The Issue Whether petitioner was "professional staff" within the meaning of Article VII of the University Constitution and therefore entitled to continue as Dean of the College of Education, in the absence of a showing of good cause why he should not continue? Whether FSU breached the 1984-1985 employment contract between the parties when it relieved petitioner of responsibilities as Dean of the College of Education on July 24, 1985? Whether FSU was under a legal obligation to give petitioner notice of good cause for not renewing the parties' 1984-1985 employment contract for the 1985-1986 or subsequent academic years?
Findings Of Fact After James L. Gant announced his intention to step down as Dean of FSU's College of Education, Augustus B. Turnbull, III, FSU's Vice President for Academic Affairs, appointed the College of Education Dean's Search Committee, also known as the Education Dean Search Committee (Search Committee) and named Robert Glidden, Dean of FSU's School of Music, chairman of the Search Committee. Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 3 and 9. Dr. Turnbull asked that the Search Committee "try to have a new dean on board no later than the fall semester of 1983." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. On December 6, 1982, Dean Glidden executed Part A of Form No. SUS/PFR- 001/75 (R3/77), a formal position vacancy announcement prerequisite to any national search. (T.29-30) This form described the "Contract Period" as 12 months; gave July 1, 1983, as the anticipated starting date; stated the position title as "Dean, College of Education"; categorized the position as having regular professorial status; and indicated the "Discipline/Field" as "Administration." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7. As part of the national search, the Search Committee caused circulars like Petitioner's Exhibit No. 9, "invit[ing] applications and nominations for the position of DEAN COLLEGE OF EDUCATION" to be published in periodicals like the Chronicle of Higher Education, which is how the vacancy came to the attention of petitioner Bruce Wayne Tuckman, whose application for the position eventually proved successful. Agreement Reached On April 28, 1983, Dr. Turnbull wrote Dr. Tuckman "to offer [him] the position of Dean of the Florida State University College of Education which carries with it the rank of Full Professor of Education ... effective ... July 1, 1983." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 10. In the letter, Dr. Turner undertook to recommend Dr. Tuckman for tenure "at the first opportunity, which will be during the 1983-1984 Academic Year." Id. On May 3, 1983, Dr. Tuckman signed the bottom of the letter in the blank provided to indicate acceptance of the offer. In May of 1983, Drs. Turnbull and Tuckman executed an employment contract covering the period July 1, 1983 to August 31, 1983, stating "CLASSIFICATION TITLE/RANK" as "Dean and Professor" and indicating 9040 as the class code. Respondent's Exhibit No. 15. "Dean and Professor" with a class code of 9040 is listed among the general faculty classification titles and codes. Respondent's Exhibit No. 2. "Professor" appears on the same list with a class code of 9001. On the strength of the agreement evidenced by Dr. Turnbull's letter of April 28, 1983, and Respondent's Exhibit No. 15, Dr. Tuckman, a much-published scholar, left a tenured position at the City University of New York and moved to Tallahassee from New York in the summer of 1983. On September 1 and 2, 1983, respectively, Drs. Turnbull and Tuckman executed a second employment contract with terms identical to the first, except that it covered the period September 1, 1983 to August 31, 1984, and had a greater number of pay periods, accordingly. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11. 1984-1985 Contract Central to the present controversy is the contract executed by Dr. Turnbull on September 2, 1984, and by Dr. Tuckman on September 6, 1984, which provides, in pertinent part: STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF FLORIDA FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY 12 MONTH EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT This contract between Florida State University and the employee is subject to the Constitution and laws of the State of Florida, the rules and regulations of the Board of Regents... Employee Name: Bruce W. Tuckman * * * 3. Department Name: Dean Education * * * 5. Dates of Appointment: 09-01-84 to 08-31-85 * * * 8. Classification Title/Rank: Dean and Professor Class Code: 9040 Appointment Modifier: B * * * The following statement is only applicable to employees holding visiting appointments; or those appointed for less than one academic year; or (3) those with less than five years continuous service who are on soft money": Your employment hereunder will cease on the date indicated. No further notice to you of cessation of employment is required. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 13. "[A]ppointment modifier B ... is for courtesy faculty status." Erb Fontenot v. Florida State University, No. 85-3843 (F.S.U.; Jan. 5, 1987) at page 2. "Persons holding an administrative or services role normally hold a courtesy rank Rule 6C2-1.004(6)(a)7.a. On March 26, 1984, President Sliger had written Dr. Tuckman, advising him that he had been awarded "tenure to be effective Fall Semester, 1984." Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. Auspicious Beginning At first, all seemed to go well with the College of Education and its new dean. As chief executive officer, Dr. Tuckman was responsible for "all budgetary, fiscal and personnel matters in the College of Education," (T.58) and "had the executive responsibility for helping to set the directions and execute the policies and procedures of the college ... [,] sat as an ex officio member of the Policy Advisory Board ... [and] on a number of [other] committees." (T.50) He tended to "general day-to-day kinds of things ... responding to letters," (T.31), affirmative action and grievance matters. As the University Director of Teacher Education, he chaired FSU's Committee on Teacher Education, "organized conferences and committees on behalf of the College of Education [,] provided interface between the College of Education and the public school districts and schools of the state and other officials of the state ... [and] represented the College of Education to outside constituencies, [including] alumni [and] legislators..." (T.58) On May 31, 1984, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12, and again on March 27, 1985, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 14, Dr. Turnbull rated Dr. Tuckman "satisfactory," the highest rating possible, on forms on which he characterized his primary duties as Administration." Dean Tuckman performed the duties of dean as described in the By-Laws of the College of Education. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 18. Although not required to do so, he also taught every year he served as dean. Complaints Made "[I]n the fall of 84, probably around October, November ... [after it became known that Stephen Edwards was] to assume the position of the Dean of Faculty in January of 1985, faculty members from the College of Education ... [approached him] concerned about the way the college was operating and the kinds of participation in its governance that the faculty were being able to have." (T.377) In due course, Dean Edwards, as he became, relayed these concerns to Dr. Turnbull. Dr. Turnbull had also heard complaints himself from members of the faculty of the College of Education, complaints which he originally dismissed as a normal reaction to somebody who is making necessary changes." (T.229) By the spring of 1985, however, he asked Dr. Tuckman to give him a "list of some of the faculty that he considered to be the future leaders of the college ... not necessarily the old guard or people who for one reason or another would be troublemakers, but a group of faculty on whom he would rely to carry out his policy directions for the college." (T. 228-230) Dr. Tuckman compiled such a list and furnished it to Dr. Turnbull. At a meeting he called in the summer of 1985, Dr. Turnbull discussed matters with "a significant number of" the people Dr. Tuckman had listed, and "asked them to work with [Dr. Turnbull] and the dean to turn the situation around." (T.230) The group struck Dr. Turnbull as noncommittal. At Dr. Turnbull's request, Dr. Tuckman then called a meeting of the Administrative Council, comprised of department chairmen and others. In this meeting, held on a Tuesday, possibly July 16, 1985, it was decided that the Administrative Council would meet again with Dr. Tuckman, without Dr. Turnbull present, and that afterwards the department heads would meet with Dr. Turnbull to "decide where to go from there." (T.231) After the Tuesday meeting, Dr. Turnbull drafted a memorandum addressed to the faculty of the College of Education. He attached this draft to a memorandum to Dr. Tuckman, dated July 17, 1985. In the memorandum to Dr. Tuckman, he referred to the draft as "a draft cover memorandum," solicited Dr. Tuckman's suggestions with regard to the draft, and stated that he "would also like to see a copy of the 'report' from our Tuesday meeting which we can send out with this cover memorandum." Respondent's Exhibit No. 5. Dr. Tuckman wrote Dr. Turnbull a memorandum, dated July 19, 1985. Labelled "PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL," it is now a matter of public record, and reads, in part: I appreciate the gravity of the situation and the difficulty of the position you are in. I struggled through one or two similar crises myself last year, albeit on the department level, where faculty members were opposed to a chairman, and know how hard that is to deal with. I appreciate the consideration you have shown both me and the faculty of the College. It may not need reiteration but I want you to know that I like my job and I want my job. I think you need to keep in mind: the fact that I have only done what I was "brought here" to do and what I said I would do. I have always been honest and forthright with you and with the faculty. I have never been knowingly devious in any of my dealings. the fact that I "inherited" a college suffering from long-term neglect and one which included a number of people who were taking advantage of that situation and of their colleagues. * * * (4) the fact that relatively unused and "rusty" faculty governance structures were not used by me not by choice but because they could not raise quorums and did not have members who wanted to see them used constructively. They are now ready to be used. I was already putting them in readiness when this whole controversy started. * * * I have been less than perfect. I have made mistakes and I am now aware of many of them. But they were honest mistakes and well- intentioned mistakes. I am neither power- hungry nor malicious. Organizations often need to survive conflict in order to coalesce and grow. The essence of the process is having the members accept some of the responsibility for growth and decision-making. I want this to happen. This crisis can be turned from a nightmare into a blessing by a combination of actions by me and you. My job is to "open up all the doors" and let all of the faculty input in. I pledge to you that I will (and have already begun to) use all informal and formal mechanisms to foster faculty participation and involvement. I believe that I am both willing and able to do this. But it will only work if, as I open my doors, you close yours. You need to let it be known that you are satisfied with the plans and directions of the College, that you have helped make sure it is on course, but that its fate depends on it being able to solve its own problems. And, as you know, those problems are many and serious. And, with that decision to let me continue (after all, I have only had two years to deal with problems and habits formed over at least 10 years) , you must step back from the process and let it continue. ... If you step back, the faculty will realize that they must begin to take faculty governance processes seriously and use them constructively to help get us out of this fix. I want faculty involvement and I can get it. If they have nowhere else to go but to faculty committees, faculty meetings and to me, that's where they'll go. But if they can go to you, Steve or Bernie, they'll go there. I ask you personally, professionally and humbly for your help, both for me and for the College. The biggest help you can provide now is to say to the world, let the College of Education solve its own problems if it wants to stay in business. The rest is up to us. Dr. Turnbull felt this memorandum "was too little, too late," (T.236) and that it advocated "the course [he] followed very consistently up until a couple weeks before that." (T.236) On July 22, 1985, the department chairmen, having earlier met with Dr. Tuckman, as agreed, met with Dr. Turnbull. They reported that Dr. Tuckman "still did not understand the seriousness of the situation, and that they were, therefore, not willing to proceed with him to try to change the faculty's mind about the course and direction of the college." (T.231) Resignation Requested Late that day Dr. Turnbull summoned Dr. Tuckman to his office and requested that he step down as dean. Dr. Tuckman asked if he could think it over overnight, and, on the morning of July 23, 1985, told Dr. Turnbull he "wanted to be able to complete this year and have another year; and that at the end of the next year, if [Dr. Turnbull] was ... dissatisfied with [Dr. Tuckman's] performance, then at that time [Dr. Tuckman] would be willing to resign." (T.62) Dr. Turnbull told Dr. Tuckman he was wasting his breath, that he wanted him "out as dean right away." (T.62) When Dr. Tuckman "pleaded with him," id., Dr. Turnbull reportedly said, "A well-worded letter of resignation would resolve [sic] you of all embarrassment or pain." (T.62) But Dr. Tuckman refused to resign, saying, "[Y]ou will have to fire me." Id. No Longer Dean Believing Dr. Tuckman had been insubordinate, Dr. Turnbull wrote a letter to him the following day. The parties stipulated that Dr. Turnbull had full authority to act for FSU's president in these matters. The letter said: Dear Bruce: Effective immediately, you are relieved of your responsibilities as Dean of the College of Education. An alternative assignment for the 1985-86 academic year will be made as soon as possible. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15. By memorandum dated July 30, 1985, Dr. Turnbull advised Dean Edwards, "Normal procedures should be followed, except that you will substitute for Dr. Tuckman." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5. On or after July 24, 1985, but no later than July 30, 1985, Dr. Turnbull had assigned Dean Edwards "responsibility for the administrative affairs of the College of Education during the transition following the reassignment of Dr. Tuckman." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5. By memoranda dated July 29 and 30, 1985, Respondent's Exhibits Nos. 9- 10, and by letter to Dr. Turnbull dated July 29, 1985, Respondent's Exhibit No. 8, Dr. Tuckman made known his view that he had a right to continue as dean, writing Dr. Turnbull, "I cannot accede to your request that I surrender my position," Respondent's Exhibit No. 8, and signing a memorandum dated July 29, 1985, addressed to department heads and ohers, "Bruce W. Tuckman, Dean." Respondent's Exhibit No. 9. On July 31, 1985, Dr. Turnbull sent a memorandum to Dr. Tuckman, with a "blind copy" to FSU's counsel, in form acquiescing to Dr. Tuckman's assertion that he was still dean. This memorandum stated: RE: Revised Assignment of Responsibilities Pursuant to my July 24, 1985 letter to you and our discussion of July 30, 1985, your complete assignment as dean for the period through the expiration of your current contract (August 31, 1985), is as follows: to develop and prepare a written report on the major policy and program initiatives of the College of Education during your tenure as dean along with a summary of your perception of the goals and objectives encompassed in these policies. to provide written recommendations on priorities among these goals, objectives, and plans to implement them, together with any suggestions for alteration as a result of the necessary reduction in College resources. responding upon request to inquiries from Dean Edwards or other appropriate officials about College of Education matters. (Dean Edwards will be assisting during this transitional period in the administration of the College of Education.) This reassignment is not intended to affect your functions and responsibilities as a faculty member. In the best interests of the University and in furtherance of a smooth transition, I am instructing you to vacate the physical quarters of the Office of Dean no later than the close of business on Friday, August 2. An alternative office will be assigned in the Stone Building. Please contact Dean Edwards concerning alternative office space. The practical reality was, however, that Dr. Tuckman did not serve as Dean of the College of Education after July 24, 1985. In September of 1985, Robert L. Lathrop was named interim dean, and he became "continuing dean in January 1987." (T.289) Academic deans customarily serve at the pleasure of university presidents. By memorandum dated February 4, 1964, (but not shown to petitioner before he signed the employment contract), Gordon W. Blackwell, then FSU's president, "instituted" the policy that "Members of the faculty ... hold administrative positions (... dean ...) at the pleasure of the President." Respondent's Exhibit No. 16. This is the norm in the United States. Witnesses at hearing, including academic deans at FSU, testified that FSU's deans served at the pleasure of FSU's president during the time in question. Dr. Turnbull's letter of July 24, 1985, reflected these views, and ended Dr. Tuckman's service as dean, although Dr. Tuckman stayed on as (and remained, at the time of the hearing) a tenured full professor in the College of Education. He received the full salary he contracted for in September of 1984 during the year ending August 31, 1985. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 13. Faculty vs. Professional Staff The, Board of Regents, which heads the Division of Universities within the Department of Education, has allocated university employees among three distinct "pay plans." The position "dean and professor," like the position "professor," has been assigned to the faculty pay plan, rather than to the administrative and professional pay plan, or to the plan for "University Support Personnel," formerly career service employees. (T.131, 190, 197). Article VII of the Constitution of the Florida State University, entitled "The Professional Staff," provides: Those persons holding academic appointments within The Florida State University, but not within a college or school, and those persons within a college or school holding academic appointments whose responsibilities do not include teaching, shall be considered members of the Professional Staff. Members of the Professional Staff having appropriate qualifications and responsibilities shall be assigned faculty rank by the President of the University on recommendation of their administrative officers for the purpose of membership in the General Faculty. Members of the Professional Staff shall enjoy the assurance of annual recommendation for reappointment in accordance with the provisions of the Florida Statutes and the regulations of the Board of Regents. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 17, page 11. Dr. Tuckman first saw this provision in July or August of 1983. (T.86) The text of Article VII, now promulgated as an administrative rule, Rule 6C2-1.004(7), Florida Administrative Code, effective September 30, 1975, has been included in the FSU Constitution since 1959. Similar language may have appeared even earlier as a bylaw, and was originally drafted to authorize conferring faculty rank on librarians. (T.411) As a provision of FSU's Constitution, Article VII is not among the "rules and regulations of the Board of Regents," strictly speaking. By virtue of Article VII or its predecessor, Willis Caldwell, registrar and director of admissions, was given faculty rank, possibly as an associate professor. Catherine Warren, Dean of Women, was "designated as professor," (T.419) under Article VII or its predecessor. Ms. Warren had done graduate work in history at Columbia University, but, like Willis Caldwell, had no academic appointment within a college or school. Article VII was also applied to Robert Pierce, who, as FSU's vice-president for administration from 1972 to 1976 or 1977 (T.417), had no standing in an academic unit. (T.221) It has never been applied to persons who "had faculty status in an academic unit or with tenure." (T.224) When administrators teach, "it's considered part of their responsibility." (T.415) A faculty member who forgoes teaching for research does not, on that account, lose his status as a member of the faculty and become a member of the professional staff. FSU's president, or his designee, has broad authority in assigning administrative responsibilities to FSU's deans, but they are not professional staff, if they have faculty appointments, even if they do not teach. Article VI of the Constitution of Florida State University, Rule 6C2- 1.004(6), Florida Administrative Code, deals at length with faculty members, employees who, like petitioner, have academic appointments. As dean and professor since his arrival at FSU, Dr. Tuckman has had faculty rank all that time. He has enjoyed membership in the General Faculty by virtue of his professorial rank, and has never been a member of the professional staff. Article VII has no application in his case, and was not incorporated by reference in the employment contracts Dr. Tuckman signed.
Recommendation That FSU enter a final order in Case No. 86-2483 declaring the parties' 1984-1985 employment contract, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 13, breached, effective July 24, 1985, but denying further relief in Case No. 86-2483. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of June, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of June, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2483 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1 through 17, 20, 22, and 24 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. IS has only been adopted to the extent indicated by reference to petitioner's remaining proposed findings of fact. With reference to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 19, the FSU Constitution has been adopted as an administrative rule, now numbered Rule 6C- 1.004, Florida Administrative Code. With reference to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 21, Dr. Tuckman saw Article VII in July or August of 1983. The evidence did not show that he relied in fact on Article VII. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 23 and 25 were not established by the weight of the evidence. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, and 24 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 3, Rule 6C2- 1.004(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, makes clear that Article VII can confer membership in the general faculty. With respect to respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 6 and 7, FSU contracted in September of 1984 for Dr. Tuckman's services as "dean and professor," not only for his services as a professor. Although deans ordinarily hold professorial rank, there is a difference between being dean and being simply a professor. In executing Petitioner's Exhibit No. 13, the parties agreed that Dr. Tuckman would serve as dean through August 31, 1985. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 11, the evidence supports every sentence but the antepenultimate, which is partially an erroneous conclusion of law. The evidence did not show that an FSU vice-president had ever before unilaterally removed a dean, although there was testimony that Robert Lawton had been asked for his resignation. (T. 220) Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 15 has been adopted, in substance, insofar as material, except that the evidence was that Dr. Tuckman had appointed three quarters of the Administrative Council, not three quarters of the department heads. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 17, the number was $6,056. Only the first sentence in respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 20 has been adopted as established by the weight of the competent evidence. The first two sentences in respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 23 were established by the evidence. On July 24, 1985, Dr. Tuckman was relieved of his responsibilities as dean. Thereafter, Dr. Edwards acted de facto as Dean of the College of Education. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 25, the evidence showed that Dr. Turnbull set out to do what he thought was best for the university without any ulterior motive, but the evidence did not show that Dr. Tuckman had breached the employment agreement or that anything else had relieved FSU of its legal obligations under the agreement. COPIES FURNISHED: President Bernard Sliger Florida State University Tallahassee, Florida Gerald B. Jaski, Esquire Linda C. Schmidt, Esquire Florida State University 311 Hecht House Tallahassee, Florida 32306 Stephen Marc Slepin, Esquire Slepin & Slepin 1114 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue Whether there are sufficient grounds for the imposition of disciplinary sanctions against Respondent?s teaching certificate, and if so, the nature of the sanctions.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Education Practices Commission is the state agency charged with the duty and responsibility to revoke or suspend, or take other appropriate action with regard to teaching certificates as provided in sections 1012.795 and 1012.796. § 1012.79(7), Fla. Stat. Petitioner, as Commissioner of Education, is charged with the duty to file and prosecute administrative complaints against individuals who hold Florida teaching certificates and who are alleged to have violated standards of teacher conduct. § 1012.796(6), Fla. Stat. Respondent holds a teaching certificate issued by the Florida Department of Education, No. 608837, covering the areas of pre-kindergarten and primary education. Respondent?s current teaching certificate was issued as a result of the entry of a September 18, 2007, Settlement Agreement that resolved an initial denial of the teaching certificate for a series of pleas or convictions for financial crimes, including Public Assistance Fraud. The Settlement Agreement authorized the issuance of Respondent?s teaching certificate subject to a letter of reprimand and a two-year period of probation. The Settlement Agreement was adopted by the Education Practices Commission by Final Order entered on January 25, 2008. Respondent was employed by the Gadsden County School Board in various positions since 2005, most of them being as a teacher at the elementary school and kindergarten level. Respondent received instructional employee evaluation ratings of “very effective” for the 2006-2007 school year, and of “effective” for the 2007-2008, 2008-2009, and 2009-2010 school years. Respondent was suspended from teaching by the Gadsden County School Board on January 3, 2011 for issues relating to her December 21, 2010, arrest for drug-related offenses. The suspension was upheld at a meeting of the Gadsden County School Board on January 25, 2011. Respondent was rehired as a Gadsden County substitute teacher in February, 2011, and worked in that capacity at two schools until December 2012. The decision to rehire was made to accommodate Respondent with lawful employment so as to meet the terms of her probation. Administrative Complaint On November 30, 2012, Petitioner issued the Administrative Complaint that forms the basis for this proceeding. The Administrative Complaint identified the offenses that underlie the five specified counts. Resisting an Officer - September 29, 2007 On September 29, 2007, Officer Clark was in the process of effectuating an arrest of Respondent?s son at a convenience store located near Respondent?s home. According to Officer Clark, Respondent?s son was resisting efforts to place him in handcuffs. While Officer Clark was attempting to take Respondent?s son into custody, Respondent appeared on the scene and attempted to intervene in the incident. The nature of the intervention is disputed. When a back-up officer arrived, Officer Clark instructed him to take Respondent into custody. The only evidence of the disposition of the charge of resisting an officer was a printout of the case docket from the website of the Leon County, Florida Clerk of Court. The printout is hearsay, and comes within no exception to the hearsay rule set forth in section 90.803, Florida Statutes. Disposition of the charge of resisting an officer was not supported by competent, substantial, and non-hearsay evidence. Thus, no finding can be made to substantiate that charge. Driving Without a Valid License - January 2, 2010 On January 2, 2010, Respondent was driving her vehicle in Tallahassee. She was stopped by Officer Hurlbut for a traffic infraction. Respondent presented Officer Hurlbut with a Florida driver?s license. When Officer Hurlbut ran the driver?s license through his onboard computer, he discovered that the driver?s license produced by Respondent was not current, and that Respondent?s driver?s license had been suspended. Officer Hurlbut issued a citation and notice to appear to Respondent, and seized her expired driver?s license and her automobile tag. On April 14, 2010, Respondent entered a plea of no contest to a charge of operating a motor vehicle without a valid driver?s license, a second-degree misdemeanor, was adjudged guilty, and was placed on probation for a period of six months. Driving Without a Valid License/Violation of Probation - September 26, 2010 On September 26, 2010, Respondent was stopped by Highway Patrol Sergeant Teslo for driving without a seatbelt. Respondent had no identification. Sergeant Teslo asked Respondent to write her name and date of birth on a sheet of paper so that he could run it through his onboard computer. The name and birthdate provided by Respondent were not those of Respondent. When Sergeant Teslo determined that the name and birthdate were not those of Respondent, he returned to her car, whereupon Respondent provided him with her real name and birthdate. When Sergeant Teslo ran Respondent?s name and birthdate, he discovered that Respondent was operating her vehicle while her driver?s license was suspended. He issued a traffic citation, and waited for a licensed driver to come and pick up Respondent. As a matter of discretion, Sergeant Teslo did not charge Respondent with providing false information. On September 30, 2010, an affidavit of probation violation was executed which alleged that Respondent violated her April 14, 2010, sentence of probation by driving with a suspended license. A warrant was issued, and Respondent was taken into custody. Respondent entered a plea of no contest to a reduced charge of operating a motor vehicle without a valid driver?s license. Adjudication was withheld. Drug Offenses - December 9, 2010 On December 9, 2010, after a period of investigation and surveillance of Respondent?s home, the Tallahassee Police Department executed a search warrant for the home. Respondent was not at the home when the search was conducted. Respondent arrived at her home while the search warrant was being executed. There were numerous police cars around the house. Respondent asked a neighbor to watch the house and retrieve the keys when the search was done while she took her pit bulldog, which had been Tasered during the execution of the warrant, to the veterinarian. The neighbor later called Respondent to advise her that drugs were found during the search. Thus, the search and its results were openly known in the area. During the execution of the search warrant, two of Respondent?s sons were taken into custody. The search of the home uncovered a significant quantity of powdered and crack cocaine, cannabis, and various articles of paraphernalia located in rooms throughout the home, including the kitchen and Respondent?s bedroom. On December 21, 2010, Respondent was arrested for a number of drug-related offenses. On February 11, 2011, an Information was filed charging Respondent with trafficking in controlled substances, a felony of the first degree; sale or possession of controlled substances with intent to sell within 1000 feet of a convenience store, a felony of the first degree; sale or possession of controlled substances with intent to sell within 1000 feet of a convenience store, a felony of the second degree; and possession of paraphernalia, a misdemeanor of the first degree. On November 15, 2011, Respondent entered into a deferred prosecution agreement for the charged offenses subject to Respondent?s compliance with various terms of the agreement. Public Assistance Fraud - July 25, 2012 On July 6, 2012, an affidavit was executed by Department of Economic Opportunity Investigator Marshall, in which it was alleged that Respondent made false statements that she was unemployed and not receiving wages or benefits from June 19, 2010 through February 26, 2011, so as to qualify for reemployment assistance benefits for which she was otherwise not eligible. Respondent asserted that she was, in fact, unemployed during the summer of 2010, since her annual contract expired at the conclusion of the 2009-2010 school year, and was not renewed until the commencement of the 2010-2011 school year. She further asserted that she was suspended without pay commencing on January 26, 2011. However, the evidence is undisputed that Respondent was employed and receiving wages for, at a minimum, the start of the 2010-2011 school year1/ until January 26, 2011. On July 25, 2012, an Information was filed charging Respondent with Unemployment Compensation Fraud, a felony of the third degree, for making false statements to obtain or increase benefits under Florida unemployment compensation laws. On November 2, 2012, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the felony charge of unemployment compensation fraud, was adjudicated guilty, was placed on probation for a period of five years, and was ordered to pay restitution to the Florida Reemployment Compensation Trust Fund in the amount of $7,972.00 and to pay an additional $750 in court costs.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the findings of fact and conclusions of law reached herein, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order permanently revoking Respondent?s teaching certificate, No. 608837. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of December, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 16th day of December, 2013.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Since on or about September, 1980, the Petitioner has been a full-time employee of the Florida State University System, and up until the 1987-88 academic year a participant in the state of Florida health insurance program offered through the Florida State University by the Respondent, Department of Administration. During the 1987-88 academic year, the Petitioner was granted an unpaid leave of absence so that he could pursue a teaching assignment in the National Republic of China. Since the 1983-84 academic year, the Petitioner had been a participant in the Capital Health Plan Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) offered in Tallahassee, Florida under the Respondent's insurance program. Since the Petitioner could not avail himself of the benefits of the HMO in which he was enrolled in Tallahassee, Florida during the time he anticipated being in the National Republic of China, at or about the time the Petitioner commenced his unpaid leave of absence, he notified the personnel office at Florida State University that he wished to discontinue his participation in the HMO. During the 1987-88 academic year, the Petitioner did not make payments to continue his coverage during his period of leave of absence in the HMO. Immediately upon his return to employment on or about August 4, 1988, the Petitioner inquired of the personnel office at Florida State University of the steps to be taken to obtain coverage under his previous HMO for the 1988-89 academic year. The Petitioner was given certain forms to complete and return to the Florida State University personnel office. Petitioner completed and returned those forms as instructed but was informed that he could not reenroll since no open period of enrollment was available to him at that time. By letter dated July 8, 1988, Ronald G. Meyer, representing the United Faculty of Florida , FTP-FEA, corresponded with Mr. Carl Ogden, Director, Division of State Employees' Insurance, concerning a group of university faculty members who would not be on campus during the open enrollment period effective June 22, 1988 through July 15, 1988, and the need for a special open enrollment period upon them returning to their respective campus. By letter dated July 19, 1988, Mr. Ogden responded to Mr. Meyer's letter of July 8, 1988 and informed Mr. Meyer that the employees identified in his letter would be accommodated, and set out the procedure for that to be accomplished. The group of employees referred to in Mr. Meyer's letter and addressed by Mr. Ogden are those employees referred to as being "employed less than year round" and identified in Rule 22K-1.054(7), Florida Administrative Code, but does not include an employee such as Petitioner who was on an authorized leave without pay during this open enrollment period. The employees covered by the memorandum dated August 12, 1988 from Harriette A. Hudson, Manager, Insurance and Benefits, Florida State University, advising the "salaried Faculty Off Summer Payroll" of the special open enrollment period does not include employees such as Petitioner who was on an authorized leave without pay until August 4, 1988. Additionally, there was no evidence that this "open enrollment period " was designated by the Department of Administration or that the Department of Administration had authorized Florida State University to designate this open enrollment period. There was no open enrollment period available to Petitioner during August 1988. The first open enrollment period available to Petitioner after returning to work in August 1988 was in December 1988, at which time he reenrolled and became eligible for benefits on March 1, 1989. Only the Secretary of the Department of Administration has authority to determine an open enrollment period which is accomplished by numbered memorandum.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for coverage under the state of Florida Health Plan and any costs he may have incurred as a result of not being covered under the state plan. RESPECTFULLY submitted and entered this 29th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of March, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-0277 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings Submitted by Petitioner 1.-2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2 & 4, respectively. Immaterial to the conclusion reached herein. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 5.-6. Subordinate to facts actually found in the Recommended Order. 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings Submitted by Respondent 1.-6. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 - 6, respectively. 7.-8. Subordinate to facts actually found in the Recommended Order. 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10, but modified. 10.-11. Immaterial to the conclusion reach herein. 12. Rejected as being a conclusion of law rather that a finding of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikins, Jr., Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Ronald G. Meyer, Esquire MEYER, BROOKS AND COOPER, P. A. P.O. Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William A. Frieder, Esquire Department of Administration 440 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
