The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Charge of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on February 5, 2001.
Findings Of Fact In the fall of 1999, Respondent, North Florida Community College (NFCC), advertised for candidates for the position of Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs. Respondent advertised to fill this position by placing an advertisement in local newspapers, as well as in Gainesville, Florida. Additionally, an advertisement for this position was placed in the Affirmative Action Register, which is a publication for minorities, as well as in the Chronicle of Higher Education. The advertisement did not specify a salary and specified an application deadline of November 9, 1999. The position vacancy advertisement included the following: Qualifications include: an earned doctorate from an accredited institution of higher education; at least five years of successful progressively responsible administrative experience in academic programs, preferably at a community college; some previous experience in teaching at the postsecondary level; and/or experience as a counselor or administrator for student services functions, this latter qualification being preferable. Experience in the Florida Community College System is a plus. William Hunter is the Human Resources Director for NFCC. Mr. Hunter was responsible for placing the advertisements for the Vice President's position in the various publications. He is also responsible for ensuring that search committees are appointed, communicating with applicants, determining salaries to be offered to individual candidates based upon an established procedure, and offering positions by telephone to those persons selected. A search committee was appointed by the President of NFCC, Dr. Grissom. There were five members of the selection committee, including Clyde Alexander, NFCC's Athletic Director and Equity Coordinator. Mr. Alexander is African-American. Initially, 51 persons applied for the position. The selection committee narrowed the list of applicants from 51 to eight semi-finalists. Mr. Hunter was instructed to notify each semi-finalist that he/she was selected. He notified each of the semi- finalists by telephone and coordinated interview dates. Mr. Hunter sent a letter to each semi-finalist. The letters informed the candidates of their selection as a semi-finalist, confirmed their interview date and time, and advised them that NFCC would be paying for the travel expenses to Madison, Florida, for the interviews. The letters to the semi-finalists also stated that the salary range was $45,000 to $75,000 per year, "depending on experience." The salary range was established by the college's Board of Trustees. Petitioner is an African-American male. Petitioner was selected as a semi-finalist. Also among the semi-finalists were Dr. Barry Weinberg and Dr. Thomas Eaves, both white males. Interviews were conducted between December 1 and December 9, 1999. Each of the semi-finalists was given a tour of the campus and had an opportunity to meet with various college officials, as well as the President and members of the search committee. After the interviews of the semi-finalists were completed, the selection committee provided a list of finalists to the President.1/ The first choice of the selection committee was Dr. Barry Weinberg, who at that time was employed as Vice President for College Advancement at Rockingham Community College in Wentworth, North Carolina. Dr. Weinberg holds a Bachelor of Science in Education from State University of New York at New Paltz; a Master of Science in Student Personnel Services (Higher Education Administration) from State University of New York at Albany; a Certificate of Continuing Studies in Applied Behavioral Sciences from Johns Hopkins University; and a Doctor of Education in Higher Education Administration from Vanderbilt University. Mr. Hunter offered the position to Dr. Weinberg pursuant to instructions from President Grissom. Despite the letter which informed the semi-finalists that the top of the salary range was $75,000, Mr. Hunter was informed by the President that no applicant could be offered more than $70,000 per year because of a budget shortfall. The salary to be offered to an applicant was based on the application of an established formula to the applicant's experience as follows: subtracting the minimum salary from the maximum salary in the published salary range for the position; dividing that number by (30) to arrive at a multiplier; multiplying the applicant's years of relevant experience (after subtracting the years of experience required to qualify for the position) by the multiplier; and adding the result to the minimum salary in the range. The multiplier for the Vice President's position was $1,000. In applying the salary formula to Dr. Weinberg, Mr. Hunter determined that he had 29 years of relevant experience. He then subtracted the five years required experience, resulting in Dr. Weinberg having credit for 24 years of relevant experience, for purposes of the salary formula. The 24 years of experience was multiplied by $1,000 and added to the published base salary of $45,000. This resulted in the initial starting salary to be offered to Dr. Weinberg to be $69,000. Mr. Hunter had authority from President Grissom to add an additional amount of $2,500 per year in order to attract a candidate, provided that no candidate was offered more than $70,000 per year. Dr. Weinberg did not accept the initial offer of $69,000. Mr. Hunter then offered $70,000, which was ultimately rejected by Dr. Weinberg. Pursuant to direction from President Grissom, Mr. Hunter then offered the job to Petitioner. Petitioner holds a Bachelor's degree in Business Administration from Culver- Stockton College; a Master of Science in Guidance Counseling from University of Nevada; a Doctorate in Counselor Education from the University of Iowa; and holds a certificate from Harvard University in the Management Development Program. Mr. Hunter applied the salary formula by determining that Petitioner had 21 years of relevant experience. He subtracted the five required years of experience resulting in 16 years of relevant experience. After multiplying 16 by $1,000 and adding that to the minimum salary of $45,000, Mr. Hunter offered $61,000.00 to Petitioner. When Petitioner did not accept the offer, he increased the offer to $62,500. Although he was authorized to offer him $63,500, it was Mr. Hunter's understanding, after a telephone conversation with Petitioner, that Petitioner would not accept the job for less than $82,000. Therefore, Mr. Hunter did not bother offering the additional $1,000 to Petitioner. In any event, whether or not Mr. Hunter offered $63,500 to Petitioner, he was not authorized to offer $70,000 to Petitioner, as had been offered to Dr. Weinberg, because of the application of the salary formula to Petitioner. Pursuant to instruction from Dr. Grissom, Mr. Hunter next offered the position to Dr. Thomas Eaves. Dr. Eaves holds a doctorate and lesser degrees from North Carolina State University, and has teaching and related research experience at numerous universities. Mr. Hunter applied the salary formula and determined that Dr. Eaves should be offered $67,000. Mr. Hunter was authorized by the President to an additional $500.00 on top of the $2,5000 salary "sweetener" because the college had been turned down twice. Mr. Hunter called Dr. Eaves and initially offered him $67,000. Ultimately, Mr. Hunter increased the offer to $70,000, which was accepted by Dr. Eaves. Petitioner left Virginia Commonwealth University in July 2001 to work at West Chester University where he is Dean of Undergraduate Studies and Student Support Services. His starting salary at West Chester University was $84,500. His current salary, which was effective July 1, 2002, is $88,500. If Petitioner had accepted the position at NFCC for $63,500, he would have received a five percent pay increase in 2000 to $66,675 per year. However, because of a college-wide salary freeze which has been in place since 2000, Petitioner would not have received any further salary increases.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 13th day of October, 2003.
The Issue The issue presented for determination in these causes, pursuant to F.S. Section 120.56(1), is whether or not the "12 hour F rule," F.A.C. Rule 6J- 5.56(11)(b), and/or the "mandatory grade curve rule," F.A.C. Rule 6J-5.56(5)(c), constitute either an invalid exercise of validly delegated legislative authority, or an exercise of invalidly delegated legislative authority. The major contention of petitioner is that the respondent failed to comply with the notice requirements of F.S. Section 120.54(1)(a) when it adopted the rules in question. No other issues, including the wisdom or the applicability of such rules, are appropriate in a Section 120.56 proceeding for an administrative determination of a rule.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The petitions filed herein allege that petitioner was academically dismissed from the law school because of the "12 hour F rule" and that he received a failing grade in Tax 601-602 because of the "mandatory grade curve rule." After some student input, the faculty of the FSU law school adopted the "12 hour F rule" and the "mandatory grade curve rule" in 1973 and 1975 respectively, prior to the effective date of Chapter 75-191, Laws of Florida. Effective June 26, 1975, Chapter 75-191, Laws of Florida, included units of the state university system within the confines of the Administrative Procedures Act, Chapter 120 of the Florida Statutes. Pursuant thereto, the respondent, Florida State University, began the process of adopting new and repromulgating its existing rules. The Dean of the FSU Law School was instructed by respondent to submit all of the law school rules to the respondent so that they could be properly promulgated along with other FSU rules. The Dean complied with this request. On August 20, 1975, and again on August 22, 1975, legal ads were placed in the Tallahassee Democrat concerning respondent's intent to adopt proposed rules. Notices were also published, making reference to the aforesaid more complete notice, in the Miami Herald, the St. Petersburg Times and the Jacksonville Times-Union. The August 20th notice in the Tallahassee Democrat announced that a hearing would be held on September 3, 1975, and set forth for each rule the purpose and effect of the rule, a summary of the rule, general authority for the rule and the law implemented. The challenged College of Law Rules numbered, as 6J-5.56, were included in this legal ad and were in substantially the same form as that previously adopted by the law school faculty. By letter dated August 13, 1975, Mr. Mike Beaudoin, respondent's Director of Informational Services, notified respondent's three foreign branches in Florence, Italy, London, England and the Canal Zone of the proposed rules. Gail Shumann, a staff assistant to respondent's Vice President for Academic Relations, assisted in the rule promulgation process. Utilizing a list furnished her by the Coordinator of Student Organizations, Shumann sent by campus mail a "notice of intent to file rules" to all listed registered student organizations existing on January 17, 1975. Such notice was also posted in the personnel office. This notice announced that the rules would be adopted on September 10, 1975, that a copy of the notice of the proposed rules was available in the Office of Student Government, that a copy of the rules was available at the information desk in the Strozier Library and could be obtained at cost from the Division of University Relations and that a hearing on the proposed rules would be held on September 3-5, 1975. The notice was dated August 18, 1975. The list of registered student organizations furnished Ms. Shumann by the Coordinator of Student Organizations did not contain the name of the student body president and listed the former president of the student bar association. A secretary for the student body president was unable at the time of the hearing to find or to recall whether she had received copies of the notice of intent to adopt rules. She testified that she did not have the opportunity to go through all of her files and that it was possible she received such notice. The president of the student bar association, who was not on campus during the summer quarter, could not recall having seen the notice of intent, but testified that it was possible that it came through his office while he was off campus. At least fourteen days prior to the scheduled hearing, Informational Services Director Beaudoin directed a reliable employee to post the notice of intent upon respondent's fifteen official bulletin boards. On August 20, 1975, respondent's rules were filed with the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee. Public hearings were held on September 3, 4, and 5, 1975, on the FSU campus for the purpose of hearing comments concerning the proposed rules. Few persons attended these hearings. The rules were filed with the Secretary of State on September 10, 1975, and became effective on September 30, 1975.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 697227. The Certificate covers the areas of Social Science and Educational Leadership and was valid through June 30, 1999.2 At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as an Assistant Principal at Crystal Lake Middle School (Crystal Lake).3 Respondent was employed at Crystal Lake pursuant to an annual contract. On or about January 3, 1999, Respondent arranged for someone other than himself to take the Florida Department of Education's Florida Educational Leadership Examination (FELE) and for that person to submit the answers to the FELE as if Respondent wrote them. Respondent engaged in a fraudulent scheme to receive a passing score on the FELE in order to receive a Florida Educator's Certificate for which he did not qualify.4 The fraudulent conduct was discovered. The Florida Department of Education invalidated all scores assigned to Respondent and, therefore, no score was assigned to Respondent for the FELE. Respondent was not issued a certificate. Prior to January 3, 1999, Respondent had taken the FELE approximately 10 or 12 times without receiving a passing score. If he had not received a passing score on the FELE in January, Respondent would have lost his Certificate and would have been ineligible to remain an assistant principal. He "panicked" and obtained the services of the individual to take the FELE for him. The local community became aware of Respondent's incident. The local news media printed articles regarding the incident. Petitioner received three or four telephone calls from concerned parents regarding the image that was being portrayed to students if Respondent was not punished. Respondent subsequently hired tutors, took the FELE, and received a passing score. He was issued a certificate which expires June 30, 2004. The EPC filed an administrative complaint against Respondent for the misconduct. Respondent did not contest the allegations of fact and requested an informal hearing. The EPC issued a Final Order on April 17, 2001, imposing the following penalty: a reprimand; suspension of Respondent's certificate from the end of Petitioner's 2000-2001 school year to the day before the beginning of Petitioner's 2001-2002 school year; and probation, with conditions, for three employment years upon obtaining employment which required a certificate. Having been notified by EPC regarding Respondent's conduct as to the FELE, Petitioner launched an investigation. As part of the investigation, Respondent was notified by Petitioner's Executive Director of Professional Standards and Special Investigative Unit that he was required to provide a statement to Petitioner's Investigative Unit and Respondent was given a date and time certain to provide an oral statement. Respondent was represented by counsel and several meetings for Respondent to provide the oral statement were scheduled to accommodate Respondent's counsel. Respondent failed to provide an oral statement due to the inability of his then counsel to attend the meetings. Respondent was also provided an opportunity to provide a written statement but Respondent's then counsel was unable to advise Respondent on the statement due to trial commitments. Respondent failed to provide a written statement. It is not disputed that Respondent was required to provide a statement, which is considered a direct order. Furthermore, it is not disputed that the direct order was reasonable and that it was given by and with proper authority. However, it is reasonable for Respondent to follow the advice of his lawyer and to not provide an oral statement without the presence of his lawyer. Likewise, it is reasonable for Respondent to not act on submitting a written statement without his counsel advising him on the written statement. Respondent's failure to provide the oral or written statement was justifiably excused. Respondent was also provided an opportunity to attend a pre-disciplinary meeting on two or three different occasions. Respondent failed to attend the pre-disciplinary meetings due to the inability of his then counsel to attend. Respondent obtained new counsel and provided a statement to Petitioner, albeit during discovery in the instant case. Petitioner suspended Respondent, without pay, beginning March 20, 2001 and ending June 30, 2001. Respondent's annual contract was not renewed by Petitioner for the 2001-2002 school year.5 Petitioner seeks termination of Respondent's 1999-2000 annual contract. Respondent is a highly regarded educator and several character witnesses testified on his behalf. Each witness was aware of Respondent's conduct regarding the FELE. Respondent began his teaching career in 1992 in Tallahassee, Florida, at Fairview Middle School. He was promoted in 1994 to the position of Dean at Fairview Middle School. In 1995, Respondent was hired as assistant principal by John Civettini who was the principal at Crystal Lake. Respondent was recommended to Mr. Civettini by Petitioner's former Superintendent of Schools and Respondent was recommended to the former Superintendent by Florida's then Governor Lawton Chiles. Crystal Lake had serious disciplinary problems and was in a "disruptive chaotic" state. Within two months of Respondent's arrival at Crystal Lake, he had implemented a program that had changed Crystal Lake for the better. Mr. Civettini retired in the third year of Respondent's tenure at Crystal Lake but Respondent's program continued under the new principal and Crystal Lake became one of the top middle schools in Broward County. Respondent had done an "excellent" job at Crystal Lake with the school children and had the admiration of the parents. Mr. Civettini would again hire Respondent without reservation even knowing the circumstances of the conduct with which Respondent is charged. Furthermore, Mr. Civettini is not against punishing Respondent for his conduct but he believes that termination of Respondent's annual contract is too severe. If Respondent is terminated by Petitioner, according to Mr. Civettini, Respondent will not be hired by another school district. Respondent's Associate Superintendent, Everette Abney, Sr., Ph.D., has "a great deal of admiration" for what Respondent accomplished at Crystal Lake. Respondent made a "difference in the lives" of the children at Crystal Lake. Dr. Abney would welcome the return of Respondent to Petitioner's employ and would return Respondent to working with children. Dr. Abney does not view the conduct with which Respondent is charged as lessening Respondent's effectiveness with the children. Dr. Abney is aware of principals and other assistant principals who had engaged in more serious misconduct but who were not terminated by Petitioner. However, he was not able to give specifics regarding the incidents. Respondent worked with a South Florida Pizza Hut franchise owner, Alfredo Salas, in helping minority children. Mr. Salas has great respect for the way Respondent worked with and mentored the children. Mr. Salas has no hesitation in supporting the return of Respondent to Petitioner's employ and would continue to work with Respondent with children. Petitioner has imposed less severe punishment for conduct committed which was equally or more serious. One principal was arrested in the year 2000 for marijuana possession in a foreign state while on a recruiting trip for Petitioner. The incident received local publicity. Petitioner removed the principal from his position, re-assigned him to administrative procedures from August 31, 2000 to August 21, 2001, and, after the re-assignment, imposed a three-month suspension, without pay, and a reduction to an annual contract. In another incident, a principal solicited business at her school in order for her father to become a vendor at her school. Her conduct was determined to be a conflict of interest.6 Petitioner suspended the principal for two weeks. Also, the EPC reprimanded her and placed her on probation for one year; and Florida's Ethics Commission reprimanded her and imposed a $500 fine. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances presented, the punishment sought by Petitioner, termination of employment, is too severe.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board enter a final order: Sustaining the suspension, without pay, of Oscar Harris, Jr., beginning March 20, 2001 and ending June 30, 2001. Imposing other terms and conditions deemed appropriate. Not terminating the annual contract of Oscar Harris, Jr. for the 1999-2000 school year. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 31st day of October, 2001.
