Findings Of Fact On May 23, 1978, Petitioner was issued a teaching certificate by the State of Florida, Department of Education, related to Biology, Health Education, and Science. That certificate was valid through June 30, 1982. In January, 1982, an administrative complaint was filed against this Petitioner by Ralph D. Turlington, Commissioner of Education in the State of Florida. The administrative complaint accused Williams of obtaining his teaching certificate by fraud and committing an act of moral turpitude by failing to report several arrests and criminal involvements in his application for licensure. A formal Subsection 120.57 (1), Florida Statutes, hearing was conducted and the Division of Administrative Hearings' Hearing Officer recommended the dismissal of the administrative complaint by Recommended Order dated June 15, 1982. The final hearing in that cause had been held on May 4, 1982. Between the date of the final hearing and the entry of the Recommended Order, in particular, on May 12, 1982, Petitioner made timely requests to extend his teaching certificate beyond June 30, 1982. On July 22, 1982, the Recommended Order and related exceptions filed by Petitioner in that action were considered by a panel of the Education Practices Commission. Subsequently, a final order was entered by the State of Florida, Education Practices Commission, revoking Kenneth Williams' license for a period of five years, Certificate No. 434894. The date of the order was August 4, 1982. This decision to revoke was appealed to the First District Court of Appeal, and the effect of the final order was stayed by the Education Practices Commission pending the outcome of the court's decision. After the date of the consideration of the Recommended Order and the exceptions to that Recommended Order, Ralph D. Turlington, as Commissioner of Education, stated his intention to deny Williams' request for certificate renewal. This statement of intent was made on July 26, 1982. There ensued the request for a formal hearing on the Commissioner's action, the request that a Hearing Officer be assigned to conduct a formal hearing, and the final hearing of February 11, 1983. Prior to the entry of the Recommended Order in the present case, the First District Court of Appeal entered the March 8, 1983, order which affirmed the revocation of Williams' certificate for the period of five years. See Williams v. Turlington, supra. In the face of that decision, counsel for the agency moved to dismiss the present action based upon a claim of mootness. In response, an order was entered by this Hearing Officer reserving ruling on the motion pending the outcome of a possible rehearing in the case before the First District Court of Appeal and instructing counsel for Respondent to provide a copy of the Mandate in that action once it was entered, together with any change of court opinion. This order was dated March 24, 1983. Effective May 16, 1983, the Mandate, dated May 6, 1983, was received, which directs enforcement of the order of March 8, 1983.
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend without pay and terminate Respondent's employment.
Findings Of Fact Background The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Miami-Dade County, Florida. Respondent began working for the School Board in August 2001. At all times material to this case, Respondent has been employed as a special education teacher at Homestead Senior High School, a public school in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Respondent teaches students with autism spectrum disorder. At all times material to this case, Respondent's employment with the School Board has been governed by Florida law, the School Board's policies, and the collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade ("UTD"). The Florida Alternative Assessment The School Board's first allegation against Respondent involves the Florida Alternative Assessment ("FAA"). The School Board alleges that Respondent is subject to suspension and termination because of "testing [ir]regularities involving Respondent and the Florida Alternative Assessment." As factual support of this contention, the School Board alleges in paragraph 11 of the Amended Notice of Specific Charges that "Respondent did not follow proper testing procedures since the testing booklets were submitted in blank." The FAA is the standardized test given to students with very significant cognitive disabilities, who are incapable of taking the "FCAT" standardized test or the Florida standards testing given by the school to regular education students. The scoring on the FAA is very different from traditional standardized tests. The test is divided into 20 items. Within each item, there are three separate questions. Depending on the students' performance, they may not be exposed to all of the questions. Whether or not a student has access to all three of the questions within an item depends upon whether the student correctly answers the previous question. For example, if a student correctly answers question one of item one, that student would then proceed to question two of item one. If the student answers question two correctly, the student would then proceed to question three of item one. The FAA can be administered over a number of days or weeks. The test must be completed, however, within a five-week testing period. In administering the test to students, the questions on the FAA are verbally read by the teacher to the student. The teacher gives a verbal prompt, and the student verbally responds with an answer. There is one correct answer out of three possible responses. After a student provides the teacher with a verbal answer to the question, the teacher should mark the student's answer in the test booklet. The student does not mark in the test booklet. Outside of the testing situation, the teacher should then transfer the scores from the test booklet into a separate student answer sheet, which is a "bubble sheet." Although a teacher's marking of students' answers to the questions on the test booklet is recommended, it is not mandatory. No test booklets involving Respondent's administration of the FAA to his students were offered into evidence. The evidence adduced at hearing does not establish that Respondent engaged in testing irregularities by submitting FAA test booklets in blank. In sum, the evidence at hearing fails to show that Respondent's conduct with regard to the submission of FAA test booklets constitutes misconduct in office, gross insubordination, or a violation of School Board policies. At hearing, the School Board did not argue that Respondent committed testing irregularities by submitting test booklets in blank. Rather, the School Board argued that Respondent committed testing irregularities because some students had identical responses to questions on the "bubble sheets." Despite the discussion at the hearing regarding the purported identical answers of some students on the "bubble sheets," that factual contention was not pled as a basis for Respondent's suspension and termination, and the School Board never sought to amend its Amended Notice of Specific Charges to assert this factual contention. Allegations Involving P.Z. The School Board alleges in paragraph 14 of the Amended Notice of Specific Charges that Respondent is subject to suspension and termination because he "held a student with his arm behind his back and allowed other students to hit him." At hearing, Respondent denied the allegation. At hearing, the School Board presented the testimony of P.Z., the alleged student victim. Without objection, P.Z. was accompanied by his mother at the hearing. P.Z. was a 10th-grade special education student in Respondent's class on the date of the alleged incident. P.Z. is a 15-year-old student with autism spectrum disorder. P.Z. has cognitive impairments which impact his ability to comprehend events and communicate with others. At hearing, the following exchange between the undersigned and P.Z. occurred after P.Z. was placed under oath by the court reporter at the hearing: THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Do you understand the difference between telling the truth and what would be considered a lie? Do you understand the difference? THE WITNESS: Sometimes I can't tell what the difference is of the truth or a lie. At hearing, counsel for the School Board asked questions of P.Z. with regard to the alleged incident, as follows: Q: P., I'm going to ask you about something that happened at the beginning of this school year. Do you remember getting into trouble with Mr. Adams. A: Yeah, kind of. Q: Can you tell me--do you remember why you got into trouble with Mr. Adams? A: Yeah. It was for many reasons. Well, the last time, the last one, was when he twisted my arm on my back like a military guy, and let everyone hit me to this shoulder where I hit the student. Sometimes he--and not only me, it's other kids who do that, twisting my arm on the military thing. And when the misbehaved student cries, Mr. Adams and Ms. Poser just laugh. Q: And that happened to you because you got into trouble for hitting another kid? A: Yeah, I got in trouble for many different reasons sometimes. Q: But that last time was because you had hit another student? A: Yes. MS. MARKEN: Your Honor, if I could have one moment. Judge, I don't have any other questions. On cross-examination, P.Z. testified, however, as follows: Q: I do lead you to the bathroom or accompany you. But P., let me ask you, when I told you to come apologize, did I twist your arm or did I take you by your hand? MS. MARKEN: Objection, asked and answered. THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Overruled. THE WITNESS: I don't think you twisted it. It's hard to remember. MR. ADAMS: Judge, I have no more questions. THE WITNESS: It's hard to remember after you left. Because he had to make me do my work, and you even made me cry once. And you just left. MS. MARKEN: One moment, Judge. THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Okay, P., you answered the questions. MS. MARKEN: No further questions, Judge. At hearing, P.Z. was happy to see Respondent, and they exchanged pleasantries following P.Z.'s testimony. As he was leaving the hearing room following his testimony, P.Z. told Respondent: "Bye. I hope I see you again." At hearing, no witnesses other than Respondent and P.Z. testified regarding the alleged incident. At hearing, the undersigned had the opportunity to observe the testimony and demeanor of both P.Z. and Respondent. The testimony of Respondent is credited and is more persuasive than the testimony of P.Z., which is not credited or persuasive. The evidence does not establish that Respondent held a student with his arm behind his back and allowed other students to hit him as alleged in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges. In sum, the evidence at hearing fails to show that Respondent's conduct with regard to the incident in the classroom involving P.Z. constitutes misconduct in office, gross insubordination, or a violation of School Board policies.3/ Allegations Involving Respondent's Teaching Certificate Finally, the School Board alleges in paragraph 22 of the Amended Notice of Specific Charges that Respondent is subject to suspension and termination because his teaching certificate was suspended on February 17, 2015, until further notice, making Respondent ineligible for employment as a teacher with the School Board. After the School Board suspended Respondent and initiated dismissal proceedings, the Education Practices Commission notified the School Board on February 17, 2015, that Respondent's teaching certificate had been suspended, until further notice, for failure to pay child support. The evidence presented at hearing establishes that Respondent's teaching certificate was suspended by the Florida Department of Education on February 17, 2015. On March 30, 2015, Respondent received a letter from the Florida Department of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement ("DOR"), indicating that DOR directed the Department of Education to reinstate Respondent's certificate because Respondent was paying child support as agreed or ordered by the circuit court, or he was otherwise entitled to have his certificate reinstated. Following the hearing, the School Board filed its post- hearing Exhibit 30 (mis-numbered by the School Board as Exhibit 29), which consists of a letter from the Department of Education. The letter from the Department of Education was directed to Respondent and is dated June 17, 2015. The letter indicates that Respondent's teaching certificate is reinstated because the "Department of Revenue (DOR) has directed our office to reinstate your certificate because you are paying child support as agreed or ordered, or are otherwise entitled based on DOR's findings." The evidence establishes that Respondent's teaching certificate was suspended from February 17, 2015, until June 17, 2015. In sum, the evidence fails to show that the suspension of Respondent's teaching certificate from February 17, 2015, until June 17, 2015, constitutes misconduct in office, gross insubordination, or a violation of School Board policies justifying his suspension since October 7, 2014, and termination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order rescinding the proposed termination and suspension, and provide Respondent with back pay, except for the period of February 17, 2015, to June 17, 2015. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of September, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of September, 2015.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner should be awarded credit for his answers to eleven (11) questions on the September, 1989, Florida Behavior Analysis Certification Examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner sat for the Florida Behavior Analysis Certification Examination administered on September 19, 1989. He failed to achieve a passing score on that examination. At the final hearing, Petitioner challenged the score he achieved on that examination by raising a general challenge to the vagueness of the examination and by challenging the score given for his answers to questions numbered 11, 12, 16, 27, 42, and 53 on Part II of the examination. Part I, Item 12, is correctly scored as "A" instead of Petitioner's "C" because the question asks about a topographical definition, i.e., the form of the behavior. "A" describes the form of the behavior, while "C" partly refers to form but also includes extraneous information. Therefore, "C" is an incorrect alternative since it is more than a topographical definition. Part I, Item 45, is correctly scored as "A", the most reasonable inference from the two levels of responding. Petitioner's choice of "B" is incorrect because the baseline level of responding has not been established. Part I, Item 72, is correctly scored as "B" instead of Petitioner's "A". The question asked for the least intrusive prompt, and the gestural prompt in "B" is less intrusive than "A", a demonstration prompt. Part I, Item 83, is correctly scored as "C". "C" specifies a loss of candy every time the client hurls the object, which is not only accepted practice in the field but also agrees with the literature in the field that punishment procedures should follow a behavior each time the behavior occurs. Petitioner'S choice of "A" is not acceptable because the problem behavior could escalate and there is currently only a slight decrease in the client's behavior. Part I, Item 85, is correctly scored as "A" rather than Petitioner'S answer of "B". The literature in the field reveals that when a behavior receives intermittent reinforcement, the behavior is more resistant to extinction. Although "B" is sometimes correct, it is sometimes incorrect and, therefore, is a less desirable alternative. Part II, Item 11, is scored correctly as "A" rather than "C" as Petitioner chose because the question asked for a behavioral goal. "A" is a good example of a goal, which is a general statement of the behavior change intended; however, "C" is a good example of a behavioral objective rather than a goal because that alternative specifies particular details. Part II, Item 12, is correctly scored as "C" rather than "B" as Petitioner chose. The question asks for the most appropriate and concise statement of a behavioral objective. "C" has all the information required, but "B" does not state the performance criteria that would be required for the trainer to know when work has been completed, when the objective has been met. Part II, Item 16, is scored correctly as "B" rather than "A" because "B" adequately describes the nature of the environment in which training will occur, while "A" is vague and nonspecific. Part II, Item 27, is correctly scored as "B" rather than "A". "B" specifies the most appropriate example of training for program procedures and is a direct technique of demonstration rather than "A", an indirect training procedure of posting the procedure and announcing there will be a quiz on it. Part II, Item 42, is scored correctly as "B" rather than "A". Answer "B" specifies the particular behaviors that staff should be engaging in so that their monitors or supervisors can observe and mark on a checklist if those behaviors did or did not occur. On the other hand, answer "A" does not specify the particular staff behaviors to be observed, and it uses a rating system which has inherent problems because the meaning of each rating description is subjective. Part II, Item 53, is correctly scored as a wrong answer because Petitioner omitted one of the key parts of the correct answer to the question. The omitted information is a reference to the process which is critical to classical conditioning, i.e., the pairing of the sound of the bell with the monitor's movement toward the shelf. Partial credit is not given for a partially-correct answer.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered rejecting Petitioner's challenges to the 20 1989, Florida Behavior Analysis Certification Examination and finding that Petitioner failed to achieve a passing grade on that Examination. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20 day of September, 1990. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 20 day of September 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 90-2406 Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-13 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 14 has been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 15 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting a conclusion of law or argument of counsel. COPIES FURNISHED: John W. Hedrick, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building 1, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Dwight O'Quinn Stirling Road Apartments 4100 Northwest 77th Avenue Davie, Florida 33024
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Petitioner, Gary P. Santoro (“Petitioner” or “Mr. Santoro”), undeservedly received a failed grade on the Construction Business and Finance Examination (“Examination”) for licensure as an air-conditioning contractor; whether any questions on the examination had more than one correct answer; whether the examination is unfair; whether there is transparency in the examination review process; and whether the examination grading process is arbitrary and capricious.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Santoro took the Examination on November 16, 2018. Petitioner failed the Examination because he scored less than 70 percent correct. The Examination contains 125 questions, 120 of which are scored. The other five are not scored and are considered “pilot” questions for potential use on future examinations. In order to pass the Examination, a candidate must obtain a score of at least 70 percent. All scored questions on the Examination are weighted equally. As a result of failing to pass the Examination, Petitioner was notified of his results. All questions on the Examination had a single correct answer. Cynthia Woodley, Ph.D., employed by Professional Testing, Inc. (“PTI”), as the chief operating officer, is an expert in psychometrics and exam development. She holds a master’s degree in vocational education and a doctorate in curriculum and instruction with a specialization in measurement. Her current position calls for her to manage a number of licensure and certification exam programs. She explained at length how specific questions become part of a professional licensure exam. To develop questions, her company brings in any number of subject matter experts, people actually employed in the professions being tested, and they help develop subject matter questions for a particular exam. That was the process used for development of the Examination in this matter. Once the subject matter experts are trained in exam question writing techniques, they write questions, which are reviewed by other subject matter experts to determine whether the questions are fair and understandable enough to be answered by prospective test takers. Generally, five subject matter experts review each question before it makes its way onto an exam. PTI measures the “P value” of the questions by determining what percent of individuals taking a given exam answer a particular question correctly. For example, a P value of .90 means that 90 percent of the people taking the exam answered a particular question correctly. PTI looks for a wide range of P values in its exam questions. If a P value is too low, say .40, the company might reexamine that question to determine whether it should be removed from future exams since fewer than half the people taking the exam answered it correctly. The business and finance portion of the exam is given to all contractors, regardless of their specialty, with the exception of pool service contractors. Here, Petitioner, a HVAC contractor was administered the same Examination as plumbing contractors, electrical contractors, general contractors, etc. Each of the 120 questions on the exam in this case was equally weighted. There were also five pilot questions inserted into the exam, which did not count towards the total score, but were included as test questions for future exams. Petitioner provided hearsay documents regarding computer hacking and computer glitches associated with some exams administered around the United States. However, he did not connect the articles submitted into evidence to the exam administered in this case or any exam administered by the Department in Florida. Dr. Woodley was familiar with the allegations of computer glitches in testing, but testified that the problems were with K-12 testing in schools, not with professional licensure exams, such as administered by the Department. Therefore, since the hearsay evidence was not linked to the exam at issue or similar professional licensure exams given in Florida, it is entitled to no weight in arriving at the decision in this case. Question BF 1290 has a single correct answer, which is answer “C.” Petitioner selected answer “B.” Petitioner was unable to demonstrate that the answer he selected was correct. Question BF 0473 has a single correct answer, which is answer “A.” Petitioner selected answer “C.” This question asks for an answer of general applicability. Petitioner’s claim that his answer is equally correct is based on a narrow exception in law. Accordingly, Petitioner was not able to demonstrate that the answer he selected was correct. Question BF 0162 has a single correct answer, which is answer “B.” Petitioner selected answer “C.” Petitioner was unable to demonstrate that the answer he selected was correct. Question BF 1691 has a single correct answer, which is answer “C.” Petitioner selected answer “D.” Petitioner was unable to demonstrate that the answer he selected was correct. Petitioner was unable to submit sufficient evidence to show that the Examination is unfair, that there is insufficient transparency in the examination review process, or that the examination grading process is arbitrary and capricious. Accordingly, he cannot prevail in his challenge to the Examination. Petitioner testified that he took and passed the HVAC contractors special license examination on his first attempt. He has taken the Examination on numerous occasions and is yet to be successful. He testified he studied hard for every administration of the exam, but just cannot reach the finish line successfully. While that is unfortunate, the evidence does not support that his failure to succeed on the Examination is the fault of the exam itself or of the Department either in its contracting to have the exam created or in the administration of the exam. From the way he conducted himself at hearing, Petitioner appears to be an intelligent, diligent, and successful individual in his HVAC business. For some unknown reason he has been unable to successfully complete the Examination. His persistence in retaking the Examination multiple times is admirable and should ultimately pay off with his successful passage of the Examination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order upholding the Department’s Amended Grade Report finding that Petitioner failed to achieve a passing score on the Construction Business and Finance Examination, which he took on November 16, 2018. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of August, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of August, 2019. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas G. Thomas, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 (eServed) Gary Peter Santoro Hometown Air & Services 8229 Blaikie Court Sarasota, Florida 34240-8323 (eServed) Ray Treadwell, General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 (eServed) Daniel Biggins, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Halsey Beshears, Secretary Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 (eServed)
The Issue Should the State of Florida, Education Practices Commission impose discipline against Respondent for alleged violations of the statutes and rules regulating Respondent's Florida Teaching Certificate No. 284544?
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Teaching Certificate No. 284544 in the subject areas of economics and drivers' education valid through June 30, 2005. In a case before the State of Florida, Education Practices Commission, Frank T. Brogan as Commissioner of Education, Petitioner, vs. James F. Davis, Respondent, Case No. 9450786-C, among the allegations was the reference to Respondent's arrest on March 6, 1994, for driving under the influence and adjudication on October 4, 1994, related to that offense. In Case No. 94-012585 MM A, County Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, in and for Duval County, Florida, Respondent pled guilty and was adjudicated guilty on October 4, 1994, to the driving under the influence offense and was fined $1270.00 as part of the disposition of the case. Pertaining to Case No. 945-0786-C, in an action before the State of Florida, Education Practices Commission, Frank Brogan, as Commissioner of Education, Petitioner, vs. James F. Davis, Respondent, Case No. 96-022-RT, final order, entered June 19, 1996, the Education Practices Commission accepted a settlement agreement between the parties. As a consequence, Respondent received a letter of reprimand. In the case disposition, Respondent agreed to be placed on probation for a period of two years commencing with the issuance of the final order, assuming Respondent's current employment as an educator in Florida at the time the final order was entered. Respondent was so employed. Among the conditions of his probation were that Respondent "violate no law and shall fully comply with all district school board regulations, school rules and state board of education Rule 6B-1.006." Through the settlement agreement, accepted in the final order, Respondent agreed that should he fail to comply with each of the conditions of probation set forth in the settlement agreement; then the Petitioner, the Commissioner of Education, would be authorized to bring an administrative complaint for sanctions up to an including the possible revocation of the teaching certificate based upon a violation of the terms of the probation. The present Administrative Complaint is premised upon this agreement authorizing a further administrative complaint for alleged violations of the conditions of probation. Contrary to the expectations of his probation, Respondent was arrested on March 22, 1998, in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, while driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages, to the extent that Respondent's normal faculties were impaired. Section 316.193, Florida Statutes. This arrest led to the filing of a criminal information in the case of State of Florida vs. James Felder Davis, the Respondent herein, in a case before the County Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, in and for Duval County, Florida, Case No. 98-19559-MM, charging a violation of Section 316.193, Florida Statutes. Although no proof was presented that the DUI case No. 98-19559-MM has been resolved, facts are known concerning Respondent's driving on March 22, 1998. On that date Officer J. T. Carey of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office observed Respondent in an automobile passed out in the drive-thru at the Taco Bell Restaurant at 9300 Atlantic Boulevard. Other cars were going around Respondent's car to avoid it. Respondent was in the driver's seat with the keys in the ignition and the car running. No other person was in the car with Respondent. The officer tried several times to wake Respondent. When the officer succeeded, he asked Respondent to step out of the vehicle. Respondent had to use the door to brace himself when getting out of the car. Respondent's appearance revealed bloodshot watery eyes. Respondent's speech was slurred. Respondent had soiled his shorts and had a strong odor of alcoholic beverage on his breath. Respondent was very disoriented. Respondent's car was removed from the lane of traffic at the drive-thru, and the officer then drove Respondent to an adjacent location to perform a field sobriety exercise. This involved an eye test, a walk and turn in which the Respondent was required to walk nine steps on a line and turn around and come back. The Respondent was required to stand on one leg a period of 30 seconds to test balance; another test performed was the finger to nose exercise. Respondent performed poorly on the exercises. Officer Carey believed that Respondent was too impaired to drive and arrested Respondent for DUI. Respondent refused to take a breathalyzer test to measure impairment. In the school year 1992-93 Respondent was hired as a driver's education teacher at First Coast High School, part of the Duval County School District. Respondent worked in that capacity through January 18, 2002. It was anticipated, though not established in the hearing record, that Respondent would retire from his position with the Duval County School Board on January 31, 2002. The Duval County School District took action against Respondent for misconduct. This action was taken on February 16, 1999, and accepted by Respondent on February 24, 1999. The nature and specifications of the misconduct related to the March 22, 1998 arrest and charge for driving under the influence. The nature and specifications were also related to the grounds for discipline in the Education Practices Commission Case No. 945-0786-C, leading to the final order that has been discussed. The Duval County School Board perceived that the arrest and charge on March 22, 1998, violated the terms of the settlement agreement as contained in the final order from the Education Practices Commission related to Case No. 945-0786-C, thus violating Section 231.262(7), Florida Statutes. The School District also found a violation of the State Board of Education Rule 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code, concerning the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession and Rule 6B- 1.001(3), Florida Administrative Code, pertaining to the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession on the subject of the need to be of good moral character, the need to avoid engaging in acts of gross immorality or acts involving moral turpitude and the conviction of misdemeanors other than minor traffic violations. The disciplinary terms imposed by the Duval County School District included a written reprimand and suspension without pay for ten working days before the 1998-99 school year entered.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Respondent in violation of Count 1; dismissing Counts 2 through 5, other than in relation to Count 1; and suspending Respondent's Florida Teaching Certificate No. 284544 for two years. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 March, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire 24357 US Highway 331, South Santa Rosa Beach, Florida 33459 James F. Davis Post Office Box 11990 Jacksonville, Florida 32239 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry W. Whitmore, Chief Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact On or before July 29, 1969, respondent applied for a type four teacher's certificate, which was issued to him on October 29, 1969. Thereafter, while he was employed as a teacher by the Duval County School Board, he did course work nights at the Continuing Education Center, affiliated with Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University (FAMU), which eventuated in the award of a master's degree on August 30, 1971. On January 31, 1972, respondent applied for a type two teacher's certificate, in order to be eligible for an assistant principal's job, and because his master's degree satisfied the educational prerequisite for upgrading his teacher's certificate. In applying for type two teacher's certificate, respondent filled out an application form. On the form was the question, "Have you ever been arrested or involved in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation?" Respondent answered this question in the negative by checking a blank after the word "No." On July 7, 1972, a type two teacher's certificate was issued to respondent. On May 6, 1969, respondent was convicted of an offense under Section 832.05, Florida Statutes (1975), because of a check he drew to the order of FAMU in the amount of thirty dollars ($30.00). According to court records, respondent pleaded guilty to this charge by mail, although at the hearing he had no recollection of the offense or of the disposition of the charges. Respondent did remember the six bad check charges of which he was found guilty in the spring of 1971. These cases, too, arose because he drew checks to the order of FAMU, two in the amount of forty-eight dollars ($48.00) and four in the amount of fifty-seven dollars ($57.00). These checks were all written the same quarter and delivered to individual professors at FAMU. At the time respondent wrote the 1971 checks, he knew he had insufficient funds on deposit to cover them, but he reasonably believed he would be able to cover the checks before they cleared. They all bounced and they all resulted in convictions and fines under Section 832.05, Florida Statutes (1975), half on pleas of nolo contendere and half on pleas of guilty. Respondent eventually made good on all the checks written to FAMU's order. Respondent testified that he believed the 1971 bad check proceedings had been civil, rather than criminal, at the time he filled out the application form for a type two teacher's certificate. The evidence as a whole established, however, that respondent deliberately concealed the fact of the bad check convictions. On January 22, 1976, respondent filled out an application form for employment by the City of Jacksonville On this form appears the question, "Have you ever been arrested, taken into custody, held for investigation or questioning, charged with driving while intoxicated, or charged with an offense with any law enforcing agency? (Excepting minor traffic violations)." Respondent placed and "X" in a box beside the word "YES," and amplified his answer, in pertinent part, as follows: "I wrote Fla. A&M University a check and had to make restitution." (emphasis supplied) In 1975, respondent took a leave of absence from teaching, in order to do work at the University of Florida towards a Ph.D. degree. Before he left Jacksonville for Gainesville, he rented a typewriter from McDavid Typewriter Service, paying two weeks' rent in advance. On two occasions, he called Mr. McDavid from Gainesville to assure him that he would return the typewriter, once he had retrieved it from the typist working on his dissertation. After a warrant for his arrest issued, respondent returned the typewriter on October 31, 1975, slightly more than five months after he had rented it. Respondent paid Mr. McDavid two hundred twenty-seven dollars ($227.00) for back rent and to cover the cost of fixing the carriage on the typewriter. Criminal proceedings resulted in an order, entered January 26, 1976, withholding adjudication of guilt and placing defendant on probation, upon respondent's plea of nolo contendere to an amended information charging attempted grand larceny of the typewriter. For the latter part of respondent's probationary period, he was supervised by Joe M. Kiser, a probation officer. Mr. Kiser expressed confidence in respondent, and predicted no future skirmishes with the law. Because of respondent's exemplary behavior while on probation, Judge Black terminated his probation almost four months before the date on which probation was originally scheduled to end. During the school year 1975-76, respondent worked under Mr. Nathaniel Davis, then principal at Ribault Junior High School. Respondent supervised another teacher and an aide and did a marvelous job. The students were respectful and felt respondent would listen to them. He set an excellent example for the students, while he was in their presence. He was able to improve the behavior of truants and other students who posed disciplinary problems. In the course of the school year, in Mr. Davis' opinion, respondent changed for the better because he had learned a lesson. Mr. Davis would want respondent teaching under him. Mr. Ted Montgomery, currently principal of Ribault Junior High School, met respondent on August 23, 1976, and is respondent's supervisor. Respondent counsels students who have dropped out of school or on the verge of doing so. He tries to establish links between the school and the students' homes. He is hard working and does a good job. He gives to students of his own time. Mr. Montgomery wants respondent to continue teaching under him.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is recommended that respondent be reprimanded. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of April, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. Hearings ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Room 530 Carlton Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire Post Office Box 1572 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mr. Haldane Taylor, Esq. 605 Florida Theatre Building 128 East Forsyth Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Tom Benton Professional Practices Council 319 West Jefferson Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 ===========================================================
The Issue Whether Petitioner's responses to Questions 38, 53, and 71 of the April 1991 Mental Health Counselor's Examination were incorrectly scored. Whether Question 71 of said examination is an improper question.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner sat for the Mental Health Counselor's Examination administered by Respondent in April 1991. Petitioner was credited with 102 correct answers out of 140 questions on the professional counseling section of the examination. A score of 103 correct answers out of 140 questions was required to pass the section. Petitioner abandoned all challenges except the challenges to the scoring of her responses to Questions 38, 53, and 71. Petitioner also asserts that Question 71 is unfair because it is ambiguous. All three of the questions involved in this proceeding are multiple choice questions, each with four possible answers. The candidates are instructed to select the best answer to the question. Question 38 pertains to an expression used to described adolescence and asks the candidate to select the best answer that explains the meaning of that expression. Petitioner selected multiple choice number 4 as her answer to the question. Respondent established that multiple choice number 1 was the best answer to the question. Petitioner received no credit for her answer to question 38 because she did not select the best answer to the question. Question 53 pertains to a patient who rambles during an interview and requires the candidate to select from among the four multiple choice answers the best answer that names the technique used by the interviewer to bring the patient back to the main purpose of the discussion. Petitioner selected multiple choice number 1 as her answer to the question. Respondent contends that multiple choice number 4 was the best answer to the question. Petitioner contends that multiple choice number 4 is not a technique and that, consequently, number 4 cannot be the best answer to the question. The greater weight of the evidence, including the literature submitted as exhibits by the parties, is that multiple choice number 4 is a technique and that multiple choice number 4 is the best answer to the question. Petitioner received no credit for her answer to question 53 because she did not select the best answer to the question. Question 71 pertains to an employee at an industrial plant who has sought out the mental health counselor in the employee assistance program. Petitioner contends that the question is ambiguous because insufficient information is given for the reasons the employee sought out the mental health counselor. Respondent established that sufficient information was provided by the root of the question to enable the candidate to select the best answer to the question. Consequently, it is concluded that the question is not impermissibly ambiguous. Petitioner selected multiple choice number 1 as her answer to Question Number 71. Respondent established that multiple choice number 2 was the best answer to the question. Petitioner received no credit for her answer to question 71 because she did not select the best answer to the question.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which upholds the validity of Question 71 and which denies Petitioner's challenge to the scoring of her responses to Questions 38, 53, and 71 of the professional counseling section of the Mental Health Counselor's Examination administered by Respondent in April 1991. DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearing The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of May, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Petitioner. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 1 are discussed as preliminary matters. The proposed findings are unnecessary as findings of fact and are, consequently, rejected. The proposed findings of fact contained in the first sentence of Paragraph 2.a.(1) are rejected because they are unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The candidates are instructed to select the best answer to the question. All four choices may be correct answers. While it may arguably be a correct answer, the answer selected by the Petitioner was not the best answer to the question. The proposed findings of fact contained in the second sentence of Paragraph 2.a.(1) are rejected because they are contrary to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact contained in Paragraph 2.a.(2) are rejected because they are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact contained in Paragraph 2.a.(3) are rejected because they are contrary to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in Paragraph 2.b.(1) are rejected as being the recitation of testimony that was considered in making the finding that the question is not ambiguous. The proposed findings of fact in Paragraph 2.c.(1) are rejected as being the recitation of testimony that was considered in making the findings reflected herein. The question called for the candidate to state what the phrase means, not whether the phrase is an improper use of a word of art. The proposed findings of fact in Paragraph 2.c.(2) are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3, 4, 5, and 6 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 7 are rejected as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Respondent. The proposed findings of fact in Paragraphs 1 and 2 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in Paragraph 3 are rejected as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, and 7 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. COPIES FURNISHED: Caren Glassman 1231 SE 1 Street Apt. 13 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Diane Orcutt, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Mental Health Counselors 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
