The Issue The issue in the case is whether the application of Anne L. Kruppa (Petitioner) for a Florida Educator's Certificate should be denied for the reasons set forth in the Notice of Reasons issued on July 13, 2004, by Jim Horne, Commissioner of Education (Respondent).
Findings Of Fact By an application dated July 7, 2000, Petitioner applied for a teaching position with the Hillsborough County School District. In the application, the Petitioner identified her college degree as "B.S. Zoology" from the University of South Florida (USF). Above Petitioner's signature, the application states that Petitioner certified that the information provided on the application was "true and correct without any falsifications, omissions, or misleading statements of any kind whatsoever." The application contained a space where the date of Petitioner's college graduation was to be provided. Petitioner's application did not include a graduation date. A handwritten question mark appears in the space where the date was to be set forth. Petitioner was employed as a teacher by the Hillsborough County School District for the 2000-2001 school year. At the time of her employment, Petitioner was instructed to obtain her college transcript from USF and provide it to the Hillsborough County School District. The evidence establishes that Petitioner did not have a bachelor's degree in zoology from USF when she completed the employment application. By an application dated July 31, 2000, Petitioner applied for a Florida Educator's Certificate. In the application, Petitioner stated that she had received a bachelor's degree in zoology from USF in 1998. According to the application, by her signature, Petitioner certified that "all information pertaining to this application is true, correct, and complete." At the time of the certification application, Petitioner was directed to obtain her college transcript and provide it to the Florida Department of Education. The evidence establishes that Petitioner did not have a bachelor's degree in zoology from USF when she completed the certification application. By spring of 2001, Petitioner had not provided a transcript to either the Hillsborough County School District or to the Florida Department of Education. At that point, the Hillsborough County School District contacted USF to assist in obtaining Petitioner's transcript, at which time the district learned that Petitioner did not have a bachelor's degree. In April 2001, the Hillsborough County School District terminated Petitioner's employment because she could not obtain a Florida Educator's Certificate without a college degree, and the employment required such certification. After the termination of employment by the Hillsborough County School District, Petitioner worked with the Hillsborough County School District as a substitute teacher and attended Hillsborough Community College in the fall semester 2001. After completing a course at the community college, Petitioner received a bachelor's degree in zoology from USF on December 14, 2001, and returned to teaching full-time for the school district. The evidence establishes that prior to December 14, 2001, Petitioner did not have a bachelor's degree, contrary to the information set forth on her application for employment with the Hillsborough County School District or the application to obtain a Florida Educator's Certificate from the Florida Department of Education. At the hearing, Petitioner testified that at the time she filed the applications she believed that she had received her bachelor's degree from USF in the summer of 1997 after taking a course called Elementary Calculus II during the summer term. The USF summer term included three separate sessions. Session A and Session B were six-week terms. Session C, a ten- week term, is not at issue in this case. The records of the 1997 USF summer term indicate that the Petitioner was enrolled in "MAC 3234 Elem Clclus II" (Elementary Calculus II) during the Summer Session A. According to the transcript, she received an "F" in the course. Petitioner testified that she thought she had enrolled in the course for Summer Session B. Petitioner testified that she paid another person to attend the classes and take notes for Petitioner. Petitioner testified that Petitioner took "a bunch of the tests" and "was figuring I had roughly a B something in the course." The note-taker testified by deposition and recalled taking notes for Petitioner during July and August of 1997 for a fee of ten dollars per hour. There is no evidence that the note-taker took any tests. Classes for the 1997 USF Summer Session B commenced on June 30 and ended on August 8. Classes for the 1997 USF Summer Session A commenced on May 12 and ended on June 20. Petitioner testified that at some point after the summer session was completed, she saw the course instructor and spoke to him about her performance in the class. The instructor did not testify at the hearing. Petitioner testified that she did not receive her grade for Elementary Calculus II, but presumed that she had passed the course and received her degree. Review of Petitioner's USF transcript establishes that at various times Petitioner took courses identified as "MAC 3233 Elem Clclus I" (Elementary Calculus I) and "MAC 3234 Elem Clclus II" (Elementary Calculus II). Petitioner enrolled in Elementary Calculus I in the fall term of 1994, but withdrew. In the fall term of 1995, Petitioner re-enrolled in Elementary Calculus I and received a grade of "A." Petitioner first enrolled in Elementary Calculus II in the spring term of 1996 and received a grade of "F." Petitioner again enrolled in the course in the summer term of 1996 and received a grade of "D." In the fall term of 1996, Petitioner re-took the Elementary Calculus I course and received a grade of "F." Petitioner's testimony regarding her presumed performance in the summer 1997 course lacks credibility based on review of the transcript. Based on the performance in the referenced calculus courses, it is unlikely that Petitioner reasonably presumed without further inquiry that she passed the Elementary Calculus II course and received her degree after the summer term of 1997. Petitioner also testified that she believed her admission to the USF graduate school indicated that she had completed her undergraduate requirements, and that further inquiry was apparently not required. The Official Acceptance that was mailed to Petitioner and was required to be presented to USF officials in order to register for courses clearly states that the admission was "provisional." The Official Acceptance required that Petitioner submit to the graduate school her undergraduate transcript indicating that the degree had been conferred. Nothing provided to Petitioner by the USF graduate school indicated that the undergraduate degree had been awarded. Petitioner was in the USF graduate program for one semester and was enrolled for five classes, four of which were undergraduate-level classes. In the fifth class (identified as "EDF 6432 Fndtns Measrmnt") she received a grade of "F."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Jim Horne, as Commissioner of Education, enter a final order denying Petitioner's pending application for a Florida Educator's Certificate and providing that Petitioner may not reapply for such certification for a period of two years. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of September, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 17th day of September, 2004.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is licensed by the State of Florida as a laboratory technologist. Petitioner applied to the Respondent for licensure as a supervisor. On February 2, 1982, Respondent denied Petitioner's application to take the supervisory examination for the stated reason that Petitioner did not have ten years of experience. Petitioner holds a Bachelor's degree in Fine Arts from Florida International University. Petitioner has supplemented his education by taking additional science courses. The science courses taken before and after Petitioner received his Bachelor's degree total 26 semester credits. The courses taken after receipt of his degree have been specifically related to his field. Petitioner has been employed by the Miami Heart Institute since July 11, 1976, except for the period between September, 1976, and August, 1977. Dr. Jerome Benson is a pathologist and is the Director of Laboratories at the Miami Heart Institute. He is also Vice Chairman of the National Accreditation for Clinical Laboratory Sciences, the organization which accredits approximately 1,000 programs in the medical technology field and which is responsible for the Committee on Higher Education and Accreditation of the United States Office of Education, which accredits laboratories. He is familiar with accreditation of medical technology programs throughout the country and locally. He serves on the Advisory Committee at Miami-Dade Community College, and he planned the curriculum for the medical technology programs at both Miami- Dade Community College and at Florida International University. He was recognized as an expert by both parties. Dr. Benson believes that Petitioner is qualified to sit for the supervisory examination in terms of education, in terms of experience time, in terms of intent of the law, and in terms of protecting the public safety. He further believes that the science courses Petitioner has taken, both pre-baccalaureate and post-baccalaureate, qualify Petitioner for a Bachelor's degree in medical technology. Norman Bass was formerly Petitioner's immediate supervisor. He evaluates Petitioner's performance in the laboratory as excellent and believes that Petitioner is qualified through experience and academic courses to sit for the supervisory examination. At the time of the formal hearing in this cause, Petitioner had a total of 12,935 hours of work time at the Miami Heart Institute. Respondent considers 37.5 hours as constituting a full work week. George S. Taylor, Jr., reviewed Petitioner's application on behalf of Respondent. The application was received on January 18, 1982, and was denied on February 2, 1982, for the reason that Petitioner did not have ten years' experience. At the time, Respondent did not have current transcripts reflecting courses taken by Petitioner. Respondent did not request any, but simply used transcripts on file with Respondent which had been filed when Petitioner applied for his technologist's license, even though Petitioner's application for licensure as a supervisor reflected that he had taken various science courses at Miami-Dade Community College. Taylor is of the opinion that an applicant with 120 college credits must have between 25 and 30 of those credits in science courses in order to have a major in science; an applicant with 90 semester hours in college is required to have 17 to 24 credits in science in order to have a science major.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application to take the examination for a supervisor's license. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 14th day of January, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of January, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Samuel S. Forman, Esquire The Counsel Building 2016 Harrison Street Hollywood, Florida 33020 Morton Laitner, Esquire Dade County Health Department 1350 North West 14th Street Miami, Florida 33125 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for consideration is whether the Petitioner, Donna B. Lopez, is qualified to sit for the examination as a mental health counselor in Florida by virtue of her education and experience.
Findings Of Fact In April, 1985, the Petitioner, Donna B. Lopez, filed an application with the Florida Board of Psychological Examiners, (Bgard), to sit for examination as a mental health counselor. In paragraph 7 of the application, which called for a listing of all post-secondary psychology related education, Petitioner indicated that she received a degree as psychologist with a major course of study in psychology from the Universidad Nacional de Rosario, Esquela de Psicologia, in Rosario, Argentina, which school was accredited by the Universidad Nacional del Litoral in the Republic of Argentina. Petitioner graduated from that school on December 30, 1971. When the application was received by the Board, it was evaluated by Ms. Biedermann, who determined Petitioner did not qualify to sit for the requested examination because the university from which she received her degree was not accredited in accordance with state requirements that the applicant have a Master's degree from a university accredited by an agency approved by the United States Department of Education. To make the evaluation, Ms. Biedermann used two documents to determine accreditation; the 1981-1982 edition of Accredited Institutions of Post Secondary Education (Programs/Candidates), a directory of accredited institutions and programs published for the "Council on Post-Secondary Education" of the American Council on Education and Accredited Post-Secondary Institutions and Programs, published by the United States Department of Education in September, 1980. Supplements to the latter are published in the Federal Register and during the evaluation, Ms. Biedermann considered not only the basic document but also the then current edition of the Federal Register. Petitioner's university was not listed as an accredited university by any of the documentation either at the time of evaluation of the application or at the time she graduated in 1971. Consequently, Ms. Biedermann advised Petitioner that her application to sit for the examination had been denied. Another reason for rejection of Petitioner's application was that Ms. Biedermann was unable to determine if Petitioner's degree was equivalent to a Master's degree in the United States. Included with Petitioner's application was a translation into English of a Spanish language document which constitutes a description of her course work, but it is not an official transcript. Nonetheless, Ms. Biedermann called the United States Department of Education to inquire if there were any schools in Argentina accredited by United States approved agencies and was advised that there were not. Petitioner attended undergraduate school in Rosario, Argentina, graduating from a five year course of study with the degree of Psychologist in 1971. Thereafter, she completed a three year internship in a mental health center in Buenos Aires during which time she did a series of rotations throughout the different departments of the center. From there she went into private practice in Buenos Aires and was a member of a psychiatric team in a hospital from 1973 through 1978. During this time she was supervised by a psychiatrist who is a member of the American Psychiatric Association. In 1979 she settled in Miami, becoming an American citizen in 1986. After her arrival, she applied to the Dade County Board of Psychologists, then the accrediting agency, and was issued an occupational license as a psychologist in late 1979 or 1980. She thereafter practiced as a psychologist in Dade County until 1981 when the Florida Legislature passed the current statute, (Section 490.005) governing the licensing of psychologists and various sub-disciplines. In the 1950's, the original Chapter 490 of Florida Statutes licensed psychologists at the Doctorate level only. In 1979 this statute sunsetted and from 1979 to 1981, at least in both Dade and Broward Counties the county occupational license was issued to almost anyone applying for it without a prior demonstration of qualification. In the memory of Dr. Jospeh R. Feist, who was instrumental in the process designed to cure this situation, approximately 800 occupational licenses were issued in the first six months of this period: a figure the same as the total number of licenses issued statewide under the prior licensing statute in the prior twenty years. In 1979, the Dade County Commission passed an ordinance to revoke the occupational licenses issued during the hiatus period and established qualifications for licensing. It also created a board to review applicants. Dr. Feist was appointed as Secretary of the board which was made up of six members, all of whom were Ph.D's. In the course of this service, Dr. Feist became acquainted with Petitioner who applied sometime during 1980. The board recommended approval of her application. In Dr. Feist's opinion, Petitioner's course work was at or beyond the Master's level in the United States. The Board, however, did not inquire into whether Petitioner's university was properly accredited here. Dr. James E. Gorney is a clinical psychologist who is also an assistant professor of psychiatry at Cornell University Medical Center. As a part of his duties, he participates in the training program for post-doctoral psychologists and for 11 years or so, has examined the transcripts of numerous individuals possessing both Master's and Doctor's degrees in psychology. He got to know the Petitioner when they were both selected to serve on a prestigious international panel in New York City made up of university teaching psychologists hand picked by the conference leaders. Dr. Gorney has reviewed Petitioner's course work and based on it and his personal knowledge of her work and experience, he is of the opinion that she possesses the equivalent of a Master's degree from Cornell. Her program far exceeds any program for a Master's degree in psychology Dr. Gorney has seen anywhere in the United States and is the equivalent of a Doctoral program. It surpasses many programs approved by the American Psychiatric Association. Every area is covered and many related areas normally covered in Doctoral programs are included providing a very broad range of experience. Dr. Gorney's opinion is reinforced and supported by the deposition testimony of Dr. Muller whose experience with Petitioner and evaluation of her credentials leads him to conclude that her course work is the equivalent of at least a Master's degree.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's application to take the examination for licensure as a mental health counselor be denied. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of August, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of August, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: John L. Britton, Esquire BRITTON & KANTNER, P.A. Barnett Bank Building, Suite 1203 One East Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Phillip B. Miller, Esquire Robert D. Newell, Esquire 102 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Linda Biedermann, Executive Director Board of Pschological Services 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Honorable Van B. Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Section 231.28(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2000), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e), by using unauthorized methods of disciplining a student before allowing the student to visit the school nurse. (All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (2000) unless otherwise stated. Unless otherwise stated, all references to rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code in effect on the date of this Recommended Order.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating certified teachers in the state. Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate Number 416888. Respondent's Florida teaching certificate is valid through June 30, 2003. Respondent is employed as a Special Education Teacher at Moore Haven Junior High School (the "school") in the Glades County School District (the "District"). Respondent has a long-standing practice in his classroom of disciplining male students by making them do push-ups and hold books while their arms are extended in front of them. Both practices violate rules and policies of the school and the District. Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge that discipline by push-ups and holding books violated the policies of the school and the District. The student handbook distributed to each teacher, including Respondent, prescribed the authorized methods of discipline. None of the authorized methods included pushups or holding books. Respondent submitted some evidence that administrators in the school deviated from officially stated policies and rules by condoning unauthorized methods of discipline such as pushups or holding books. However, the evidence submitted by Respondent was less than a preponderance of the evidence and was adequately refuted by evidence submitted by Petitioner. All of the students in Respondent's class are exceptional education students. Each student has an identified disability. Any method of discipline other than that authorized by applicable policies and rules must be clearly stated and authorized in each student's individual education plan ("IEP"). C.W. was an exceptional education student in Respondent's class on February 9, 2000. The IEP for C.W. did not authorize any alternative methods of discipline. During class on February 9, 2000, Respondent approached C.W. because C.W. had his head on his desk during class. Respondent instructed C.W. to do his assignment. C.W. complained that he felt sick and requested to see the school nurse. Respondent and C.W. exchanged brief repartees. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that during the exchange Respondent prevented C.W. from going to the nurse's office. Some witnesses testified that Respondent refused C.W.'s request to go to the nurse's office. Other witnesses in the classroom during the exchange testified that Respondent initially instructed C.W. to go to the nurse's office but that C.W. refused either to go to the nurse's office or to do his assignment. The testimony of all of those witnesses was credible. Because C.W. refused to do his assignment in class, Respondent instructed C.W. to stand at the back of the class with his arms extended in front of him. C.W. complied with Respondent's instruction. Respondent successfully completed the alternative method of discipline that required C.W. to stand at the back of the class. However, Respondent failed to effectuate other unauthorized methods of discipline that Respondent attempted. When Respondent placed books in C.W.'s arms, C.W. did not hold the books in his arms. Rather, C.W. dropped his arms, and the books fell to the floor. When Respondent instructed C.W. to do push-ups, C.W. refused Respondent's instruction. C.W. left Respondent's classroom under his own volition and went to the office of the school nurse. The evidence does not reveal the amount of time that transpired between Respondent's initial instruction for C.W. to stand at the back of the class and the time when C.W. left for the nurse's office. Therefore, there is no evidentiary basis to quantify the delay in medical attention. When C.W. arrived at the nurse's office, the school nurse determined that C.W. was feverish, suffered chills, and that his complexion was "splotchy." The nurse telephoned C.W.'s parents. The parents took C.W. home and subsequently to the hospital. The examining physician at the hospital diagnosed C.W. as suffering from mastoiditis. The physician admitted C.W. to the hospital for two days and successfully treated the medical condition. The medical condition represented an exigent threat of harm to C.W.'s physical safety within the meaning of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a). As previously found, however, the evidence is less than clear and convincing that Respondent violated Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) by failing to make a reasonable effort to protect the student from a medical condition that was harmful to the student's physical safety. Conflicting evidence was less than clear and convincing evidence that Respondent delayed C.W.'s attempt to see the school nurse or the length of any delay allegedly caused by Respondent. C.W. left Respondent's class under his own volition and went directly to the nurse's office. The conflicting evidence was less than clear and convincing that any delay between Respondent's initial contact with the student and the student's departure to the school nurse was significant enough that Respondent failed to make a reasonable effort to protect C.W. from conditions harmful to the student's physical safety. The evidence is clear and convincing that Respondent violated Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) by failing to make a reasonable effort to protect C.W. from conditions harmful to learning. The methods of discipline attempted by Respondent were harmful to C.W.'s ability to learn, violated C.W.'s IEP, and violated school policy. For the same reasons, Respondent violated Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e) by intentionally exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment and disparagement. Administrative staff at the school conducted a full investigation of the matter. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the District issued a written letter of reprimand to Respondent. The letter of reprimand issued by the District is disciplinary action by Respondent's employer. The judicial doctrine of double jeopardy does not preclude disciplinary action by Petitioner against Respondent's license. No evidence shows that Respondent has any prior disciplinary history by either Petitioner or the District. Petitioner seeks to have Respondent's teaching certificate suspended for 12 months. However, Petitioner's proposed penalty is based on the premise that Respondent committed all of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 231.28(1)(i) and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e), and suspending Respondent's teaching certificate in Florida for six months. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Ron Weaver, Esquire Ron Weaver & Associates 528 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1518 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Educational Practices Commission Department of Education 224-E Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry W. Whitmore, Program Director Professional Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Carl Zahner, Esquire Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Moses N. Mwaura 214 Tenth Street Post Office Box 856 Moore Haven, Florida 33471
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Samuel J. Pomeranz holds a "Rank 2" certificate issued by the Florida Department of Education. Petitioner Samuel J. Pomeranz obtained an advanced certificate in Educational Administration and Supervision in June 1970, from City College of New York. He obtained a Bachelor of Arts Degree in 1957 and a Master of Arts Degree in Education in 1959. Petitioner was licensed as a teacher in the State of New York and served as head of Curriculum Development in a senior high school in New York, New York. At the time of the hearing, he had not taught school in the State of Florida. Petitioner applied for a "Rank 1A" teaching certificate from the Respondent Department of Education Certification Section, but certification as "Rank 1A" was denied. Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-4.049(1)(b) 1. requires that an applicant hold a "sixth year postmaster's level degree." Applicant received a certificate rather than a degree at the conclusion of his postmaster's work.
Recommendation Affirm the Respondent's action in denying Petitioner's request for "Rank 1A" certificate. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of October, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: William L. Boyd, Esquire Post Office Box 5617 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Gene T. Sellers, Esquire State Board of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Respondent's license as a real estate broker in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Division of Real Estate (Division) was the state agency in Florida responsible for licensing real estate brokers and salespersons and for the regulation of the real estate profession in this state. Respondent was licensed as a real estate broker, but his license had been suspended effective October 13, 1996 On May 17, 1994, after Respondent had requested but failed to appear at an informal hearing on his alleged misconduct, the Florida Real Estate Commission (Commission) issued a Final Order in which it ordered Respondent be reprimanded and pay a $500.00 administrative fine within thirty days of the filing of the order on pain of suspension of his broker's license until the fine was paid. In addition, the Commission placed Respondent's license on probation for one year with the requirement that, inter alia, he enroll in and satisfactorily complete a sixty hour post-licensure education course for brokers within one year of the filing of the order. Though in collateral communications to Petitioner's counsel, to an investigator, Ms. May, and to the prior Judge assigned in this matter, all of which are a part of the file in this case, Respondent claimed not to have received the Final Order in issue, Mr. James, another investigator for the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Department), in his visit to Respondent's office on June 28, 1995, found a copy of the order in Respondent's office files. The prior misconduct by Respondent bears on the instant case only in so far as it supports the action taken with respect to it by the Commission. As it appears, Respondent failed to file his monthly escrow account reconciliation on the required form though he had received and had a copy of the required form in his file. He claims, in his correspondence, and there is no evidence to refute his claim, that because of his poor memory at the advanced age of eighty years, he forgot the new form had become required and continued to use the previously approved form he had used over his prior twenty-eight years in the real estate business. It appears that when that discrepancy was found by the former investigator, Ms. Mays, Respondent was issued a citation calling for a fine of $100.00 and 30 hours of continuing education, but considering that proposed penalty too severe for a "minor" offense resulting from a lapse of memory, especially when no loss was occasioned to any client, he rejected the citation and demanded a hearing. He then did not attend the informal hearing scheduled. Thereafter, the commission entered the Final Order alleged in the instant Administrative Complaint, the terms of which were described above. The required $500.00 administrative fine has not been paid nor has the required post-licensing education been completed. Respondent still contends the fine is too severe and because of his age and inability to drive at night, he is unable to take the required course. On June 28, 1995, Mr. James, an investigator for the Department, acting on a report that Respondent was continuing to operate his brokerage even though his license had been suspended, went to the Respondent's office located at 56 Harvard Street in Englewood, Florida. At that address Mr. James found Respondent operating two businesses from the same office. One was Englewood Realty and the other was a dry ice company. During the interview held on June 28, 1995, Respondent admitted he had received the Final Order but considered it unfair. Respondent also admitted he was actively engaged in the practice of real estate and wanted to keep the brokerage open until he could sell his own property, and "just in case something else came up." While Mr. James was at the Respondent's office, Respondent was visited by a female representative of an advertising publication who spoke with him about his advertisement for the sale of some real estate. Also during the visit, as James recalls, Respondent received at least one telephone call which seemed to relate to the sale of real property. In both cases, however, it appeared to Mr. James that Respondent was referring to his own property. James did not discover any reference to sales or dealing relating to property owned by anyone other than Respondent. James also reviewed Respondent's books for the brokerage and it appeared to him that Respondent was operating at a loss. Nonetheless, at no time did Respondent fail to identify himself as a real estate broker either to the advertising representative or in response to the telephone call. In light of Respondent's refusal to comply with the earlier suspension, his apparent unwillingness to cease operations as directed until it suited his purpose, and his unfavorable financial position as to the brokerage, the Petitioner recommends only that Respondent's license as a real estate broker be revoked.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order in this case revoking Respondent's license as a real estate broker in Florida. RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of October 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Raymond J. McGinn Englewood Realty 56 Harvard Street Englewood, Florida 34223 Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street, N-308 Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Henry M. Solares Division Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
The Issue The issue is whether the School Board has just cause to terminate Respondentâs employment.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has worked for the Polk County School District (District) in various capacities â- e.g., classroom teacher, physical education instructor, dean of students, assistant principal â- for the past 20 years. Respondent has been an assistant principal for the past 11 years, and at the time of the suspension giving rise to this proceeding, he was an assistant principal at Homer K. Addair Career Academy. Respondent has a Masterâs degree in educational leadership from Nova Southeastern University (Nova), and he is certified in that field by the Florida Department of Education (DOE). Respondent is in the Districtâs âprincipal pool,â which is the program from which principals are selected for the Districtâs schools. He has also served as a âteacher recruiterâ for the District. Respondent and another assistant principal, Jennifer Dean, started talking about pursuing doctorate degrees together at some point between the summer of 2004 and April 2005.1 Respondent and Ms. Dean are neighbors and close friends. They attend the same church, and their families regularly spend time together. Ms. Dean is the Respondent in the related DOAH Case No. 06-0683. The primary reason that Respondent and Ms. Dean were interested in obtaining doctorate degrees was to enhance their standing in the principal pool so as to give themselves a better chance of being hired as school principals.2 Respondent also believed that a doctorate degree would help him get a teaching position at a college or university. Respondent and Ms. Dean credibly testified that they were unaware that they would be eligible for $1,750 pay supplements from the District if they had doctorate degrees. Respondent and Ms. Dean looked into the doctoral program at Nova and several other traditional universities in the area, but they determined that those programs were not suitable for their needs because of the cost of the programs and the time that it would take them to obtain degrees. Respondent looked into several online universities that offered doctoral degrees, including Belford University (Belford). He learned about Belford through a âpop upâ advertisement while he was browsing on the Internet. In September 2005, Respondent sent Ms. Dean an e-mail referring her to Belfordâs website and told her that âI think this may be the program for us.â Belford is described on its website as a âvirtual university with administration offices located in Humble, Texas,â and according to the website, Belford is accredited by âtwo renowned accreditation agencies on-line education, namely the International Accreditation Agency for Online Universities (IAAOU) and the University Council for Online Education Accreditation (UCOEA).â Notwithstanding Belfordâs accreditations and its characterization of itself as a âvirtual university,â Belfordâs website includes a number of statements that call into question its legitimacy as an educational institution, such as: âGet a degree for what you already know!â; âNo admissions. No attendance. No hassle.â; âAdd degrees to your resume in just 7 days and open avenues to promotion and better jobs!â; and âGet all your money back if you do not get approved!â The website explains that to obtain a doctorate degree from Belford, an applicant must have âat least 8 years of work or life experience relevant to [his or her] desired major.â That eligibility requirement âmay be satisfied in any of the following ways: prior job experience in any field; previous educational achievements; employer-sponsored training and attendance of workshops; participation in organizations, both professional and non-professional; personal goals, lifestyle, hobbies, and travel; participation in volunteer activities and community service; and independent reading, viewing, listening or writing.â A doctorate degree can be received from Belford âwithout attending classes or taking admissions anywhere.â Respondent reviewed the information on Belfordâs website, and he also contacted Belford by phone to get additional information about its doctoral program and its accreditation status. When he called Belford, Respondent was told that its degrees were accepted âworldwideâ but he was told that information as to whether Belfordâs degrees were accepted in Florida was âconfidential.â Ms. Dean told Respondent that she contacted Lois Schuck, the Districtâs certification specialist, regarding whether a doctorate degree from Belford would be accepted for certification purposes. Respondent did not have any direct communications with Ms. Schuck on the issue. Respondent relied on Ms. Deanâs representation that Ms. Schuck told her to go ahead and get the degree from Belford and then submit it for a determination as to whether it would be accepted for certification purposes. However, as detailed in the Recommended Order in DOAH Case No. 06-0683, the evidence was not persuasive that Ms. Schuck actually gave Ms. Dean that advice. On or about November 10, 2005,3 Respondent applied for a doctorate degree from Belford by filling out the form on Belfordâs website. In the boxes provided on the form, he entered information detailing his education, work, and other life experiences. The information Respondent provided to Belford included his resume, a five-page summary of his life experiences, and the materials that he put together as part of the application process for the principal pool. He did not submit transcripts or other official evidence of his Bachelorâs or Masterâs degrees to Belford. Respondent did not attend any classes at Belford, nor did he prepare or defend a dissertation in order to obtain his doctorate degree from Belford. He received the degree based solely on the package of information described above. Respondent testified that the information that he submitted to Belford to obtain his degree accurately reflected his education, work history, life experiences, and other qualifications. The School Board offered no evidence to the contrary and, indeed, its witnesses acknowledged that they had no reason to believe that the information Respondent submitted to Belford was inaccurate.4 Respondent obtained the base-level doctorate degree, which according to Belfordâs website costs $549. The degree was issued to Respondent within two weeks of the time that he applied for it, and Respondent was not required to pay for the degree until he was advised by Belford that he would receive the degree based upon the information submitted. A traditional doctorate degree, such as a Ph.D., takes several years to receive, costs thousands of dollars, and involves extensive coursework as well as the preparation and defense of a lengthy dissertation. Respondentâs âofficial transcriptâ from Belford reflects that he was awarded a Doctor of Arts degree with a major in educational administration on November 10, 2005. The transcript makes no reference to the fact that the degree was based upon âlife experiencesâ rather than a traditional course of study. Respondentâs transcript includes a grade point average (GPA) of 3.18. Unlike Ms. Dean, Respondent was not interested in a higher GPA, which cost more money. Respondentâs transcript lists eight courses with specific grades -- from âAâ to âC+â -- awarded for each course. Respondent testified that he did not attend those courses, and that it was his understanding that the grades shown on the transcript were based upon the information that he submitted to Belford, which reflected the extent of his experience in the areas identified in the course descriptions. On November 29, 2005,5 Respondent and Mr. Dawson met with Ms. Schuck to give her copies of their Belford transcripts for certification purposes. Ms. Schuck was unable to process the transcripts for certification purposes at that time because they did not include the date that the degrees were awarded. She handed the transcripts back to Respondent and Ms. Dean during the meeting and advised them to get her dated transcripts.6 Respondent and Ms. Dean obtained dated copies of their transcripts from Belford, and Ms. Dean sent them to Ms. Schuck through interoffice mail. Ms. Dean testified that she called Ms. Schuck to confirm that she received the degrees and to check on their status. Ms. Dean testified that Ms. Schuck told her that she had received the degrees and that she had given them to Ms. Butler for processing. Ms. Dean passed that information along to Respondent. Ms. Deanâs testimony regarding her conversation with Ms. Schuck was not persuasive. Indeed, the more persuasive evidence establishes that Ms. Schuck never received the dated transcripts, but rather that they were received by Pam Merritt, an administrative assistant in the Districtâs personnel office. Ms. Merritt put the transcripts in Judy Butlerâs in- basket for processing. Ms. Butlerâs responsibilities include processing salary changes for District staff. Ms. Butler is not responsible for reviewing transcripts or degrees for certification purposes. That review is done by the Districtâs certification office and is supposed to occur prior to the transcript or degree being forwarded to the personnel office for purposes of a salary change. Ms. Butler assumed that Ms. Deanâs degree was in her in-basket for purposes of a salary change even though there was no cover letter or other directions with the transcript. She did not see Respondentâs transcript because it had somehow gotten affixed to Ms. Deanâs transcript. Ms. Butler placed Ms. Deanâs salary change on the agenda for the Salary Classification Committee (SCC), and on January 26, 2006, the SCC approved a $1,750 salary supplement for Ms. Dean based upon her Belford doctorate degree. On January 28, 2006, Ms. Butler discovered Respondentâs transcript as she was pulling apart the documents from the SCC meeting for inclusion in a package for the Superintendent to review. On that same date, she e-mailed Respondent congratulating him on the award of his degree and advising him that his degree would be placed on the agenda for the SCCâs next meeting âso that [Respondent] can begin getting the supplement of $1,750.â Respondent assumed from this e-mail (and the representations given to him by Ms. Dean) that the salary change was being processed because his degree had been reviewed by Ms. Schuck and that it had been accepted for certification purposes. However, as noted above, Ms. Schuck had never received the degree. Ms. Butler sent a copy of the e-mail to David Lauer, the Districtâs assistant superintendent for human relations. Mr. Lauer received the e-mail on January 31, 2006, when he returned to the office. Mr. Lauer knew Respondent, and he was surprised to learn that he had obtained a doctorate degree. He asked Ms. Butler to give him the documentation related to Respondent and Ms. Dean, which she did. Mr. Lauer reviewed the Belford website for approximately 45 minutes and determined that it was a âdiploma millâ and that the doctorate degrees obtained by Mr. Dawson and Respondent were âbogus.â Mr. Lauer also spoke with Ms. Schuck and asked her to determine whether Belford is an accredited university for DOE certification purposes. Ms. Schuck did so by e-mailing Mandy Mims, her contact at DOE. Ms. Mims advised Ms. Schuck that âBelford is not accredited by any agency recognized by the U.S. Dept. of Education, so degrees earned would not be appropriate for certification purposes.â Mr. Lauer was âflabbergastedâ by the situation, and because he considered the submittal of bogus degrees to be âso serious and so contrary to what we believe in as educators,â he went directly to the Superintendent, Dr. Gail McKinzie, instead of first speaking to Respondent and Ms. Dean to get their side of the story. Mr. Lauer reported the situation to Dr. McKinzie on February 1, 2006. That same day, Dr. McKinzie reviewed the Belford website for approximately an hour and came to the same conclusions as Mr. Lauer regarding Belford and the nature of Respondentâs and Ms. Deanâs doctorate degrees. On February 3, 2006, Respondent was called to a meeting with Dr. McKinzie and Mr. Lauer. Dr. McKinzie told Respondent that she was going to recommend that the School Board fire him because he had misrepresented his professional qualifications though the submission of the Belford degree. The meeting lasted approximately five minutes. Respondent was not given a meaningful opportunity to explain his side of the story at the meeting and, prior to the meeting, Respondent had no indication that the validity of his Belford degree was in question. To the contrary, he was under the impression -- through representations made by Ms. Dean and his interpretation of Ms. Butlerâs e-mail -- that his degree had been accepted by the District and DOE. By letter dated February 8, 2006, Dr. McKinzie informed Respondent that she had recommended to the School Board that his employment be terminated. The letter advised Respondent of his right to request an administrative hearing, and Respondent timely did so through a letter dated February 10, 2006. The School Board approved Dr. McKinzieâs recommendation at its meeting on February 14, 2006, and Respondent has been suspended without pay since that date pending the outcome of this proceeding. The negative characterization of Belford and its degrees by Mr. Lauer and Dr. McKinzie is reasonable based upon the evidence of record. For example, in addition to the statements from the website referred to in Finding of Fact 12 that should put a reasonable person on notice that Belford is not a legitimate educational institution, a degree from Belford can be obtained in as little as one week; the applicant is allowed to select his or her GPA, with a higher GPA costing more money; the applicant is not required to pay for his or her degree until after learning that the degree will be issued; the applicant is allowed to select his or her graduation date, with back-dating available at an additional cost; Belford will âintroduce [a major] as a new addition to [its] doctorate curriculumâ if the major sought by the applicant is not on Belfordâs list of majors; Belford does not require transcripts or other proof beyond the applicantâs representations that he or she has received lower degrees (e.g., Bachelorâs and Masterâs) prior to awarding a higher degree (e.g., Doctorate); and a base- level doctorate degree from Belford costs only $549.00. It is unreasonable for anyone, and particularly someone like Respondent who has 20 years of experience in the education system, to believe that Belford is a legitimate educational institution or that a doctorate degree from Belford is a legitimate educational degree that would be accepted as such by DOE or the District. Thus, it is inferred that Respondent knew or should have known that a doctorate degree from Belford is not a legitimate educational degree that could be used to enhance his standing in the principal pool or bolster his professional qualifications. Respondentâs conduct was slightly less egregious that Ms. Deanâs because, unlike Ms. Dean, Respondent did not make any affirmative representations to the District about completing a âdoctorate program,â and Respondent relied upon Ms. Deanâs representations about the substance of her alleged conversations with Ms. Schuck. Nevertheless, it is clear from the evidence that Respondent was attempting to misrepresent and improperly bolster his qualifications through the submission of a âdoctorate degreeâ from Belford that he knew or should have known was not a legitimate educational degree. Respondentâs decision to purchase a doctorate degree over the Internet calls into question his judgment as well as his respect for the educational process, which, in turn, raises serious doubts about Respondentâs ability to be effective in the school system. Indeed, it is clear from the totality of the evidence -- and particularly the testimony of Dr. McKinzie and Mr. Lauer -- that Respondentâs ability to be an effective leader (as assistant principals and aspiring principals are supposed to be) in the District has been significantly impaired through his submission and continued defense of his Belford degree as a legitimate educational degree.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Polk County School Board issue a final order terminating Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of July, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of July, 2006.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Criminal Justice Standards And Training Commission enter a final order: Dismissing, as moot, the petition of Margherita Renzi insofar as it seeks a determination of prospective eligibility for salary incentive monies under Section 943.22, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1984); and Dismissing, as having no merit, the petition of Margherita Renzi insofar as it seeks a determination of retroactive entitlement to salary incentive payments before October 1, 1984, under Section 943.22, Florida Statutes (1983). RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of April, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of April, 1985.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed misconduct in office by applying for credential payment in reliance upon an online doctorate degree obtained without academic effort and thus violated Section 1012.33(6)(b), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-4.009(3) and 6B-1.006(5).
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an assistant principal at Toussaint L'ouverture Elementary School in Miami. He graduated from the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, in 1978. While serving in the military in Pensacola, Respondent obtained a master's degree from Troy State University in 1985 by way of its extension program. Respondent is 54 years old. In 1994, when first employed as a teacher in the Miami- Dade County public school system, Respondent was admitted to the doctoral program in education leadership at the University of Miami. He attended classes a couple of times per week per course and submitted tuition reimbursement vouchers to Respondent. Respondent left that program the following year without completing the requirements for a doctoral degree. In 1996, Respondent reviewed brochures that he had received in the mail and decided to pursue his doctorate degree at Northwestern University, Ltd. He sent Northwestern International University, LLC, (NW) a check for about $8000 to a post office box in Brussels, but did not seek reimbursement from Respondent. For some reason, Respondent also decided to obtain a doctorate degree from Northeastern University (NE) and sent them a check for about $7000 to a post office box in New York, but again did not seek reimbursement. Respondent testified that he believed that he had already obtained the maximum reimbursement available to him. Respondent engaged in academic activities with both institutions from 1996-2000, but the activities did not rise in scope or intensity to those associated with a legitimate doctoral program. In 1998, Respondent applied for an assistant principal position, omitting any mention of his academic activities with NW and NE. He obtained the job. In 2000, Respondent completed his academic activities with NW and NE. NW sent him a transcript showing the completion of 19 courses and the Ph.D. dissertation, with grades assigned to each. Only one typo undermines the credibility of the transcript itself: the second "i" is dropped from "Administration" in a human resources course, but the transcript omits dates for the courses. Respondent received very good grades with only one C and A+s in Education Program Evaluation and his dissertation. Less care went into the preparation of the NE transcript, which also appears to culminate in the award of a Ph.D. "Curriculum" is spelled "Cirriculum, ""Philosophy" is spelled "Philosphy," and "Evaluation" is spelled "Evaluaton." The NE envelope covering the transcript misspelled "transcript." Respondent received all As and Bs. Shortly after obtaining his dual doctorates, Respondent submitted them to Petitioner. The credential payment program for administrators went into effect in April 2006, so Respondent's motivation at the time that he submitted the transcripts was to obtain the prestige, and perhaps advancement, that went with the advanced degrees. However, on June 8, 2006, Respondent submitted an application for the credential pay increment due to an administrator in possession of a relevant, legitimate doctorate degree. In the application, Respondent stated that he possessed a Ph.D. from NE, which he had obtained in 2000. He signed the application beside a statement, "I certify that all the foregoing information is true to the best of my knowledge." Respondent claims that he submitted papers, including dissertations, in connection with both programs, but offered no detailed description of his academic activities. Instead, he seems to be "sticking to his story" that he thought he was completing coursework from legitimate educational institutions, even though it is indisputable that he did not. At all material times, Respondent has known that NE and NW were diploma mills. He never explained why he spent the money and, presumably, time pursuing doctorate degrees at both institutions over the same timeframe. He is aware of the rigor of legitimate programs, having attended the Naval Academy, Troy State, and University of Miami. Respondent was undaunted by the sloppiness apparent in the transcripts. He claims now that, "[i]f there is any fault, in this matter, it is one of trusting the advertisements that I saw, brochures I received and the syllabi, course work and transcripts I received from the [sic] non-accredited institution." However, it is inescapably apparent that there was fault, and the fault is that Respondent, with the intent to deceive Petitioner, submitted these transcripts and a fraudulent application for credential pay, to which Respondent knew he was not entitled. There is no testimony explicitly to the effect that Respondent's fraudulent application for credential pay is so serious as to impair his effectiveness in the school system. However, this fact is inferred from the nature of a fraudulent application, to Respondent's professional employer, for credential pay based on fraudulently obtained academic credentials. After a conference for the record, Petitioner proceeded to discipline Respondent for his misconduct. By letter dated December 10, 2007, Petitioner informed Respondent that the Superintendent would be recommending to the School Board suspension without pay for "30 workdays," effective at the close of the workday on December 19, 2007. The School Board subsequently approved this recommendation and, by letter dated December 20, 2007, the Assistant Superintendent informed Respondent that he was suspended for "30 workdays" without pay and he was not to report to any work location from December 20, 2007, through February 13, 2008. The penalty is not excessive. At the final hearing, Respondent elected not to admit to his misdealings with his employer, but instead produced exculpatory witnesses, one of whom testified that she had done some typing for him and one of whom testified that he had seen the damage done to Respondent's home by a hurricane and a lot of water damage to Respondent's belongings. Respondent has evidently not yet accepted responsibility for his misconduct. Respondent rightly questions the accuracy of the Assistant Superintendent's calculation of the period of the suspension, which was to cover "30 workdays." Equating workdays with days for which Respondent was to be paid, Respondent claims that the suspension actually covers 40 workdays, not 30 workdays. The Manual of Procedures of Managerial Exempt Personnel, dated April 18, 2006, states at Section B-3 that a 12-month employee works a 260-day work year. This means that he works 52 weeks times five days per week, for a total of 260 days. Respondent's suspension started December 20, so, in accordance with the determination of the School Board, the suspension should have ended at the close of the workday on January 30.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of misconduct in office for intentionally misrepresenting his academic qualifications in applying for credential pay for a doctorate degree and imposing a 30-workday suspension, as previously authorized by the School Board, but paying Respondent back pay for the period after January 30 through which the suspension was mistakenly implemented. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of May, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 9th day of May, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Rudolph F. Crew, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, No. 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1308 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 James C. Casey, Esquire Law Offices of Slesnick & Casey, LLP 2701 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 200 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Janeen L. Richard, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board Attorney's Office 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issue is whether the Polk County School Board has just cause to terminate Respondentâs employment.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has worked for the Polk County School District (District) in various capacities â- from classroom teacher to assistant principal â- for the past 18 years. Respondent has been an assistant principal for the past five years, and at the time of the suspension giving rise to this proceeding, Respondent was the assistant principal at Davenport School of the Arts. She was employed on an annual contract. Respondent has a Masterâs degree in educational leadership from Nova Southeastern University (Nova), and she is certified in that field by the Florida Department of Education (DOE). Respondent is in the Districtâs âprincipal pool,â which is the program from which principals are selected for the Districtâs schools. She has also served as a âteacher recruiterâ for the District. Respondent and another assistant principal, Joe Dawson, started talking about pursuing doctorate degrees together at some point between the summer of 2004 and April 2005.1 Respondent and Mr. Dawson are neighbors and close friends. They attend the same church and their families regularly spend time together. Mr. Dawson is the Respondent in the related DOAH Case No. 06-0684. The primary reason that Respondent and Mr. Dawson were interested in obtaining doctorate degrees was to enhance their standing in the principal pool so as to give themselves a better chance of being hired as school principals.2 They credibly testified that they were unaware that they would be eligible for $1,750 pay supplements from the District if they had doctorate degrees. Respondent and Mr. Dawson looked into the doctoral program at Nova and several other traditional universities in the area, but they determined that those programs were not suitable for their needs because of the cost of the programs and the time that it would take them to obtain degrees. Mr. Dawson looked into several online universities that offered doctoral degrees, including Belford University (Belford). He learned about Belford through a âpop upâ advertisement while browsing on the Internet. In September 2005, Mr. Dawson sent Respondent an e- mail referring her to Belfordâs website and told her that âI think this may be the program for us.â Belford is described on its website as a âvirtual university with administration offices located in Humble, Texas,â and according to the website, Belford is accredited by âtwo renowned accreditation agencies on-line education, namely the International Accreditation Agency for Online Universities (IAAOU) and the University Council for Online Education Accreditation (UCOEA).â Notwithstanding Belfordâs accreditations and its characterization of itself as a âvirtual university,â Belfordâs website includes a number of statements that call into question its legitimacy as an educational institution, such as: âGet a degree for what you already know!â; âNo admissions. No attendance. No hassle.â; âAdd degrees to your resume in just 7 days and open avenues to promotion and better jobs!â; and âGet all your money back if you do not get approved!â The website explains that to obtain a doctorate degree from Belford, an applicant must have âat least 8 years of work or life experience relevant to [his or her] desired major.â That eligibility requirement âmay be satisfied in any of the following ways: prior job experience in any field; previous educational achievements; employer-sponsored training and attendance of workshops; participation in organizations, both professional and non-professional; personal goals, lifestyle, hobbies, and travel; participation in volunteer activities and community service; and independent reading, viewing, listening or writing.â A doctorate degree can be received from Belford âwithout attending classes or taking admissions anywhere.â Respondent reviewed the information on Belfordâs website, and she also contacted Belford by phone and e-mail to get additional information about its doctoral program and its accreditation status. Of particular note, Respondent sent an e-mail to Belford on or about September 16, 2005, asking âwhat the degree would say on itâ and stating that âI donât want it to say âlife experience.ââ In response, Belfordâs assistant registrar assured Respondent that Belfordâs degrees âdo not mention the Web address or words like âlife experienceâ or âonline degreeâ anywhere on the documents or in the verification process.â In an effort to explain away this e-mail, Respondent testified that the reason that she wanted the degree to state âDoctor of Educationâ rather than âlife experienceâ was that she was concerned that a degree that stated âlife experienceâ would not be recognized in the education field. It is apparent from the e-mail that Respondent had concerns from the outset about the legitimacy of the degree that she would be receiving from Belford. Indeed, her testimony related to the e-mail demonstrates that even though Respondent claimed to understand that the doctorate degree offered by Belford based upon âlife experienceâ was not equivalent to a traditional doctorate degree such as a Ph.D., she did not want the true nature of the degree disclosed, and that she wanted the degree to be recognized as something that it clearly was not, i.e., a Doctorate of Education. Respondent testified that she called Lois Schuck, the Districtâs certification specialist, in early October 2005 and told her that she and Mr. Dawson were considering obtaining doctorate degrees from Belford and that she wanted to know whether the degrees would be accepted by DOE and the District for certification purposes. Ms. Schuck had no recollection of the conversation. Ms. Schuckâs job duties include reviewing degrees submitted by the Districtâs teachers and administrators to determine whether the degrees are eligible for certification purposes. As a result, it is reasonable for teachers and administrators to rely on her advice and direction on certification-related issues. Respondent testified that Ms. Schuck told her that she was not familiar with Belford; that she did not know whether a degree from Belford would be accepted for certification purposes; and that Respondent should go ahead and get the degree and then submit it to her for a determination as to whether the degree would be accepted for certification purposes. On the last point, Ms. Schuck testified unequivocally and persuasively that under no circumstances would she have advised Respondent to get a degree before determining whether it will be accepted for certification purposes because such advice is contrary to her standard practice (shaped by her own personal experience with an unaccredited degree) of advising individuals in Respondentâs position to give her the prospective universityâs contact information so that she can investigate whether it is accredited by an entity recognized by DOE before the individual spends time and money pursuing the degree. Respondentâs testimony regarding her conversation with Ms. Schuck was not persuasive. Indeed, if, as Respondent testified, she was told by Ms. Schuck to give her a copy of the degree after she received it, it is reasonable to expect that Respondent would have done so, but she did not. Instead, after receiving her degree, Respondent e-mailed Donna Wingard in the certification office (rather than Ms. Schuck) and asked who she should send her information to in order to âget her Certificate updated.â The fact that the e-mail makes no mention of Respondentâs prior conversation with Ms. Schuck, coupled with the fact that it was not sent directly to Ms. Schuck, calls into question Respondentâs testimony that she spoke with Ms. Schuck prior to obtaining her degree from Belford. In any event, even if Respondent spoke with Ms. Schuck as she testified that she did, the evidence was not persuasive that Ms. Schuck advised her to go ahead and get the degree. To the contrary, if the conversation occurred, it is more likely than not that Ms. Schuck advised Respondent to give her Belfordâs contact information so that she could investigate whether a degree from Belford would be accepted for certification purposes before Respondent spent time and money pursuing the degree. On or about November 10, 2005,3 Respondent applied for a doctorate degree from Belford by filling out the form on Belfordâs website. In the boxes provided on the form, she entered information detailing her education, work, and other life experiences. The information Respondent provided to Belford included her resume, a five-page summary of her life experiences, and the materials that she put together as part of the application process for the principal pool. She did not submit transcripts or other official evidence of her Bachelorâs or Masterâs degrees to Belford. Respondent did not attend any classes at Belford, nor did she prepare or defend a dissertation in order to obtain her doctorate degree from Belford. She received the degree based solely on the package of information described above. Respondent testified that the information that she submitted to Belford to obtain her degree accurately reflected her education, work history, life experiences, and other qualifications. The School Board offered no evidence to the contrary and, indeed, its witnesses acknowledged that they had no reason to believe that the information Respondent submitted to Belford was inaccurate.4 Respondent obtained her doctorate degree from Belford for âless than $800.â The degree was issued to Respondent within two weeks of the time that she applied for it, and Respondent was not required to pay for the degree until she was advised by Belford that she would receive the degree based upon the information submitted. A traditional doctorate degree, such as a Ph.D., takes several years to receive, costs thousands of dollars, and involves extensive coursework as well as the preparation and defense of a lengthy dissertation. Respondentâs âofficial transcriptâ from Belford reflects that she was awarded a Doctor of Arts degree with a major in educational administration on November 10, 2005. The transcript makes no reference to the fact that the degree was based upon âlife experiencesâ rather than a traditional course of study. Respondentâs transcript includes a designation of magna cum laude based upon a 3.81 grade point average (GPA). Respondent had to pay extra to receive that GPA. Respondentâs transcript lists eight courses with specific grades -- from âAâ to âB-â -- awarded for each course. Respondent testified that she did not attend those courses, and that it was her understanding that the grades shown on the transcript were based upon the information that she submitted to Belford, which reflected the extent of her experience in the areas identified in the course descriptions. On November 17, 2005, Respondent sent the e-mail referenced above to Ms. Wingaurd. Respondent stated in the e- mail that she âjust completed [her] Doctorate Programâ and, as noted above, she asked Ms. Wingard who she needed to send the information about the degree to in order to get her DOE certificate updated. Notably, Respondent did not mention that the âDoctorate Programâ was through an online university or that the degree she received was based upon life experiences rather than a traditional course of study. Ms. Wingaurd forwarded Respondentâs e-mail to Ms. Shuck to handle. In her e-mail response, Ms. Schuck directed Respondent to send her an original transcript and stated that she would send the original to DOE for certification purposes and give a copy to the personnel office for âa salary change.â Respondent credibly testified that this was the first notice that she had that she was eligible for a salary increase as a result of the doctorate degree. On November 29, 2005,5 Respondent and Mr. Dawson met with Ms. Schuck to give her copies of their "official transcripts" from Belford for certification purposes. Ms. Schuck was unable to process the transcripts for certification purposes at that time because they did not include the date that the degrees were awarded. She handed the transcripts back to Respondent and Mr. Dean during the meeting and advised them to get her dated transcripts.6 Respondent and Mr. Dawson obtained dated copies of their transcripts from Belford, and Respondent sent them to Ms. Schuck through interoffice mail. Respondent testified that she called Ms. Schuck to confirm that she received the degrees and to check on their status. Respondent testified that Ms. Schuck told her that she had received the degrees and that she had given them to Ms. Butler for processing. Respondentâs testimony regarding her conversation with Ms. Schuck was not persuasive. Indeed, the more persuasive evidence establishes that Ms. Schuck never received the dated transcripts, but rather that they were somehow received by Pam Merritt, an administrative assistant in the Districtâs personnel office. Ms. Merritt put the transcripts in Judy Butlerâs in- basket for processing. Ms. Butlerâs responsibilities include processing salary changes for District staff. Ms. Butler is not responsible for reviewing transcripts or degrees for certification purposes. That review is done by the Districtâs certification office and is supposed to occur prior to the transcript or degree being forwarded to the personnel office for purposes of a salary change. Ms. Butler assumed that Respondentâs degree was in her in-basket for purposes of a salary change even though there was no cover letter or other directions with the transcript. Ms. Butler placed Respondentâs salary change on the agenda for the Salary Classification Committee (SCC). She did not do the same for Mr. Dawson because his transcript had somehow gotten affixed to Respondentâs transcript and Ms. Butler did not see it. On January 26, 2006, the SCC approved a $1,750 salary supplement for Respondent based upon her Belford doctorate degree. On January 28, 2006, Ms. Butler found Mr. Dawsonâs transcript as she was pulling apart the documents from the SCC meeting for inclusion in a package for the Superintendent to review. She sent an e-mail to Mr. Dawson on that date advising him that she had his transcript and that she would make sure that it was placed on the SCCâs February agenda. She sent a copy of the e-mail to David Lauer, the Districtâs assistant superintendent for human relations. Mr. Lauer received the e-mail on January 31, 2006, when he returned to the office. He knew Mr. Dawson and was surprised to learn that he had obtained a doctorate degree, so he asked Ms. Butler for the documentation related to Respondent and Mr. Dawson. Mr. Lauer reviewed the Belford website for approximately 45 minutes and determined that it was a âdiploma millâ and that the doctorate degrees obtained by Mr. Dawson and Respondent were âbogus.â Mr. Lauer also spoke with Ms. Schuck and asked her to determine whether Belford is an accredited university for DOE certification purposes. Ms. Schuck did so by e-mailing Mandy Mims, her contact at DOE. Ms. Mims advised Ms. Schuck that âBelford is not accredited by any agency recognized by the U.S. Dept. of Education, so degrees earned would not be appropriate for certification purposes.â Mr. Lauer was âflabbergastedâ by the situation, and because he considered the submittal of bogus degrees to be âso serious and so contrary to what we believe in as educators,â he went directly to the Superintendent, Dr. Gail McKinzie, instead of first speaking to Respondent and Mr. Dawson to get their side of the story. Mr. Lauer reported the situation to Dr. McKinzie on February 1, 2006. That same day, Dr. McKinzie reviewed the Belford website for approximately an hour and came to the same conclusions as Mr. Lauer regarding Belford and the nature of Respondentâs and Mr. Dawsonâs doctorate degrees. On February 3, 2006, Respondent was called to a meeting with Dr. McKinzie and Mr. Lauer. At the meeting, which lasted less than 10 minutes, Dr. McKinzie told Respondent that she was going to recommend to the School Board that Respondent be fired because she had misrepresented her professional qualifications though the submission of the Belford degree. Respondent was not given a meaningful opportunity to give her side of the story at the meeting. By letter dated February 8, 2006, Dr. McKinzie informed Respondent that she had recommended to the School Board that her employment be terminated. The letter advised Respondent of her right to request an administrative hearing, and Respondent timely did so by letter dated February 10, 2006. The School Board approved Dr. McKinzieâs recommendation at its meeting on February 14, 2006, and Respondent has been suspended without pay since that date pending the outcome of this proceeding. The negative characterization of Belford and its degrees by Mr. Lauer and Dr. McKinzie is reasonable based upon the evidence of record. For example, in addition to the statements from the website referred to in Finding of Fact 12 that should put a reasonable person on notice that Belford is not a legitimate educational institution, a degree from Belford can be obtained in as little as one week; the applicant is allowed to select his or her GPA, with a higher GPA costing more money; the applicant is not required to pay for his or her degree until after learning that the degree will be issued; the applicant is allowed to select his or her graduation date, with back-dating available at an additional cost; Belford will âintroduce [a major] as a new addition to [its] doctorate curriculumâ if the major sought by the applicant is not on Belfordâs list of majors; Belford does not require transcripts or other proof beyond the applicantâs representations that he or she has lower degrees (e.g., Bachelorâs and Masterâs) prior to awarding a higher degree (e.g., Doctorate); and a base-level doctorate degree from Belford costs only $549.00. It is unreasonable for anyone, and particularly someone like Respondent who has 18 years of experience in the education system, to believe that Belford is a legitimate educational institution or that a doctorate degree from Belford is a legitimate degree that would be accepted as such by DOE or the District. Thus, it is inferred that Respondent knew or should have known that a doctorate degree from Belford is not a legitimate educational degree that could be used to enhance her standing in the principal pool or bolster her professional qualifications. The evidence establishes that Respondent knowingly misrepresented her professional qualifications when she presented her Belford degree to the District for certification purposes and to enhance her status in the principal pool without disclosing the true nature of the degree. Respondentâs decision to purchase a doctorate degree over the Internet calls into question her judgment as well as her respect for the educational process, which, in turn, raises serious doubts about Respondentâs ability to be effective in the school system. Indeed, it is clear from the totality of the evidence -- and particularly the testimony of Dr. McKinzie and Mr. Lauer -- that Respondentâs ability to be an effective leader (as assistant principals and aspiring principals are supposed to be) in the District has been significantly impaired through her submission and continued defense of her Belford degree as a legitimate educational degree.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Polk County School Board issue a final order terminating Respondentâs employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of July, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of July, 2006.
