The Issue This issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the doctoral program in psychology at the Fielding Institute, headquartered in Santa Barbara, California met the requirement of Rule 21U-11.006(1)(b)5., 7., 9., and 10B., Florida Administrative Code during the period 1981 through 1986 when the Petitioner was enrolled in and completed that program and consequently whether the Petitioner meets the standards for application for licensure by examination as a graduate of that program.
Findings Of Fact The Fielding Institute was organized in 1974 with administrative headquarters in Santa Barbara, California. Its mission is training psychologists through its doctoral degree program in psychology. The Petitioner, Dr. Kenneth Gordon, was enrolled in the Fielding Institute's doctoral degree program from 1981 through 1986 and successfully graduated from that program with a doctor's degree in psychology. The Fielding doctoral program (program) was designed for "adult learners" or "midlife career professionals" who have training and experience in psychology and related fields and who seek to further their higher education, but who are unable to re-locate to a traditional, geographical campus-based doctoral degree psychology program for the requisite three to five years required to complete such a program. The American Psychological Association (APA) is an accrediting agency for graduate programs in psychology. It does not mandate a single model of training for doctoral psychology programs and students but rather recognizes various models of training. The Fielding doctoral psychology program was designed to encompass the traditional areas of training and psychology within a non-traditional, multi-locational system of training. Fielding psychology students and faculty are disbursed throughout the country, where they are fully engaged in the educational program of the institute, which is developed and supervised at the Fielding administrative headquarters in Santa Barbara, California. During the period 1981 to 1986, the relevant period in this proceeding, when the Petitioner was a student with the Fielding Institute, Fielding's geographically disbursed doctoral students attended periodic regional seminars and sessions with faculty and students at various locations around the country. The doctoral program at Fielding is not accredited by the APA. It was not accredited by that agency during the time the Petitioner was enrolled in and graduated from the program. The Petitioner applied to the Board for licensure by examination in Florida. The Board denied that application finding that the program at Fielding was not comparable to programs accredited by the APA because the program at Fielding failed to meet certain specified requirements of Rule 21U-11.006(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code. The Petitioner requested a formal hearing challenging that denial and the subject proceeding ensued. Student Enrollment and Core Curriculum The students and the faculty enrolled in and conducting the Fielding degree program are dispersed throughout the country. The admission procedure for the school commences with a written application and a field interview with a geographically available faculty member. Selected applicants are then invited to come to the Santa Barbara headquarters of the institute for a mandatory week long dialogue with other faculty members concerning the specifics of the doctoral degree program and the expectations regarding the student's participation in it. Fielding admitted students into the doctoral degree program three times a year using this process. During 1981 through 1986 the Fielding program had an identifiable body of students who matriculated into the program for a doctoral degree, although the students were dispersed throughout the country, studying in their own communities. All doctoral psychology students at Fielding during 1981 through 1986 were full time students, paying full tuition and pursuing their curriculum within established time limitations. The focus of the program at Fielding is the "learning outcome", which is described by Fielding as an evaluation of the competency of students within the "various dimensions of knowledge and skill that are involved in training a psychologist." A student's "learning outcome" is first evaluated by the program when a student is accepted by the program, which credits its students for knowledge and experience gained in their professions prior to entry into the program. A student is invited by the administrators of the Fielding program to submit any information which a student believes will substantiate the student's readiness to engage in the study program the student seeks to choose, out of the curriculum offered by Fielding. When a student is accepted by the program the student formulates a "blueprint" in which the student acknowledges previous expertise and discusses how he or she plans to use the Fielding program in meeting its requirements. This blueprint is called a "learning contract", entered into by the student with the student's faculty advisor and program director and approved by those persons. With the guidance of those faculty members, Fielding students, like the Petitioner, propose their own "learning contracts" to the Fielding administrators or faculty advisors, encompassing a curriculum for themselves which takes into account their own previous learning experiences and professional experience. In this process of arriving at a "learning contract", the student can take into account and allow for the student's personal concerns and professional goals but must still complete the Fielding-required curriculum in all the required study and knowledge areas in terms of academic, clinical and internship requirement parameters. The Fielding faculty designed the psychology curriculum, administered it, wrote the student guides or bulletins and produced seminars for instructive development during the time the Petitioner was enrolled, but the program did not offer classes of instruction in the formal, scheduled sense during that time. The required Fielding psychology curriculum could be completed in a different sequence by each student based on the individual student's previous experience, learning and needs. The sequence could be designed by the student although the curriculum itself was designed by the Fielding faculty and administrators. The Fielding students then would enter into the learning contract with the Fielding faculty and administrators. The contract would individualize the sequence of their program, as chosen by them, but it still had to fall encompass the required core of study, taking into account their own professional experience and their own professional goals, post-degree award. The learning contract reflected an agreement between the student and the Fielding faculty and administration that various required academic objectives, as defined by the faculty, would be satisfied by the student in a particular sequence and on a particular time table. Learning contracts are an accepted educational tool for designing a course of study both in psychology and in other disciplines. The psychology program at Fielding during the 1981 to 1986 period, when the Petitioner was enrolled, was an organized, integrated course of study designed by the psychology faculty of that institution who were responsible for the program's administration. The students had substantial latitude in the sequence of study arrived at for completing that program based upon the individual student's previous learning and professional experience as well as professional goals for the future. The control that the Fielding faculty maintained over the students course of study and progress through the program consisted of the faculty designing the program curriculum and the faculty's required approval of the students learning contracts. Institutional Requirements The Fielding doctoral program for 1981 to 1986 required the equivalent of a minimum of three academic years of full time graduate study in the Fielding program. Although its course bulletin, published in 1984, the one relevant to this proceeding, did not specifically contain a published minimum three academic year requirement, in practice the program had such a requirement. No student ever completed the doctoral psychology program at Fielding in less than three years, however, students were expected to complete the program within five years. The Fielding doctoral program does not give academic transfer credit for course work completed at other institutions. Credit is only given for satisfactory completion of the knowledge areas defined by and evaluated by the Fielding psychology faculty. Organized, Integrated Sequence of Study Designed by the Psychology Faculty The Fielding Institute employs the scholar-practitioner student training model for its doctoral students in psychology. That training model has three components: (a) the academic component, (b) the clinical training component, and (c) the research component. The academic component of the program was divided into twelve required "knowledge areas", encompassing the broader areas of clinical psychology, neuropathology, and psychopathology. The Fielding faculty provided a study guide for each knowledge area defining the parameters of that area, the resources to be applied in successfully completing that knowledge area, identifying the faculty who were experts in that area and the students' requirements for completing that area. During the 1981 to 1986 period each student was required to complete all required knowledge areas and to demonstrate competence through a comprehensive examination. The clinical training component required a minimum of 600 hours of clinical training, in a modality or area of practice other than the one for which the student had received prior training or experience before enrolling at Fielding. Student competency in clinical psychology was evaluated after the clinical training program, through a clinical examination. Successful students then proceeded to a formal clinical internship. During 1981 through 1986, the clinical internship in psychology consisted of a minimum of 1600 hours of supervised experience. After completion of the clinical training component, competency was evaluated through a "final clinical assessment." The research component resulted in a formal dissertation by the student. Students were required to prepare a concept research paper, which was expanded into a research proposal and finally into a dissertation, presenting the research and its results. Each Fielding doctoral student, including Petitioner, was required to participate simultaneously in the three program components, academic, clinical and research, during his entire tenure with the Institute, during the years when the Petitioner was enrolled. A program bulletin is a formal statement by an institution of the content and operation of its academic programs. The Fielding program bulletin for 1984 was the bulletin in effect when the Petitioner was enrolled in and graduated from the psychology doctoral program there. The program bulletin seemed to imply that the sequence of study and curriculum was designed by the students, rather than by the faculty. In fact the greater weight of the evidence indicates that that is not precisely the case, rather it shows that the faculty designed the curriculum and program, although the students had considerable latitude in choosing the sequence in which they would embark upon and complete the various courses or areas of study required to be completed by the faculty-designed curriculum. The bulletin also seemed to imply that the student, rather than the faculty, designed the elements of their own course work. In fact the greater weight of the evidence shows that certain course work is required by the curriculum designed by the Institute's faculty, although the students had choices regarding when certain course work would be embarked upon and courses could be elected in a student's desired area of emphasis, so long as the overall requirements of the curriculum were accomplished in less than five years. The program at the Fielding Institute however did not, and does not now, require its students to have "continuous access to faculty". Rather the program at Fielding offered study groups and periodic seminars and sessions during the time the Petitioner and other students were enrolled and graduated from that program but there was no showing how frequent those study groups, periodic seminars and sessions with faculty members and with other students were conducted or scheduled. Although the Petitioner maintains, in essence, that a residency-on- campus requirement such as is contained in the subject rule, is designed to achieve nothing more than the assurance of a minimum number of contact hours between students and faculty and students with other students, in fact a residency requirement is equally designed to ensure that there is administrative control by the faculty and administrators of the institution over the maintenance of quality of the program. The Fielding program did not develop a residency requirement until after the Petitioner had graduated from it. The Fielding Institute purports to have had an informal residency requirement during the time the Petitioner was enrolled prior to 1986. That requirement, which is not in the program bulletin, purported to require students to have as many hours of contact with the faculty that students would have had at programs accredited by the APA. There was no evidence presented however to establish the number of hours that students in APA programs have access to faculty members. Nor was there any evidence of the number of hours that Fielding students were informally required to have access to Fielding faculty nor to other students. There was nothing of record to support the contention that the number of hours Fielding required its students to have contact with faculty or other students was comparable to the number of hours students in APA approved programs had access to faculty members or other students. There is simply no evidence to show the number of hours required for such faculty and student contact, if indeed it was required, nor the number of study groups, periodic seminars and sessions between students and faculty which were scheduled and conducted whereby the students and faculty, who admittedly are dispersed across the nation, could have accomplished such faculty-student contact hours. Thus the program at Fielding, both as published in the bulletin, and as put into practice has not been shown to have required its students to have one year in residence ". . . at the institution full time." The subject rule provides that the residency requirement is met when it is shown that the program provides "continuous access" to the faculty and to other students with a period of continuous enrollment of not less than two out of three successive semesters "on the campus" of the institution from which the doctoral degree was granted. The Petitioner did not prove that Fielding actually has a campus. Although the rule contains no definition of the word, "campus" is a word with a plain and ordinary meaning. The meaning given by the Petitioner's witness to the word "campus" is not the plain and ordinary meaning of the word. The plain and ordinary meaning of the word "campus" encompasses, but is greater than the Petitioner's concept of a "locality that students and faculty meet for educational purposes." The Petitioner failed to establish when, where and how often the periodic seminars meetings and sessions were scheduled and conducted for faculty and students to meet for educational purposes, as well as for students meeting with other students. Consequently, even under the concept of the meaning of the word "campus" espoused by the Petitioner, it has not been established that Fielding Institute effectively required a period of continuous enrollment of not less than two out of three successive semesters on a campus of that institution from which the doctoral degree was granted. After 1986 Fielding responded to residency accreditation requirements of the APA by requiring documentation of the 1981 through 1986 methods of "regional professional socialization and association between faculty and students," formalizing the documentation of those "contact hours" as a graduation requirement. The Petitioner maintains that prior to 1986 the students were required to achieve their contact hours with other students and with faculty as a graduation requirement, that the nature of student-faculty and student-student contact hours did not change for the psychology students of Fielding after 1986 and that only the documentation requirement was added. The Petitioner maintains that Fielding students currently document the face to face contact hours between themselves, faculty and other students (not telephone contacts) in order to approximate the types of contacts available at a traditional single-site university campus program. The Petitioner, however, did not prove that the Petitioner and other Fielding students engaged in the program from 1981 to 1986 actually achieved a level of contact hours with faculty and other students for educational purposes which were comparable to those which could be achieved by students in such a doctoral program in full time residence at a traditional, university-based program. Although students were said by the Petitioner to have access to the faculty twelve months out of the year, because the evidence also shows that faculty and students are dispersed all over the country, it has not been demonstrated that the Petitioner or any other student could have ready access with any or all faculty members guiding the student, including the Petitioner's particular program, continuously through twelve months of the year or on any other frequently occurring basis. Cognitive-Affective Basis of Behavior The 1984 Fielding catalogue or bulletin did not include a discreet knowledge area or course of study published therein entitled "Cognitive- Affective Basis of Behavior." In practice however, the 1981 through 1986 Fielding doctoral program, which the Petitioner completed, did provide required academic course work in the area of cognitive-affective basis of behavior. This subject matter, "learning, memory, motivation, thinking, cognition theory" was incorporated into the other defined knowledge areas operated and required by the institution. It has been demonstrated that Rule 21-11.0006(1)(b)5., 7., 9., and 10B., Florida Administrative Code sets out standards of training that are comparable to standards of training of programs accredited by the APA.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner's application for licensure by examination as a psychologist should be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1. - 6. Accepted. 7. Accepted, but not in itself materially dispositive. 8. - 30. Accepted. 31. - 33. Accepted but irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted, but not itself materially dispositive and subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted, but not itself materially dispositive and subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted but not itself materially dispositive and subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and rejected in the sense that it has not been proven that the types of contacts available to students with faculty and with other students approximates the types of contacts available at a traditional single site university. Accepted, but not itself materially dispositive and subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and rejected in the sense that it has not been proven that the types of contacts available to students with faculty and with other students approximates the types of contacts available at a traditional single site university. Rejected, as not in accordance with the greater weight of the substantial competent evidence and subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted, but irrelevant. Accepted, but immaterial. Rejected as not in accordance with the greater weight of the substantial competent evidence and subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted but not itself materially dispositive and subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. - 45. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1. - 9. Accepted, however, the opinions of Dr. DePiano derive from his one day site visit are not in their entirety accepted in the above findings of fact and conclusions of law. 10. - 19. Accepted. 20. Rejected as subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 21. Accepted. 22. Rejected as subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not entirely in accordance with the greater weight of the evidence. 23. Rejected as not entirely in accordance with the greater weight of the substantial competent evidence and as subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 24. Accepted. 25. Accepted as to its first sentence but otherwise subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject hearing. 26. - 28. Accepted. 29. - 31. Accepted. 32. Rejected as not entirely in accordance with the greater weight of the evidence and as subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 33. Rejected as not entirely in accordance with the greater weight of the evidence and as subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 34. Rejected as not entirely in accordance with the greater weight of the evidence and as subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 35. Accepted. 36. Rejected as not entirely in accordance with the greater weight of the evidence and as subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 37. Accepted but not itself materially dispositive of this issue. 38. Accepted. 39. Accepted. 40. Accepted. 41. Accepted. 42. Rejected as not entirely in accordance with the greater weight of the evidence and as subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 43. Accepted. 44. Accepted as to the first sentence of the proposed finding of fact, the last sentence is rejected as subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not entirely supported by the greater weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce Rogow, Esquire 2441 S.W. 28th Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312 Beverly A. Pohl, Esquire 350 S.E. Second Street Suite 200 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Virginia Daire, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1603 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 Dan Bosanko, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1603 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 Linda Biederman, Executive Director Board of Psychological Examiners 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Respondent's name was one of about three hundred on a list of public accountants certified in Florida for whom, at the close of the initial period following institution of the requirement, petitioner had no record of the taking of continuing professional education courses or of the passing of a written professional examination. As a result, petitioner mailed respondent a form letter advising him of the situation, in February of 1977. Receiving no reply, petitioner mailed a second letter to respondent on April 28, 1977, stating that he "ha[d] failed to comply with F.S. 473.111(4) and Rule 21A-15" and that his suspension had been recommended to petitioner for that reason. On May 11, 1977, respondent visited petitioner's offices in Gainesville and spoke to George Thomas McCall, at the time petitioner's coordinator for continuing professional education. Mr. McCall gave respondent three reporting forms on which respondent proceeded, without reference to any notes, to list various titles in the column styled "Name of Course or Program," filling in corresponding blanks in columns for the dates of the courses, for their sponsors and for "Credit Hours Claimed." Petitioner's exhibit No. 1. Douglas H. Thompson, Jr., petitioner's executive director, asked Jean P. Finegold, Mr. McCall's successor, to attempt to verify that respondent had taken the continuing professional education courses he had listed. Ms. Finegold wrote respondent requesting documentation. Petitioner sent this letter by certified mail, but it was returned unclaimed. Ms. Finegold also wrote each of the four institutions listed by respondent as sponsors of continuing professional education courses that he had taken. The United States Department of Labor, listed by respondent as the sponsor of 48 hours of course work he had taken in the auditing and accounting category, never replied to Ms. Finegold's inquiry. Because respondent had indicated, on the reporting form for 1974, that he took courses named "Estate Planning" and "Banking" sponsored by the Florida Institute of Certified Public Accountants (FICPA), Ms. Finegold wrote FICPA asking, inter alia, for verification of respondent's attendance at those courses. Respondent listed no other courses sponsored by FICPA on any of the reporting forms. Under the supervision of FICPA's assistant Director, John Scharbaugh, Vicki Ware researched the FICPA's records without finding the course names "Banking" or "Estate Planning." Later, after an extended telephone conversation between respondent and Mr. Scharbaugh, the FICPA verified that respondent had attended "Income Taxation of Estates and Trusts" on January 10, 1974; Basic Concepts in Estate Planning" on January 11, 1974; "Workshop on Fiduciary Income Tax Returns" on December 14, 1973; "Seminar on Bank Audits, Accounting, Taxes and Regulations" (Seminar) on November 16, 1973; and another course on May 17 and 18, 1973. The three more recent courses "each qualify for eight hours of other CPE credit," composite exhibit No. 8, deposition of Jean P. Finegold, as did the seminar. The other course "Management Advisory Services Conference" is the course respondent referred to on his 1974 reporting form as "Computer Advisory," mistakenly indicating sponsorship by Florida State University rather than by the FICPA. In response to Ms. Finegold's inquiry, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) indicated that the AICPA had offered no courses entitled "Capital Investments--Long Term Debt," "Tax Reform Act of 1975" or "Tax Course," and Rex B. Cruse, Jr., director of the Continuing Professional Education Division of the AICPA, executed an affidavit to that effect. Composite exhibit No. 7, deposition of Jean P. Finegold. Respondent had indicated on his 1974 and 1976 reporting forms that he had taken courses with such names, sponsored by the AICPA. A subsequent search of the AICPA's bad debt file revealed that respondent had ordered self-study materials for courses named "Capital Structure and Long-Term Objectives," "Ins and Outs of IRS Practice and Procedures" and "Tax Reduction Act of 1975," but respondent "did not officially complete the courses by returning examinations. . .for grading." Composite exhibit No. 6, deposition of Jean P. Finegold. Otha L. Brandon, a certified public accountant in Memphis, Tennessee, first engaged respondent's services in 1975. On four or five occasions thereafter, respondent was in Memphis for orientation and instruction in auditing certain types of accounts, including assignments from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Toward the end of 1976, Mr. Brandon entered into a contract with the EPA to audit construction grants to certain municipalities, including eight Florida cities. He hired respondent to perform the Florida audits. On January 3, 1977, Mr. Brendon wrote respondent directing him to go ahead with the work. At the time, Mr. Brandon contemplated completing the job in mid-February, thinking he would send additional manpower to Florida to assist respondent. Unassisted, respondent made submissions to Mr. Brandon on the last of the eight cities in July or August of 1977. Mr. Brandon allocated approximately nine thousand dollars ($9,000.00) to the Florida portion of the project. Upon receipt of respondent's work, people in Mr. Brandon's office revised the reports to make them conform to EPA regulations and directives. This was taken into account when Mr. Brandon paid respondent in excess of seven thousand two hundred dollars ($7,200.00) for his services. Respondent has been a certified public accountant in Florida since 1972.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner suspend respondent's certificate for three (3) years. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of February, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of February, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: James S. Quincey, Esquire 226 South Main Street Gainesville, Florida 32602 Thomas B. Calhoun, Esquire 3656 Shamrock Way Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Whether respondent's teaching certificate should be revoked on the grounds that he fraudulently obtained a higher ranking teaching certificate and thereby committed an act of gross immorality and moral turpitude.
Findings Of Fact I. Respondent's Wrongdoing Respondent, age 33, taught school in Dade County for over six years. From 1969-1972, he taught physical education at South Miami Junior High School; he then resigned and did not return to teaching until 1978, when he became a substitute teacher at Brownsville Junior High School. Shortly thereafter, he was hired in a full-time position at Brownsville Junior High, where he remained until he resigned in July, 1980. His principal at Brownsville considered him a "very good teacher," (Tr. 55) as "one of the teachers who gave his very best." (Tr. 56.) (Testimony of Carstarphen, Oden; P-4.) Respondent attended high school and junior college in Pensacola. From 1966-1969, he attended Bethune Cookman College in Daytona Beach and earned a bachelor of science degree. His postgraduate training consists of one course he took at Nova University to secure a science certificate. (Testimony of Carstarphen; P-4.) During 1978, Respondent met Eugene Sutton ("Sutton"), an employee of Florida A & M University ("Florida A & M") located in Tallahassee, Florida. One month after their initial meeting, Respondent agreed to pay Sutton approximately $2,800 for a false transcript from Florida A & M purporting to award him a master's degree in elementary education. During the ensuing months, each party performed his part of the agreement: Respondent paid Sutton the $2,800, and Sutton furnished him a false transcript. The transcript, dated April 6, 1979, indicated that he had successfully completed various postgraduate courses at Florida A & M from 1976-1978 and had been awarded a master of education degree; the transcript was a forgery. He never attended Florida A & M University. (Testimony of Carstarphen; P-4.) Since 1969, Respondent had held a rank III (graduate) teaching certificate issued by the Florida Department of Education. A postgraduate degree qualifies a teacher for a higher ranking (rank II, post graduate) teaching certificate. So, in early 1979, Respondent filed an application for the higher ranking certificate; he attached to the application a copy of the fake master's degree transcript from Florida A & M and signed, under oath, the following notarization: I understand that Florida Statutes provide for revocation of a teacher's certificate if evidence and proof is established that the certificate has been obtained by fraud- ulent means. (Section 231.28 F.S.) I fur- ther certify that all information pertaining to this application is true and correct. (Testimony of Carstarphen; P-4.) On June 28, 1979, the Department of Education--relying on the false transcript--approved his application and issued him a rank II, postgraduate teaching certificate, No. 257364. He then applied to his employer, the School Board, for a salary increase based on his postgraduate teaching certificate. His application was routinely granted. During the ensuing 12 months, the School Board paid him an additional $4,047.55 because of his higher ranking postgraduate teaching certificate. (Testimony of Carstarphen Gray; P-5, P-6, P- 8.) In mid-1980, Respondent's wrongdoing was discovered. On October 20, 1980, he pleaded guilty to criminal charges: forgery and grand theft-second degree (two counts). The Circuit Court of Dade County placed him on three years' probation and directed that restitution be made to the School Board. (P- 7.) Respondent has complied with the terms of his probation. He is now repaying, by regular payments, the money which he wrongfully obtained from the School Board. (Testimony of Carstarphen.) II. Appropriate Penalty: Suspension or Permanent Revocation The Respondent contends that his wrongful acts warrant suspension, not revocation of his teaching certificate. In support of that contention, he offered the following testimony: The reason I'm asking for this is that this was my chosen profession, and I think that I am good at it. I realize the fact that I made a tragic mistake that I'm sure would never happen again. It was a circumstance that I feel that someone would have to be involved in to really understand what actually happened. But I could only say that I'm requesting a suspension as opposed to a complete termi- nation so that I can pursue what I've been trained to do and, again, that I do well. (Tr. 48-49.) No evidence was presented which establishes that Respondent's wrongful acts have seriously reduced his effectiveness as a classroom teacher. Respondent has never before been convicted of a crime; neither has he been involved in any prior disciplinary infraction. (Testimony of Carstarphen.) Respondent did not fully cooperate with law enforcement officers investigating his conduct and the fake Florida A & M transcripts. For example, he refused to divulge the name of a friend--even though he did not know whether that person was involved in the fraudulent transcript scheme. (Testimony of McAllister, Jacobson, Carstarphen.) Respondent knowingly submitted the false Florida A & M transcript to the Department of Education; his motive was monetary gain. After filing the higher ranking postgraduate teaching certificate with his employer, he received increased salary payments for approximately one year. (Testimony of Carstarphen, McAllister, Jacobson, Gray.) III. Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Parties The findings of fact proposed by the parties have been considered. Those proposed findings which are not incorporated above are rejected as irrelevant to the issue presented or unsupported by the preponderance of evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Education Practices Commission enter a final order permanently revoking Respondent's teaching certificate, No. 257364. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of October, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Telephone: (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of October, 1981.
Findings Of Fact L.B. Thanki received a degree in Civil Engineering at the University of Durham at Kings College, Newcastle Upon Tyne in the United Kingdom in 1956. Petitioner received a batchelor of law degree from Sardar Patel University (India) in 1967. This degree is the equivalent of two years study in law. The degree obtained from the University of Durham is not the equivalent of the degree received from an ABET approved university in the United States because it lacks 16 credit hours in Humanities and Social Sciences. Petitioner presented no evidence that his degree from the University of Durham or the curriculum he completed at any other university included the missing 16 hours in Humanities and Social Sciences. Petitioner presented a certificate (which was not offered into evidence) that he had completed a course in computer services meeting the board's evidentiary requirements of computer skills.
Recommendation Based on foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application for licensure by examination as an engineering intern. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. N. AYERS 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 10th day of May, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: B. Thanki 1106 East Hillsborough Avenue Tampa, Florida 33604 Edwin A. Bayo, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Carrie Flynn, Acting Executive Director Florida Board of Professional Engineers Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0755 Jack L. McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
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
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied for licensure as a psychologist on or about June 26, 1984 and Petitioner's application was considered by the Board of Psychological Examiners (Board). Petitioner's application for licensure was denied by the Board on the basis that Petitioner's doctoral program was not comparable to an American Psychological Association (APA) approved program in that the biological bases of behavior was not a requirement of Petitioner's doctoral program as required by Rule 21U-11.06, Florida Administrative Code. The Board adopted Rule 21U-11.06, Florida Administrative Code and essentially codified the criteria for APA approved program for the first time in this rule. The rule took effect an April 5, 1984. The pertinent part of the rule is provided below. In order to be certified by the Board as eligible for examination pursuant to Section 40.005(1), Florida Statutes, an applicant must: Complete the application form and remit the examination fee set by rule of the Board. Submit proof of the completion of a doctoral degree with a major in psychology from a university or professional school that has a program approved by the American Psychological Association or a doctoral degree in psychology from a university or professional school maintaining a standard . of training comparable to those universities having programs approved by the American Psychological Association. For the purpose of determining whether an applicant's doctoral degree in psychology was received from a university or professional school maintaining a standard of training comparable to those universities having programs approved by the American Psychological Association the Board will apply the following criteria: Education and training in psychology must have been received in an institution of higher education accredited by one of the regional accrediting bodies recognized by the Counsel on Postsecondary Accreditation. The doctoral program must be publicly identified as a psychology program, and must specify in pertinent institutional catalogs and brochures its intent to educate and train psychologists. The psychology program must stand as a recognizable, coherent organizational entity within the institution. There must be a clear authority and pri mary responsibility for the academic core and speciality preparation, whether or not the program involves multiple administrative lines. The doctoral program must be an organized integrated sequence of study designed by the psychology faculty responsible for the program. There must be an identifiable psychology faculty. The program director must be a psy chologist. The program must have an identifiable body of students who are matriculated in that pro gram for a doctoral degree. The doctoral program must include super vised practicum and/or laboratory experiences appropriate to practice, teaching or research in psychology. The doctoral program shall require a minimum of: The equivalent of three full-time academic years of graduate study; Two academic years of the three shall be in full-time residence at the institution from which the doctoral degree is granted. The doctoral program shall require each student to demonstrate knowledge and use of scientific and professional ethics and standards, research design and methodology, statistics, psychological measurements, and history and systems of psychology. Further, the program shall require each student to demonstrate knowledge in the following subs tantive areas of psychology: Biological bases of behavior (e.g., physiological, psychology, comparative psychology, neuropsychology, psychopharmacology) Cognitive-affective bases of behavior (e.g., learning, memory, perception, cognition, thinking, motivation, emotion), Social bases of behavior (e.g., social psychology, cultural-ethnic and group pro cesses, sex roles, organization and systems theory), and Individual behavior (e.g., personality theory, human development, individual differ ences, abnormal psychology, psychology of women, psychology of the handicapped). (Emphasis supplied.) Rule 21U-11.06, Florida Administrative Code was adopted to implement Section 490.005, Florida Statutes (1983). The American Psychological Association Accreditation Handbook, Criteria For Accreditation of Doctoral Training Program and Internship in Professional Psychology (Handbook) adopted in January 1979 and amended in January 1980; sets out criteria that the doctoral programs must meet to be eligible for accreditation by APA and are listed below. Training in professional psychology is doctoral training offered in an institution of higher education accredited by one of the six regional accrediting bodies recognized by the Council of Postsecondary Accreditation (COPA). The program, wherever it may be administratively housed, must be clearly and publicly identified and labeled as a professional psychology program. A recognizable, coherent organizational entity must be responsible for the program. The faculty of the program must have clear authority and primary responsibility for all aspects of the program (even if the program cuts across institutional administrative lines). The program must include an integrated, organized plan of study and must ensure a breadth of exposure to the field of psychology. The program must include supervised practicum, internship, field, or laboratory training appropriate to the practice of psychology. There must be an identifiable psychology faculty and a psychologist responsible for the program. The program must have an identifiable body of students who are matriculated in that pro gram for a degree. The institution must demonstrate its commitment to the program by appropriate financial support. APA recognizes that certain principles are basic to sound training in professional psychology and requires that these principles be adhered to in an APA approved doctoral program. These principles are found in the Handbook under Training Models and Curricula, and in pertinent part are provided below. It is the responsibility of the faculty to integrate practice with theory and research early in the program. Students should form an early identification with their profession. Faculty should be available to demonstrate and model the behaviors that students are expected to learn. A close working relationship between faculty and student is essential. The foundation of professional practice in psychology is the evolving body of knowledge in the discipline of psychology. While programs will vary in emphasis and in available resources, sound graduate education in general psychology is therefore essential in any program. The curriculum shall encompass the equivalent of a minimum of three academic years of full time resident graduate study. Instruction in scientific and professional ethics and standards, research design and methodology, statistics, psychological measurement, and history and systems of psychology must be included in every doctoral program in professional psychology. The program shall, further, require each student to demonstrate competence in each of the following substantive content areas: biological bases of behavior (e.g., physiological psychology, comparative psychology, neuropsychology, sensation, psychopharmacology. cognitive-affective bases of behavior (e.g., learning, memory, perception, cognition, thinking, motivation, emotion), social bases of behavior (e.g., social psychology; cultural, ethnic, and group processes; sex roles; organizational and systems theory), and individual behavior (e.g., personality theory, human development, individual differences, abnormal psychology). (Emphasis supplied). The uncontroverted testimony of Dr. Perry was that competency in the area of biological bases of behavior is a fundamental requirement which a doctoral psychology program must require to properly train psychologists and the policy of the Board has been since its inception in 1981 that applicants for examination must have graduated from a program which required demonstration of competence in the foundation area of biological bases of behavior. There has been no standard criteria established for all the doctoral psychology programs of the state universities in the United States. There has been no standard criteria established for all the doctoral psychology programs of the state universities in Florida. Dr. Perry testified that he had not reviewed all the doctoral psychology programs of the state universities in Florida but that it was his belief that those programs were comparable to APA approved doctoral psychology programs. Based on Dr. Perry's service with the Board, he testified that the Board is not concerned with whether the doctoral psychology programs of the state universities of Florida are comparable with APA approved doctoral psychology programs when the applicant has graduated from one of the state universities of Florida.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to licensure as a psychologist by the State of Florida.
Findings Of Fact On February 6, 1995, the Petitioner filed an application for licensure by examination as a psychologist in the State of Florida. During its regular meeting of February 9-11, 1995, the Respondent considered and rejected the Petitioner's application. By letter dated February 13, 1995, the Respondent notified the Petitioner that his application had been denied. On May 11, 1995, the Respondent filed a Notice of Intent to Deny the application. The Notice appears to have been signed on April 20, 1995. The Notice of Intent identifies the basis for the denial as follows: In voting to deny the application, the Board found that the applicant's program did not require coursework in biological bases of behavior, cognitive-affective bases of behavior, or statistics. Moreover, the program did not require an internship that met the requirements of Rule 59AA-11.0061(3)(j), F.A.C. Prior to commencement of the hearing, the parties resolved the issue related to coursework in the Petitioner's favor. The issue remaining for hearing is whether the Petitioner's educational program required an internship that met the requirements of the cited rule. The parties have stipulated that the Petitioner has 1660 of acceptable pre-doctoral internship hours. The Petitioner has also submitted 2340 hours of post-doctoral supervised experience. Post-doctoral experience may be used to augment pre-doctoral hours if the post-doctoral experience meets the requirements of Rule 59AA-11.003(30(j), Florida Administrative Code. The evidence fails to establish that any of the 2340 hours meet the requirements set forth for pre-doctoral experience. The evidence is insufficient to establish that, beyond those hours to which the parties have agreed, any of the Petitioner's remaining internship/experience hours meet the applicable requirements.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Agency for Health Care Administration, Board of Psychological Examiners, enter a Final Order denying the Petitioner's application for licensure by examination as a psychologist in Florida. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of December, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of December, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Kaye Howerton Executive Director Board of Psychological Examiners Agency for Health Care Administration Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jerome Hoffman General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Robert Jacobs, Pro Se 1114 Evening Trail Drive Wesley Chapel, Florida 33543 Allen R. Grossman Assistant Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether respondent, an assistant professor at Miami-Dade Community College, should be dismissed on grounds of willful neglect of duty, gross insubordination, and incompetency as alleged.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Joan Humphries, earned a bachelor's degree from the University of Miami, a master's degree in counseling and guidance from Florida State University, and a Doctorate of Philosophy in experimental psychology from Louisiana State University. (Testimony of Humphries.) Before coming to Miami-Dade Community College, she worked as a psychological consultant at Louisiana State Hospital and taught at the University of Miami. She has been employed by the College for approximately 15 years--since October, 1966. (Testimony of Humphries.) First employed by the College as a part-time instructor, she soon became a full-time instructor of introductory psychology courses. She is now a tenured assistant professor and was granted a continuing teaching contract by the College. (Testimony of Humphries.) During her years at the College, she received annual performance evaluations from the chairperson of her department--now named the Department of Behavioral Studies. Until 1978, she was evaluated as a competent instructor. Her 1970 evaluation stated: Dr. Humphries continues to do an excellent job of teaching PSY 207. She has been most helpful in orienting new faculty members [and] is a most dependable and valuable member of the psychology faculty. (P-75.) In 1971, David Powers, her new department chairperson, recommended her for promotion and gave her this evaluation: Joan Humphries possesses excellent knowledge of her subject field. Her course is extremely well planned out and organized. She is quite fair in her grading techniques, . . . (P-78.) In 1972, she was rated as "outstanding" in professional status, growth, and development; "competent" in her performance as a faculty member; and as giving "more than most" in ancillary services to the College. In 1973, Dr. Powers again rated her as competent and described her professional strengths and goals: Professional Strengths: Joan displays an in-depth knowledge of behavioristic psychology. Joan is competent in utilization of audiovisual materials and psychological equipment. She is conscientious in meeting her office hours. She has originated several ideas for obtaining both community involvement and enrollment in future psychological courses. Joan involves her students in community activities by requiring a ten hour out-of-class service project. Professional Goals: In order to maintain larger retention rate, Joan should develop a diversity of instructional strategies including greater enthusiasm in teacher presentation. She should place less emphasis on objective testing and involve more subjective methods for student evaluations, [i]ncluding student feedback on course activities and evaluative tools should be meaningful for her students. This summer she will be acting chairman of a committee for a parental education course to be offered in the fall. (P-82.) In 1974, Dr. Powers again rated her as a "competent" faculty member and "outstanding" in professional status, growth, and development. He recommended her for promotion and described her professional strengths: Professional Strengths: Joan is showing even more enthusiasm [sic] toward the college this year than last year. She has developed many innovative ideas including a proposed psychology laboratory, courses associated with the county judges and for the education of elderly citizens within the community, and a rationale for a four day college work week. Joan helped increase the fall term departmental productivity figure by conducting a large section of 100 Psychology 211 students. She has incorporated a formal student evaluation system into her course. She not only participates in community betterment but requires her students to spend at least 15 hours working on a community project. In determining the student's grade, this year, she has placed greater emphasis upon student involvement in projects, experiments, and oral presentations. In her classes Joan includes recent relevant research findings in order to clarify psychological concepts. She has devoted many hours toward coordinating the senior citizens program and the parent education course. She is an active sponsor of Phi Lambda Pi and continually invites guest speakers into her classes. Joan actively engages in scientific research and she has recently written an article for the Journal of Parapsychology. Joan is recommended for promotion to Associate Professor, Senior. Professional Goals: Joan should be a good resource coordinator for utilization of the new Alpha Theta Cyborg. This coming year the department could use her for teaching a couple sections of Psychology 212. Her ideas for meeting the community's needs are practical and worth implementing. Joan should perhaps develop a written syllabus in outline form to give to all of her students at the beginning of the course. Joan would like to initiate and teach a course in recent psychological developments, i.e., biofeedback, hypnosis, and brain research. (P-89.) She was not promoted, however, because she had not yet completed the required three years in grade. She appealed the College's failure to promote her. Although she subsequently satisfied the three-year requirement, she has not been promoted. She attributes this to discrimination by the College because of her earlier appeal. In 1975 and 1976, she was rated "competent" but given specific suggestions for improved performance (P-119.) In 1977, she was rated as a "competent" faculty member who contributed "more than most" in ancillary services to the College, and recommended for promotion. But, "some reservation" was indicated concerning her professional status, growth, and development. (P- 235.) In 1978, her new department chairperson, Gerald L. Sicard, rated her as "competent;" described her as a dedicated psychologist who gave enthusiastic lectures; and noted that evaluations by her students were generally positive. (P-315.) She was rated "unsatisfactory" by the evaluations completed in 1979, 1980, and 1981. The Charges: Eleven Specific Allegations of Misconduct The College's charges against respondent--willful neglect of duty, gross insubordination, and incompetency--rest on eleven specific allegations of misconduct. The findings of fact which follow are organized under the pertinent allegation. Alleged: Over a period of years, the respondent has demonstrated belligerence toward those in authority. Respondent has not demonstrated a pattern of belligerence or hostility toward her College superiors. Her supervising department chairperson, Mr. Sicard, had difficulty defining the term at hearing. When pressed, he gave as examples her desire to tape record conversations when meeting with a supervisor, her writing of memoranda when an issue could be easily resolved by an office conference, and her refusal to sign a performance evaluation form because she did not agree with it. Such conduct illustrates her distrust of her supervisors and the persistence with which she advocated her views; they do not demonstrate belligerence. Neither, according to her students, did she exhibit belligerence toward her supervisors in the classroom environment. 7 College administrators became irritated with her obvious distrust, her persistence, and her unwillingness to compromise; two examples: (1) When her fellow faculty members selected a common course textbook for use in introductory psychology, she resisted and stubbornly advocated another choice. (2) During 1978, Mr. Sicard learned that respondent was offering extra grade points to students who campaigned for enactment of the Equal Rights Amendment ("ERA") to the U.S. Constitution. Students who desired to campaign against the ERA were not, however, equally rewarded. Mr. Sicard questioned her about the fairness of this practice and its relevance to introductory psychology. She explained that prejudice against women was a disease, that to give students points for campaigning against the ERA would be supporting a disease. Mr. Sicard, still unconvinced, instructed her by memorandum on November 6, 1978, to discontinue the awarding of points to students for pro-ERA or any other political activity. (P-359.) One week later she explained, in writing, that she had been promoting good mental health, not partisan politics, and cited various publications by psychologists in support of her view that discrimination against women was detrimental to human welfare; and that, in the past, her students had worked for legislation benefiting autistic children and migrant workers and the College had supported such action. She ended by asking Mr. Sicard if advocacy of human rights and legislation supporting human rights would be considered engaging in partisan politics. But, although she disagreed with her supervisor, she complied with his directive and discontinued the practice. (Testimony of Sicard, Tikofsky, Hansen, Signorelli, Humphries.) Alleged: On numerous occasions, the respondent willfully and deliberately failed to comply with directives from College administrators relative to her classes of instructions. In connection with respondent's 1978 performance evaluation, Mr. Sicard and respondent negotiated and agreed upon goals and objectives for the coming year. The College contends that several of the goals were not met. Some of these items were tasks which Mr. Sicard thought were important at the time, others originated with the respondent. The effect to be given these goals is ambiguous. Mr. Sicard now considers some of them to be mandatory or directory in nature; others not. In any case, during the ensuing year, respondent satisfied most of the goals and objectives specified in the 1978 evaluation. In 1978, as already mentioned, respondent's department decided to select a common text for introductory psychology courses. Respondent resisted the consensus selection; she advocated an alternative and wrote memoranda to Mr. Sicard expressing her views. He responded with this memorandum: Instead of replying to the above-memos, it would probably be mutually beneficial to discuss your problems during my office hours. This way we can move from adversary roles to the cooperative model existing with the other departmental faculty. In doing this, I hope we can work together to achieve your and the department's goals. Please advise me in this matter. (P-334.) Thereafter, respondent did not go to Mr. Sicard's office to discuss the issue further. But the nature of his memorandum is, by its terms, non-directory, even conciliatory in nature. Respondent's failure to accept the invitation cannot fairly be translated into willful failure to comply with an administrator's directive. On December 4, 1978, Mr. Sicard recommended that respondent's employment be terminated for various "acts of insubordination." (P-368, P-369.) He asserted that she violated regulations by utilizing the psychology laboratory for hypnosis and biofeedback treatment for students with smoking and overweight problems; that her earlier awarding of grade points to students who worked for ERA violated a 1976 directive of David Powers, the previous department chairperson; and that she continued to refer students to Robert Courier, an alleged psychic and hypnosis counselor, despite the fact that Mr. Courier had been prohibited from instructing students in her classes. Her alleged failure to comply with laboratory regulations, even if true, does not constitute willful violation of an administrator's directive relative to her classroom instruction; and Mr. Sicard acknowledges that her referral of students to Mr. Courier "do[es] not violate previous directives" to respondent. (P-368.) This leaves only the alleged violation of Mr. Powers' 1976 directive. In that directive, Mr. Powers directed Respondent to obtain prior clearance from the departmental chairperson for "[a] 11 off-campus activities which affect the student's grade[s]." (P-147.) In 1977, however, Mr. Power's successor chairperson, Bess Fleckman, effectively countermanded or negated the effect of Mr. Powers' directive. By a memorandum dated March 21, 1977, she asked respondent to take full responsibility for assignments to students, stating that this should not "be a concern of a chairperson." (P-261, P-262, P- 263.) Thus, respondent's subsequent assignments concerning off-campus ERA activities did not violate a directive from her supervising administrator. By memorandum dated April 3, 1979, Mr. Sicard suggested that respondent improve her teaching techniques by accepting the assistance of Ms. Fleckman--a qualified and experienced classroom instructional specialist. (P- 388.) Respondent replied with a memorandum stating that she did not wish to work with Ms. Fleckman because she did not feel Ms. Fleckman "would be objective in evaluating my performance. (P-391.) Mr. Sicard replied on April 17, 1979, converting his suggestion into a clear directive that respondent work with and accept the assistance of Ms. Fleckman. Although clearly unhappy with the arrangement, respondent complied. (P-404.) The College has not shown that respondent ever refused or willfully and deliberately failed to comply with an administrator's directive which was phrased in clear and mandatory terms. Administrators, understandably, preferred to give suggestions to respondent, not orders or directives. But, failure to agree with or follow a suggestion does not amount to willful violation of a directive. (Testimony of Humphries, Fleckman, Sicard.) Alleged: Respondent . . . repeatedly refused to follow directives from college administrators, which has distracted from the objectives of her department, division, and campus. This charge is similar to the preceding allegation; no additional evidence was offered to substantiate it. Consequently, it is similarly concluded that no showing has been made that respondent repeatedly refused to follow directives from college administrators. (Testimony of Humphries, Fleckman, Sicard.) Alleged: Respondent deliberately failed or refused to perform assigned duties within the parameters established by her department chairperson. This charge may overlap with charges contained in paragraphs B and C above. The only additional incident of any significance offered by the College in substantiation involves respondent's purported attempt to use the psychology laboratory for therapy purposes. In June, 1978, respondent served as coordinator of the department's psychology laboratory with the assignment to expand its uses. On June 22, 1978, she circulated a memorandum to faculty members announcing a new laboratory program called "Positive Personal Programming," which would be carried out by Kenneth Forrest; she believed he was a student in an honors-level psychology course taught by Dr. Cecil B. Nichols. The program involved treating subjects with weight control or smoking habits by means of hypnosis and biofeedback techniques. Since regulations allegedly precluded use of the laboratory for therapy purposes, Mr. Sicard instructed respondent that this proposed program could not be implemented. Although she protested that the proposed program would be beneficial and should be allowed, she complied with his directive and immediately cancelled the program. The program was never implemented. Mr. Sicard testified that he did not know whether the program described in respondent's memorandum to faculty was ever implemented, but he "assumed" it was. (Tr.160.) He considered respondent's memorandum as an act of insubordination justifying her termination. (P-368.) The evidence does not establish that the proposed use would violate applicable regulations. 2/ In any case, it has not been shown how a program which was never instituted could violate any limitations on use of the psychology laboratory. The College has not shown any deliberate failure or refusal by respondent to perform her duties within the parameters established by her department chairperson. (Testimony of Sicard, Humphries.) Alleged: Respondent failed to satisfy established criteria for the performance of assigned duties. No objective criteria have been promulgated to assess the performance of College faculty members. In the absence of such criteria announced prospectively, the College seeks to establish by expert testing that respondent did not cover the material required in an introductory psychology course; that she placed undue emphasis on biofeedback techniques; and that the grading system she used was inadequate. Although there is conflicting testimony on these matters, the testimony of Ronald F. Tikofsky is accepted as persuasive. Now a departmental chairperson at the University of Wisconsin, he obtained a master's degree in psychology, and took a minor in psychology for his doctorate. He taught in the Department of Psychology at the University of Michigan, where he became a full professor, and later served as chairperson of the Department of Psychology at Florida International University from 1971 through 1979. He has participated in the development of college curriculum, helped college instructors develop teaching techniques, and evaluated the performance of faculty members. His academic credentials are impressive, his testimony was objective, forthright, and credible. (Tr. 967-1017; R-48.) His opinions are accorded great weight. He opined that, in his profession, there is no consensus on any set number of concepts which should be taught in college level introductory psychology courses, that this properly follows within the discretion of the individual instructor. His review of the topics respondent covered during the fall and winter semesters of 1980 led him to conclude that she covered the basic materials of an introductory psychology course, and that the time she devoted to biofeedback theory and demonstrations was appropriate. After reviewing respondent's grading records, he concluded that her grading method was not unusual or unacceptable. Development of grading curves is an art, not a science; it involves the interplay of several variables and the subjective judgment of the instructor. Generally, respondent would take the class average, note the distribution, establish cutoff points for various grade levels, apply them to the data, and then apply a subjective factor. Mr. Tikofsky testified that the number of credit points assigned for completing outside projects was neither excessive nor inappropriate. These opinions of Mr. Tikofsky are expressly adopted. The College has not shown that respondent failed to satisfy any meaningful performance standard, announced either prospectively or retroactively. (Testimony of Tikofsky, Sicard, Humphries.) Alleged:. Respondent failed to comply with directives for required improvements that were set forth in her yearly personnel evaluations. As already mentioned above, the yearly personnel evaluations contained "goals and objectives," not "directives." These goals and objectives were the product of discussion and negotiation between the department chairperson and instructor; some were considered mandatory, others not. Those that originated with the instructor lacked mandatory effect. The three goals and objectives concerning biofeedback--contained on respondent's 1979 personnel evaluation form--originated with the respondent. She made a good faith effort to complete or completed each of those biofeedback goals. The remaining six goals and objectives were satisfied by respondent. As to the 1978 personnel evaluation, most, if not all, of the listed goals and objectives were satisfied. Her next evaluation--where she was rated unsatisfactory--does not fault her for failing to meet any 1978 goal or objective. The evidence does not show that respondent failed to satisfy any goal or objective which was listed on her evaluation and clearly understood--at the time--to be a directive, rather than an end toward which effort should be directed. (Testimony of Sicard, Humphries; P-315, P-474.) Alleged: The level of instruction in respondent's classes was below reasonable minimum standards. This charge overlaps with paragraph E above, and H below. The College has not established or published any objective minimum standards to measure an instructor's performance. Respondent used a standard approach to teaching introductory psychology: she used a vocabulary or concept list for each chapter of the textbook and gave frequent objective tests. Her classes were structured and well-disciplined. Her students were generally satisfied with her performance and compared her favorably to other instructors at the College. Those who went on to take more advanced psychology courses made grades similar to or better than those they received from respondent. Ms. Fleckman helped her to improve her teaching techniques. When Ms. Fleckman observed her teaching in 1979, she could offer only a few suggestions and rated her 8 on a 10-point performance scale. Videotapes of respondent teaching her classes were viewed at hearing. After reviewing the tapes, Mr. Tikofsky opined that respondent was an adequate and competent classroom instructor. His opinion is accepted as persuasive. The videotapes demonstrate convincingly that respondent delivers lectures in an organized, methodical fashion and that she has the attention of her students. The tapes further show that she takes her teaching responsibilities seriously, is genuinely interested in the subject matter, and that she tries to relate and respond to her students. In light of the above, and the findings contained in paragraph E above, it is concluded that respondent's level of instruction in her classes did not fall below reasonable minimum standards, either announced prospectively or applied retroactively. (Testimony of Humphries, Tikofsky, Fleckman, Signorelli.) Alleged: Students in respondent's classes were deprived of required course material. This charge overlaps charges contained in paragraphs E and G above, and the findings relating to those charges also apply here. During the fall and winter of 1980, Mr. Tikofsky opined that respondent covered the topics appropriate to a college level introductory psychology course. His opinion is accepted as persuasive. The topics which should be covered are left up to the individual psychology instructor. The College does not specify the topics and materials that must be covered. When respondent was suspended near the end of the 1980 winter quarter, she had covered the material which--according to her own class syllabus-- should have been covered at that time. The charge that her students were deprived of required course material is unsubstantiated by the evidence. (Testimony of Humphries, Tikofsky; P-2.) Alleged: Respondent's classes were unstructured. As already mentioned, respondent's classes were structured and well disciplined. Ms. Fleckman conceded that her classes were structured. Students took copious notes and were able to organize her lectures into outline form (see paragraph G above). This charge is unsubstantiated by the evidence. (Testimony of Humphries, Signorelli, Stipulated testimony of Students.) Alleged: Respondent maintained little control over students. Respondent conducted her classes in a no-nonsense, businesslike manner. She welcomed questions from students, but she did not tolerate disruption. She was a disciplinarian and was respected by her students. This charge is unsupported by the evidence. (Testimony of Humphries, Classroom Videotapes, Signorelli, Stipulated testimony of Students.) Alleged: Respondent failed to maintain enrollment and completion rates at acceptable levels. The College has not established, prospectively, criteria to determine acceptable student attrition rates. Never before has a College instructor been recommended for termination because of an unacceptable attrition rate. Respondent's 1979, 1980, and 1981 evaluations--where she was rated unsatisfactory--concluded that she failed to "maintain enrollment and course completion at acceptable levels." (P-380, P-474.) Although she repeatedly asked Mr. Sicard for a specific attrition figure which she should meet, no figure was ever supplied. Mr. Sicard concluded that her attrition rate was "too high in relation to her peers." That conclusion is unsubstantiated. Her completion rate, over the years, was 51.7 percent, a figure which compares favorably with her fellow instructors: Alan Winet (56.3); James Killride (50.6); Margaret Casey (54.3); Dorothy O'Conner (44.4); Peter Diehl (44.4); Royal Grumbach (51.5); Lawrence Chernoff (45.2); Ronnie Fisher (42.5); and Harold Andrews (47). Moreover, between 1978 and 1980, her attrition rate was improving, sometimes exceeding 60 percent. It is concluded that, when compared with her peers, respondent maintained an acceptable student course-completion rate. (Testimony of Hansen, McCabe.) Respondent's Relationship with College Administrators Respondent was frequently at odds with College administrators. She petitioned the College for a four-day work week and a female professor's bill of rights. She appealed the College's failure to promote her and repeatedly accused the College of sexual discrimination. She was an outspoken critic, questioning and challenging the actions of College administrators. (Testimony of Sicard, Humphries.) Her relationship with administrators was marked by mutual distrust and became adversarial in nature. To avoid misunderstandings, she resorted to tape- recording her meetings with supervisors; her communications with administrators were increasingly reduced to writing. (Testimony of Sicard, Humphries.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent be reinstated as a continuing contract employee at Miami- Dade Community College with full back pay for the period of time of her suspension. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 1st day of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. Caleen, Jr. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of June, 1982.
Findings Of Fact George Jenkins filed an application for licensure with the Department of State for a Class "A" private investigative agency license. Jenkins is qualified in every respect with the exception of his experience, which is at issue and concerning which further findings are made below. Jenkins served in the Air Police of the United States Air Force from 1953 until 1957. He performed those duties generally performed by military policemen from November 17, 1953, until February of 1957. These duties are generally patrol and guard functions as opposed to criminal investigation. Jenkins worked for Montgomery Ward in Lakeland, Florida, for 1.5 weeks; Wooco in Lakeland, Florida, for 11 weeks; and Imperial Bank in Lakeland, Florida, for 12 weeks. His duties were those of a security guard. Jenkins worked in Florida for Wheeler and Associates from June 30, 1975, until June 30, 1976, repossessing cars. He then worked for Frontier International Investigations in Florida from July 1, 1977, until December 15, 1977, repossessing automobiles. Jenkins also repossessed cars for American Bank of Lakeland from 1973 to January of 1980; Barnett Bank of Lakeland from 1975 until 1979; Mid-Florida Schools Federal Credit Union from 1975 until February of 1980; First District DOT Employees Credit Union from February, 1975, until February, 1980; and Publix Employees Credit Federal Credit Union from July, 1974, until January of 1980. All these businesses are located in Florida. Jenkins seeks to obtain the Class "A" license to continue his business repossessing cars. The record reflects that he has been self-employed and employed by other Class "A" licensees to perform the business since 1973. While Jenkins is a full-time employee of the United State Post Office, there is no question that this has been a major part-time occupation. Jenkins' service with the United State Air Force together with his approximately six months' experience as a security guard and his part-time self- employment and employment with others repossessing cars would meet the total experience requirement of three years, and clearly well over one year of that experience has been in Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Department of State grant the application of George Jenkins for licensure as a class "A" private investigative agency. DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of February, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: W. J. Gladwin, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jonnie M. Hutchison, Esquire 145 East Haines Boulevard Post Office Box AL Lake Alfred, Florida 33850
