The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, Robert D. Taylor, is eligible for the services offered by Respondent's Developmental Services Program.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Robert D. Taylor (Petitioner), filed an application with Respondent, the Department of Children and Family Services (Department), to receive services of the Department's Developmental Services Program. Based on information provided by Mrs. Tye, the suspected developmental disability/medical conditions which were the basis for Petitioner's potential eligibility were mild mental retardation and behavior problems. Following submittal of Petitioner's application, his eligibility for the Development Services Program was reviewed and determined by Dr. Bruce Crowell, a licensed psychologist employed by the Department. In order to determine Petitioner's eligibility, Dr. Crowell reviewed Petitioner's school psychological evaluations, all of which were completed prior to Petitioner's eighteenth birthday. According to Petitioner's school psychological evaluations, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Third Edition, was administered to Petitioner in January 1993. Petitioner obtained a verbal Intelligence Quotient (IQ) of 80, a performance IQ of 82, and a full scale IQ of 79. Petitioner was also evaluated by Dr. Ruth Nentwig, a licensed psychologist, in June 16, 1999. As part of her evaluation, Dr. Nentwig administered the WAIS-III, an instrument that measures an individual's overall intellectual functioning. On the WAIS-III, Petitioner obtained a verbal IQ of 86, a performance IQ of 80, and a full scale IQ of 82. This evaluation was completed prior to Petitioner's eighteenth birthday. Based upon the statutory criteria, Petitioner is not eligible for services provided by the Department's Developmental Services Program. The IQ scores obtained by Petitioner place him in the low average to borderline intellectual functioning level and are not indicative of significant cognitive or intellectual functioning impairment reflective of retardation. Petitioner would have to obtain a full scale IQ score of 69 or lower to be considered retarded and eligible for the Department's Developmental Services Program. Moreover, manifestation of such impairment would have to be documented prior to age 18 in order to demonstrate eligibility for the program.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent, the Department of Children and Family Services, enter an order denying Petitioner's application for services through the Developmental Services Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of April, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert D. Taylor c/o Sarah Tye 1455 Winston Road Fort Myers, Florida 33917 Eugenie Rehak, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Post Office Box 60085 Fort Myers, Florida 33906-0085 Virginia Daire, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John S. Slye, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent, Tunisia Hairston, violated the provisions of section 1012.795(1)(d), (j), or (k), Florida Statutes (2010), and/or Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a) and (5)(a). If any violations of these provisions are found, then it must be determined what penalty may be appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and other evidence presented at hearing, and upon the entire record of this proceeding, the following facts are found: Respondent, Tunisia Hairston, holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 886347, covering the areas of elementary education and English for speakers of other languages, which is valid through June 30, 2017. At all times relevant to the allegations in the Second Amended Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as a fifth-grade teacher at Greensboro Elementary School in the Gadsden County School District (District). In April of 2011, Respondent was teaching fifth grade. Her mother, Annette Jones Walker, taught fifth grade in the classroom adjacent to hers. Respondent is in her thirteenth year of teaching and currently teaches first grade at the same school. The Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) is a state-wide assessment administered pursuant to section 1008.22(3)(c), Florida Statutes (2010). For the 2010-2011 school year, the reading component was given to grades three through ten; math was given to grades three through eight; science was given to grades five and eight; and writing was given to grades four, eight, and ten. At issue in this case is the administration of the science portion of the FCAT to fifth graders in Ms. Hairston’s and Ms. Walker’s classrooms at Greensboro Elementary. Pearson, Inc., was the company with whom the State of Florida contracted to provide the 2011 FCAT. The evidence presented indicates that Pearson provided the test booklets to each county, which then distributed the test booklets to each school. The school’s test assessment coordinator would then distribute the tests to each teacher, matched with a list of the students each teacher was supposed to test. After the tests were completed, they were returned by the teacher to the assessment coordinator, who in turn returned the test booklets to the district. Pearson picked up each district’s test booklets and transported them to either Austin, Texas, or Cedar Rapids, Iowa, for scoring. There is no allegation or evidence presented to indicate that there was any irregularity with regard to the test booklets before they arrived at Greensboro Elementary or after the test was completed. Test booklets are “consumable,” meaning that there is no separate answer sheet. Multiple-choice answers are recorded in the test booklet itself. A subcontractor of Pearson’s, Caveon Data Forensics (Caveon), ran an analysis on the erasure marks on the answer portion of the test booklets for each grade, in order to set baseline data for similarities of answers in a particular test group code or school with respect to erasures. Generally, erasure analysis is performed to identify potential anomalies in the testing and to identify potential questions for review in terms of question validity. Standing alone, the erasure analysis provides nothing useful. It must be viewed in conjunction with other information. The erasure analysis performed by Caveon identified 21 Florida schools with scores that were above the threshold set for erasures. Gadsden County had three schools fitting within that category: Stewart Street Elementary School for third-grade reading, Greensboro Elementary School for fifth-grade science, and West Gadsden High School for tenth-grade reading retake. The science classes affected at Greensboro Elementary were those of Ms. Hairston and Ms. Walker. The Superintendent for each district with a high erasure index, including Superintendent Reginald James of Gadsden County, was notified by letter dated June 9, 2011, of the testing groups involved. The letter requested the Superintendent to conduct an internal investigation to examine the administration of the affected tests for any testing irregularities, including testing conditions and test security protocols at the schools. The Superintendent was notified that each school would initially receive an “I” for its 2010-2011 accountability outcomes until the erasure issue was resolved, or the Commissioner determined that sufficient data was available to accurately assign the schools a grade. Deputy Superintendent Rosalyn Smith conducted an internal investigation for Gadsden County, with the assistance of the District’s testing coordinator, Shaia Beckwith-James. According to Ms. Smith, the two of them collected documents and submitted them to the Department of Education, with Ms. Beckwith- James performing a lot of “legwork” on the investigation.3/ Both Ms. Hairston and Ms. Walker were interviewed and the interviews recorded. Ms. Smith testified that she did not find that either teacher had violated any testing protocols, but could not explain the high erasures. Both Ms. Walker and Ms. Hairston were removed as administrators from future administrations of the FCAT, a move that both teachers welcomed. No evidence was presented to indicate that the District considered, or that either teacher was notified, that removal as a test administrator was considered discipline. On June 16, 2011, Superintendent James forwarded to DOE information collected as part of the District’s internal investigation related to those schools with high erasure indexes. Superintendent James asked that the Department exclude the scores of any students with an erasure index of 1.3 or higher from the school’s letter grade calculation in order to assign the schools a letter grade as opposed to an “I” rating. On June 29, 2011, Deputy Commissioner Chris Ellington wrote back to Superintendent James regarding the schools in Gadsden County with high erasure indexes. With respect to Greensboro Elementary, he stated, While your investigation found no improprieties for Grade 5 Science at Greensboro Elementary School, there is sufficient statistical evidence that student test results may have been advantaged in some way. . . . Because this high percentage of three or more net wrong-to-right erasures is extremely unusual, the Department’s decision is to remove these test results from the 2010-2011 accountability outcomes for this school. Consequently, the “I” designation will be removed and the accountability outcomes will be calculated without these student test results. Greensboro Elementary subsequently received an A grade for the year. On March 6, 2012, then-Commissioner Gerard Robinson notified Superintendent James that he was requesting the Department’s Office of Inspector General to investigate whether there was any fraud with respect to the administration of the 2011 FCAT. The Inspector General’s Office then conducted an administrative investigation of four schools state-wide: Chaffee Trail Elementary; Charter School of Excellence; Greensboro Elementary; and Jefferson County Elementary. The Inspector General’s investigation was conducted by Bridget Royster and Anthony Jackson. They received the results from the District’s investigation, and requested testing booklets from the Division of Accountability and Research Management, who had the students’ test booklets for fifth-grade science shipped from Texas. Ms. Royster counted the number of erasures on each test booklet and created answer keys for each student. She also developed questions to ask each student to determine if the erasures were theirs. She and Mr. Jackson interviewed some, but not all, of the students from the two classes based upon their availability at the time, and interviewed Principal Stephen Pitts; Cedric Chandler, the school’s guidance counselor who served as the testing coordinator; and Tamika Battles and Valorie Sanders, who both served as proctors for the 2011 FCAT. They attempted to interview Ms. Walker and Ms. Hairston, who both declined to be interviewed,4/ preferring instead to seek counsel. Ms. Royster and Mr. Jackson recorded answers from the students on the questionnaire form they had developed. However, a review of the handwriting on the forms submitted into evidence reveals that they were filled out by Ms. Royster and Mr. Jackson, as opposed to being filled out by the students themselves. The statements made also refer to the students in the third person, supporting the belief that these are statements as understood by the investigators, as opposed to the actual statements of the students. Based on these interviews, the investigative report prepared by Ms. Royster and Mr. Jackson states in part: “although evidence does not support that fifth-grade teachers, Annette Walker and Tunisia Hairston, altered student answer tests, statements taken during the investigation reveal that they did coach or interfere with their students’ responses during the administration of the FCAT.” Ms. Royster acknowledged that erasures can be caused by students going over their answers a second time; by cheating; by a student’s confusion; by a student changing his or her mind about the answer; and by other unspecified reasons. She also acknowledged that they did not ask the students whether they cheated, as that was not the focus of the investigation. Respondent administered the 2011 Science Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) for students in her classroom on April 19 and 20, 2011. The science portion of the FCAT was the last portion to be administered. It consisted of two sessions on successive days, with 29 questions on one day and 31 questions on the other. Both sessions were 55 minutes long. All 60 questions are in the same booklet. There may be one or two questions per page, depending on the question, so the test booklet is approximately 50-60 pages long. There are different forms of the test, but the core items are the same for each student. Teachers were trained regarding testing protocols and security measures by Cedric Chandler, Greensboro Elementary’s Guidance Counselor and Assessment Coordinator. Each teacher responsible for administering the FCAT was provided with a testing administration manual, including a copy of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.042, which governs the administration of the test. There is also a form that is signed by educators when they attend the training that indicates that they understand and have read the rules. The FCAT/FCAT 2. Administration and Security Agreement signed by Respondent states in pertinent part: Florida State Board of Education Rule 6A- 10.042, F.A.C., was developed to meet the requirements of the Test Security Statutes, s. 1008.24, F.S., and applies to anyone involved in the administration of a statewide assessment. The Rule prohibits activities that may threaten the integrity of the test. . . . Examples of prohibited activities are listed below: Reading the passages or test items Revealing the passages or test items Copying the passages or test items Explaining or reading passages or test items for students Changing or otherwise interfering with student responses to test items Copying or reading student responses Causing achievement of schools to be inaccurately measured or reported * * * All personnel are prohibited from examining or copying the test items and/or the contents of student test books and answer documents. The security of all test materials must be maintained before, during, and after the test administration. Please remember that after ANY test administration, initial OR make-up, materials must be returned immediately to the school assessment coordinator and placed in locked storage. Secure materials should not remain in classrooms or be taken out of the building overnight. The use of untrained test administrators increases the risk of test invalidation due to test irregularities or breaches in test security. I, (insert name), have read the Florida Test Security Statute and State Board of Education Rule in Appendix B, and the information and instructions provided in all applicable sections of the 2011 Reading, Mathematics, and Science Test Administration Manual. I agree to administer the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT/FCAT 2.0) according to these procedures. Further, I will not reveal or disclose any information about the test items or engage in any acts that would violate the security of the FCAT/FCAT 2.0 and cause student achievement to be inaccurately represented or reported. Respondent signed the Security Agreement on April 7, 2011. Teachers are also given a specific script to read for every grade and subject being tested. For the fifth-grade science test, the script is approximately five pages long. Teachers are instructed that they are to read the script and that their actions should comport with the directions in the script. Victoria Ash is the bureau chief for K-12 assessment at the Florida Department of Education. Her office is charged with the development, administration, assessment, scoring, and reporting of the FCAT. Ms. Ash indicated that there are no stakes attached to the science test at the state level. When asked about protocols to follow in the administration of the FCAT, Ms. Ash indicated that it is not permissible for teachers to assist students, as teacher interference would cause results not to be an accurate measure of the students’ ability. It is not permissible to walk up to a student, point to a question and answer and tell the student to take another look at that question. Such behavior is not permitted either verbally or by some other physical cue. When a student calls a teacher over during the FCAT to ask a question, the teacher is to avoid any specific response. However, it is acceptable, according to Ms. Ash, for a teacher to say things such as “just keep working hard,” “think about it more, you will eventually get it,” or “do your best.” To say something like “just remember the strategies we discussed” would be, in Ms. Ash’s view, “going right up to the edge” of permissible responses. As long as the response is not to a specific question, a teacher would not be violating the protocols to tell students to read over their answers again, and to make sure the students answered every question. The Second Amended Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent provided inappropriate assistance to students in her fifth-grade class as they took the 2011 Science FCAT by pointing to incorrect test answers or telling students to look again at certain answers. Eight students from Ms. Hairston’s 2011 fifth-grade class testified at hearing. Of those 8 students, two testified that they had received assistance from Ms. Hairston during the test. T.W. was a male student in Ms. Hairston’s class. He testified that “in a certain period of time, she would point out answers for me.” He testified that she did not say anything to him, but “I just got the meaning that she was telling me to check it over again.” He also stated that she told the whole class to go over their tests again at the end of the test. L.T. was a female student in Ms. Hairston’s class. She referred to Mr. Pitts or Ms. Dixon being in the room. She testified that after Ms. Dixon or Mr. Pitts left the room, Ms. Hairston would walk around and “point out questions that maybe we would get wrong.” She testified that Mr. Pitts or Ms. Dixon came in 3-4 times. L.T. also stated that while Ms. Hairston told the class at the beginning of the test they could go back and recheck their answers when they were finished, she did not make a similar statement at the end of the test. On the other hand, students K.M., A.F., R.A., M.C., D.Y., and A.C. all testified that they did not remember Ms. Hairston giving any type of hints during the science FCAT, and that she did not point to answers on the tests. None of the students, including T.W. and L.T., had incredibly clear memories of the test, which is understandable given that they took the test over three years prior to the hearing. To the extent that these six students remembered Ms. Hairston saying anything, they remember her telling them to go back and read the questions over, in terms of the whole test. Tamika Battles was the proctor assigned to Ms. Hairston’s room. Although there was some dispute about how many days she was present during the science part of the FCAT, it is found that she was present for one of the two testing sessions.5/ Ms. Battles does not recall Ms. Hairston saying anything out of the ordinary, but rather simply walked around telling students to stay on task, and making general statements about test taking. She did not ever see her point to a particular student’s test. Ms. Battles had been trained in testing protocols, and believed that they were followed. Ms. Hairston also denied coaching any of the students or pointing out incorrect answers. She acknowledged pointing toward test booklets on occasion, not to point to a specific answer but to remind a student to focus or stay on task. Her testimony was credible. After careful review of the evidence, it is found that Ms. Hairston did not violate testing protocols by providing assistance to students during the 2011 science FCAT. She did not point to specific questions/answers or tell a student (or indicate without talking) that the student should change the answer to any particular question. T.W. was in Ms. Hairston’s class for the second time, having failed fifth grade the year before. He testified that Ms. Hairston did not say anything to him, but rather that he understood her to mean something that she never verbalized. While L.T. testified that Ms. Hairston would point to a question and say, “check your answers again,” she tied these actions to times when Ms. Dixon or Mr. Pitts came in the room. Neither Mr. Pitts nor Ms. Dixon signed the security log for Ms. Hairston’s class for either day of the science examination. Ms. Dixon signed in for one testing session on April 13, but not for either day of science testing, and Mr. Pitts is not signed in for any session at all. Credible testimony was also presented to indicate that while perhaps Ms. Dixon was present at some time during testing (and not necessarily science), Mr. Pitts was not. In addition, L.T.’s written statement focuses more on math questions than science questions. It is entirely possible, given the vague nature of her answers, that she was confusing the science FCAT with some other testing experience. In any event, T.W. and L.T.’s testimony, taken together or apart, does not rise to the level of credible, clear and convincing evidence of providing inappropriate assistance to students during the FCAT. Further, the type of coaching alleged in the Second Amended Administrative Complaint would be quite difficult to do, given the structure of the test and the testing environment. There is no answer key to the test, and according to Ms. Ash, there are different forms of the test. Some pages have one question while others have two. Students are given a set amount of time to complete the test, but worked at different speeds. Many finished early, while some may not have completed it. In order for Ms. Hairston to give the kind of assistance alleged, she would have to stand by the testing student, read the question on the page, see the answer given, recognize it as wrong, and point out the error to the student. Such a scenario is improbable at best, given that testimony is uniform that she walked around the room, not that she stopped for significant periods at any student’s desk. Ms. Hairston’s explanation that she commonly points in order to gain a child’s attention and get them to focus is reasonable. Several years of Respondent’s performance evaluations were submitted. Only those that were complete were considered. Those evaluations indicate that Ms. Hairston consistently has achieved effective, highly effective, or outstanding evaluations during her tenure at Greensboro Elementary School.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order dismissing the Second Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of February, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 6th day of February, 2015.
The Issue Whether the application of Petitioner to participate in the Developmental Services Program offered by Respondent to benefit mentally retarded individuals should be granted.
Findings Of Fact An application filed on behalf of 20-year-old Janette Stone, Petitioner, to receive services of Respondent’s Developmental Services Program was denied by Respondent’s representative as documented in a letter dated January 16, 1997. Following submittal of Petitioner’s application, her eligibility for admission to the program was reviewed by Respondent’s staff psychologist, Filipinas Ripka. In order to determine Petitioner’s eligibility, Ripka reviewed psychological evaluations of Petitioner, three of which had been completed prior to Petitioner’s 18th birthday. One of the reviewed evaluations was made when Petitioner was 12 years of age. Another evaluation of Petitioner was completed when she was 15 years and eleven months of age. A third evaluation occurred when Petitioner was 17 years old. Petitioner received full-scale intelligence quotient (IQ) scores of 73, 72 and 73 respectively on the evaluations reviewed by Ripka. The evaluations were made on the revised Weschler Intelligence Scale For Children. The final evaluation, where Petitioner obtained a full-scale IQ score of 73, was made on the revised Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale. The IQ scores received by Petitioner were all within what is termed the borderline range of intellectual functioning, as opposed to test results indicative of significant cognitive or intellectual functioning impairment reflective of retardation. Petitioner would have had to score 69 or lower to be considered retarded and eligible for Respondent’s developmental program. Further, manifestation of such impairments must be documented prior to age 18 in order to demonstrate eligibility for participation in Respondent’s program. Accordingly, Ripka determined that Petitioner was ineligible to participate in the Developmental Services Program offered by Respondent because Petitioner exhibited only borderline intelligence prior to age 18, instead of cognitive or intellectual function impairment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner’s application. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of January, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Robin H. Conner, Esquire 1750 Highway A1A South, Suite B St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Roger L. D. Williams, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Post Office Box 2417 Jacksonville, Florida 32217 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Richard A. Doran, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent is guilty of committing gross immorality or moral turpitude, in violation of Section 231.2615(1)(c), Florida Statutes; violating the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession, in violation of Section 231.2615(1)(i), Florida Statutes; or failing to maintain honesty in all professional dealings, in violation of Rule 6B-1.006(5)(a), Florida Administrative Code. If so, an additional issue is what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent has held Florida Educator's Certificate 615429. Respondent is certified in business, drivers' education, and physical education. The School District of Palm Beach County hired Respondent to teach high-school business at Jupiter High School for the 1995-96 or 1996-97 school year. After changing schools with another teacher, the assistant principal of Respondent's new high school, Palm Beach Lakes High School, assigned Respondent to teach mathematics. Respondent has a very limited background in mathematics. Although he objected that he was not qualified to teach mathematics, he had no option but to accept the new assignment, or terminate his employment. Respondent reluctantly agreed to teach mathematics starting in the 1998-99 school year, but he was justifiably concerned about his ability to meet the needs of his mathematics students. In January 1999, Respondent walked past an unsecured room and saw a large number of test booklets in boxes stacked on a table in the school library. Respondent entered the room, picked up and examined a test booklet, and made a copy of the booklet before returning it to the table. The test booklet was the High School Competency Test (HSCT) that was being administered that year. Respondent claims to have copied the test booklet innocently, unaware that the test questions were not to be disclosed, except as was necessary to administer the test. Respondent also claims that he took the booklet to learn what generally he was supposed to be teaching and that he did not know that a future HSCT would be identical to the one that he had copied. Respondent's claims that he did not know that the test booklet was not to be removed or copied and that he took the booklet merely to learn what he was supposed to teach in general are discredited as highly unlikely. If Respondent had thought that the test booklets were freely available to teachers, he would have merely taken one, not copied one and returned it to the table. Respondent never asked for a booklet, nor did he ever disclose to anyone else at the school that he had taken a copy of a booklet. From the start, Respondent knew that his possession of the test booklet was improper. Respondent's claim that he did not know anything about the HSCT, such as its importance or confidentiality, undermines his claim that he took a copy of the test booklet to learn what to teach in mathematics. At the time, students had to pass the HSCT to graduate from high school. Respondent likely knew this fact, otherwise, he would not have relied so heavily upon this test booklet as the source of information as to what he had to teach in mathematics. Rather than taking his cue as to what to teach from the mathematics textbook or from other mathematics teachers, Respondent took the shortcut of obtaining the ultimate test instrument and relying on the test contents for deciding what to teach in his mathematics class. On the other hand, Respondent did not know that the identical test would be administered again. This fact was not widely known by teachers or even administrators. Once he had examined the test booklet, Respondent worked out the answers, although he required assistance to do so. He then cut and pasted questions onto worksheets for use by his students, who would complete the worksheets in class and turn them into Respondent, who would go over the answers in class. The investigator of The School District of Palm Beach County concludes that Respondent's rearranging of questions is part of his attempt to conceal his wrongdoing. This conclusion is incorrect, as the rearranging of questions allowed Respondent to save copying costs. The evidence likewise fails to establish that Respondent told his students not to disclose the worksheets. Thus, the sole evidence of concealment is Respondent's failure to disclose his possession of the HSCT booklet to administrators or other teachers. In fact, once confronted with his possession of the HSCT, Respondent admitted to his wrongdoing and cooperated with the investigation. However, it is impossible to harmonize Respondent's claims of innocence and good faith with the proximity of his use of the copied test with the test date. If, as Respondent claims, he intended only to learn what he should be teaching in mathematics, he could have examined the copied test booklet, noted the areas covered, and covered them in an orderly fashion through the school year, using different questions from those found in his copy of the test booklet. Instead, Respondent gave his students numerous questions from his copy of the test booklet on September 24 and 26-29 and October 1. The presentation of a variety of mathematical concepts in such close proximity to the HSCT test date suggest a knowing misuse of the copied test booklet. Respondent's knowing misuse of the test, combined with the chance occurrence of the administration of the same test in October 2000, led to distorted results among his students, many of whom recognized that questions on the real test were identical with questions with which Respondent had prepared them. After an investigation, the Florida Department of Education and The School District of Palm Beach County decided to invalidate the mathematics scores of the hundreds of students at Respondent's high school who had taken the October 2000 HSCT and require them to retake a different version of the mathematical portion of the test. The question naturally arises whether October 2000 marked the first time that Respondent used the HSCT booklet that he had taken in January 1999. Respondent claims that he filed the test booklet and forgot about it until shortly before the October 2000 test. The investigation revealed that the scores of Respondent's students on the mathematics portion of the HSCT during the 1999-2000 school year were considerably better than the scores of similarly situated students, but investigators lacked the evidence to pursue this matter further. Thus, the evidence fails to establish that Respondent improperly used the copied test material more than once. Petitioner's reliance on Respondent's training as a proctor does not tend to establish Respondent's knowledge of his misuse of the test booklet that he copied. The training materials do not directly address older testing materials in the possession of a proctor, and Respondent possesses only limited ability to draw the inferences that Petitioner claims were inescapable. Also, the late recollection of one of Petitioner's witnesses that Respondent had inquired whether he might obtain a bonus if his students performed well on the HSCT is discredited. Petitioner has proved that Respondent obtained a copy of an HSCT under circumstances that he knew were improper, and he knowingly misused the copied test materials to prepare his students to take the HSCT. Undoubtedly, Respondent did not know that the October 2000 HSCT would be identical to the test that he had copied. Also, Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent tried to conceal his misuse of the copied HSCT materials, other than by not mentioning to an administrator or other teacher that he possessed these materials. Lastly, Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent's actions were motivated by self-interest. Respondent doubted his ability to teach mathematics, and he misused the test materials to serve the interests of his students, although at the expense of thousands of other students whose preparation did not include exposure to HSCT prior to taking it. Undoubtedly, this commitment to his students is partly responsible for the testimony of Respondent's principal, who described him as an "outstanding teacher," although Respondent received a decidedly mixed review from the four students whom he called as witnesses on his behalf. After an investigation, the Superintendent of The School District of Palm Beach County recommended to the School Board that it suspend Respondent without pay for ten days. The School Board adopted this recommendation. This is the only discipline that Respondent has received as a teacher, and he proctored last school year the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, which has replaced the HSCT.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of failing to maintain honesty in all professional dealings, in violation of Rule 6B-1.006(5)(a), Florida Administrative Code; suspending his Educator's Certificate for six months; and placing his certificate on probation for three years. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of September, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of September, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Florida Education Center Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street 1244 Turlington Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Program Director Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Charles T. Whitelock Whitelock & Associates, P.A. 300 Southeast 13th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Matthew E. Haynes Chambleee, Johnson & Haynes, P.A. The Barrister's Building, Suite 500 1615 Forum Place West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Brevard County School Board (Petitioner or Board), has just cause to terminate Respondent, Emily M. Randall (Respondent or Randall) from employment with the school district.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is the entity charged by law with governing and administering the Brevard County School District and is responsible for all employees of the school district. Disciplinary actions, such as the instant case, fall within the jurisdiction of the Board. At all times material to this case, Respondent was an employee of the School Board who served as an itinerant school psychologist. The Charges By letter dated December 9, 2014, Superintendent Binggeli recommended Respondent be terminated from her position with the Board. The letter claimed Respondent had been willfully absent without leave; had failed to follow directives of her supervisor, constituting gross insubordination and willful neglect of duty; had repeatedly lied to supervisors, constituting misconduct in office; and had reported to a disciplinary meeting in a condition violating the Drug-Free Workplace Policy, constituting misconduct in office. Respondent asserts that she should not be terminated for acts or omissions occurring prior to November 21, 2014, and that the Board failed to properly establish Respondent was “intoxicated” on that date. Background Information Petitioner employed Respondent as a school psychologist in 1992. Since that time, Respondent performed her responsibilities in an acceptable manner until the 2013-2014 school year. As a school psychologist, Respondent was responsible for conducting psychological evaluations for students who may require services for learning disabilities, emotional handicaps, or behavioral disorders. Psychological assessments are critical to the evaluation of exceptional students and serve to assist instructional staff to provide appropriate educational plans for students meeting criteria for support services. It is critical that such evaluations be timely performed, documented in accordance with law, and communicated to the appropriate personnel so that exceptional students may receive needed services. Eligible students do not receive exceptional services until all documented paperwork is completed. At all times material to this case, Respondent was required to complete her psychological educational assessments within 60 days. All school psychologists, including Respondent, were assigned as “itinerant” workers. Typically, school psychologists are directed to work at three or four schools. At each school the school psychologist teams with instructional staff, guidance counselors, and administrators to forge appropriate plans for exceptional students. The school psychologist is an essential member of the team. In practical terms, Respondent’s duties included performing student evaluations; designing intervention strategies with teachers, administrators, and parents; and attending meetings with all those involved. Additionally, school psychologists must respond to crisis situations as directed by the coordinator of psychological services. It is essential that the Psychological Services Department (Department) know the schedule of all school psychologists and be able to reach them by telephone. Beginning in August of 2013, the coordinator of psychological services, Dr. Maggie Balado, gave all school psychologists her personal contact information so that absences from work could be promptly reported. School psychologists were given the option of contacting Dr. Balado directly or the Department’s secretary, Ms. Beyer, if they would be absent from their scheduled school assignment. Requiring school psychologists to contact the Department to report absences was a continuation of the policy that pre-dated Dr. Balado’s appointment to the coordinator position. In September of 2013, Dr. Balado also advised all school psychologists that they would be required to comply with the 60-day guideline for completing student evaluations. The requirement also pre-dated Dr. Balado becoming the coordinator. Performance Concerns In January of 2014, Dr. Balado learned that Respondent had been absent on December 17 and 19, 2013, and January 6 and 7, 2014. Because Respondent had not reported the absences as required by the Department policy, Dr. Balado reminded Respondent of the correct protocol for missing work and directed her to comply with the policy in the future. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent had adequate leave time to miss work. Reporting the absence was still required by the policy. School psychologists are required to complete personnel allocation forms to allocate and track funding. Respondent failed to timely complete the funding forms despite being reminded. When Dr. Balado completed the performance evaluation for Respondent for the 2013-2014 school year, she noted that Respondent was out of compliance with four student evaluations and had 29 referrals that were to be completed for the school year. As a result, Dr. Balado rated Respondent as needing improvement in the categories of managing the learning environment, ethical leadership, and technology. Dr. Balado met with Respondent to go over the concerns and Randall indicated that she would work to improve her performance. Dr. Balado then met with Dr. Beth Thedy, assistant superintendent for Student Services, and decided to place Respondent on a professional development assistance plan to identify the issues that needed improvement and give Respondent a plan to show performance improvement. On August 18, 2014, Dr. Balado and Dr. Thedy met with Respondent to go over the performance issues and to discuss the improvement plan. Respondent did not raise any questions regarding what was expected. Despite being aware of the improvement plan, Respondent did not meet compliance standards for student evaluations. Moreover, Respondent never suggested to Dr. Balado or Dr. Thedy that an accommodation was needed in order for her to meet compliance standards. On October 2, 2014, Respondent did not timely respond to Dr. Balado’s attempts to contact her. Tangled Webs Were Woven On October 30, 2014, Respondent was assigned to be at Coquina Elementary School (Coquina Elementary) in Titusville. The school is located approximately 40 minutes from Respondent’s home, and she was to be there to watch a meeting with Enis Messick, the guidance counselor. After the meeting with Ms. Messick, Respondent planned to evaluate a student. Due to technical difficulties unknown to Respondent, Ms. Messick’s meeting was canceled. Respondent did not timely report to work at Coquina Elementary on October 30, 2014. Respondent did not timely report her absence from work on October 30, 2014, to Dr. Balado or Ms. Beyer. Failing to report her absence in accordance with prior directives, violated the attendance policy for the Department. Respondent had adequate leave to be absent from work on October 30, 2014. Failure to telephone her absence or e-mail the proper persons was a violation of a reasonable directive given to her on more than one prior occasion. During the afternoon of October 30, 2014, Dr. Laura Rhinehardt, north area superintendent (encompassing Coquina Elementary School), contacted Dr. Balado and informed her that Respondent was not at her assigned school that day. Thereafter, Dr. Balado telephoned Respondent and asked her where she was. Respondent told Dr. Balado that she was in the parking lot at Coquina Elementary School when she was not (Lie #1). Suspicious of this statement, Dr. Balado directed Respondent to go into the school office and call her back on the landline at the school. Although Respondent indicated she would do so, she did not (Lie #2). Dr. Balado then called Coquina Elementary’s Principal Katrina Hudson who advised that Respondent had not been seen at the school that day (hearsay later corroborated/admitted by Respondent at a later date). Respondent, next, told Dr. Balado that she went into the school’s office as directed but did not feel comfortable using the school’s telephone to call her back (Lie #3). Dr. Balado was understandably concerned that Respondent had misrepresented the events of October 30, 2014. Dr. Balado, next, communicated the events of October 30, 2014, to Dr. Thedy who placed Respondent on paid administrative leave on October 31, 2014. On November 4, 2014, a meeting was held to review the events of October 30, 2014. Present were Dr. Thedy; Jim Hickey, director of Human Resources and Labor Relations; and Respondent. Respondent told Dr. Thedy and Mr. Hickey that she was at Coquina Elementary on October 30, 2014, and that she could prove it (Lie #4). Respondent said Enis Messick would verify she had been at Coquina Elementary on October 30, 2014 (Lie #5). Ms. Messick did not see Respondent at the school on the date in question. Ms. Messick corroborated that Respondent had phoned her to advise that she would not be at the school. Respondent later stated that she had sat in her car in the parking lot at Coquina Elementary all day on October 30, 2014 (Lie #6). None of Respondent’s initial accounts of the events of October 30, 2014, were true or justified not reporting her absence as required by her supervisor, Dr. Balado. Finally, when Mr. Hickey requested that Respondent provide a written statement setting forth the events of October 30, 2014, Respondent relented and admitted she had previously lied. The Aftermath Following Respondent’s admission and further consideration of her behavior by Mr. Hickey, a pre-termination meeting was scheduled for November 12, 2014, to discuss Respondent’s conduct. At the November 12, 2014, meeting, Respondent claimed that she had filed for an accommodation to assist her so that she could timely prepare the reports required by her job. Respondent claimed that in 2010, she had made Petitioner aware of her need for an accommodation due to a wrist problem that made typing difficult. To address the accommodation request in 2010, Petitioner provided Respondent with a dictation software program known as Dragon. The software allowed Respondent to dictate the portions of her reports that required typing. After the software was provided, Respondent did not renew her request for an accommodation nor did she suggest the solution provided by the Board was inadequate to meet her needs. At all times material to the conversations between Respondent and Dr. Balado, Randall never mentioned a physical limitation kept her from meeting the timelines applicable to her work. Respondent’s late-mentioned comment regarding this 2010 accommodation has not been deemed credible or persuasive as a basis for not completing her work assignments in a timely manner. The performance improvement plan developed by Dr. Thedy and Dr. Balado would have appropriately addressed the deficiency in Respondent’s work. A second meeting was scheduled for November 21, 2014, to discuss Respondent’s future employment with the Board. Respondent remained on paid administrative leave throughout the procedure of reviewing the allegations and concerns regarding Respondent’s performance and behavior. In anticipation of the November 21, 2014, meeting, Petitioner’s staff conferred and decided to offer Respondent the opportunity to be placed on a performance improvement plan, with a freeze to her salary for the next school year, and an unpaid five-day suspension. Had the meeting gone as Petitioner hoped, Respondent’s disciplinary action would have been resolved with Respondent’s acceptance of the offer. On November 21, 2014, Respondent, her husband, and her lawyer met with Mr. Hickey, Dr. Thedy, and Dr. Balado. Based upon Respondent’s behavior and demeanor at the meeting, Petitioner’s attendees became suspicious of Respondent’s condition. Respondent’s demeanor shifted from crying and emotional to questioning and anger. Respondent was disheveled, her eyes were red and watery, her skin was flushed, and she was shaking. Coupled with what Mr. Hickey, Dr. Thedy and Dr. Balado noted was a strong odor of alcoholic beverage, Respondent’s demeanor gave Petitioner’s employees the concern that Respondent was under the influence of alcohol. After conferring with one another, Dr. Thedy and Mr. Hickey completed a reasonable suspicion observation form and expressed concern that Respondent was intoxicated. After being directed to undergo a reasonable suspicion breathalyzer examination, Respondent submitted to the test performed by Kathy Krell, the Drug and Alcohol Program Administrator for Petitioner. Ms. Krell has been fully-trained to administer breathalyzer examinations, has held the position with the Board for over 20 years, and has performed thousands of tests, such as the one given to Respondent. Ms. Krell performed Respondent’s examination in accordance with all testing guidelines and as routinely completed in the regular course of business for the Board. The final results of Respondent’s breathalyzer demonstrated that on November 21, 2014, at approximately 2:45 p.m., Respondent had an alcohol level of .104. This level is above the legal level for driving in the State of Florida. Respondent voluntarily submitted to the breathalyzer examination and has provided no credible explanation for the test results. Instead, Respondent challenged the results and maintains that her conduct, demeanor, appearance, and test results do not establish that she was intoxicated on November 21, 2014. It is determined that contrary to Respondent’s assertion, on November 21, 2014, at approximately 2:45 p.m., while attending a school meeting on School Board property to address her future employment with Petitioner, Respondent was under the influence of some alcoholic beverage or substance such that she was, in fact, impaired or intoxicated. To suggest that she was fully capable of functioning with an alcohol level of .104 is both contrary to common sense and the facts of this case. Respondent failed to maintain a professional demeanor and was unable to maintain a consistent appearance and behavior. When the results of the breathalyzer were made known to the parties, Petitioner withdrew the disciplinary offer then pending for Respondent’s acceptance. Subsequent to the November 21, 2014, meeting, Dr. Balado gave Respondent a referral to Petitioner’s employment assistance program (EAP). The EAP is available to Board employees with problems that adversely impact their ability to perform their work assignments. When an employee in EAP acknowledges their issue, participates, and agrees to seek help for their problem, the employer typically works to return the employee to the work environment. In this case, Dr. Binggeli recommended that the Board terminate Respondent’s employment on December 9, 2014. At its December 16, 2014, meeting, Petitioner voted to terminate Respondent’s employment with the school district and the instant administrative challenge to the decision ensued.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent’s employment with the Brevard County School District be suspended until such time as Respondent can show that she has successfully completed continuing educational courses related to the ethical standards expected of her, that her salary be frozen at the level of compensation for the 2013-2014 school year, that she does not receive any back pay or other compensation for the duration of her suspension, and that she be placed on a professional improvement plan to assure monitoring and compliance with all requirements of her job. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH 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 30th day of December, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Wayne L. Helsby, Esquire Allen, Norton and Blue, P.A. 1477 West Fairbanks Avenue, Suite 100 Winter Park, Florida 32789 (eServed) Shannon L. Kelly, Esquire Allen, Norton and Blue, P.A. 1477 West Fairbanks Avenue, Suite 100 Winter Park, Florida 32789 Scarlett G. Davidson, Esquire Culmer and Davidson, P.A. 840 Brevard Avenue Rockledge, Florida 32955 (eServed) Joseph E. Culmer, Esquire Culmer and Davidson, P.A. 840 Brevard Avenue Rockledge, Florida 32955 Dr. Desmond K. Blackburn, Superintendent Brevard County School Board 2700 Judge Fran Jamieson Way Viera, Florida 32940-6601 Pam Stewart, Commissioner Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is 26 years old. She lives by herself. Her residence is 280 John Knox Road, Tallahassee, Florida. She has maintained that residence since September of 1993. Petitioner works at Pyramid Industries, a structured workshop. She is receiving training as a receptionist. In addition, she packages headrests and does other duties which are assigned to her at the workshop. Petitioner's employment with Pyramid Industries is for four days a week, 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., on each day. That employment began on January 8, 1994. Petitioner was referred to Pyramid Industries by officials of Vocational Rehabilitation. Petitioner has difficulty in controlling a tendency to use inappropriate language, which she described as "swearing". Petitioner's parents take her shopping, to include trips to the grocery store, assist the Petitioner in maintaining her checkbook, visit with Petitioner on a daily basis, and give her support and try to assist her in controlling her "swearing". When Petitioner's mother was pregnant with Petitioner, the mother contracted rubella. Subsequently, Petitioner was taken to a pediatrician at age one and one-half because Petitioner was not speaking. Petitioner was then taken to Yale Child Study in an effort to analyze her condition. No competent evidence was presented concerning the findings made by that organization. Petitioner participated in a program administered by Yale Child Study, which, from a layperson's perspective, was designed to address Petitioner's behavior. When attending schools in Connecticut, Petitioner rode a special school bus with other students. There is no competent proof in the record concerning the nature of the problem which Petitioner and the other students experienced which required them to have special transportation to school. When Petitioner was a child, her mother attempted to address Petitioner's problems of verbal skills by using vocabulary flash cards and engaging in conversations with Petitioner. As a child, Petitioner was removed from kindergarten and reading readiness class to a private school in which an Individual Education Plan (IEP) was prepared to address her problems. No competent evidence was presented concerning the nature of the problem experienced by Petitioner at that time. Under funding provided by the Guilford, Connecticut, public school system, Petitioner was provided a residential placement at Devereux Foundation for education in middle school in accordance with an IEP. Petitioner attended Guilford High School in Guilford, Connecticut and received a certificate pursuant to a special education program in lieu of a diploma. No evidence was presented concerning the nature of this special education program. Petitioner has sought developmental services from Respondent so that she might be provided transportation to certain outings, such as bowling, and would be allowed to participate in the outings with persons who receive developmental services. The basis for the claim for developmental services is the allegation that Petitioner suffers from retardation, as defined in Section 393.063(41), Florida Statutes. No competent evidence was presented to prove that Petitioner suffers from retardation, as defined in Section 393.063(41), Florida Statutes. When Petitioner initially made application for developmental services from Respondent, she provided supporting information, to include a document which was entitled "Report of Psychological Assessment-Intellectual Functioning", performed by the Devereux Foundation, Devon, Pennsylvania. Consistent with its policy, Petitioner considered information in that document, which was dated March 10, 1992. In particular, Respondent took cognizance of a Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, a test administered to Petitioner.1 Respondent considered this test and its results to be collateral source information. Respondent relied upon the test results in making a preliminary decision about Petitioner's entitlement to receive developmental services. At hearing, Respondent, in the person of its employee and policy spokesperson, continued to defer to the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children scores in the Devereux Foundation testing as a means of determining Petitioner's eligibility for developmental services. Preliminarily and at hearing, Respondent held to the opinion that the full-scale score of 72 obtained by Petitioner disqualified Petitioner from receiving developmental services. Respondent's preliminary decision and position at hearing, was to the effect, that the full-scale score of 72 in the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children obtained by Petitioner placed Petitioner above the range of persons who have significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning. When Respondent saw the full-scale score on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children that had been administered by the Devereux Foundation to Petitioner, and having been persuaded by that information that Petitioner was not entitled to developmental services, it took no further action to review the material submitted by Petitioner or to seek additional material from Petitioner. Additional information which Petitioner provided to Respondent prior to hearing, on a form from the Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration, which contained information purportedly related to a WAIS76-69-72 assessment of Petitioner's intellectual functioning, was not considered in determining the question of eligibility because Respondent was persuaded that this testing was done too late in Petitioner's life to be of value. The Social Security Administration form entitled "Disability Determination and Transmittal" makes reference to a report prepared on March 31, 1986 concerning Petitioner's intellectual functioning as purportedly prepared by Kenneth Gilstein, Ph.D. C/E. The Disability Determination and Transmittal form paraphrases that report. The actual report is not part of the Disability Determination and Transmittal form.2 Other than the reference to the full-scale score of 72 obtained by Petitioner in the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, administered by the Devereux Foundation, Petitioner presented no other competent evidence in support of her application for developmental services, as such information would address Petitioner's general intellectual functioning, manifested during the period from conception to age 18. Petitioner presented no competent evidence concerning deficits in her adaptive behavior that existed concurrently with the measurement of her general intellectual functioning, as manifested during the period from conception to age 18. Neither party presented competent evidence concerning Petitioner's intellectual function to establish that Petitioner's performance was two or more standard deviations from the mean score on a standardized intelligence test specified in the rules of the Respondent, as this proof might describe significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning by Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's eligibility for developmental services. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of September, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of September, 1994.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent is guilty of personal conduct that seriously reduces her effectiveness as an employee of the school board, in violation of section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, or a violation of the Principles of Professional Conduct, as prohibited by section 1012.795(1)(j), by using institutional privileges for private gain and by failing to maintain honesty in all professional dealings, in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(4)(c) and (5)(a); and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds educator certificate 1012045, which is valid through June 30, 2019. The certificate covers English and Reading. In March 2015, Respondent was employed by Miami-Dade County Public Schools as a language arts teacher at Brownsville Middle School, where she had taught since 2006. On March 2, 2015, outside the presence of other proctors, Respondent administered the 2015 Florida Standards Assessment in English Language Arts (Test), which is taken in a paper-based format. In the course of administering the Test, Respondent noticed that the subject of the writing prompt was William Shakespeare. Respondent did not read any passages set forth in the Test, but, that evening, Respondent advised her son that, when he took the same Test in Broward County the next day, he would be prompted to write about William Shakespeare, and he should do his best to finish the Test. Objectively, knowledge of the subject of the prompt would not confer upon Respondent's son an advantage over his peers. As the word, "prompt" implies, the citation to William Shakespeare was merely to induce the students to write something, not to display their knowledge of Shakespeare or his plays and poetry. On the other hand, Respondent's motive in disclosing the subject of the prompt to her son was to put him a little more at ease when he took the Test; from this perspective, Respondent's motive was to confer upon her son an advantage that would not be enjoyed by the other students who took the Test. Most parents, like Respondent, could encourage their children to do their best and finish the Test, but none could give them the small measure of assurance that comes with knowing the subject of the prompt ahead of taking the Test. Emboldened by his special knowledge, Respondent's son told his teacher, loudly enough that some of his classmates could hear, that the Test was easy and that it was about a poet named Shakespeare. The teacher ordered Respondent to be quiet and, secure in the knowledge that the students did not know who Shakespeare was, justifiably determined that this disclosure a few moments before starting the Test would not affect the validity of the results. The teacher reported the matter to her principal, and eventually the matter was referred to the Miami- Dade County School District. When asked, Respondent admitted to telling her son about the prompt. Eventually, Respondent agreed to a five- workday suspension, without a right to a hearing, as opposed to a proposed termination, subject to a right to a hearing. She has served her suspension and remains employed by the Miami-Dade County School District. Respondent is an experienced teacher, whose career has taken place within the era of high-stakes testing. This simple case pivots on an act that, in effect, verged on the inconsequential, but, in genesis, revealed a worrisome inattentiveness to the demands of one's profession in maintaining an unassailable boundary between public duty and private interest. The proper penalty must recognize the mereness of the act, but inculcate in Respondent an aversion to self-dealing.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of a violation of section 1012.795(1)(g) and imposing a reprimand and a requirement that Respondent complete successfully 15 hours of teacher ethics or professionalism coursework, online or in person, by August 1, 2019, on her own time or using her personal leave. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of March, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 20th day of March, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Gretchen Kelley Brantley, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761 (eServed) Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Charles T. Whitelock, P.A. 300 Southeast 13th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Department of Revenue (Department, DOR) acted clearly erroneously, contrary to competition, arbitrarily or capriciously when it evaluated the Petitioner's submittal in response to an Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) for a child support enforcement automated management system-compliance enforcement (CAMS CE) in which it awarded the Petitioner a score of 140 points out of a possible 230 points and disqualified the Petitioner from further consideration in the invitation to negotiate process.
Findings Of Fact Procurement Background: The Respondent, the (DOR) is a state agency charged with the responsibility of administering the Child Support Enforcement Program (CSE) for the State of Florida, in accordance with Section 20.21(h), Florida Statutes. The DOR issued an ITN for the CAMS Compliance Enforcement implementation on February 1, 2002. This procurement is designed to give the Department a "state of the art system" that will meet all Federal and State Regulations and Policies for Child Support Enforcement, improve the effectiveness of collections of child support and automate enforcement to the greatest extent possible. It will automate data processing and other decision- support functions and allow rapid implementation of changes in regulatory requirements resulting from revised Federal and State Regulation Policies and Florida initiatives, including statutory initiatives. CSE services suffer from dependence on an inadequate computer system known as the "FLORIDA System" which was not originally designed for CSE and is housed and administered in another agency. The current FLORIDA System cannot meet the Respondent's needs for automation and does not provide the Respondent's need for management and reporting requirements and the need for a more flexible system. The DOR needs a system that will ensure the integrity of its data, will allow the Respondent to consolidate some of the "stand-alone" systems it currently has in place to remedy certain deficiencies of the FLORIDA System and which will help the Child Support Enforcement system and program secure needed improvements. The CSE is also governed by Federal Policy, Rules and Reporting requirements concerning performance. In order to improve its effectiveness in responding to its business partners in the court system, the Department of Children and Family Services, the Sheriff's Departments, employers, financial institutions and workforce development boards, as well as to the Federal requirements, it has become apparent that the CSE agency and system needs a new computer system with the flexibility to respond to the complete requirements of the CSE system. In order to accomplish its goal of acquiring a new computer system, the CSE began the procurement process. The Department hired a team from the Northrup Grumman Corporation headed by Dr. Edward Addy to head the procurement development process. Dr. Addy began a process of defining CSE needs and then developing an ITN which reflected those needs. The process included many individuals in CSE who would be the daily users of the new system. These individuals included Andrew Michael Ellis, Revenue Program Administrator III for Child Support Enforcement Compliance Enforcement; Frank Doolittle, Process Manager for Child Support Enforcement Compliance Enforcement and Harold Bankirer, Deputy Program Director for the Child Support Enforcement Program. There are two alternative strategies for implementing a large computer system such as CAMS CE: a customized system developed especially for CSE or a Commercial Off The Shelf, Enterprise Resource Plan (COTS/ERP). A COTS/ERP system is a pre-packaged software program, which is implemented as a system- wide solution. Because there is no existing COTS/ERP for child support programs, the team recognized that customization would be required to make the product fit its intended use. The team recognized that other system attributes were also important, such as the ability to convert "legacy data" and to address such factors as data base complexity and data base size. The Evaluation Process: The CAMS CE ITN put forth a tiered process for selecting vendors for negotiation. The first tier involved an evaluation of key proposal topics. The key topics were the vendors past corporate experience (past projects) and its key staff. A vendor was required to score 150 out of a possible 230 points to enable it to continue to the next stage or tier of consideration in the procurement process. The evaluation team wanted to remove vendors who did not have a serious chance of becoming the selected vendor at an early stage. This would prevent an unnecessary expenditure of time and resources by both the CSE and the vendor. The ITN required that the vendors provide three corporate references showing their past corporate experience for evaluation. In other words, the references involved past jobs they had done for other entities which showed relevant experience in relation to the ITN specifications. The Department provided forms to the vendors who in turn provided them to their corporate references that they themselves selected. The vendors also included a summary of their corporate experience in their proposal drafted by the vendors themselves. Table 8.2 of the ITN provided positive and negative criteria by which the corporate references would be evaluated. The list in Table 8.2 is not meant to be exhaustive and is in the nature of an "included but not limited to" standard. The vendors had the freedom to select references whose projects the vendors' believed best fit the criteria upon which each proposal was to be evaluated. For the key staff evaluation standard, the vendors provided summary sheets as well as résumés for each person filling a lead role as key staff members on their proposed project team. Having a competent project team was deemed by the Department to be critical to the success of the procurement and implementation of a large project such as the CAMS CE. Table 8.2 of the ITN provided the criteria by which the key staff would be evaluated. The Evaluation Team: The CSE selected an evaluation team which included Dr. Addy, Mr. Ellis, Mr. Bankirer, Mr. Doolittle and Mr. Esser. Although Dr. Addy had not previously performed the role of an evaluator, he has responded to several procurements for Florida government agencies. He is familiar with Florida's procurement process and has a doctorate in Computer Science as well as seventeen years of experience in information technology. Dr. Addy was the leader of the Northrup Grumman team which primarily developed the ITN with the assistance of personnel from the CSE program itself. Mr. Ellis, Mr. Bankirer and Mr. Doolittle participated in the development of the ITN as well. Mr. Bankirer and Mr. Doolittle had previously been evaluators in other procurements for Federal and State agencies prior to joining the CSE program. Mr. Esser is the Chief of the Bureau of Information Technology at the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles and has experience in similar, large computer system procurements at that agency. The evaluation team selected by the Department thus has extensive experience in computer technology, as well as knowledge of the requirements of the subject system. The Department provided training regarding the evaluation process to the evaluators as well as a copy of the ITN, the Source Selection Plan and the Source Selection Team Reference Guide. Section 6 of the Source Selection Team Reference Guide entitled "Scoring Concepts" provided guidance to the evaluators for scoring proposals. Section 6.1 entitled "Proposal Evaluation Specification in ITN Section 8" states: Section 8 of the ITN describes the method by which proposals will be evaluated and scored. SST evaluators should be consistent with the method described in the ITN, and the source selection process documented in the Reference Guide and the SST tools are designed to implement this method. All topics that are assigned to an SST evaluator should receive at the proper time an integer score between 0 and 10 (inclusive). Each topic is also assigned a weight factor that is multiplied by the given score in order to place a greater or lesser emphasis on specific topics. (The PES workbook is already set to perform this multiplication upon entry of the score.) Tables 8-2 through 8-6 in the ITN Section 8 list the topics by which the proposals will be scored along with the ITN reference and evaluation and scoring criteria for each topic. The ITN reference points to the primary ITN section that describes the topic. The evaluation and scoring criteria list characteristics that should be used to affect the score negatively or positively. While these characteristics should be used by each SST evaluator, each evaluator is free to emphasize each characteristic more or less than any other characteristic. In addition, the characteristics are not meant to be inclusive, and evaluators may consider other characteristics that are not listed . . . (Emphasis supplied). The preponderant evidence demonstrates that all the evaluators followed these instructions in conducting their evaluations and none used a criterion that was not contained in the ITN, either expressly or implicitly. Scoring Method: The ITN used a 0 to 10 scoring system. The Source Selection Team Guide required that the evaluators use whole integer scores. They were not required to start at "7," which was the average score necessary to achieve a passing 150 points, and then to score up or down from 7. The Department also did not provide guidance to the evaluators regarding a relative value of any score, i.e., what is a "5" as opposed to a "6" or a "7." There is no provision in the ITN which establishes a baseline score or starting point from which the evaluators were required to adjust their scores. The procurement development team had decided to give very little structure to the evaluators as they wanted to have each evaluator score based upon his or her understanding of what was in the proposal. Within the ITN the development team could not sufficiently characterize every potential requirement, in the form that it might be submitted, and provide the consistency of scoring that one would want in a competitive environment. This open-ended approach is a customary method of scoring, particularly in more complex procurements in which generally less guidance is given to evaluators. Providing precise guidance regarding the relative value of any score, regarding the imposition of a baseline score or starting point, from which evaluators were required to adjust their scores, instruction as to weighing of scores and other indicia of precise structure to the evaluators would be more appropriate where the evaluators themselves were not sophisticated, trained and experienced in the type of computer system desired and in the field of information technology and data retrieval generally. The evaluation team, however, was shown to be experienced and trained in information technology and data retrieval and experienced in complex computer system procurement. Mr. Barker is the former Bureau Chief of Procurement for the Department of Management Services. He has 34 years of procurement experience and has participated in many procurements for technology systems similar to CAMS CE. He established that the scoring system used by the Department at this initial stage of the procurement process is a common method. It is customary to leave the numerical value of scores to the discretion of the evaluators based upon each evaluator's experience and review of the relevant documents. According wider discretion to evaluators in such a complex procurement process tends to produce more objective scores. The evaluators scored past corporate experience (references) and key staff according to the criteria in Table 8.2 of the ITN. The evaluators then used different scoring strategies within the discretion accorded to them by the 0 to 10 point scale. Mr. Bankirer established a midrange of 4 to 6 and added or subtracted points based upon how well the proposal addressed the CAMS CE requirements. Evaluator Ellis used 6 as his baseline and added or subtracted points from there. Dr. Addy evaluated the proposals as a composite without a starting point. Mr. Doolittle started with 5 as an average score and then added or subtracted points. Mr. Esser gave points for each attribute in Table 8.2, for key staff, and added the points for the score. For the corporate reference criterion, he subtracted a point for each attribute the reference lacked. As each of the evaluators used the same methodology for the evaluation of each separate vendor's proposal, each vendor was treated the same and thus no specific prejudice to KPMG was demonstrated. Corporate Reference Evaluation: KPMG submitted three corporate references: Duke University Health System (Duke), SSM Health Care (SSM), and Armstrong World Industries (Armstrong). Mr. Bankirer gave the Duke reference a score of 6, the SSM reference a score of 5 and the Armstrong reference a score of 7. Michael Strange, the KPMG Business Development Manager, believed that 6 was a low score. He contended that an average score of 7 was required to make the 150-point threshold for passage to the next level of the ITN consideration. Therefore, a score of 7 would represent minimum compliance, according to Mr. Strange. However, neither the ITN nor the Source Selection Team Guide identified 7 as a minimally compliant score. Mr. Strange's designation of 7 as a minimally compliant score is not provided for in the specifications or the scoring instructions. Mr. James Focht, Senior Manager for KPMG testified that 6 was a low score, based upon the quality of the reference that KPMG had provided. However, Mr. Bankirer found that the Duke reference was actually a small-sized project, with little system development attributes, and that it did not include information regarding a number of records, the data base size involved, the estimated and actual costs and attributes of data base conversion. Mr. Bankirer determined that the Duke reference had little similarity to the CAMS CE procurement requirements and did not provide training or data conversion as attributes for the Duke procurement which are attributes necessary to the CAMS CE procurement. Mr. Strange and Mr. Focht admitted that the Duke reference did not specifically contain the element of data conversion and that under the Table 8.2, omission of this information would negatively affect the score. Mr. Focht admitted that there was no information in the Duke Health reference regarding the number of records and the data base size, all of which factors diminish the quality of Duke as a reference and thus the score accorded to it. Mr. Strange opined that Mr. Bankirer had erred in determining that the Duke project was a significantly small sized project since it only had 1,500 users. Mr. Focht believed that the only size criterion in Table 8.2 was the five million dollar cost threshold, and, because KPMG indicated that the project cost was greater than five million dollars, that KPMG had met the size criterion. Mr. Focht believed that evaluators had difficulty in evaluating the size of the projects in the references due to a lack of training. Mr. Focht was of the view that the evaluator should have been instructed to make "binary choices" on issues such as size. He conceded, however, that evaluators may have looked at other criteria in Table 8.2 to determine the size of the project, such as database size and number of users. However, the corporate references were composite scores by the evaluators, as the ITN did not require separate scores for each factor in Table 8.2. Therefore, Mr. Focht's focus on binary scoring for size, to the exclusion of other criteria, mis-stated the objective of the scoring process. The score given to the corporate references was a composite of all of the factors in Table 8.2, and not merely monetary value size. Although KPMG apparently contends that size, in terms of dollar value, is the critical factor in determining the score for a corporate reference, the vendor questions and answers provided at the pre-proposal conference addressed the issue of relevant criteria. Question 40 of the vendor questions and answers, Volume II, did not single out "project greater than five million dollars" as the only size factor or criterion. QUESTION: Does the state require that each reference provided by the bidder have a contract value greater than $5 million; and serve a large number of users; and include data conversion from a legacy system; and include training development? ANSWER: To get a maximum score for past corporate experience, each reference must meet these criteria. If the criteria are not fully met, the reference will be evaluated, but will be assigned a lower score depending upon the degree to which the referenced project falls short of these required characteristics. Therefore, the cost of the project is shown to be only one component of a composite score. Mr. Strange opined that Mr. Bankirer's comment regarding the Duke reference, "little development, mostly SAP implementation" was irrelevant. Mr. Strange's view was that the CAMS CE was not a development project and Table 8.2 did not specifically list development as a factor on which proposals would be evaluated. Mr. Focht stated that in his belief Mr. Bankirer's comment suggested that Mr. Bankirer did not understand the link between the qualifications in the reference and the nature of KPMG's proposal. Both Strange and Focht believe that the ITN called for a COTS/ERP solution. Mr. Focht stated that the ITN references a COTS/ERP approach numerous times. Although many of the references to COTS/ERP in the ITN also refer to development, Mr. Strange also admitted that the ITN was open to a number of approaches. Furthermore, both the ITN and the Source Selection Team Guide stated that the items in Table 8.2 are not all inclusive and that the evaluators may look to other factors in the ITN. Mr. Bankirer noted that there is no current CSE COTS/ERP product on the market. Therefore, some development will be required to adapt an off-the-shelf product to its intended use as a child support case management system. Mr. Bankirer testified that the Duke project was a small-size project with little development. Duke has three sites while CSE has over 150 sites. Therefore, the Duke project is smaller than CAMS. There was no information provided in the KPMG submittal regarding data base size and number of records with regard to the Duke project. Mr. Bankirer did not receive the information he needed to infer a larger sized-project from the Duke reference. Mr. Esser also gave the Duke reference a score of 6. The reference did not provide the data base information required, which was the number of records in the data base and the number of "gigabytes" of disc storage to store the data, and there was no element of legacy conversion. Dr. Addy gave the Duke reference a score of 5. He accepted the dollar value as greater than five million dollars. He thought that the Duke Project may have included some data conversion, but it was not explicitly stated. The Duke customer evaluated training so he presumed training was provided with the Duke project. The customer ratings for Duke were high as he expected they would be, but similarity to the CAMS CE system was not well explained. He looked at size in terms of numbers of users, number of records and database size. The numbers that were listed were for a relatively small-sized project. There was not much description of the methodology used and so he gave it an overall score of 5. Mr. Doolittle gave the Duke reference a score of 6. He felt that it was an average response. He listed the number of users, the number of locations, that it was on time and on budget, but found that there was no mention of data conversion, database size or number of records. (Consistent with the other evaluators). A review of the evaluators comments makes it apparent that KPMG scores are more a product of a paucity of information provided by KPMG corporate references instead of a lack of evaluator knowledge of the material being evaluated. Mr. Ellis gave a score of 6 for the Duke reference. He used 6 as his baseline. He found the required elements but nothing more justifying in his mind raising the score above 6. Mr. Focht and Mr. Strange expressed the same concerns regarding Bankirer's comment, regarding little development, for the SSM Healthcare reference as they had for the Duke Health reference. However, both Mr. Strange and Mr. Focht admitted that the reference provided no information regarding training. Mr. Strange admitted that the reference had no information regarding data conversion. Training and data conversion are criteria contained in Table 8.2. Mr. Strange also admitted that KPMG had access to Table 8.2 before the proposal was submitted and could have included the information in the proposal. Mr. Bankirer gave the SSM reference a score of 5. He commented that the SAP implementation was not relevant to what the Department was attempting to do with the CAMS CE system. CAMS CE does not have any materials management or procurement components, which was the function of the SAP components and the SSM reference procurement or project. Additionally, there was no training indicated in the SSM reference. Mr. Esser gave the SSM reference a score of 3. His comments were "no training provided, no legacy data conversion, project evaluation was primarily for SAP not KPMG". However, it was KPMG's responsibility in responding to the ITN to provide project information concerning a corporate reference in a clear manner rather than requiring that an evaluator infer compliance with the specifications. Mr. Focht believed that legacy data conversion could be inferred from the reference's description of the project. Mr. Strange opined that Mr. Esser's comment was inaccurate as KPMG installed SAP and made the software work. Mr. Esser gave the SSM reference a score of 3 because the reference described SAP's role, but not KPMG's role in the installation of the software. When providing information in the reference SSM gave answers relating to SAP to the questions regarding system capability, system usability, system reliability but did not state KPMG's role in the installation. SAP is a large enterprise software package. This answer created an impression of little KPMG involvement in the project. Dr. Addy gave the SSM reference a score of 6. Dr. Addy found that the size was over five million dollars and customer ratings were high except for a 7 for usability with reference to a "long learning curve" for users. Data conversion was implied. There was no strong explanation of similarity to CAMS CE. It was generally a small-sized project. He could reason some similarity into it, even though it was not well described in the submittal. Mr. Doolittle gave the SSM reference a score of 6. Mr. Doolittle noted, as positive factors, that the total cost of the project was greater than five million dollars, that it supported 24 sites and 1,500 users as well "migration from a mainframe." However, there were negative factors such as training not being mentioned and a long learning curve for its users. Mr. Ellis gave a score of 6 for SSM, feeling that KPMG met all of the requirements but did not offer more than the basic requirements. Mr. Strange opined that Mr. Bankirer, Dr. Addy and Mr. Ellis (evaluators 1, 5 and 4) were inconsistent with each other in their evaluation of the SSM reference. He stated that this inconsistency showed a flaw in the evaluation process in that the evaluators did not have enough training to uniformly evaluate past corporate experience, thereby, in his view, creating an arbitrary evaluation process. Mr. Bankirer gave the SSM reference a score of 5, Ellis a score of 6, and Addy a score of 6. Even though the scores were similar, Mr. Strange contended that they gave conflicting comments regarding the size of the project. Mr. Ellis stated that the size of the project was hard to determine as the cost was listed as greater than five million dollars and the database size given, but the number of records was not given. Mr. Bankirer found that the project was low in cost and Dr. Addy stated that over five million dollars was a positive factor in his consideration. However, the evaluators looked at all of the factors in Table 8.2 in scoring each reference. Other factors that detracted from KPMG's score for the SSM reference were: similarity to the CAMS system not being explained, according to Dr. Addy; no indication of training (all of the evaluators); the number of records not being provided (evaluator Ellis); little development shown (Bankirer) and usability problems (Dr. Addy). Mr. Strange admitted that the evaluators may have been looking at other factors besides the dollar value size in order to score the SSM reference. Mr. Esser gave the Armstrong reference a score of 6. He felt that the reference did not contain any database information or cost data and that there was no legacy conversion shown. Dr. Addy also gave Armstrong a score of 6. He inferred that this reference had data conversion as well as training and the high dollar volume which were all positive factors. He could not tell, however, from the project description, what role KPMG actually had in the project. Mr. Ellis gave a score of 7 for the Armstrong reference stating that the Armstrong reference offered more information regarding the nature of the project than had the SSM and Duke references. Mr. Bankirer gave KPMG a score of 7 for the Armstrong reference. He found that the positive factors were that the reference had more site locations and offered training but, on the negative side, was not specific regarding KPMG's role in the project. Mr. Focht opined that the evaluators did not understand the nature of the product and services the Department was seeking to obtain as the Department's training did not cover the nature of the procurement and the products and services DOR was seeking. However, when he made this statement he admitted he did not know the evaluators' backgrounds. In fact, Bankirer, Ellis, Addy and Doolittle were part of a group that developed the ITN and clearly knew what CSE was seeking to procure. Further, Mr. Esser stated that he was familiar with COTS and described it as a commercial off-the-shelf software package. Mr. Esser explained that an ERP solution or Enterprise Resource Plan is a package that is designed to do a series of tasks, such as produce standard reports and perform standard operations. He did not believe that he needed further training in COTS/ERP to evaluate the proposals. Mr. Doolittle was also familiar with COTS/ERP and believed, based on the amount of funding, that it was a likely response to the ITN. Dr. Addy's doctoral dissertation research was in the area of software re-use. COTS is one of the components that comprise a development activity and re-use. He became aware during his research of how COTS packages are used in software engineering. He has also been exposed to ERP packages. ERP is only one form of a COTS package. In regard to the development of the ITN and the expectations of the development team, Dr. Addy stated that they were amenable to any solution that met the requirements of the ITN. They fully expected the compliance solutions were going to be comprised of mostly COTS and ERP packages. Furthermore, the ITN in Section 1.1, on page 1-2 states, ". . . FDOR will consider an applicable Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) or Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) based solution in addition to custom development." Clearly, this ITN was an open procurement and to train evaluators on only one of the alternative solutions would have biased the evaluation process. Mr. Doolittle gave each of the KPMG corporate references a score of 6. Mr. Strange and Mr. Focht questioned the appropriateness of these scores as the corporate references themselves gave KPMG average ratings of 8.3, 8.2 and 8.0. However, Mr. Focht admitted that Mr. Doolittle's comments regarding the corporate references were a mixture of positive and negative comments. Mr. Focht believed, however, that as the reference corporations considered the same factors for providing ratings on the reference forms, that it was inconsistent for Mr. Doolittle to separately evaluate the same factors that the corporations had already rated. However, there is no evidence in the record that KPMG provided Table 8.2 to the companies completing the reference forms and that the companies consulted the table when completing their reference forms. Therefore, KPMG did not prove that it had taken all measures available to it to improve its scores. Moreover, Mr. Focht's criticism would impose a requirement on Mr. Doolittle's evaluation which was not supported by the ITN. Mr. Focht admitted that there was no criteria in the ITN which limited the evaluator's discretion in scoring to the ratings given to the corporate references by those corporate reference customers. All of the evaluators used Table 8.2 as their guide for scoring the corporate references. As part of his evaluation, Dr. Addy looked at the methodology used by the proposers in each of the corporate references to implement the solution for that reference company. He was looking at methodology to determine its degree of similarity to CAMS CE. While not specifically listed in Table 8.2 as a similarity to CAMS, Table 8.2 states that the list is not all inclusive. Clearly, methodology is a measure of similarity and therefore is not an arbitrary criterion. Moreover, as Dr. Addy used the same process and criteria in evaluating all of the proposals there was no prejudice to KPMG by use of this criterion since all vendors were subjected to it. Mr. Strange stated that KPMG appeared to receive lower scores for SAP applications than other vendors. For example, evaluator 1 gave a score of 7 to Deloitte's reference for Suntax. Suntax is an SAP implementation. It is difficult to draw comparisons across vendors, yet the evaluators consistently found that KPMG references lacked key elements such as data conversion, information on starting and ending costs, and information on database size. All of these missing elements contributed to a reduction in KPMG's scores. Nevertheless, KPMG received average scores of 5.5 for Duke, 5.7 for SSM and 6.3 for Armstrong, compared with the score of 7 received by Deloitte for Suntax. There is only a gap of 1.5 to .7 points between Deloitte and KPMG's scores for SAP implementations, despite the deficient information within KPMG's corporate references. Key Staff Criterion: The proposals contain a summary of the experience of key staff and attached résumés. KPMG's proposed key staff person for Testing Lead was Frank Traglia. Mr. Traglia's summary showed that he had 25-years' experience respectively, in the areas of child support enforcement, information technology, project management and testing. Strange and Focht admitted that Traglia's résumé did not specifically list any testing experience. Mr. Focht further admitted that it was not unreasonable for evaluators to give the Testing Lead a lower score due to the lack of specific testing information in Traglia's résumé. Mr. Strange explained that the résumé was from a database of résumés. The summary sheet, however, was prepared by those KPMG employees who prepared the proposal. All of the evaluators resolved the conflicting information between the summary sheet and the résumé by crediting the résumé as more accurate. Each evaluator thought that the résumé was more specific and expected to see specific information regarding testing experience on the résumé for someone proposed as the Testing Lead person. Evaluators Addy and Ellis gave scores to the Testing Lead criterion of 4 and 5. Mr. Ron Vandenberg (evaluator 8) gave the Testing Lead a score of 9. Mr. Vandenberg was the only evaluator to give the Testing Lead a high score. The other evaluators gave the Testing Lead an average score of 4.2. The Vandenberg score thus appears anomalous. All of the evaluators gave the Testing Lead a lower score as it did not specifically list testing experience. Dr. Addy found that the summary sheet listed 25-years of experience in child support enforcement, information technology, and project management and system testing. As he did not believe this person had 100 years of experience, he assumed those experience categories ran concurrently. A strong candidate for Testing Lead should demonstrate a combination of testing experience, education and certification, according to Dr. Addy. Mr. Doolittle also expected to see testing experience mentioned in the résumé. When evaluating the Testing Lead, Mr. Bankirer first looked at the team skills matrix and found it interesting that testing was not one of the categories of skills listed for the Testing Lead. He then looked at the summary sheet and résumé from Mr. Traglia. He gave a lower score to Traglia as he thought that KPMG should have put forward someone with demonstrable testing experience. The evaluators gave a composite score to key staff based on the criteria in Table 8.2. In order to derive the composite score that he gave each staff person, Mr. Esser created a scoring system wherein he awarded points for each attribute in Table 8.2 and then added the points together to arrive at a composite score. Among the criteria he rated, Mr. Esser awarded points for CSE experience. Mr. Focht and Mr. Strange contended that since the term CSE experience is not actually listed in Table 8.2 that Mr. Esser was incorrect in awarding points for CSE experience in his evaluation. Table 8.2 does refer to relevant experience. There is no specific definition provided in Table 8.2 for relevant experience. Mr. Focht stated that relevant experience is limited to COTS/ERP experience, system development, life cycle and project management methodologies. However, these factors are also not listed in Table 8.2. Mr. Strange limited relevance to experience in the specific role for which the key staff person was proposed. This is a limitation that also is not imposed by Table 8.2. CSE experience is no more or less relevant than the factors posited by KPMG as relevant experience. Moreover, KPMG included a column in its own descriptive table of key staffs for CSE experience. KPMG must have seen this information as relevant if it included it in its proposal as well. Inclusion of this information in its proposal demonstrated that KPMG must have believed CSE experience was relevant at the time its submitted its proposal. Mr. Strange held the view that, in the bidders conference in a reply to a vendor question, the Department representative stated that CSE experience was not required. Therefore, Mr. Esser could not use such experience to evaluate key staff. Question 47 of the Vendor Questions and Answers, Volume 2 stated: QUESTION: In scoring the Past Corporate Experience section, Child Support experience is not mentioned as a criterion. Would the State be willing to modify the criteria to include at least three Child Support implementations as a requirement? ANSWER: No. However, a child support implementation that also meets the other characteristics (contract value greater than $5 million, serves a large number of users, includes data conversion from a legacy system and includes training development) would be considered "similar to CAMS CE." The Department's statement involved the scoring of corporate experience not key staff. It was inapplicable to Mr. Esser's scoring system. Mr. Esser gave the Training Lead a score of 1. According to Esser, the Training Lead did not have a ten-year résumé, for which he deducted one point. The Training Lead had no specialty certification or extensive experience and had no child support experience and received no points. Mr. Esser added one point for the minimum of four years of specific experience and one point for the relevance of his education. Mr. Esser gave the Project Manager a score of 5. The Project Manager had a ten-year résumé and required references and received a point for each. He gave two points for exceeding the minimum required informational technology experience. The Project Manager had twelve years of project management experience for a score of one point, but lacked certification, a relevant education and child support enforcement experience for which he was accorded no points. Mr. Esser gave the Project Liaison person a score of According to Mr. Focht, the Project Liaison should have received a higher score since she has a professional history of having worked for the state technology office. Mr. Esser, however, stated that she did not have four years of specific experience and did not have extensive experience in the field, although she had a relevant education. Mr. Esser gave the Software Lead person a score of 4. The Software Lead, according to Mr. Focht, had a long set of experiences with implementing SAP solutions for a wide variety of different clients and should have received a higher score. Mr. Esser gave a point each for having a ten-year résumé, four years of specific experience in software, extensive experience in this area and relevant education. According to Mr. Focht the Database Lead had experience with database pools including the Florida Retirement System and should have received more points. Mr. Strange concurred with Mr. Focht in stating that Esser had given low scores to key staff and stated that the staff had good experience, which should have generated more points. Mr. Strange believed that Mr. Esser's scoring was inconsistent but provided no basis for that conclusion. Other evaluators also gave key staff positions scores of less than 7. Dr. Addy gave the Software Lead person a score of 5. The Software Lead had 16 years of experience and SAP development experience as positive factors but had no development lead experience. He had a Bachelor of Science and a Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering and a Master's in Business Administration, which were not good matches in education for the role of a Software Lead person. Dr. Addy gave the Training Lead person a score of 5. The Training Lead had six years of consulting experience, a background in SAP consulting and some training experience but did not have certification or education in training. His educational background also was electrical engineering, which is not a strong background for a training person. Dr. Addy gave the subcontractor managers a score of 5. Two of the subcontractors did not list managers at all, which detracted from the score. Mr. Doolittle gave the Training Lead person a He believed that based on his experience and training it was an average response. Table 8.2 contained an item in which a proposer could have points detracted from a score if the key staff person's references were not excellent. The Department did not check references at this stage in the evaluation process. As a result, the evaluators simply did not consider that item when scoring. No proposer's score was adversely affected thereby. KPMG contends that checking references would have given the evaluators greater insight into the work done by those individuals and their relevance and capabilities in the project team. Mr. Focht admitted, however, that any claimed effect on KPMG's score is conjectural. Mr. Strange stated that without reference checks information in the proposals could not be validated but he provided no basis for his opinion that reference checking was necessary at this preliminary stage of the evaluation process. Dr. Addy stated that the process called for checking references during the timeframe of oral presentations. They did not expect the references to change any scores at this point in the process. KPMG asserted that references should be checked to ascertain the veracity of the information in the proposals. However, even if the information in some other proposal was inaccurate it would not change the outcome for KPMG. KPMG would still not have the required number of points to advance to the next evaluation tier. Divergency in Scores The Source Selection Plan established a process for resolving divergent scores. Any item receiving scores with a range of 5 or more was determined to be divergent. The plan provided that the Coordinator identify divergent scores and then report to the evaluators that there were divergent scores for that item. The Coordinator was precluded from telling the evaluator, if his score was the divergent score, i.e., the highest or lowest score. Evaluators would then review that item, but were not required to change their scores. The purpose of the divergent score process was to have evaluators review their scores to see if there were any misperceptions or errors that skewed the scores. The team wished to avoid having any influence on the evaluators' scores. Mr. Strange testified that the Department did not follow the divergent score process in the Source Selection Plan as the coordinator did not tell the evaluators why the scores were divergent. Mr. Strange stated that the evaluator should have been informed which scores were divergent. The Source Selection Plan merely instructed the coordinator to inform the evaluators of the reason why the scores were divergent. Inherently scores were divergent, if there was a five-point score spread. The reason for the divergence was self- explanatory. The evaluators stated that they scored the proposals, submitted the scores and each received an e-mail from Debbie Stephens informing him that there were divergent scores and that they should consider re-scoring. None of the evaluators ultimately changed their scores. Mr. Esser's scores were the lowest of the divergent scores but he did not re-score his proposals as he had spent a great deal of time on the initial scoring and felt his scores to be valid. Neither witnesses Focht or Strange for KPMG provided more than speculation regarding the effect of the divergent scores on KPMG's ultimate score and any role the divergent scoring process may have had in KPMG not attaining the 150 point passage score. Deloitte - Suntax Reference: Susan Wilson, a Child Support Enforcement employee connected with the CAMS project signed a reference for Deloitte Consulting regarding the Suntax System. Mr. Focht was concerned that the evaluators were influenced by her signature on the reference form. Mr. Strange further stated that having someone who is heavily involved in the project sign a reference did not appear to be fair. He was not able to state any positive or negative effect on KPMG by Wilson's reference for Deloitte, however. Evaluator Esser has met Susan Wilson but has had no significant professional interaction with her. He could not recall anything that he knew about Ms. Wilson that would favorably influence him in scoring the Deloitte reference. Dr. Addy also was not influenced by Wilson. Mr. Doolittle has only worked with Wilson for a very short time and did not know her well. He has also evaluated other proposals where department employees were a reference and was not influenced by that either. Mr. Ellis has only known Wilson from two to four months. Her signature on the reference form did not influence him either positively or negatively. Mr. Bankirer had not known Wilson for a long time when he evaluated the Suntax reference. He took the reference at face value and was not influenced by Wilson's signature. It is not unusual for someone within an organization to create a reference for a company who is competing for work to be done for the organization.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the State of Florida Department of Revenue upholding the proposed agency action which disqualified KPMG from further participation in the evaluation process regarding the subject CAMS CE Invitation to Negotiate. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of September, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Cindy Horne, Esquire Earl Black, Esquire Department of Revenue Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Robert S. Cohen, Esquire D. Andrew Byrne, Esquire Cooper, Byrne, Blue & Schwartz, LLC 1358 Thomaswood Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Seann M. Frazier, Esquire Greenburg, Traurig, P.A. 101 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Bruce Hoffmann, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 James Zingale, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent violated Section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2008), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and if so, what penalties should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for certifying and regulating public school teachers in Florida. Respondent is licensed in the field of mathematics, and has been issued Florida Educator’s Certificate No. 130749. This certificate is valid through June 30, 2011. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was employed by the Duval County School Board as a sixth-grade mathematics teacher at Twin Lakes Academy Middle School in the Duval County School District. Respondent has been a teacher for over 40 years and has taught mathematics at Twin Lakes Academy Middle School for six years. On March 7, 2008, Respondent signed an “FCAT Administration and Security Agreement.” By signing the security agreement, Respondent acknowledged that he had read the 2008 FCAT SSS Reading, Mathematics, and Science Test Administration Manual, and that he would administer the FCAT exam in accordance to procedures stipulated in the manual. Page 30 of the manual stated in bold print that Respondent “may not . . . discuss test items or answers with students, even after all test materials have been returned.” By signing the FCAT Administration and Security Agreement, Respondent promised to avoid the following prohibited activities: Reading the passages, test items, or performance tasks; Revealing the passages, test items, or performance tasks; Copying the passages, test items, or performance tasks; Explaining or reading test items, or passages for students; Changing or otherwise interfering with students responses to test items; Causing achievement of schools to be inaccurately measured or reported; Copying or reading student responses. By signing the security agreement, Respondent agreed to abide by Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.042, and Section 1008.24, Florida Statutes, and acknowledged in part: The security of all test materials must be maintained before, during and after the test administration... * * * I will not disclose any information about the test items or engage in any acts that would violate the security of the FCAT and cause student achievement to be inaccurately represented or reported. In March 2008, after signing the security agreement, Respondent administered the FCAT to his sixth-grade mathematics class. The day after administering the FCAT, Respondent asked the students in each of his five classes to write down questions they could remember from the FCAT. The testimony varied as to whether the requested information was limited to questions they did not understand, a single question, or simply questions and answers. However, it is clear that the requested information stemmed from the FCAT administration the previous day. Respondent collected the students’ written responses immediately after, with the intention of reviewing the students’ responses at a later date. There is no competent, persuasive evidence that Respondent intended to share the questions with anyone. After collecting the students’ written responses, Respondent placed them in a folder and then placed the folder in his personal briefcase to be taken home and locked in his private safe. Shortly thereafter, the school principal, Mr. Donald Nelson, received an email from a parent who is also a teacher at Twin Lakes Elementary School, stating that a security violation may have occurred with respect to the FCAT. Mr. Nelson immediately called Professional Practices and questioned the Respondent about the incident. In addition, he retrieved the folder with the students’ questions from Respondent. An investigation was conducted by Mr. Leroy Starling, an investigator for the Duval County School District, Mr. Nelson, and Mr. John Williams, the Director of Professional Standards for the school district. Randomly selected students were questioned individually, and students’ written responses as well as two letters written by the Respondent to Mr. Nelson were reviewed. As a result of the investigation, on April 4, 2008, Respondent was issued a letter of reprimand and suspended for ten days without pay. Respondent continued to teach his sixth-grade mathematic class during the ten days that he was suspended, despite the fact that he was not being paid to do so. Ms. Victoria Ash, Bureau Chief for K-12 Assessment for the Florida Department of Education, testified that the FCAT is used as part of the accountability system for the state. The results from the FCAT results are used to determine if schools have made an adequate yearly progress, to assign school grades and to measure each student’s level of achievement. Ms. Ash further testified that due to the three-year process in developing test questions, selected questions are frequently re-used on the FCAT. As a result, pursuant to the FCAT security agreement, teachers are warned not to “check through books and return them to students after they have been collected or discuss test items or answers with students even after all test materials have been returned and testing has been completed because some items may be used on future tests.” There is no evidence presented that student achievement was inaccurately reported or misrepresented as a result of this incident. There is also no evidence that any of the questions on the FCAT were discarded or that any test scores were invalidated as a result of the incident. Respondent has received consistent excellent teaching reviews and has never been reprimanded before this incident. There is no evidence that Respondent acted inappropriately in any manner during the actual administration of the FCAT.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of March, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 19th day of March, 2010.
