Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an instructor of mathematics at Glades Junior High School in Dade County, Florida. On May 10, 1967, Petitioner received a Rank III teacher's certificate from the Respondent. Petitioner has been certified as a Rank III teacher since that time. Petitioner most recently requested reevaluation of her certificate status on or about September 15, 1975. Petitioner sought certification as a Rank II teacher. The Respondent denied the request. Petitioner was awarded a Bachelor of Arts Degree from Hunter College on June 19, 1940. Petitioner was awarded a Bachelor of Law Degree by St. Johns University School of Law in September, 1943. At the time that Petitioner enrolled in the St. Johns University School of Law, the St. Johns University School of Law did not require that candidates for admission possess an undergraduate Bachelor's Degree in order to be enrolled. Candidates for admission were required to have completed at least two years of college in order to be enrolled.
Findings Of Fact The parties entered into a stipulation to the effect that the Respondent, Dr. Thomas L. Richey, Superintendent of Collier County Schools, and the Chiller County School Board, does not admit that Petitioner, James Morgan is qualified for out of zone assignment to Barron Collier High School. However, due to his performance record over the past two school years, 1986-1987 and 1987-1988, the school system believes that it is in his best interests that he not be moved at this time and that he be permitted to continue his education at Barron Collier High School through completion of academic requirements and the award of a high school diploma.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Collier County accept the stipulation as presented and enter a Final Order consistent with the terms thereof, permitting Petitioner to remain a student at Barron Collier High School through his graduation. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of January, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 20th day of January, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas L. Richey, Superintendent Collier County Public Schools 3710 Estey Avenue Naples, Florida 33942 Frank P. Murphy, Esquire 850 Central Avenue, Suite 300 Naples, Florida 33940-6036 James H. Siesky, Esquire 791 Tenth Street South, Suite B Naples, Florida 33940-6725
The Issue The questions of fact and law at issue in this proceeding have been agreed to by the parties and have been set out in a Prehearing Stipulation entered into by the parties. The Prehearing Stipulation has been accepted into evidence as Joint Exhibit 1.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner received a Bachelors Degree from the University of Montemorelos on June 1, 1978. The Petitioner received a Medical Degree from the University of Montemorelos on June 12, 1982. The University of Montemorelos is located in Montemorelos, Nuevo Leon, Mexico. The Petitioner Successfully passed the ECFMG examination in 1982. The Petitioner successfully completed a fifth pathway program at Loma Linda University School of Medicine effective June 30, 1983 (July 1, 1982 - June 30, 1983). The Petitioner successfully passed the December, 1982, FLEX examination in California and was licensed to practice medicine in California effective November 13, 1984. The Petitioner Successfully completed his PGY 1, 2, and 3 training, i.e., a residency program in internal medicine at Charles F. Kettering Memorial Hospital and Wright State University, School of Medicine and Affiliated Hospitals on June 30, 1986 (July 1, 1983 - June 30, 1986). The Petitioner is in good standing to practice medicine in California, Tennessee and Georgia. The Petitioner currently practices medicine in Jellico, Tennessee. He is self-employed and on the staff of Jellico Community Hospital. The Petitioner applied for licensure in Florida by endorsement. His application was dated January 29, 1986. The Petitioner paid the required application fee. By notice dated March 6, 1986, Ms. Dorothy Faircloth the Executive Director of the Board, notified the Petitioner that his application was incomplete because of his failure to provide: copy of 5th pathway certificate, undergraduate degree notarized as stated above. [Emphasis added]. Independently of the March 6, 1986 notice from Ms. Faircloth, the Petitioner sent a notarized copy of his bachelors degree from the University of Montemorelos to the Board by letter dated March 6, 1986. Board staff notified the Petitioner on or about March 14, 1986, that staff was unable to recommend favorable approval of Petitioner's application by endorsement because he did not possess an undergraduate degree from a United States four-year college or university. In particular, the Petitioner was informed that he failed to fulfill the requirements of Sections 458.311(3)(a) and 458.313(1), Florida Statutes. The Petitioner was also told the following: According to your application you do not possess an undergraduate degree from a United States four year college or university; and for incomplete application process. Section 458.311(3)(a), Florida Statutes, which requires an applicant to "[h]ave completed undergraduate work in an accredited United States college or university" was also quoted in the Board staff's notice to the Petitioner. The Petitioner's application was considered by the Board at its meeting of April 4-6, 1986. The Agenda for that meeting included a list of ineligible applicants, including the Petitioner. The following language was included on the list pertaining to the Petitioner: 458.313(1) and 458.1311(3)(1) [sic]; applicant did a 5th pathway and does not have an undergraduate degree from a U.S. college or university. As a result of the denial of his application by the Board, the Petitioner filed an application in the Spring of 1986 for admission into the Adult Degree Program (hereinafter referred to as the "ADP") of Atlantic Union College (hereinafter referred to as "Atlantic"). Atlantic is a fully-accredit United States college located in South Lancaster, Massachusetts. It has been accredited since approximately 1946 or 1947. The ADP at Atlantic was begun in 1972. It is an external degree program based upon a short on-campus period of time, during which a student develops an outline of study and begins work on the program with supervision. The student then returns home where the course of study is pursued for 6 months. Students then return to the campus for a one-week mini-course. On the application for admission into the ADP at Atlantic filed by the Petitioner, the Petitioner answered question 14, which requested, among other things, a short essay discussing the applicant's educational goals, by explaining that he was seeking an undergraduate degree from Atlantic in order to comply with the requirements of Section 458.311(3)(a), Florida Statutes. The Petitioner was accepted by Atlantic into its ADP. The Petitioner's acceptance into the ADP was based upon a review of his previous academic record and experience. Based upon that review, Atlantic required the Petitioner to complete one unit in the ADP in order to receive a Bachelor of Science degree in General Science. A "unit" in the ADP is the equivalent of 16 semester hours of study at a university or college. In order for a student to be awarded an undergraduate degree from Atlantic, the college generally requires that the student earn the equivalent of 8 units. The last 2 units of study must, according to Atlantic's catalogue, be earned in the ADP at Atlantic in order for a student to be awarded an undergraduate degree from Atlantic. The requirement that the last 2 units of study be earned in the ADP was waived for the Petitioner, based upon a "rule of thumb" exception which the admissions committee recognizes. That exception is to award an undergraduate degree based upon only one unit of study if an individual has already earned graduate degrees. The Petitioner enrolled in the ADP at Atlantic for a period of approximately six months. During the six months of the Petitioner's enrollment at Atlantic, he spent approximately three weeks on the campus of the college; approximately two weeks at the beginning of the program and one week at the end. During the first two weeks of the program the Petitioner developed the course of his studies and prepared an outline of his proposed course. The course of study, which was to be in the humanities, was approved by a study supervisor. The Petitioner's course of study consisted of an in-depth study of photography, the history of photography, actual work in photography, including taking black and white and color photographs, processing, developing and mounting of black and white photographs and a presentation of color pictures taken by the Petitioner. The Petitioner wrote a paper on the history of photography and completed a study on architecture in Chicago which was documented photographically and in a paper. The Petitioner also attended a one- week mini-course at the end of the program. The Petitioner completed the course of study approved by Atlantic and received an "A" for his work. The Petitioner graduated with distinction. Effective January 11, 1987, the Petitioner received a Bachelor of Science degree in General Science, a "four-year" degree, from Atlantic. The degree awarded to the Petitioner was based largely on the work he had completed at the University of Montemorelos and in part on the one unit of work in humanities performed at Atlantic. On February 8, 1987, the Petitioner appeared before the Board. The Board considered the degree awarded to the Petitioner by Atlantic and, by a vote of 6 to 5, denied Petitioner's application. An Order was issued by the Board on March 25, 1987, indicating the Board's intent to deny the Petitioner's application for licensure as a physician by endorsement. The Board rejected the application for the following reason: You have failed to demonstrate that you completed undergraduate work in an accredited United States college or university, as required by Section 458.311(3)(a), Florida Statues, in conjunction with Section 458.313(1), Florida Statutes (1985). There is no statute or rule which explicates the proper interpretation of Section 458.311(3)(a), Florida Statutes. Nor has the Board applied Section 458.311(3)(a), Florida Statutes, to any licensure applicant based on substantially the same facts involved in this case. On May 29, 1985, Ms. Faircloth, in her capacity as Executive Director of the Board, executed an Affidavit in the case of Edwardo M. Montes, M.D. v. State of Florida, Board of Medical Examiners, 7 F.A.L.R. 5717 (Final Order Filed November 11, 1985). In pertinent part, Ms. Faircloth stated the following: The Board has consistently interpreted the requirement of Section 458.311(3)(a), Florida Statutes, to require a diploma or official transcript showing that an undergraduate degree has been awarded as the only evidence of successful completion of undergraduate work as required by law. To the best of Affiant's knowledge and belief, no applicant for medical licensure pursuant to Section 458.311(3), Florida Statutes, has been licensed by the Board of Medical Examiners who has not submitted a diploma or official transcript showing that an undergraduate degree has been awarded.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued GRANTING the Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement as a physician in Florida. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of October, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of October, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-1731 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1-3 and 5-9. 2 10-13. The date referenced in the third sentence should be March 6, 1986 and not March 6, 1987. The fifth sentence is irrelevant. 3 Hereby accepted. 4 The first 2 sentences are hereby accepted. 14. 5 15-16, 19-21 and 28-29. 6 Irrelevant. 7 31. 8 33-34. 9-11 Hereby accepted. 12-13 Irrelevant. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 1. 2 2. 3 4. 4 6. 5 8. 6 5. 7 7. 8 10. 9 13. 10-11 24. 12 25. 13 20, 26 and 28. 14 27. 15 26. 16 Not supported by the-weight of the evidence. 17 22. 18 16 and 29. 19 16. 20 30. 21 31. 22 32. 23 Hereby accepted. 24 33. 18. The question at issue does not only request that an applicant describe himself, "stating his strengths and weaknesses and experiences" as suggested by the Respondent. Irrelevant. Irrelevant. The Board failed to prove that it is proper to do so in this case. COPIES FURNISHED: Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director Board of Medicine 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Tom Gallagher, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Charles A. Stampelos, Esquire Finley, Kumble, Wagner, Heine, Underberg, Manley, Myerson & Casey 600 First Florida Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Allen R. Grossman, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Suite 1601, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 =================================================================
The Issue As to DOAH Case No. 12-2859TTS, whether Rhea Cohen (Respondent), a classroom teacher, committed the acts alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed by Robert Runcie, as Superintendent of the Broward County Schools (Superintendent) and, if so, the discipline that should be imposed against Respondent’s employment. As to DOAH Case No. 13-0704PL, whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed by Pam Stewart, as Commissioner of Education (Commissioner) and, if so, the discipline that should be imposed against Respondent’s teacher’s certificate.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the School Board has been the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Broward County, Florida; and Robert Runcie was Superintendent of Schools. At all times material hereto, the Commissioner has been the head of the state agency responsible for certifying and regulating public school teachers in the State of Florida; and Pam Stewart was the Commissioner. Respondent has been employed by the School Board since 2002 and holds a Professional Services Contract, issued in accordance with section 1012.33(3)(a). During the time relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was an ESE classroom teacher at Crystal Lake. During the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent was employed as an ESE classroom teacher at Atlantic West Elementary School teaching students on the autism spectrum. During that school year, the Education Practices Commission (EPC) reprimanded Respondent for sleeping in class while students were present and for using restraints inappropriately to control or manage autistic and exceptional student education students. The EPC imposed an administrative fine against her in the amount of $500.00. Thereafter, Respondent transferred to Crystal Lake. Respondent taught ESE students at Crystal Lake for the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years. The events at issue in this proceeding occurred during either the 2010-2011 school year or the 2011-2012 school year. Exact dates were available for some of the events, but unavailable for other events. Respondent’s classroom at Crystal Lake for those two school years was divided into two halves, separated by tables and rolling chalkboards that did not form a solid wall. For the 2010-2011 school year, Respondent taught her class of ESE students on one side of the divided classroom and a Ms. Knighton taught on the other side. For the 2011-2012 school year Respondent shared the classroom with Mr. Montalbano. On one side of the classroom was Respondent’s class, consisting of 11 ESE students. On the other side of the room was Mr. Montalbano’s class, consisting of seven ESE students. Mr. Montalbano’s class was smaller because his class functioned at a lower level than Respondent’s class. On October 4, 2011, student J., a non-verbal, wheel chair-bound boy, and student D., a boy with Down’s syndrome, were sitting next to each other in Respondent’s classroom. Student D. did something to irritate student J. Student J. balled up his fist as if to strike student D. Respondent, in front of the entire class, Lisa Phillips (an ESE paraprofessional), and Ms. Sorren, made the following statement: “So is the cripple [student J.] going to beat up the retard [student D.]”./4 Other students in the classroom laughed at student J. and student D. Student J.’s wheelchair is motorized. After making the statement quoted above, Respondent attempted to move student J. into a corner. When student J. moved the wheelchair away from the corner, Respondent unplugged the wheelchair’s battery and made the statement: “Now who has the power. I am in control, not you.” The other students laughed at student J. Respondent then moved student J. to the corner./5 On October 11, 2011, Respondent sent student J. to Mr. Montalbano’s classroom and commented that “he’s too much of a bother.” One day at dismissal, student J. asked Respondent three or four times to be taken to the bathroom. Respondent did not respond to student J. The bus arrived, but the driver refused to accept student J. because of his request to go to the toilet. Mr. Montalbano, who overheard student J.’s requests to Respondent, took over the responsibility for student J. Respondent became frustrated while helping student J. with the computer after student J. got the wires to the headphones tangled. Respondent ripped the headphones out of the back of the computer leaving the male connection in the female end of the computer. In a private discussion with Mr. Montalbano, Respondent referred to student D. as being a “moron.” Respondent sent her 11 students to Mr. Montalbano’s side of the classroom, which housed ten computers. There was a disturbance because one student did not have a computer. Respondent came to Mr. Montalbano’s side of the classroom and told student D. to give up his computer. Student D.’s first language is Bulgarian. When student D. muttered in protest, Respondent yelled at him to express himself in English. When student D. left the computer, his place was quickly taken by another student. Student D. began to cry. Respondent walked back to her side of the classroom, leaving student D. crying in Mr. Montalbano’s side of the classroom. On October 11, 2011, student Mi., an 11 year-old female on the autism spectrum, was playing with a puzzle during free time when she spotted an open computer. Student Mi. left the puzzle pieces out to go to the computer. Respondent noted the puzzle on the table and yelled out, “Who left this puzzle out?” Student Mi. hid under a table in reaction to Respondent’s statement. Respondent came to the table, roughly grabbed student Mi., and pulled her out from under the table. Respondent led student Mi. to the table with the puzzle and yelled in front of the class: “I don’t know what your mother teaches you at home, but you’re a little, spoiled brat and I am not going to clean up after you.” Respondent then took student Mi.’s doll away from her and put her in time out for the remainder of the day, approximately 30 minutes. On another occasion, Respondent had the other members of the class imitate student Mi., after student Mi. had engaged in self-stimulatory behavior. The other students laughed at student Mi. In October 2011, Ms. Hudson discovered Respondent and student Mi. in Mr. Montalbano’s half of the classroom with the lights dimmed. Ms. Hudson thought student Mi. had been crying. Ms. Hudson reported the incident to her principal, but she did not question Respondent, nor did Respondent volunteer to Ms. Hudson an explanation of the circumstances that resulted in Respondent being in the darkened classroom with student Mi. At the formal hearing, Respondent explained that student Mi. had run into traffic while waiting to be transported from school. Respondent testified, credibly, that she was trying to calm down student Mi./6 Ms. Sorren testified, credibly, that during the short time she was in Respondent’s classroom (approximately three school days), she heard Respondent address the students as morons, monkeys, jungle monkeys, and animals. That testimony was consistent with the other testimony as to the language used by Respondent in her classroom. Petitioners established that Respondent repeatedly yelled at her students to “shut up,” described a student’s behavior as being “stupid,” and called at least one student a “brat.” Student Mo., a female on the autism spectrum, was new to Respondent’s class. On an unidentified date, Respondent directed student Mo. to go to timeout. After student Mo. refused to go to timeout, Respondent shoved student Mo. into the timeout area. During the 2010-2011 school year, Respondent became upset with student C., a female, and ordered her out of her classroom. When student C. talked back to Respondent, Respondent threw student C.’s backpack and her shoes over the chalkboard that divided the classroom. Ms. Knighton and her class were in the part of the classroom into which Respondent threw the objects. Student C. became very upset. Respondent became upset with Ma., a male student. Ma. had a snack on his desk. Respondent knocked the snack to the floor and smashed it with her foot. Petitioners established that Respondent engaged in a pattern of misconduct. Respondent’s effectiveness in the school system has been impaired.
Recommendation The following recommendations are based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law: As to Case No. 12-2859TTS, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Broward County, Florida, enter a final order adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order uphold the suspension without pay of Rhea Cohen’s employment and terminate that employment. As to Case No. 13-0704PL, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order suspend Rhea Cohen’s educator’s certificate for a period of five years, to be followed by probation for three years with conditions to be set by the Education Practices Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of July, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 12th day of July, 2013.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner's application for licensure by examination as a professional engineer should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an applicant for licensure by examination as a professional engineer. By letter dated February 6, 1991, Respondent notified Petitioner that his education did not meet the criteria for licensure. Specifically, Petitioner's education was not deemed to be equivalent to an accredited engineering degree because it lacked 6 credit hours of mathematics, 24 credit hours of engineering sciences, and 8 credit hours of humanities and social sciences. Further, Petitioner had failed to submit any evidence of possessing computer skills. Petitioner is a graduate of the Indian Institute of Technology in Kharagpur, India. He received a degree styled Bachelor of Technology in Civil Engineering in 1967. Petitioner is not a graduate of Florida's State University System. Further, Petitioner did not notify Respondent before July 1, 1984, that he was engaged in active and responsible engineering work on July 1, 1981. Petitioner had his transcript evaluated by the World Education Service (hereinafter "WES"). WES filed a report, dated September 20, 1985, attesting that Petitioner's education was the equivalent of an engineering technology degree. A second report issued by WES, dated March 14, 1988, is identical. A third report, dated January 7, 1991, is identical to the first two, except that in this latest report, the WES opines that Petitioner has the equivalent of a bachelor's degree in civil engineering. The Board's Education Advisory Committee reviews foreign degree candidates to determine if their education meets the standards established by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Inc., (hereinafter "ABET"). The ABET standards for an approved baccalaureate degree in engineering include: 16 hours of mathematics (calculus through differential equations), 16 hours of basic sciences, 32 hours of engineering sciences, 16 hours of engineering design, and 16 hours of humanities and social sciences. There is a major difference between an engineering degree and an engineering technology degree. An engineering technology degree does not require the same number of hours in advanced mathematics (calculus through differential equations) as an engineering degree. Furthermore, an engineering technology curriculum emphasizes the technical aspects of the profession, such as engineering design coursework, but does not stress the underlying engineering sciences. Petitioner's transcript and course titles were typical of an engineering technology curriculum. Petitioner's mathematics courses were not solely at the advanced math level, but also included algebra and geometry. Furthermore, Petitioner's transcript only demonstrated 8 hours of engineering sciences. The title of Petitioner's degree is not dispositive. What is dispositive is that Petitioner's course of study had its emphasis on technical design courses rather than on higher math and engineering sciences courses.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application for licensure by examination. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of September, 1991, 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 24th day of September, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3, 6, and 8-11 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 5 has been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 4 and 7 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting conclusions of law, argument of counsel, or recitation of the testimony. COPIES FURNISHED: Om Prakash Bhola 3600 Khayyam Avenue Apt. #7 Orlando, Florida 32826 Edwin A. Bayo, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Suite LL04, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Carrie Flynn, Acting Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Professional Engineers Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue is whether the Polk County School Board has just cause to terminate Respondent’s employment.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has worked for the Polk County School District (District) in various capacities –- from classroom teacher to assistant principal –- for the past 18 years. Respondent has been an assistant principal for the past five years, and at the time of the suspension giving rise to this proceeding, Respondent was the assistant principal at Davenport School of the Arts. She was employed on an annual contract. Respondent has a Master’s degree in educational leadership from Nova Southeastern University (Nova), and she is certified in that field by the Florida Department of Education (DOE). Respondent is in the District’s “principal pool,” which is the program from which principals are selected for the District’s schools. She has also served as a “teacher recruiter” for the District. Respondent and another assistant principal, Joe Dawson, started talking about pursuing doctorate degrees together at some point between the summer of 2004 and April 2005.1 Respondent and Mr. Dawson are neighbors and close friends. They attend the same church and their families regularly spend time together. Mr. Dawson is the Respondent in the related DOAH Case No. 06-0684. The primary reason that Respondent and Mr. Dawson were interested in obtaining doctorate degrees was to enhance their standing in the principal pool so as to give themselves a better chance of being hired as school principals.2 They credibly testified that they were unaware that they would be eligible for $1,750 pay supplements from the District if they had doctorate degrees. Respondent and Mr. Dawson looked into the doctoral program at Nova and several other traditional universities in the area, but they determined that those programs were not suitable for their needs because of the cost of the programs and the time that it would take them to obtain degrees. Mr. Dawson looked into several online universities that offered doctoral degrees, including Belford University (Belford). He learned about Belford through a “pop up” advertisement while browsing on the Internet. In September 2005, Mr. Dawson sent Respondent an e- mail referring her to Belford’s website and told her that “I think this may be the program for us.” Belford is described on its website as a “virtual university with administration offices located in Humble, Texas,” and according to the website, Belford is accredited by “two renowned accreditation agencies on-line education, namely the International Accreditation Agency for Online Universities (IAAOU) and the University Council for Online Education Accreditation (UCOEA).” Notwithstanding Belford’s accreditations and its characterization of itself as a “virtual university,” Belford’s website includes a number of statements that call into question its legitimacy as an educational institution, such as: “Get a degree for what you already know!”; “No admissions. No attendance. No hassle.”; “Add degrees to your resume in just 7 days and open avenues to promotion and better jobs!”; and “Get all your money back if you do not get approved!” The website explains that to obtain a doctorate degree from Belford, an applicant must have “at least 8 years of work or life experience relevant to [his or her] desired major.” That eligibility requirement “may be satisfied in any of the following ways: prior job experience in any field; previous educational achievements; employer-sponsored training and attendance of workshops; participation in organizations, both professional and non-professional; personal goals, lifestyle, hobbies, and travel; participation in volunteer activities and community service; and independent reading, viewing, listening or writing.” A doctorate degree can be received from Belford “without attending classes or taking admissions anywhere.” Respondent reviewed the information on Belford’s website, and she also contacted Belford by phone and e-mail to get additional information about its doctoral program and its accreditation status. Of particular note, Respondent sent an e-mail to Belford on or about September 16, 2005, asking “what the degree would say on it” and stating that “I don’t want it to say ‘life experience.’” In response, Belford’s assistant registrar assured Respondent that Belford’s degrees “do not mention the Web address or words like ‘life experience’ or ‘online degree’ anywhere on the documents or in the verification process.” In an effort to explain away this e-mail, Respondent testified that the reason that she wanted the degree to state “Doctor of Education” rather than “life experience” was that she was concerned that a degree that stated “life experience” would not be recognized in the education field. It is apparent from the e-mail that Respondent had concerns from the outset about the legitimacy of the degree that she would be receiving from Belford. Indeed, her testimony related to the e-mail demonstrates that even though Respondent claimed to understand that the doctorate degree offered by Belford based upon “life experience” was not equivalent to a traditional doctorate degree such as a Ph.D., she did not want the true nature of the degree disclosed, and that she wanted the degree to be recognized as something that it clearly was not, i.e., a Doctorate of Education. Respondent testified that she called Lois Schuck, the District’s certification specialist, in early October 2005 and told her that she and Mr. Dawson were considering obtaining doctorate degrees from Belford and that she wanted to know whether the degrees would be accepted by DOE and the District for certification purposes. Ms. Schuck had no recollection of the conversation. Ms. Schuck’s job duties include reviewing degrees submitted by the District’s teachers and administrators to determine whether the degrees are eligible for certification purposes. As a result, it is reasonable for teachers and administrators to rely on her advice and direction on certification-related issues. Respondent testified that Ms. Schuck told her that she was not familiar with Belford; that she did not know whether a degree from Belford would be accepted for certification purposes; and that Respondent should go ahead and get the degree and then submit it to her for a determination as to whether the degree would be accepted for certification purposes. On the last point, Ms. Schuck testified unequivocally and persuasively that under no circumstances would she have advised Respondent to get a degree before determining whether it will be accepted for certification purposes because such advice is contrary to her standard practice (shaped by her own personal experience with an unaccredited degree) of advising individuals in Respondent’s position to give her the prospective university’s contact information so that she can investigate whether it is accredited by an entity recognized by DOE before the individual spends time and money pursuing the degree. Respondent’s testimony regarding her conversation with Ms. Schuck was not persuasive. Indeed, if, as Respondent testified, she was told by Ms. Schuck to give her a copy of the degree after she received it, it is reasonable to expect that Respondent would have done so, but she did not. Instead, after receiving her degree, Respondent e-mailed Donna Wingard in the certification office (rather than Ms. Schuck) and asked who she should send her information to in order to “get her Certificate updated.” The fact that the e-mail makes no mention of Respondent’s prior conversation with Ms. Schuck, coupled with the fact that it was not sent directly to Ms. Schuck, calls into question Respondent’s testimony that she spoke with Ms. Schuck prior to obtaining her degree from Belford. In any event, even if Respondent spoke with Ms. Schuck as she testified that she did, the evidence was not persuasive that Ms. Schuck advised her to go ahead and get the degree. To the contrary, if the conversation occurred, it is more likely than not that Ms. Schuck advised Respondent to give her Belford’s contact information so that she could investigate whether a degree from Belford would be accepted for certification purposes before Respondent spent time and money pursuing the degree. On or about November 10, 2005,3 Respondent applied for a doctorate degree from Belford by filling out the form on Belford’s website. In the boxes provided on the form, she entered information detailing her education, work, and other life experiences. The information Respondent provided to Belford included her resume, a five-page summary of her life experiences, and the materials that she put together as part of the application process for the principal pool. She did not submit transcripts or other official evidence of her Bachelor’s or Master’s degrees to Belford. Respondent did not attend any classes at Belford, nor did she prepare or defend a dissertation in order to obtain her doctorate degree from Belford. She received the degree based solely on the package of information described above. Respondent testified that the information that she submitted to Belford to obtain her degree accurately reflected her education, work history, life experiences, and other qualifications. The School Board offered no evidence to the contrary and, indeed, its witnesses acknowledged that they had no reason to believe that the information Respondent submitted to Belford was inaccurate.4 Respondent obtained her doctorate degree from Belford for “less than $800.” The degree was issued to Respondent within two weeks of the time that she applied for it, and Respondent was not required to pay for the degree until she was advised by Belford that she would receive the degree based upon the information submitted. A traditional doctorate degree, such as a Ph.D., takes several years to receive, costs thousands of dollars, and involves extensive coursework as well as the preparation and defense of a lengthy dissertation. Respondent’s “official transcript” from Belford reflects that she was awarded a Doctor of Arts degree with a major in educational administration on November 10, 2005. The transcript makes no reference to the fact that the degree was based upon “life experiences” rather than a traditional course of study. Respondent’s transcript includes a designation of magna cum laude based upon a 3.81 grade point average (GPA). Respondent had to pay extra to receive that GPA. Respondent’s transcript lists eight courses with specific grades -- from “A” to “B-” -- awarded for each course. Respondent testified that she did not attend those courses, and that it was her understanding that the grades shown on the transcript were based upon the information that she submitted to Belford, which reflected the extent of her experience in the areas identified in the course descriptions. On November 17, 2005, Respondent sent the e-mail referenced above to Ms. Wingaurd. Respondent stated in the e- mail that she “just completed [her] Doctorate Program” and, as noted above, she asked Ms. Wingard who she needed to send the information about the degree to in order to get her DOE certificate updated. Notably, Respondent did not mention that the “Doctorate Program” was through an online university or that the degree she received was based upon life experiences rather than a traditional course of study. Ms. Wingaurd forwarded Respondent’s e-mail to Ms. Shuck to handle. In her e-mail response, Ms. Schuck directed Respondent to send her an original transcript and stated that she would send the original to DOE for certification purposes and give a copy to the personnel office for “a salary change.” Respondent credibly testified that this was the first notice that she had that she was eligible for a salary increase as a result of the doctorate degree. On November 29, 2005,5 Respondent and Mr. Dawson met with Ms. Schuck to give her copies of their "official transcripts" from Belford for certification purposes. Ms. Schuck was unable to process the transcripts for certification purposes at that time because they did not include the date that the degrees were awarded. She handed the transcripts back to Respondent and Mr. Dean during the meeting and advised them to get her dated transcripts.6 Respondent and Mr. Dawson obtained dated copies of their transcripts from Belford, and Respondent sent them to Ms. Schuck through interoffice mail. Respondent testified that she called Ms. Schuck to confirm that she received the degrees and to check on their status. Respondent testified that Ms. Schuck told her that she had received the degrees and that she had given them to Ms. Butler for processing. Respondent’s testimony regarding her conversation with Ms. Schuck was not persuasive. Indeed, the more persuasive evidence establishes that Ms. Schuck never received the dated transcripts, but rather that they were somehow received by Pam Merritt, an administrative assistant in the District’s personnel office. Ms. Merritt put the transcripts in Judy Butler’s in- basket for processing. Ms. Butler’s responsibilities include processing salary changes for District staff. Ms. Butler is not responsible for reviewing transcripts or degrees for certification purposes. That review is done by the District’s certification office and is supposed to occur prior to the transcript or degree being forwarded to the personnel office for purposes of a salary change. Ms. Butler assumed that Respondent’s degree was in her in-basket for purposes of a salary change even though there was no cover letter or other directions with the transcript. Ms. Butler placed Respondent’s salary change on the agenda for the Salary Classification Committee (SCC). She did not do the same for Mr. Dawson because his transcript had somehow gotten affixed to Respondent’s transcript and Ms. Butler did not see it. On January 26, 2006, the SCC approved a $1,750 salary supplement for Respondent based upon her Belford doctorate degree. On January 28, 2006, Ms. Butler found Mr. Dawson’s transcript as she was pulling apart the documents from the SCC meeting for inclusion in a package for the Superintendent to review. She sent an e-mail to Mr. Dawson on that date advising him that she had his transcript and that she would make sure that it was placed on the SCC’s February agenda. She sent a copy of the e-mail to David Lauer, the District’s assistant superintendent for human relations. Mr. Lauer received the e-mail on January 31, 2006, when he returned to the office. He knew Mr. Dawson and was surprised to learn that he had obtained a doctorate degree, so he asked Ms. Butler for the documentation related to Respondent and Mr. Dawson. Mr. Lauer reviewed the Belford website for approximately 45 minutes and determined that it was a “diploma mill” and that the doctorate degrees obtained by Mr. Dawson and Respondent were “bogus.” Mr. Lauer also spoke with Ms. Schuck and asked her to determine whether Belford is an accredited university for DOE certification purposes. Ms. Schuck did so by e-mailing Mandy Mims, her contact at DOE. Ms. Mims advised Ms. Schuck that “Belford is not accredited by any agency recognized by the U.S. Dept. of Education, so degrees earned would not be appropriate for certification purposes.” Mr. Lauer was “flabbergasted” by the situation, and because he considered the submittal of bogus degrees to be “so serious and so contrary to what we believe in as educators,” he went directly to the Superintendent, Dr. Gail McKinzie, instead of first speaking to Respondent and Mr. Dawson to get their side of the story. Mr. Lauer reported the situation to Dr. McKinzie on February 1, 2006. That same day, Dr. McKinzie reviewed the Belford website for approximately an hour and came to the same conclusions as Mr. Lauer regarding Belford and the nature of Respondent’s and Mr. Dawson’s doctorate degrees. On February 3, 2006, Respondent was called to a meeting with Dr. McKinzie and Mr. Lauer. At the meeting, which lasted less than 10 minutes, Dr. McKinzie told Respondent that she was going to recommend to the School Board that Respondent be fired because she had misrepresented her professional qualifications though the submission of the Belford degree. Respondent was not given a meaningful opportunity to give her side of the story at the meeting. By letter dated February 8, 2006, Dr. McKinzie informed Respondent that she had recommended to the School Board that her employment be terminated. The letter advised Respondent of her right to request an administrative hearing, and Respondent timely did so by letter dated February 10, 2006. The School Board approved Dr. McKinzie’s recommendation at its meeting on February 14, 2006, and Respondent has been suspended without pay since that date pending the outcome of this proceeding. The negative characterization of Belford and its degrees by Mr. Lauer and Dr. McKinzie is reasonable based upon the evidence of record. For example, in addition to the statements from the website referred to in Finding of Fact 12 that should put a reasonable person on notice that Belford is not a legitimate educational institution, a degree from Belford can be obtained in as little as one week; the applicant is allowed to select his or her GPA, with a higher GPA costing more money; the applicant is not required to pay for his or her degree until after learning that the degree will be issued; the applicant is allowed to select his or her graduation date, with back-dating available at an additional cost; Belford will “introduce [a major] as a new addition to [its] doctorate curriculum” if the major sought by the applicant is not on Belford’s list of majors; Belford does not require transcripts or other proof beyond the applicant’s representations that he or she has lower degrees (e.g., Bachelor’s and Master’s) prior to awarding a higher degree (e.g., Doctorate); and a base-level doctorate degree from Belford costs only $549.00. It is unreasonable for anyone, and particularly someone like Respondent who has 18 years of experience in the education system, to believe that Belford is a legitimate educational institution or that a doctorate degree from Belford is a legitimate degree that would be accepted as such by DOE or the District. Thus, it is inferred that Respondent knew or should have known that a doctorate degree from Belford is not a legitimate educational degree that could be used to enhance her standing in the principal pool or bolster her professional qualifications. The evidence establishes that Respondent knowingly misrepresented her professional qualifications when she presented her Belford degree to the District for certification purposes and to enhance her status in the principal pool without disclosing the true nature of the degree. Respondent’s decision to purchase a doctorate degree over the Internet calls into question her judgment as well as her respect for the educational process, which, in turn, raises serious doubts about Respondent’s ability to be effective in the school system. Indeed, it is clear from the totality of the evidence -- and particularly the testimony of Dr. McKinzie and Mr. Lauer -- that Respondent’s ability to be an effective leader (as assistant principals and aspiring principals are supposed to be) in the District has been significantly impaired through her submission and continued defense of her Belford degree as a legitimate educational degree.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Polk County School Board issue a final order terminating Respondent’s employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of July, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 21st day of July, 2006.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent wrongfully terminated Petitioner's continuing contract of employment.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is currently a doctoral level graduate student. At all times relevant hereto, she held a continuing contract as a professor at SCC in the Networking and Electronics Program (the "Networking Program"). Respondent is a community college within the state community college system. It is governed by its Board of Trustees. Dr. Ann McGee is president of SCC; vice president of Educational Services is Dr. Carol Hawkins. Angela Kersenbrock is the dean of Career Programs, including the Networking Program. Department chair in that program is Leon Portelli. Beginning in calendar year 2003, SCC began to experience decreased student enrollment, especially in the area of the Networking Program. SCC instituted a program review under Dean Kersenbrock's tutelage. A program review provides for the collection of relevant data to ascertain the continued viability of programs within the college. The program review of the Networking Program found low and declining enrollment and retention, a perceived job market decrease, difficulty in recruiting industry partners, and limited internships for students. Based on those findings, a series of recommendations were made to improve the Networking Program. Included in the recommendations were the following: increase class size, reduce faculty (Reduction in Force (RIF)), cross-teaching in other areas, cut back on adjuncts, reduce contract length, consolidate courses and sections, and work closely with industry partners to locate jobs for graduates of the program. Many of the recommendations were implemented even before finalization of the program review. However, in February 2007, Dean Kersenbrock decided the measures being taken were not alleviating the problem. She then submitted her formal recommendations to the Board of Trustees. A formal presentation was made to the Board of Trustees on April 17, 2007. After much discussion and debate, the Board of Trustees approved the recommendation from Dean Kersenbrock's review committee to implement a RIF in the Networking Department. At that time, there were five faculty members in the department, including Petitioner. The other faculty members were: John DelGado, Ben Taylor, Bill Irwin, and Gary Belcher. The proposed RIF intended to reduce the faculty from five to two. Irwin and Belcher were immediately selected for termination due to the fact that they could teach fewer topics within the department than could the other three staff. After they were terminated, SCC had to select one of the three remaining staff (DelGado, Taylor, and Petitioner) to be the final cut for the RIF. Each of the three had identified strengths and weaknesses; so, the selection was a difficult one to make. In order to make the decision, the following factors were considered: (1) the essentiality of the position, (2) work performance, (3) attendance record, and (4) supervisory recommendations. If all those factors are equal between the faculty members being considered, then length of service to the college would be the determining factor.1 SCC evaluated DelGado, Taylor, and Petitioner and found them, on aggregate, to be equal as far as the four factors were concerned. Each faculty member had strengths and weaknesses within the four categories, but were essentially "tied" when it came down to making a decision.2 Petitioner correctly pointed out that of the three faculty members, she was the only one who had experience making presentations at national level conferences. This fact weighed in her favor, but it was not enough to outweigh the strengths of the other faculty members. Likewise, Petitioner has the ability to teach a number of different classes, a positive in her favor. But, again, her abilities did not make her more essential than the other two. Some questions were raised about Petitioner's work performance, attendance record, and poor supervisory recommendations. However, none of those questions indicated that Petitioner was inferior to her fellow professors. Neither of the parties offered into evidence a true comparison of the three faculty members. There was some indication that each had strengths and weaknesses, but each person's individual assets or liabilities weren't described with any particularity. Thus, a substantive de novo review of that part of Respondent's decision making process is not possible. When all was said and done, Petitioner's length of service at SCC was shorter than the other two, and, thus, she was selected for the final RIF cut. Pursuant to SCC policies and procedures, an employee affected by a RIF must be given at least two weeks notice prior to the reduction taking effect. Petitioner was advised twice concerning her termination: once in a letter from the director of Human Resources Development--letter dated April 26, 2007--and once in a letter from SCC's president, E. Ann McGee--letter dated May 17, 2007. The latter correspondence provided Petitioner her appeal rights. Petitioner was provided her severance package in accordance with SCC policies. President McGee's letter to Petitioner stated in part, "You have the right to appeal the Board's decision pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes." However, the letter did not address Petitioner's right to appeal directly to the Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner be given an opportunity to select a direct appeal to the Board of Seminole Community College. As far as the instant case is concerned, Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof and the termination of her contract would be upheld. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of November, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 16th day of November, 2007.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is eligible for a Bright Futures scholarship even though he did not take foreign language classes in high school.
Findings Of Fact At the time of the final hearing, Petitioner Daniel B. Gopman ("Gopman") was a fulltime college student enrolled in the Harriet L. Wilkes Honors College of Florida Atlantic University ("FAU"). Respondent Department of Education ("Department") administers the Florida Bright Futures Scholarship Program ("Bright Futures"), among other responsibilities. Before graduating from Dr. Michael M. Krop Senior High School ("Krop") in June 2003, Gopman had applied for a Bright Futures scholarship. Specifically, Gopman had sought a Florida Academic Scholars Award, which is the most generous——and selective——of the several types of scholarship available under Bright Futures. The Department had found him ineligible for a Bright Futures scholarship because Gopman had not earned two high-school credits in a foreign language.1 To his credit, Gopman had taken many academically challenging courses in high school, including honors and advanced placement courses, and had done quite well, despite having a learning disability that had resulted in his being provided special education services pursuant to an individual education plan ("IEP"). He had not, however, taken any foreign language courses in high school. Instead, after graduating from high school (and before beginning his studies at FAU), Gopman successfully completed two courses of Russian at Miami-Dade Community College ("M-DCC"). In the present case, Gopman has suggested that his failure to study a foreign language in high school was due, wholly or in part, to (a) taking the courses prescribed in his IEP, which, coupled with other subjects required for graduation, completely filled his scholastic schedule every semester; and (b) never receiving from school district personnel complete or accurate information concerning the need to take foreign language courses as a condition of qualifying for a Bright Futures scholarship. Lending some support to the first of these purported impediments is a "To Whom It May Concern" letter dated May 30, 2003, which George Nunez, then the principal of Krop, sent to the Department around that time. In this letter, Mr. Nunez urged the Department to grant Gopman an "academic waiver" of the foreign language requirement, arguing that Gopman's failure to take "a second year of a foreign language"——actually, he had not taken even a first year——"was not due to a conscious oversight on [Gopman's] part" but happened because "the mandates of his IEP" had required him to take an "additional elective" instead "of what would have been other academic electives including the second year of his foreign language." Even if scheduling conflicts had made it impossible for Gopman to take foreign language courses in high school, however, and even if he had been given poor advice regarding the requirements for a Bright Futures award (which Mr. Nunez pointedly did not suggest had occurred), Gopman's eligibility to receive a scholarship would be unchanged, for legal reasons that will be discussed below. In any event, though, the evidence in its entirety does not support Gopman's claims in this regard; rather, it disproves them. Based on the greater weight of the persuasive evidence, it is found that Gopman could have taken two foreign language classes in high school, special education services notwithstanding, had he wanted to do that.2 It is found, as well, that Gopman was not misinformed or misled regarding the requirements to qualify for a Bright Futures award. To the contrary, his guidance counselor advised Gopman, in the tenth grade, to start taking foreign language classes soon, while there was still time to complete two years of study before graduating from high school. Gopman told the guidance counselor that, because he planned to attend an out-of-state college, he would not need foreign language credits for admission (as is generally required for admission to a Florida state university) and was not concerned with Bright Futures eligibility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED Daniel B. Gopman's application for a Bright Futures scholarship be denied because he failed to meet the foreign language requirement, and that the Department enter a final order consistent herewith. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of January, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 25th day of January, 2008.
