The Issue Whether problems occurred in Petitioner's examinations for licensure during the October 1990 and February 1991 construction examinations which were due to the Department's inaction or negligence. Whether provisions were made for Petitioner's physical handicap during the exam process. Whether Petitioner's responses to the examination questions on either of the examinations were sufficient to allow him to receive a passing grade and licensure.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Woodring has taken the Certified Residential Contractor's Examination three times. During these test taking sessions, he has been unable to successfully pass the examination. The second time Petitioner took the examination was in October 1990. His scores on the examination were: Part I - 64; Part II - 66; and Part III - 63. A passing score for each part is 69.01. 3. After receiving his test results, Woodring challenged the scoring of some of the questions on the examination. At hearing, Woodring challenged the following questions: Part I - Questions 3 and 16; Part III - Questions 7, 8 and Petitioner also challenged the exam format and procedures. He asserts that provisions were not made for his learning disabilities or physical handicaps. Petitioner gave the answer "D" as the correct answer for Question 3 on Part I of the examination. The Department established at hearing that the question contained all of the information necessary to make the required computations and that "B" was the correct answer. Petitioner did not demonstrate entitlement to credit for his incorrect answer to that question. During the test, he made a mathematical error when he calculated the cost of the program and a second mathematical error when he projected the savings. As a result, he arrived at the wrong answer. Petitioner marked "B" as the correct answer to Question 16 on Part I. The Department established at hearing that the correct answer is "C". The answer given by Petitioner was erroneous. He admitted at hearing that he had used the wrong table in the Circular E withholding chart from the Internal Revenue Service reference material. During his reading of the problem, he had confused "biweekly" and "semimonthly." Petitioner did not demonstrate entitlement to credit for his incorrect answer on that question. On Question 7 on Part III, Petitioner marked "D" as the correct answer. In reaching that result, Petitioner correctly calculated the amount of liquidated damages that would occur if the contractor decided to wait during a delay period on the delivery of his original tile order. Petitioner's response to the question was based on this calculation. The calculation of the liquidated damages was a preliminary calculation in a larger, more complex problem. Petitioner was required to also calculate the cost of the more expensive tile which could be delivered on time, and determine if the use of this tile would be less expensive to him or her than waiting on the delayed delivery of the less expensive tile. The question was unambiguous, and the exam materials contained all of the information necessary for completion of the problem. The Department established at hearing that the correct answer was "B". Petitioner failed to comprehend that he was to mitigate the costs to a contractor from the tile delay by determining if the immediate use of the more expensive tile would be less costly to a contractor than the anticipated liquidated damages. The flaw was in Petitioner's reading comprehension of this problem as opposed to a flaw in the challenged question. As a result, Petitioner is not entitled to credit for his answer. The correct answer for Question 8 on Part III is "C". Petitioner gave "A" as the correct answer. When Petitioner did his calculations of the material and labor costs for the creation of the concrete driveway, he used only the descriptions of material and labor costs charted in the problem. He did not apply this information to the additional information set forth in the Residential Plans and specifications. The problem directed the examinees to refer to the Residential Plans and specifications when solving this problem. These documents contained the data needed to calculate the area of the driveway. Petitioner's failure to apply the information provided in the plans resulted in the underestimation of the area of the driveway by over 33 percent. This significant difference was what caused Petitioner to select the wrong answer to the exam question. The Department established at hearing that the correct answer was "C". The question was unambiguous. Petitioner is not entitled to credit for the answer he gave to this question. The correct answer for Question 13 of Part III is "A". Petitioner marked "D" as the proper response. A review of the Residential Plans and specifications shows that the structure did not contain any forty x one x four trusses. Therefore, no time was required for the lifting and placing of trusses of this size. In arriving at his answer, Petitioner failed to determine the size of the trusses he was counting on the Residential Plans. If he had properly read the plans, he would have seen that there were no trusses of this size, according to the specifications. By failing to size the trusses on the plan, Petitioner came to an incorrect answer. He is not entitled to credit for the answer given because he did not demonstrate competence in reading and interpreting plans, as required by the question. During the application process, all exam candidates are advised in writing that the Department will provide special assistance to candidates with learning disabilities or physical handicaps to the ultimate extent possible. The burden is on the exam candidate to timely request the special assistance and to obtain the prerequisite certification of handicaps. Petitioner did not notify the Department of his handicaps in the manner set forth in the Candidate Booklet provided to him during the application process. If proper certifications had been provided prior to the last two testing sessions, the Department could have made a decision as to whether the test instrument and test administrative procedures should have been modified on Petitioner's behalf. The Petitioner, who now understands that Certifications of Handicaps are necessary, has had such certifications of handicap completed since the February 1991 examination. The Department was not under a duty to discover Petitioner's handicaps nor was it required to make provisions for those handicaps in the testing process without prior receipt of the necessary information. No provisions were made for Petitioner's handicaps during the October 1990 and February 1991 testing sessions. At hearing, Petitioner established he was deaf and did not understand verbal instructions and time warnings during the aforementioned testing sessions. This situation adversely affected his performance on both occasions.
Recommendation Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED: The Department should enter a Final Order which denies Petitioner's challenges to Part I - Questions 3 and 16; Part III - Questions 7, 8 and 13. Petitioner's request for certification without a demonstration of competency through successful completion of the exam should also be denied. Prior to any reexamination, the proper prerequisite certifications should be given to the Department by Petitioner so that special assistance can be given, if needed. The Joint Exhibit and Respondent's Exhibits 5 and 6 should remain sealed and not open to public inspection. Any other exhibits or file documents marked confidential should also remain sealed. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of April, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 15th day of April, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE Nos. 91-1883 & 91-2692 Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: 1. Accepted. 2. Accepted. See HO #2. 3. Accepted. See HO #3. 4. Accepted. 5. Accepted. 6. Accepted. 7. Accepted. See HO #6. 8. Accepted. 9. Accepted. 10. Accepted. See HO #16. 11. Accepted. See HO #18. 12. Accepted. 13. Accepted. See HO #22. 14. Accepted. 15. Accepted. 16. Accepted. See HO #23. 17. Accepted. 18. Accepted. See HO #8. 19. Accepted. See HO #9 and #10. 20. Accepted. 21. Accepted. 22. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted. Copies furnished: VYTAS J URBA ESQ ASST GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION NORTHWOOD CENTRE STE 60 1940 N MONROE ST TALLAHASSEE FL 32399-0792 RON WOODRING 38219 PALMGROVE DR ZEPHYRHILLS FL 33541 LEONARD M ERNEST MA ED HILLSBOROUGH COMMUNITY COLLEGE DALE MABRY CAMPUS/INTERPRETER TRAINING PROGRAM PO BOX 30030 TAMPA FL 33630-3030 DANIEL O'BRIEN/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD 111 EAST COASTLINE DR - RM 504 PO BOX 2 JACKSONVILLE FL 32202 JACK McRAY ESQ/GENERAL COUNSEL DEPT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION NORTHWOOD CENTRE - STE 60 1940 N MONROE ST TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 0792
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner should be awarded credit for his response to question numbered 30 of Part III of the October, 1989, certified general contractor examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner sat for the certified general contractor examination which was administered on October 21, 1989. After taking that examination, Petitioner had achieved passing scores on two of three parts of the certified general contractor examination. Petitioner was awarded a score of 69 on Part III of the examination, which is one point short of a passing score. Petitioner timely and properly challenged one question, question numbered 30, from Part III of the examination. If awarded credit for his answer to question numbered 30, Petitioner would achieve a passing score and be granted a certificate of licensure. Question numbered 30 is an objective (multiple choice) question pertaining to accounting, which asks the examinee to identify indirect costs from among four possible choices. The examination questions, including question numbered 30 on Part III, were developed by ACSI/NAI, a private organization under contract with the Department of Professional Regulation to develop the examination. ACSI/NAI originally keyed the grading of question numbered 30 so that answer "A" was the only correct response. After the examination was administered, ACSI/NAI determined that two additional answers, "B" and "C," were also correct and advised Respondent to award credit to candidates who chose answers "A," "B," or "C." ACSI/NAI advised that no credit should be awarded for answer "D" as this answer was incorrect. While taking Part III, which is an open book examination, Petitioner realized that choices "A," "B," and "C" were correct answers pursuant to page 94 of the approved reference book. Petitioner believed that only one answer could be correct for each question. Since he knew that three of the four answers were correct as the question was written, Petitioner decided that the question was incorrectly written, mentally deleted the word "not" which appeared in the question thereby making answer "D" the only correct response, and marked answer "D" on his answer sheet. Petitioner was awarded no credit as answer "D" to question numbered 30 as written is not correct. No candidates were awarded credit for choosing answer "D" on question numbered 30. Question numbered 30 is not ambiguous. It is clear in the response it is seeking. Although questions are not drafted to have more than one correct response, question numbered 30 did. Therefore, all examinees choosing one of the correct answers was given credit. Question numbered 30 is adequate for testing a candidate's knowledge in the subject area being tested. Examinees are graded solely according to the answers given on their answer sheets. No partial credit is awarded, and no credit is awarded for examinees' comments written either on official comment forms or in the examinee's test booklet. The Directions on the examination booklet instructed the examinees to mark only one answer per question. The Directions further advised the examinees in boldfaced type: "You will be graded only on the answers recorded on the answer sheet."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's challenge to question numbered 30 on the October, 1989, certified general contractor examination. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of July, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. 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 25th day of July, 1990 APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 90-1214 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 2, 4- 7, 9-11, 14-16, 29-31, 37, 40, 41, 44, 48, 51, 53, and 55 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 3, 8, 17, 26, 27, 34, 35, 45, 46, and 54 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 12, 13, 18-25, 28, 32, 33, 36, 38, 39, 42, 43, 47, 49, 50, and 52 have been rejected as being unnecessary for determination herein. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1 and 2 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting conclusions of law. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 3-14 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Copies furnished: Michael J. Kurzman, Esquire LEIBY AND ELDER Penthouse 2 290 Northwest 165 Street Miami, Florida 33169 Robert G. Harris Qualified Representative Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether petitioner's challenge to the grading of his examination for licensure as a Class B air conditioning contractor should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency charged with the duty of regulating contracting in the State of Florida. An applicant for certification as a Class B air conditioning contractor must pass the examination administered by respondent as a prerequisite to certification. Section 489.113(1), Florida Statutes. Petitioner sat for Part I of the Class B air conditioning contractor's examination on June 26, 1990, and received a failing grade of 67. Subsequently, petitioner filed a timely challenge to the respondent's grading of questions 5, 11, and 50 to the examination. Respondent sustained petitioner's challenge to question 11, accorded him credit, and raised his grade from 67 to 69. Respondent denied, however, petitioner's challenge to questions 5 and 50. Had petitioner been accorded credit for either question 5 or 50, he would have passed Part I of the examination. Question number 5 is an objective, multiple choice question. Based on the factual data in the question, the candidate is to choose, from among four possible answers, the answer that would derive the lowest cost for a line of credit. The correct response to the question was "C", and petitioner erroneously responded "A." At hearing, petitioner contended that he should be accorded credit for question 5 because he could have correctly derived the answer if Walker's Building Estimators Reference Book had been on the list of materials to bring to the test site. In this regard, petitioner testified that the test directed the applicants to utilize such reference in deriving the answer, and that had he been noticed of such fact he could have derived the correct answer through the referenced book. The subject examination, produced at hearing, was not, however, shown to contain any mention of the Walker's reference book, nor was the Walker's reference book one of the recommended reference books. In sum, petitioner's recollections regarding this question are erroneous, and his failure to correctly answer question 5 was based on his own lack of knowledge, and not any misdirection or misconduct on the part of respondent. Question 50 is likewise an objective, multiple choice question. Based on the factual data in that question, the candidate is again required to choose the correct response from among four possible answers. The correct response to the question was "D", and petitioner erroneously responded "C." At hearing, petitioner conceded that answer "D" was the only correct answer to question 50. Questions 5 and 50 were clear and unambiguous, and each contained only one correct response. Appropriately, respondent gave petitioner no credit for his answer to either question, because petitioner gave the wrong answer to each question.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing petitioner's challenge to the subject examination, and that the examination questions and answers provided at hearing be sealed and not open to public inspection. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of March, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK, 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 12th day of March, 1991.
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.
