Findings Of Fact James D. Alford, III, was initially employed by the Board of Education in the Public Schools of Duval County, Florida during January of 1973. Respondent holds teacher's certificate no. 333009, graduate, rank 3 and is a graduate of Tuskegee Institute where he received a B.S. Degree in Industrial Arts. For approximately two and one-half years subsequent to January, 1973, he was assigned to southside Junior High School as an Industrial Arts Special Education Teacher in a pilot program. It appears that there is no difference in the qualification required for teachers of industrial arts in special education programs as opposed to other industrial arts teachers that are certified in industrial arts. In addition to his employment with the Duval County School Board, Respondent served in a student teacher training program for nine weeks in Montgomery, Alabama. Respondent, during his assigned duties for the Duval County School Board, taught a special education industrial arts class consisting of seventh, eighth and ninth grade students. He trained students how to safely use tools and to perform projects requiring the use of industrial arts tools. He assigned students projects based on their manipulative skills. He noted that "special ed" students had to be trained to use even the simplest tools such as hand saws. Respondent testified that discipline was a major problem in teaching "special ed" students and that for the first and/or minor offense, he attempted to discipline students by verbal commands and that when that failed he sent students to the Dean's Office. He denied ever using physical force to punish students for unruly conduct. His testimony is that his only physical contact with students was to restrain them from physical acts and it suffices to say that he denied all of the allegations filed by the Council in its petition to revoke his teaching certificate. Respondent was aware of the Board's policy respecting discipline and testified that he never administered corporal punishment to students. Following altercations with two students during late 1974, Respondent was offered transfers on at least two occasions which he declined because he "had recently received approximately $5,000.00 of new shop equipment" and further that he wanted to remain at Southside for a sufficient period in order to administer in a smooth and efficient manner the special ed industrial arts program at Southside. The first significant incident involving the Respondent occurred during December of 1974 during an altercation with one of his students i.e., Gary Roary. According to Respondent, Roary initially hit him whereupon he retaliated by striking him back. Roary then left the room, picked up a two by four and returned to the classroom where Roary attempted to hit Respondent. Respondent, in an effort to snatch the two by four from Roary, shoved him causing him to fall on a saw. Roary sustained an injury which required three sutures at the emergency room at a local hospital. Respondent states that he did not know that Roary had injured himself until he was later called to the office where he was told to meet with Mr. Buford Galloway. The Principal, J. R. McDaniel, investigated the incident involving Gary Roary and concluded that Respondent was "rather rough with Gary". See Petitioner's Exhibit #1. Respondent testified that the incident occurred during a demonstration of a "boomerang" that he had constructed to motivate students to make one. He first threw the boomerang and then a student threw it. When the student threw the boomerang, it struck a teacher's car which resulted in a scratch. One of the students relayed this information to the teacher involved, Ms. Williams, whose car was parked near the shop area. A brief uproar resulted when the boomerang struck Ms. William's car and Respondent grabbed Willie Critton, another student by the front of his shirt. Roary yelled for Critton to hit Respondent and evidence revealed that Respondent retorted by saying "hit me, hit me," when Roary said "hit him". Respondent released Critton and grabbed Roary and this brought about the above incident in which Roary sustained the cut. Respondent admits to pushing Roary and striking him on the right shoulder stating that this was done in self- defense. He acknowledged that it was probably a mistake for him to hit Roary. Following this incident, Respondent was transferred to another school for the remainder of the school term. Marilyn Bagby, a program coordinator for mentally retarded for the Duval County School Board testified that she has known Respondent since 1972, and that during a visit to one of his classes, she saw a student roaming the hallway in front of his class. She testified generally that she was able to determine that students had been left out in the hall for periods up to approximately three weeks. However Mrs. Bagby was not specific in her testimony respecting these incidents and for these reasons, little weight can be attached to her testimony. Lowell T. Hudson, Industrial Arts Superintendent for the Duval County School Board, testified that the Respondent's class was properly equipped and that during his visits to Respondent's class, he noticed discipline problems. Mr. Hudson was involved in one conference concerning the disciplinary procedures utilized by Respondent and during a subsequent incident, Respondent was transferred. Joseph R. McDaniels, the Prinicpal at Southside High for approximately four years and an employee for approximately 19 years testified respecting approximately five conferences concerning Respondent and his disciplinary techniques. On three of these conferences, he wrote memos respecting the details of such conferences. He explained the City wide disciplinary policy to Respondent and cautioned him against using corporal punishment to discipline students. He recalled that two conferences occurred during May of 1974 and a third conference occurred during December of 1974. Ms. Eleanor Williams, the instructor whose car was struck by the boomerang which was thrown by one of Respondent's students, testified that Respondent assisted her on one occasion in a dispute with a student who was fighting another student. Respondent requested that Ms. Williams go to his office to obtain his stick which she refused and thereafter he asked the students to go get his stick. She testified that one student who was involved in the altercation had a paring knife. Respondent, in an effort to break up the students, swung at one student and missed striking a refrigerator and a bread box resulting in a dent in the refrigerator of approximately eight inches. Respondent, according to Ms. Williams, never requested that the students stop fighting. Instead Respondent kicked one of the students, Tim Walden, and Don Jones, the other student who was involved was struck in his face. At that time, several instructors were summoned who restrained Respondent from further hitting the students. 1/ Willie J. Critton, a 16 year old eleventh grade student attended shop classes with Respondent during his eighth grade school year. He testified that on numerous occasions, Respondent bent his fingers back and twisted his fingers. He further testified that it was common practice for Respondent to expel students from his class room and force them to stand outside in the hallway. Gary Roary was called and testified substantially as other witnesses who gave testimony on the boomerang incident during December of 1974. Specifically, he testified that Respondent hit Willie Critton and thereafter grabbed him. During the above incident, he was shook by Respondent and struck in the mouth. When he broke away from Respondent, he left the classroom, obtained a stick and entered the room. Upon his return, he swung at Respondent and fell when Respondent shoved him and his head struck a saw. This resulted in the cut referred to above which required three stitches. Betty Allison, a qualified expert in mental retardation, testified that while discipline is a problem in teaching EMR students (Educable Mentally Retarded), she objected to the disciplinary procedures utilized by Respondent calling them inappropriate in EMR situations. She testified that to be effective, EMR instructors must devise well organized lesson plans and that classroom instruction must be motivating in order to secure and retain the students' attention. Other witnesses testified that EMR students cause more discipline problems than others and generally testified that Respondent was effective as most instructors in teaching EMR students. Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, 1975, empowers the Department of Education to suspend or revoke a valid Florida Teaching Certificate held by an individual who is committing or has committed certain acts or omissions which justify revocation or suspension on grounds enumerated in the statute. One of the grounds as provided in the statute exist when the teacher, upon investigation, has been found guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces his effectiveness as an employee of the School Board. Here the Petitioner seeks revocation of the Respondent's teacher's certificate based on the fact that he has allegedly engaged in numerous offensive activities, which has seriously impaired and reduced his effectiveness as an employee. After careful consideration of all the evidence adduced herein, the testimony of witnesses and the arguments of counsel, I conclude that the disciplinary measures used by the Respondent departed from the county's established procedure for disciplining students and despite repeated warnings that he refrain from corporally punishing students, he continued to do so. His conduct in the Gary Roary and Willie J. Critton incident on December 3, 1974, is exemplary of his disciplinary methods. Based thereon and the entire record herein, I find that Respondent's usefulness as a teacher-employee has been reduced within the meaning of Section 231.28, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing finding of facts and conclusions, I hereby RECOMMEND: 1. That the Respondent's teaching certificate be suspended for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of May, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
The Issue The central issue in this proceeding is whether the Department of Banking and Finance's (Agency) action relating to an intended contract award was arbitrary, illegal, fraudulent or dishonest. Petitioner alleges that the Institute for Instructional Research and Practice of the University of South Florida (Institute) has no statutory authority to perform the contract. The intervenor, Hewitt, Olson & Associates, Inc., joins this allegation. By stipulation at hearing, Petitioner limited its protest, and the issues, to that allegation.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Banking and Finance is the agency with the statutory responsibility to administer and enforce laws related to mortgage brokerage and mortgage lending. It licenses persons eligible to practice in those fields. Eligibility is based, in part, on education and experience as well as on a written test. While the agency formerly administered the tests, it reached the conclusion that it needed a more extensive test; it needed to know whether items were valid and it needed a study guide for people who intended to take the test. For those reasons, it sought outside expertise in its RFP no. BF-12/94-95. The Department received timely responses from Petitioner and the two intervenors in this proceeding. The cover of the bound proposal from the University of South Florida states that the proposal is submitted by the Institute for Instructional Research and Practice, University of South Florida, College of Education, Carolyn D. Lavely, Ph.D., Director. Within the cover is a copy of memorandum of delegation of authority to execute research contracts and grants, by Betty Castor, President of the University of South Florida. There are also separate submittal letters executed by John C. Kuttas, Senior Contracts and Grants Administrator, Division of Sponsored Research at the University, and by Dr. Lavely and Roslyn Heath, Assistant Director, Division of Sponsored Research at the University. (Respondent's Exhibit #3). The services described in the proposal are to be performed by the Institute of Instructional Research and Practice at the University of South Florida. The Institute describes its qualifications on pages 32 and 33 of its proposal: The Institute for Instructional Research and Practice (the Institute) was established in 1984 by the Florida Legislature. Originally respon- sible for research, development, and validation of instruments for measuring subject area knowledge and teacher effectiveness, the Instituted has developed and validated more than 60 examinations for the state's master teacher and teacher certification programs. Since its inception, the Institute has expanded its range of testing activities beyond assessments of teachers to include assessments of students, school admini- strators, and non educators who require testing for professional licensure. The Institute's staff of 35 persons includes statisticians, psychometricians, computer specialists, and editorial and clerical support personnel trained in the provision of products and services directly related to all phases of test development, administration, and statistical analysis. Experienced in all aspects of testing, Institute staff have been actively involved in drafting legislation; setting standards; performing task analyses; developing, validating, and pilot testing specifications and examinations; administering examinations; scoring, analyzing, and reporting the results of a variety of tests for the State of Florida; and conducting related research. Institute personnel manage a large-scale test development operation, conduct research, and document and produce standardized tests. The Institute is now the third largest producer of teacher exams in the United States. (emphasis in original) The University of South Florida has contracted for similar services with several state agencies including the Department of Insurance, the Department of Education, and the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. The Institute provides the testing services and uses the contracts to further its own research and expertise, to collect and analyze data and to train graduate students in the College of Education. RFP no. BF-12/94-95 is not a request for research services and is not a request for a research contract. The services under the contract have research and training components. The Institute does research related to item analysis; it accumulates data as a result of administering the exams and it analyzes and researches the data. Dr. Lavely and other Institute staff publish in research journals and make presentations to research associations based on the experience of the Institute in its testing contracts. Graduate students are involved in the training and research aspects. Thus, it is clear that even if the contracting agency is not receiving a direct research "product", the Institute and the University are deriving a research benefit from the services under the contract. Since its creation by statute in 1984, the Institute's enabling legislation has not been amended. It received an initial appropriation of $750,000 from the legislature, and no appropriation since then. Payments for all contractual services provided by the Institute are routed through the University of South Florida's Division of Sponsored Research. The contract to be awarded from the agency's RFP No. BF-12/94-95 would be considered a "fixed cost contract" by the Institute. Any contracts performed by the Institute are entered into by the University of South Florida through the Division of Sponsored Research.
Conclusions (2)(a) As no petition for hearing has been filed, the right to a hearing has been waived. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 28-5.111. (b) The Department has substantial doubt as to the correctness of the conclusions of the Hearing Officer as expressed in the Recommended Order but declines to rule for the reasons set forth herein. (3)(a) None of the parties to this proceeding have alleged that this agency has acted impermissibly in the bid review process. It is apparent, however, that the process can be improved. In a typical bid proceeding, agency employees draft the bid request, review the bids, and make an initial determination regarding which bid is the lowest responsible bid. If a protest is filed which fails to allege disputed issues of material fact, an employee of this Department may be assigned to act as hearing officer. After the hearing is conducted, the agency head or the designee of the agency head then renders a determination on the bid protest. Accordingly, in the absence of any disputed issues of material fact, the bid process can be conducted solely by personnel of this agency. Such a procedure can hardly command the confidence of the public which rightly deserves an open government and adequate assurances that the bidding process is effectuated without bias or favoritism of any kind. In cases where there are disputed issues of material fact, the Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings is limited to deciding whether the agency acted fraudulently, illegally, arbitrarily, or dishonestly. Accordingly, even in instances where a person independent from the agency reviews the bid process, such person's input is limited. Therefore, it seems apparent that more should be done to give the public and persons who wish to do business with the State of Florida confidence that tax dollars are being spent in the most appropriate manner. Based upon the foregoing, efforts must be made to improve the process so that the citizens of the state can be assured that there is adequate oversight in the bid process. There is the additional concern that ways must be found to increase the involvement of the mortgage brokerage industry in the testing process. The present process proposes that the state, or an agent of the state, develop the test, administer the test, score the test, and post the results of the test with little or no participation from the mortgage brokerage industry. While there is a legitimate function for state government in the testing process, efforts should be made to include the mortgage brokerage industry in the process. It seems apparent that implementing the above-stated principles will require the input of both the private and public sector and may also necessitate the implementation of statutory amendments. Based upon the foregoing, it is in the best interest of the state not to award the contract to any person at this time pending review of the bid process especially in view of the fact that the Department is able to administer the test on at least a temporary basis while this matter is resolved.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED that the Department of Banking and Finance enter its final order awarding the contract in RFP BF-12/94- 95 to the University of South Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY W. CLARK, 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 28th day of July, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Douglas Moody, Jr., Esquire William B. Graham, Esquire 300 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Henry W. Lavandera, Esquire University of South Florida ADM -250 4202 East Fowler Avenue Tampa, Florida 33620-6250 Jack Silver, Esquire 439 Northeast Seventh Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33301-1207 Margaret S. Karniewicz, Esquire Department of Banking and Finance Suite 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Honorable Robert F. Milligan Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Harry Hooper, General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance Room 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
Findings Of Fact The Respondent caused the experience increments which had been in effect for all adult education teachers to be modified or terminated, and reduced the hourly wage amounts paid to adult education teachers. However, the real question presented is whether adult education teachers were included within the bargaining unit. The position of adult education teachers was not mentioned either in the inclusions or exclusions of the descriptions of the bargaining unit. Whether they would be included therefore turns upon whether adult education teachers are regularly employed certificated personnel." Adult education teachers were not required to be certificated, one primary requirement for inclusion in the unit. In addition, persons employed in the adult education program included both certificated day-time teachers and administrative personnel specifically excluded from the unit. Their employment was not contractual and could be terminated if a particular class was cancelled or dropped based upon lack of student enrollment. In such a case the adult education teacher's employment would be automatically terminated. Adult education classes were presented at night and the maximum number of hours that any adult education teacher would work would be six (6) hours per week. For both groups, employment as an adult education teacher was in addition to their regular employment. From a budgetary standpoint, adult education teachers were compensated from a separate functional breakout within the school budget to which that portion of their compensation earned as an adult education teacher was charged. No deductions were made from the adult education portion of a teacher's salary for retirement or Social Security. Based on the foregoing facts, the Hearing Officer finds that adult education teachers are not "regularly employed certificated personnel" and therefore, are not within the bargaining unit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer would recommend that no action be taken on the charges as stated in Paragraphs 10(A)(B)(C)(D)(E)(F)(G)(J)(H) and Paragraphs 11(A) and (B). Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law relating to Issue XI and Paragraph 10(H) of the complaint, the Hearing Officer would recommend that the Commission enter its order requiring the Respondent to cease and desist its refusal to bargain upon request over mandatory items of collective bargaining. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of October, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ron Meyer, Esquire Frank & Meyer, P.A. Flagship Bank Building Tampa, Florida Norman J. Smith, Esquire Brinson and Smith, P.A. Post Office Drawer 1549 Kissimmee, Florida 32741 Austin Reed, Esquire Public Employee Relations Commission 2003 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Leonard Carson, Chairman Public Employees Relations Commission 2003 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was first employed by the Liberty County School Board as a classroom teacher for the school terms 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74 as an English classroom teacher. For the school year 1974-75, the Petitioner was employed for a fourth year as a teacher by Respondent. In November of 1974, the Petitioner requested and was granted maternity leave through the end of the school year, i.e., June 6, 1975. It is undisputed that during the first three school years of the Petitioner's employment with Respondent, her employment was pursuant to an annual contract. However, what is in dispute, is Petitioner's claim that during her fourth year of employment with Respondent, such employment was pursuant to a continuing contract. According to Petitioner, the then principal at the school in which she was employed recommended that she be reappointed for her forth year of employment pursuant to a continuing contract as did the then superintendent of schools, Tom Fairchild. Thereafter, on May 4, 1974, the School Board met and voted favorably on the Superintendent' s recommendation. In this regard, the minutes of the May 4, 1974, meeting of the school Board do not disclose the contractual status approved by the Board, i.e., annual or continuing. 1/ During the summer of 1975, Petitioner advised her principal that she would not be returning for the 1975-76 school year. Accordingly, the principal employed another teacher to replace her. Shortly thereafter, Petitioner informed the principal that she had changed her mind and wanted to teach the 1975-76 school year. She was not, however, rehired, as the position had been filled. During the summer months of 1975, Petitioner had several conversations with her then principal, Jerry Johnson. Initially, during her conversations with Principal Johnson, Petitioner related to him that she thought that she would be returning to her position for the 1975-76 school year. During the latter part of July, Principal Johnson explained to Petitioner the necessity for her to make a final decision with respect to her returning to her position, since he needed to hire a replacement if she was not returning. At that point, Petitioner remarked that, "I think I need to take another year's leave." Mr. Johnson remarked, "Well, we hate that you are not coming back, but if you feel that's best for the baby, I'm supportive of you." Within a few days, Petitioner called Mr. Johnson back and advised, "just pretend I didn't talk to you the other day. I want my job back." At that point, Mr. Johnson remarked, "Vicki, I wish you had told me. I have just hired somebody else." To this, Petitioner remarked, "Well, what do you mean you just hired so00body else. I am on a continuing contract, you know." Mr. Johnson remarked, "Well, I know, but you've got me in an awkward position. This boy has got Board connections." Petitioner remarked, "Well, it couldn't have been more than a verbal agreement. He couldn't have signed anything yet because you don't sign a contract this early in the year." 2/ Mr. Johnson remarked, "Well, that's true but everybody is going to be awfully upset. I can't tell him he doesn't have a job now, and I've told him he has one." Later, Mr. Johnson asked Petitioner to submit a letter of resignation to which Petitioner never responded. Prior to the beginning of the school year in either late August or early September of the 1975-76 school year, Petitioner visited the principal's office in Bristol and explained to him that while she did not want to force the issue, via a lawsuit in a small community, she would appreciate it if she was given the first teaching position that cane open in the school system. (TR 23, 24 and 25.) The Petitioner testified that she was ready, willing and able to work during the 1975-76 school year. Petitioner received a call from Mr. Johnson during October of 1975 wherein he inquired if she was ready to return to work. Petitioner responded that she was ready and had been since the summer. Mr. Johnson indicated that he had a teaching position opening up; however, that position never materialized inasmuch as the teacher who was supposed to have resigned, Carolyn Larkins, needed an additional year of employment for retirement purposes. Petitioner was not assigned to a position at any time during the 1975-76 school year. Toward the end of the 1975-76 school year, Petitioner again informed her principal of her continuing request to be assigned. When no assignment was given her at the beginning of the 1975-76 school year, the Petitioner, out of economic necessity, accompanied her husband to Maine where he had obtained employment. Petitioner made it plain to her principal that she still sought employment with the Board and would return to Florida if and when an assignment was offered her. Finally, in November, 1976, approximately two months after the Petitioner left Florida, her principal assigned her to a teaching position and she returned and resumed teaching in the school system. Petitioner was given an annual contract for the 1976-77 school year and inquired why she was being asked to sign an annual contract. Her principal advised her that it was "customary" to do so. The Petitioner remained on the assignment the remainder of the 1976-77 school year. At the end of the 1976-77 school year, the present Superintendent of Schools, Laquita Shuler, recommended and the Respondent School Board approved, the Petitioner's continued employment. The Petitioner taught the entire 1977-78 school year. During the 1977-78 school year, Petitioner was again tendered an annual contract for execution which she refused to sign. Petitioner, before the School Board meeting in December, 1977, contended that she had a continuing contract and the Board took no action on her contention. At the end of the 1977-78 school year, Petitioner was not recommended for continued employment by the Superintendent. This was so, despite the favorable recommendation of her principal. Petitioner, at all times subsequent to the end of the 1977-78 school year, has been refused further employment by the Respondent. The Petitioner has made efforts to obtain employment during the interim; however, her interim earnings have been minimal. Since her separation from the Liberty County School Board, the Petitioner has been ready, willing and able to work.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, School Board of Liberty County, make the Petitioner whole for wages including her loss of pay during the 1975-76 school year, her pay from the start of the 1976-77 school year through November 16, 1976, when she was reassigned to her teaching position, her pay from the start of the 1978- 79 school year through the date of her reinstatement, as well as the expenses incurred by the Petitioner as a direct and approximate result of the Respondent's actions. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
The Issue May Petitioner be recognized by Respondent School District as a professional teacher association, pursuant to Section 231.6075, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Despite any typographical or other errors in the Petition, the parties are agreed that this cause is brought solely pursuant to Section 231.6075, Florida Statutes. Section 231.6075, Florida Statutes, effective June 21, 1999, reads as follows: 231.6075 Rulemaking authority; professional teacher associations. The State Board of Education shall adopt such rules as necessary to ensure that not-for-profit, professional teacher associations which offer membership to all teachers, noninstructional personnel, and administrators, and which offer teacher training and staff development at no fee to the district shall be given equal access to voluntary teacher meetings, be provided access to teacher mailboxes for distribution of professional literature, and be authorized to collect voluntary membership fees through payroll deduction. On July 7, 1999, Betty Coxe, Division Director, Human Resources Development, Florida Department of Education (DOE) wrote to Florida's District School Superintendents, advising them of the enactment of the statute and that DOE had identified "one statewide organization" which met the criteria to be a professional teacher association under this statute. That association was the Professional Educators Network of Florida, Inc. (PEN). Petitioner TEA was incorporated as a not-for-profit Florida corporation on September 22, 1999, by Jack Daniels as Chairman, Helen Heard as secretary-treasurer, and Daryl Grier as vice-chairman. The president, vice-president, and secretary- treasurer are elected by the Board of Directors. Currently, Chairman Daniels is also president. On October 25, 1999, Dean Andrews, Deputy General Counsel for DOE, issued a legal opinion on the following question: Must the State Board of Education adopt rules prior to school district implementation of Section 231.6075, Florida Statutes, relating to professional teacher associations? Mr. Andrews answered the question in the negative, concluding that "Section 231.6075, Florida Statutes, is self-executing." On December 20, 1999, David Ashburn, Director, Division of Human Resources Development, DOE, sent a letter to Florida's District School Superintendents "to provide further clarification for district level implementation" of Section 231.6075, Florida Statutes. That letter read, in pertinent part: It has come to the attention of the Department that there may be several associations that may meet the criteria for recognition in a district, and thus shall be afforded access to mailboxes, meetings, and payroll deduction as provided in the law. The professional association must provide documentation of compliance with the law and provide training in the district to establish recognition on an individual district by district basis. Therefore, a statewide listing or identification of the associations will not be possible. Implementation and compliance are to be at the local level. (Emphasis supplied) Sometime in January 2000, but before January 10, 2000, Mr. Daniels orally requested that Respondent Duval County School District recognize TEA as a professional teachers association, pursuant to Section 231.6075, Florida Statutes. His request was directed to Vicki Reynolds, Executive Director, Office of Policy and Compliance for the Duval County School District, who had been delegated the responsibility for handling this matter by Respondent's Superintendent of Schools. Ms. Reynolds has an extensive background with the Respondent School District. She was an elementary classroom teacher for eight years; served nine years as legal affairs liaison for the District; served as School District general counsel for two and a-half years; and has been in her present position for approximately one year. The record is silent as to whether she continues to be a certified or licensed professional teacher. In two trips to see Ms. Reynolds, Mr. Daniels delivered to her a copy of TEA's Articles of Incorporation and a copy of an October 13, 1999, letter from Buddy Worwetz, President of Worwetz Education Systems. According to Mr. Worwetz's testimony, Worwetz Education Systems is a "training, consulting, technology firm" which "mostly does adult basic training" and some "teacher training." Mr. Worwetz would expect to be paid for such services. The October 13, 1999, Worwetz letter indicated that Worwetz Education Systems had presented many workshops in "educator training" and "staff development," such as "drop out prevention and classroom management," which had been personally taught by Mr. Worwetz in Respondent's School District, and that the company had the capacity to provide workshops in "curriculum and instruction, various subject matter, technology, exceptional student education, communications, diversity, community relations, and the school improvement process," plus two, six- hour courses, taught by Dr. Kyker and Carla Jones, entitled "Introduction to Cooperative Discipline" and "Student-Centered Leadership." TEA contended that these courses constituted appropriate continuing education courses for professional teachers. In January 2000, when she reviewed TEA's Articles of Incorporation and the October 13, 1999, Worwetz letter, Ms. Reynolds accepted them at face value, but Ms. Reynolds could not identify any of the members of TEA's Board of Directors as teachers or educators. She also was not familiar with any of the names or the specifically-titled courses in Mr. Worwetz's October 13, 1999, letter. She was familiar with Mr. Daniels' background, which was primarily in insurance and union organization and litigation. On or about January 10, 2000, she orally denied TEA's recognition request. On January 11, 2000, Mr. Daniels wrote a letter to Respondent's Superintendent of Schools, requesting recognition of TEA. The Superintendent did not write him back, but that day, or shortly thereafter, Ms. Reynolds orally conveyed the Superintendent's denial to Mr. Daniels. On January 26, 2000, TEA filed a Petition for Formal Hearing, which was not acted upon by Respondent. TEA next filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the First District Court of Appeal, requesting that court to compel Respondent School District "to either grant or deny" TEA's request for formal hearing. Respondent opposed the Petition for Writ of Mandamus. On July 12, 2000, the First District Court of Appeal issued an Order, providing in pertinent part, as follows: We issued an order to show cause and find that respondent's arguments in opposition to the petition might ultimately prove to be valid reasons to deny the request for formal hearing or, if a hearing is held, to support the district's decision to decline to authorize TEA. They are not, however valid reasons to fail to act on the petition for formal hearing in a timely fashion. . . . Accordingly, we grant the petition and issue our writ of mandamus, directing the district to act on TEA's petition for formal hearing . . . . Respondent did not deny TEA's request for formal hearing. Rather, Respondent granted TEA's request for formal hearing, in effect declining to recognize TEA, and referred the case to DOAH, on or about August 17, 2000, for a hearing on the merits of recognition, pursuant to Section 231.6075, Florida Statutes. In either September or October 2000, Respondent, through Ms. Reynolds, accepted submittals from PEN (see Finding of Fact No. 3) at face value. She reviewed a four-page document provided by PEN, which listed all PEN's teacher education and staff development courses with course descriptions and objectives and named some of the instructors. Ms. Reynolds also reviewed a brochure naming PEN's Board of Directors and stating PEN's mission and vision, and a brochure listing the services PEN offers its members in exchange for their dues, which services include legal representation, insurance, and a statewide networking procedure.1 Ms. Reynolds was able to identify teachers and "educators" certificated and/or licensed by DOE on PEN's Board of Directors and certificated and/or licensed teachers named for its courses. Some of these persons she knew personally and others she knew by reputation from her nearly 20 years as a teacher and/or administrator in Respondent School District. Ms. Reynolds identified a former superintendent of Gadsden County Schools and a former president of Florida State University as being these "educators." She identified the courses offered by PEN as having some value to continuing teacher education. She also accepted that PEN was a statewide professional teacher association which presumably had DOE's imprimitur. (See Finding of Fact No. 3.) Thereafter, Respondent recognized PEN, pursuant to Section 231.6075, Florida Statutes, and Respondent now deducts PEN members' dues from Respondent's payroll. Ms. Reynolds also testified that representatives of a union, Duval Teachers United (DTU), had asserted that Section 231.6075, Florida Statutes, was unconstitutional and that they had urged that Respondent therefore not recognize any professional teacher associations, including PEN and TEA. It is unclear whether DTU has any affiliation with the AFL-CIO. At hearing, Jack Daniels testified and presented TEA's Articles of Incorporation, demonstrating that TEA is a not-for- profit corporation which offers membership to all teachers, non- instructional personnel, and administrators of all Florida School Districts. TEA apparently operates out of Mr. Daniels' home. TEA is not affiliated with the AFL-CIO. There are no professional (certificated or licensed) teachers on TEA's Board of Directors. It is not necessary to determine if an "educator" also may be a person trained in school administration, teacher qualification, and similar educational support services without also being a licensed or certificated teacher, because TEA's Board does not contain any of these professionals either. TEA did not demonstrate that any of its Board members had any education, training, or experience which would equip him or her to offer appropriate teacher training or staff development. Mr. Daniels has a background in insurance and union organization and litigation. Ms. Heard's qualifications were never clearly revealed. It was disputed whether or not Daryl Grier remained on TEA's Board of Directors as of the date of formal hearing, but in any case, TEA never affirmatively demonstrated that Mr. Grier has any background or qualifications as a teacher or "educator." In fact, his qualifications, if any, were never revealed. Buddy Worwetz testified concerning the courses described in his October 13, 1999, letter to Mr. Daniels (see Finding of Fact Nos. 10 and 11), but he never clearly explained the content of any course offered by his company, including those he has taught in the District. The other instructors available and named in the letter, Dr. Kyker and Carla Jones, were trained and "certified" by contributing authors, Pete DeSisto and Ken Blanchard, of a book with a title similar to one of the course titles, "Introduction to Cooperative Discipline." One of the proposed instructors, Dr. Kyker, reputedly is a "professor," but a professor of what discipline and where she serves as a "professor" was not explained. No mention was made of whether any of these people are certificated or licensed by DOE. Other qualifications, if any, of these proposed instructors were not explained. It was not demonstrated that Mr. Worwetz is a licensed or certificated teacher. Also, the cost and objectives of Worwetz's courses were not explained. However, evidence of Worwetz instructors and courses is essentially moot, since any planned collaboration between TEA and Worwetz Education Systems had ended before formal hearing. Effective May 26, 2000, Mr. Worwetz wrote Mr. Daniels that Worwetz Education Systems would no longer be available to contract with TEA for educational services. Mr. Worwetz's reasons for rescinding his October 13, 1999, offer to deal with TEA were his "gut feeling" that his organization "was being used to bolster TEA's eligibility and capability"; because Mr. Daniels had not contacted him in more than 30 days; and because he believed contracting with TEA would hurt his business with an AFL-CIO rival of TEA. It is clear from Mr. Worwetz's candor and demeanor while testifying that AFL-CIO members had influenced his decision to distance himself from TEA, but there is no evidence of any efforts of the Respondent School District in that regard. TEA currently has no employees, agents, or contractors who can offer continuing teacher education. TEA presented no evidence it currently has any members besides its three Directors, let alone any members who are professional teachers in Respondent's school district who might value receiving TEA materials in their mailboxes and deductions for TEA dues from their paychecks. TEA presented no evidence concerning the content or credit-hour value of educational courses it currently intends to offer. Apparently, TEA expects Respondent to list courses Respondent considers acceptable for teachers' continuing education and staff development and then Mr. Daniels, on behalf of TEA, will try to contract with some entity to produce these courses or will try to contract with an entity already offering such courses. Such a scenario hardly seems feasible, and TEA offered no evidence that any qualified entity exists which is willing to contract with TEA for this service. TEA presented no evidence that it has operating funds with which to provide the educational programs contemplated by the statute. Respondent School District, as represented by Ms. Reynolds, is aware of a prior labor dispute decided by the Florida Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC) which partially went against Respondent and in favor of a non-AFL-CIO union which Mr. Daniels represented. There also has been litigation before PERC which required Mr. Daniels' union "client" to pay money to Respondent, and the money has not been paid. Despite Ms. Reynolds' denial, her candor and demeanor when testifying suggests that she and her advisers have a concern that Mr. Daniels has a secret union agenda connected with TEA and that this concern was a component of Respondent's denial of recognition to TEA, pursuant to Section 231.6075, Florida Statutes. Respondent School District, as represented by Ms. Reynolds, views access to teachers' mailboxes and use of payroll deductions as having fiduciary overtones. She and her advisers have reservations about Mr. Daniels' fitness to administer such activities and funds on behalf of TEA. It is feared that programming into Respondent's system a payroll deduction for TEA may cause some of Respondent's employees to believe that Respondent has checked TEA's reliability in fiscal matters and is endorsing TEA in that regard. Respondent does do such checks on the tax-sheltered annuity firms for which Respondent makes payroll deductions. Supporting its concerns about union agitation and fiscal responsibility, Respondent had admitted in evidence PERC Show Cause Order Docket No. RC-99-014; Order No. 99E-070, dated March 18, 2000, found at 6 FPER paragraph 31099. That Order, in pertinent part, found as fact as follows: In 1990 Florida American Union (FAU) . . . through Daniels, filed an unfair labor practice charge which it knew was frivolous or groundless and ordered FAU to pay the [Duval County] School District its reasonable attorney's fees and costs. The Commission approved this recommendation. See Florida American Union v. Duval County School District, 16 FPER ¶21150 (1990). In 1993, . . . Daniels [as lay representative of a union] filed a motion asserting racial allegations against the Commission. That motion contained inaccurate and deceptively stated information and the Commission denied the motion as devoid of merit in form and substance. See Brotherhood of Black Custodial and Food Service Workers v. Duval County School District v. Florida Public Employees Council 79 AFSCME 19 FPER ¶24067 (1993). In 1994 . . . the hearing officer disqualified Daniels as a lay-representative for creating and using false evidence, presenting false testimony, and engaging in ex parte communications with the Commission. Recognizing the gravity of Daniels' misconduct in the ACE case, the Commission stated that in future cases Daniels would be subject to a show cause order when he asks to serve as a lay-representative. See Association of City Employees v. City of Jacksonville, 22 FPER ¶27052 (1996) appeal dismissed, No. 96-168 (Fla. 1st DCA Oct. 30, 1996). In 1996, . . . [w]hen Daniels sought to act as JETs lay-representative, the hearing officer issued an order to show cause why he should not be disqualified. Jacksonville Employees Together (JET) v. Jacksonville Housing Authority v. Florida Public Employees Council 79, AFSCME Case No. RC-96- 054 (Fla. PERC HOO Dec. 13, 1996). The hearing officer noted Daniels' flagrant misconduct in the ACE case and that Daniels' response only attacked Commissions ACE decision; thus, according to the hearing officer, Daniels failed to provide sufficient reasons why he should not be disqualified to serve as JET's lay- representative. Jacksonville Employees Together v. Jacksonville Housing Authority v. Florida Public Employees Council 79, AFSCME, Case No. RC-96-054 (FLA. PERC H00 Dec. 19, 1996); see also Jacksonville Employees Together v. Jacksonville Housing Authority v. Florida Public Employees Council 79, AFSCME, 23 FPER ¶28109 (1997). On appeal, the court affirmed the hearing officer. Jacksonville Employees Together v. Jacksonville Housing Authority, Case No. 97- 1784 (Fla. 1st DCA Aug. 19, 1998). In 1997, . . . the hearing officer disqualified Daniels as JET's lay- representative because he engaged in conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice. Fla. Admin. Code Rule 28- 106.107(3)(b) . . . See Jacksonville Employees Together v. City of Jacksonville v. Florida Public Employees Council 79, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Case No. RC-97-034 (Fla. PERC H00 July 24, 1998, appeal withdrawn, Case No. 98-0343 (Fla. 1st DCA Mar. 4, 1999); see also Jacksonville Employees Together v. City of Jacksonville v. Florida Public Employees Council 79, AFSCME, AFL- CIO, 25 FPER ¶30047 (1999). On August 31, 1998, . . . [t]he circuit court . . . adjudged Daniels in contempt for failing to honor a lawfully issued subpoena. . . . In re: The Petition of Florida Public Employees Council 79, AFSCME, Case No. 98- 4935-CA (Fla. 4th Cir. Ct. Nov. 16, 1998). [Bracketed material added for grammar and clarity.] The PERC Order gave Mr. Daniels 10 days in which to respond. TEA presented no evidence that the foregoing PERC Order to Show Cause had been responded to, reconsidered, vacated, set aside, or even appealed. Mr. Daniels testified, without refutation but also without any subsequent PERC Order to support his testimony, that, due to a change of PERC Commissioners, he has been re-admitted to practice before PERC. This evidence, even if believed, does not alter the facts as previously found by the PERC Order in evidence.2
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Duval County School District enter a final order denying Teachers Education Association's request for recognition pursuant to Section 231.6075, Florida Statutes, as of the date of the final order.5 DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of January, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of January, 2001.
The Issue By this action, the Petitioner, Ambrose Garner, President of Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, Florida, is attempting to discipline David C. Dye, Respondent, employee of the Board of Trustees, Hillsborough Community College, Florida, in accordance with the provisions set forth in Rule 6A-14.411, Florida Administrative Code. Specifically, it is alleged that: David C. Dye did aid and assist another college instructor in wrongfully obtaining the procurement and contract for a course of instruction. David C. Dye did knowingly aid and assist another college instructor in wrongfully obtaining payment for a course of instruction. David C. Dye did pay or assist another in paying a portion of tuition for students improperly transferred to another class of instruction. David C. Dye did aid and assist another college instructor in the wrongful transfer of students to another course of instruction without the students' knowledge or authorization.
Findings Of Fact David C. Dye is currently an Associate Professor at the Hillsborough Community College in Tampa, Florida. In the Winter Term for that institution, beginning January 27, 1979, and concluding March 17, 1979, the Respondent Dye served as a part-time Community Service faculty member and taught a course referred to by number as Art 005-H27, Pottery. This was an elective Community Service course not for credit, with student attendance optional. For his work, the Respondent was paid $208.00 by the Hillsborough Community College. The Respondent's pottery class was formed and met during the aforementioned Winter Term. Among the students enrolled in that class were Beatrice K. Parson and Irene Powe. The pottery class taught by Dye in the Winter Term of 1979 was scheduled to meet on Saturday and did in fact meet at that time. Although the students, Powe and Parson, were scheduled to attend the Saturday class, for reasons of convenience they attended the Tuesday session of a Tuesday and Thursday academic art course that was being taught by the Respondent. This pattern of attendance took place for a period of two weeks in the Winter Term. In view of the different status between academic students and Community Service non-credit students and the perceived needs of a fellow instructor, one Carl H. Norton, the Respondent undertook to have the students, Powe and Parson, transferred to Carl H. Norton's class, Art 013-G25, Sculpture, a class in the Hillsborough Community College not for credit. Dye also had a concern for the student, Beatrice Parson, who was legally blind and who needed special instruction, which the Respondent felt he could not afford her in the context of his academic class on Tuesday and which he felt Norton could give her in his, Norton's Saturday class. Specifically, Dye's concern about having non-academic students attending the academic course on Tuesday pertained to his ability to devote sufficient attention to these non-academic students and still instruct the regular class. On the subject of Norton's problem, in a discussion with Norton he was led to believe that Norton's course would not be allowed to go forward due to an insufficient number of students enrolled. Norton explained to him in the beginning of the term that thirteen students were in attendance and it was the Respondent's and Norton's perception that fifteen students would be necessary to conduct that class. In reality, a minimum enrollment of ten students would have been sufficient and Norton had ten students even without Powe and Parson. (The minimum enrollment number of ten is borne out by a copy of the syllabus of the Norton sculpture class for the Winter Term approving the minimum enrollment by the Community College administration. A copy of this document may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 6 admitted into evidence.) Dye and Norton envisioned that Dye would speak with the students, Powe and Parson, about transferring to the Norton Saturday class and arrange for that transfer. Beyond the point of transfer, Dye hoped that Powe and Parson would attend the Norton class and also attend his Tuesday and Thursday sessions of the academic course as they desired. Dye received no remuneration from Norton in furtherance of this agreement to transfer the students, he did not discuss with Norton the method to be used in placing the transferred students on Norton's classroll, nor the method to be used in indicating their attendance at the classes. The Respondent took no action to see that Norton was paid for delivering the course of instruction in Art 013-G25, Sculpture. Dye was unaware that there was a differential between the salary that Norton was being paid and that of Dye, in that Norton was paid $288.00 for the course, Art 013-G25, which caused a difference in tuition for the students. Dye did not become aware of this disparity until after the instructional term in question. That differential for Powe and Parson once transferred to the Norton class was paid for by Carl Norton, without the knowledge of Dye. The transfer of the students was effectuated beginning in the third week of the academic course being taught by Dye on Tuesday and Thursday. (That course had an earlier starting time than the pottery course in which those students were enrolled, by one or two weeks.) The Respondent explained to Powe his perception that Norton needed extra students and also explained that Norton might be able to help Parson, keeping in mind her special circumstance related to blindness. Because Powe had accompanied Parson to the session, Dye expected Powe to be willing to make the transfer also, to assist in bringing Parson to the class. Powe acquiesced in the transfer arrangement by giving her permission to transfer her name from the Dye course to the Norton course. She did not take steps to further this arrangement and she did not attend Norton's classes, notwithstanding the fact that the Norton Saturday class met in relative proximity to Dye's Saturday class. After this conversation with Dye, she attended two more Saturday sessions with Dye and then dropped out. The following week beyond the conversation with Powe, Dye spoke with Beatrice Parson and although Parson seemed confused by the whole arrangement, she did in fact acquiesce in the transfer of her name from the Dye art class to that conducted by Norton. She took no further action to bring about the transfer nor did she attend any of the classes beyond the time of this conversation. David Dye spoke with Doris Zimmer, an Administrative Assistant in the Ybor Campus of the Community College, and she made the paper transfer of the students, Powe and Parson, from the Dye class, Art 005-H27, Pottery, to the Norton class, Art 013-G25, Sculpture. She did this by completing an adjustment and transfer form related to the students, Parson and Powe, copies of which may be found as the Petitioner's Composite Exhibit Nos. 3 and 4 admitted into evidence. Through this arrangement, Doris Zimmer signed the students' signatures for them. Parson and Powe were unaware of this adjustment to their enrollment. The arrangement for the transfer of Powe and Parson from the Dye class to the Norton class was by prior standing unwritten policy of the Community College, there being no written policy concerning the transfer of non-academic students from one course to another. In this regard, it was commonplace to allow the execution of the transfer forms without the signature of the student for the Community Service non-academic students upon relation that the transfer was approved by the student, as was the case herein. After the transfer had been mode, Norton carried the students, Powe and Parson, on his roll and marked them present, notwithstanding the fact that they did not attend his class and this may be seen through the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence, which is a copy of his classroll. The students were dropped from David Dye's roll and he did not indicate any further attendance by those students in his Saturday pottery class as may be seen by a copy of his classroll, which is Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence.
Recommendation Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Charges placed against the Respondent, David C. Dye, be DISMISSED and that he be allowed to go forth without further answer. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of December, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: David E. Bryant, Esquire, 401 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602 John J. Chamblee, Jr., Esquire Law Offices of Frank, Chamblee & Kelly, P.A. 341 Plant Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606
The Issue Whether respondent's teaching certificate should be suspended or revoked on grounds that he violated Sections 231.09 and 231.28, Florida Statutes (1979), by knowingly obtaining and filing a fraudulent university transcript with the Florida Department of Education for the purpose of being certified in the additional field of elementary education.
Findings Of Fact I. The Respondent: Background l. Respondent, a 44-year-old school teacher, has taught at Dade County elementary schools since 1966. He obtained a bachelor of science degree at Southern University in 1962. Later, he completed several postgraduate elementary education courses at Miami-Dade Community College and the University of Miami; in 1977, he earned a master's degree from Nova University. In his postgraduate courses, he earned almost straight "A's," with an occasional "B." (Testimony of Parker; P-6.) From 1966-1977, Respondent held a rank III (graduate) teaching certificate issued by the Florida Department of Education. After obtaining his master's degree in 1977, he was issued a rank II (post graduate) teaching certificate; however, although qualified in other areas, he was not certified to teach in the field of elementary education. (Testimony of Parker; P-6.) From 1974-1979, Respondent taught at Biscayne Elementary School in Dade County; since he was not certified in elementary education, he taught "out of his field." Teachers, such as Respondent, who taught out of their certified fields were required to complete at least six credit hours per year toward obtaining certification in the field in which they were teaching. Between 1977 and 1979, the Dade County School Board ("School Board") reminded its teachers of this requirement, that if they did not take the necessary ongoing course work, they would be required to return to their certified field of instruction. (Testimony of Gray.) Earlier, Respondent had hoped that, by obtaining his master's degree, he would complete enough courses to qualify for certification in the field of elementary education. However, his 1977 postgraduate teaching certificate did not certify him in elementary education. Sometime in early 1978, he calculated that 18 additional postgraduate credit hours would entitle him to be certified in elementary education, the area in which he preferred to teach. (Testimony of Parker.) II. Sutton Helps Respondent Enroll and Take Courses at Florida A & M University At all times material to this case, Eugene Sutton was employed by Florida A & M University ("Florida A & M") in Tallahassee, Florida, as its supervisor of intern teachers. In this capacity, Sutton would travel around the State, visiting interns and talking to supervising teachers. If problems were encountered, he would offer assistance. (P-4.) Sutton had been introduced to Respondent by Rosalyn Bethel, another faculty member at Biscayne Elementary School. In early 1978, Sutton--who had visited the school numerous times--walked into Respondent's classroom and asked him where he had attended school. When the conversation turned to various universities, Sutton stated that Florida A & M offered courses that could be taken by working people; he volunteered to help Respondent take such courses: [H]e [Sutton] said that he was able to reg- ister me, give me my work, and take it back to the instructors or the University, and I would get credit. (Tr. 76.) (Testimony of Parker; P-3.) Respondent accepted Sutton's offer. Shortly thereafter, he gave Sutton the registration fees (required by the university catalog) for nine credit hours. As promised, Sutton registered Respondent for elementary education courses at Florida A & M for the Spring Quarter of 1978. Respondent received a receipt from the university indicating his enrollment. During the ensuing months, Sutton would frequently exchange course materials with Respondent: Sutton would give course assignments to Respondent; Respondent would give Sutton completed course work for delivery to the various university instructors. (Testimony of Parker.) Respondent reasonably believed that he was properly completing course work assigned by his university instructors. The course work bore course titles and names of various instructors. Sutton was a faculty member at the university, a person in authority with important responsibilities. Respondent had no reason to distrust him or suspect him of wrongdoing. (Testimony of Parker, Gaines.) After finishing the Spring Quarter, Respondent enrolled at Florida A & M again, (through Sutton) for nine more credit hours (three courses) in elementary education during the Summer Quarter of 1978. The procedure was the same: He paid Sutton the required registration fees and received a receipt from the university. Sutton then brought course assignments (with textbooks) to Respondent, who, after completing them, gave them to Sutton for delivery to the various university instructors. Respondent never attended the university's Tallahassee campus or spoke directly with his instructors. (Testimony of Parker.) The elementary education courses which Respondent took at Florida A & M during 1978 were not directed individual study courses--courses which can be completed without attendance at the university's campus. However, Respondent-- at the time he selected these courses--did not know that they required attendance at the university. Sutton helped him select the courses from the university's course catalog, and he relied on Sutton as a university faculty member. (Testimony of Parker.) Respondent was unable to produce tuition receipts or work assignments associated with his course work because his house had been vandalized (and his records damaged) when he was hospitalized in September, 1979. 3/ (Testimony of Parker.) III. Respondent Receives a University Transcript At the conclusion of the Spring and Summer Quarters of 1978, Respondent received a copy of a course transcript from Florida A & M. The transcript--the original of which is part of the official records of the university--indicated that Respondent took six courses (18 credit hours) during the two quarters but successfully completed only three of them; that he earned only nine credit hours because of two "I's" (incompletes) and one "F" (failure). His grade-point average for the two quarters was 2.25. (Testimony of Parker; P- 3, P-4, P-8.) Although the transcript appeared to be valid and authentic, Respondent was surprised at the two "I's" and the "F." He had completed all his course assignments and had given them to Sutton; he did not expect an "F" when he was accustomed to earning A's and B's in postgraduate courses. 4/ Respondent then confronted Sutton. (Testimony of Parker.) Sutton explained that he (Sutton) had been late in delivering Respondent's course work to the university, and that Respondent would receive the correct grades. Shortly thereafter, Respondent received a corrected transcript indicating that he successfully completed (with B's) the three courses which had earlier been "I's" and an "F." He believed the corrected transcript was valid and authentic; however, he did not understand how the "F" could be corrected to a "B" when Sutton's explanation attributed the incorrect grades to the late submittal of course work. 5/ (Testimony of Parker.) Shortly thereafter--on May 31, 1979--Respondent completed an application for extension of his teaching certificate (to extend his area of certification to include elementary education) and gave it to Sutton, with the $5 application fee, for delivery to the Florida Department of Education. Subsequently, the Department granted him the requested extension of his teaching certificate. (Testimony of Parker, Gray; P-6.) The corrected transcript was, in fact, false. Upon discovery of that fact, the School Board suspended Respondent from his employment and conducted an investigation. On November 19, 1980, the School Board reinstated Respondent to his position after learning that Respondent was not the subject of criminal prosecution. (Testimony of Gray.) IV. Findings of Fact Proposed by Parties The findings of fact proposed by the parties have been considered. Those proposed findings which are not incorporated above are rejected as irrelevant to the issue presented or unsupported by the preponderance of evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the charges against Respondent be dismissed. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of October, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Telephone: (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of October, 1981.
The Issue Whether Petitioner Margaret R. Allen must reimburse the Respondent Division of Retirement for retirement benefits received by her for the years 1972-1976, during which time she was paid retirement benefits for the entire year although she worked more than five hundred (500) hours per year.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Margaret R. Allen retired from the Bay County School System on April 1, 1971 and was rehired until the end of the 1970-1971 school year. She began receiving monthly benefits in July of 1971 and has continued to receive benefits since that date. She worked as a librarian for Day Memorial Medical Center in Panama City, "Florida until December 31, 1976. Prior to March 15, 1977, Petitioner requested a refund from the Respondent Division of Retirement which resulted in a letter from the Administrator of the Respondent dated March 15, 1977 (Petitioner's Exhibit 4). Petitioner was notified that she owed the Division of Retirement $10,873.65 overpayment of benefits plus $1,978.59 interest. She was advised that a credit for her contribution in the amount of $383.76 had been deducted and a total amount of $12,468.48 was due. Petitioner Allen requested an administrative hearing, which was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings on April 4, 1980. The payroll record of Bay Memorial Medical Center shows that Petitioner Allen began employment on February 7, 1972 and terminated employment December 31, 1976 as follows (Respon- dent's Exhibit 1) 1972 - 510 hours worked on 9-30-72 at $2.00/hr 1973 - 508 hours worked on 5-26-73 at $2.00/hr 1974 - 536 hours worked on 6-23-74 at $2.33/hr 1976 - 502.5 hours worked on 6-17-76 at $3.18/hr 1975 - 510.5 hours worked on 6-21-75 at $2.49/hr Petitioner Allen did not intend to draw retirement benefits to which she is not entitled, having accepted employment in good faith after stating to her prospective employer that she would work as a librarian for the doctors' offices at Bay Memorial Medical Center on the condition that such employment would not affect her retirement benefits. Prior to her employment in 1972, the Administrator of the medical center called the then Administrator of the teacher retirement system on the telephone and was told by him that Petitioner could work as a librarian for the medical center while receiving teacher retirement benefits. The employer informed Petitioner of the conversation, and she went to work at the medical center. Some time later, during the time of her employment, Petitioner and her employer, the Administrator of the medical center, talked personally with the Respondent's Administrator at a meeting in an office at the medical center in Panama City. There is very little evidence as to whether there was a discussion between the prospective employer and the Respondent's Administrator as to the number of hours Petitioner could work, but on two occasions the Administrator of the Respondent's teacher retirement system discussed Petitioner's work and assured her employer that Petitioner Allen could work and still draw benefits. Petitioner's testimony that she was told both by her employer and by the Respondent's Administrator that she was free to work as many hours as she wanted without affecting her retirement because she was not working either as a teacher or a substitute teacher is believable. Petitioner understood that since she was not being employed as a substitute or part-time teacher she could work as many hours as she wished. This testimony coupled with the fact that she did work in excess of five hundred (500) hours per year for five (5) years is consistent. There is no showing that the former Administrator of Respondent intended to mislead Petitioner Allen as to the number of hours she could work without reducing her retirement benefits, but on at least one occasion he discussed Petitioner's work with her, and she worked thereafter without concern that her retirement benefits would be reduced. Both parties submitted proposed findings of fact, memoranda of law and proposed recommended orders. These instruments were considered in the writing of this order. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been adopted in or are inconsistent with factual findings in this order, they have been specifically rejected as being irrelevant or not having been supported by the evidence.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that Petitioner Margaret R. Allen not be required to reimburse the Respondent Division of Retirement for any retirement benefits received by her. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of September, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of September, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Augustus D. Aikens, Esquire Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center 2639 North Monroe Street Suite 2070 - Box 81 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Bert A. Davenport, Esquire 406 Magnolia Avenue Panama City, Florida 32401
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Michael Fort, at times pertinent to the charges in the Administrative Complaints, held teacher's certificate number 514033, issued by the State of Florida Department of Education (Department). That certificate authorized practice as a teacher in the area of music education. The Respondent was employed as a teacher at Lake Weir Middle School in the Marion County School District. The Respondent was under an annual contract with that school system from November 23, 1983, through the 1984-85 school year. The Respondent's last annual contract expired on June 7, 1985. The Respondent's teacher's certificate expired on June 30, 1985. Some time prior to the expiration of his teacher's certificate, the Respondent applied to the Department for its renewal. That application still pends before the Department. In October 1983, the Respondent had a minor student spend the night at his apartment. The minor student had previously been a close friend of the Respondent and had socialized with him in the past, including spending the night at his residence on other occasions. The Respondent had entered into a close, friendly relationship with the minor, Darien Houston, by frequently letting him stay at his residence during periods of time when Darien Houston's parents were fighting or otherwise engaging in domestic discord, which apparently was very disturbing to the student. Darien Houston, although a student in the Marion County School System, was not a student of the Respondent. Indeed, the Respondent was not yet employed by that school district. In any event, during the course of the evening in question, while they were sitting near each other watching television, the Respondent placed his hand on the student's leg and the student requested that he remove his hand. The student at the time thought Fort was joking or had no serious intent by this action. Fort then went to bed and the student went to bed, sleeping on the floor in his jeans in a sleeping bag. Some time later that night, the student was awakened and realized that the Respondent had undressed himself and undressed the student and had proceeded to place his hand on and fondle the student's penis. He thereafter attempted to roll Houston over onto his stomach in spite of Houston's objections. In response to the student's objections, the Respondent made a statement to the effect, "Do you want to do it with me?" The student continued to object and to retreat from the Respondent's advances. He retreated to the bathroom where he locked himself in and remained for the remainder of the night. The student was embarrassed because of the incident and elected not to report it to school officials or others for approximately a year and a half. However, Houston did tell his best friend what had happened, who in turn informed Houston's mother of the incident. Eventually, Houston's brother informed another individual of the occurrence, who then informed Mr. Springer, the principal at Lake Weir Middle School, of the incident. Darien Houston, a student there, was then called before Mr. Springer, who investigated the matter. Houston related the information about the subject occurrence to him, in approximately May 1985. Thereafter, the criminal proceeding against the Respondent related to this incident and the instant administrative Prosecutions ensued. The matter became public knowledge among students at Lake Weir Middle School, who teased Houston about the incident, causing him great embarrassment and humiliation. The occurrence was widely reported in local newspapers. Sometime in May 1985, while a teacher at Lake Weir Middle School, during the course of a puppet show being Presented in a sixth grade classroom, Respondent stuck his hand down the back of a minor male student's pants between his underwear and his trousers. This action by the Respondent shocked and embarrassed the student, although it was not established that any bystanders, of which there were a number present, observed the incident. The student, Patrick Hammer, was embarrassed to tell anyone of the occurrence, but ultimately informed his teacher of the incident by writing a note to the teacher concerning it. Other students at the school ultimately became aware of this and teased Patrick Hammer about it, causing him embarrassment and humiliation. In approximately May 1985, the Respondent attended a party at a local hospital. The Respondent was in the company of three minor male students who were then enrolled at Lake Weir Middle School. The students, Steve Hall, Richard Slaughter and Eddie Ericson, or some of them, were drinking beer from a keg or draft dispenser at the party. Steve Hall's mother, who was employed at the hospital, was present at the party and was aware that her son was drinking beer. All three of the boys later left the party and went with Mr. Fort to his apartment. While en route, the Respondent stopped at an ABC Liquor Store and purchased approximately two six-packs of beer. After purchasing the beer, the Respondent took the three students to his apartment where the students swam in the swimming pool and, in his presence and with his knowledge, drank the beer that the Respondent had purchased. It was not established that the Respondent bought the beer with the specific intent of giving it to the students but, by his own admission, he offered no objection to the students' consumption of the beer in his presence at his residence. On May 12, 1986, the Respondent pled nolo contendere to one count of attempted sexual battery and one count of lewd and lascivious behavior. He was sentenced to ten years probation, fined $200, ordered to undergo mental health counseling, to complete 100 hours of community service and to refrain from any custodial or supervisory contact with any person under the age of 16 years. Respondent's arrest, the circumstances surrounding the charges and his plea regarding the above incidents received widespread publicity in the local media and was known to students, faculty and other School Board personnel and the public at large. On or about April 10, 1985, the Respondent received a letter from Nick Marcos, Assistant Superintendent of Administrative Services with the School Board of Marion County, informing him that he would be reappointed to a position as an annual contract teacher with the Marion County School System as soon as he had been issued a regular or temporary teaching certificate for the 1985-86 school year. On or about May 16, 1985, the Respondent submitted a reapplication for a temporary certificate to the Florida Department of Education. On or about August 9, 1955, Respondent received a letter from R. S. Archibald, District School Superintendent, advising him that he had been suspended as an instructional employee of the Marion County School System, pending a meeting of the School Board. Thereafter, on or about August 19, 1985, the Respondent received a letter from Jim Ergle, as Chairman of the School Board, advising him of the Board's decision to suspend him without pay based upon the above-described arrest and charges. In the April 10, 1985 letter, the Assistant Superintendent had informed him that he had been recommended for reappointment for the 1985-86 school year, but reminded him that he would have to renew his teaching certificate to be eligible for reappointment. Upon his application for renewal of his teaching certificate, the application demonstrated that all requirements for renewal had been met. His teaching certificate expired on June 30, 1985. The renewal application was never acted upon by the Department, although it informed Mr. Fort, sometime prior to August 1985, that his application was in order and the certificate would be forthcoming. His suspension without pay was predicated upon the charges pending before the Circuit Court for Marion County concerning the alleged sexual battery and lewd and lascivious conduct, and the letter informing Mr. Fort of it did not indicate that it was at all based on his failure to renew his teaching certificate. The School Board employed the formal suspension process against the Respondent, although his express annual contract had already expired, in an abundance of caution because a grace period is normally allowed teachers to re- apply for renewal of their certificates after expiration and because the Board allows a grace period for reappointment of a contract teacher after the expiration of a teaching certificate, provided the teacher provides evidence that the certificate has been properly renewed. The Respondent was paid for all services rendered by him to the Marion County School Board through the last day of the 1984-85 school year, which was also the last day of his employment pursuant to his last express annual contract. He has never taught in the district since that time.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the EPC permanently revoking the certificate of the Respondent, Michael Fort, and that he be finally dismissed by the Marion County School District and forfeit any back pay. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of July 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: William E. Williams, Esquire Rex D. Ware, Esquire 111 North Calhoun Street Post Office Box 1739 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Philip J. Padovano, Esquire Post Office Box 873 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sydney McKenzie, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Karen B. Wilde Executive Director Education Practices Commission 215 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of July 1987.
The Issue Whether the Duval County School Board (Board) may terminate Respondent, Cleveland F. William, Jr.'s, employment as a teacher based upon incompetence under the Duval Country Teachers Tenure Act (the Act). This issue is dependent upon whether the Board showed Respondent to be incompetent and whether the Board complied with the procedural requirements of the Act.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was first assigned to Fort Caroline Middle School during the academic year 2000-2001 to teach 6th grade science. Kathy Kassees was the principal at Fort Caroline Middle School during that school year. Respondent's brother was extremely ill and died during the school year. Respondent's performance evaluation for that school year was less than satisfactory. See Exhibit 2, 2000-2001 Performance Evaluation. Respondent concedes that his performance in 2000-2001 was less than satisfactory. See paragraph 56 of Respondent's Post-hearing Brief. When a tenured teacher in the Duval County system has a performance evaluation of less than satisfactory, the teacher may elect to transfer to another school, and Respondent exercised that option for the school year 2001-2002. Respondent was moved to Stillwell where he was assigned to teach 7th grade science. In addition, he was assigned for the first time to teach inclusion classes. Inclusion classes are made up of students who are exceptional education students who may have various exceptionalities. These exceptionalities may include disabilities such as deafness, emotional and behavioral problems, and developmental disabilities. Behavioral problems may include students diagnosed with attention deficit disorder and hyperactivity. Stillwell utilizes a program of instruction called the America's Choice Plan (ACP). The ACP is a comprehensive educational program which covers all aspects of instruction, organization of the classroom, and display of student materials in the classroom. ACP has its own vocabulary of terms to describe activities and things. For example, "artifacts" refers to student work and other materials posted in the classroom. It is expected that "artifacts" will be posted and changed periodically. Weekly meetings to discuss the system are called "Tending the Garden" meetings. ACP had been used at Stillwell previously and the returning faculty were familiar with it. Respondent had never worked with ACP before. Ms. Kassees had prepared a Success Plan for Respondent after he received his unsatisfactory evaluation to help him improve his deficiencies. Respondent took this plan with him to Stillwell, but the plan did not address ACP or inclusion classes. Mr. Marjenhoff, the principal at Stillwell, met with Respondent and discussed Marjenhoff's expectation of Respondent. They did not discuss any special requirements or changes necessitated by ACP or inclusion classes. Petitioner was unable to establish that it had prepared and delivered a new Success Plan to Petitioner at Stillwell. After his poor evaluation in February of 2002, Respondent asked Mr. Marjenhoff for a copy of the Success Plan and one was produced which was signed by Mr. Marjenhoff and dated August 6, 2001, and by Respondent on March 27, 2002. See Exhibit 13. Respondent did attend various ACP, "Tending the Garden" in-service educational classes presented by Dianne Rahn; Urban Systemic Initiative (USI) seminars presented by Rose Curry; and classes presented by his department head, Margarita Arroyo. His attendance and punctuality at these meetings was on par with his peers. The first indication of evaluative inspections came in a November 28, 2001, memo to Respondent from Marjenhoff stating that Dianne Dunn, a cadre member, would be contacting him about setting up a classroom visit. She did not conduct a visit until January 28, 2002. See Exhibit 11 and attachments. The annual evaluation of faculty occurs in February. Petitioner concedes that other than the cadre work by Dunn and some instruction on USI by Curry, little was done by way of individualized in-service training to address Respondent's shortcomings. Respondent was not afforded much in the way of unique, individualized oral counseling or critiques of his performance during the first part of the school year. See paragraphs 21 and 22 of Petitioner's Post-hearing Brief. A review of Curry's visits reflects she met with Respondent approximately once each month for a rough average of an hour, with the exception of the first meeting which was four hours. Curry's logs do not reflect the corrective actions taken with regard to Respondent's teaching. This hardly constitutes an accelerated effort to improve Respondents performance. See Exhibit 21. The dates of the various class visits and evaluations by Marjenhoff are in February and March. See Exhibits 12, 18 and 19. A review of the records of the in-class visits and commentaries by the observers reveal that too many general recommendations were made rather than specific, concrete changes to implement. For example, Darrell Perry visited Respondent's class and was concerned about its physical organization, i.e., where the television was located, the direction in which the seats were oriented, and where Respondent's desks was located. This was written up in March, which was late in the year to raise these issues, and Perry did not suggest or volunteer to help Respondent alter the room to meet Perry's expectations. Also see Exhibit 11 and attachments. In sum, there was too much jargon and too little performance-oriented, hands-on correction of Respondent. Memoranda relating to Respondent's performance all seem to be dated after January 2002. See Exhibits 16 and 17. The corrections that were made came too late to have a meaningful impact upon the improvement of Respondent's teaching performance.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board provide Respondent another year in which timely and appropriate in-service training is provided to correct his deficiencies in teaching. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of January, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of January, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: David A. Hertz, Esquire Duval Teachers United 1601 Atlantic Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Michael B. Wedner, Esquire City of Jacksonville 117 West Duval Street, Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 John C. Fryer, Jr., Superintendent Duval County School Board 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207-8182 Honorable Charlie Crist Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
