The Issue Whether Respondent, University of West Florida (Respondent or the University), violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, sections 760.01–760.11 and 509.092, Florida Statutes,1/ by discriminating against Petitioner, Jacqueline R. Pinkard (Petitioner), based upon Petitioner’s race or in retaliation for her participation in protected activity.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a public university within the Florida State University System. Petitioner was hired by the University in 1998 in the Office of University Budgets (Budget Office) as a Coordinator. In 2004, Petitioner was promoted to the position of Assistant Director of the Budget Office. She received a pay increase simultaneous with the promotion and another pay increase shortly thereafter. She has received several pay increases throughout her employment with the University. From 1998 through June 30, 2014, the Budget Office was a stand-alone department, headed by Valerie Moneyham. In January 2014, Ms. Moneyham was promoted to Assistant Vice President in the Business, Finance, and Facilities Division. Her duties included continued oversight of the Budget Office until June 30, 2014. On July 1, 2014 the Budget Office moved under and became a part of the University’s Financial Services department. There were three employees in the Budget Office: Petitioner, Assistant Director, who is African American/Black; Pam Cadem, Senior Budget Data Analyst, who is Caucasian; and Josie Warren, Coordinator, who is Caucasian (collectively, Budget Office employees). All three Budget Office employees retained their position titles and pay rates upon moving into the Financial Services department. There was another employee in the Budget Office prior to the move named Lourdes Stevens. Ms. Stevens was a Coordinator who began at the University in 2012. Ms. Stevens left the University before the Budget Office became a part of the Financial Services department. The Financial Services department was and is headed by Colleen Asmus, Associate Vice President and University Controller. In her Complaint, Petitioner alleges several bases for alleged race discrimination and retaliation. First, Petitioner alleges that the University discriminated against her based on her race and retaliated against her when Petitioner’s former supervisor, Ms. Valerie Moneyham, issued a “poor” performance evaluation of Petitioner for 2014. Next, Petitioner alleges that her current supervisor, Ms. Colleen Asmus, “accepted Ms. Moneyham’s false and retaliatory evaluation as a means to justifiably deny [Petitioner] an equitable pay increase, position reclassification or promotional opportunity.” And, finally, the Complaint alleges that the University discriminated against Petitioner based on her race when, on December 12, 2014, Ms. Asmus created a position with “very specific ‘preferred’ qualifications . . . as a way to essentially tailor the job to fit a preselected employee or applicant,” who she believed to be “a white male from Financial Services.” The findings of fact pertinent to these allegations are set forth under three separate headings, A. through C., below. Petitioner’s 2014 Performance Evaluation The subject of Petitioner’s first allegation is her performance evaluation covering the period from July 1, 2013, through June 30, 2014 (2014 evaluation). The evaluation cycle for University staff is from July 1 to June 30 each year. Prior to the University’s 2013 evaluations, a different cycle and scoring system was used for performance evaluations. Due to the change in cycling, there were no evaluations for University staff in 2012. The University’s performance evaluation system is electronic-based. The evaluation contains three main parts. The first part is a self-evaluation by the employee. The second part is the supervisor’s evaluation, and the third part is a goal-setting section for the following year. In the second part of the evaluation, supervisors provide numeric ratings on a five-point scale on a series of eight work-related categories, and they also provide narrative feedback on an employee’s strengths and areas for improvement. Since 2013, the numeric scores have been averaged and the resulting number is the employee’s overall evaluation rating. Since 2013, the overall numeric ratings have equated to the following Performance Standards: 1.0 to 1.4 –- “Below” - Not Acceptable 1.5 to 2.4 –- “Below” – Needs Improvement 2.5 to 3.4 –- “Satisfactory” 3.5 to 4.4 -- “Above” 4.5 to 5.0 -- “Superior” It is the University’s standard practice for the supervisor of University staff positions to be the individual who completes those staff position evaluations if he or she was the supervisor for the whole period covered by the evaluation. Ms. Moneyham was the supervisor of record for the Budget Office for the entire period covered by the July 1, 2013, to June 30, 2014, evaluation. Labratta Epting, Human Resources Specialist in the University’s Human Resources department, advised Ms. Moneyham by email dated October 24, 2014, to complete the 2014 performance evaluations for each one of the three Budget Office employees. Ms. Moneyham completed the supervisor’s evaluation portion of the 2014 performance evaluations for all three Budget Office employees because she was their supervisor during the period of time covered by the evaluation. In the electronic performance evaluation system, the evaluations are housed under the name of the current supervisor. In this case, that was Ms. Colleen Asmus, for all three Budget Office employees. For the 2014 evaluation, Ms. Moneyham provided the evaluation information for each of the three Budget Office employees to Ms. Asmus, who cut and pasted the information into the electronic evaluation system. Ms. Asmus completed the future goals section of the evaluation for each of the three Budget Office employees because she was the supervisor beginning on July 1, 2014, and on into the future. In the 2014 evaluation, Ms. Moneyham rated the Budget Office employees as follows: Petitioner received a numeric score of 3.3 and a “Satisfactory” Performance Standard; Ms. Cadem received a numeric score of 3.8 and an “Above” Performance Standard; and Ms. Warren received a numeric score of 3.0 and a “Satisfactory” Performance Standard. In the 2013 evaluation, Ms. Moneyham rated Petitioner with a numeric score of 3.2 and a “Satisfactory” Performance Standard, Ms. Cadem with a numeric score of 3.8 and an “Above” Performance Standard, and Ms. Warren with a numeric score of 3.0 and a “Satisfactory” Performance Standard. In the 2011 evaluation, under the old scoring system, Ms. Moneyham rated Petitioner with a numeric score of 42 and a “Satisfactory” Performance Standard, and Ms. Cadem with a numeric score of 46 and an “Above” Performance Rating. As previously noted, the numeric rating system was changed for all staff evaluations after the 2011 evaluation. Ms. Moneyham increased the numeric score of only one employee from the 2013 to the 2014 evaluation, and that employee was Petitioner. She increased Petitioner’s numeric rating from 3.2 in 2013 to 3.3 in 2014. Petitioner’s Performance Rating was at the “satisfactory” Performance Standard level in 2011, 2013, and 2014. Petitioner testified that Ms. Moneyham’s comments on page 7 of Petitioner’s 2014 performance evaluation under the heading of “Supervisor’s Comments” were not discriminatory and were not retaliatory. Ms. Asmus’ Acceptance of Petitioner’s 2014 Evaluation Ms. Asmus received a copy of the October 24, 2014, email sent by Ms. Epting to Ms. Moneyham directing Ms. Moneyham to complete the 2014 evaluations for Petitioner, Ms. Cadem, and Ms. Warren. When Ms. Asmus met with Petitioner to discuss Petitioner’s 2014 evaluation, Ms. Asmus stated that she believed that they (Petitioner and Ms. Asmus) had started with a clean slate, which began when Ms. Asmus became Petitioner’s supervisor on July 1, 2014. Petitioner’s letter dated December 15, 2014, to the EEOC acknowledges this, quoting Ms. Asmus as saying, “I hope we can move forward with a great working relationship.” No evidence was provided by Petitioner showing that Ms. Asmus used the evaluation scores provided by Ms. Moneyham in the 2014 evaluation to deny Petitioner any benefit of any kind. Denial of Position Reclassification and Promotional Opportunities Interim Promotion In the Complaint, Petitioner alleges that Ms. Asmus used the “poor evaluation” as a means to deny her a position reclassification or a promotional opportunity. At the hearing, Petitioner testified that she should have been made Interim Associate Budget Director, or a similar title, starting when Ms. Moneyham was no longer physically in the same building as the Budget Office employees, which she said was during “Spring 2014.” She also testified that the interim position should have lasted either until Ms. Asmus became the supervisor of the Budget Office employees (July 1, 2014) or, alternatively, until February 2, 2015, when Mr. Djerlek became the supervisor of the Budget Office employees. Ms. Moneyham became Assistant Vice President in January 2014. No evidence was offered stating a more specific date of when Ms. Moneyham moved to a different building than the Budget Office employees. Petitioner did not offer any comparators for this allegation. Petitioner did not offer any evidence that any employee was made Interim Associate Budget Director (or similar title) in this situation. Petitioner admitted on cross-examination that Ms. Moneyham was the supervisor of record for the Budget Office employees until Ms. Asmus became the supervisor for the Budget Office employees. Ms. Rentz, the former University Associate Director for Human Resources, testified that there was no Interim Associate Budget Director or other position into which Petitioner could have been placed because Ms. Moneyham was the supervisor of record over the Budget Office employees until Ms. Asmus became the supervisor of record. That testimony is credited. 2. Reclassification In support of her allegation that she was denied a position reclassification, Petitioner submitted into evidence an email that she sent to her supervisor, Ms. Asmus, on December 11, 2014. In the email, Petitioner asked Ms. Asmus to reclassify all three Budget Office employees (Petitioner, Ms. Cadem, and Ms. Warren) and provide each of them with salary increases. On December 11, 2014, the three Budget Office employees had been under the supervision of Ms. Asmus for approximately five and one-half months. Petitioner’s email further stated that all three employees were well trained. Petitioner, however, provided no evidence either in the email or at the hearing that would reasonably provide a basis for reclassification or promotion of any of the three Budget Office employees. Petitioner did not offer any comparators for this allegation. No evidence was provided showing that there has been a position reclassification or promotion for any of the three Budget Office employees since being moved into the Financial Services department on July 1, 2014. The University provided credible testimony that seniority, or length of time in a position, is not, on its own, a basis for a promotion at the University of West Florida. Denial of Equitable Pay Increase Petitioner also alleged in the Complaint that Ms. Asmus used Ms. Moneyham’s “poor evaluation” as a means to deny Petitioner an equitable pay increase. At the hearing, Petitioner stated that she was denied an equitable pay increase when distributions were made to some staff under a 2013 Employee Pay Equity and Compression Program conducted by the University (Salary Study). Petitioner and the two other employees in the Budget Office did not receive a distribution under the 2013 Salary Study. The University provided credible evidence showing that approximately 25 percent of the staff received increases through the Salary Study, and that Petitioner’s salary was the only salary in the Budget Office that was above the benchmark for receiving an increase. On April 7, 2014, Petitioner filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC claiming that she was denied a distribution from the 2013 Salary Study based on race and retaliation. The EEOC found that the University did not violate discrimination statutes and issued Petitioner a “Right to Sue” letter on September 30, 2014. Petitioner did not file suit in connection with that EEOC discrimination charge. The University has not conducted any equity studies since 2013 and Petitioner has not been excluded from any staff pay increases since 2013. In May 2015, Ms. Asmus asked the Human Resources department to determine whether there was a pay inequity as to Ms. Warren’s salary. Ms. Warren’s position in the Budget Office was “Coordinator” and it remained “Coordinator” when she moved into the Financial Services office. Human Resources reviewed Ms. Warren’s salary against the other Coordinators in the Financial Services department. The Human Resources department determined that Ms. Warren was performing services similar to the Accounting Coordinators in the Financial Services department. The starting salary for an Accounting Coordinator in Financial Services is $45,000. Ms. Warren was earning $32,000 at the time. As a result, in May 2015, Ms. Warren’s salary was increased to $45,000, which is the level of the starting salary for Accounting Coordinators in the Financial Services department. No evidence was offered of a similar increase for Ms. Cadem. Petitioner’s current position is Assistant Director. Before she was promoted to Assistant Director, Petitioner’s position title was Coordinator. The position of Assistant Director is higher in rank than the Coordinator/Accounting Coordinator position occupied by Ms. Warren. Petitioner’s salary is approximately $15,000 higher than Ms. Warren’s salary at the increased level. There is no similar pay inequity in Petitioner’s position as there was with Ms. Warren. Petitioner’s salary is right at the midpoint of the five employees in the Financial Services department at the Assistant Controller/Assistant Director level. Petitioner is earning more than two of the Assistant Controllers and less than two of the Assistant Controllers. Petitioner did not allege or provide any evidence showing that her job duties were more complex than the two Assistant Controllers who have a higher salary than she does. Preferred Qualifications for Associate Controller Position During the fall 2014 semester, Ms. Asmus envisioned an improvement in the efficiency and consistency of the reporting functions carried out by the Financial Services department. She had noticed that there were overlaps and redundancies between the financial reporting area and the budget reporting area. She believed greater consistency in reporting could be achieved if these areas were merged. In November-December 2014, the Financial Services department began the recruitment process for an Associate Controller. The Associate Controller was to be over the reporting areas, which would include financial reporting (production of financial statements), budget reporting, and tax reporting. Florida’s State University System’s (SUS) minimum qualifications for an Associate Controller were posted as the minimum qualifications for the position. They are: Master’s degree in an appropriate area of specialization and four years of appropriate experience; or a Bachelor’s degree in an appropriate area of specialization and six years of appropriate experience. Although the SUS system allows additional requirements be added to the minimum qualifications, none were added in the posting of the Associate Controller position. The preferred qualifications for the position as advertised were: Master’s or Bachelor’s degree must be in an accounting related field. CPA License preferred. Experience with production of financial statements in a higher education setting preferred. Experience with tax accounting in a higher educational setting preferred. Familiarity with budget operations in a higher educational setting preferred. The preferred qualifications were all approved by Human Resources as being job-related before the position announcement was posted. After receiving an applicant pool from the first posting for the Associate Controller position, Human Resources for the University did not “certify” the applicant pool because the percentage of minority applicants was low. The position was posted again and was also advertised again in a publication geared to attract minority applicants. Although additional applicants applied, the percentage of minority applicants decreased. Nevertheless, because it determined that a good faith effort was made to recruit qualified female and minority applicants, Human Resources certified the pool after the second posting. Petitioner pointed out at the hearing that the January 2015 advertisement in the publication geared to attract minority applicants contained an application deadline of December 19, 2014, which was prior to the date of the advertisement. The University’s Associate Director of Human Resources provided credible testimony that the published application deadline was a mistake, and that she was unaware of the error when she certified the pool after the second posting. Ms. Asmus provided credible testimony explaining why each of the preferred qualifications for the Associate Controller position was job related. No contrary evidence as to any of the preferred qualifications was offered by Petitioner. Ms. Asmus advised the three Budget Office employees of the job posting and invited them to apply for the position. Petitioner met the minimum criteria for the position but did not apply for the position. All candidates who met the minimum qualifications for a position would have been considered for the position. Petitioner testified that she did not apply for the position because she did not meet the preferred qualifications. Petitioner explained that in 2012 she had applied for a position as an Executive Assistant in the University’s President’s Office, and she was not selected for the position because she did not have all the preferred qualifications. She said that she did not have event-planning experience. She said that based on that experience in 2012, she did not apply for the Associate Controller position posted in December 2014. Petitioner acknowledged on cross-examination that the Executive Assistant position that she applied for in 2012 was in the President’s Office and that the Financial Services department is in a different division of the University than the President’s Office. There were no limitations in the advertisement that would discourage an individual of any particular race from applying for the position. The advertisement stated on the bottom, “The University of West Florida (UWF) is an Equal Opportunity/Access/Affirmative Action Employer.” Mr. Djerlek was ultimately selected for the Associate Controller position. He is Caucasian and is outside of Petitioner’s protected class. Mr. Djerlek’s qualifications for the position were stronger than Petitioner’s. Mr. Djerlek had experience in all three of the areas that would be under the supervision of the Associate Controller: financial statements/reporting, budget reporting and tax reporting. Mr. Djerlek's background included a great deal of experience with financial statements, tax reporting, and budgeting, along with some budget reporting experience. He is licensed as a Certified Public Accountant. At the final hearing, Petitioner admitted that she did not have experience in two of three areas that the Associate Controller would be supervising: financial statements/reporting and tax reporting.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Complaint of Discrimination and Petition for Relief consistent with the terms of this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of May, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III 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 May, 2016.
The Issue Whether there exists just cause to suspend Respondent from his teaching position for five days, without pay, for "misconduct in office" and "immorality," as alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board is responsible for the operation, control, and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Broward County, Florida (including, among others, Piper High School (Piper)), and for otherwise providing public instruction to school-aged children in the county. At all times material to the instant case, Enid Valdez was the principal of Piper; Patrick Lowe, Robert Godwin, and Sharon Grant were assistant principals at the school; and Donavan Collins was the school's social studies department chair. Respondent has been a social studies teacher at Piper since 2002. He presently holds a professional services contract with the School Board. During the first semester of the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent taught three American History classes at Piper (during the first, second, and fourth periods of the school day). The previous school year, in or around February 2009, Respondent had ordered, in his own name, a 25-copy per issue subscription for the upcoming 2009-2010 school year to "New York Times Upfront" (Upfront), a magazine for high school students published by Scholastic, Inc., that Respondent believed to be an "excellent [learning] tool" from which his students could benefit academically. The total cost of the subscription (Upfront Subscription) was $246.13. Respondent planned to use the magazine in the classes he would be teaching at Piper the following school year. After receiving, in or around August 2009, 25 copies of the September 2009 issue of Upfront, the first issue of the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent distributed them to the students in his three American History classes for their review. He told the students they each would have the option of using Upfront, instead of School Board-provided materials, for class assignments, provided they paid him $3.00 to help cover the cost of the Upfront Subscription. He subsequently asked each student in his three classes whether or not that student wanted to exercise this option and noted on the class roster those students who responded in the affirmative (Upfront Option Students). For the next two or so months, he collected money (in cash) from the Upfront Option Students and recorded each payment he received. On October 22, 2009, using his debit card, Respondent made an initial payment to Scholastic of $124.00 for the Upfront Subscription (that he had ordered in or around February 2009). He made a second and final payment of $122.13 (again using his debit card) on November 3, 2009. The money Respondent collected from the Upfront Option Students was insufficient to cover the $244.13 cost of the Upfront Subscription. Respondent paid the shortfall out of his own pocket. Sometime in early November 2009, Respondent gave the Upfront Option Students their first assignment from the magazine (copies of which Respondent had distributed to the students). During the 2009-2010 school year, Piper had the following policy concerning the collection of money (Piper Collection of Money Policy), which was published in the Piper 2009-2010 Faculty Handbook: Money is never to be left in any classroom, storage cabinet, or office desk. Collected money is the responsibility of the teacher and is deposited with the school bookkeeper by the end of the day. A receipt will be given when the money is deposited. Money cannot be collected by any teacher unless the collection and distribution of the money has been previously discussed, planned, and approved by the principal's designee and the bookkeeper has been informed. All money must be deposited daily with the bookkeeper. (The document referred to in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Administrative Complaint as "Exhibit A" is a copy of the Piper Collection of Money Policy, as the parties stipulated at hearing.3 See pp. 66 and 67 of the hearing transcript.) Respondent was provided a copy of the Piper 2009-2010 Faculty Handbook prior to the beginning of the 2009-2010 school year. At all times material to the instant case, Respondent was aware of the Piper Collection of Money Policy. Nonetheless, in violation of that policy, he did not obtain, or even seek, the necessary administrative approval to collect money from the Upfront Option Students, nor did he deposit any of the money he collected from these students with the bookkeeper, much less inform her (or any school administrator, for that matter) of his money collection activities. The foregoing notwithstanding, his intent in acting as the conduit through which these students purchased issues of Upfront for use in his classes was to help the students achieve academic success, not to exploit them for his own personal gain or advantage. He never had any intention of doing anything with the money he collected from the students other than using it (as he ultimately did) to help cover the cost of the Upfront Subscription. It was not until on or about October 19, 2009, that the Piper administration first learned about Respondent's money collection activities as a result of discussions that Assistant Principal Lowe had with students in Respondent's classes. After having been briefed by Mr. Lowe regarding what these students had reported, Principal Valdez asked Assistant Principal Grant to speak with Respondent. During his meeting with Ms. Grant, Respondent admitted to collecting money from the Upfront Option Students to help pay for the Upfront Subscription, and he acknowledged that he had not sought approval from anyone in the school administration to do so. On or about October 26, 2009, Principal Valdez sent a Personnel Investigation Request to the School Board's Office of Professional Standards and Special Investigative Unit (SIU) through which she requested that SIU conduct an investigation of the matter. An investigation was authorized by SIU on October 28, 2009, and an SIU investigator was assigned the case a week later. On or about November 3, 2009, Respondent was provided with a letter from Craig Kowalski, the SIU Acting Executive Director, advising Respondent of SIU's "investigation into a complaint . . . regarding an alleged violation [by Respondent] of the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida, Rule 6B-1.006(2)(h) [sic],[4] to include the collection of money from students to purchase magazines." After the SIU investigation was completed, an investigative report was prepared and presented to the School Board's Professional Services Committee for its consideration. The Professional Services Committee found "probable cause." A pre-disciplinary conference was then held, after which the Superintendent, on August 10, 2010, issued an Administrative Complaint recommending Respondent's suspension, without pay, "for a period of five (5) days effective from June 3, 2010 through June 9, 2010."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board issue a final order finding that the charges against Respondent have not been sustained, dismissing these charges, and awarding Respondent any "back salary" he may be owed. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of July, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 26th day of July, 2011.
The Issue The issue in this case, a bid protest, is whether Respondent, Orange County School Board (the School Board), acted contrary to its governing statutes, rules or policies when it awarded the alternative education drop-out prevention services request for proposal number 1401017 (the RFP) to Ombudsman Educational Services, LTD. (Ombudsman) instead of Catapult Learning, LLC (Catapult).
Findings Of Fact Catapult is a limited liability company organized in Delaware. Catapult currently holds the contract in Orange County for the Alternative Education Drop-out Prevention program. The School Board is a public entity responsible for procuring services for the Orange County public school system. Ombudsman is a for-profit corporation duly organized in Illinois. On or about January 31, 2014, the School Board issued the RFP, "requesting solicitations from experienced respondents with a proven track record in providing alternative education services to students at risk of dropping out or [who] have dropped out from school and seek to return to continue their education." Originally, the solicitations were to be filed "no later than 2:00 p.m. EST, on February 24, 2014." The RFP included the following admonition and time schedule: The District will attempt to use the time schedule as indicated below. Note: References to Ronald Blocker Education Leadership Center (RB-ELC) address is: 445 West Amelia Street, Orlando, FL 32801. The below dates and times are subject to change. All changes will be posted to the Procurement website as they become available. January 31, 2014 Solicitation Date February 10, 2014 Re-submittal conference at 1:00 p.m. RB-ELC, February 11, 2014 Request for Information (RFI) cut-off February 24, 2014 Proposal opening at 2:00 p.m., RB-ELC, Lobby Conference Room Proposal will be opened and only the company names will be announced March 6, 2014 Evaluation Meeting Date (Tentative Date) (8:30 a.m.) March 7, 2014 Notice of Intended Decision (Tentative Date)(8:00 a.m.) March 13, 2014 Presentations by Respondents (Tentative Date) March 14, 2014 Notice of Intended Decision Date (Tentative Date) April 8, 2014 Board Recommendation (Tentative Date) On February 19, the School Board issued Addendum No. 1 (the Addendum) which provided the new solicitation deadline, highlighted in red ink, of "11:00 A.M., EST on February 26, 2014." Additionally, the Addendum advised the potential bidders (or vendors) of "changes/clarifications" to the RFP: "REVISED PROPOSAL PRICE SHEET, APPENDIX A" with the sentence, "Please ensure you submit your proposal using this REVISED PROPOSAL PRICE SHEET," and a paragraph addition to the "Scope of Services." These announced changes were also highlighted in red ink. The evaluation criteria for the RFP were provided in section 5, "Evaluation of Proposals." Potential bidders were advised that the PEC would receive, publicly open, review, and evaluate the proposals. Additionally, the PEC reserved the right to "interview any, all or none of the Respondents . . . and to require formal presentations with the key personnel . . . before recommendation of award." Section 5.5, "EVALUATION CRITERIA," provided: Only proposals that meet the compliance requirements will be evaluated based on the following criteria. Shortlist Possible Points Evaluation Criteria I. Experience and Qualifications 100 Maximum Value 30% Weight II. Scope of Services 100 40% III.MWBE/LDB4/ Participation 100 10% IV. Proposal Price 100 20% 400 100% The Procurement Representative shall calculate all scoring and determine a ranking of all respondents. The PEC shall determine if presentations/interviews are necessary. Note: The District will post an intended decision recommending Respondents to move to the next phase to be review [sic] by interested parties on the SBOC website at www.procurement.ocps.net. Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.57(3)b, Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Once the allowed time period has passed this phase of the process will be completed. Presentations/Interviews: Should the PEC members request presentation or interview from shortlisted respondents the following evaluation criteria will apply: Presentation/Interview Evaluation Criteria Possible Points Maximum Weight Value I. Planning/Delivery of Service 100 40% II. Firm Experience 100 20% III. Evidence of Student Achievement 100 40% 300 100% The Procurement Services representative shall calculate all scoring and determine a ranking of the shortlisted firms based on the presentation/interview evaluation criteria. The highest ranked firms will be recommended for negotiation and award. Timely responses to the RFP were submitted by six vendors: Catapult, Ombudsman, Atlantic Education Partners, Advanced Path, Excel Alternative Schools, and Driven Academy. These responses were reviewed by the PEC which was composed of School Board personnel with various educational based backgrounds. On March 6, the PEC evaluated all six proposals according to the RFP stated evaluation criteria: experience and qualifications; scope of services; proposal price; and MWBE/LDB. Four of the six bidders did not provide the pricing proposal as a percentage of full time equivalent. All six vendors were awarded zero points for the proposal price, and each received zero value for the proposal price. The justification for each bidder receiving a zero score was based on the School Board's procurement representative's inability to provide an "apples to apples" comparison of the six pricing proposals. Ms. Nido, the School Board's procurement representative, affirmed the School Board's position that when a proposal is non-responsive it is not scored. Here, all six proposals were scored. The PEC evaluated and ranked all six vendors. The PEC then posted its short list evaluation rankings, which included the short list evaluation form. Both Catapult and Ombudsman scored the same ranking: 64.2. Below the ranking, the following sentence appeared: "Committee agreed by consensus to invite Catapult Learning, Ombudsman, and Atlantic Education Partners for interviews/presentations." Additionally, below this sentence the following language appeared: "Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, or failure to post the bond or other security required by law within the time allowed for filing a bond shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under chapter 120, Florida Statutes." The 72 hour posting requirement will elapse on March 11, 2014 at 2:30 p.m. E.S.T. "The Orange County Public School Board is an equal opportunity agency." Catapult did not have a representative present during the March 6 meeting as Ms. Folsom, the local director, arrived late. It is the School Board's practice that if a member of the public appears late for an evaluation meeting, the staff will bring the public to the meeting room, knock on the meeting door and allow the public into the meeting. If the meeting is over, the public is not brought to the meeting room. No vendor filed a written notice of protest within 72 hours after the School Board posted the short list evaluation ranking. On March 6, the School Board posted a meeting notice that the PEC would meet on March 13 at 8:30 a.m. EST to hear the three bidders' presentations. Atlantic Educational was to make its presentation first, followed by Catapult and lastly, Ombudsman. The meeting notice also provided that the PEC would evaluate the three bidders' presentations immediately following the conclusion of the presentations. Later on March 6, Catapult made a public records request for all proposals submitted pursuant to the RFP. Catapult asked that the documents be sent via email or Catapult would have a staff member come to the "proper office" at the School Board. Catapult received the requested public records at its New Jersey office sometime after March 12, 2014. As scheduled, on March 13, the PEC met and heard the presentations of Atlantic Educational, Catapult, and Ombudsman, the three short list bidders. As set forth in the RFP, section 5.5., the criteria for the presentation evaluation included the following criteria: planning/delivery of service; firm experience; and evidence of student achievement. Four days later, the School Board posted the presentation ranking and presentation evaluation form. Out of a possible 100 points in each category, Catapult received 81 points for planning/delivery of service, 86 points for firm experience, and 83 points for evidence of student achievement, for a total of 250 points. Ombudsman received 88 points for planning/delivery of service, 87 points for firm experience, and 83 points for evidence of student achievement, for a total of 258 points. Below the presentation ranking, the following sentence appeared: "Committee agreed by consensus to enter into negotiation and contract award to the following vendor(s): Ombudsman." Additionally, below this sentence the following language appeared: "Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, or failure to post the bond or other security required by law within the time allowed for filing a bond shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under chapter 120, Florida Statutes." The 72 hour posting requirement will elapse on March 20, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. E.S.T. "The Orange County Public School Board is an equal opportunity agency." On March 19, Catapult filed its notice of protest and posted the requisite bond. On March 28, Catapult filed its formal written protest, the Petition, and thereafter on April 18, filed an Amended Petition.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that the presentation ranking that found Ombudsman to be the highest ranking bidder was not contrary to the School Board's governing statutes or the School Board's policies or rules, nor was it clearly erroneous, arbitrary, capricious or contrary to competition. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of June, 2014, 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 5th day of June, 2014.
Findings Of Fact This proceeding arises from a petition filed pursuant to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, that challenges the validity of Proposed Rule 6C2- 5.0021. STIPULATED FACTS Findings contained in paragraphs 2-9 were stipulated by the parties, and with minor editorial changes, are set forth as follows: Petitioner is Douglas A. Charity, a former doctoral graduate student in the Department of Economics at Florida State University. The parties have stipulated to Petitioner's standing to bring this action. Respondent is Florida State University. Respondent began a review of academic rules during 1992. By memorandum dated December 10, 1992, Steve Edwards, Dean of the Faculties, wrote to all Academic Deans on the subject of academic rules in the Florida Administrative Code. In this memorandum, Dean Edwards refers to the repeal of the academic rules and the incorporation of the University bulletin by reference. Attached to Dean Edward's memorandum is a draft list of those academic rules in Rule Chapter 6C2 - Academic Matters proposed to be repealed. An additional attachment to Dean Edwards' memorandum is a "Notice of Proposed Rule Amendment (Repeal)." [T]he memorandum provides [t]he purpose and effect of the proposed rule is: In that section 120.52(16), Florida Statutes, excludes curricula from the definition of a rule, all rules setting out university curricula are being repealed, as are the rules setting out admission requirements and graduation requirements. All subject matter set out in the repealed rules are contained in the various university bulletins, which are being adopted by reference. (Prehearing Stipulation paragraph 20). On April 1, 1992, Gerald B. Jaski [Respondent's General Counsel] wrote a memorandum on the subject of Administrative Rule Revisions to Dr. Robert B. Glidden, Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, and Dr. Steve Edwards, Dean of the Faculties. In this memorandum, Mr. Jaski states "Dean Elizabeth Muhlenfeld and Dr. Pete Metarko have suggested rule revisions which will greatly streamline the university rule scheme. According to Dr. Metarko, Mr. Carraway has been consulted and concurs with the suggestion." Mr. Jaski's memorandum also refers to the specific rules to be repealed and provides that rule 6C2- 5.002 will be amended to adopt by reference the General Bulletin, the Graduate Bulletin and the Florida State University Bulletin: Directory of Classes. Attached to Mr. Jaski's memorandum is a draft list of those academic rules in Rule Chapter 6C2 - Academic Matters, proposed to be repealed. An additional attachment to Mr. Jaski's memorandum is a "Notice of Proposed Rule Amendment (Repeal)". The purpose and effect of the proposed rule is provided as: In that section 120.52(16), Florida Statutes, excludes curricula from the definition of a rule, all rules setting out university curricula are being repealed, as are the rules setting out admission requirements and graduation requirements. All subject matter set out in the repealed rules are contained in the various university bulletins, which are being adopted by reference. The summary of this attachment provides that: The repeals shall be accommodated by the simul- taneous amendment of 6C2-5.002, Florida Adminis- trative Code, adopting by reference the university bulletin series. The various bulletins cover all subject matter presently addressed in the rules which are being repealed. (Prehearing Stipulation paragraph 21). By memorandums dated February 7, and 14, 1994, Gerald B. Jaski, advised the University President, Provost and various Vice Presidents on an update of the FSU Rule proposal. Mr. Jaski's memorandum of February 7, 1994, contained attachments titled "The Rulemaking Process Summary," "Document Requirements For Rulemaking," "Rulemaking Time Line," and "JAPC Checklist." (Prehearing Stipulation paragraph 22). By memorandum dated March 31, 1994, Gerald B. Jaski and Bjarne Andersen wrote to various academic program administrators, such as Dr. Charles F. Cnudde, Dean of the College of Social Sciences, on the subject of University FAC Rule update. This memorandum requested the administrators to review their rules currently published in the Florida Administrative Code as part of the process of repealing academic rules in the F.A.C. and incorporating the university catalogs and bulletins by reference. (Prehearing Stipulation paragraph 23). By memorandum dated April 8, 1994, Dean of the Faculties Steve Edwards wrote to Academic Deans on the subject of Academic Rules in the Florida Administrative Code. In this memorandum, Dean Edwards refers to his previous memorandum of December 10, 1992, on the same subject and requests a response to whether the Academic Deans object to repealing their applicable rules in the Florida Administrative Code and incorporating them by reference in the University Bulletin. (Prehearing Stipulation paragraph 24). Proposed rule 6C2-5.0021 repeals some of the current rules in Rule Chapter 6C2-5 - Academic matters, which rules contain university curricula, and other rules which contain admission/readmission requirements and procedures, graduation requirements, retention requirements, etc. The proposed rule additionally provides for incorporation by reference of University Catalogs and Bulletins and other various publications which "establish, contain or prescribe various academic and curriculum matters that include admission and degree requirements, course offerings, fields of study, academic calendars, facilities available to students, faculty and staff of the university, and other matters of educational delivery." (Prehearing Stipulation paragraph 26). OTHER FACTS The proposed rule reads: 6C2-5.0021 Academic and Curriculum Information; Course Offerings, University Bulletins, Catalogs, and Applications In addition to the adopted Florida State University administrative and operational rules published in the Florida Administrative Code pursuant to Florida Statutes, Chapter 120, the University publishes the following listed documents that are incorporated herein by reference which establish, contain or prescribe various academic and curriculum matters that include admission and degree requirements, course offerings, fields of study, academic calendars, facilities available to students, faculty and staff of the University, and other matters of educational delivery: Florida State University General Bulletin, 1994/1995. Florida State University General Bulletin, Graduate Edition 1993/1995. The Florida State University College of Law 1994-1995, Catalogue & Application. Study Abroad Programs. Florence Study Center Course Descriptions, Fall Semester 1994 and Spring Semester 1995. London Program Course Description, Fall Semester 1994 and spring Semester 1995. Costa Rica Program Course Description and Meeting times, Summer 1994 Information Guide to the Florida State University Panama Canal Branch, with the 1994- 1995 Academic Calendar FSU Panama Canal Branch. Those portions of the University Bulletins or Catalogs, which are not included in, or addressed by, a specific University rule as published in the Florida Administrative Code, have the force and effect of a rule by the incorporation of the text of the documents listed herein. In the event of a conflict or an inconsistency between any provisions of a Bulletin or Catalog and any adopted rule of Florida State University as published in the Florida Administrative Code, such published rules of the University shall prevail. The Bulletins and Catalogs of the University may also contain the academic calendar as set by the Florida State University within the general guidelines of the Board of Regents. Copies of the catalogs or bulletins can be obtained from the Florida State University, Office of the Registrar, Tallahassee, Florida 32306-1011. The University utilizes the following referenced application forms which may be obtained from the Florida State University, Office of Admissions, Tallahassee, Florida 32306-1009, for admission consideration to Florida State University: The "Application for Admission, State University System of Florida, Entering Freshman or Undergraduate Transfer" and instructional information contained therein (Revised 1993). See BOR rules 6C-1.012, F.A.C. The "Application for Admission to a Graduate Program, Florida State University" (Eff. 8/94), including instructions. "Application for Admission as an Inter- national Student to Florida State University" (Revised 4/93), with the accompanying forms "Confidential Report on International Applicant" (3/92) and "Confidential Financial Statement" (3/92) including instructions and the attached document entitled "International Student Inform- ation 1993/1994." Study Abroad Programs, Application for Admission (Florence, London, or Costa Rica), Form SAPA-00l (Eff. 9/94). The University bulletins and catalogs shall have prospective effect only. A student entering an academic program of the University before the published catalog date, when requirements for degree programs where different from those under newer incorporated Bulletin catalog dates may elect to remain under the earlier requirements for such a program if the pursuit of such degree or program requirements are continuous. Curriculum of the institution and academic policies and procedures of a particular school, college, department or division, including among other academic subjects admission, registrations, withdrawal, readmission, and graduation or certification requirements of particular academic programs are also currently described in various University documents available or supplied to each applicant for admission, a currently-enrolled student, or other interested parties. These publications include both the Florida State Univer- sity Bulletins, or Catalogs, and informational documents such as term or semester class schedules, the student handbook or the faculty handbook and all such other similar type documents which repre- sent a means to notice the flexible nature of the current curriculum, educational plans, offerings, and requirements which may be altered from time to time in order to carry out the purposes, mission and objectives of the University. The University reserves the right to change by rule, or order of the President or his Academic Designee, any provi- sion, offering, or requirement at any time within the student's period or study at the University. Material changes to the content of a currently incorporated document will be noted by supplemental amendments to this rule. The University further reserves the right to require a student to withdraw from the University for cause at any time. Pursuant to Section 240.227(1), Florida Statutes, Respondent has the authority, through the President of Florida State University, to promulgate rules for the operation and administration of the University. Section 240.227(1), Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part that each university president shall: Develop and adopt rules governing the operation and administration of the university. Such rules shall be consistent with the mission of the uni- versity and statewide rules and policies and shall assist in the development of the university in a manner which will complement the missions and activities of the other universities for the overall purpose of achieving the highest quality of education for the citizens of the state. Respondent agrees that the phrase "and all such other similar type documents which represent a means to notice" contained in subparagraph (7) of the proposed rule is vague. Respondent has filed a notice of change regarding subparagraph (7) which is now proposed to read as follows: Curriculum of the institution and academic policies and procedures of a particular schools, college, department or division, including among other academic subjects admission, registration, with- drawal, readmission, and graduation or certification requirements of particular academic programs are also currently described in various University documents available or supplied to each applicant for admission, a currently-enrolled student, or other interested parties. These publications include both the Florida State University Bulletins, or Catalogs, and informational documents such as term or semester faculty handbook, all such other similar type documents which represent a means to notice the flexible nature of those referenced in paragraph (1) of this rule. These documents reflect the current curriculum, educational plans, offerings, and requirements which and may be altered from time to time in order to carry out the purposes, mission and objectives of the University. The University reserves the right to change by rule, or order of the President or his Academic Designee, any provision, offering, or requirement at any time within the student's period of study at the University. Material changes to the content of a currently incorporated document will be noted by supplemental amendments to this rule. The University further reserves the right to require a student to withdraw from the University for cause at any time. With the exception of Respondent's admission to the vagueness of subsection (7) of the rule as originally proposed, no evidence has been presented, and accordingly no finding can be made, that the proposed rule exceeds the grant of rule-making authority contained in Section 240.227(1), Florida Statutes; or that the proposed rule enlarges, modifies or contravenes specific provisions of law implemented. The evidence presented, other than the change proposed and acknowledged by Respondent to resolve the ambiguities contained in subsection (7), does not provide a basis for a finding that proposed rule 6C2-5.0021 fails to establish adequate standards for agency decisions or vests unbridled discretion in the agency. In the absence of evidence that proposed rule 6C2-5.0021 is not supported by facts or logic, or that Respondent seeks to promulgate this rule without thought or reason, no finding of the proposed rule's infirmity on that basis may be made. The proposed rule, with consideration given the change noticed by Respondent for subparagraph (7), is not arbitrary or capricious.
The Issue Whether there exists just cause to terminate Respondent from his employment with the Broward County School Board.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is responsible for the operation, control, and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Broward County, Florida, and for otherwise providing public instruction to school-aged children in the county. James had been employed by the School Board for 11 years prior to being placed on unpaid leave in June of 2011. During the time relevant to the instant case, he was employed as a Behavior Specialist and as the head football coach at Boyd Anderson. He also served as the Athletic Director at Boyd Anderson for the 2009-2010 school year. Edden Merchandise During the 2007-2008 school year, Christopher Edden (Edden), owner of Edden Clothing Company, began to call local schools to develop some business in the Broward County schools. He spoke with James at Boyd Anderson because he was the head football coach, and made his sales pitch. James spoke with Rayfield Henderson (Henderson) and Joan Ferguson, the co-principals at Boyd Anderson, and explained that Edden could create spirit gear for the students. Ferguson and Henderson thought it was a good fundraising idea, because James told them that Edden was producing the spirit gear on a consignment basis. James told Henderson that Edden would produce the gear, and Boyd Anderson would only have to pay for the gear as they sold it. Henderson thought it would be a good idea to set up a "spirit gear store" at the school, and for any profit to go into the athletic department. Henderson approved the spirit gear project, and because of his belief that the spirit gear was being given to the school on a consignment basis, and no money needed to be put forth to purchase the items, he did not instruct James to complete a purchase order. Edden and James exchanged e-mails regarding the colors and design for the logo and mascot. James indicated the items he was interested in ordering, placed the order with Edden, and signed the order form. Edden told James that he required full payment within 30 days after delivery; Edden invoices state "due on receipt." James knew that payment would be due within thirty days of receipt of the items; Edden made the terms of payment clear to James. Edden created the merchandise, and delivered 30 to 40 boxes of clothing and other spirit gear to Boyd Anderson. The amount ordered totaled approximately $32,000.00. After invoices were sent and remained unpaid, James informed Edden that he was not receiving payment for the merchandise because Henderson was not willing to pay the amount due. Edden then started to communicate with Henderson directly, and Henderson maintained that he would somehow pay Edden the amount owed to him. In the Spring of 2008, Edden wrote letters to Henderson, indicating that he had yet to be paid, that he had tried numerous times to contact James with no response, and that he demanded payment in full. The school made many efforts to sell the merchandise, but those efforts were largely ineffective. Ultimately, Edden hired an attorney, and sued the School Board. The School Board settled the case, paying Edden approximately $25,000.00. James misled Henderson when presenting the terms of the agreement with Edden. Henderson approved a fundraising project that was flawed from its inception, due entirely to James's misrepresentations. Due to the misrepresentation made to Henderson, School Board policy 3320, which mandates a specific process for purchases over $5,000, was not followed. Basketball game In November 2010, when James was the acting Athletic Director, he was approached by the Bank Atlantic Center about having the Boyd Anderson basketball team play Monarch High School after two collegiate games on the evening of December 18, 2010. On November 29, 2010, James submitted a Project Approval Form, which is used when any member of the faculty or administration is seeking approval of a project or event. The form was approved and signed by both Assistant Principal Evans, and the principal at that point, Mr. Almanzar. The athletic event was intended to be a fundraiser for Boyd Anderson. Boyd Anderson would purchase 150 tickets to the event for $17.75 each, and then re-sell the tickets to the student body and Boyd Anderson families and faculty for $22.75 each. Half of the tickets were to be given to Monarch High School to sell to their school community. James entered into the contract on behalf of Boyd Anderson, signing the contract with Bank Atlantic Center. Unfortunately, while the two high schools were attempting to sell these tickets, the Orange Bowl Committee was simultaneously providing free tickets to the Broward County schools. Thus, it became very difficult to sell tickets. Only a few tickets were actually sold, and Boyd Anderson ultimately paid for 136 tickets, totaling approximately $2,399.00. There is no evidence that James kept any money from the sale of the tickets, or that he stole or lost any tickets. Transcripts On June 7, 2011, a letter of reprimand was issued to James. It accused James of having asked the school registrar to enter transcripts into the school system, and bypass the process by which transcripts are validated. There was no direct evidence establishing that James committed the acts he was accused of in the reprimand letter. Ultimate Findings The greater weight of the evidence establishes that James is guilty of immorality and of misconduct in office, by failing to maintain honesty in his professional dealings and by violating the Code of Ethics. His misrepresentations led to a violation of School Board policy 3320, as the proper procedure for purchasing merchandise that totaled approximately $32,000.00 was not followed. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that James is not guilty of moral turpitude, or of violations of School Board policy 3411, or 6301.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board terminate Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JESSICA E. VARN 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 31st day of July, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Charles T. Whitelock, P.A. Suite E 300 Southeast 13th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 charles@ctwpalaw.com Patrick A. Santeramo Broward Teachers Union 6000 North University Drive Tamarac, Florida 33321 Melissa C. Mihok, Esquire Kelly and McKee, P.A. Suite 301 1718 East 7th Avenue Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 mcm@kellyandmckee.com Gerard Robinson, Commissioner Department of Education Suite 1514 Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Lois Tepper, Interim General Counsel Department of Education Suite 1244 Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Robert Runcie, Superintendent Broward County Public Schools 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
The Issue The issues presented for decision in the above-styled matter are as follows: Can tenure be denied, as opposed to being granted or postponed, during the fifth year of employment? If so, was petitioner wrongfully denied tenure? Did respondent wrongfully determine that petitioner's employment contract would not be renewed beyond June of 1975? 4 Was petitioner wrongfully terminated before he received a due process hearing?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the admissible oral ad documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following pertinent facts are found: Petitioner Jeffrey Rosner was hired by the respondent in September of 1969 as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science, College of Social and Behavioral Sciences, a tenure-earning position. He was reappointed to this position for the school years 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74, and 1974-75. During the period of time between September, 1969 and June of 1975, petitioner received and reviewed student evaluations of his teaching effectiveness. Although his student evaluations improved over the five-year period in question, petitioner's evaluations from students were consistently below the college median. Also, for the calendar year 1973, rating scores were assigned to all fifteen faculty members of petitioner's department. In the area of teaching, petitioner ranked fourteenth. 1/ At all times, petitioner's primary assigned duty was teaching. At all times relevant to this proceeding - from the time petitioner received his first appointment to the present time - the Florida Board of Regents had established and set forth three areas in which faculty members would be evaluated for purposes of tenure, promotion, salary and retention. These three areas are teaching, research and other creative activities and service. Also, "tenure" has been consistently defined in terms of a high degree of competence in the three areas mentioned above. The respondent University, at least since 1970, has employed the use of "tenure forms" in order to gather information from the individual faculty members being considered for tenure in the areas of teaching, research and service. Such forms may be supplemented as was done in the instant case by a six-page supplementary statement. In the middle of his fifth year of continuous employment at the University of South Florida, petitioner was considered for tenure. It was the common practice in the Political Science Department to consider faculty members for tenure during their fifth year. The faculty member himself is not given a choice as to whether he wishes to be considered or postponed for tenure. At the time petitioner was considered for tenure, from December of 1973 through March of 1974, the procedure utilized in the Political Science Department was as follows. The tenured faculty members of the Department review the candidate's file, which is at least partially prepared by him, and then vote by secret ballot to either grant, deny or defer the tenure decision. An advisory committee consisting of four persons (three acting and an alternate) elected by the faculty members also reviews the candidate's file. Each member of the advisory committee makes an independent evaluation of the candidate and then the members' get together, rate the candidate on a scale of 1 to 5 in the areas of teaching effectiveness, research and creative activity, service and overall quality. The committee members than vote upon the recommendation to be made to the Department Chairman to either grant, deny or defer tenure. The Department Chairman then reviews everything to date, rates the candidate on the same areas and makes his decision. The candidate is then notified of the Department's decision and is given an opportunity to request to meet with the Chairman and/or the advisory committee to discuss reconsideration of the decision. Thereafter, the recommendation is finalized and everything is sent to the Dean of the College. The Dean recommends to the Vice president of Academic Affairs and the Vice President recommends to the President of the University. The above procedure was followed in Dr. Rosner's case and the following transpired: The tenured faculty, consisting of six persons, voted four opposed to granting tenure, two to defer the tenure decision and none in favor of granting tenure. During its first consideration, the departmental advisory committee, consisting of three faculty members - one tenured and two non-tenured - voted as follows: two opposed to granting tenure, one to defer the tenure decision and none in favor of granting tenure. That committee found that while petitioner's areas of specialization were relevant to the Department's needs, plans and goals, his performance in the categories of evaluation - teaching, research and service - "is insufficiently high to justify granting him tenure." On a scale of 1 to 5 (1 - below average, 3 - average, 5 - above average) the committee rated petitioner 2 in teaching effectiveness, 2 in research and creative activity, between 2 and 3 in service and 2 in overall quality. Upon the first evaluation, the Department Chairman, Dr. Robert Bowman, voted that he was opposed to granting tenure. He rated Rosner between 2 and 3 in teaching effectiveness, 1 in research and creative activity, between 3 & 4 in academic advisement, between 2 & 3 in service and 2.33 in overall quality. The Chairman also found that Rosner's talents and resources did not fit the needs, plans and goals of the Department. Upon reconsideration at petitioner's requests the advisory committee and the Chairman rated Rosner 2.5 in teaching effectiveness, 1.5 in research and creative activity, 2.5 in service activities and 2.0 as the overall evaluation. (Attachments 1 through 4 of Exhibit 1 lists the material relied upon in arriving at these ratings). The Department therefore recommended "denial of tenure and absolute termination at the end of the 1974-75 contract period." The Dean of the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Dr. Travis Northcutt, having the choices set forth on a form to recommend either the granting, denying or deferring of tenure, voted to recommend the denial of tenure in Rosner's case. He based this decision on a full review of all materials submitted by Rosner and the file sent by the Chairman. The Vice president for Academic Affairs, Dr. Carl Riggs, also recommended that tenure be denied. On March 15, 1974, Dr. Riggs notified petitioner of his decision not to recommend to President Mackey that Rosner be granted tenure. Petitioner was further notified by the same letter that "your employment will not be renewed after Quarter III of the academic year 1974/75." Petitioner was further advised of the opportunity for review of cases in which a faculty member asserts that his contract of employment is not being renewed for constitutionally impermissible reasons. Upon petitioner's request, Dr. Riggs explained in writing the reasons for the non-renewal of petitioner's appointment. The reasons listed related to the denial of tenure. This memorandum is dated June 19, 1974. On December 13, 1974, Dr. Bowman wrote petitioner a letter denying his request to be considered for tenure for 1975-76 for the current (1974-75) evaluation cycle, because of the previous decision to deny tenure and terminate his appointment effective June 19, 1975. On May 22, 1975, Dr. Rosner filed his complaint with the University President and asked that it be referred to the Academic Relations Committee. After receiving the Committee's report dated June 18, 1975, the President determined that he was not prepared to render a decision in petitioner's favor, and ordered that the complaint be considered in a plenary proceeding as defined in F.A.C. 6C-5.08(3). On July 16, 1975, the Division of Administrative Hearings received a letter from Steven Wenzel, General Counsel of the University, requesting, on behalf of the President that a Hearing Officer be assigned to conduct the plenary hearing. The undersigned Hearing Officer was so assigned, and, on July 31, 1975, notified Dr. Rosner of certain procedural problems relating to the complaint. Between this date and the date of the prehearing conference in this matter, numerous inquiries were made by the undersigned to the petitioner and his counsel as to the status of the case and anticipated dates for a hearing. Little, if any, response was forthcoming until early October, when this case, along with six others, was set for prehearing conference. On September 6, 1975, Dr. Rosner sent a letter to president Mackey stating: "Because it now appears that the administrative hearing in my case will not be scheduled until after classes begin for the fall term, I am requesting that I be given an interim faculty appointment, beginning with the fall term and continuing until the case is decided." Dr. Mackey responded on September 12, 1975, that ". . .Inasmuch as your contract expired according to its terms following the tendering of the appropriate notice of non-renewal, I am not prepared to direct that you be reemployed during the pendency of your hearing."
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that the complaint be dismissed for the reasons that petitioner did not meet his burden of demonstrating that the decisions to deny tenure and to not renew his employment contract were unlawful. Respectfully submitted and entered this 29th day of December, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of December, 1975.
The Issue Whether Respondent should receive back-pay for the period of time he was suspended without pay by the School Board of Highlands County, Florida (Board) under the facts and circumstances of this case.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent was employed by the Board as a guidance counselor at Sebring High School, Sebring, Highlands County, Florida. Sometime around November 1989, N.S., a student in the Respondent's peer counseling class at Sebring High School notified Rebecca Clark (Clark), Assistant Principal, Sebring High School, that Respondent had engaged in inappropriate behavior with her and other students in the class. Thereafter, in early January 1991, J.N.A., another student in Respondent's peer counseling class, met with Clark to confirm N.S.'s allegations. As a result of the allegations by N.S. and J.N.A., Clark notified Jim Bible, (Bible) Principal, Sebring High School, of the nature of the allegations. Bible contacted John Martin, (Martin) Associate Superintendent for Administration by phone concerning the necessity of discussing the allegations, and both Bible and Clark met with Martin. Bible was instructed by Martin to interview the Respondent about the allegations, and on January 5, 1990 a conference was held which included Bible, Clark and the Respondent wherein the Respondent was confronted with the allegations. With the Respondent's approval, the conference was electronically recorded by a tape recorder. The tape was transcribed, and the transcript received into evidence as Petitioner's exhibit 5. During the conference, the Respondent talked candidly about the allegations, and although he did not deny specific allegations such as, kissing a female student on the lips or whispering to students about being pretty, or sexy or that he or some one loved them, he did not recall any specific incident where he kissed a female student on the lips or just breathed heavily into their ears or licked their ears or kissed them on the ear. Additionally, he did not recall any student pulling away from him or telling him to stop. In fact, it was Respondent's recollection that most of the contact was initiated by the students, and he had had no indication from the students that they were uncomfortable with his mannerisms or behavior. Following the January 5, 1990 conference, Martin was furnished a copy of the tape which he and the Superintendent reviewed. Following this review, the Superintendent asked Martin to talk with the Respondent. During this conference with Martin, Respondent assured Martin that there was nothing beyond what had already transpired, and Martin assured Respondent that if there wasn't then there would probably be only a letter of reprimand, but that PPS and HRS would have to be notified. Following Martin's conference with the Respondent, the Superintendent issued a letter of reprimand to the Respondent. This letter of reprimand was dated January 8, 1990 and advised the Respondent that: (a) his behavior in regards to the allegations was "totally inappropriate and unacceptable" and "enough to indicate a possible violation of Section 6B-1.06(sic), Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida"; (b) he was to "consider this an official reprimand which will be placed in your personnel file upon completion of the investigation"; (c) "any future or similar behavior may result in action to terminate your teaching contract with the Highlands County School Board"; and (d) "the matter must be reported to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and the Professional Practices Services of the Florida Teachers Profession". There was no evidence that Respondent repeated the conduct discussed in the January 5, 1990 conference, or the conduct referred to by the Superintendent in her letter of reprimand on January 8, 1990, or the conduct discussed with Bible in the informal conference referenced in Finding of Fact 29. The Superintendent reported the matter to HRS and PPS, and although Martin was kept abreast of the pending investigations by HRS and PPS, neither the Board nor the Superintendent made any further investigation of the Respondent's conduct which formed the basis for the Superintendent's action set out in her letter of reprimand of January 8, 1990, before the Board's suspension of the Respondent without pay on February 13, 1990. In early February 1990, HRS informed Martin that "a confirmed finding of sexual abuse had been reached by the HRS". On February 5, 1990, solely as a result of the disclosure by HRS that sexual abuse had been "confirmed", the Superintendent suspended the Respondent with pay and recommended to the Board that the Respondent be suspended without pay. In apparent disregard of the confidentiality provided for such records in Section 415.51, Florida Statutes, a copy of the complete entire HRS files in this matter was given to Martin who in turn had the files reproduced, and provided a copy to each Board member and the Board attorney before the Board's February 13, 1990 meeting. No written or other notification was provided to the Respondent that the contents of the confidential files were being provided to the Board. As a result of its receipt and review of the HRS file, the Board on February 13, 1990, acting pursuant to the Superintendent's recommendation, suspended the Respondent from employment without pay effective February 14, 1990, and such suspension to continue "until investigations have been completed by the Professional Practices Services and other agencies". The Board provided that should the Respondent be "exonerated of all charges, he will receive back pay". The Board at its February 13, 1991 meeting did not have before it any of the PPS investigatory file or any other facts found by the PPS in its investigation and, therefore, in that sense, the PPS investigation was not a factor in the Board's decision to suspend the Respondent without pay. Although the Board did have the unlawfully disclosed contents of the HRS file at the time of its decision, there was no evidence presented at the hearing that the file contained any facts evidencing any misconduct by the Respondent other than those facts known by the Superintendent when she issued her official letter of reprimand. In fact, when Martin was asked at the meeting to elaborate on the facts in the HRS file, other than those facts known by the Superintendent at the time she issued her official letter of reprimand, that the Board considered in making its decision to suspend the Respondent without pay, he declined to answer on the basis of the HRS file being confidential. Yet, Martin's testimony was that the information in the HRS file was a "significant factor" in the determination by the Superintendent and the Board to effect the suspension without pay of the Respondent. Apparently, the only additional fact known by the Board at its February 13, 1990 meeting was that HRS had reached "a confirmed finding of sexual abuse" in regards to the Respondent's conduct and that fact was a significant factor in its determination to suspend Respondent. In the late summer of 1990, Martin recommended to the Superintendent that Respondent be reinstated, but assigned to a position that did not involve student contact. The Superintendent made such recommendation to the Board, and the Board, acting on the Superintendent's recommendation, reinstated Respondent at the beginning of the 1990/91 school year but declined to award back pay. The Respondent was assigned to work with an adult school. Subsequently, the Respondent voluntarily resigned his position with the Board, and accepted a position with South Florida Community College. Martin's recommendation to reinstate the Respondent was based on the following: (a) the Respondent being on a continuing contract and nothing being done to terminate this continuing contract; (b) the resolution of the allegations made against Respondent by HRS and PPS were taking longer than anticipated; and (c) the indication that Martin had from the school board attorney that the "confirmed" report of abuse would most likely be reclassified downward, and, as such, would not warrant terminating Respondent's continuing contract. On May 8, 1991, a final order was entered by HRS in the child abuse case involving the Respondent, granting the Respondent's request for expunction, and reclassifying the report from "confirmed" to "unfounded". The final order was the result of HRS adopting a recommended order of the Hearing Officer from the Division of Administrative Hearings who had conducted a formal evidentiary hearing in the child abuse case on February 19, 1991. The PPS commenced its proceedings on June 27, 1990 by filing an administrative complaint against the Respondent, and concluded those proceedings before the Educational Practices Commission with a final order dated May 20, 1991 adopting a settlement agreement dated February 19, 1991. The Respondent chose not to contest the allegation in the administrative complaint, and neither the settlement agreement nor the final order make any findings of wrongdoing against the Respondent. As a result of the PPS action, the Respondent received a reprimand to be placed in his personnel file and his certification file, and upon re- employment in the education profession in Florida, in a position which requires state certification, to be placed on probation for a period of three years under conditions set out in the agreement. Notwithstanding Martin's understanding that Respondent's teaching certificate was suspended for short period (2-3 weeks), the Respondent's teaching certificate was never suspended for any period of time, and no action was taken which deprived the Respondent of his ability to continue teaching in the public school system of Florida. N.S. was a minor female student at Sebring High School, and a member of Respondent's peer counseling class during the 1988/89 school year (S/Y) and the fall semester of 1989/90 S/Y. Often, during the time N.S. was in Respondent's class, Respondent would give her an affectionate hug or squeeze, and would give her a kiss or peck on the cheek, forehead, or the back of the head, and whisper such things in her ear as "love you" or "you're sweet" or "you're pretty" or "you're sexy". There were occasions when Respondent was whispering in N.S.'s ear that his lips brushed against her ear. When Respondent was hugging, whispering or making remarks to N.S. it was always in the presence of staff or students in a public area of the school such as the hallway, classroom or guidance area, but never in private or off campus. Although N.S. testified that Respondent's behavior made her uncomfortable, she did not ever ask Respondent to stop or tell him or anyone else that his behavior made her feel uncomfortable. J.N.A. was a minor female student at Sebring High School, and a member of Respondent's peer counseling class during the 1988/89 S/Y and 1989/90 S/Y. Basically, J.N.A. experienced the same type of behavior from Respondent as did N.S. as set out in Finding of Fact 25, and likewise, did not ever tell the Respondent to stop or that his behavior made her feel uncomfortable. As with N.S., the incidents with J.N.A. always occurred in the presence of staff or other students in the public areas of the school, but never in private or off campus. Y.W. was a female student at Sebring High School, and a member of Respondent's peer counseling class during the fall semester of the 1989/90 S/Y. On one occasion, while Y.W. was standing next to Respondent in the class where other students were present, Respondent asked Y.W. to sit on his knee and talk about a problem, and after some protest N.S. sat on his knee. Although Y.W. considered Respondent as a "father-figure", this made her uncomfortable because it was not usual for her to sit on her father's or grandfather's lap. Y.W. also testified that Respondent probably kissed her on the cheek one time as he did with all his students, but found nothing unusual about this. There was no evidence that Respondent made any sexual overtures to any student or touched any of the females on their breasts, inner thighs, genital areas or buttocks. Clark came to Sebring High School as assistant principal at the beginning of 1988/89 S/Y (having completed three years as assistant principal at the end of the 1990/91 S/Y), and observed the Respondent exhibiting behavior similar to that expressed by N.S. and J.N.A. through late November or early December 1989 (about a year and a half). Although Clark considered Respondent's behavior as being inappropriate, enough so that she counselled her daughter not to go near him, she never told him he should stop or counsel him as to her views on his behavior even though she was his supervisor. In fact, Clark did not report the Respondent's behavior to Bible until after the beginning of the 1989/90 S/Y, sometime around November, and again when N.S. and J.N.A. came to her in late December 1989 and early January 1990. After Clark advised Bible on the first occasion around November 1989, Bible had an informal conference with the Respondent. Although Clark did not sit in on this conference she heard the tail end of the conversation between Bible and Respondent wherein Bible told Respondent "you can't do that" or "it doesn't look right" or "people will misinterpret it". Carolyn Shoemaker, guidance secretary, Sebring High School, observed Respondent exhibiting behavior similar to that expressed by N.S., J.N. and Clark, which she considered inappropriate, for about the same period of time as Clark, but she never expressed to the Respondent that he should stop or that his behavior was inappropriate. However, she did report it to Clark and Bible. Natalie Smith, Chairman, Guidance Department, Sebring High School, observed Respondent exhibiting similar behavior as that expressed by N.S., J.N.A., Clark and Shoemaker, which she considered inappropriate, for about the same period of time as Clark and Shoemaker. Although Smith was head of the department where Respondent worked, and felt this behavior to be inappropriate, she did tell him to stop or express her views on this behavior with Respondent. Smith remembers telling Bible about Respondent's behavior, but doesn't recall when she told Bible. Until Respondent's informal conference with Bible referred to in Finding of Fact 30 and the January 8, 1990 letter of reprimand, the Respondent was never disciplined, counselled or otherwise directed to refrain from his affectionate interaction with students. The Respondent's suspension without pay by the Board in February 13, 1990 was premised on the same facts and conduct which had resulted in the January 8, 1990 letter of reprimand being issued to the Respondent by the Superintendent. While the Respondent may have used poor judgment in his method of establishing rapport with the some 400 students in any given year for which he had counseling responsibilities, and his conduct may have been inappropriate under the circumstances, his conduct as established by the substantial competent evidence in the record does not rise to the level of being so serious as to impair the Respondent's effectiveness in the Highlands County School system, notwithstanding the opinion of both Clark and Smith to the contrary.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Board enter a Final Order rescinding the Respondent's suspension, reimbursing him for any pay lost as a result of the suspension, and restoring any benefits that the Respondent may have lost as a result of the suspension. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of July, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 1991. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-3758 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parenthesis is the Finding(s) of Fact which adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1); 2(4,5); 3(5,6); 4(7); 5(7,8); 6(10,11); 7(12,15); 8(18,19); 9(25,26); 10(27); 11(28); 12(30); 13(31); 14(32); 15(21,22,23,24). Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Each of the following proposed findings of fact and adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The member in parenthesis is the Finding(s) of Fact which so adopts that proposed finding of fact: 1(2); 2(3); 3(4); 4(5); 5(5); 6(7); 7(8); 8(8); 9(9); 10(10); 11(16,17,34); 13(11); 14(12); 15(13); 16(13); 17(14); 18(15); 19(16); 20(17); 21(17); 22(20); 23(20); 24(21); 25(22); 26(23); 27(24); 28(18,19); 29(18); 30(34); 31(25,27,28); 32(30); 33(30); 34(25, 27); 35(33,9); 36(29). Proposed findings of fact 12 and 37 are unnecessary or subordinate. Copies furnished to: Donald H. Wilson, Esquire P.O. Box 1578 Bartow, FL 33830 Ronald G. Meyer, Esquire P.O. Box 1547 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Ruth E. Handley, Superintendent Highlands County School Board 426 School Street Sebring, FL 33870 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400
