however, equally rewarded. Mr. Sicard questioned her about the fairness of this practice and its relevance to introductory psychology. She explained that prejudice against women was a disease, that to give students points for campaigning against the ERA would be supporting a disease. Mr. Sicard, still unconvinced, instructed her by memorandum on November 6, 1978, to discontinue the awarding of points to students for pro-ERA or any other political activity. (P-359.) One week later she explained, in writing, that she had been promoting good mental health, not partisan politics, and cited various publications by psychologists in support of her view that discrimination against women was detrimental to human welfare; and that, in the past, her students had worked for legislation benefiting autistic children and migrant workers and the College had supported such action. She ended by asking Mr. Sicard if advocacy of human rights and legislation supporting human rights would be considered engaging in partisan politics. But, although she disagreed with her supervisor, she complied with his directive and discontinued the practice. (Testimony of Sicard, Tikofsky, Hansen, Signorelli, Humphries.) Alleged: On numerous occasions, the respondent willfully and deliberately failed to comply with directives from College administrators relative to her classes of instructions. In connection with respondent's 1978 performance evaluation, Mr. Sicard and respondent negotiated and agreed upon goals and objectives for the coming year. The College contends that several of the goals were not met. Some of these items were tasks which Mr. Sicard thought were important at the time, others originated with the respondent. The effect to be given these goals is ambiguous. Mr. Sicard now considers some of them to be mandatory or directory in nature; others not. In any case, during the ensuing year, respondent satisfied most of the goals and objectives specified in the 1978 evaluation. In 1978, as already mentioned, respondent's department decided to select a common text for introductory psychology courses. Respondent resisted the consensus selection; she advocated an alternative and wrote memoranda to Mr. Sicard expressing her views. He responded with this memorandum: Instead of replying to the above-memos, it would probably be mutually beneficial to discuss your problems during my office hours. This way we can move from adversary roles to the cooperative model existing with the other departmental faculty. In doing this, I hope we can work together to achieve your and the department's goals. Please advise me in this matter. (P-334.) Thereafter, respondent did not go to Mr. Sicard's office to discuss the issue further. But the nature of his memorandum is, by its terms, non-directory, even conciliatory in nature. Respondent's failure to accept the invitation cannot fairly be translated into willful failure to comply with an administrator's directive. On December 4, 1978, Mr. Sicard recommended that respondent's employment be terminated for various "acts of insubordination." (P-368, P-369.) He asserted that she violated regulations by utilizing the psychology laboratory for hypnosis and biofeedback treatment for students with smoking and overweight problems; that her earlier awarding of grade points to students who worked for ERA violated a 1976 directive of David Powers, the previous department chairperson; and that she continued to refer students to Robert Courier, an alleged psychic and hypnosis counselor, despite the fact that Mr. Courier had been prohibited from instructing students in her classes. Her alleged failure to comply with laboratory regulations, even if true, does not constitute willful violation of an administrator's directive relative to her classroom instruction; and Mr. Sicard acknowledges that her referral of students to Mr. Courier "do[es] not violate previous directives" to respondent. (P-368.) This leaves only the alleged violation of Mr. Powers' 1976 directive. In that directive, Mr. Powers directed Respondent to obtain prior clearance from the departmental chairperson for "[a] 11 off-campus activities which affect the student's grade[s]." (P-147.) In 1977, however, Mr. Power's successor chairperson, Bess Fleckman, effectively countermanded or negated the effect of Mr. Powers' directive. By a memorandum dated March 21, 1977, she asked respondent to take full responsibility for assignments to students, stating that this should not "be a concern of a chairperson." (P-261, P-262, P- 263.) Thus, respondent's subsequent assignments concerning off-campus ERA activities did not violate a directive from her supervising administrator. By memorandum dated April 3, 1979, Mr. Sicard suggested that respondent improve her teaching techniques by accepting the assistance of Ms. Fleckman--a qualified and experienced classroom instructional specialist. (P- 388.) Respondent replied with a memorandum stating that she did not wish to work with Ms. Fleckman because she did not feel Ms. Fleckman "would be objective in evaluating my performance. (P-391.) Mr. Sicard replied on April 17, 1979, converting his suggestion into a clear directive that respondent work with and accept the assistance of Ms. Fleckman. Although clearly unhappy with the arrangement, respondent complied. (P-404.) The College has not shown that respondent ever refused or willfully and deliberately failed to comply with an administrator's directive which was phrased in clear and mandatory terms. Administrators, understandably, preferred to give suggestions to respondent, not orders or directives. But, failure to agree with or follow a suggestion does not amount to willful violation of a directive. (Testimony of Humphries, Fleckman, Sicard.) Alleged: Respondent . . . repeatedly refused to follow directives from college administrators, which has distracted from the objectives of her department, division, and campus. This charge is similar to the preceding allegation; no additional evidence was offered to substantiate it. Consequently, it is similarly concluded that no showing has been made that respondent repeatedly refused to follow directives from college administrators. (Testimony of Humphries, Fleckman, Sicard.) Alleged: Respondent deliberately failed or refused to perform assigned duties within the parameters established by her department chairperson. This charge may overlap with charges contained in paragraphs B and C above. The only additional incident of any significance offered by the College in substantiation involves respondent's purported attempt to use the psychology laboratory for therapy purposes. In June, 1978, respondent served as coordinator of the department's psychology laboratory with the assignment to expand its uses. On June 22, 1978, she circulated a memorandum to faculty members announcing a new laboratory program called "Positive Personal Programming," which would be carried out by Kenneth Forrest; she believed he was a student in an honors-level psychology course taught by Dr. Cecil B. Nichols. The program involved treating subjects with weight control or smoking habits by means of hypnosis and biofeedback techniques. Since regulations allegedly precluded use of the laboratory for therapy purposes, Mr. Sicard instructed respondent that this proposed program could not be implemented. Although she protested that the proposed program would be beneficial and should be allowed, she complied with his directive and immediately cancelled the program. The program was never implemented. Mr. Sicard testified that he did not know whether the program described in respondent's memorandum to faculty was ever implemented, but he "assumed" it was. (Tr.160.) He considered respondent's memorandum as an act of insubordination justifying her termination. (P-368.) The evidence does not establish that the proposed use would violate applicable regulations. 2/ In any case, it has not been shown how a program which was never instituted could violate any limitations on use of the psychology laboratory. The College has not shown any deliberate failure or refusal by respondent to perform her duties within the parameters established by her department chairperson. (Testimony of Sicard, Humphries.) Alleged: Respondent failed to satisfy established criteria for the performance of assigned duties. No objective criteria have been promulgated to assess the performance of College faculty members. In the absence of such criteria announced prospectively, the College seeks to establish by expert testing that respondent did not cover the material required in an introductory psychology course; that she placed undue emphasis on biofeedback techniques; and that the grading system she used was inadequate. Although there is conflicting testimony on these matters, the testimony of Ronald F. Tikofsky is accepted as persuasive. Now a departmental chairperson at the University of Wisconsin, he obtained a master's degree in psychology, and took a minor in psychology for his doctorate. He taught in the Department of Psychology at the University of Michigan, where he became a full professor, and later served as chairperson of the Department of Psychology at Florida International University from 1971 through 1979. He has participated in the development of college curriculum, helped college instructors develop teaching techniques, and evaluated the performance of faculty members. His academic credentials are impressive, his testimony was objective, forthright, and credible. (Tr. 967-1017; R-48.) His opinions are accorded great weight. He opined that, in his profession, there is no consensus on any set number of concepts which should be taught in college level introductory psychology courses, that this properly follows within the discretion of the individual instructor. His review of the topics respondent covered during the fall and winter semesters of 1980 led him to conclude that she covered the basic materials of an introductory psychology course, and that the time she devoted to biofeedback theory and demonstrations was appropriate. After reviewing respondent's grading records, he concluded that her grading method was not unusual or unacceptable. Development of grading curves is an art, not a science; it involves the interplay of several variables and the subjective judgment of the instructor. Generally, respondent would take the class average, note the distribution, establish cutoff points for various grade levels, apply them to the data, and then apply a subjective factor. Mr. Tikofsky testified that the number of credit points assigned for completing outside projects was neither excessive nor inappropriate. These opinions of Mr. Tikofsky are expressly adopted. The College has not shown that respondent failed to satisfy any meaningful performance standard, announced either prospectively or retroactively. (Testimony of Tikofsky, Sicard, Humphries.) Alleged:. Respondent failed to comply with directives for required improvements that were set forth in her yearly personnel evaluations. As already mentioned above, the yearly personnel evaluations contained "goals and objectives," not "directives." These goals and objectives were the product of discussion and negotiation between the department chairperson and instructor; some were considered mandatory, others not. Those that originated with the instructor lacked mandatory effect. The three goals and objectives concerning biofeedback--contained on respondent's 1979 personnel evaluation form--originated with the respondent. She made a good faith effort to complete or completed each of those biofeedback goals. The remaining six goals and objectives were satisfied by respondent. As to the 1978 personnel evaluation, most, if not all, of the listed goals and objectives were satisfied. Her next evaluation--where she was rated unsatisfactory--does not fault her for failing to meet any 1978 goal or objective. The evidence does not show that respondent failed to satisfy any goal or objective which was listed on her evaluation and clearly understood--at the time--to be a directive, rather than an end toward which effort should be directed. (Testimony of Sicard, Humphries; P-315, P-474.) Alleged: The level of instruction in respondent's classes was below reasonable minimum standards. This charge overlaps with paragraph E above, and H below. The College has not established or published any objective minimum standards to measure an instructor's performance. Respondent used a standard approach to teaching introductory psychology: she used a vocabulary or concept list for each chapter of the textbook and gave frequent objective tests. Her classes were structured and well-disciplined. Her students were generally satisfied with her performance and compared her favorably to other instructors at the College. Those who went on to take more advanced psychology courses made grades similar to or better than those they received from respondent. Ms. Fleckman helped her to improve her teaching techniques. When Ms. Fleckman observed her teaching in 1979, she could offer only a few suggestions and rated her 8 on a 10-point performance scale. Videotapes of respondent teaching her classes were viewed at hearing. After reviewing the tapes, Mr. Tikofsky opined that respondent was an adequate and competent classroom instructor. His opinion is accepted as persuasive. The videotapes demonstrate convincingly that respondent delivers lectures in an organized, methodical fashion and that she has the attention of her students. The tapes further show that she takes her teaching responsibilities seriously, is genuinely interested in the subject matter, and that she tries to relate and respond to her students. In light of the above, and the findings contained in paragraph E above, it is concluded that respondent's level of instruction in her classes did not fall below reasonable minimum standards, either announced prospectively or applied retroactively. (Testimony of Humphries, Tikofsky, Fleckman, Signorelli.) Alleged: Students in respondent's classes were deprived of required course material. This charge overlaps charges contained in paragraphs E and G above, and the findings relating to those charges also apply here. During the fall and winter of 1980, Mr. Tikofsky opined that respondent covered the topics appropriate to a college level introductory psychology course. His opinion is accepted as persuasive. The topics which should be covered are left up to the individual psychology instructor. The College does not specify the topics and materials that must be covered. When respondent was suspended near the end of the 1980 winter quarter, she had covered the material which--according to her own class syllabus-- should have been covered at that time. The charge that her students were deprived of required course material is unsubstantiated by the evidence. (Testimony of Humphries, Tikofsky; P-2.) Alleged: Respondent's classes were unstructured. As already mentioned, respondent's classes were structured and well disciplined. Ms. Fleckman conceded that her classes were structured. Students took copious notes and were able to organize her lectures into outline form (see paragraph G above). This charge is unsubstantiated by the evidence. (Testimony of Humphries, Signorelli, Stipulated testimony of Students.) Alleged: Respondent maintained little control over students. Respondent conducted her classes in a no-nonsense, businesslike manner. She welcomed questions from students, but she did not tolerate disruption. She was a disciplinarian and was respected by her students. This charge is unsupported by the evidence. (Testimony of Humphries, Classroom Videotapes, Signorelli, Stipulated testimony of Students.) Alleged: Respondent failed to maintain enrollment and completion rates at acceptable levels. The College has not established, prospectively, criteria to determine acceptable student attrition rates. Never before has a College instructor been recommended for termination because of an unacceptable attrition rate. Respondent's 1979, 1980, and 1981 evaluations--where she was rated unsatisfactory--concluded that she failed to "maintain enrollment and course completion at acceptable levels." (P-380, P-474.) Although she repeatedly asked Mr. Sicard for a specific attrition figure which she should meet, no figure was ever supplied. Mr. Sicard concluded that her attrition rate was "too high in relation to her peers." That conclusion is unsubstantiated. Her completion rate, over the years, was 51.7 percent, a figure which compares favorably with her fellow instructors: Alan Winet (56.3); James Killride (50.6); Margaret Casey (54.3); Dorothy O'Conner (44.4); Peter Diehl (44.4); Royal Grumbach (51.5); Lawrence Chernoff (45.2); Ronnie Fisher (42.5); and Harold Andrews (47). Moreover, between 1978 and 1980, her attrition rate was improving, sometimes exceeding 60 percent. It is concluded that, when compared with her peers, respondent maintained an acceptable student course-completion rate. (Testimony of Hansen, McCabe.) Respondent's Relationship with College Administrators Respondent was frequently at odds with College administrators. She petitioned the College for a four-day work week and a female professor's bill of rights. She appealed the College's failure to promote her and repeatedly accused the College of sexual discrimination. She was an outspoken critic, questioning and challenging the actions of College administrators. (Testimony of Sicard, Humphries.) Her relationship with administrators was marked by mutual distrust and became adversarial in nature. To avoid misunderstandings, she resorted to tape- recording her meetings with supervisors; her communications with administrators were increasingly reduced to writing. (Testimony of Sicard, Humphries.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent be reinstated as a continuing contract employee at Miami- Dade Community College with full back pay for the period of time of her suspension. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 1st day of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. Caleen, Jr. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of June, 1982.
The Issue Whether respondent's teaching certificate should be revoked on the grounds that he fraudulently obtained a higher ranking teaching certificate and thereby committed an act of gross immorality and moral turpitude.
Findings Of Fact I. Respondent's Wrongdoing Respondent, age 33, taught school in Dade County for over six years. From 1969-1972, he taught physical education at South Miami Junior High School; he then resigned and did not return to teaching until 1978, when he became a substitute teacher at Brownsville Junior High School. Shortly thereafter, he was hired in a full-time position at Brownsville Junior High, where he remained until he resigned in July, 1980. His principal at Brownsville considered him a "very good teacher," (Tr. 55) as "one of the teachers who gave his very best." (Tr. 56.) (Testimony of Carstarphen, Oden; P-4.) Respondent attended high school and junior college in Pensacola. From 1966-1969, he attended Bethune Cookman College in Daytona Beach and earned a bachelor of science degree. His postgraduate training consists of one course he took at Nova University to secure a science certificate. (Testimony of Carstarphen; P-4.) During 1978, Respondent met Eugene Sutton ("Sutton"), an employee of Florida A & M University ("Florida A & M") located in Tallahassee, Florida. One month after their initial meeting, Respondent agreed to pay Sutton approximately $2,800 for a false transcript from Florida A & M purporting to award him a master's degree in elementary education. During the ensuing months, each party performed his part of the agreement: Respondent paid Sutton the $2,800, and Sutton furnished him a false transcript. The transcript, dated April 6, 1979, indicated that he had successfully completed various postgraduate courses at Florida A & M from 1976-1978 and had been awarded a master of education degree; the transcript was a forgery. He never attended Florida A & M University. (Testimony of Carstarphen; P-4.) Since 1969, Respondent had held a rank III (graduate) teaching certificate issued by the Florida Department of Education. A postgraduate degree qualifies a teacher for a higher ranking (rank II, post graduate) teaching certificate. So, in early 1979, Respondent filed an application for the higher ranking certificate; he attached to the application a copy of the fake master's degree transcript from Florida A & M and signed, under oath, the following notarization: I understand that Florida Statutes provide for revocation of a teacher's certificate if evidence and proof is established that the certificate has been obtained by fraud- ulent means. (Section 231.28 F.S.) I fur- ther certify that all information pertaining to this application is true and correct. (Testimony of Carstarphen; P-4.) On June 28, 1979, the Department of Education--relying on the false transcript--approved his application and issued him a rank II, postgraduate teaching certificate, No. 257364. He then applied to his employer, the School Board, for a salary increase based on his postgraduate teaching certificate. His application was routinely granted. During the ensuing 12 months, the School Board paid him an additional $4,047.55 because of his higher ranking postgraduate teaching certificate. (Testimony of Carstarphen Gray; P-5, P-6, P- 8.) In mid-1980, Respondent's wrongdoing was discovered. On October 20, 1980, he pleaded guilty to criminal charges: forgery and grand theft-second degree (two counts). The Circuit Court of Dade County placed him on three years' probation and directed that restitution be made to the School Board. (P- 7.) Respondent has complied with the terms of his probation. He is now repaying, by regular payments, the money which he wrongfully obtained from the School Board. (Testimony of Carstarphen.) II. Appropriate Penalty: Suspension or Permanent Revocation The Respondent contends that his wrongful acts warrant suspension, not revocation of his teaching certificate. In support of that contention, he offered the following testimony: The reason I'm asking for this is that this was my chosen profession, and I think that I am good at it. I realize the fact that I made a tragic mistake that I'm sure would never happen again. It was a circumstance that I feel that someone would have to be involved in to really understand what actually happened. But I could only say that I'm requesting a suspension as opposed to a complete termi- nation so that I can pursue what I've been trained to do and, again, that I do well. (Tr. 48-49.) No evidence was presented which establishes that Respondent's wrongful acts have seriously reduced his effectiveness as a classroom teacher. Respondent has never before been convicted of a crime; neither has he been involved in any prior disciplinary infraction. (Testimony of Carstarphen.) Respondent did not fully cooperate with law enforcement officers investigating his conduct and the fake Florida A & M transcripts. For example, he refused to divulge the name of a friend--even though he did not know whether that person was involved in the fraudulent transcript scheme. (Testimony of McAllister, Jacobson, Carstarphen.) Respondent knowingly submitted the false Florida A & M transcript to the Department of Education; his motive was monetary gain. After filing the higher ranking postgraduate teaching certificate with his employer, he received increased salary payments for approximately one year. (Testimony of Carstarphen, McAllister, Jacobson, Gray.) III. Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Parties The findings of fact proposed by the parties have been considered. Those proposed findings which are not incorporated above are rejected as irrelevant to the issue presented or unsupported by the preponderance of evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Education Practices Commission enter a final order permanently revoking Respondent's teaching certificate, No. 257364. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of October, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Telephone: (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of October, 1981.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied to Respondent for a psychology license by endorsement pursuant to Section 490.006, Florida Statutes (1981), and Rule 21U- 11.04, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent denied Petitioner's application on the grounds that she does not hold a license from a state where the requirements for licensure are substantially equivalent to or more stringent than Florida's. Petitioner received a B.A. in psychology from Boston University, an Ed. M. in guidance and counseling from the University of Miami and, in 1975, an Ed.D. from Boston University. The doctoral program which Petitioner graduated from was not approved by the American Psychological Association (APA). Petitioner holds an active psychology license in New Jersey, issued in 1979, and an active psychology license in Massachusetts, issued in 1982. Petitioner completed her application for licensure by endorsement (Respondent's Exhibit 1) and answered the following question in the negative: Did the applicant's doctoral program require each student to demonstrate knowledge in the following substantive areas of psychology: biological bases of behavior (e.g. phys- iological psychology, comparative psy- chology, neuropsychology, psychopharmacology), cognitive-affective bases of behavior (e.g. learning, memory, perception, cognition, thinking, motivation, emotion), social bases of behavior (e.g. social psychology, cultural, ethnic, and group processes, sex roles, organizational systems theory), and individual behavior (e.g. personality theory, human development, individual differences, abnormal psychology, psy- chology of women, psychology of the handicapped). Petitioner's testimony at hearing and the statement of an official of Boston University (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) established that Petitioner's answer to the above question was correct -- that she was not required to demonstrate knowledge in the state areas.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of December, 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 13th day of December, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Eric R. Jones, Esquire 307 E. New Haven Ave., #4 Melbourne, Florida 32901 Randall A. Holland, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Room 1601, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jane Raker, Executive Director Board of Psychology Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Section 490.009(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2000).
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of psychology pursuant to Section 20.43, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 456 and 490, Florida Statutes. Respondent, during all times material to these proceedings, was a licensed psychologist in the State of Florida. He continues to be licensed in the State of Florida. His license identification is PY 2079. He practices psychology in Pensacola, Florida. Respondent went to the Bahama Bay Club, a condominium located in Gulf Breeze, Florida, on July 19, 2000. In the vicinity of the swimming pool located on the condominium premises, he removed his penis from his trousers and began shaking it in the presence of two women who were in or near the pool. Respondent whistled at the two women who then observed him. One of the women was Beth Rico, who is an airline pilot. The other woman was Ms. Rico's 19-year-old niece who is a student at Louisiana Tech University. Ms. Rico yelled at Respondent who thereafter placed his penis in his trousers and retreated. Ms. Rico told Respondent to get off the property and subsequently pursued Respondent. By chance, Sergeant Stephen Neff of the Gulf Breeze, Florida, Police Department, was in the immediate area of Ms. Rico and Respondent. Ms. Rico told Sergeant Neff that Respondent had exposed himself to her niece and to herself. Sergeant Neff pursued Respondent off the premises of the Bahama Bay Club. Respondent dove into some azalea bushes. Sergeant Neff attempted to apprehend Respondent by grabbing him. Respondent attempted to extricate himself. The two eventually exited the azalea bushes into the parking lot of a shopping plaza. There was a continuing struggle which ended only after officers arrived from the Gulf Breeze Police Department subsequent to calls for help made by citizen bystanders. It is apparent that Respondent's motivation was to escape rather than harm Sergeant Neff. However, as a result of Respondent's efforts to resist arrest, Sergeant Neff received abrasions and cuts to his hands, knees, elbows, and feet. On December 20, 2000, during an appearance before the Circuit Court of Santa Rosa County, Respondent was placed on probation for a period of one year subsequent to pleading guilty to the misdemeanor of battery and resisting a law enforcement officer without violence and after pleading nolo contendere to the misdemeanor of indecent exposure in a public place. Adjudication was withheld for the offense of battery and resisting a law enforcement officer without violence. He was adjudicated guilty of indecent exposure in a public place. Expert testimony Carolyn Stimel, Ph.D., is a psychologist in Tallahassee, Florida. She is board-certified in forensic psychology. She is an expert in the field of psychology and is an expert in treating sexual predators. Prior to testifying, she reviewed the Administrative Complaint, the response to the investigative complaint, and a copy of a psychological evaluation on Respondent prepared by Dr. Larry Neidigh completed on June 11, 2001. She also reviewed the investigative report prepared by the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA). She did not personally examine Respondent. Dr. Stimel noted that Dr. Neidigh diagnosed Respondent as being afflicted with exhibitionism. Exhibitionism is a subset of paraphilia and describes someone who derives sexual excitement or satisfaction from displaying their genitals to unsuspecting or unwilling observers. Dr. Stimel opined that exhibitionism may be treated but recidivism is high. There are some people who do not respond at all to treatment. About 40 percent of persons with one paraphilia, such as exhibitionism, are likely to have another, but different paraphilia. However, Dr. Stimel stated that there was no evidence of this in the case of Respondent. It is Dr. Stimel's opinion that a psychologist needs integrity, good judgment, and emotional stability in order to properly perform the duties of a psychologist. It is Dr. Stimel's opinion that Respondent is not mentally fit to practice psychology at this time. Dr. Stimel believes that someone having psychological, emotional, or sexual problems which affect their ability to work effectively with patients is not mentally fit to properly practice psychology. It is Dr. Stimel's opinion that there is a nexus between the practice of psychology and a conviction of indecent exposure and a diagnosis of paraphilia. The expert testimony of Dr. Stimel, taken as a whole, is credible. Larry Neidigh, Ph.D., of Orange Park, Florida, conducted a psychological evaluation of Respondent on June 6, 2001, and made a report dated June 11, 2001. Dr. Neidigh reviewed documents pertinent to the matter and administered a five-hour battery of psychological tests to Respondent. Dr. Neidigh's diagnostic impression was exhibitionism. He opined that there were no indications of any mental abnormality or psychopathology which would indicate that he is not competent to perform his duties as a psychologist. It is Dr. Neidigh's opinion that the conviction does not directly relate to the practice of his profession or his ability to practice his profession. The report of Dr. Neidigh is succinct. It is also helpful, but Dr. Neidigh did not appear at the hearing and all of the factual underpinnings which caused him to formulate his conclusions were not available. Additionally, there is a substantial question as to whether certain of the tests administered by Dr. Neidigh were helpful in understanding Respondent's situation. Accordingly, the information supplied by Dr. Neidigh is considered less persuasive than that provided by Dr. Stimel. James Burt Meyer, Ph.D., is a psychologist who also has a law degree. He has done post-doctorate work in two different areas of psychology. He practices forensic psychology, and he is a professor at Florida State University. He frequently conducts training workshops addressing ethical issues in psychology, and has worked in the area of assessing and treating juvenile sex offenders. He is an expert in psychology. Dr. Meyer did an extensive document review in the case of Respondent and conducted interviews of both the Respondent and his wife. He engaged in a very careful review of the Florida Psychological Services Act with specific reference to Section 490.009(2)(p), Florida Statutes, which addresses the issue of a psychologist's fitness to practice the profession. Dr. Meyer believes there are three areas which should be considered in Respondent's case. The first area addresses whether the offender admitted that he had committed a sexual offense and whether he accepted responsibility for that act. Dr. Meyer believes that acknowledging that one has a problem is an indication that rehabilitation is probable. He noted that Respondent acknowledged that he had exposed himself. The second area is whether Respondent expressed a desire to stop his behavior. Respondent expressed remorse for his behavior and said that he wished to make amends. He informed Dr. Meyer that he had written letters to the two women and the police officer expressing his regret. The third area is whether the offender expressed a desire for treatment. Dr. Meyer did not discuss what, if any, treatment Respondent sought nor is there any evidence in the record which indicated that Respondent sought treatment. In an effort to formulate an opinion as to whether the act in which Respondent engaged on July 19, 2000, was directly related to the practice of psychology, he also consulted the McGrath article, consulted his own library of psychology law and ethics, and reviewed the definition of serious crimes in the National Registry of Health Service Providers (National Registry). Upon a review of all of the foregoing material and after considering all of the other information available to him, Dr. Meyer concluded that Respondent's behavior did not rise to a level where a chronic abuse of power between patient and therapist might occur. He opined that there was no direct relation between Respondent's exhibitionism and his practice of psychology. Dr. Meyer further noted that indecent exposure was a misdemeanor and was not the type of crime that would cause a psychologist to be removed from the National Registry. While he opined that Respondent's behavior suggested a great lapse in moral consciousness, it did not extend to exhibiting a depraved mind. Dr. Meyer agreed with Dr. Stimel when she stated that the recidivism rate for exhibitionism ranges from zero to 70 percent. Dr. Meyer also opined that a person could compartmentalize his behaviors and stated that Respondent could compartmentalize his professional life and his personal life so that aberrant behavior in his personal life might not affect his performance in his professional life. Dr. Meyer further noted that exhibitionism is a crime usually committed by young men, that men over 40 rarely practiced exhibitionism, and that since Dr. Meyer is about 55 years of age, he is less likely to engage in that kind of behavior than are younger men. In discussing the McGrath article, it was pointed out that about 35 percent of incarcerated rapists and child molesters engaged in hands-off aberrant sexual behavior, like exhibitionism, prior to moving into hands-on offenses such as rape. Dr. Meyer stated that he did not believe that would be the case with Respondent. Dr. Meyer's testimony was informative; however, he stated that a key indicator of rehabilitation was seeking treatment, but there was no evidence that Respondent sought treatment subsequent to the events of July 19, 2000. Moreover, Dr. Meyer could not adequately address the propensity of certain exhibitionists to move on to more heinous sexual activities. As a result, Dr. Meyer's opinion that there is no direct relation between Respondent's exhibition and his practice of psychology, is rejected. Character witnesses Dr. Henry E. Roberts is Respondent's pastor at United Methodist Church. He knows Respondent and his wife. He stated that Respondent is an active church member, a man of integrity, and is respected in the community. Flurett Fontaine is Respondent's office manager and has been for six years. She has been in a position to observe him closely. She stated that Respondent is a Christian, an ethical, and moral man. She chose Respondent to counsel her son when her son was arrested. She would not work for anyone she could not trust. Robin Steed is a sign language interpreter for the deaf or hard of hearing for the Department of Education, Vocational Rehabilitation, and has known Respondent for 15 years. She works with him when he evaluates and counsels deaf or hard of hearing persons. She believes Respondent to be sincere, generous, and trustworthy. George Custred was a patient of Respondent before Respondent's arrest and continues to be a patient of Respondent. Mr. Custred stated that he had experienced serious emotional problems and that he would not be alive absent the professional help he received from Respondent. Bradford Guy is a vocational rehabilitation counselor and has been for 25 years. Mr. Guy said that Respondent was a dedicated and thorough psychologist. Kenneth Donnalley is a vocational rehabilitation counselor who has known Respondent for nine years both personally and professionally. Mr. Donnalley said that Respondent is an honest, caring person to whom he refers his more clinically fragile clients because of Respondent's understanding and because of the thoroughness of his evaluations. He referred his 19-year-old daughter to Respondent and would do so again, if necessary, despite his knowledge that Respondent had been arrested. Dr. Bill Spain is a chiropractor who has known Respondent for about 20 years. They both attend the same church and are members of a Wednesday morning bible class. He said that Respondent is a fine Christian. Bonnie Brown is Respondent's second wife. She is a middle school teacher and has known Respondent since 1985. She married him in 1991. She said they enjoyed an excellent marriage and stated that their relationship has grown stronger since Respondent's arrest.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Psychology enter a final order finding that Respondent committed a violation of Section 490.009(2)(c), Florida Statutes, by being convicted or having been found guilty of a crime which directly relates to the practice of his profession or the ability to practice his profession, and that his license be suspended for one year, or a lesser period of time should he demonstrate to the Board of Psychology that he is rehabilitated. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. HARRY L. HOOPER 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 27th day of February, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul Watson Lambert, Esquire 1203 Governors Square Boulevard Magnolia Centre, Suite 102 Tallahassee, Florida 32311-2960 Mary Denise O'Brien, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 39 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Dr. Kaye Howerton, Executive Director Board of Psychology Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C05 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issues in this cause are as framed by an Administrative Complaint brought by the Petitioner against Respondent. Through this document it is charged that the Respondent attempted to obtain a license from the State of Florida pertaining to the practice of psychology and that he did so by actions of bribery or fraud, or fraudulent representation. See Section 498.009(2)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, is charged with the responsibility of regulating the practice of those persons licensed as mental health counselors in the State of Florida. This authority is in pursuit of Section 20.30, Florida Statutes; Chapter 455, Florida Statutes; and Chapter 490, Florida Statutes. Respondent, in all relevant time periods contemplated by this Administrative Complaint, was and is a licensed mental health counselor in the state of Florida. His license number is MH 0000294. On September 22, 1982, Petitioner received the Respondent's application to become a psychologist through exception. In turn, this was followed by an application for licensure based upon examination as received by the Department on October 4, 1982. Through the application process and in the interest of obtaining a license to practice psychology in Florida, Respondent indicated that he had received a doctorate (Psy D) in clinical psychology from the University of England at Oxford. It was further indicated by the Respondent that this school from which he obtained his doctorate was accredited by the European Accreditation Society. Further, Respondent indicated that he had received the degree in January 1981. One of the prerequisites for licensure in the State of Florida, as a psychologist, concerns the need to receive a doctorate in psychology from a psychology program which has been accredited by the American Psychological Association or, in the alternative, a degree which has been earned from an equivalent educational program. The University of England at Oxford not being an institution accredited by the American Psychological Association, it was necessary for the Respondent to demonstrate the equivalency of his academic achievement. The mechanical format which the Petitioner utilized in determining the question of equivalency was a form referred to as Psychology Program Analysis Form. A copy of this form as submitted by the Respondent in pursuit of his licensure as a psychologist may be found in the Petitioner's composite Exhibit 3 admitted into evidence. This item was received by the Department of Professional Regulation on September 16, 1983. The instructions for this form indicate that Part II shall be completed by the dean of the department from which the applicant had been awarded the doctoral degree. It is further indicated that this form should be mailed directly to the Board of Psychological Examiners of the State of Florida. In other words, it is the dean of the school who is responsible for the completion of the second portion of the form and for its submission to the State of Florida, directly. Furthermore, it was intended that the second part of the form, having been completed by the educator, should be signed by that person. Although an individual affiliated with the University of England at Oxford, one Anthony George Asquith, did sign the form dated December 1, 1982, Respondent is the person who completed the substance of this information provided to the Petitioner in Part II. That being so, Respondent acted contrary to the instructions given by the licensing agency and defeated the purpose related to having independent program assessment and verification offered by the officials within the University of England at Oxford. More importantly, for reasons as discussed subsequently, Respondent submitted this information in furtherance of his fraudulent attempt to gain a license to practice psychology in Florida. Among other misleading comments set out in the second part of the Psychology Program Analysis Form is the claim that the program at the University of England at Oxford is ". . . organized in a graded sequence of study designed by the psychology faculty responsible for the program." This program was not organized. In fact, there was no program. Instead, the University of England at Oxford was an organization having as its purpose the provision of phony degrees for those persons who had money to spend in obtaining bogus academic credentials. The less than genuine nature of the education allegedly provided by the University of England at Oxford was a fact which Respondent could easily discern. Consequently, his claim that he had received a doctorate from the University of England at Oxford, as an aid to getting a license to practice psychology in Florida, is patent fraud. Respondent, in furtherance of this fraudulent attempt, also submitted a document referred to as a transcript of grades for courses taken while a student at the University of England at Oxford. A copy of this transcript may be found in the Petitioner's composite Exhibit 3. Respondent was not involved in the course work depicted as being achieved while pursuing his studies at the University of England at Oxford. In actuality, Respondent did not pursue any courses at the University of England at Oxford. Respondent's involvement with the organization known as the University of England at Oxford began when he determined that he wished to obtain a doctorate degree in psychology without pursuing traditional course work. To this end, he wrote to the University of England at Oxford and received a catalog, a copy of which may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 4 admitted into evidence. Respondent provided that organization with an enrollment fee. He also provided them with what the Respondent describes as a doctoral thesis. This doctoral thesis was not defended before the faculty at the University of England at Oxford. Indeed, the catalog for participation in the program offered by the University of England at Oxford did not require submission of a thesis to obtain a doctoral degree. All that was mandated was sufficient money to satisfy those persons within the University of England at Oxford that sufficient money had been paid to obtain the so-called doctorate degree. A copy of the alleged thesis may be found as Respondent's Exhibit 3 submitted into evidence. Although Respondent attempts to defend his actions in submitting his application for licensure as a psychologist based upon his argument that in his initial activities with the University of England at Oxford he had no reason to believe that the organization was less than genuine, this explanation is not credited. The facts demonstrate that from the inception, Respondent should have realized that the University of England at Oxford was not a legitimate academic institution and his utilization of the claimed degree from that organization constituted ill-gotten gains which he parlayed into an attempt to defraud the State of Florida in pursuit of licensure and, ultimately, the public who might be subjected to his practice as a psychologist. Dr. John Bear, an expert in assessing the bona fides related to non- traditional educational institutions, gave testimony at the final hearing. His familiarity with the University of England at Oxford goes so far as arriving at the door of the organization, only to find that the business being conducted there was that of a place where mail was received. In London, England, at the address given for the University of England at Oxford, he found a man seated behind a desk and when he asked of this person whether this location was the University of England at Oxford, the man replied, "We receive their mail here." There was no campus. There was no faculty. The facility was only a mail- receiving service address. In assessing Petitioner's Exhibit 4, Dr. Bear did not find the catalog to depict a legitimate school. His opinion concerning the legitimacy of the University of England at Oxford is accepted when he describes the school as clearly not being legitimate. Some of the observations which he had which lead him to those conclusions, and which are accepted as factually correct, concern the lack of a telephone number, the fact that the organization calls itself the University of England at Oxford, when it is located in London and the university town of Oxford is some distance away, and the fact that the literature within the catalog indicates that it is not necessary to do anything to receive a degree other than submit a resume. The lack of necessity to provide a thesis is an item which Dr. Bear feels that no legitimate doctoral program would allow for. Dr. Bear was struck by the fact that the only things necessary were submission of the resume and payment, and that the resume need only be brief and to the point. He indicates that the catalog points out that the person obtaining the so-called degree need not be concerned with meeting traditional standards of experience and that any resume or thesis provided would be favorably regarded. He points out that the fact that the catalog indicated that a 20 percent discount would be provided for those persons wishing to earn two or more degrees at once. This pertains to a 20 percent discount on the second degree and any degree thereafter. This, in Dr. Bear's thinking, is unheard of in legitimate education. The method of payment for the degree through money order, as opposed to checks, and the fact that the money orders would be made out to ISP is found to be irregular. Dr. Bear is struck by the fact that the catalog states that the degrees would be backdated to any year the applicant chooses, back to the year 1918. The year 1918 is the year indicated as being the founding year of the University of England at Oxford. Again, this backdating of a degree is unheard of in legitimate education, according to Dr. Bear. He points out that the degree can be received within six weeks, which seems inordinately short. He points out that no faculty is listed within the catalog. When he attempted to obtain a list of faculty from the University of England at Oxford, he received another catalog. His subsequent investigation revealed that there was no faculty, as mentioned before. He points out the fact that a fifty dollar charge is made for the receipt of transcripts from the University of England at Oxford. He found this to be unusual in that no courses are taken or grades received, and yet a transcript can be provided upon the payment of fee. In response to a question by Petitioner's counsel, Dr. Bear believes that the University of England at Oxford is a "phony-degree mill." He believes this to be so, given that the institution awards degrees without reason for doing anything other than paying money. There are no educational standards and there is no education being provided. Finally, Dr. Bear feels that any reasonably intelligent person could have perceived that the University of England at Oxford was not a legitimate educational institution. This insight includes the Respondent, and it is found that Respondent recognized or should have recognized that the University of England at Oxford was not legitimate. Other incidents which point out the scope of the fraud perpetrated by the Respondent in his attempt to gain licensure as a psychologist would include the submission to the Board of Psychology of the State of Florida a letter dated September 28, 1981, from Nelson Corcoran, the purported Dean of Students at the University of England at Oxford, directed to David A. Schriemer, who was a mental health program coordinator with the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The correspondence, which the Respondent had knowledge of, indicates his attending classes at the University of England at Oxford, which he did not. The letter makes reference to the faculty at the University of England at Oxford, which Respondent had never met, nor had he met any students at the University of England at Oxford as the letter suggests. In the course of the hearing, Respondent alludes to a letter from the World Education Services, Inc., dated August 26, 1981, Respondent's Exhibit 1 admitted into evidence. This letter was obtained in Respondent's pursuit of an employment position which required doctoral level education. This correspondence was unrelated to the attempt at gaining licensure to practice psychology. The letter from World Education Services, Inc., indicates that the University of England at Oxford awards degrees equivalent to doctor's degrees in the United States, related to the field of psychology. The World Education Services, Inc., is an accrediting organization. If the Respondent was only conversant with the remarks of World Education Services, Inc., in their August 26, 1981, letter, a stronger argument might be made in his favor, although that argument would not overcome the clear import found within the catalog of the University of England at Oxford pointing out the unacceptability of that alternative form of education. Nonetheless, it was made abundantly clear to the Respondent on November 3, 1981, in correspondence from an official within the World Education Services, Inc., that it retracted its comments on the legitimacy of the doctoral program at the University of England at Oxford. A copy of that correspondence of November 3, 1981, is found as Respondent's Exhibit 2 admitted into evidence. Again, this is correspondence related to Respondent's employment situation, not in pursuit of the attempt to gain licensure as a psychologists. This latter correspondence from World Education Services, Inc., was never submitted in his attempts to gain employment at a doctoral level. This withholding of the information from his employer at that time, the State of Florida, Department of Corrections, was further evidence of the fact that the Respondent recognized the problems associated with the degree that he had obtained from the organization known as the University of England at Oxford. The November 3, 1981, correspondence clearly withdraws any statement of accreditation when it says that the doctor of psychology degree which the Respondent obtained in 1981 would not be considered in England or the United States for employment or academic purposes and that Respondent had not completed education in England which was equivalent to a doctoral degree in the United States.
