The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint. If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent held Florida teacher's certificate number 681506, covering the areas of Pre-K through Grade 3, which was valid until June 30, 1995. On or about November 4, 1986, Respondent was charged with battery by information filed in Dade County Court Case No. 86-79409. On December 29, 1986, following a non-jury trial, Respondent was found guilty as charged. Adjudication of guilt was withheld and Respondent was ordered to pay $77.00 in court costs. In 1990, Respondent submitted an Application for Florida Educator's Certificate to the Bureau of Teacher Certification of the Department of Education (Bureau). On the application, she checked "no" in response to the following question: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of nolo contendre (no contest) even if adjudication was withheld? Your answer to this question will be checked against local, state and federal records. Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of certification. Please Check One: Yes No If yes, you must give complete details for each charge. As Respondent was aware, her negative response to this question was untrue inasmuch as, in 1986, she had been found guilty of the crime of battery in Dade County Court Case No. 86-79409. In 1992, Respondent submitted another Application for Florida Educator's Certificate to the Bureau. On the application, knowing that her response was false, she answered "no" in response to the following question: Yes No Have you ever been convicted, found guilty, or entered a plea of nolo contendre (no contest) to a crime other than a traffic violation? A YES or NO answer is required by Florida Law. If you check the YES box, you must give the information requested for each charge In 1993, Respondent submitted a third Application for Florida Educator's Certificate to the Bureau. On the application, she knowingly gave false information by checking "no" in response to the following question: Yes No Have you ever been convicted, found guilty, entered a plea of nolo contendre (no contest), or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation (DUI is NOT a minor traffic violation); or are there any criminal charges now pending against you? SEALED or EXPUNGED records must be reported pursuant to s.943.058, F.S. Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of certification. A YES or NO answer is required by Florida Law. If you check the YES box, you must give the information requested for each charge. On February 7, 1994, while working as a teacher at Golden Glades Elementary School, a public school located in Dade County, Respondent was involved in an altercation with a student, C.K., in the doorway to Respondent's classroom.2
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order: (1) finding Respondent guilty of the violations of subsection (1) of Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, alleged in the Administrative Complaint, as amended, concerning her falsification of the 1990, 1992, and 1993 certification applications she submitted to the Bureau; (2) barring Respondent from applying for certification for a period of three years for having committed these violations; and (3) dismissing the remaining counts of the Administrative Complaint, as amended. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 29th day of July, 1997.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner filed an application for a Florida educator's certificate with the Respondent on June 17, 1989. In Section III of his application, Petitioner indicated that he held a permanent teaching certificate from the State of New York that entitled him to teach nursery, kindergarten and grades one through six. Petitioner signed his application for certification under oath, and thereby certified that all information contained therein was true, correct and complete. On October 14, 1988, the Petitioner was served with a formal notice that proceedings were being instituted by the Commissioner of Education for the State of New York based on allegations that he had falsely claimed to the Greenport Union Free School District where he was employed in New York that he held certification as a school administrator and supervisor. Rather than participate in a formal hearing on this charge, Petitioner stated his intention to voluntarily surrender his teaching certificate in the State of New York by letter dated December 16, 1988. However, when he failed to surrender his official credentials and file a statement of surrender, the Petitioner was informed by letter from the New York Department of Education dated January 13, 1989, and delivered to his last known address by certified mail, that his teaching certificate would be revoked unless he surrendered his certificate and filed the required statement. Petitioner did not comply with this request, and as a result, his New York teaching certificate was revoked on March 28, 1989. The evidence in the record establishes that at the time Petitioner filed his application for Florida certification on June 17, 1989, he did not hold a valid teaching certificate in the State of New York. He had attempted to surrendered his teaching certificate on December 16, 1988, rather than participate in a formal hearing on charges of misconduct. When he failed to comply with the requirement of the New York Department of Education that he relinquish his actual teaching certificate and file a letter of surrender, his certificate was formally revoked on March 28, 1989. Petitioner knew, or should have known, that the information he provided, under oath, in Section III of his application for a Florida educator's certificate was untrue, incorrect and incomplete. Petitioner never challenged the action of the New York Commissioner of Education regarding the revocation of his teaching certificate in that state. He had been placed on notice that his failure to relinquish his teaching certificate and to file a letter indicating his desire to surrender his certificate would lead to revocation. Although the Petitioner sought in this case to discredit and contradict the allegations made against him in New York, the finality of the action taken in New York cannot be collaterally attacked in this proceeding. The merits of those allegations were never litigated in New York because Petitioner chose not to proceed to hearing. He cannot now, in Florida, attempt to litigate the allegations which he had every opportunity to contest in New York, but which he decided not to contest. His New York certificate was revoked due to his failure to surrender his credentials and to file a letter of surrender, as he had agreed to do on December 16, 1988, and that action is final and not subject to challenge in this proceeding. At hearing, Petitioner claimed that he had moved from New York to Virginia in early 1989, and never received the letter dated January 13, 1989, from the New York Department of Education warning him of the revocation of his New York license if he did not relinquish his credentials and file a letter of surrender, as he had stated he wished to do. However, this letter was sent to his last address of record in New York, by certified mail, and was signed for by a "J. Brown." Section VII of Petitioner's Florida application provides a character reference on Petitioner's behalf by "James G. Brown" who represents himself on said application to have been a friend of Petitioner's for 16 years, and whose address is shown as the same as Petitioner's last known New York address. Therefore, notwithstanding Petitioner's denial of having received the letter dated January 13, 1989, warning of revocation of his New York certificate, it is found that such notice was delivered to his last known address, and was received by the same person that Petitioner would have Respondent accept as a character reference on his behalf. Notice of the actual revocation of his New York license was also sent to Petitioner's last known address in New York. It can only reasonably be inferred that Petitioner's friend of 16 years, J.Brown, told him of the certified mail he had received and that, therefore, Petitioner had knowledge of the actual status of his New York certificate at the time he gave false information on his Florida application. Petitioner only reluctantly admitted, at hearing, that the information he provided in Section III of his Florida application was incorrect and untrue. Instead, he insisted that he had not intended to be misleading, but had simply not read the application carefully and had been hurried when he completed the form by signing it on June 17, 1989. By his demeanor and testimony, it is clear that Petitioner does not appreciate the importance of providing true, correct and complete information on an application for a Florida educator's certificate.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent's denial of the Petitioner's application for an educator's certificate be AFFIRMED by the Education Practices Commission. RECOMMENDED this 4th day of October, 1990 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of October, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-1405 Petitioner filed a Summary of Evidence, which has been considered, rather than Proposed Findings of Fact on which specific rulings can be made. Rulings on the Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-2. Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Findings 4 and 6. Adopted in Findings 2 and 3. Adopted in Findings 2 through 5. Adopted in Findings 3 and 6. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire 1408 North Piedmont Way Suite 100 Tallahassee, FL 32312 Clifford J. Evert, Sr. 8420 S.W. 3rd Court Apt. 201 Pembroke Pines, FL 33025 Karen B. Wilde, Exec. Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399 Martin Schaap, Administrator Professional Practices Services 325 West Gaines Street, Room 352 Tallahassee, FL 32399
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner’s Petition for Relief should be dismissed for failure to allege facts sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the Florida Commission on Human Relations (the “FCHR”) under section 760.10, Florida Statutes.1 1 Citations shall be to Florida Statutes (2020) unless otherwise specified. Section 760.10 has been unchanged since 1992, save for a 2015 amendment adding pregnancy to the list of classifications protected from discriminatory employment practices. Ch. 2015-68, § 6, Laws of Fla.
Findings Of Fact The Department is an employer as that term is defined in section 760.02(7). The Petition for Relief alleges the following ultimate facts, which are accepted as true for purposes of ruling on the Motion: I believe I have been discriminated against based on my race (Black), sex (male), and age (over 40). I also believe I am being retaliated against for filing a complaint with Florida Commission on Human Relations and in Federal Court. I have been working within the Gadsden County School system since January 2008 as a substitute teacher and have teaching experience. Around or on October 2020, I applied for a Social Studies position and was not offered an interview by the principal because DOE deliberately and maliciously held clearance letter to deny employment. Section 760.10 titled “Unlawful employment practices,” is the statute under which the FCHR exercises jurisdiction of the Petition for Relief. Section 760.10(1)(a) states that it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any individual “with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status.” The Motion states that Petitioner is not, and never has been, an employee of the Department. Respondent’s Chief of Human Resource Management, David Dawkins, conducted a system-wide search and verified that Petitioner has never been employed by the Department. Mr. Dawkins’s affidavit to that effect was attached to the Motion. Mr. Jones did not contest the contents of Mr. Dawkins’s affidavit. The Motion also references section 760.10(5) as a possible avenue under which Mr. Jones might seek relief against the Department. Section 760.10(5) provides: Whenever, in order to engage in a profession, occupation, or trade, it is required that a person receive a license, certification, or other credential, become a member or an associate of any club, association, or other organization, or pass any examination, it is an unlawful employment practice for any person to discriminate against any other person seeking such license, certification, or other credential, seeking to become a member or associate of such club, association, or other organization, or seeking to take or pass such examination, because of such other person’s race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status. In theory, the Department’s alleged “deliberate and malicious” withholding of Mr. Jones’s “clearance letter,” i.e., a Temporary Certificate to teach, could constitute a violation of section 760.10(5). However, the Department pointed out that after Mr. Jones applied for a Florida Educator Certificate, the Department sent him an “Official Statement of Status of Eligibility” on October 12, 2017. A copy of the Department’s letter to Mr. Jones was attached to the Motion. The letter informed Mr. Jones that he was eligible for a Temporary Certificate covering Social Science (Grades 6-12), if he completed the following requirements and documented them to the Bureau of Educator Certification (“BOE”): verification of employment and request for issuance of certificate on the appropriate certification form from a Florida public, state supported, or nonpublic school which has an approved Professional Education Competence Program. results of your fingerprint processing from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the FBI. Your employer will assist you in completing the fingerprint process. If your application or fingerprint report reflects a criminal offense or suspension/revocation record, your file will be referred to Professional Practices Services for further review. Issuance of your certificate will be contingent upon the results of this review. The Motion states that Mr. Jones submitted only the results of his fingerprint processing to BOE. Therefore, BOE was legally precluded from issuing a Temporary Certificate to Petitioner. Attached to the Motion was the affidavit of Daniel Moore, Chief of BOE, attesting to the fact that a request for issuance from a Florida public, state supported, or nonpublic school which has an approved Professional Education Competence Program is required in order for BOE to issue a Temporary Certificate. Mr. Moore’s affidavit is confirmed by Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-4.004(1)(a)2., requiring verification of full-time employment by a Florida school district before a Temporary Certificate may be issued. Mr. Jones did not contest the contents of Mr. Moore’s affidavit. Based on the foregoing, the Motion requests entry of a summary recommended order of dismissal because Mr. Jones’s pleadings and admissions of fact, including those in his response to the Motion, are facially and conclusively insufficient to prove that he was ever an employee of the Department, or that the Department’s failure to issue a teaching certificate to Mr. Jones was based on anything more than the ministerial operation of the Department’s own rule. Mr. Jones’s response to the Motion does not address, and therefore appears to concede, the Department’s statement that he is not and has never been an employee of the Department. Mr. Jones did not allege that he has ever been an employee of, or an applicant for employment by, the Department. Mr. Jones’s response does not address the fact that the Department’s rule forbids it to issue a Temporary Certificate without verification of full- time employment. Rather, Mr. Jones pursues an argument alleging that the denial was somehow based on his criminal record and that denial on that basis is discriminatory because of the disproportionate percentage of African American and Latino citizens who have criminal records in comparison to Caucasians. Mr. Jones claims that the Department’s stated reason for denying him a Temporary Certificate was pretextual and that the actual reason was racial discrimination premised on his criminal record. In a related case, Mr. Jones has alleged that the Gadsden County School Board declined to hire him because of his criminal record, and that this declination was a pretext for discrimination based on race, age, and/or sex. The merits of Mr. Jones’s case against the local school board and its subsidiary institutions are not at issue here. The question in this case is whether the Department had anything to do with Mr. Jones’s failure to gain employment by the Gadsden County School Board. The undisputed facts establish that the Department’s role in this process was purely ministerial. Had Mr. Jones secured employment, the school that hired him would have requested the issuance of a Temporary Certificate by the Department. By operation of rule 6A-4.004(1)(a)2., the Department would have issued the Temporary Certificate. The Department had no role in the decisions of the local school officials to hire or not hire Mr. Jones. It is found that Mr. Jones has not alleged facts sufficient to state a case against the Department under section 760.10, and that he would not be able to prove at hearing that he was ever an employee of the Department, or that the failure to issue a Temporary Certificate to Mr. Jones was anything more than the Department’s following the requirements of its own rule.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that the Department of Education did not commit any unlawful employment practices and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of July, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of July, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 Dan Saunders Florida Department of Education Turlington Building, Room 101 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Ronald David Jones 1821 McKelvy Street Quincy, Florida 32351 Paula Harrigan, Esquire Department of Education Suite 1544 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Petitioner Lawrence A. Longenecker formerly held a Florida teaching certificate, and was employed as a science teacher at Madeira Beach Middle School in Pinellas County until January of 1978. In January of 1978, administrative charges were brought against the petitioner by the Professional Practices Council (the predecessor to the Education Practices Commission) for the revocation of his teaching certificate. After a hearing before a Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings, it was found that petitioner had made sexual advances toward three female students on four separate occasions during 1977 and that petitioner was thus guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduced his effectiveness as a school board employee. The Hearing Officer recommended, by order dated November 25, 1980, that petitioner's teaching certificate be permanently revoked. Professional Practices Council v. Lawrence Longenecker, DOAH Case No. 80-1276 (November 25, 1980). By Final Order filed on February 2, 1981, the Education Practices Commission adopted the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order and permanently revoked petitioner's teaching certificate. Professional Practices Council v. Lawrence A. Longenecker, Case NO. 80-005-RT (February 2, 1981). No appeal was taken from this Final Order. In approximately March of 1983, petitioner filed an application for a Florida Teaching Certificate, which application was denied by the Department of Education. Its "Notice of Reasons" for denial, filed on June 30, 1983, recited the events which formed the bases for the prior permanent revocation of petitioner's teaching certificate, and concluded that petitioner had failed to demonstrate that he is of good moral character, as required by Section 231.17(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and that petitioner had committed acts for which the Education Practices Commission would be authorized to revoke a teacher's certificate. Petitioner was 28 and 29 years of age during the time of the acts which formed the basis for the prior certificate revocation. He is now 34 years old. Since 1978, he has obtained a Master's degree in personnel administration from the University of South Florida and has been employed in the area of retail management. He fees that he is now more mature and more wise and would like to return to his chosen profession of teaching school. During the pendency of the instant proceeding, petitioner visited Dr. Alfred Fireman for psychiatric counseling and evaluation on three occasions. It was Dr. Fireman's opinion that petitioner is psychologically fit to reenter the teaching profession provided that his behavior is monitored. He concluded that petitioner "was a suitable candidate for a probationary restoration of privileges." The Education Practices Commission has never reinstated a former certificate or issued a new teaching certificate to an individual whose certificate had been previously permanently revoked.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order denying petitioner's application for a Florida teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of March, 1984. DIANE D. TREMOR 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 9th day of March 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence D. Black, Esquire 152 Eighth Avenue SW Largo, Florida 33540 J. David Holder, Esquire Berg & Holder 128 Salem Court Post Office Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Donald L. Greisheimer Executive Director Education Practices Commission Room 125, Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated April 4, 2000, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the Commissioner is responsible for providing public, primary, secondary, and adult education teaching certificates in the State of Florida. At all times material hereto, Mitchell was employed by the Miami-Dade County School Board and was a teaching instructor assigned to Barbara Goleman Senior High School (BGSHS). At all times material to this case, an examination known as the High School Competency Test (HSCT) was required for students to qualify for a regular high school diploma pursuant to Section 229.57(3)(c), Florida Statutes. The HSCT is a secured test within the meaning of Section 228.301, Florida Statutes. That section provides, in pertinent part, that it is unlawful for anyone to knowingly and willfully violate test security rules adopted by the State's Board of Education for mandatory tests administered by school districts pursuant to Section 229.57, Florida Statutes. It is also unlawful to copy, reproduce, or use any portion of any secured test booklet in any manner inconsistent with test security rules. Id. A violation of Section 228.301, Florida Statutes, is a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than 90 days, or both. The Department of Education has adopted Rule 6A-10.042, Florida Administrative Code, which requires, inter alia, that tests implemented in accordance with the requirements of Section 229.57, Florida Statutes, be maintained and administered in a secure manner such that the integrity of the test shall be preserved and that tests or individual test questions shall not be revealed, copied, or otherwise reproduced by persons who are involved in the administration, proctoring, or scoring of any test. On Saturday, October 4, 1997, Mitchell was one of the teachers proctoring the HSCT at BGSHS. On that date, while the communications portion of the HSCT was being administered, Mitchell unlawfully gained access to the mathematics portion of the examination, which was to have been administered at a later date. Shortly thereafter, and before the mathematics portion of the HSCT was to be administered, Mitchell sent an e-mail message to four out of approximately ten fellow BGSHS math teachers, advising them that they would find a "blue gift" in their respective school mail boxes. Each of these instructors, unlike those who did not receive a "blue gift," were friendly with Mitchell, and ate lunch with her on a regular basis. Thereafter, Mitchell in fact provided a blue disk to each of the four teachers to whom the e-mail was directed. On each disk were many of the actual HSCT mathematics questions unlawfully obtained by Mitchell. The first of the teachers to review the contents of the "blue gift" immediately suspected that Mitchell had engaged in a criminal violation of test security law, and reported her suspicions to BGSHS' principal. Following investigations by appropriate authorities and the panoply of due process protections appropriate to each forum, Mitchell was convicted on the misdemeanor charge of having knowingly and willfully breached the security of the HSCT, and her employment as a Miami-Dade County school teacher was terminated. The criminal case, State of Florida v. Margaret Mitchell, Case Number 04586-W, was tried to a jury before Honorable Caryn Canner Schwartz in the County Court in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, in June 1999. On June 28, 1999, following a week-long trial, the jury returned a verdict of guilty against Mitchell for her violation of Section 228.301, Florida Statutes. Mitchell does not dispute that the foregoing criminal and administrative proceedings were conducted, and that the charges against her in each case were sustained. Mitchell did not seek appellate relief with respect to either proceeding. Mitchell maintains here, as in both of the previous proceedings, that she did not intend to violate test security procedures. She claims that she innocently copied and distributed what she thought was an authorized practice test. Mitchell did not offer her innocent mistake defense to anyone until two months after her crime was revealed. Mitchell's claims of innocence are inconsistent with her conduct and demeanor when she was first confronted with the allegations against her, as well as the known facts and circumstances surrounding the HSCT security breach. In addition, Mitchell's testimony at final hearing in this proceeding with respect to her innocent mistake defense is unworthy of belief. Mitchell's demeanor while testifying was deceptive, and her testimony was inconsistent with the known facts and circumstances surrounding the HSCT security breach. At Mitchell's criminal sentencing, Judge Schwartz noted that the jury's guilty verdict was supported by evidence which was "overwhelming" and assessed a fine of $1,000, court costs, and ordered Mitchell to serve 90 days house arrest and six months probation. On February 10, 1999, the Miami-Dade County School Board initiated dismissal proceedings against Mitchell and, on December 28, 1999, Administrative Law Judge William J. Kendrick sustained the dismissal. In his Recommended Order, Judge Kendrick concluded, in pertinent part: Here, it should not be subject to debate that Respondent’s act of knowingly and willfully reproducing the mathematics portion of the 1997 HSCT and providing copies of that test to her fellow teachers constituted an act of immorality and misconduct in office; that such conduct was sufficiently notorious to bring Respondent into public disgrace or disrespect and impair her service in the community; and that such conduct was so serious as to impair her effectiveness in the school system. It should also not be subject to debate that, upon conviction of the crime for breach of test security, Respondent, as an educator, was also shown to have been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. (P.4 at 10-11.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered revoking the teaching certificate of the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 5th day of March, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Lisa N. Pearson, Esquire United Teachers of Dade 2929 Southwest Third Avenue Coral Way Miami, Florida 33129 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Whitelock & Associates, P.A. 300 Southeast 13th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Jerry W. Whittier, Chief Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed against her, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her, if any.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Adela Popescu holds Florida Educator's Certificate 876674 covering the area of mathematics, which was valid through June 30, 2006. She was employed by the Broward County School District as a math teacher. The Florida Teacher Certification Examination ("FTCE") is a statewide examination. It is given four times a year at multiple locations. The Department of Education contracts with the Institute of Instructional Research and Practice of the University of South Florida to administer the examination, and the Institute contracts with persons to serve as room proctors and to grade the essay part of the general knowledge portion of the examination. The general knowledge portion of the examination is a basic skills test. Respondent applied to take the general knowledge portion of the test on April 16, 2005. That portion required the examinees to write a short essay on a choice of topics. The Department provided to Respondent, along with her admission card allowing her to take the examination, the Department's written guidelines prohibiting cheating on the examination and itemizing some activities considered cheating following the words "including but not limited to." Respondent took the essay portion of the general knowledge examination on April 16, 2005. At the beginning of the examination, the examinees were given written instructions. The instructions specifically provided: "You will have 50 minutes to plan, write, and proofread an ORIGINAL essay on one of the two topics presented below." Two topics were presented and then the following sentence provided: "Read the two topics again and select the one on which you wish to write your ORIGINAL essay." The word "original" was in capital letters in both sentences. In addition to the written instructions, the room supervisor for the test read the following instructions to the group of examinees: You must write an original essay that specifically and directly responds to the topic you select. Pre-prepared essays that are discovered to contain memorized sentences or passages will be marked accordingly. For example, if the essay raters discover passages that appear in two or more essays, the essays will be brought to the attention of the Florida Department of Education. The above-quoted language was read three times in succession in order to emphasize the need to write an original essay. Therefore, the requirement that the essay be original was presented to the examinees two times in writing and three times verbally, for a total of five times. There was no minimum or maximum length to the essay. The topics given required no particular level of knowledge of anything; rather, the topics were akin to asking an elementary school student to write an essay on what the child did during the summer vacation. It is surprising to find such a basic task on an examination given to college graduates, but at hearing the Department presented testimony to the effect that it is only trying to ascertain if the examinee can communicate extemporaneously, i.e., whether he or she is capable of writing a note to a student's parents. The five-paragraph-long essay that Respondent turned in as her original work is virtually identical to an essay the Department has seen so many times that Department staff refer to it as "the lush green hills essay." Admitted in evidence were the essays of three examinees who took the exam prior to Respondent and two examinees who took the exam on the same date. The primary differences in the essays arise from inferior skills in the English language so, for example, one examinee wrote "the lunch green hills," Respondent wrote "the lash green hills," one examinee apparently forgot that the green hills were "lush," and one examinee apparently thought there was only one hill. Otherwise, there are few differences in the essays. Respondent's essay was flagged by the essay readers, referred to the chief reader, and then forwarded to the Department. The Department agreed with the determination that the essay was not "original," that Respondent had cheated on the examination, and that her essay should be declared invalid. The Department so advised Respondent by letter dated May 16, 2005. In addition to advising Respondent that her score on the essay subtest of the general knowledge examination was invalid, the Department also advised Respondent that she had a right to an administrative hearing on that determination. Respondent did request an administrative hearing, and the case was transferred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned Case No. 05-2318. Before the final hearing in that case, Respondent filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of her request for a hearing. There is a dearth of evidence in the record in this cause as to how or when Respondent was issued a Florida Educator's Certificate. However, the parties have stipulated that she was licensed, with her license expiring June 30, 2006. Prior to that date, the Commissioner of Education issued the Amended Administrative Complaint which is the subject of this proceeding. There is no evidence as to how Respondent plagiarized someone else's work: whether she brought it into the examination, whether she memorized it, or whether she obtained it through the use of technology. The method she used to cheat, however, is irrelevant since she represented someone else's work as her own and admits it was not an original essay. Shortly before the final hearing in this cause, the parties filed a number of motions typically designed to resolve a case without the need for a hearing. Petitioner argued that jurisdiction over this matter should be relinquished since by Respondent's admission that she did not turn in an original essay, which constituted cheating, there were no longer genuine issues of material fact. In opposition to that motion, Respondent asserted that Petitioner was relying on two policies which were required to be promulgated as rules but were not, thereby preventing Petitioner from taking disciplinary action against Respondent. Respondent alleges that the two unpromulgated rules upon which Petitioner relies are the definition of cheating, which appeared in the materials allowing Respondent admission to the examination, and the examination instructions, which required that an original essay be submitted and which were provided to Respondent twice in writing and three times verbally. Respondent did not raise these issues in her administrative challenge to the Department of Education's decision to declare her essay to be invalid, which would have been the appropriate proceeding since the question of whether she should be given a score for her essay or whether it should be declared invalid was the subject matter of that proceeding, not this proceeding. The two challenged policies, the definition of cheating and the essay instructions, are not rules and, therefore, need not be promulgated pursuant to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. Further, neither the definition of cheating nor the essay instruction is vague, and neither vests unbridled discretion in anyone. The words "cheating" and "original" are not statutory terms, requiring interpretation. Further, they are not specialized terms unique to the Commissioner of Education or the Department of Education. They are words of common usage. Copying someone else's work and representing it to be one's own is a willful and intentional act. It is also unethical and dishonest to plagiarize.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of Counts 2, 3, and 5-7, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed in this cause and suspending or revoking Respondent's educator's certificate for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT 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 23rd day of August, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street, Room 1224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Whitelock & Associates, P.A. 300 Southeast 13th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Mary F. Aspros, Esquire Meyer and Brooks, P.A. 2544 Blairstone Pines Drive Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
