The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Kutina McLeod, should have received credit for answers provided on the examination for the State Officers Certification Examination for Correctional Officers (the exam).
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an applicant for certification as a correctional officer. The Respondent is the state agency charged with the responsibility of certifying correctional officers. As such, it must administer the examinations used to assure competency for certification. The examination at issue in this proceeding is known as the State Officers Certification Examination for Correctional Officers. It is a multiple-choice test that is scored by marking the best of the proposed answers. Only one of the proposed answers is deemed correct. As to this Petitioner, four questions were challenged that the Petitioner did not receive credit for on the exam. As to each challenged question, the Petitioner felt her answer should have received credit. All of the questions challenged by the Petitioner were taken almost verbatim from the exam's course materials. The Petitioner attended the course and was instructed as to each of the challenged matters. The instruction did not deviate from the language that later appeared on the exam. None of the challenged questions proved to be statistically invalid by virtue of the number of wrong answers provided to the question. In fact, as to one of the Petitioner's challenged questions, 88 percent of the persons tested responded accurately. Only 5 percent of the persons tested gave the answer that the Petitioner provided. The Petitioner's confusion as to the answers she provided was probably influenced by her experiences as an officer within a jail setting. The Petitioner provided answers based on the totality of her experience and not just the material covered in the instructional course. None of the Petitioner's answers, however, were more correct than those set forth by the Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, enter a Final Order dismissing the Petitioner's challenge to the exam. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Grace A. Jaye, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Kutina McLeod 309 Julia Street Key West, Florida 33040 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the evaluators of the subject request for proposals (RFP) were qualified under the applicable law and RFP criteria to evaluate the proposals.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida and is the procuring agency in this proceeding. On November 23, 2009, the Department issued RFP #P2062 (the RFP), requesting proposals from prospective providers to operate 16 IDDS programs in 16 different judicial circuits in Florida: Circuits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, and 20. The RFP's Statement of Services provided that proposers would be responsible for designing, implementing, and operating an IDDS program in each of the 16 listed judicial circuits. The RFP described an IDDS program as a diversion program targeting a specific population of juvenile offenders determined to be at risk of becoming serious and chronic offenders. The goal of IDDS is to facilitate a positive change in youth behavior and criminal thinking and provide the youth with the tools necessary to avoid recidivism or future criminal involvement. Prospective providers were instructed to propose services that included specified minimum components, including scheduling, supervision, and monitoring of compliance with court-ordered sanctions, such as community service, curfew, and restitution; random urinalysis monitoring; provision of counseling, anger management education, educational training, and vocation services to age-appropriate youth; and substance abuse prevention and treatment services. The RFP provided that proposers were to submit a single response to address one or more circuits in which they intended to propose operating an IDDS program. However, if a prospective provider proposed to operate IDDS programs in more than one circuit, its response had to include separate sections on staffing, prices, and budgets for each circuit/program proposed. The deadline to file challenges to the specifications of the RFP was within 72 hours of its posting. No challenges to the RFP's specifications were filed within the required 72-hour window. Petitioner, Intervenor, and two other proposers' timely submitted proposals to operate an IDDS program in Circuit 17, in response to the RFP. Following its evaluation of proposals, on March 2, 2009, Respondent posted its notice of agency action, indicating its intent to award the contract in Circuit 17 to Intervenor, whose proposal received the highest score of 1549.78 points. Juvenile Services Program, Inc., was ranked second, with 1454.01 points. Petitioner was ranked third, with 1327.57 points. Lutheran Services of Florida, Inc., was ranked fourth, with 986.43 points. Petitioner's timely challenge to Respondent's intended agency action in Circuit 17 is limited to the issue of whether the evaluators were qualified under the applicable law and RFP criteria to evaluate the proposals. The standard established by "the applicable law," section 287.057(17), Florida Statutes, is that the agency must appoint "[a]t least three persons to evaluate proposals and replies who collectively have experience and knowledge in the program areas and service requirements for which commodities or contractual services are sought." The RFP criteria contain the following in the RFP Addendum, in the form of a question from a prospective provider and Respondent's answer: Q: Who will be evaluating the proposals[?] Will they be fully knowledgeable about IDDS programs and how they are run[?] A: The proposal will be evaluated by a team of DJJ staff who are fully knowledgeable about IDDS programs and how they are run. These people are chosen for their particular skills, knowledge and experience. They have also been chosen because of the Department's confidence in their ability to score proposals both independently and fairly. Amy Johnson, Respondent's chief of contracts, has the responsibility for supervising the Department's contracting and procurement process and ensuring compliance with section 287.057. The Department goes beyond the statutory requirements by specifically training potential evaluators in the competitive procurement process with a focus on the process itself, including evaluation and scoring of proposals. Ms. Johnson has in the past conducted this training and remains responsible for ensuring that evaluators are trained. A number of years ago, Ms. Johnson developed an internal means of identifying potential evaluators who were considered qualified to evaluate specific program areas and services that might be the subject of competitive procurements. This process involved identification by persons in charge of the various program areas of individuals they believed had sufficient experience and knowledge to evaluate certain types of programs and services. The program area representatives would submit names of individuals considered qualified to evaluate the various programs and services within their program area, along with a brief biographical statement describing the individuals' background and experience. Added to this substantive or programmatic categorization of potential evaluators was the qualification of having been trained in the competitive procurement process. Ms. Johnson developed a spreadsheet to maintain the results of the two-step qualification process. The spreadsheet lists individuals with a summary of the information obtained from the program area representatives, including the categorization of the types of programs and services the individuals are considered qualified to evaluate based on their background and experience. The spreadsheet also identifies the most recent date on which each individual completed training in the competitive procurement process. The spreadsheet document has been maintained over time to keep the running results of the pool of evaluators identified through the two-step qualification process. Elaine Atwood is the Department's contract administrator. She has assumed responsibility for conducting the training sessions for potential evaluators in the competitive procurement process, as well as the responsibility for maintaining the spreadsheet of the evaluator pool. Ms. Atwood served as the procurement officer for RFP #P2062. Her duties included working with the program area to put the RFP together, posting the RFP on the Department's website, receiving the proposals, and conducting all other activities that were part of the procurement process. The "program area" for RFP #P2062 is the Office of Probation and Community Intervention, and Paul Hatcher was the designated program area representative. IDDSs are one category of services within the Probation and Community Intervention program area. Ms. Atwood worked with Mr. Hatcher to address programmatic issues for this RFP. Mr. Hatcher identifies individuals who are considered qualified to conduct evaluations for RFPs involving programs or services falling under the umbrella of his program area. For the current pool of potential evaluators, Mr. Hatcher submitted names of individuals who were substantively qualified for programs and services falling under his program area and who could be placed on the evaluator pool spreadsheet for those categories of programs and services. However, Mr. Hatcher does not select the individual evaluators for a particular RFP. That is because selection of evaluators for a particular RFP is, by design, a random process, using the information about evaluator qualifications that is maintained on the spreadsheet.4/ Responses to RFP #P2062 were submitted in three volumes: Volume One was the "technical" proposal setting forth the prospective provider's organizational structure and management capability, the proposed program services, and proposed staffing; Volume Two was the "financial" proposal, including the proposed price sheet and budget and the provider's Supplier Qualifier Report prepared by Dun & Bradstreet; and Volume Three was the "past performance" section to demonstrate the provider's knowledge and experience in operating similar programs. Ms. Atwood conducted the review and scoring of the financial proposals in a fairly mechanical process of pulling out numbers from each cost proposal and, also, pulling Dun & Bradstreet numbers for the prospective providers and putting them on a spreadsheet. No evidence was presented that Ms. Atwood was not sufficiently qualified to conduct this review. Mr. Hatcher conducted the evaluation of prospective providers' past performance. No evidence was presented that Mr. Hatcher was not sufficiently qualified to conduct this review. Three evaluators were randomly selected from the pool of potential evaluators designated for IDDS reviews to evaluate and score the "technical" component of responses to RFP #P2062: Karen McNeal, Jeffrey Balliet, and Cheryl Surls. Of these three evaluators, Petitioner presented the testimony of only the first two, and Petitioner directed its qualification challenge to only one, Ms. McNeal. Ms. McNeal is employed in the Department's Probation program area. She is responsible for the oversight of the Duval Assessment Center that screens youth to determine their detention or release. She has held that position since July 1, 2009. Before that position, she was detention superintendent for the St. John's Juvenile Detention Center. She has been with the Department since October 2001. Before joining the Department, Ms. McNeal was a program analyst for ten years with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Ms. McNeal went through a four-week juvenile probation officer certification course before assuming her current position in Probation. That Probation training course included a review of the various prevention programs falling under the probation program area umbrella, including IDDS. However, Ms. McNeal does not have specific programmatic experience with IDDS. Ms. McNeal had not previously served as an evaluator on an RFP, before this experience. In accordance with the Department's internal procedure, Ms. McNeal underwent training by Ms. Atwood in the competitive procurement process on November 17, 2009. Mr. Balliet, the other member of the technical component evaluation team who testified, has held the position of contract manager for the Department since 2006. Before that time, he supervised a contract management unit at the district level and, also, served as assistant chief probation officer for Circuit 5, where he monitored compliance of IDDS programs in that circuit. Mr. Balliet has undergone training in the competitive procurement process multiple times. Although Mr. Balliet has had specific experience with IDDS programs, he did not think that such specific experience was necessary to evaluate an RFP dealing with IDDS programs, if one had a background that would otherwise allow for an understanding of the process. As noted above, the third evaluator on the three-person evaluation team for the technical component was Ms. Surls, who did not testify. Petitioner did not present any evidence to establish that Ms. Surls was not qualified to serve as an evaluator. Beyond the sheer difference in name of the particular services addressed by this RFP--IDDS versus other programs and services falling under the umbrella of the Probation and Community Intervention program area, Petitioner failed to establish that the experience and training Ms. McNeal has obtained over the years and, particularly, since assuming the oversight position for Duval Assessment Center, is not appropriate or sufficient to qualify her to evaluate proposals for IDDS. Petitioner presented no evidence that the components of an IDDS program are substantively dissimilar from the components of the services and programs in which Ms. McNeal has attained direct experience and training or that staffing considerations are dissimilar. Petitioner's case began and ended with the fact that Ms. McNeal has no direct experience, specifically with IDDS programs, and that Ms. McNeal had not previously evaluated proposals submitted in response to an RFP. The record does not reveal whether there would be any other Department employees, besides Mr. Balliet, who had direct experience specifically with IDDS programs and who, also, had evaluated proposals for an RFP before. Imposing either or both of these requirements for potential evaluators could serve as an impossibly restrictive hindrance to an agency trying to follow the competitive procurement process while also carrying out the agency's functions.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Respondent, Department of Juvenile Justice, dismissing the Petition filed by Petitioner, Psychotherapeutic Services of Florida, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of March, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR 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 14th day of March, 2011.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the statutory provisions referenced herein.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a prevailing small business party. In 2009, the Petitioner filed an application with the Respondent to transfer his Class B air conditioning contractor's license from one business entity to another. The application form required disclosure of an applicant's criminal history. The Petitioner responded to the inquiry with a cursory disclosure of prior criminal activity, indicating that he had been involved in such activity in the "late 1970's." As part of the application review process, the Respondent conducted a background investigation that revealed the Petitioner's criminal history had extended well beyond the 1970's. Rather than deny the Petitioner's transfer application, the Respondent issued a Notice that provided, in relevant part, as follows: NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS You are hereby notified that the Construction Industry Licensing Board (Board) voted to permit, WITH CONDITIONS, your application for change of status from one business entity to another contractor's license. The Board reviewed and considered the application at a duly-noticed public meeting held on September 10, 2009 in Tampa, Florida. The Board determined that the application should be approved with conditions based on the following: The applicant failed to sufficiently demonstrate financial stability and responsibility, pursuant to section 489.115, Florida Statutes, and Rule 61G4-15.005, Florida Administrative Code. The Board had issues with applicant's moral character, pursuant to section 489.111, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to section 455.227(2)(f), Florida Statutes, Applicant shall hereby be placed on PROBATION for 6 years, with 12 satisfactory appearances, according to the following terms: Applicant shall be required to appear before the Probation Committee of the Board at such times as directed by the Board Office, approximately every six (6) months. Respondent's first probationary appearance requires a full day attendance at the Board meeting. In connection with each probation appearance, Applicant shall answer questions under oath. In addition, applicant shall provide such other information or documentation as is requested by the Department, the Board, or the Probation Committee. Applicant shall forward said documentation to the Board at least 30 days in advance of the probation appearance or as otherwise directed. The burden shall be solely upon Applicant to remember the requirement for said appearance and to take necessary steps in advance of said appearance to contact the Board office and ascertain the specific time, date, and place of said appearance. Applicant shall not rely on getting notice of said appearance from the Board or the Department. Should Applicant violate any condition of the probation, it shall be considered a violation of Section 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes, and shall result in further disciplinary action by the Board. Should Applicant fail to make a satisfactory appearance as determined by the Board, the term of the probationary period shall be automatically extended by six (6) months. If there occurs a second such failure then the term of the probationary period will be extended an additional year. Should the Board determine a third failure of Applicant to make a satisfactory appearance, the stay of suspension of the Applicant's license to practice contracting shall be lifted and the license shall remain in suspended status unless and until a further stay is granted by the Board. Should Applicant's license to practice contracting be suspended or otherwise placed on inactive status, the probation period shall be tolled and shall resume running at the time Applicant reactivates the license, and Applicant shall serve the time remaining in the term of probation. To ensure successful completion of probation, Applicant's license to practice contracting shall be suspended for the period of probation, with the suspension stayed for the period of probation. The time of the suspension and the stay shall run concurrently with the period of probation. If Applicant successfully completes probation, the suspension shall terminate. If Applicant fails to comply with the requirements set forth in the Final Order imposed in this case, or fails to make satisfactory appearances as determined by the Board, the stay shall be lifted. Once the stay is lifted, the license shall remain in suspended status unless and until a further stay is granted by the Board. The Petitioner challenged the imposition of the conditions in DOAH Case No. 10-9444. The Notice cited section 455.225, Florida Statutes, as providing authority for the imposition of the conditions to the Petitioner's license. The referenced statute identified the procedures through which the Respondent could commence a disciplinary action against a licensee. There was no evidence that the Respondent had commenced or concluded a disciplinary proceeding against the Petitioner prior to the proposed imposition of the license conditions. The Notice identified two reasons for the proposed imposition of license conditions. First, the Notice stated that the Respondent "had issues with the [Petitioner's] moral character." Second, the Notice stated that the Petitioner "failed to sufficiently demonstrate financial stability and responsibility pursuant to section 489.115, Florida Statutes and Rule 61G4-15.006, Florida Administrative Code." At the hearing on May 26, 2011, the Petitioner submitted evidence sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the cited provisions of statute and rule. A Recommended Order was issued on July 1, 2011, recommending that the Petitioner's application be approved. As set forth in the Recommended Order, the Administrative Law Judge had determined that the Respondent lacked authority to impose disciplinary conditions absent commencement of a disciplinary proceeding, and the Petitioner had complied with the requirements related to financial stability and responsibility at the hearing. By Final Order dated September 8, 2011, the Respondent granted the Petitioner's license transfer application. The Final Order adopted the Findings of Fact set forth in the Recommended Order. The Final Order rejected four paragraphs from the Conclusions of Law section of the Recommended Order that addressed the Respondent's authority to impose disciplinary conditions under the circumstances of this case. The remaining Conclusions of Law in the Recommended Order were accepted. The Petitioner is seeking an award of attorney's fees of $41,554.00 and costs of $1,702.96, for a total award of $43,256.96. The evidence fails to establish that the amount of the attorney's fees and costs sought by the Petitioner are reasonable, and there has been no stipulation by the parties thereto.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a Class DI Security Officer Instructor License, number DI89-00375 In May or June of 1994, Respondent taught a security officer course in Naples. The course was intended to qualify students for a Class D security officer license. Three students enrolled in the course. Respondent taught the entire course on two consecutive nights. Instruction on the first night ran from 5:00 pm to 9:00 pm. Instruction on the second night ran from 5:00 pm to 10:00 pm, with the last two hours devoted to the security officer examination. Respondent administered a final examination to the students, which they all passed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of State enter a final order imposing an administrative fine of $500 against Respondent. ENTERED on January 24, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on January 24, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Hon. Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Office of the General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Richard R. Whidden, Jr. Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, MS 4 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Michael V. Jones, pro se 344 Benson St. Naples, FL 33962
The Issue The issue is whether the Florida Department of Education (“the Department”) committed one or more unlawful employment practices against Petitioner (“Ms. Spradlin”) by discriminating against her based on race.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: Ms. Spradlin worked from 2006 to 2010 as a psychological specialist at a facility known as Sunland in Marianna, Florida. Ms. Spradlin is Caucasian. During a portion of the time that Ms. Spradlin was at Sunland, Tawana Gilbert worked there as a human service administrator. Ms. Gilbert is African-American. Ms. Spradlin and Ms. Gilbert did not work closely together, but they served on the same interdisciplinary team and worked with the same residents. Ms. Gilbert’s only knowledge of Ms. Spradlin was through the documentation that Ms. Spradlin submitted to the interdisciplinary team. Ms. Gilbert left Sunland in approximately November of 2009, and began working for the Department as a unit supervisor for a vocational rehabilitation services unit in Marianna, Florida. Vocational rehabilitation assists people by providing them with services that enable them to obtain and maintain gainful employment. During the time period relevant to the instant case, the Marianna unit had 10 staff members and served five counties. Of those 10 staff members, five were counselors and one was the unit supervisor. At some point after Ms. Gilbert left Sunland, Ms. Spradlin saw an advertisement for an entry level vocational rehabilitation counselor position at the Marianna unit. Ms. Spradlin applied for the position and was hired in 2010. In March or April of 2011, Ms. Gilbert invited all of her coworkers to a special event at her church. Ms. Gilbert asked her coworkers with children if their child would like to participate in a program that was to be part of the festivities. Ms. Spradlin said that her daughter was willing to participate, and Ms. Gilbert typed out the words that Ms. Spradlin’s daughter was to recite during the program. When it was time for Ms. Spradlin’s daughter to recite her part, she became nervous, and her grandmother read the part. Following this event, Ms. Spradlin asserts that Ms. Gilbert’s attitude toward her changed and that the unlawful employment practices alleged in her Charge of Discrimination began. Findings Regarding Ms. Spradlin’s Interviews for Senior Counselor Positions There were two openings for senior vocational rehabilitation counselors at the Marianna unit in October of 2012.1/ When the Department is considering applicants for a particular position, it utilizes a three-person panel to conduct interviews and score the applicants. After the interviews, the three-person panel reaches a consensus as to each applicant’s scores, and the Department uses a standardized matrix to rank each applicant. The panel for the two senior vocational rehabilitation counselor openings consisted of Allison Gill, the Department’s area supervisor; Michael Nobles, the former supervisor of the Marianna unit; and Ms. Gilbert. Ms. Gill and Mr. Nobles are Caucasian. Of the five people who interviewed for the two openings, Ramonia Robinson earned the highest score, a 72. With regard to Ms. Robinson’s qualifications, Ms. Gilbert testified as follows: Ms. Robinson, she was a current employee there. She was an entry-level counselor, had been for many, many years. She was there prior to my hiring with VR, so I was familiar with her work history. And she was very thorough, very detailed, very flexible, and very unemotionally involved with her cases. So she, in conducting her cases and case management, was awesome. And she was very knowledgeable about the questions that were being asked. She had had a long history of experience with case management, providing services to individuals with disabilities, and just adequately managing her caseload. She did very well on her interview. Ms. Spradlin received the second highest score, a 56. Keith Sutton, an outside applicant, received a score of 55. When two applicants’ scores are within one point of each other, the Department bases the ultimate hiring decision on reference checks. Ms. Gilbert contacted Mr. Sutton’s references and received positive feedback about him. As for Mr. Sutton’s qualifications, Ms. Gilbert provided the following testimony: Q: What about Mr. Sutton’s experience, resume was notable to you in the interview process? A: Well, he had his degree. It’s directly related to the field of counseling. He had a wealth of experience in the counseling field. He came to us from the Agency for Persons with Disabilities, which is Sunland, where he had a year there, and he met at least the minimum qualifications. He was very – his application was very detailed, and it identified precisely his experience based on his ability to – or his experience with providing counseling, providing services for those with disabilities. And he had a long history from where he had previously worked in the field of counseling. Q: Okay, so Mr. Sutton achieved a Master’s in Counseling in 2011, is that correct, according to his application? A: Yes. Q: And that’s directly related to the position; is that correct? A: Yes, that’s correct. Q: And he had experience as a master’s level therapist? A: Yes. Q: Is that accurate, according to the application? A: Yes. He worked for Florida Therapy as a master’s level therapist, where he was expected to provide counseling, psychotherapy to children, adults and their families, but doing so on an independent basis. That demonstrated he was very flexible, detailed oriented and [had] the ability to function independently. Because she was Ms. Spradlin’s supervisor at the time, Ms. Gilbert acted as her reference and did not recommend her for a senior counselor position. In explaining her reasoning, Ms. Gilbert testified that: Ms. Spradlin was difficult to work with and she was very negative. She had several participant complaints during the span of [] that year. In her first year coming in, she was very challenging, she did not want to accept constructive criticism from me as the unit supervisor. She did not want very – she wanted very little feedback from me based on her performance. Several participant complaints, calling me directly, contacting the ombudsman, faxing me complaints based on their interaction with Ms. Spradlin, how they felt that they were being treated unfairly, they did not agree with her tone from time to time. She was not at all culturally sensitive to some of our participants. She was insubordinate. She would – there were times she would just leave the unit because things – conditions were unfavorable to her. Ms. Gilbert submitted her recommendation to the Department’s area director, and Mr. Sutton was ultimately offered a senior counselor position. Mr. Sutton is currently the supervisor of the Marianna unit. There is no persuasive evidence that Ms. Spradlin was not promoted because of her race or any animus from Ms. Gilbert. The interview panel, consisting of two Caucasians, had legitimate, nondiscriminatory grounds for concluding that Ms. Robinson and Mr. Sutton were more qualified for the openings. In short, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that there was no unlawful employment practice associated with the Department’s selection of applicants for the two openings discussed above. In May of 2016, Ms. Spradlin applied for another senior counselor position in the Marianna unit. The interview panel for this opening consisted of Ms. Gilbert and two other Department employees, Evelyn Langmaid and Rebecca Stevens. Ms. Langmaid and Ms. Stevens are Caucasian. Ms. Gilbert did not supervise Ms. Langmaid or Ms. Stevens, and she did not attempt to influence their decision-making. Georgia Britt received the highest score from the interview panel and was offered the senior counselor position. Ms. Langmaid described Ms. Britt’s interview as follows: She just came in and every answer we’d or every question that we gave her she was just right on with the answers and [was] hitting the points on the – because we have sort of like a little sheet that we can look for certain points that we’re looking for answers, and she was just right on every point, and was very, very knowledgeable of what was going on. Ms. Spradlin had obtained a certified rehabilitation counseling certification in October of 2014, and Ms. Britt lacked that certification. However, Ms. Britt’s other credentials bolstered her application. For instance, she has a bachelor’s degree in elementary and special education and a master’s degree in counseling. Ms. Britt also had relevant work experience. When she applied for the senior counselor position, Ms. Britt was employed at Sunland as a behavior specialist working with adults with developmental disabilities. Ms. Britt wrote in her application that she had been able to “work with all different types of individuals at all intellectual levels” via her position at Sunland. Prior to working at Sunland, Ms. Britt had worked in a children’s psychiatric hospital in Dothan, Alabama. That position also gave her an opportunity to work with individuals from diverse backgrounds. Ms. Britt wrote on her application that her position at the hospital required her to engage in some counseling and that she had to use counseling skills in order to obtain psychiatric histories and other information. Ms. Britt’s interview bolstered her application. According to Ms. Langmaid, Ms. Britt “blew it out of the water. She was fantastic on the interview.” Ms. Gilbert was also very complimentary of Ms. Britt’s interview: Q: What about Ms. Britt stood out to you and the panel? A: Her ability to respond to the questions as they were being asked. At that time, we were transitioning to where we were asking more emotional [intelligence] questions where – to identify a counselor’s ability to emotionally manage cases and refrain from being emotionally involved with that case. So she answered the questions. It’s on ones that can give a thorough answer based on the circumstance that occurred, the actions that took place and the results of the question. Q: Okay. A: She was really, really thorough with her answers. There is no persuasive evidence that Ms. Spradlin did not receive the promotion because of her race or due to any animus from Ms. Gilbert. The interview panel, consisting of two Caucasians, had legitimate, nondiscriminatory grounds for concluding Ms. Britt was more qualified for the opening. In short, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that there was no unlawful employment practice associated with the Department’s selection of Ms. Britt. Findings Regarding Ms. Spradlin’s Hostile Work Environment Allegations Ms. Spradlin made several allegations during the final hearing that she was subjected to a hostile work environment during her time with the Marianna unit.2/ For example, in October of 2010, Ms. Spradlin exposed at least part of her posterior to a coworker in the Marianna unit in order to demonstrate the severity of a sunburn. Ms. Gilbert did not learn of that incident until another incident was reported to her on May 2, 2011. That day, Ms. Spradlin was seated in an office within the Marianna unit when a female coworker got very close to Ms. Spradlin and “twerked” in her face. Ms. Spradlin states that she placed her hands on the coworkers posterior and playfully pushed her away. However, the coworker reported to Ms. Gilbert that Ms. Spradlin had pinched her posterior. Upon learning of both incidents, Ms. Gilbert discussed them with Ms. Spradlin and conferred with the Department’s labor relations unit on formulating a proper course of action. With input from the labor relations unit, Ms. Gilbert issued a counseling memorandum to Ms. Spradlin on October 4, 2011.3/ The counseling memorandum4/ read in pertinent part as follows: You are being issued a Counseling Memorandum for your violation of Rule 60L- 36.005(2)(f)(1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), Conduct unbecoming a public employee. On October 12, 2010, you signed the Department’s Acknowledgement Form stating you received copies of the policies and rules of the Department. Please be aware that you are expected to abide by all Standards of Conduct as stated in 60L- 36.005, F.A.C. On May 2, 2011, you violated the following rule and policy: Rule 60L-36.005(2)(f)(1), F.A.C., requires that “Employees shall conduct themselves, on and off the job, in a manner that will not bring discredit or embarrassment to the state. Employees shall be courteous, considerate, respectful, and prompt in dealing with and serving the public and co-workers.” On May 2, 2011, it was reported by one employee that you pulled your pants down exposing your buttocks and “mooned” that employee. Another employee informed me that on that same day you pinched her on her buttocks. After I was told about these incidents that day, I counseled you and informed you that this was inappropriate behavior and it was explained that your actions were unacceptable. This type of conduct is not conducive to a satisfactory work environment. Your conduct has adversely impacted the morale and efficiency of your unit and the Department, is detrimental to the best interests of the state and Department, and adversely affects your effectiveness with the Department, as well as your ability to continue to perform your job. This behavior must cease immediately. Should you continue conduct unbecoming a public employee, disciplinary actions, up to and including dismissal may be taken. Ms. Spradlin signed the counseling memorandum on October 4, 2011, and added the following comments: These two incidents happened on [sic] different persons. The incident w/ “mooning” was with [a] coworker after I incurred a severe sunburn. It was done only to show my burns not to offend her. She sobbed – I was not wearing pants – skirt instead. On the second occasion w/co-worker E.R. she put her buttocks in my face, playing around, & I pinched it as if to express my willingness to play as well. It was provoked – not done in an offensive manner. I understand that this type of behavior is not accepted in my work environment. They were done in a playful uplifting manner, not intentional. However, I will refrain from this behavior as I have obviously offended my colleagues. Another allegation of disparate treatment concerned an incident with a Department client named B.H., who Ms. Spradlin assisted with enrolling in nursing school. B.H. arrived at the Marianna unit one day without an appointment and reported that he wanted to do something other than nursing. Ms. Spradlin asserts that B.H. got aggressive when his requested changes could not be accomplished immediately. Ms. Spradlin further asserts that she became afraid, threatened to call 9-1-1, and managed to get past B.H. and into the hallway outside her office. Ms. Gilbert heard the commotion and called the police. By the time the police arrived at the Marianna unit, B.H. was very calm, and Ms. Gilbert concluded there had been no need to call law enforcement. While Ms. Spradlin asserts that she became an object of ridicule in the Marianna office for overreacting, Ms. Gilbert asserts that she was ridiculed for failing to give the address of the Marianna office when she called 9-1-1. As another example of disparate treatment, Ms. Spradlin cites an incident on November 14, 2013, involving a cigarette butt. Ms. Spradlin was in Ms. Gilbert’s office and dropped a cigarette butt into a trashcan. According to Ms. Spradlin, Ms. Gilbert demanded that she remove the cigarette butt and forced Ms. Spradlin to search through used tissues for the cigarette butt. Ms. Gilbert acknowledged that she asked Ms. Spradlin to remove the cigarette butt from the trashcan, but she credibly denied berating Ms. Spradlin or yelling at her. According to Ms. Gilbert, Ms. Spradlin was able to quickly remove the butt from the trashcan and was not upset about having to do so. Ms. Spradlin made several other allegations about how Ms. Gilbert gave African-American employees in the Marianna unit preferential treatment. For example, Ms. Spradlin alleges that she was required to handle more cases and incur more travel than her African-American coworkers. With regard to her travel reimbursements, Ms. Spradlin alleged that Ms. Gilbert refused to account for all the miles she traveled. Ms. Spradlin further asserts that Ms. Gilbert subjected her to disparate treatment by requiring her to maintain more documentation of her daily activities, inundating her with e-mails inquiring about the status of her work, and being less lenient regarding Ms. Spradlin’s use of flex and leave time. Ms. Gilbert testified that she has never denied a request for annual leave and that she approved the majority of Ms. Spradlin’s requests for flex time, even though Ms. Spradlin did not follow the proper procedure for making such requests. As for the other allegations mentioned above, Ms. Gilbert credibly testified that she did not subject Ms. Spradlin to any disparate treatment. Finally, Ms. Spradlin alleges that Ms. Gilbert unfairly administered a system by which counselors within the Marianna unit shared their successful cases with African- American counselors who had fewer successful cases. This system was implemented because counselors within the Marianna unit were expected to have a certain number of successful cases. Ms. Gilbert credibly denied that the system was administered unfairly: Q: Ms. Gilbert, do you ever ask counselors to donate their successful cases or case numbers to other counselor? A: I never asked counselors specifically to do that. I did discuss it with the unit, with our team as an option. Q: Okay, and why would that be an option they may want to do? A: Well, the way Vocational Rehabilitation operates is a person has to be on their job a minimum – a minimum of three months, okay, 90 days, to consider that person as successfully rehabilitated. And that was a measurement. That was an expectation on each counselor’s performance evaluation, that they had to get so many successful rehabs within one year. So someone that’s being hired and coming to Vocational Rehabilitation in the middle of the year, they don’t have that opportunity to monitor that person for 90 days, if they don’t already have someone that’s in that employment status ready to begin monitoring. So it’s difficult. But I did not want that to be a negative reflection of a counselor that’s really trying and that’s working their caseload and trying to get their successful rehabs. So I would ask counselors once they’ve received all of their rehabs and they close enough people successfully that allows them to get the most maximum score that they can get on their evaluation, I would ask them if they wanted to, share those rehabs with someone that’s probably a new counselor or that’s just having a difficult time with obtaining their successful rehabs. Q: Okay. And so Mr. Sutton’s first year, might he have received some successful numbers donated to him from other counselors? A: That is a possibility. Q: Okay. Did Ms. Spradlin ever receive any successful numbers donated to her when she had a lower number? A: Yes. * * * Q: Okay. And so that number of successes or successful rehabilitations is important to counselors? A: Absolutely. Q: Because they are – are they evaluated on that each year in their yearly performance evaluation? A: Yes. Each level of counselor, if you’re an entry-level counselor, your first year you may be expected to get five. Those numbers are prorated. So the cutoff period is last business day of June, so if you have a new counselor that starts in February or March, they’re at a disadvantage, they don’t have the time. Time works against them. But if they are involved with their cases and they are trying to work their cases, I felt that it was only reasonable to assist them. * * * Q: Okay, so you said that Ms. Spradlin would have received a donation of successful cases maybe early on in her career? A: Yes. Q: Did she donate cases once she became a more proficient counselor? A: I’m pretty sure she did. Q: And did you specifically ask her to donate cases to any particular employee? A: No. Ms. Spradlin resigned from the Department on August 10, 2016. There is no sufficiently persuasive evidence to support Ms. Spradlin’s disparate treatment claims. The greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that Ms. Spradlin was not subjected to any disparate treatment during her tenure in the Marianna unit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing Petitioner’s Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of July 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL 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 24th day of July 2018.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent knowingly obtained or used, or endeavored to obtain or use, the property of another valued at $300 or more with the intent to temporarily or permanently deprive the owner of the right to the property, or a benefit therefrom, or to appropriate the property to his own use, or to the use of any person not entitled thereto, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying and other substantive and material evidence of record, the following findings of fact are made: At all times material to this cause, Respondent was a certified Correctional Officer, having been certified on or about April 2, 1991, and issued Correctional Officer Certification No. 92406. On October 8, 2000, Respondent, in the company of two other persons, Steven Smith and Henry Fox, went to a business named "Four Star Refinish" located at 898 County Road 621, Lake Placid, Florida. David Trobaugh is the owner of Four Star Refinish and the compressor at issue in this proceeding. The building housing Four Star Refinish had been largely destroyed by fire before October 8, 2000, and the compressor, valued at more than $300, was located outside the building, undamaged. On October 8, 2000, at the business site of Four Star Refinish, Respondent, Steven Smith, and Henry Fox, agreed to take the compressor and together removed the compressor from the premises and transported it to the residence of Steven Smith. On October 12, 2000, Respondent gave a statement to Robert Neale, Highlands County Sheriff's Department, admitting that he, Steven Smith, and Henry Fox loaded the compressor onto a trailer and together transported it to Steven Smith's residence. Respondent, after his admission, assisted Deputy Neale in recovering the compressor by contacting Steven Smith by telephone, who then provided the location of the compressor. At the location provided by Steven Smith, the compressor was located and recovered by Deputy Neale, identified by the owner, David Trobaugh, and returned to him. Respondent, with knowledge of the unlawful taking of the compressor, with knowledge of the parties who unlawfully removed the compressor, and with knowledge of the compressor's whereabouts, concealed his participation in the aiding and abetting in the commission of a felony by Steven Smith and Henry Fox, when initially approached by law enforcement. As a direct result of the foregone and on April 1, 2001, in the case of State v. Jerry E. Lambert, the State Attorney entered a nolle prosequi, in Highlands County Circuit Court Case No. CF00-00685A-XX, under which Respondent was charged with one count of Grand Theft in Excess of $300, with the stated ground for the nolle prosequi listed as "Case Referred to CDS (Citizen Dispute Settlement). An Agreement was reached and restitution and fees paid." Petitioner has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent, without permission of the owner and without legal right to obtain, did in fact obtain and remove an air compressor valued at more than $300 from the site location of the lawful owner. Respondent's admitted participation in the commission of a felony offense evidenced his intentional failure to maintain good moral character and proves his failure to maintain qualifications required of a certified correctional officer. Respondent offered no mitigating evidence.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order revoking Respondent's Correctional Officer Certification No. 92406. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FRED L. BUCKINE 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 18th day of February, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerry E. Lambert 126 East Royal Palm Avenue Lake Placid, Florida 33852 Joseph S. White, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rod Caswell, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Should discipline be imposed on Respondent's Florida Educator's Certificate No. 766501, based upon the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Case No. 023-0064-R, before the State of Florida, Education Practices Commission?
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 766501, covering the area of Elementary Education, which is (was) valid through June 30, 2003. Additional Facts Respondent was an employee of the Duval County School District (the District) in the 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 school years. She was assigned to Pine Estates Elementary School No. 250 (Pine Estates). Her principal was James Young. The basis for her employment was as an annual contract teacher, in which the principal would determine at the end of each school year whether to retain the Respondent as a member of the faculty. As a beginning teacher, Respondent was required to undergo a professional orientation program referred to as a Professional Education Competence Program, also referred to as the Teacher Induction Program (TIP). The manual describing the TIP details referred to the length of the program and Respondent's obligation to complete the program where it stated: All program participants must complete the Induction Program within one year from date of hire. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 2. The manual was provided to participants in the TIP. The start date for Respondent associated with her commencement of the TIP was August 9, 2000. The TIP required certain documentation for program completion. Among the requirements for documentation was the need for Respondent to "create a portfolio in which evidence of demonstration of mastery of the competencies are included as required for program completion." Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 2. Reference to competencies concerns 16 measurements of the teacher's abilities. They are in turn: Write and speak in a logical and understandable style, using appropriate grammar and sentence structure, and demonstrate a command of standard English, enunciation, clarity of oral directions, and pace and precision in speaking. Read, comprehend, and interpret professional and other written material. Compute, think logically, and solve problems. Recognize signs of students' difficulty with the reading and computation process and apply appropriate measures to improve students' reading and computation performance. Recognize patterns of physical, social, emotional, and intellectual development in students, including exceptional students in the regular classroom. Recognize and demonstrate awareness of the educational needs of students who have limited proficiency in English and employ appropriate teaching strategies. Use and integrate appropriate technology in teaching and learning processes and in managing, evaluating, and improving instruction. Use assessment and other diagnostic strategies to assist the continuous development and acquisition of knowledge and understanding of the learner. Use teaching and learning strategies that include consideration of each student's learning styles, needs and background. Demonstrate the ability to maintain a positive collaborative relationship with students' families to increase achievement. Recognize signs of tendency towards violence and severe emotional distress in students and apply techniques of crisis intervention. Recognize signs of alcohol and drug abuse in students and know how to appropriately work with such students and seek assistance designed to prevent future abuse. Recognize the physical and behavioral indicators of child abuse and neglect and know rights and responsibilities regarding reporting. Demonstrate the ability to maintain a positive environment in the classroom while achieving order and discipline. Demonstrate the ability to grade student performance effectively. Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the value of, and strategies for, promoting parental involvement in education. The 16 competencies were broken down into subcategories (indicators) for each competency. In preparing the necessary portfolio to demonstrate competencies for the TIP, these directions were given to Respondent and other beginning teachers: minimum of two (2) indicators must be marked for each competency. All documentation must be developed by the participant during participation in the TIP. Initial and date the demonstration of each completed indicator by principals/designee. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 2. Under Special Notes by way of additional instructions to Respondent and other teachers participating in the TIP, it was stated: Principals may require more than the minimum indicators. Verify selected indicators reflect the intent and language of the competency. Exhibits alone do not indicate mastery of competencies. [Emphasis supplied]. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 2. Upon the expiration of the period for completing the TIP, in association with the portfolio as part of the overall Professional Development Plan for Respondent and other beginning teachers, a form would be executed explaining the success or lack of success by Respondent and her contemporaries in caring out the expectations within the TIP. In particular this related to the portfolio where the form set out: TEACHER INDUCTION PROGRAM: OFFICIAL STATEMENT OF COMPLETION ALL COMPETENCIES LISTED COMPETENCIES LISTED ABOVE HAVE BEEN BELOW HAVE NOT BEEN SATISFACTORILY SATISFACTORILY DEMONSTRATED. DEMONSTRATED _____________________ Number(s) ______________________ _____________________ Principal/s Signature Principal's Signature ______________________ _____________________ Date Date I have reviewed all Portfolio Documents, Competency Exhibits and completed Professional Development Plan regarding _______________________, a TIP participant in the Duval County School District, and am providing this form as verification that he/she ______HAS _______ HAS NOT successfully demonstrated all requirements for completion of the Florida TIP including pre/post-planning activities. _____________________________________________________________ Principal/Date School Name/Number Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 2. The Professional Development Plan as part of the TIP is also referred to as an Action Plan. On September 15, 2000, Principal Young, gave Respondent a memorandum referring to her obligation under the TIP, to include involvement with the preparation of the portfolio. In pertinent part the memorandum stated: New hires are entered into the program (TIP) as a category 1 participant until the receipt of the required documentation (professional certificate, portfolio, etc.) Unless otherwise notified your responsible to complete the entire program. TIP participants have 180 days from the date of hire to complete the TIP program. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 4. According to Monica McAleer, who was the Coordinator of Professional Development for the District during Respondent's employment, the TIP is a support program for beginning teachers which provides workshops, a cadre from the District, and mentors within the respective schools to assist the new teacher in demonstrating the necessary competence to obtain a Professional Teaching Certificate. As Ms. McAleer explained, in the event that a participant did not conclude the TIP within the normal time line, the principal in the school could request that the teacher be carried over in his or her employment and additional time be provided for the participant to finish the program. The other component to demonstrating professional competence to move from the status of a Temporary Certificate to that of a Professional Teaching Certificate, would be observations by evaluators of performance by the beginning teacher in the classroom setting. As Ms. McAleer established, the preparation of the portfolio is the responsibility of the participant. It must be the participant's work, not that of someone else. For example, in a newsletter addressed to parents of his or her student, created by the teacher preparing the portfolio, could be included as part of the portfolio to respond to competency one. This newsletter should not be that of another teacher, directed to parents of students not taught by the teacher who submitted the portfolio. As Ms. McAleer explained, the inclusion within the portfolio of material not developed by the teacher preparing the portfolio, would be contrary to the District policy requiring the preparation of the portfolio as part of the TIP. After assignment to her school, an initial orientation for Respondent and other teachers was provided by a member of the cadre from the District in one of several sessions within the system. The cadre member responsible for Respondent's orientation was Karen Lynette Patterson. The cadre works with the beginning teachers providing needed resources. The cadre conducts workshops on topics such as classroom management, instructional organization, instruction delivery, and so forth. The cadre observes the teacher in the classroom setting. The cadre would talk with the teacher about things necessary to include within the portfolio. As Ms. McAleer described, the principal prepares a Professional Development Plan for the new teacher and arranges for an in-school mentor to assist the beginning teacher. The professional development facilitator or mentor within the school works with the new teachers and meets frequently with the new teacher. Mr. Young served in that capacity for Respondent. The principal determines whether the TIP is completed timely and reviews the documents in the portfolio to determine their adequacy. In this instance Mr. Young was both the mentor and principal for Respondent. Ordinarily, once the period for completing the TIP has expired, the principal executes the forms that have been described, indicating whether the new teacher has or has not met all requirements for completing the TIP, again according to Ms. McAleer. Ms. Patterson in her position as a cadre member from the District worked at the school level to promote the TIP. She worked immediately with professional development facilitators, the mentors assigned to the new teachers. Her job also involved direct observation of the new teachers. Ms. Patterson's first meeting with the Respondent occurred at the August 2000 orientation provided to Respondent and other new teachers participating in the TIP. Ms. Patterson emphasized the expectation within the TIP manual calling for the participants to develop their own documentation in relations to their portfolios. During the August 20000 orientation Respondent was told that the documents provided in the portfolio must be developed by Respondent. On September 6, 2000, Ms. Patterson returned to Pine Estates and met with the new teachers again on the subject of the TIP. This was followed by a November 6, 2000, meeting with Respondent to discuss the opportunities for appeal, if Respondent felt that circumstances within the TIP were not in her favor. At that time the requirements for materials to be placed in the portfolio were also discussed. Respondent did not complete the TIP within the school year 2000-2001, and Ms. McAleer at the instigation of Mr. Young, was requested to give an extension for Respondent to complete the TIP. The reason for the request was that Respondent had gone on Family Medical Leave at the end of that school year, which affected her completion of the program. After Respondent returned from her Family Medical Leave in August 2001, Ms. Patterson had a further opportunity to explain the requirements for the portfolio to Respondent. Respondent had been given 45 extra days to conclude the portfolio upon return from the leave. Respondent requested Ms. Patterson to get a copy of Respondent's previous incomplete portfolio and Ms. Patterson accommodated her in that respect. Again Ms. Patterson made certain that Respondent understood that the work to be placed in the portfolio that was being submitted in the future had to be developed by Respondent alone. In August 2001, Ms. Patterson spoke with Mr. Young to discuss his interest in determining what was necessary for Respondent to complete the TIP. During workshops Ms. Patterson described the opportunity for beginning teachers to obtain copies of the portfolios of prior teachers who had completed the TIP, to use as examples when the present participant developed his or her portfolio. Ms. Patterson worked with Respondent by going through the things that could be put in Respondent's portfolio, with the approval of the principal. However, as Ms. Patterson explained the decision on the sufficiency of the portfolio resides with the principal, not the cadre member. Ms. Patterson told Respondent, according to the nature of the requirements for the competency, what things might be used for her portfolio that were taken from the classroom experience. At the time Ms. Patterson was going over the requirements for the portfolio, Respondent had already chosen certain exhibits to be placed in the portfolio. In the prior school year, on September 15, 2000, when Mr. Young met Respondent and other beginning teachers he provided them material concerning the TIP. The TIP manual was part of that material. He also showed them examples of what he considered to be an acceptable portfolio. Mr. Young served as Respondent's mentor in relation to the TIP given the circumstances at his school and the lack of qualified teachers to serve in that capacity. As the mentor for Respondent, Mr. Young met with her and discussed the Professional Development Plan. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 5. That plan was ongoing at the end of November 2000, when it was executed by Respondent and Mr. Young as mentor and principal. More specifically, as mentor Mr. Young provided guidance to Respondent concerning the TIP. Although Respondent did not complete the TIP within the 2000-2001 school year, Mr. Young brought her back as an annual contract teacher for the 2001-2002 school year, having arranged to extend the time for her compliance with the TIP. Her continuation as an annual contract teacher in the school 2001-2002 was contingent upon completing the TIP within the additional 45 days which commenced with that school year. Mr. Young explained that contingency to the Respondent. This meant that the deadline for completing the TIP was mid October 2001. Lillie Granger was staffing supervisor at Pine Estates. When the 45 days were up, Ms. Granger reminded Mr. Young of the expiration of that deadline and the need to bring in a replacement teacher for Respondent. At that time Mr. Young decided against terminating Respondent's annual contract as a teacher at the school. Over the period in the fall 2001, Mr. Young spoke several times with the Respondent about completing, among other items the portfolio. Mr. Young met six times with Respondent in the fall of 2001, concerning the TIP. One written note provided to the Respondent by Mr. Young on October 22, 2001 stated: "I need to see your portfolio and plans from 8/7 thru 10/26." In a response that is shown on that same memorandum, Respondent refers to the plans but makes no mention of the portfolio. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 7. On November 13, 2001, Mr. Young prepared and provided to Respondent a notice of unsatisfactory evaluation for the school year 2001-2002. In this notification mention is made of the failure to complete the TIP and turn in the portfolio which is part of that program. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 8. Mr. Young signed the notice and his signature was witnessed. The document indicates that Respondent was not comfortable with signing the document when it was provided to her on the aforementioned date. Notwithstanding the reluctance to sign the document, according to Mr. Young she appeared to read its contents and Mr. Young addressed each item within the document during the meeting. Respondent's portfolio was not turned in until April 2002. Before that time Mr. Young had executed the form in relation to the TIP which is described as the Official Statement of Completion, in which as of December 4, 2001, it was noted that Respondent had not successfully demonstrated all requirements for completion of the TIP. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 9. In assisting Respondent with the preparation of her portfolio, Mr. Young provided Respondent completed portfolios from other teachers to use as a guide. It was Respondent's desire to use a completed portfolio as a guide. She took one completed portfolio and brought it back. She then chose a second one. The latter portfolio which Respondent chose to use was prepared by Ursyln Austin, a teacher who had finished the TIP. Respondent took Ms. Austin's portfolio, but never returned it to the office at Pine Estates where it had been obtained. By way of explanation, Respondent indicated that the portfolio went missing from some boxes when furniture and boxes were moved from one classroom she used to another. The black binder introduced at hearing and its overall contents, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 11, constitute the portfolio provided by Respondent to comply with the TIP. In Mr. Young's presence Respondent verified that every page within the binder was her portfolio. At that time Mr. Young told Respondent that he would get back with her concerning the submission. He had not reviewed the document. He suspected that some of the material within the portfolio was not prepared by Respondent. In view of his suspicion, the District office had been contacted before the conversation between Mr. Young and Respondent concerning the portfolio. The document had been found on his desk after his absence from his office and he had been told that the Respondent left it there. But until the moment of their conversation there was no confirmation by Respondent that the document was hers. The material in the portfolio which Mr. Young discovered, that he suspected as being prepared by another teacher was pertaining to Ms. Austin's work on her portfolio, with which Mr. Young was familiar. In particular Mr. Young noted within the Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 11 under competency one, the apple or peach design relates to material that Mr. Young had seen, that Ms. Austin prepared. That item refers to the "5th grade." At the time Respondent was not a fifth grade teacher. Within the binder pertaining to competency three, were scores for approximately 20 students, and at that time Respondent had a very small class, inferred to be less than 20 students. Handwriting on that page had the appearance of Ms. Austin's handwriting. The spelling program referred to in the worksheet was a program used by fifth grade teachers. Under competency seven, it references the fifth grade; as with the earlier reference this was a grade that Respondent did not teach. The procedure noted in the page under competency seven for getting the attention of the class was one used by Ms. Austin and her class, as Mr. Young recalls. Further support for Mr. Young's suspicion came from the student work behind competency eight, because he believed that it would not be within the ability for the grade level taught by the Respondent as of the September 2000 date reflected on the school work. Under competency ten reference was made to math problems for a department where a teacher taught but a single subject, and was the wrong subject in relation to Respondent's assignment at the time. Having reviewed Respondent's portfolio, Mr. Young provided Respondent with a written assessment of the various competencies within the portfolio. That critique was dated April 22, 2002. Through it Mr. Young points out those portions of the portfolio that were perceived to come from another classroom teacher. In this communication he does not name the teacher, Ms. Austin. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered In summary, the critique indicates that only three of the 16 competencies had been satisfied and the remaining parts of the portfolio did not meet requirements. Two days before that time Mr. Young had prepared another Official Statement of Completion on the Respondent's participation in the TIP, in which he indicates that Respondent had not completed the TIP. Respondent's Exhibit numbered 2. A meeting was convened between Mr. Young and Respondent, together with Leroy Starling, an investigator for the District, and John Williams, the District Director for Professional Standards. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 11 was discussed in the meeting. Questions were asked about the pink pages within the document and little markings on contents of the exhibit. Respondent said, "I don't know what those indications, those markings on the pink paper mean." She then inquired if the other participants in the meeting were going to go through the "entire book." Mr. Young replied in the affirmative, at which point, Respondent said "Well I am leaving you to do what you gotta do and I will do what I gotta do. You will hear from my people." She then left the meeting. Within Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 11, those materials contained in the black binder, is Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 3. The included exhibit, less than the whole, is constituted of those items which Ursyln Vanessa Austin identified as being found within the portfolio she submitted to comply with the TIP, later used by Respondent. Her understanding was that material contained in her portfolio must be in association with what she did in her classroom to demonstrate compliance with the competencies incumbent on her as a beginning teacher. For example, a copy of a parent newsletter in her portfolio had to be her newsletter used for the benefit of parents whose students were in her class. In sequence, the items Ms. Austin established as coming from her portfolio were: the lead page that identifies the heading competency one, was used by Ms. Austin as part of her portfolio; the markings on the pink page which is competency one, constituted of the letters A-G, were placed by Ms. Austin to designate using those subcategories under competency number one lettered as A and G; the pink color of the paper was recognized by Ms. Austin as her choice of paper color; and the font for the print on the page was her choice. Continuing, under competency two acknowledged by Respondent as hers, Ms. Austin identified that item as having been prepared and submitted with her portfolio. The letters B and D in the lower right-hand corner of competency two were placed by Ms. Austin in relation to subcategories which she had chosen. Likewise, Ms. Austin identified the pink page competency three as hers. Ms. Austin established that the pink page competency three with the letters A and D placed by her for her choice of subcategories, was in association with material provided with her portfolio. Similarly with competency four placed on pink paper, Ms. Austin had prepared the pink sheet competency four with the letters G and H (subcategories) and submitted that page with her portfolio. The same description holds true concerning competency five with the letters D and F for subcategories found on the pink page competency five as prepared by Ms. Austin with the initials. For the remaining competencies six through sixteen on pink paper, some with initials, some with not, Ms. Austin identified those materials as being associated with her portfolio. Other material within the Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 3, which upon Ms. Austin's identification became Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 3, followed the lead sheet for competency one. The welcome to the families for the 2000-2001 school year, was prepared by Ms. Austin and submitted with her portfolio. The logo on that document was used by Ms. Austin and the letter involved her "5th grade class." Behind competency three Ms. Austin identified the spelling for third period as submitted with her portfolio, as a form of a chart related to competency three. The document referred to as Rubric Endangered/Threatened Animals of our region was an item submitted with Ms. Austin's portfolio. Related to competency seven, the document Pine Estates Elementary grade five 2000- 2001 classroom procedures was submitted by Ms. Austin with her portfolio. She recalls the hand signals portrayed on the page as being the basis of communicating with her class. Behind competency eight, a story referred to as "Amazing Grace," dated September 18, 2000, was a paper done by Ms. Austin's student, with a post-it note at the bottom being written by the Respondent commenting on the paper. The paper and post-it note were submitted by Ms. Austin with her portfolio. Behind competency ten is a newsletter which Ms. Austin sent out on December 14, 2000. It bears an extension number for the telephone which corresponds to the room number which Ms. Austin had at the time. The topics in the newsletter are familiar to Ms. Austin as being material that was being discussed at the time. The letter was provided with Ms. Austin's portfolio. Behind competency 12, the letter entitled "Dear DARE Student" and the pamphlet "Pressure to Smoke" were submitted with Ms. Austin's portfolio. At that time students were involved with a DARE program of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office having to do with prevention of drug abuse. These materials were used in her class. Those items that have been mentioned in this paragraph were acknowledged by Respondent as being submitted with her portfolio. Before Respondent placed Ms. Austin's portfolio material in Respondent's portfolio, Ms. Austin had a conversation with Respondent about Ms. Austin's portfolio. Respondent told Ms. Austin that she was looking at Ms. Austin's portfolio as a basis for doing Respondent's portfolio. This conversation took place after Ms. Austin had submitted her portfolio to Mr. Young to gain his approval. Ms. Austin never gave Respondent permission to take items from her portfolio and put them in Respondent's portfolio.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding the Respondent in violation of those provisions within Counts 2 through 7, to the Administrative Complaint, dismissing Count 1, thereby addressing the prospect that Respondent may later apply for a teaching certificate, her prior certificate having ended June 30, 2003. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of November, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S _________________________________ CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 22nd day of November, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Walter C. Fitzgibbon is a permanent state career service employee who became a Planner and Evaluator II with the Division of Corrections, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, on February 14, 1975. He had been serving in that department in other capacities since 1969. In July of 1975, the Department of Offender Rehabilitation (DOR) was created that took over the functions of the Division of Corrections, and Petitioner retained his position which was placed in the Bureau of Planning, Research and Statistics headed by Robert Roesch. The Bureau is under the supervision of the Assistant Secretary for Programs, T. P. Jones. (Testimony of Ball, Waiwright, Jones, Fitzgibbon, Exhibits 15, 29) In July, 1977, there were four Planner and Evaluator II positions in the Department of Offender Rehabilitation. Three of these positions were under the Bureau of Planning, Research and Statistics and the incumbents performed basically similar duties that primarily consisted of long-range planning to meet departmental goals and objectives. The employees holding these positions were Petitioner, Sunil Nath, and Bill C. Schnitzer. The fourth Planner and Evaluator II position in the department was under the Assistant Secretary for Programs in the Adult Services Program office headed by Director Ronald B. Jones. The incumbent of this position serves as Mutual Participation Program Coordinator, (MPP Coordinator), a position that was established by the Mutual Participation Program Act of 1976 (Section 847.135, F.S.), and which involves the planning, developing, coordinating and implementing of a two-year pilot program of contracts between the DOR, the Florida Parole and Probation Commission (Commission) and incarcerated criminal offenders with a view to early release from correctional institutions under parole supervision. Although the DOR originally had requested the Department of Administration to establish this position in a separate class because of its special characteristics, the request was not approved and the coordinator position was placed in the classification of Planner and Evaluator II. A position description for the job was approved on July 21, 1976, and applications for the vacancy were solicited in a DOR advertisement letter of July 27, 1976. This advertisement showed the minimum training and experience requirements for a Planner and Evaluator II, but did not mention the specialized requirements set forth in the position description. Edward M. Teuton, an Inmate Classification Supervisor at Sumter Correctional Institution, was invited to apply for the job by Assistant Secretary Jones who had known Teuton when the latter was an Inmate Classification Specialist at the Florida Correctional Institution where Jones had been the superintendent some years prior to that time. Teuton thereafter was selected to fill the vacancy in September, 1976. (Testimony of Ball, T. Jones, Teuton, Exhibit 2, Composite Exhibit 9) The 1977 State Legislature took action called a "productivity adjustment" which, along with termination of certain federal grants, resulted in the deletion of 149 positions in the DOR. Although officials of the department had become aware of the probable employee cutbacks as early as May, 1977, the law effecting the cuts did not become effective until late June, and it was not until the latter part of July that the department determined the specific employee positions that would be abolished. By letter of July 26 to the Secretary of Administration, Mr. Louie L. Wainwright, Secretary of DOR, requested approval of a statewide competitive area for the deletion of certain positions, including the three Planner and Evaluator II positions in the Bureau of Planning, Research and Statistics. In this letter, he stated that "Any layoffs necessitated by position deletions will be accomplished through application of retention points as specified by the State Personnel Rules." On July 27, the Secretary of Administration approved the request. (Testimony of Ball, T. Jones, Exhibits 1, 3, 4) On July 28, 1977, DOR Personnel Officer James A. Ball, III, held a meeting at which he advised the four Planners and Evaluators of the situation and indicated that three of the positions were to be abolished. "Retention points" under the layoff rule, Rule 22A-7.11, F.A.C., had been computed by his office and Petitioner had 120 points which was the highest of the four employees. Nath had 85 points, Teuton had 83, and Schnitzer had 68. Accordingly, Ball told Petitioner that he would not be adversely affected by the cutbacks since he had the most retention points, and that, after the meeting, he should get acquainted with Teuton and the duties of his position. The other three employees were requested to remain in order to discuss the implications of their impending layoffs. Petitioner proceeded to confer with Teuton thereafter, and "phase-in" to the new position by orienting himself in his anticipated new duties and responsibilities. However, he continued to perform his normal duty assignment and no official change in position was made. (Testimony of Ball, T. Jones, Fitzgibbon, Teuton, Exhibits 10, 11, 26) In early August, Ball briefed Secretary Wainwright and his chief assistants on the situation and advised them that Fitzgibbon would succeed to the remaining Planner and Evaluator II position then held by Teuton because he had the most retention points. The Secretary was concerned because it was a pilot program scheduled for only a two year existence and had been in successful operation for one of those two years under Teuton. He felt that there was insufficient time to train someone to take over the program because of its short duration and the necessity of reporting to the legislature on its progress. He therefore sought the advice of the State Personnel Director and the latter recommended that he consider the possibility of utilizing the concept of "selective competition" to fill the position. This is a process permitted under the layoff rule when authorized by the State Personnel Director that permits a state agency to avoid the "bumping" procedures by which employees holding the most retention points within a competitive area when layoffs are to be effected may obtain any remaining vacant positions. In selective competition, unwritten Department of Administration policy is that only those employees who meet the specific qualifications deemed necessary for the position which are clearly reflected in the position description may compete for the job. If several employees meet these special qualifications, then the one with the highest retention points is appointed. (Testimony of Ball, Wainwright, Dean) By letter dated August 31, 1977, Secretary Wainwright requested the State Personnel Director to approve selective competition for the coordinator position "among persons who may be affected by layoff in the Department of Offender Rehabilitation." The position was therein described as unique, and requiring specific qualifications to perform the duties reflected in the position description. These qualifications were that the incumbent must have a thorough knowledge of the statute governing the program, possess extensive inmate classification experience to train institutional classification personnel in negotiating contract paroles and monitoring and evaluating the program. Additionally, institutional experience in dealing with inmates was said to be necessary in order to be successful in the position, plus a thorough knowledge of structured treatment programs at each DOR rehabilitation facility. The Deputy State Personnel Director reviewed the request in the light of the position description and determined that selective competition was appropriate. Based on his recommendation, the State Personnel Director approved the request by letter of September 8, 1977. (Testimony of Ball, Dean, Wainwright, Exhibits 5, 6) Based on recommendations from Assistant Secretary Jones, personnel officer Ball, and Ronald Jones, the program director, Secretary Wainwright determined that Teuton was the only Planner and Evaluator II who possessed the special qualifications for the position. He therefore informed Teuton by a letter, dated September 14, 1977, that since he was "best qualified" for the position, he would remain in that capacity and that the notice of layoff sent to him on August 5 could be disregarded. The process of selective competition had not been publicized or otherwise made known to Fitzgibbon. In arriving at his decision, Secretary Wainwright had reviewed the qualifications of all four employees. (Testimony of Ball, Wainwright, T. Jones, Exhibit 13) On September 13, Fitzgibbon met with Ball and Assistant Secretary Jones at which time the latter informed him that he would not receive the coordinator position. At this time, he was provided with a copy of a letter signed by Wainwright, dated September 14, 1977, advising him of his impending layoff and his rights in that regard. At the meeting, Jones explained to Fitzgibbon that he could take a voluntary demotion if he so desired and that he would be provided with assistance in finding another job. Fitzgibbon received the official notice of layoff letter on September 19th. The letter informed him that he had the right in lieu of layoff to request demotion or reassignment within the competitive area to a position for which he might be eligible. In this letter, he was also advised that he was subject to layoff because of the deletion of his position and because of "your lack of either permanent status or sufficient retention points in your class of position and competitive area." He was further advised of his right to appeal the layoff to the Career Service Commission within twenty days. On September 30, 1977, Fitzgibbon appealed the layoff to the State Personnel Director claiming that the DOR had made "unfair and unjust use" of Rule 22A-7.11 by "questionable procedures" in the obtainment of selective competition for the remaining Planner and Evaluator II position. Also, by letter of September 23 to the Bureau of Personnel of the DOR, Fitzgibbon recited the events leading to his receipt of the layoff letter and requested demotion or reassignment in lieu of layoff "solely to comply with the personnel rules related to layoff and to retain my employment with the state and this department." He further stated that he retained his right to appeal to the Career Service Commission. Secretary Wainwright responded by letter of November 22, in which he informed Fitzgibbon that his "voluntary demotion" to Planner and Evaluator I would become effective on December 18. Fitzgibbon was, in fact, demoted to that grade on the stated date. (Testimony of Ball, Fitzgibbon, Exhibits 7-8, 14) The Mutual Participation Program which commenced in October, 1976, is operational in eight major correctional institutions in Florida. It involves the negotiation of contracts which specify certain undertakings by inmates during institutional confinement, a guaranteed parole date, the terms of parole supervision, and release from parole. The contractual parties are the DOR, the Parole and Probation Commission and the inmate concerned. Also termed "contract parole," it is an innovative system designed to provide an inmate with an opportunity to become involved in the decision-making process concerning his future and to set clearly defined requirements for obtaining a guaranteed parole release date. Such requirements may consist of academic and vocational programs, special counseling, restitution, pre-parole work release, and behavioral objectives. Each successfully negotiated contract is individualized in the above respects to fit the needs of the particular inmate. The procedure employed in negotiating a contract is for the inmate to prepare an initial proposal for consideration by a negotiating team composed of representatives of the DOR and the Commission. These representatives consist of an Inmate Classification Specialist of the DOR and a Contract Parole Specialist of the Commission, located at the correctional institution. If all three parties agree to the terms of the contract, it is sent to the Superintendent of the institution who may approve or deny the proposal. If he approves, it is then submitted to the Commission for final approval. It is the inmate's responsibility to fulfill the terms of the contract in a satisfactory manner. The institution must provide the services agreed to in the contract and the Commission must honor the established parole date if the inmate meets the contractual provisions. The MPP Coordinator, aside from initial duties in planning and establishing procedures for the pilot program and training individuals involved in the negotiating process, acts as a coordinator between the three parties to the contract to inform all concerned of the offender's performance of conditions and activities necessary to achieve release on parole. He must be well-versed in the current operations of the correctional system and be an efficient and diplomatic administrator, with less emphasis on planning, research and evaluation. The position is considered "crucial" and "sensitive" by the DOR. Although conflicting evidence was presented at the hearing, the weight of the evidence shows that the following special qualifications must be possessed by the incumbent of the position in order to perform the job in a satisfactory manner. He must have had prior experience in correctional institutions and be familiar with institutional programs. It is of critical importance that the coordinator have expertise in dealing with inmates to ensure that they are placed in appropriate programs tailored to their particular needs based on their background, educational psychological tests and the like. This aspect also requires an intimate knowledge of the functions of Inmate Classification Specialists and Supervisors because these are the institutional personnel who are concerned with the negotiating process. Further, since the contract parole system is premised upon successful accomplishment of goals while in the institution, there is less importance ascribed to the activities of the inmate while on parole. While the coordinator must monitor and evaluate inmate progress in fulfilling the terms of his contract and must provide input for periodic evaluations of the entire program, necessary research and reports based on statistics and other information gleaned from past experience is provided by the DOR's Bureau of Planning, Research and Statistics. The duties and responsibilities requiring the above qualifications are reflected in the position description for the MPP Coordinator. (Testimony of Ball, Wainwright, T. Jones, R. Jones, Mills, Fouty, Terrisi, Teuton, Nath, Exhibits 5, 9, 12, 16- 20) Although Fitzgibbon possesses extensive background and experience in planning and administering institutional programs for mentally and physically handicapped individuals, he has had no experience in correctional institutions dealing with classification of inmates and institutional programs. On the other hand, Teuton had served several years as an Inmate Classification Specialist and Supervisor at various Florida correctional institutions. It was determined therefore by Secretary Wainwright, as well as by Ball and the Messrs. Jones, that Fitzgibbon lacked the basic qualifications for the position. It was further felt by those officials that the position required an individual to possess an ability to "get along" with others in view of the importance of the coordinating and liaison aspects, and that Teuton had demonstrated he possessed such a trait during during the period in which he had administered the program in a highly satisfactory manner. However, regardless of that fact, Secretary Wainwright testified that had Fitzgibbon possessed the necessary experience at correctional institutions, he would have been appointed to the position since he had more retention points than Teuton. (Testimony of Ball, Wainwright, T. Jones, R. Jones, Exhibits 15, 21, 28) On July 13, 1977, Fitzgibbon's immediate supervisor Sam T. Siler, Jr., Planner and Evaluator III, signed a "Employee Service Rating," dated June 10, 1977, regarding Fitzgibbon for the annual rating period from July 1, 1976 to July 1, 1977. This report reflected an overall rating of "Above Satisfactory" and contained complimentary statements concerning Fitzgibbon's performance of duty. Siler considered that this was a first draft only and that it was necessary for him to "defend" it before his next supervisor, the Bureau Chief Roesch. It was his practice -- a common one in the DOR -- for such a rating to be reviewed by a higher-level supervisor prior to putting it in final form. Siler "negotiated" the rating with Roesch who in turn took it to Assistant Secretary Jones, his supervisor; Jones told Roesch that he should review with Siler all of Fitzgibbon's activities and that the rating should be defensible. He also indicated, however, that Siler's rating appeared to be a "little high." Roesch informed Siler that the rating should be lower because it was too high when compared with ratings received by others in the bureau. Siler acknowledged that he might have overrated Fitzgibbon because he knew that personnel cuts were in the offing, and agreed with Roesch to a lower rating. Siler then went on vacation and when he returned, a new rating had been prepared with signatures of superiors already affixed. The report gave Fitzgibbon an overall rating of satisfactory and lower ratings in specific areas including less flattering comments. Although the rating was signed by his supervisors on July 20, 1977, Fitzgibbon did not receive a copy of the report until October 18th. He declined to sign the rating form and prepared a memorandum, dated October 20, 1977, which indicated his non-concurrence with the rating as reflecting less than an adequate evaluation of his work and contributions to the department. The existing personnel directive in the DOR provides that it is the responsibility of the employee's immediate supervisor to rate each employee under his supervision and then review the form with the employee, at which time the employee signs or declines to sign the form. At that point, the employee's department head is to review the form, placing his comments or recommendations thereon, signing and then transmitting to the personnel officer and the superintendent (in this case Secretary Wainwright) prior to transmittal of the form to the central personnel office. Siler told Fitzgibbon at the time he handed him a copy of the rating on October 18 that he did not want to sign the changed rating already signed by Jones and Roesch, but that Roesch had told him it would be in his best interests to sign it. (Testimony of Ball, T. Jones, Siler, Fitzgibbon, Exhibits 22, 23, 25, 27)
Recommendation That the Career Service Commission deny the appeal. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of May, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jerry Traynham, Esquire 1215 Thomasville Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Earl Archer, Esquire 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Edward M. Teuton 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Conley Kennison Attn: Mrs. Dorothy Roberts Appeals Coordinator Career Service Commission 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Otis Brown, is the holder of a Class "K" Firearms Instructor License, a Class "DI" Security Officer Instructor License, a Class "D" Security Officer License, and a Class "G" Statewide Firearm License. On September 19, 1989, the Department of State (Department) temporarily approved respondent's application for a Class "DS" Security Officer School/Training Facility to be located at 15966 Northwest 27th Avenue, Miami, Florida. In June 1991 respondent relocated his school to 7900 Northwest 27th Avenue, Miami, Florida; however, it was not until September 30, 1991, that he applied for a license at such location and not until February 18, 1992, that the Department issued its temporary approval of such application. Each of the schools operated by respondent and approved by the Department were designated, by respondent, as "in-house," or non-fee charging. During the period extending from April 1991 through January 1992 respondent provided training for a Class "D" Unarmed Security Guard License in Monroe County, Florida, without benefit of a Class "DS" Security Guard School License for that location, which failed to conform with the State's minimum requirements. Specifically, in April 1991, respondent offered a course for unarmed security guards at his hotel room in the Econo Lodge, Key West, Florida. Such class included, among others, Brian Whitten and Ronald Shipman, who each paid approximately $100 for the course. The course lasted one day, starting at approximately 9:00 a.m. and concluding around 4:00 p.m. following the administration of the examination, with one hour off for lunch and several short breaks. In all, not more that 6 hours of instruction were given. Both Whitten and Shipman received a certificate of successful completion of unarmed security guard training from respondent. Again, in January 1992, respondent offered a course for unarmed security guards at his hotel room in Key West, Florida. Such class included, among 8 or 9 others, Bruce Clothier, who paid $75 for the course. The course lasted from 8:00 a.m. until noon the first day, and from 8:00 a.m. until approximately 11:30 a.m. the second day. The second day of instruction lasted approximately three hours, most of which was a review of the previous day's material, and then the students were accorded about one-half hour to take an examination. Every student received a certificate of successful completion of the unarmed security guard training from respondent. As with the unarmed security guard training, the firearms trained offered by respondent often failed to conform with the State's minimum requirements. In January 1991, in Miami, Florida, Brian Whitten received training from the respondent for a Class "G" Statewide Firearms License. His classroom and range training totaled approximately ten hours. Between April and October 1991, Charles Ramsey was employed by respondent at his Miami school, and assisted respondent in conducting training courses for Class "D" and Class "G" licensure. At the time, respondent was disabled, and Ramsey assisted him with various physical activities, as well as teaching first aid instruction to the students. While Ramsey taught the first aid course, respondent was always present. Ramsey did not, however, hold a Class "DI" license. Regarding the firearms training course for Class "K" licensure offered during this period, the proof demonstrates that little formal instruction was given. Rather, the students were given a booklet to take home with them to study for two days and on the third day received a block of instruction on the statutes of the State of Florida and firearm safety and an examination before lunch. Following lunch, the students received their range training. In December 1991, in Miami, Florida, John Ortiz paid respondent $40.00 for the training required for a firearms waiver. Respondent provided Ortiz with four hours of classroom training, which included reading and classroom discussion, and approximately two hours of range training. During range training, Ortiz fired one hundred and fifty rounds of ammunition. In January 1992, Ortiz returned to the respondent for requalification with his .38 caliber pistol for his Class "G" license. Respondent asked Ortiz for $35.00, which he paid, and received his recertification without any further training. On January 15, 1992, a Department of State investigator met with respondent to inspect his business records. Such inspection revealed that respondent had not maintained school records for a period of at least two years at his business location, and those that were available failed to disclose the type of training given, the location of the classes, a log of students and their signatures for each class, or the name of the instructor. Nor did respondent have copies of all certificates or diplomas presented to students for successful completion of training courses.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered finding respondent guilty of the violations set forth in Courts I-VII of the administrative complaint, dismissing Count VIII of the administrative complaint, and revoking respondent's Class "K" Firearms Instructor License, Class "DI" Security Officer Instructor License, and Class "DS" Security Officer School/Training Facility License, reserving to respondent the opportunity to reapply for licensure following one year from the date of revocation. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of April 1993. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of April 1993.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner school board has good cause to reject the Walton County School superintendent's recommendation of Ann Farrior (Respondent) for renewal of an annual contract to serve in the position of school psychologist.
Findings Of Fact Ann Farrior was employed as a school psychologist by the Walton County School District for the 1998-1999 school year. She was employed on the recommendation of the superintendent and under an annual contract for that school year. Title 20, United States Code, Chapter 33, is known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The intelligence testing and questions regarding assessment and placement of exceptional education students is governed by that federal statute and rules pendent thereto. The federal regulations implementing the IDEA provide certain federal funds to assist in their implementation by local school districts. The Walton County School District receives federal funding to implement the IDEA. The failure to comply with appropriate federal regulations governing testing, assessment and placement of exceptional education students can result in a loss of such federal funding for the District. The Superintendent, Mr. Bludworth, nominated Ms. Farrior for the school psychologist position at issue for the 1998-1999 school year with the understanding that although she was not certified as a school psychologist, she was eligible to be certified as such. During the course of her employment as a school psychologist that school year, state audit personnel determined that she was not properly credentialed to administer intelligence testing as part of the assessment process for exceptional education students, which is necessary to the formulation of Individualized Educational Plans (IEPs) which is in turn a necessary element of the ultimate decision of proper placement of such students in the educational system in a school district. In view of this situation, Mr. Sam Goff of the Bureau of Instructional Support and Community Services of the Department of Education wrote the superintendent on January 20, 1999, outlining specific requirements that the District would have to meet in order to bring itself into compliance with the IDEA as a result of Ms. Farrior's ineligibility to administer intelligence testing as part of the assessment and evaluation process for exceptional students. The superintendent also received notice by memorandum of January 28, 1999, and by letter of January 29, 1999, from the Auditor General's staff and the Auditor General (in evidence as Petitioner Exhibits 4 and 5), that audit findings had determined that the District employed a person as a school psychologist (the Respondent) concerning whom school district records did not indicate a basis for that person being qualified for the school psychologist's position. The Auditor General's findings noted that the position description for school psychologist employed by the school district included responsibilities for administering testing and assessing placement for all exceptional education students. The preliminary findings noted that the employee, the Respondent, then serving as a school psychologist possessed only a temporary Florida teaching certificate in "psychology" which had expired on June 30, 1998, and which did not constitute certification as a "school psychologist." District records did not show that the Respondent had renewed her teaching certificate or had otherwise met the minimum job requirements for the school psychologist position. The Auditor General recommended that the school district document its records with a basis upon which the individual, the Respondent, was determined to be qualified for the school psychologist position or to take appropriate action to provide for a licensed or certified school psychologist for administering testing and for assessing placement for exceptional students. As a result of receiving these communications and preliminary findings, the superintendent met with the Respondent and felt compelled to request her resignation. Nancy Holder had been the school psychologist in the position that Ann Farrior assumed. Early in the 1998-1999 school year, Ms. Holder, who is a certified school psychologist, had been transferred to the position of "Staffing Specialist" upon which occurrence Ann Farrior then occupied the position of school psychologist. Ms. Holder, in her testimony, described the duties of school psychologist as including, in addition to performing intelligence testing of students, testing for academic achievement, and personality testing as well as counseling duties involving students, their parent, and teachers. The school psychologist must also participate in staffing meetings and in the IEP formulation process and resulting decisions regarding placement of exceptional students; she must assist classroom teachers and parents with the particular problems involving both exceptional students as well as students who do not have exceptionalities or diagnoses. Because of the above-referenced preliminary audit findings by the Department of Education, Ms. Holder was required to assume the additional responsibility of supervising Ms. Farrior's activities for the remainder of her annual contract year as well as undertaking to re-test those students whom Ms. Farrior had previously tested. The school district alternatively obtained a consultant to perform the educational testing that otherwise would have been done by Ms. Farrior as school psychologist had she been qualified under the pertinent regulations to do so. The school district received a statement from the Department of Education's Bureau of Teacher Certification, dated March 22, 1999, concerning the Respondent's eligibility to apply for or to receive certification as a school psychologist. That statement of eligibility noted that the Respondent lacked 27- semester hours of graduate school credit in school psychology which would necessarily have to include six-semester hours of graduate credit in a supervised school psychology internship. Additionally, Ms. Farrior would have to submit a passing score on the state-required teacher certification examination. Ms. Farrior enrolled in an appropriate school psychology internship program for the 1999-2000 school year, but as of the date of the hearing in this case, she still lacked 24 of the required semester hours of graduate credit in school psychology and had not yet submitted a passing score on the Florida State Teacher Certification examination. The Walton County School Board has a written policy adopted August 13, 1996, and in force at times pertinent hereto which authorizes the superintendent "to select and recommended non-certificated instructional personnel for appointment pursuant to Section 321.1725, Florida Statutes, and State Board of Education Rule 6A-1.0502, when special services are needed to deliver instruction." Section 228.041(9), Florida Statutes defines the term "instructional personnel" as including "school psychologists." There is no showing in the evidence of record, however, that "special services" are needed to deliver instruction. That is, although the school psychologist position is statutorily deemed to be in the category of "instructional personnel" it does not involve the teaching of students. Rather the school psychologist position, which is the subject of this case, involves testing, evaluation, assessment, and assistance in the placement of exceptional students in appropriate courses of instruction. There was no showing that special services were needed to actually deliver instruction, as envisioned by the above-referenced written policy of the School Board concerning the appointment of non-certificated instructional personnel, such as Ms. Farrior. Given the above-referenced audit findings in relation to the controlling federal regulations referenced above and the Board's policy allowing employment of certificated personnel "out-of-field" only in cases where special services are needed to deliver instruction, it has not been demonstrated that the School Board realistically had an option, in the proper exercise of its discretionary authority, to hire Ms. Farrior "out-of-field" as a "school psychologist" based merely on her only certification, which was a temporary certificate authorizing the teaching of psychology (not certification as a school psychologist which is really a pupil support position). Moreover, the School Board's policy authorizes the employment of teachers for instruction in areas other than that for which they are certificated only in the absence of available qualified, certified instructors. Although the school psychologist position at issue remains unfilled, there is no evidence to demonstrate why it is unfilled and no evidence of record to demonstrate that there are not qualified, certified personnel available to be hired as a school psychologist to fill that position. When the superintendent recommended the Respondent for a second annual contract in April of 1999, he was already aware that she was not qualified to perform the duties of a school psychologist and that the District would have to contract with outside consultants or other qualified persons to at least secure the administration of intelligence and other psychological testing, which testing is a part of the job description and duties of a school psychologist. The then exceptional education director for the District, Ms. Rushing, had suggested to the superintendent that he recommend the Respondent in April of 1999 for the position of "evaluation specialist." This would more represent the actual duties Ms. Farrior had been performing after the Department of Education audit finding that she was not qualified to serve as a school psychologist. Unfortunately, however, there was no authorized position of "evaluation specialist" and the superintendent has no authority to set the qualifications for a particular position or a recommend a person for a position that had not otherwise been approved nor its qualifications approved of by the School Board. In summary, as of the date of the hearing, the Respondent was not yet eligible to receive either a regular or temporary certificate from the Department of Education as a school psychologist and still lacked 24 semester hours of graduate credit necessary for such certification; she had not yet passed the Florida State Teacher Certification Examination for school psychologist although she had secured and enrolled in an appropriate internship to satisfy the above-referenced six-hour internship requirement.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the School Board of Walton County rejecting the nomination of Ann Farrior to serve in the position of school psychologist for the school year 1999-2000, because good cause for such action has been demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence in the manner found and concluded above. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 June, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph L. Hammons, Esquire Hammons & Whittaker, P.A. 17 West Cervantes Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 George R. Mead, II, Esquire Clark, Pennington, Hart, Larry, Bond, Stackhouse & Stone 125 West Romana Street, Suite 800 Post Office Box 13010 Pensacola, Florida 32591-3010 John F. Bludworth Superintendent of Schools Walton County School District 145 Park Street, Suite 3 DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32433
