Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by Respondent at the commencement of the 1975- 1976 school year as an industrial arts teacher at the B. F. James Adult Education Center. During the first days of the 1975-1976 school year, Petitioner was employed as a substitute teacher. On November 17, 1975, however, Petitioner entered into a written agreement with Respondent entitled "Contract for Part-Time Instruction." Pursuant to the terms of the contract, Petitioner was to be paid an hourly salary of $8.82 per hour. The contract further provided, in pertinent part, that: The number of hours of instruction will be based upon the courses offered for which the instructor is qualified, and assignment to teach such courses will be made by the county superintendent of schools through his designated adminis- trative representative. This appointment is contingent upon minimum enrollment and attendance in the course assigned. This contract may be cancelled at any time by either party upon ten days written notice. . . (Emphasis added.) During the 1975-1976 school year, Petitioner worked at least seven and one-half hours per day, five days per week, 12 months per year. Petitioner worked a regular day schedule with additional but irregular work performed at night. Like full-time teachers on an annual contract, Petitioner received his pay on a monthly basis. However, as indicated above Petitioner was paid an hourly salary, whereas teachers on either annual or continuing contracts were paid according to a salary schedule negotiated between Respondent and the Broward County Classroom Teachers Association, Inc. In addition, as earlier indicated, Petitioner's work hours were on an "as needed" basis, depending upon student enrollment, the nature of courses offered, and funding for particular programs of instruction. Full-time teachers on annual or continuing contracts were employed on the basis of a school year of not less than 196 days. During the course of the 1975-76 school year, Petitioner inquired of his immediate supervisor concerning the possibility of receiving an annual contract. The supervisor, in fact, recommended Petitioner for such a contract, but that recommendation was not acted upon favorably by Respondent. The record in this cause reflects only that there was "some problem" with Petitioner's personnel file which led to Respondent's decision not to offer an annual contract to him during the 1975-1976 school year. Respondent was again recommended, in a subsequent school year, by his immediate supervisor for an annual contract for 70 percent of a full school day, but again that recommendation was not acted upon favorably. Petitioner continued employment with Respondent during the 1976-1977, 1977-1978, and 1978-1979 school years. During each of those years, Petitioner continued to work at least seven and one-half hours per day, five days per week, 12 months per year. After the initial contract between Petitioner and Respondent for the 1975-1976 school year, however, Petitioner never received another written contract. He did, however, inquire on several occasions concerning his right to receive an annual contract. Respondent, however, never offered Petitioner annual contract status. Respondent classifies the contractual status of its instructional employees as either "annual," "continuing," or "part-time." Part-time employees, unlike annual contract and continuing contract employees, have not been given written employment contracts for at least the last five years. Recommendations to employ part-time instructional employees originate with Respondent's school principals, who transmit their recommendations to the Superintendent. The Superintendent, in turn, recommends the employment of part- time employees to the School Board. Part-time employees are recommended by the Superintendent and voted upon by the Board en masse in June of each year for employment during the following school year. As many as 1,200 to 1,500 part- time employees may be recommended for employment at one time. Once the School Board approves the Superintendent's recommendations concerning the hiring of part-time employees, those persons approved are thereafter available to principals to be hired at any time during the ensuing school year. Respondent places no limits on the amount of time part-time employees may work, notwithstanding their part-time designation, so long as students, courses, and course funding are available. When a course offered by Respondent and taught by Petitioner or other instructional employees similarly situated did not generate sufficient enrollment or failed to receive funding, the course was discontinued and the instructional employee's employment ceased. Sometime during the 1978-1979 school year, Petitioner met with his immediate supervisor to discuss his continued employment with Respondent. Ultimately, Petitioner received a letter advising him that his employment would be terminated at the conclusion of the 1978-1979 school year. Prior to his termination, Petitioner had never been advised, in writing, of any deficiencies in his job performance.
The Issue Whether Petitioner Rayburn should have been re-nominated and reappointed by Respondent as a teacher aide.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Doris Faye Rayburn was employed by the School Board of Leon County, Florida from 1973 to 1977: 1973-74 teacher aide, Nims Middle School; 1974-75 teacher aide, Nims Middle School; 1975-76 secretary/bookkeeper, Nims Middle School, later transferred during the school year to a teacher aide position at Nims Middle School; 1976-77 teacher aide, Nims Middle School. She was not reappointed for the 1977-78 term and thereupon filed a grievance procedure and then a petition for this administrative hearing. Petitioner's contract of employment as a teacher aide each year was for 180 days and included the right to participate in the State Personnel Retirement System to accumulate sick leave, and participate in the payroll deduction plan for 12 months insurance coverage. Thirty-six of the 165 teacher aides employed by the School Board in 1976-77 were not reemployed including Petitioner. The procedure for employment of teacher aides is by a recommendation from the Principal to the School superintendent, a nomination by the Superintendent and subsequent approval by the School Board. This procedure takes place each year for each teacher aide. Petitioner was not promised reemployment and was not reemployed. The principal testified that his decision not to recommend Petitioner for reemployment was not based alone on her comments to the Superintendent's wife or for things she had said concerning the operation of the school, although he was aware of her activities. There were some complaints about Petitioner "over- stepping" her job and posing as a counselor. After the expiration of Petitioner's last contract two assistant principals urged the Principal not to recommend Petitioner for future employment. Petitioner satisfied at least two guidance counselors with whom she worked. She is active and interested in school activities. Petitioner feels that she was not reappointed because of things she said concerning the school and its policies. She wanted to be reappointed and had so planned. Petitioner contends: Petitioner was denied employment as a result of exercising her first amendment right of freedom of speech. Mrs. Rayburn voiced her general concerns about the quality of education provided by the school system. These comments were within her right as a public employee, parent and citizen to publicly comment on events of community interests and her speech did not disrupt the efficiency of providing educational services. Section 231.141, Florida Statutes, gave Mrs. Rayburn an objective expectation in her employment as a teacher aide, protected by the fourteenth amendment. That she had "de facto" tenure and should have been reemployed. Respondent contends: Petitioner was a "non-instructional employee" and not entitled to tenure under the statutes. The fact that Mrs. Rayburn had been appointed to four previous years and the fact that 78 percent of the 1976-77 teacher aides were reemployed did not give Petitioner a constitutionally protected interest in continuing employment. That the incident of the comments Petitioner made regarding the school policy to the School Superintendent's wife was not constitutionally protected speech and that there is no showing that the Superintendent's decision not to again nominate her for employment as a teacher aide was related in any way to any speech or communication by Petitioner.
Recommendation Dismiss the petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of June, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Joyce Davis, Esquire Steven Seliger, Esquire Legal Services of North Florida, Inc. 822 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 C. Graham Carothers, Esquire Ausley, McMullen, McGehee, Carothers & Proctor Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Dodson, Esquire Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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 The issues in this case involve the type of contract (an annual contract versus professional services contract) Petitioner had with Respondent, how that contract was terminated, and when that contract was terminated.
Findings Of Fact The Division has jurisdiction to make findings of fact to determine subject matter jurisdiction. On September 26, 2013, the parties submitted a Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation in this matter that detailed their respective positions. In the Pre-Hearing Stipulation, Ms. Hernandez asserts that she was offered and accepted a professional service contract (PSC) to teach, effective at the beginning of the 1996/97 school year. She taught under the PSC for three years. At the beginning of the 1999/2000 school year, Ms. Hernandez became an assistant principal;2/ however, she resigned that position in October 2000. Ms. Hernandez returned to work as a teacher under an annual contract for the 2004/05 school year. After again working as an assistant principal for several years, Ms. Hernandez transferred to a teaching position before she requested and was approved to take a leave of absence for both the 2009/10 and 2010/11 school years. In March 2011, Ms. Hernandez notified the School Board of her intent to return to work for the 2011/12 school year. In April 2011, the School Board notified Ms. Hernandez that it was not renewing her employment contract. Ms. Hernandez contends that she was working under a PSC and there was not just cause for her termination or non-renewal of her contract. The School Board's contention is that Ms. Hernandez was on an annual contract, and thus it could terminate or non-renew her contract in 2011.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's request for an administrative hearing be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of October, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of October, 2013.
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated that for Fiscal Year 1987-1988, the vocational- technical-adult education division of the Pinellas County Schools suffered a $7,000,000.00 budget deficit. The parties further agreed that if Dr. Cecil Boris, Executive Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction were present, she would testify that she determined that as a result of the budget deficit, it would be necessary to eliminate $1,000,000.00 from the budget for the 1988-1989 fiscal year. She instructed her staff to implement that reduction based on two considerations. The first involved the cost effectiveness of individual programs and the second related to the need for the school system to service the community. The parties further agreed that in their respective departments, Mr. Poole and Mr. Muckle were the least senior instructors. Mr. Poole and Mr. Muckle both were continuing contract teachers at PVTI. Mr. Poole taught welding and Mr. Muckle taught heating, ventilation, and air conditioning. The terms of their employment are governed by the Agreement between The School Board of Pinellas County and the Pinellas Classroom Teachers Association, (Union), for 1985-1988. Other than the slots occupied by both Respondents as described above, and with the exception that as to Mr. Poole, a possible slot for him existed at SPVTI, there were and are no other open slots within the school system for which either Respondent is certified to teach. The parties agreed that the use of the term "open" means unoccupied by a continuing contract teacher or a teacher serving under a professional service contract. The parties further agreed that negotiations were conducted by the School Board with each Respondent in an effort to place him in other positions subsequent to his termination but the negotiations were unsuccessful. Pertinent Florida statutes relative to the issue here indicate that unless a teacher's contract is terminated for cause, it must be terminated at the end of the school year. Though the contracts of Mr. Poole and Mr. Muckle were not so terminated at the end of a school year, the parties agreed that failure was not and would not be raised as a defense to their termination. In November or December of each year, the various county school boards, including Petitioner, receive from the State the number of full time equivalents, (FTEs) they will be authorized for the following school year. A FTE equates to 900 hours of instruction per pupil and is authorized in various categories, including secondary education, post-secondary education, adult education, etc. If the Board feels the authorization allotted to it is inadequate or erroneous, it can appeal that allotment. Ordinarily, however, once the number of FTEs is received, the Board then examines the various programs it proposes to offer and establishes the number of units which it can employ for the coming school year. A unit equates to one full-time teacher. In addition, on the basis of the FTE authorization, the Board can figure what part time hour programs it can offer by the number of hours available to it. The post-secondary vocational-technical-adult education area is divided into several basic curriculum areas including, but not limited to, business education, distributive education, agricultural education, building trades, and health occupation education. The areas are not all funded equally but are weighted on the basis of projected student population relating to FTEs. The weights change year by year and the effect of weighting creates, in some cases, an opportunity to have a lower teacher/pupil ratio, (TPR). Some areas, by law, require lower TPRs. As a result, the weight for these programs is higher. Conversely, if the requirement is not as high, then the weighting given to the FTE is lower. When the Pinellas County School Board received its authorization for FTEs, a staff model implementing these authorizations was prepared by Dr. Herbert Ross, Assistant Superintendent for Vocational-Technical-Adult Education, under Dr. Boris' direction. This staff model, which defines where the FTEs are to be assigned, is prepared by the staff which, in doing so, evaluates the prior years programs, the TPR, the placement of students, and the future of the various authorized programs based on input from the various school advisory committees. This staffing model, when promulgated, is not fixed. If additional economies can be generated as a result of factors which occur later on in the school year, these economies will be implemented. By the same token, if a vacancy occurs subsequent to the preparation of the staffing model which does not warrant replacement based on projections of student population, the Board will not hire a replacement. The staff model pertinent to this case, prepared by the Division of Curriculum and Instruction, as it related to vocational teachers, reflects that SPVTI's staffing level for vocational teachers was to be reduced from 109 to 102 (7 teachers), and PVTI's teacher staffing was to be reduced from 120 to 111, (9 teachers). Elimination of these 16 teacher positions would result in a savings of $518,400.00. The entire reduction generated by staff reductions throughout the Division of Curriculum and Instruction totaled $1,085,612.00. The reductions identified in the staffing summary were based on the 1988 student load reports and the registrar's reports of enrollment in the various schools. Student load reports were not the sole factor considered. TPR's were also considered as were the number of sections in a program, (a program with one section only, involving one instructor, would not likely be cut as to do so would result in the loss of the entire expertise in that area), the various course placement records, the need for the course within the community, and other factors of a similar nature. When the evaluations were made, individual instructors were considered. The determination as to which programs required cuts generally resulted in identification of those programs with the lowest TPR being singled out for reduction. In this regard, Counsel for Respondent strongly contested Mr. Wagner's analysis of which programs were cut and why. Documentation prepared by her from records furnished by the Board in response to discovery would tend to indicate that many programs with a much lower TPR than either that of Mr. Muckle or Mr. Poole's classes were spared reduction while Poole's and Muckle's programs were cut. Mr. Wagner logically and reasonably justified each one of the judgement calls he made in determining whether a particular program should or should not be cut and no evidence was presented by Respondents to indicate that his judgement was incorrect or unsupported. Neither Mr. Wagner nor Dr. Ross played any part in the identification of the individuals who were to be terminated. Once the programs to be reduced were identified, they were forwarded to the school district personnel officer where identification of individual instructors was made on the basis of number of students, number of teachers, and projections for the future. Both the welding program, in which Mr. Poole teaches, and the heating, ventilating and air conditioning program, in which Mr. Muckle teaches, are in the same weighted category of courses, (trade and industrial). Based on the weight factors for trade and industrial courses, a unit, (teacher), needs a 12 to 14 TPR of full time students or part time equivalents. In making his identification of programs to be reduced, Mr. Wagner relied on several documents produced within his facility. The first is the registrar produced enrollment documents reflecting each course's student enrollment by nine week period, (quintmester or quint), for the prior two years. These quint rolls are prepared at the opening of each quint by the registrar from registration forms submitted by students for each class in session. As students come and go during the quint, adjustments are made as required. These forms, however, give the student enrollment only at the beginning of the term, and in order to get an accurate figure of class enrollment at any given time, Mr. Wagner periodically requests his instructors to prepare student load reports which list, by class period, the number of students each instructor has enrolled in his class and present on the day the report is submitted. Since some students are full time and some only part time, in determining the TPR, 3 part time students equal 1 full time student. This is a reasonable method of analysis. After making his study, Mr. Wagner identified the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning courses and the welding courses for reduction because these two technologies had been suffering a decline over several years. In fact, Mr. Muckle was warned that his job might be in jeopardy the prior year. In addition, whereas the institute had been previously getting central office support for various programs during a period of decline, this support was no longer forthcoming. When Wagner recommended cuts to the district personnel office, his recommendation was to cut a unit in the department. The choice of instructor was based upon seniority. The TPR in the heating, ventilating and air conditioning program had shown a pattern of continuous decline and enrollment at the time of identification was even lower than in previous years. Major appliances, a part of that program, had suffered a reduction through retirement of an instructor during the past year and this year, with the number of students enrolled being even smaller, it was necessary to cut an additional instructor. This same situation applied to the welding technology where though there was higher fluctuations than in heating, ventilating and air conditioning, the pattern of decline was consistent. Because of the impact that reduction has on the instructors within the system, the administration attempts, wherever possible, to do away first with vacancies. When those are gone, the remaining necessary cuts are attempted through attrition. In the instant case, Mr. Wagner cut two open units and got three more by not replacing retirements. Once these five units were cut, he was forced to look to annual contract teachers. A teacher who resigned was not replaced. Finally, when cuts were still required, it became necessary to look to continuing contract teachers to make up the difference between the six spaces mentioned above and the sixteen needed. Night course programs cannot be considered in the same category with day programs as they are "supplemental" programs. Teachers within these programs are usually part time teachers hired at an hourly rate. Mr. Wagner did not consider placing those teachers identified for cutting into the night program as teachers. Generally an instructor under continuing contract which calls for 25 hours of instruction per week cannot get enough teaching hours in a night program, (four nights per week, at four hours per night), to make absorption of the remaining nine hours cost efficient. Mr. Poole was not the only instructor identified for cut in the welding program. At the beginning of the identification process, four teachers were in the program, but Mr. Poole, the most junior, was identified and his position cut. That left three instructors. By May, 1988, Mr. Wagner had to recommend another reduction in that program, reducing the number to two and the prognosis was for even further decline. Even with the reductions imposed and identified for future imposition, it would appear that the welding program was not cost effective, notwithstanding Mr. Poole's testimony, uncontroverted, that it was well received in the community and the placement record for students coming out of the program was good. The May/June 1988 enrollment figures showed 25 students in the programs. This is just enough for two instructor positions. Consequently, when Mr. Wagner identified the third unit, rather than cut it, he transferred it to SPVTI along with the incumbent instructor effective July 1, 1988, the start of the 1988/1989 fiscal year. Mr. Poole was junior to that instructor. Quint reports for the HVAC program showed for the January - March 1988 period 49 students in the program with 7 teachers, generating a TPR of 7. In the previous year, there were 69 students at the beginning of the school year and during the same months of that year, the count was 75 students. Mr. Wagner projected that the student population would go down even further in the future. As for the welding program, during the January - March 1988 period, the program served 28 students with 4 teachers. At the beginning of the school year, the student population was 29 and during the same period for the previous year, it was 33. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning and welding were not the only programs identified for reduction during this round of budget cuts. Several others, including electromechanical studies and practical nursing were also reduced as were the architecture/civil program. All of these had TPRs of 10 or less. No program with a TPR of over 10 was affected by the cuts. Once Mr. Muckle and Mr. Poole were identified by the district personnel office for cut, Mr. Wagner looked to see if, consistent with their certification, they could be moved into another department. Mr. Poole is certified in welding and Mr. Muckle is certified in heating and air conditioning. Both are certified in related technology. However, both instructors are continuing contract teachers and changing to a related technology is not normally done for continuing contract instructors. Several departments at PVTI which have a lower TPR than welding and HVAC were not affected. In one case, Mr. Wagner reduced a teacher to a 10 month contract from a 12 month contract status and also generated 39 more part time students in an effort to raise the TPR and keep the course. One-teacher departments, even with a lower TPR, were kept open in order not to lose the expertise. In other cases, the nature of the student population involved might have justified keeping a course open even with a low TPR, (handicap). The determination as to where to impose cuts was, in most cases, a question of judgement wherein Mr. Wagner, as Director of the school, had to consider other factors in addition to the TPR in deciding where to recommend the cuts. Mr. Poole had previously taught at night and was willing to again teach at night on a part time basis. However, he had chosen to withdraw from teaching night classes in the past and notwithstanding he stated he had offered to teach them again, he did not communicate this to Wagner. As to whether Poole could be reassigned to the welding program at SPVTI, there are currently two instructors, (including a transfer in from PVTI), on board and at the close of July, 1988, there were only 9 or 10 students for both teachers. This does not justify a third teaching position for Mr. Poole to fill. Respondents, offered several statistical surveys of teacher/pupil ratios which indicate there are numerous programs within the school system which appear to have lower TPRs than either the welding or HVAC programs. However, numerous factors other than TPR were considered in determining and identifying various programs for reduction. There has been no evidence whatever to indicate that Mr. Wagner's judgement was inaccurate, incorrect, or flawed. There was no evidence that his decisions were either arbitrary or capricious or based on an improper attempt to impose an adverse action on either Respondent or to improperly give benefit to others.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the termination of employment of Respondents Jeffrey Muckle and Thomas Poole be upheld and their employment contracts with the School Board of Pinellas County be cancelled. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of September, 1988, 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 29th day of September, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 88-2005, 88-2008 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. For the Petitioner: 1 - 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3 - 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. 5 - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. 8 - 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. 10 - 11. Accepted and incorporated herein. 12 - 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. 16 - 23. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. For the Respondents: 1 - 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Sentence one is rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. The remainder is accepted. 7 - 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. 9 - 10. Accepted. 11 - 12. Accepted. Rejected. Information is available. The issue is one of credibility and weight. Rejected and irrelevant. Rejected. Petitioner admits some records are not complete. The issue, however, is not one of statistics but of concept and the evidence is clear that Mr. Wagner's decision was based on reliable evidence which fairly presented the overall picture. Rejected and irrelevant. Conclusion in last sentence is rejected. 18 - 19. Accepted but irrelevant. Accepted but not controlling. Accepted and incorporated herein. Explained. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted but not controlling. Accepted. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire School Board Attorney 1960 East Druid Road Post Office Box 4688 Clearwater, Florida 34618-4688 Charleen C. Ramus, Esquire Kelly and McKee, P.A. 1724 East 7th Avenue Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638
Findings Of Fact Petitioner graduated from high school in the People's Republic of China in 1972. She thereafter worked for a short time in a factory that manufactured Chinese medicines as a foreman. She became interested in Chinese medicine and enrolled in Kenchow Chinese Medical College, a nighttime professional university. She studied chemistry, biochemistry, and Chinese medicine. As a part of this program, she studied acupuncture meridians and points. For a full year, she spent two hours per day in classroom studies directly related to acupuncture and two hours practicing acupuncture as an apprentice. Thereafter, from 1973 until 1980, she worked as an acupuncturist for four hours per day, six days per week. She worked at a Chinese medicine industrial research center. In addition to her work with patients as an acupuncturist, she was involved in field studies regarding herbs and Chinese medicines and in the recording of statistics and research data. During this same time, the Petitioner enrolled in a correspondence course at Western Pacific College in Hong Kong. This program included courses in the basic theory of Chinese medicine, including courses specifically dealing with the theory and practice of acupuncture. The Petitioner enrolled at Western Pacific College so that she could receive certification as an acupuncturist. She already had completed similar work at Kenchow, and she was able to complete the course work by devoting approximately two hours per week to it. She received a certification from Western Pacific College that she completed the acupuncture course. The certification is dated January 20, 1980. In January, 1981, Petitioner moved to the United States. Since May, 1981, she has worked under the supervision of physicians performing acupuncture treatments in Volusia County, Florida. Petitioner appears to have sufficient education and experience to practice as an acupuncturist. The Department of Professional Regulation has not approved any programs of education in acupuncture or any apprenticeship programs in acupuncture. There is insufficient evidence in the record in this matter from which it could be determined that the programs offered at either Kenchow Chinese Medical College or Western Pacific College should be approved by the Department. Inquiries directed to the schools by the Department have not been answered, and the Petitioner has been unable to obtain transcripts of her course work. It cannot be determined whether anyone in any of the clinical portions of the educational programs attended by Petitioner were certified acupuncturists. The Department of Professional Regulation has not approved any apprenticeship programs for the practice of acupuncture. While it appears that Petitioner has an ample theoretical and practical background as an acupuncturist, it does not appear that prior to her coming to the United States she was ever supervised by a person who is licensed under Chapters 458, 459, or 468, Florida Statutes. Indeed, since all of her experience was in China, it is extremely unlikely that she was supervised by any such person. Petitioner has been practicing as an acupuncturist since May, 1981, under supervision as required under Chapters 458 and 459, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered denying the application of Lucy Wei-Nor Yu for licensure as an acupuncturist in Florida. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of March, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Assistant Director 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 9th day of March, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ms. Lucy Wei-Nor Yu 1360 Ridgewood Avenue Holly Hill, Florida 32017 Mr. Samuel R. Shorstein Secretary, Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether the School Board policy that requires full-time non-degreed teachers of vocational programs to pass a basic skills test as a condition of being certified by the School Board and as a condition of continued full-time employment in such programs is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, the School Board of Hillsborough County, Florida (School Board or Respondent), employs non-degreed persons to teach certain vocational subjects, including, health occupations and cosmetology. In or about May 1990, the Florida Legislature enacted Section 231.1725, Florida Statutes (2001), which authorized school boards to establish qualifications for substitute teacher, teachers of adult education, and non-degreed teachers of vocational education. By virtue of that provision, which became effective in 1990, non-degreed vocational teachers are not required to obtain state-issued teaching certificates required of teachers of non-vocational subjects in Florida public schools. Pursuant to Subsection 231.1725(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2001), school boards, including Respondent, are required to establish the minimum qualifications for non-degreed teachers of vocational programs. The School Board has established requirements for the employment and certification of persons seeking to be employed as non-degreed teachers of vocational programs. The requirements for certification include requirements not identified as the minimum requirements in Section 231.1725, Florida Statutes (2001). On or about May 22, 1991, the Division of Personnel and Human Resources submitted Agenda Item 3.02 for approval to the School Board. According to the "Agenda Item" form submitted to School Board members, the proposed policy concerned non-degreed full-time vocational instructional personnel, part-time vocational instructional personnel and adult education personnel. The form indicated that the proposed policy was required because Section 231.1725, Florida Statutes (2001), "absolved the state of responsibility of issuing state certificates for non-degreed full-time, part-time vocational and adult education teachers" and each school district was "responsible for determining both eligibility and district certification requirements for non-degreed vocational and adult part-time teachers." The rationale for the proposed policy was that "recent legislation [Section 231.1725, Florida Statutes] has resulted in the need to create a district certification process" for non-degreed full-time personnel, part-time vocational instructional personnel, and adult education instructional personnel. On or about June 11, 1991, the School Board held a public meeting in accordance with its policies and procedures, and state law and approved "the proposed policies concerning certification for non-degreed full-time vocational, part-time vocational, and adult education teachers, as necessitated by recent legislation (F.S. 231.1725) which shifts responsibility of issuing eligibility certificates for such personnel." The 1991 Agenda Item 3.02 consisted of three separate policies that were being recommended for approval by the School Board, for the following separate and distinct categories of employees: non-degreed full-time vocational instructional personnel; part-time vocational personnel; and adult education instructional personnel. The proposed policy and procedures for non-degreed full-time vocational instructional personnel provided the following: Policy: The School Board authorizes the employment of personnel to teach full-time in non-degreed vocational programs to comply with Section 231.1725(1)(c), Florida Statutes. Procedures: An applicant must hold at least a high school diploma or the equivalent and meet the established minimum competency in the area of assignment. The minutes of the June 11, 1991, meeting state that "the proposed rules will now go through necessary process including advertising and public hearing per Administrative Procedures Act," with a notation to "See minutes of July 16, 1991." There is no indication that this process was not carried out as noted. On August 6, 2002, at a regular meeting, the School Board considered and unanimously approved School Board Policy 6.25. Section 2 of School Board Policy 6.25, addresses certification of full-time and part-time teachers of non-degreed programs. The policy provides in pertinent part the following: FULL-TIME TEACHER CERTIFICATION (Non-degreed programs): The Office of Teacher Certification issues an initial 3-year nonrenewable temporary certificate in the same manner that state-certified teachers are certified. During the validity period of this temporary certificate, the teacher must produce documentation of the following to qualify for the professional certificate: Successful completion of the district's Preparing New Educators (PNE) Program. Successful completion of the State Professional Educator's Exam. A minimum of three years successful teaching experience. Successful completion of the (4) district certification courses listed below or their university equivalents. [1.] Surviving the First Year of Technical Teaching [2.] Special Teaching Methods for Technical Teaching [3.] Special Needs Student for Technical Education [4.] Philosophy, Practices and Management of Technical Education. Verification of basic skills by successful completion of the Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE) at or exceeding the profile established for the area of certification, or successful completion of another recognized test of basic skills accepted for state-certificated teachers. Upon receipt of the above documentation and of the appropriate application fee, the Office of Teacher Certification issues the full-time technical and career education teacher the 5-year Professional District Certificate that is valid for five years from July 1st of the school year it was issued. This certificate must be renewed in the identical manner that a state-issued certificate is renewed. According to School Board Policy 6.25, the School Board's requirements for certification as a non-degreed teacher of vocational programs include the successful completion of the Test of Adult Basic Education ("TABE") or successful completion of another recognized test of basic skills accepted for state certificated teachers, and successful completion of the Professional Education Examination. The School Board does not require the passage of these tests in order to meet the minimum qualifications for initial employment. The executive summary which describes the purpose of the superintendent's recommendation regarding School Board Policy 6.25, states in pertinent part the following: In 1990, by legislative action, districts assumed responsibility and authority for establishing employment and credentialing qualifications for teachers of non-degreed vocational programs and of part-time adult programs. The School Board originally adopted procedures in 1991 to address these matters. Various improvements and refinements to these procedures, many of which have paralleled provisions provided by statute to state-certificated teachers, have been adopted as sound practices over the years. The enclosed manual, "Guide to Hiring Teachers: Technical & Career and Adult & Community Education Programs," reflects these improvements and modifications. In accordance with School Board Policy 6.25, the School Board issues three-year temporary teaching certificates to full-time non-degreed vocational teachers upon their hiring. During the first three years that a full-time non-degreed vocational teacher is employed, the teacher must produce the documentation enumerated in Section 2 of School Board Policy 6.25 and listed in paragraph 10 above, to qualify for the district professional certificate. The School Board's requirement that non-degreed full- time vocational teachers successfully complete a basic skills test and the Professional Educator Examination is not a requirement of initial employment, but is required in order to obtain a district teaching certificate. The district-issued teaching certificate is a prerequisite for a non-degreed vocational teacher to continue full-time employment in such capacity. Non-degreed vocational teachers employed by the School Board on a full-time basis for three years may not continue such full-time employment unless they obtain a district-issued professional certificate by meeting the requirements of School Board Policy 6.25, which includes successfully completing the basic skills test. The School Board employs non-degreed vocational teachers on a part-time basis. Part-time non-degreed vocational teachers are not required to take a basic skills test under the School Board's current policy, and those teachers were not required to do so prior to 1990, when the State issued teaching certificates to this category of teachers. Pursuant to the School Board's current policy, non- degreed vocational teachers may be hired by the School Board to teach vocational courses on a part-time basis, and there is no requirement that they ever take or successfully complete a basic skills test. However, in order to continue full-time employment as a non-degreed vocational teacher beyond the initial three years of employment, the teacher must successfully complete the basic skill test. If the non-degreed vocational teacher fails to do so, that individual may no longer work as a full-time non- degreed vocational teacher. Petitioners are non-degreed teachers of vocational subjects who were formerly employed by the School Board as full- time, non-degreed teachers of vocational programs. Petitioners are affected by the challenged rule because each has been deemed ineligible for a district-issued certificate and for continued employment as a non-degreed teacher of vocational programs due to his or her failure to comply with one or more of the School Board's requirements for certification as a non-degreed teacher of vocational programs. Here, Petitioners failed to successfully complete at least one part of the required basic skills test. Non-degreed vocational teachers who are terminated or not rehired as full-time teachers because they failed to successfully complete the basic skills test may be employed by the School Board as part-time vocational teachers or as substitute teachers. The School Board employs substitute teachers in vocational subjects in the same fashion it employs substitute teachers for academic subjects. The only requirement to become a substitute teacher is a high school diploma and the completion of a ten-day training program. Although Petitioners failed to successfully complete the basic skills test requirement of School Board Policy 6.25, they are eligible for employment as part-time non-degreed vocational teachers or as substitute teachers. Petitioner McNeeley is currently employed as a part-time vocational teacher, and Petitioner Kennedy is employed as a full-time substitute teacher in a vocational program. Prior to 1990, non-degreed vocational teachers were employed in the same manner as degreed teachers. During that time period, the State of Florida issued certificates to both degreed teachers and non-degreed teachers. The State of Florida required all teachers, degreed and non-degreed, to take and pass the FUCOSE exam, which later became the Florida Teachers Certification Exam, ("FTCE"). From 1990 through 1991, Janice Velez, general director of Human Resources for the Hillsborough County School District, was part of a consortium of Florida school districts that worked together to develop a policy for the employment and certification of non-degreed vocational teachers. As a result of the work of the consortium, the School Board developed its current policy and procedures, which require non-degreed vocational teachers to take and pass a basic skills test.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner's academic record meets the academic requirements that are prerequisites to taking the Fundamentals of Engineering examination.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner submitted an application for approval to take the Fundamentals of Engineering examination. The Petitioner studied engineering at the Tongji University in the People's Republic of China from 1991 to 1995. He majored in Building Engineering and was awarded the degree of Bachelor of Engineering on July 10, 1995. Beginning in September of 1995, the Petitioner studied engineering at the graduate level at Tongji University. His graduate studies lasted until April of 1998, at which time he was awarded the degree of Master of Engineering with a major in Structural Engineering. During the course of his graduate studies at Tongji University from September of 1995 until April of 1998, the Petitioner completed a total of 38 semester credit hours. Those semester credit hours included the following courses with their indicated semester credit hours: Applied Statistics 2 credit hours Numerical Analysis 3 credit hours The courses titled Applied Statistics and Numerical Analysis are both higher mathematics courses. In the fall of 2000, the Petitioner began further graduate studies in engineering at Auburn University. He studied at Auburn University through the spring of 2002. The courses taken by the Petitioner at Auburn University included the following, with the indicated number of semester credit hours: Advanced Structural Analysis 3 credit hours Advanced Stress Analysis 3 credit hours Structural Dynamics I 3 credit hours Finite Element Methods in Structural Mechanics 3 credit hours The course titled Finite Element Methods in Structural Mechanics is a higher mathematics class. The other three Auburn courses listed immediately above, if not pure mathematics courses, are certainly courses which involve the application of advanced principles of mathematics. To successfully complete such courses, a person would have to be well-grounded in higher mathematics. In the fall of 2002, the Petitioner transferred to the University of Florida where he continued his graduate studies in engineering. On December 20, 2003, the University of Florida awarded the Petitioner the degree of Master of Engineering with a major in Civil Engineering. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15- 20.007 the Petitioner submitted his educational credentials to an educational evaluator approved by the Board. The evaluator selected by the Petitioner was Josef Silny & Associates, Inc. (Silny). Following its evaluation of the Petitioner's educational credentials, Silny prepared a Report of Evaluation of Educational Credentials (Silny Report) dated June 15, 2005. The Silny Report reached the conclusion that the Petitioner's undergraduate education at Tongji University was not the equivalent of a degree in engineering earned from a program approved by ABET. Silny was of the view that the Petitioner's undergraduate course of study at Tongji University was not equivalent because his curriculum was deficient five semester credit hours in higher mathematics and basic sciences and was deficient one semester credit hour in humanities and social sciences.1 The conclusions reached in the Silny Report were based on an evaluation of the Petitioner's undergraduate course work at Tongji University from 1991 to 1995. The Silny Report did not take into consideration any of the courses taken by the Petitioner during his graduate studies at Tongji University from 1995 to 1998, during his graduate studies at Auburn University from 2000 to 2002, or during his graduate studies at the University of Florida from 2002 to 2003. During his undergraduate engineering studies at Tongji University, the Petitioner completed 36 semester hour credits of course work in the areas of higher mathematics and basic sciences. Silny is of the opinion that semester credit hours completed at Tongji University represent less study than semester credit hours completed at an accredited engineering school in a university in the United States of America. Specifically, Silny is of the opinion that semester credit hours completed at Tongji University are the equivalent of only 75 percent of semester credit hours earned in accredited engineering programs in the United States of America. Accordingly, when Silny evaluated the Petitioner's undergraduate education credentials, Silny multiplied the 36 semester credit hours the Petitioner had completed at Tongji University in the areas of higher mathematics and basic sciences by a factor of 0.75, and concluded that those 36 semester credit hours were equivalent to only 27 semester credit hours at an accredited engineering program in the United States of America.2 Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.007 includes the following requirements regarding applicants with degrees from foreign institutions: Applicants having degrees from foreign institutions shall be required to document “substantial equivalency” to the 2002 ABET Accreditation Yearbook for Accreditation Cycle Ended September 30, 2002 engineering criteria. This document is hereby incorporated by reference. In order to document “substantial equivalency” to an ABET accredited engineering program, the applicant must demonstrate: 32 college credit hours of higher mathematics and basic sciences. The hours of mathematics must be beyond algebra and trigonometry and must emphasize mathematical concepts and principles rather than computation. Courses in probability and statistics, differential calculus, integral calculus, and differential equations are required. Additional courses may include linear algebra, numerical analysis, and advanced calculus. As for the hours in basic sciences, courses in general chemistry and calculus-based general physics are required, with at least a two semester (or equivalent) sequence of study in either area. Additional basic sciences courses may include life sciences (biology), earth sciences (geology), and advanced chemistry or physics. Computer skills and/or programming courses cannot be used to satisfy mathematics or basic science requirements. 16 college credit hours in humanities and social sciences. Examples of traditional courses in this area are philosophy, religion, history, literature, fine arts, sociology, psychology, political science, anthropology, economics, and no more than 6 credit hours of languages other than English or other than the applicant’s native language. Courses in technology and human affairs, history of technology, professional ethics and social responsibility are also acceptable. Courses such as accounting, industrial management, finance, personnel administration, engineering economics and military training are not acceptable. Courses which instill cultural values are acceptable, while routine exercises of personal craft are not. 48 college credit hours of engineering science and engineering design. Courses in this area have their roots in mathematics and basic sciences but carry knowledge further toward creative application. Examples of traditional engineering science courses are mechanics, thermodynamics, electrical and electronic circuits, materials science, transport phenomena, and computer science (other than computer programming skills). Courses in engineering design stress the establishment of objectives and criteria, synthesis, analysis, construction, testing, and evaluation. In order to promote breadth, at least one engineering course outside the major disciplinary area is required. In addition, evidence of attainment of appropriate laboratory experience, competency in English, and understanding of the ethical, social, economic and safety considerations of engineering practice must be presented. As for competency in English, transcripts of course work completed, course content syllabi, testimonials from employers, college level advanced placement tests, Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) scores of at least 550 in the paper- based version, or 213 in the computer-based version, will be accepted as satisfactory evidence.
Recommendation On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued concluding that the Petitioner has met the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.007, and is eligible to take the Fundamentals of Engineering examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of March, 2006.
The Issue The issues in this matter are whether Respondent violated section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes (2013),1/ by obtaining funds from Orange County in the form of a severance payment while remaining employed as General Counsel for the Orange County Clerk of Courts; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Stephan Carter, served as General Counsel for the Orange County Clerk of Courts (the “Clerk’s Office”) from June 2003 through April 1, 2014. Respondent was a public employee at all times material to this action. Respondent was personally hired by Lydia Gardner, the Orange County Clerk of Courts. In January 2005, Respondent and Ms. Gardner executed an employment contract (the “Employment Agreement”). The Employment Agreement was signed by Respondent and Ms. Gardner, in her capacity as the Clerk of Courts, on January 10, 2005, and January 13, 2005, respectively. The Employment Agreement, paragraph 6, entitled “Termination of Employment,” established that the Clerk would pay Respondent a fee should the Clerk terminate the Employment Agreement prior to its expiration date (the “Severance Payment”). Paragraph 6 specifically provided: The Clerk may declare this agreement terminated at any time. . . . The Clerk shall promptly pay to the General Counsel a sum equal to i) the salary and deferred compensation that is accrued but unpaid as of the date of the termination, plus ii) an amount equal to the pro rata portion of his salary for all accrued but unused leave time, plus, iii) an amount equal to the salary and deferred compensation that the General Counsel would have received during the 180 days immediately following the date such termination takes effect, as if this agreement had not been terminated. At the final hearing, Respondent explained that when he accepted the position of General Counsel (then titled “Legal Counsel”) with the Clerk’s Office in June 2003, he informed Ms. Gardner that he would only agree to work for the Clerk’s Office if he could be protected from losing his position. Therefore, Respondent sought and obtained the Severance Payment provision should he be terminated for any reason other than his voluntary resignation. The Employment Agreement provided that Respondent’s term of employment continued until January 6, 2009. On January 7, 2009, Respondent and Ms. Gardner entered a signed agreement wherein the Employment Agreement was “extended indefinitely.” On February 5, 2013, Respondent and Ms. Gardner signed a second amendment to the Employment Agreement.2/ This “clarification of terms” stated: [A]s to the definition of termination in paragraph 6, for the purposes of the contract, termination by the Clerk includes the ending of the employment relationship for any reason other than General Counsel’s voluntary resignation. The amendment also provided that an $11,000 annual payment into Respondent’s deferred compensation plan contained in the original Employment Agreement be considered compensation under Florida Administrative Code Rule 60S-6.001(15)(relating to pensions) and not a fringe benefit. In February 2013, Ms. Gardner became gravely ill. Ms. Gardner’s illness caused her to be absent from the Clerk’s Office. In Ms. Gardner’s absence, Colleen Reilly, the Chief Administrative Officer for the Clerk’s Office, assumed Ms. Gardner’s responsibilities. Ms. Reilly was hired in 2009. At that time, Respondent prepared an employment contract for Ms. Reilly modelled on his own Employment Agreement. In April 2013, Ms. Reilly approached Respondent to talk about their future employment with the Clerk’s Office. Ms. Gardner’s health was deteriorating. Respondent and Ms. Reilly discussed the impact of Ms. Gardner’s death on their positions. Ms. Reilly was also concerned whether the new Clerk of Courts would honor their Employment Agreements. Respondent and Ms. Reilly’s conversation led to a discussion regarding how they could protect the Severance Payments under their respective Employment Agreements. Respondent and Ms. Reilly considered several possibilities. One position was that their Employment Agreements would remain in effect upon Ms. Gardner's death, and they could ask the new Clerk of Courts to honor the payout terms. Respondent, however, determined that the Employment Agreements were not clear on whether he and Ms. Reilly were entitled to the Severance Payments following a change of administration. Therefore, they became concerned whether the new Clerk of Courts would be legally bound to honor the Severance Payments should he or she decide not to retain their services. Respondent, without seeking legal guidance or consulting with outside counsel for the Clerk’s Office, concluded that the Employment Agreements would terminate upon Ms. Gardner’s death. At the final hearing, Respondent explained that he considered his employment to be tied specifically to Ms. Gardner and not the Clerk's Office. Therefore, Respondent reasoned that because both he and Ms. Reilly were hired by and worked directly for Ms. Gardner, her death would terminate their contracts. This termination, of course, would also entitle Respondent (and Ms. Reilly) to the Severance Payment because his employment would have ended for a reason other than his voluntary resignation. Respondent and Ms. Reilly also discussed their plans once their Employment Agreements were terminated. Respondent informed Ms. Reilly that he believed that after the Employment Agreement was terminated, they could continue to work for the Clerk’s Office as “at-will” employees without employment contracts. Respondent encouraged Ms. Reilly to take her Severance Payment then stay in her position with the Clerk’s Office. He intended to do the same. Late in April 2013, Ms. Reilly informed Respondent that she was planning to visit Ms. Gardner, who was on convalescent leave at her home, to ask her to formally terminate the Employment Agreements and make them at-will employees of the Clerk’s Office. Respondent encouraged Ms. Reilly’s endeavor. Respondent then drafted two versions of a memorandum Ms. Gardner could sign to effectuate the termination of their contracts. Ms. Gardner, however, did not agree to terminate the Employment Agreements or sign the paperwork Respondent had prepared. Consequently, the Employment Agreements remained in effect. When Ms. Reilly was not able to obtain Ms. Gardner’s consent to terminate the Employment Agreements, Respondent began to consider Ms. Reilly’s authority to terminate his Employment Agreement. Respondent determined that Ms. Reilly could terminate his contract under section 28.09, Florida Statutes, and they could still receive the Severance Payments. Section 28.09 describes the appointment of a clerk ad interim in the case of a vacancy occurring in the office of a clerk by death. Section 28.09 states that the clerk ad interim “shall assume all the responsibilities [and] perform all the duties” of the clerk. Therefore, because Ms. Reilly would assume all the powers of Ms. Gardner, she would be authorized the terminate his Employment Agreement. Ms. Gardner passed away on May 8, 2013. On May 9, 2013, Ms. Reilly was officially appointed as Clerk Ad Interim for the Clerk’s Office. Also on May 9, 2013, Respondent and Ms. Reilly immediately took steps to obtain their respective Severance Payments. To effectuate their plan, Ms. Reilly promptly terminated both their Employment Agreements using her newfound authority as the interim Clerk. Respondent hoped that this step would remove any questions of their entitlement to the Severance Payment that might be raised by the new Clerk of Courts. Respondent then went directly to the Clerk’s Payroll office. There, he approached Tracy Gasinski, the payroll administrator for the Clerk’s Office. Respondent informed her that Ms. Reilly had approved him to receive a payout. Respondent declared that his payout was authorized because his Employment Agreement was terminated. Respondent also instructed Ms. Gasinski to pay Ms. Reilly’s payout under her Employment Agreement. Respondent stressed that he wanted both payouts processed immediately. Finally, Respondent advised Ms. Gasinski that nobody needed to know about the payout. Ms. Gasinski felt pressured by Respondent. However, based on his representation that Ms. Reilly had approved the payout, she immediately processed a final paycheck for Respondent (and Ms. Reilly), which included the Severance Payment provided in his Employment Agreement. Ms. Gasinski calculated a payout for Respondent in the gross amount of $110,290.61. This figure included a Severance Payment of $76,844.00. In addition, per his request, Respondent was also paid $27,822.10 for all his unused vacation leave (405.57 hours times a rate of $68.60), as well as $5,624.51 for his unused sick leave (327.96 hours times a rate of $17.15). Ms. Gasinski paid 25 percent of Respondent’s sick leave per Clerk’s Office policy. The next day, on May 10, 2013, Ms. Gasinski issued Respondent a check in the amount of $58,400.00 which was deposited directly into Respondent's personal bank account. Ms. Gasinski also deposited a final paycheck into Ms. Reilly's bank account. On or about May 20, 2013, however, Respondent returned to see Ms. Gasinski. He was not happy with his payout. Respondent told Ms. Gasinski that the amount she deposited was incorrect, and he was due more money. Respondent demanded several adjustments which would maximize his Severance Payment. First, referencing the February 5, 2013, amendment to his Employment Agreement, Respondent wanted the $11,000 he received as deferred compensation to be incorporated into his base salary thereby increasing his rate of pay. Second, Ms. Gasinski, in calculating Respondent’s Severance Payment, computed the final payout based on six month’s salary in accordance with the standard practice of the Clerk's Office. Respondent, however, insisted that his Severance Payment be calculated based on “180 days” as specifically stated in his Employment Agreement at paragraph 6. This mathematical adjustment increased Respondent's payout by including payment for all Saturdays and Sundays.3/ Third, Respondent demanded that he receive 100 percent payout for his remaining sick leave instead of just 25 percent as was the Clerk’s Office policy. Fourth, Respondent requested that 56 hours (7 days) be reserved in his vacation leave account and not paid out.4/ Following their meeting, Ms. Gasinski voided the initial payout check. However, she was not comfortable with Respondent’s request based on her understanding of employment contracts. Respondent's and Ms. Reilly's transactions were out of the ordinary course of business for the Clerk's Office. In her experience, final paychecks to Clerk’s Office employees were always accompanied by paperwork from the Clerk’s Office’s Talent Management division. This paperwork came in the form of an Employee Change Notice (“ECN”). However, Respondent did not produce, nor had Ms. Gasinski received, an ECN supporting Respondent’s payout. In Clerk’s Office accounting practices, Talent Management and the Payroll office act as a check and balance for each other. Typically, Talent Management initiates the paperwork, and then Payroll issues the checks. The normal process for a payout when a Clerk's Office employee leaves employment is for Talent Management to notify Ms. Gasinski who then processes the final payout. Respondent did not have the authority to direct Ms. Gasinski to issue the checks. Similarly, Ms. Gasinski did not have the authority to write checks to either Respondent or Ms. Reilly. Furthermore, a final payout upon termination is always via a paper check. Direct deposit to a personal bank account is never an option. The terminated employee picks up the paper check from Talent Management who verifies that the employee's garage pass and badge have been returned. Because of her discomfort with issuing Respondent’s payout check, Ms. Gasinski sought advice from her supervisor, Mike Murphy, the Chief Financial Officer for the Clerk’s Office. Mr. Murphy suggested that Ms. Gasinski contact Talent Management. On May 21, 2013, Ms. Gasinski spoke to Joann Gammichia, the Director of Talent Management, about Respondent’s request for a payout. When Ms. Gammichia learned of the situation, she had immediate concerns. First, Ms. Gammichia wondered why Payroll was issuing a check without any documentation from Talent Management such as an ECN. Ms. Gammichia testified that each employment activity requires completion of an ECN which acts as a recordkeeping system for the Clerk's Office. Because Respondent approached Ms. Gasinski in the Payroll office directly, no ECN or other written record was generated explaining why the Clerk’s Office was issuing the payout to Respondent. Ms. Gammichia explained that the policy of the Clerk’s Office is that payouts, severance checks, termination, or any kind of position change should only occur with an ECN in order to maintain and track the complete history of an employee's tenure with the Clerk's office. Ms. Gammichia also wondered why Respondent went directly to Ms. Gasinski with his demands. The normal starting point for employee changes begins with Talent Management, and the end of the line is financial services and Payroll. The fact that Respondent was attempting to verbally change his employment status in the Payroll office was “highly irregular.” Ms. Gammichia was also puzzled why the Clerk’s Office was issuing a severance payout on an employment contract when the employment was not ending. Consequently, Ms. Gammichia told Ms. Gasinski not to issue the adjusted payout check. Ms. Gasinski then notified Respondent via e-mail dated May 21, 2013, that she could not process the final payout until she received the proper documentation from Ms. Gammichia in Talent Management. Shortly thereafter, Respondent visited Ms. Gammichia’s office to inquire why she was involved in his payout matter. According to Ms. Gammichia, Respondent became “pretty aggressive.” Respondent told Ms. Gammichia that she had no authority or business being involved. It was a personal matter. Respondent warned Ms. Gammichia that she was directly violating an order from Ms. Reilly to make the Severance Payments. Ms. Gammichia informed Respondent that not only was she involved, but she was not authorizing the payout check to go through. Ms. Gammichia further advised Respondent not to contact Ms. Gasinski regarding the payout. Later that day, Ms. Gammichia contacted her supervisor, Cathi Balboa, the Director of Administrative Services for the Clerk’s Office, to discuss Respondent’s payout request. Ms. Gammichia relayed to Ms. Balboa that Ms. Gasinski was upset because she was being asked to prepare a large payout based only on verbal instructions without any supporting paperwork. At the final hearing, Ms. Balboa recalled that Respondent’s urgent request for a payout was highly irregular. Ms. Balboa relayed that the Clerk’s Office should not issue a final payout unless an employee was truly terminated from his or her position. Based on their concerns, Ms. Gammichia and Ms. Balboa called Ms. Reilly, who was sick at home, to confirm whether Ms. Reilly was aware of the payouts that Respondent said she had authorized. Ms. Gammichia also wanted to report the fact that Ms. Gasinski felt that she was being coerced and harassed by Respondent. Ms. Gammichia described Ms. Reilly’s reaction as hostile and negative. Ms. Reilly did not seem happy that others were involved. Ms. Reilly asked Ms. Balboa, “How did you get involved in this?" The next morning, on May 22, 2013, Ms. Reilly returned to the Clerk’s Office and called a meeting with Mr. Murphy, Ms. Balboa, and Respondent. Ms. Reilly opened the meeting by asking Mr. Murphy and Ms. Balboa "what do you think your role is in this organization," and "where do your loyalties lay?" Ms. Reilly then announced that “it was a private matter, it was their personal business, [and] to stay out of it." Ms. Balboa testified at the final hearing that Ms. Reilly intimidated her in their meeting. Mr. Murphy conveyed that he understood that they were not to get involved in the severance payout matter. After the meeting, Ms. Gasinski was told to proceed with the payouts for Respondent and Ms. Reilly. On May 23, 2013, Ms. Gasinski processed a second severance payout check for Respondent and Ms. Reilly. Ms. Gasinski prepared for Respondent a revised final paycheck in the total amount of $156,443.11. This amount included a Severance Payment of $106,387.20. Respondent was also paid $25,826.23 for his vacation leave (349.57 hours times a rate of $73.88), as well as $24,229.68 for all his unused sick leave (327.96 hours times a rate of $73.88). A check in the net amount of $99,125.45 was deposited in Respondent’s personal bank account. On May 23, 2013, Respondent repaid the initial payout of $58,400.00 to the Clerk’s Office by personal check. After Ms. Reilly terminated his Employment Agreement on May 9, 2013, Respondent never left his position with the Clerk’s Office. Respondent considered himself an at-will employee and continued to report to work as General Counsel. There was never any break in his employment. At no time did Respondent (or the Clerk’s Office) initiate or complete any paperwork to rehire Respondent after either Ms. Gardner’s death or Ms. Reilly terminated his Employment Agreement. No documentation was prepared transitioning Respondent from a contract employee to an at-will employee. Respondent continued to perform the same duties under the same terms, conditions, and compensation contained in the Employment Agreement as if he never left office.5/ At the final hearing, Respondent testified why his interpretation of his Employment Agreement justified his actions and motives. Respondent first remarked that his Employment Agreement was not typical for a Clerk’s Office employee. It contained certain provisions which were not to be “exposed generally,” such as the termination clause and the contact termination fee. Therefore, he desired to keep his employment terms quiet. Respondent further disclosed that he did not initiate an ECN because his Severance Payment was not a human resources issue, it was a matter of contract. Respondent also explained that at the end of 2008, when his Employment Agreement was nearing its initial termination date, Respondent became concerned with his future at the Clerk’s Office. He began to wonder what would happen if Ms. Gardner left her position as Clerk. Therefore, he prepared, then executed, the 2009 amendment to the Employment Agreement extending it “indefinitely.” In 2013, Respondent prepared, then executed, the second amendment clarifying the term “termination.” Regarding collecting his Severance Payment without leaving his position with the Clerk’s Office, Respondent contended that just because his Employment Agreement was terminated (thus, entitling him to the Severance Payment) did not mean he had to leave employment with the Clerk’s Office. Respondent characterized the payment as a “contract termination fee.” Therefore, he asserted that the Clerk could terminate his Employment Agreement without actually terminating him from his position as General Counsel. Consequently, nothing prevented him from becoming an at-will employee. Accordingly, when Ms. Reilly terminated the Employment Agreements on May 9, 2013, by exercising her prerogative as the interim Clerk, she also decided that both Respondent and she would stay on with the Clerk’s Office as at-will employees until the new Clerk of Courts determined what to do with them. In February 2014, the new Clerk of Courts, Eddie Fernandez, determined to initiate an investigation to review the propriety of the 2013 Severance Payments to Respondent and Ms. Reilly. On March 28, 2014, Respondent was placed on administrative leave with pay. On April 1, 2014, after the investigation recommended that Respondent’s employment be terminated, Respondent resigned from his position with the Clerk’s Office. As a condition of his resignation, Respondent was not eligible for rehire by the Clerk’s Office. Respondent reimbursed the full amount of the money that he received as the Severance Payment from the Clerk’s Office. Commenting on the circumstances of his resignation and restitution, at the final hearing, Respondent urged that he did not act dishonestly, but, maybe he exercised bad judgment. Respondent also proclaimed that he received his Severance Payment because the interim Clerk ordered it, not by reason of his actions or conduct. Therefore, he personally never violated any duty of his office. Based on the evidence and testimony presented during the final hearing, the competent substantial evidence in the record establishes, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent acted corruptly, with a wrongful intent, in seeking and obtaining the Severance Payment when he never intended to leave his public employment with the Clerk’s Office. Accordingly, the Advocate proved that Respondent violated section 112.313(6).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent, Steven Carter, violated section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes; and that Respondent be subject to public censure and reprimand. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of January, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of January, 2017.
