The Issue The questions of fact and law at issue in this proceeding have been agreed to by the parties and have been set out in a Prehearing Stipulation entered into by the parties. The Prehearing Stipulation has been accepted into evidence as Joint Exhibit 1.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner received a Bachelors Degree from the University of Montemorelos on June 1, 1978. The Petitioner received a Medical Degree from the University of Montemorelos on June 12, 1982. The University of Montemorelos is located in Montemorelos, Nuevo Leon, Mexico. The Petitioner Successfully passed the ECFMG examination in 1982. The Petitioner successfully completed a fifth pathway program at Loma Linda University School of Medicine effective June 30, 1983 (July 1, 1982 - June 30, 1983). The Petitioner successfully passed the December, 1982, FLEX examination in California and was licensed to practice medicine in California effective November 13, 1984. The Petitioner Successfully completed his PGY 1, 2, and 3 training, i.e., a residency program in internal medicine at Charles F. Kettering Memorial Hospital and Wright State University, School of Medicine and Affiliated Hospitals on June 30, 1986 (July 1, 1983 - June 30, 1986). The Petitioner is in good standing to practice medicine in California, Tennessee and Georgia. The Petitioner currently practices medicine in Jellico, Tennessee. He is self-employed and on the staff of Jellico Community Hospital. The Petitioner applied for licensure in Florida by endorsement. His application was dated January 29, 1986. The Petitioner paid the required application fee. By notice dated March 6, 1986, Ms. Dorothy Faircloth the Executive Director of the Board, notified the Petitioner that his application was incomplete because of his failure to provide: copy of 5th pathway certificate, undergraduate degree notarized as stated above. [Emphasis added]. Independently of the March 6, 1986 notice from Ms. Faircloth, the Petitioner sent a notarized copy of his bachelors degree from the University of Montemorelos to the Board by letter dated March 6, 1986. Board staff notified the Petitioner on or about March 14, 1986, that staff was unable to recommend favorable approval of Petitioner's application by endorsement because he did not possess an undergraduate degree from a United States four-year college or university. In particular, the Petitioner was informed that he failed to fulfill the requirements of Sections 458.311(3)(a) and 458.313(1), Florida Statutes. The Petitioner was also told the following: According to your application you do not possess an undergraduate degree from a United States four year college or university; and for incomplete application process. Section 458.311(3)(a), Florida Statutes, which requires an applicant to "[h]ave completed undergraduate work in an accredited United States college or university" was also quoted in the Board staff's notice to the Petitioner. The Petitioner's application was considered by the Board at its meeting of April 4-6, 1986. The Agenda for that meeting included a list of ineligible applicants, including the Petitioner. The following language was included on the list pertaining to the Petitioner: 458.313(1) and 458.1311(3)(1) [sic]; applicant did a 5th pathway and does not have an undergraduate degree from a U.S. college or university. As a result of the denial of his application by the Board, the Petitioner filed an application in the Spring of 1986 for admission into the Adult Degree Program (hereinafter referred to as the "ADP") of Atlantic Union College (hereinafter referred to as "Atlantic"). Atlantic is a fully-accredit United States college located in South Lancaster, Massachusetts. It has been accredited since approximately 1946 or 1947. The ADP at Atlantic was begun in 1972. It is an external degree program based upon a short on-campus period of time, during which a student develops an outline of study and begins work on the program with supervision. The student then returns home where the course of study is pursued for 6 months. Students then return to the campus for a one-week mini-course. On the application for admission into the ADP at Atlantic filed by the Petitioner, the Petitioner answered question 14, which requested, among other things, a short essay discussing the applicant's educational goals, by explaining that he was seeking an undergraduate degree from Atlantic in order to comply with the requirements of Section 458.311(3)(a), Florida Statutes. The Petitioner was accepted by Atlantic into its ADP. The Petitioner's acceptance into the ADP was based upon a review of his previous academic record and experience. Based upon that review, Atlantic required the Petitioner to complete one unit in the ADP in order to receive a Bachelor of Science degree in General Science. A "unit" in the ADP is the equivalent of 16 semester hours of study at a university or college. In order for a student to be awarded an undergraduate degree from Atlantic, the college generally requires that the student earn the equivalent of 8 units. The last 2 units of study must, according to Atlantic's catalogue, be earned in the ADP at Atlantic in order for a student to be awarded an undergraduate degree from Atlantic. The requirement that the last 2 units of study be earned in the ADP was waived for the Petitioner, based upon a "rule of thumb" exception which the admissions committee recognizes. That exception is to award an undergraduate degree based upon only one unit of study if an individual has already earned graduate degrees. The Petitioner enrolled in the ADP at Atlantic for a period of approximately six months. During the six months of the Petitioner's enrollment at Atlantic, he spent approximately three weeks on the campus of the college; approximately two weeks at the beginning of the program and one week at the end. During the first two weeks of the program the Petitioner developed the course of his studies and prepared an outline of his proposed course. The course of study, which was to be in the humanities, was approved by a study supervisor. The Petitioner's course of study consisted of an in-depth study of photography, the history of photography, actual work in photography, including taking black and white and color photographs, processing, developing and mounting of black and white photographs and a presentation of color pictures taken by the Petitioner. The Petitioner wrote a paper on the history of photography and completed a study on architecture in Chicago which was documented photographically and in a paper. The Petitioner also attended a one- week mini-course at the end of the program. The Petitioner completed the course of study approved by Atlantic and received an "A" for his work. The Petitioner graduated with distinction. Effective January 11, 1987, the Petitioner received a Bachelor of Science degree in General Science, a "four-year" degree, from Atlantic. The degree awarded to the Petitioner was based largely on the work he had completed at the University of Montemorelos and in part on the one unit of work in humanities performed at Atlantic. On February 8, 1987, the Petitioner appeared before the Board. The Board considered the degree awarded to the Petitioner by Atlantic and, by a vote of 6 to 5, denied Petitioner's application. An Order was issued by the Board on March 25, 1987, indicating the Board's intent to deny the Petitioner's application for licensure as a physician by endorsement. The Board rejected the application for the following reason: You have failed to demonstrate that you completed undergraduate work in an accredited United States college or university, as required by Section 458.311(3)(a), Florida Statues, in conjunction with Section 458.313(1), Florida Statutes (1985). There is no statute or rule which explicates the proper interpretation of Section 458.311(3)(a), Florida Statutes. Nor has the Board applied Section 458.311(3)(a), Florida Statutes, to any licensure applicant based on substantially the same facts involved in this case. On May 29, 1985, Ms. Faircloth, in her capacity as Executive Director of the Board, executed an Affidavit in the case of Edwardo M. Montes, M.D. v. State of Florida, Board of Medical Examiners, 7 F.A.L.R. 5717 (Final Order Filed November 11, 1985). In pertinent part, Ms. Faircloth stated the following: The Board has consistently interpreted the requirement of Section 458.311(3)(a), Florida Statutes, to require a diploma or official transcript showing that an undergraduate degree has been awarded as the only evidence of successful completion of undergraduate work as required by law. To the best of Affiant's knowledge and belief, no applicant for medical licensure pursuant to Section 458.311(3), Florida Statutes, has been licensed by the Board of Medical Examiners who has not submitted a diploma or official transcript showing that an undergraduate degree has been awarded.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued GRANTING the Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement as a physician in Florida. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of October, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY SARTIN 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 14th day of October, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-1731 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1-3 and 5-9. 2 10-13. The date referenced in the third sentence should be March 6, 1986 and not March 6, 1987. The fifth sentence is irrelevant. 3 Hereby accepted. 4 The first 2 sentences are hereby accepted. 14. 5 15-16, 19-21 and 28-29. 6 Irrelevant. 7 31. 8 33-34. 9-11 Hereby accepted. 12-13 Irrelevant. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 1. 2 2. 3 4. 4 6. 5 8. 6 5. 7 7. 8 10. 9 13. 10-11 24. 12 25. 13 20, 26 and 28. 14 27. 15 26. 16 Not supported by the-weight of the evidence. 17 22. 18 16 and 29. 19 16. 20 30. 21 31. 22 32. 23 Hereby accepted. 24 33. 18. The question at issue does not only request that an applicant describe himself, "stating his strengths and weaknesses and experiences" as suggested by the Respondent. Irrelevant. Irrelevant. The Board failed to prove that it is proper to do so in this case. COPIES FURNISHED: Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director Board of Medicine 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Tom Gallagher, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Charles A. Stampelos, Esquire Finley, Kumble, Wagner, Heine, Underberg, Manley, Myerson & Casey 600 First Florida Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Allen R. Grossman, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Suite 1601, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 =================================================================
The Issue The issues to be determined in this proceeding are whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(g) and (j), Florida Statutes (2013), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a) and (e), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 1011542, covering the areas of Elementary Education and Social Science. Her certificate is valid through June 30, 2018. At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent taught sixth-grade social studies at Bob Graham Education Center (Bob Graham) in the Miami-Dade County School District (the School District). Respondent was employed by the School District for approximately eight years. This case involves events that happened while a substitute teacher was in charge of Respondent's class, and Respondent's reaction to those events upon her return to school. Respondent was absent from school on Tuesday, November 26, 2013, and left lesson plans for the substitute teacher handling her classes. The substitute teacher assigned to her classroom was a young male teacher. The substitute teacher gave the students an assignment to complete, and told them that once all of the students in the class completed their work, they could have free time. During the free time, students engaged in a variety of activities typical of sixth graders. Some played games on the computers in the room, some watched prank videos played by the substitute, some danced, some sat or stood on desks, some wrote on the smart board, and some played with the cheerleading pom poms stored in the room. At least one student used her phone to take pictures and gave her phone to another student to take a picture of girls standing on the desks. Apparently one of the girls, who did not testify, posted one or more of the pictures on social media. The social media posts were seen by Respondent. The students who testified recognized that their behavior that day was not in keeping with the strict behavioral standards maintained at Bob Graham. One student described the prank videos as not appropriate for school, and another acknowledged that use of cell phones during the day was prohibited. No one maintained that it would be appropriate to stand on a desk. As affirmed by one student, the substitute lost control of the classroom. When Respondent returned to school the following day, she became aware of what had happened in her classroom that Tuesday. The more credible evidence supports the conclusion that she saw the pictures posted on social media. While Respondent claimed that her room was in disarray when she returned, each of the students who testified denied that they left the room in that condition. Only three students testified, C.C., S.G., and N.C., and these students were all students in Respondent's second period class. It is possible that the room was in disarray based on the behavior of students in other class periods. Respondent was unhappy with the condition of her room and with the reported behavior of her students during her absence. N.C. testified that on Wednesday morning, before the second period class, word had circulated around school that Ms. Rosa knew what they had done in class the day before, so the students believed that they were going to get in trouble. When class began, Ms. Rosa told the students that she was upset with their behavior from the day before. Descriptions from the students varied, one describing her as acting like she was happy they were all going to get in trouble, and threatening them all with detentions or in-school suspensions, while another student described her as yelling at the class as a whole, but not yelling at individual students. Whether she actually raised her voice at them or whether the students were reacting to the message she was delivering is not clear. In any event, the more persuasive evidence indicates that Respondent called each child's name and asked what they had done the day before. After hearing from each student, she had some of the students line up and go to the principal's office. How many students actually went to the office is also unclear: the description ranged from all but three to only a few. At the office, the students met with Assistant Principal Jesus Mesa, who apparently issued in-school suspensions to some and detentions to others.1/ These were students who had never been in significant trouble before. Getting an in-school suspension meant that they would not be permitted to participate in clubs or remain in the National Junior Honor Society. It appeared that this consequence of the punishment they received is what upset the students the most. There were reports that Ms. Rosa used the words "stupid," and "ratched," as well as "shit" while she was talking to the students. N.C. testified that she told the class as a whole that they were stupid for thinking she would not find out what happened. There was no testimony that she described any one student as stupid. All three students testified that she used the term "ratched," although one of them acknowledged that his written statement to that effect was based upon what others told him, as opposed to hearing the term himself. None of the students knew what the term meant, other than it had a negative connotation, and none identified the context in which the word was used. The principal, Yecenia Martinez-Lopez, described the term as meaning someone was "low class" or trash. Urbandictionary.com, referred to by Ms. Rosa in Respondent's Exhibit 1, defines the word as being slang for "wretched." With respect to the use of the word "shit," C.C. did not testify that the word was used. S.G. stated that he had heard Respondent use the term, but did not testify that she used it on the day in question, and said it had never been directed toward him. He did not identify when or to whom the word was used. Similarly, N.C. testified that Respondent had used the term, but also did not give any context for its use and her written statements did not reference the term. N.C. claimed that she just remembered the use of the term while reading her statements during the hearing. Given that the incident occurred more than four years before her testimony, this claim is not plausible or persuasive. No student testified that they were embarrassed or humiliated by Respondent's behavior that day. One student described Respondent's behavior as "rude and unacceptable," and another indicated that she was scared about explaining to her parents the possibility that she would not be able to participate in clubs. The more persuasive testimony was that students felt the punishment they received (ironically, from Mr. Mesa as opposed to Respondent) was out of proportion for what happened, and were concerned with the effect an in-school suspension would have on their ability to participate in extracurricular activities. Several students went home and complained to their parents about what happened that day. Whether they were complaining about Ms. Rosa's treatment of them, about the punishment they received, or about being reported to the front office is not clear. Likewise, the reaction of the various parents is also somewhat unclear. N.C. testified that she knew the parents were talking amongst themselves, and that the parents thought that there should be consequences for the students' behavior, but that an in-school suspension was a whole other step. From N.C.'s view, the parents' concern went from concern about the level of punishment to a complaint about Ms. Rosa. What any of the parents actually thought or said remains a mystery, because no parent testified at hearing. However, on Monday, December 2, 2013, following the Thanksgiving weekend, approximately 20 parents of students in Respondent's class went to the school and met with the principal, Ms. Martinez-Lopez, demanding that their students be removed from Ms. Rosa's class. As a result of their complaints, which are identified only by hearsay in this proceeding, the punishment for some, if not all, of the students affected was downgraded to a detention. Ms. Martinez-Lopez contacted the School District's north region office to report the incident. Ms. Martinez-Lopez was directed that the matter should be handled as an administrative review, meaning she should investigate it as opposed to having it investigated by the School District, and forward her findings to the School District. Ms. Martinez-Lopez collected statements from the students in Respondent's class and prepared a report of her findings. As a result of her investigation, Respondent was issued a reprimand, and moved from teaching sixth grade to teaching second grade. No other discipline was imposed. There are two sets of statements related to this incident: one set collected by Ms. Martinez-Lopez from December 4, 2013, through December 11, 2013, and a second set collected by the Department of Education on October 10, 2014. There was no evidence presented regarding the method Ms. Martinez-Lopez used to collect the first set of statements. With respect to the second set of statements, S.G. testified that multiple students were in the same room filling out the statement at the same time. N.C. testified that she, C.C., and S.G. were called out of their English class and went to the office together, but were not in the room together when they made the statements, and did not talk to each other about what was happening. S.G.'s description of the events was the more credible of the two. Respondent is no longer teaching in the School District. She took a leave of absence after the 2013-2014 school year, and then left the School District to take a position with United Teachers of Dade. She denies that she used profanity toward the students in her class, and contends that the events as described by the students did not happen. She does acknowledge asking each student what they had done the day before and having many of the students go to the principal's office.2/ Respondent was clearly upset by the events that took place in her classroom and expressed her displeasure to her students. There is persuasive evidence that she told them in no uncertain terms that there would be punishment imposed for their behavior. There is not clear convincing evidence that Respondent embarrassed, mocked, and disparaged students, or directed profanity toward them. Likewise, it was not demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's conduct reduced her effectiveness as a teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission dismiss the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 2018.
The Issue The ultimate issue to be resolved in this proceeding is whether the Petitioner should be awarded a doctor of education degree by Florida State University. Petitioner contends that he properly completed the requirements for the degree, that a valid offer of the degree was made to him, that he accepted the offer, and that the degree was then wrongfully withheld. The university contends that Petitioner did not meet the requirements for the degree and that no valid, enforceable offer of it was made to Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact In 1976, Petitioner was admitted into the doctoral program in biology at Florida State University. He applied to transfer to the science education program and was admitted to the doctoral program in science education within the College of Education at Florida State University on June 24, 1977. He was pursuing a doctor of philosophy (Ph.D.) degree. Among the requirements that Petitioner needed to meet in order to receive the degree were successful completion of a diagnostic examination, completion of thirty-six resident hours of course work, course work in the field of statistics, a preliminary examination, approval of a prospectus for a doctoral dissertation, and presentation of an acceptable dissertation and a successful dissertation defense. Following his admission into the Ph.D. program in science education, a supervisory committee was established for the Petitioner, and a major professor was appointed. It was the major professor's and supervisory committee's function to monitor Petitioner's progress and ultimately to make a recommendation as to whether petitioner should be awarded a degree. By November 7, 1980, Petitioner had completed all of the requirements for a Ph.D. degree except for the presentation of his dissertation and the dissertation defense. These were scheduled to be conducted by the supervisory committee on November 7, 1980. Petitioner had been advised by at least two members of the committee that he might not be ready to present and defend his dissertation. Petitioner felt that he was. On November 7, 1980, Petitioner met with his supervisory committee and presented and defended his dissertation. After his presentation, Petitioner left the room, and the committee evaluated the dissertation and defense. The committee unanimously concluded that the dissertation and defense were inadequate. The dissertation was not marginally inadequate. It was grossly below standards. The committee unanimously and appropriately concluded that the dissertation and defense were not acceptable, and that Petitioner had not met the requirements for a Ph.D. degree. Petitioner's major professor felt that the Petitioner had devoted considerable time, energy, and hard work to the degree program. He was concerned that the effort not be totally wasted. He requested that the committee consider accepting the dissertation as adequate for the award of a doctor of education (Ed.D.) degree or a "master's specialist" degree, and that the committee recommend that Petitioner be awarded one of those degrees or that he be allowed to continue working toward a Ph.D. degree. None of the members of the supervisory committee had had experience with the Ed.D. degree. They all considered it an inferior degree and felt that awarding it to Petitioner would constitute something of a "consolation prize." In fact, an Ed.D. degree from Florida State University is not intended to be an inferior degree. Its focus is somewhat different, but the requirements for obtaining the degree are basically the same. The committee was mistaken in considering the offer of such a degree to Petitioner. Indeed, the requirements for an Ed.D. degree being similar, and in some cases identical to those for the Ph.D. degree, Petitioner had not qualified for the award of an Ed.D. degree. After the committee adjourned its proceedings on November 7, Petitioner's major professor discussed the committee's actions with Petitioner. He told Petitioner that pending proper approval, Petitioner would have the options of continuing to work toward a Ph.D. degree, or receiving an Ed.D. or master's specialist degree. It appears that the major professor was overly sensitive about the Petitioner's feelings, and he may not have bluntly advised Petitioner that he failed his dissertation, presentation, and defense. Petitioner considered his options and told his major professor that if it was possible, he would be amenable to accepting an Ed.D. degree. The major professor contacted administrative officials and was advised that the award of an Ed.D. degree would be possible. The major professor advised the Petitioner of that and told him that pending approval from the department chairman who had charge of the science education program, Petitioner could receive the Ed.D. degree. The major professor also advised Petitioner that some revisions would need to be made in the dissertation and that the title page would need to be retyped in order to reflect that it was being submitted in support of an Ed.D. degree. Petitioner complied with the direction to retype the first page, but made only minor revisions in the dissertation. Members of the supervisory committee signed off on the dissertation as being acceptable in support of an Ed.D. degree. The matter was submitted to the department chairman. The department chairman read the dissertation and concluded that it was grossly inadequate. He determined that he would not authorize the award of an Ed.D. degree because Petitioner would need to be properly accepted into an Ed.D. program before he could be awarded such a degree, and additionally because he considered the dissertation inadequate to support an Ed.D. degree. This action was communicated to the supervisory committee. The committee met again and determined that since the Ed.D. degree could not be awarded, that Petitioner should be given failing grades for the dissertation, presentation, and defense. Prior to the department chairman's review of the dissertation, Petitioner had paid his fees and was anticipating being awarded an Ed.D. degree. Since it was not approved by the department chairman, the degree was not awarded. Thereafter, the Petitioner opted not to apply to have his work considered in support of an Ed.D. degree or master's specialist degree. He continued working toward a Ph.D. degree for approximately six months. Ultimately, he decided to drop out of the program, and he initiated this proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by Florida State University denying Petitioner's application for award of an Ed.D. degree and dismissing the Petition for Administrative Hearing. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of January, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER 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 24th day of January, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John D. Carlson, Esquire Woods, Johnston & Carlson 1030 East Lafayette Street Suite 112 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Patricia A. Draper, Esquire Charles S. Ruberg, Esquire Florida State University Suite 311, Hecht House Tallahassee, Florida 32306 Dr. Bernard F. Sliger President Florida State University 211 Westcott Tallahassee, Florida 32306
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Criminal Justice Standards And Training Commission enter a final order: Dismissing, as moot, the petition of Margherita Renzi insofar as it seeks a determination of prospective eligibility for salary incentive monies under Section 943.22, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1984); and Dismissing, as having no merit, the petition of Margherita Renzi insofar as it seeks a determination of retroactive entitlement to salary incentive payments before October 1, 1984, under Section 943.22, Florida Statutes (1983). RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of April, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of April, 1985.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent wrongfully terminated Petitioner's continuing contract of employment.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is currently a doctoral level graduate student. At all times relevant hereto, she held a continuing contract as a professor at SCC in the Networking and Electronics Program (the "Networking Program"). Respondent is a community college within the state community college system. It is governed by its Board of Trustees. Dr. Ann McGee is president of SCC; vice president of Educational Services is Dr. Carol Hawkins. Angela Kersenbrock is the dean of Career Programs, including the Networking Program. Department chair in that program is Leon Portelli. Beginning in calendar year 2003, SCC began to experience decreased student enrollment, especially in the area of the Networking Program. SCC instituted a program review under Dean Kersenbrock's tutelage. A program review provides for the collection of relevant data to ascertain the continued viability of programs within the college. The program review of the Networking Program found low and declining enrollment and retention, a perceived job market decrease, difficulty in recruiting industry partners, and limited internships for students. Based on those findings, a series of recommendations were made to improve the Networking Program. Included in the recommendations were the following: increase class size, reduce faculty (Reduction in Force (RIF)), cross-teaching in other areas, cut back on adjuncts, reduce contract length, consolidate courses and sections, and work closely with industry partners to locate jobs for graduates of the program. Many of the recommendations were implemented even before finalization of the program review. However, in February 2007, Dean Kersenbrock decided the measures being taken were not alleviating the problem. She then submitted her formal recommendations to the Board of Trustees. A formal presentation was made to the Board of Trustees on April 17, 2007. After much discussion and debate, the Board of Trustees approved the recommendation from Dean Kersenbrock's review committee to implement a RIF in the Networking Department. At that time, there were five faculty members in the department, including Petitioner. The other faculty members were: John DelGado, Ben Taylor, Bill Irwin, and Gary Belcher. The proposed RIF intended to reduce the faculty from five to two. Irwin and Belcher were immediately selected for termination due to the fact that they could teach fewer topics within the department than could the other three staff. After they were terminated, SCC had to select one of the three remaining staff (DelGado, Taylor, and Petitioner) to be the final cut for the RIF. Each of the three had identified strengths and weaknesses; so, the selection was a difficult one to make. In order to make the decision, the following factors were considered: (1) the essentiality of the position, (2) work performance, (3) attendance record, and (4) supervisory recommendations. If all those factors are equal between the faculty members being considered, then length of service to the college would be the determining factor.1 SCC evaluated DelGado, Taylor, and Petitioner and found them, on aggregate, to be equal as far as the four factors were concerned. Each faculty member had strengths and weaknesses within the four categories, but were essentially "tied" when it came down to making a decision.2 Petitioner correctly pointed out that of the three faculty members, she was the only one who had experience making presentations at national level conferences. This fact weighed in her favor, but it was not enough to outweigh the strengths of the other faculty members. Likewise, Petitioner has the ability to teach a number of different classes, a positive in her favor. But, again, her abilities did not make her more essential than the other two. Some questions were raised about Petitioner's work performance, attendance record, and poor supervisory recommendations. However, none of those questions indicated that Petitioner was inferior to her fellow professors. Neither of the parties offered into evidence a true comparison of the three faculty members. There was some indication that each had strengths and weaknesses, but each person's individual assets or liabilities weren't described with any particularity. Thus, a substantive de novo review of that part of Respondent's decision making process is not possible. When all was said and done, Petitioner's length of service at SCC was shorter than the other two, and, thus, she was selected for the final RIF cut. Pursuant to SCC policies and procedures, an employee affected by a RIF must be given at least two weeks notice prior to the reduction taking effect. Petitioner was advised twice concerning her termination: once in a letter from the director of Human Resources Development--letter dated April 26, 2007--and once in a letter from SCC's president, E. Ann McGee--letter dated May 17, 2007. The latter correspondence provided Petitioner her appeal rights. Petitioner was provided her severance package in accordance with SCC policies. President McGee's letter to Petitioner stated in part, "You have the right to appeal the Board's decision pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes." However, the letter did not address Petitioner's right to appeal directly to the Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner be given an opportunity to select a direct appeal to the Board of Seminole Community College. As far as the instant case is concerned, Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof and the termination of her contract would be upheld. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of November, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 16th day of November, 2007.
Findings Of Fact The facts which resulted in the filing of these administrative charges are not in great dispute. The Respondent, Henry Gooch, taught the class of Marriage and the Family during the summer term of 1975 at Santa Fe Community College. The college class schedule listed this course and indicated that the course included the weekend of July 12 and 13. Classes began around July 2, 1975, and Respondent informed the students that class attendance was required for this course, any student who missed over three classes would receive a "W" (for which a student does not receive a course credit), that the weekend experience would count as five class sessions, and that the course would, because of this weekend, terminate two weeks earlier than normal. Respondent Gooch stated that the weekend experience was a requirement for the course and that any student that did not attend would receive a grade of "W." At no time were any students given an indication of what was to take place during this required weekend "experience." The weekend experience took place on Little Lake Santa Fe outside Gainesville, Florida. One student advised the Respondent that because of religious reasons, she could not attend. This student did not attend the weekend experience and received a "W" for the course. Failure to get credit for this course caused this student not to graduate after the summer term and required her continuing attendance and enrollment at Santa Fe Community College. Students were permitted to bring their spouses to the weekend experience and several of them did. After the students arrived, the Respondent began a group discussion on the topic of public nudity. This discussion became very heated and apparently some of the students got the impression that nudity was part of the program for this weekend. Several of them, in fact, asked Mr. Gooch whether he intended to require nudity as part of the weekend experiences. Mr. Gooch assured them it was not. After this discussion had ended Mr. Gooch began what has been called "the machine game." Basically what happened is that one student was asked to come into the center of the room and imitate a machine. After this had begun, the other students were advised to join in by forming a circle or a line and to imitate the machine in unison. Each student was then asked to exchange pants with the student in front of then. At this time, at least one student found this activity to be extremely objectionable. Several other students did not participate in the exchange of clothing. One student, Ron Griffith, who found the activities objectionable, left the room and shortly thereafter left the weekend with his wife. The student Griffith eventually filed a formal complaint with the School Administration outlining his version of the activities of the weekend and his feelings that the Respondent's conduct was extremely unprofessional. This statement was admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. The Respondent stated that the factual allegations in that complaint are accurate. At least one other student left the weekend after the machine game had been completed and that student also received a "W." Shortly after student Griffith filed his formal complaint with the School Administration, the Respondent Gooch was suspended from teaching responsibilities at Santa Fe. This occurred on August 1, 1975. Another instructor took over the responsibilities for teaching Marriage and the Family and in that manner the course was completed. It is admitted that the school regulations regarding field trips was not complied with by the Respondent Gooch. A copy of the school regulations in the school policy manual had been assigned to Gooch as Department Coordinator. Mr. Gooch claims he was not aware of the field trip policy and would have complied with it had he known. For several students that did not attend the weekend trip or left before its completion and who received "W's" for their final grade, there was no real showing that an alternative requirement for course completion was made available to them. It is true that the Respondent Gooch testified he intended to give several of these students an opportunity to make up the missed time at this weekend, but whatever effort he put into this was certainly inadequate, particularly in light of the fact that his prior announcements would give any reasonable person the absolute impression that failure to participate and complete this weekend made the grade of "W" mandatory. There is certainly no question that the Respondent, Gooch, did violate provisions of the College Policy Manual. The pleadings filed in this case admit such did occur. The crucial issue is whether these were mere technical violations or whether the nature of the Respondent's conducts should be considered serious infractions. It is undisputed that the Respondent required the attendance of students in this course at this weekend experience. The charges filed on behalf of the college state that the students were coerced to attend this weekend. Perhaps coerced is not the most appropriate word to use, but it is certain attendance at this weekend was mandatory on a threat of receiving no credit for the course. It is also undisputed that the students were not given any indication of what to expect during this weekend. The Respondent should have known that his planned activities for this weekend would be objectionable or distasteful to at least some of the students in this class. Those students were given no choice or alternative course of study by which they could have received credit for this course as a substitute for this weekend experience. As a result, these students, as mentioned above, did not participate in the weekend experience and received a grade of "W" for the course of Marriage and the Family. The failure of these students to receive credit for this course was a direct result of the Respondent's not complying with school policy. Even though the Respondent advised the class the weekend experience was a mandatory requirement in time for the students to drop this course and add another one to receive required credit, that opportunity was not very meaningful without a better explanation of what was involved in the "weekend experience." The students could not be held responsible for having made a choice in this matter when they were uninformed as to what they were choosing. A student should not be subjected to requirements found to be personally distasteful without at least the sanction of the University and the informed consent of the student. In this case, neither occurred, as the school policy on field trips was not followed and the students were kept in total ignorance as to what the itinerary was for this weekend. The students who received a "W" grade cannot be said to have failed to meet the minimum requirements in this course when one of the announced requirements, the unapproved field trip, violated school policy. It must, therefore, be concluded the Respondent Henry Gooch did violate School Policy 1- 5.17 by causing several students to receive the grade of "W" for not participating in the weekend. Were it only that the weekend turned out to be less than completely successful, this matter might be dismissed as nothing more than exercise of poor judgement on the part of the Respondent that caused no real harm. However, the violation of school policy combined with this poor judgement caused several students to lose credit for the course and at least one not to graduate in time. The loss to the students cannot be replaced and the harm to them is real, not speculative. Therefore, it is recommended that the Respondent Gooch be found to have violated school policy, and suspended until the end of the Fall Quarter of 1975, thereupon to be returned to faculty Status on an annual contract status. Furthermore, he should not be considered for reinstatement on a continuing contract basis for one year and during this probationary period, not be eligible for pay adjustment. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of November, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida. KENNETH G. OERTEL Director Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of November, 1975. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert P. Cates, Esquire Attorney for Respondent 635 Northeast First Street Gainesville, Florida Robert V. Bookman, Esquire Attorney for Petitioner 222 Northeast First Street Gainesville, Florida
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an instructor of mathematics at Glades Junior High School in Dade County, Florida. On May 10, 1967, Petitioner received a Rank III teacher's certificate from the Respondent. Petitioner has been certified as a Rank III teacher since that time. Petitioner most recently requested reevaluation of her certificate status on or about September 15, 1975. Petitioner sought certification as a Rank II teacher. The Respondent denied the request. Petitioner was awarded a Bachelor of Arts Degree from Hunter College on June 19, 1940. Petitioner was awarded a Bachelor of Law Degree by St. Johns University School of Law in September, 1943. At the time that Petitioner enrolled in the St. Johns University School of Law, the St. Johns University School of Law did not require that candidates for admission possess an undergraduate Bachelor's Degree in order to be enrolled. Candidates for admission were required to have completed at least two years of college in order to be enrolled.
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated as follows: Raul Ivan Vila, Petitioner, applied to Respondent for licensure by endorsement after having graduated from a foreign medical school, passed the Federation Licensing Examination (FLEX) and having been certified by the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG). He was denied licensure on the grounds that the supervised clinical training he received in the United States was not obtained in wither a hospital affiliated with a medical school approved by the Council on Medical Education of the American Medical Association, or in a residency program approved by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education as required by Rule 21M-22.18, Florida Administrative Code, which took effect on November 28, 1984. Petitioner had completed his supervised clinical training in the United States and had received his medical degree prior to the effective date of this rule. Petitioner's application would also be denied under amended Rule 21M-22.18, Florida Administrative Code, which took effect on March 13, 1985, because the supervised clinical training he received in the United States was not obtained in either a hospital affiliated with a medical school accredited by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, or in a residency program accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education in the specialty area in which the clinical training is obtained. The following findings are based upon the evidence received and matters officially recognized: The Board adopted Rule 21M-22.18, which took effect on November 28, 1984, and it provided: Foreign Medical Graduates: Qualification Re- quirements. Before any foreign medical school graduate, except a graduate of an approved school in Canada, is admitted to take the writ- ten licensure examination or be licensed by endorsements [sic], he or she must demonstrate (in addition to other requirements set forth in Chapter 458, F.S.) that the supervised clinical training received in the United States as part of the curriculum of the foreign medi- cal school was obtained either in a hospital affiliated with a medical school approved by the Council on Medical Education of the Ameri- can Medical Association or in a residency pro- gram approved by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. The Board subsequently amended Rule 21M-22.18, and the amendment took effect March 13, 1985, to provide: Foreign Medical Graduates: Qualification Requirements. Before any gra- duate of a medical school not accredited by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, ex- cept a graduate of an accredited school in Canada, is admitted to take the written licen- sure examination or be licensed by endorsement, he or she must demonstrate (in addition to other requirements set forth in Chapter 458, F.S.) that the supervised clinical training re- ceived in the United States as part of the cur- riculum of the medical school was obtained either in a hospital affiliated with a medical school accredited by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education or in a residency program accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education in the specialty area in which the clinical training is being obtained. This rule, as well as its amendment, were adopted to implement Sections 458.311 and 458.313(4), Florida Statutes. The Liaison Committee on Medical Education, which reviews and accredits medical schools in the United States, has adopted standards for the accreditation of medical education programs which were ratified by the Council on Medical Education of the American Medical Association on March 1, 1985, and the Executive Council of the Association of American Medical Colleges on April 4, 1985, and which state in part: The traditional required clinical subjects, which should be offered in the form of requir- ed experiences in patient care (customarily called clerkships), are internal medicine, ob- stetrics and gynecology, pediatrics, psychia- try and surgery. Additionally, many schools require a clerkship in family medicine. . . . Each required clinical clerkship must allow the student to undertake thorough study of a series of selected patients having the major and common types of disease problems represent- ed in the primary and related disciplines of the clerkship. . . . The required clerkships should be conducted in a teaching hospital or ambulatory care fa- cility where residents in accredited programs of graduate medical education, under faculty guidance, may participate in teaching the stu- dents. In an ambulatory care setting, if faculty supervision is present, resident par- ticipation may not be required. If required clerkships in a single discipline are conduct- ed in several hospitals, every effort must be made to ensure that the students receive equivalent educational experiences. No schools outside the United States are accredited by the Liaison Committee. According to Charles P. Gibbs, M.D., Assistant Dean for Curriculum at Shands Teaching Hospital, chairman of the clerkship committee at Shands, and an expert in medical education, clerkships are an essential part of a medical education because they are the first time the student is introduced to the real practice of medicine and contact with patients in a supervised setting. Clerkships occur in the third and fourth years of a medical education, after the student has had courses in the basic sciences, pathology, pharmacology and an introduction to clinical medicine. During a clerkship, the student participates as part of a team and does patient histories, physicals, participates in discussions about patient care, observes operations and attends lectures. Clerkships are usually taken in fields such as obstetrics and gynecology, pediatrics, internal medicine, surgery, community health, family medicine and psychiatry. The Liaison Committee reviews the clinical clerkship program as part of the accreditation process. Dr. Gibbs testified that written exams, such as FLEX or the National Board, are important in measureing a student's cognitive knowledge and determining minimum qualifications, but cannot measure clinical qualities of a doctor such as how he works with colleagues, and how he communicates. Clerkships are important in determining a student's performance level in these clinical qualities. Robert B. Katims, M.D., testified as a member of the Board and Chairman of the Foreign Medical Graduates Committee of the Board. As Committee Chairman he had noted problems with the clinical experience being received by graduates of certain foreign medical school that are not accredited by the Liaison Committee. All medical schools in the United States are accredited. Dr. Katims observed that problems with the clinical experience offered at these foreign medical schools arise because there are not enough teaching hospitals in some foreign countries, and therefore students must arrange their own clinical experience in the United States. There have been repeated instances of little of or no supervision in these clinical experiences, which frequently consist of a one-on-one affiliation with a practicing physician with very little structured training. Under these circumstances, the foreign medical student does not receive the kind of supervised clinical training which is a vital part of a medical education.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to sit for the examination for licensure as a psychologist. The resolution of that issue turns on whether Petitioner has a “doctoral-level psychological education” or a “doctoral degree in psychology” within the meaning of Section 490.003(7), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied to sit for the psychologist licensure examination by application dated November 18, 1994. Petitioner earned a bachelor of science in electrical engineering degree from the University of California at Berkley, in 1970. Petitioner earned a masters degree in business administration from the University of California at Berkley in 1972. Petitioner earned a masters degree in engineering from the University of California at Berkley in 1975. Petitioner enrolled in the Union Institute on July 1, 1977, where he was a student until he withdrew on September 30, 1981. He was readmitted to the Union Institute on March 14, 1986. He was awarded the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by the Union Institute on March 31, 1987. Petitioner’s area of specialization was “Electrical Engineering and Applied Behavioral Science”. The title of his dissertation was “A Procedural Model in a Knowledge System of a Generalized Intelligent Decision Support System Which Employs Psychological and Biological Characteristics”. Petitioner’s doctorate degree from Union Institute was with dual majors, electrical engineering and psychology. Respondent stipulated that Petitioner’s degree from the Union Institute included a Ph.D. with a major in psychology. Based on the testimony of Respondent’s expert, it is found that Petitioner was awarded a Ph.D. in psychology from Union Institute within the meaning of Section 490.003(7), Florida Statutes (1995). 1/ Petitioner’s course work at the Union Institute included a total of 135 credits for the psychological portion of his Union degree. 2/ The Union Institute was accredited by a regional accrediting agency, the North Central Association, for the first time in the year 1985. Between the time Petitioner matriculated in the Union Institute in 1977 and the time he withdrew as a student in 1981, the Union Institute was not an accredited institution. At all times after he was readmitted in 1986, the Union Institute was an accredited institution. The Union Institute did not have a formal program in psychology until 1992. The American Psychological Association (APA) is an accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education. The Union Institute’s doctorate program in psychology has never been accredited by the APA or by any other accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education. The doctoral program pursued by Petitioner was developed for him as a result of his negotiations with a faculty committee. 3/ His doctoral program did not include an appropriate psychological internship. The parties agreed that an appropriate psychological internship is an essential element of an APA comparable doctoral program. There was a conflict in the testimony between Dr. David Singer, an expert for the Petitioner, and Dr. Barry Schneider, an expert for the Respondent as to whether Petitioner’s doctoral program was comparable to an APA approved program. Dr. Singer testified that except for the absence of a psychological internship, Petitioner’s doctoral program at the Union Institute was comparable to an APA approved program. Dr. Schneider’s opinion was that Petitioner’s doctoral program was not comparable to an APA approved program. Both of these experts have impressive credentials and both testified at length as to the underlying reasons for their opinions. Dr. Singer has far greater experience than Dr. Schneider working with APA accreditation standards. Because of that greater experience and because Dr. Schneider misunderstood part of the work for which Petitioner was awarded credit, 4/ Dr. Singer’s opinion that except for an internship the Petitioner’s doctoral program was comparable to an APA approved program is accepted.1 Following his graduation from Union Institute, Petitioner completed two psychological internships to augment his education. The first, under the supervision of Dr. James J. Thompson, Ph. D., a California psychologist, began November 11, 1988, and ended August 1, 1990. The second, under the supervision of Dr. Cheryl A. Woodson, Ph. D., a Florida psychologist, began October 1, 1993, and ended December 31, 1994. The internship he took from Dr. Woodson was comparable to an internship that would have been required from a doctoral program approved by the APA. When he took his internship, the Board had rules that explicitly permitted a candidate to augment his or her education with a post-doctoral internship. See, Chapter 59AA-14, Florida Administrative Code. That chapter was repealed January 7, 1996. The Board is still authorized to accept evidence that a candidate has augmented his or her education. See, Section 490.005(1)(b)3, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order finding Petitioner qualified to sit for the subject licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of February, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of February, 1997.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an Instructor of Social Studies presently teaching History of Law and Law and Society at Coral Gables Senior High School in Dade County, Florida. Petitioner has been an Instructor of Social Studies at Coral Gables High School since August, 1963. Petitioner received a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Miami in 1963. Petitioner was awarded a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Miami College of Law in May, 1974. Prior to July 1, 1974, the Petitioner had been certified as a Rank III teacher in the elementary and secondary schools. On August 20, 1974, the Respondent issued a Rank II Teacher's Certificate to the Petitioner. The effective date of the certificate was July 1, 1974. Petitioner was certified to teach social studies in secondary schools, English in junior high school, and to teach in the junior colleges. On October 25, 1974, the Respondent issued a Rank I teacher's certificate for teaching in junior college to the Petitioner. In July and August, 1975, the Petitioner sought certification as a Rank I teacher. This request was denied by the Respondent by letter dated September 2, 1975. (See: Petitioner's Exhibit F). This action followed the denial of Rank I status. A Juris Doctor degree is the initial legal degree that is available. The Juris Doctor degree is considered the terminal professional legal degree in that no additional degrees are necessary in order to engage in the practice of law. Advanced legal degrees are available at some, but not all, law schools. These degrees are an L.L.M., or Master of Law degree, and a J.S.D. or S.J.D., or Doctor of Juridical Science degree. The J.D., or Juris Doctor degree, is of fairly recent vintage. The initial legal degree at most law schools was, until the past ten or twenty years, designated an L.L.B., or Bachelor of Law degree. The J.D. designation has become popular due to added prestige add recognition that it provides. A J.D. degree is not in any way substantively different from an L.L.B. degree. A J.D. degree is in fact a Bachelor's degree in the specialized field of law.
