The Issue The issue is whether Respondent properly decided to deny Petitioner tenure and promotion.
Findings Of Fact On or about August 8, 1997, Petitioner began working for Respondent as an Assistant Professor in a tenure-earning position in the COE, Department of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation (DHPER). Because Petitioner was serving in a tenure-earning position, Respondent had to award her tenure by the end of six years of continuous full-time service or give her notice that Respondent would not offer her further employment beyond the end of the seventh year of employment. Petitioner received a copy of the applicable tenure criteria soon after she began her employment. The tenure criteria for scholarly publications required the following: (a) publish or show acceptance of at least three publications, including books, monographs, and articles in local, state, regional and national journals, which meet the peer-review process, not including abstracts/proceedings; (b) achieve additional publication credit, which may include individual citations in a text's quotes or credits for scholarly endeavors; and (c) present at least two papers at state, regional or national professional meetings. Petitioner also received a copy of Respondent's criteria for promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor. The criteria state as follows in relevant part: The minimum number of publications will be three (3), which must be in indexed refereed professional journals, of which at least two (2) must list the candidate as the primary author. This includes, not in addition to, chapters in books, monographs for national use, and books. Chapters will treated as journal publications. The number of publications will be cumulative. Respondent is required to provide its faculty members with an annual faculty evaluation. For faculty members in tenure-earning positions, Respondent also is required to provide an annual tenure appraisal. On April 24, 1998, Petitioner received her 1997-1998 faculty evaluation. The evaluation reflected Petitioner's poor rating for evidence of papers or articles published in professional journals and/or of books published. There is no evidence that Respondent provided Petitioner with an annual tenure appraisal for the 1997-1998 academic year. Each academic term, Respondent and each of its faculty members, in tenured and non-tenured positions, sign an Assignment of Responsibility Form. The form lists the credit and non-credit generating activities and assigns a percentage of the employee's designated effort for each activity. The total percentage of designated effort for each academic term should equal 100 percent for one full-time-equivalent (FTE) faculty. The credit generating activities are specific student classes/courses. An assignment to teach courses with more than cumulative credit hours in the same semester is considered an overload. Faculty members on a nine-month pay plan are never required to accept an overload assignment. Assuming responsibility for designated effort in excess of 100 percent is strictly voluntary. Instructors receive additional pay beyond their base salary when they accept an overload assignment. Respondent always gives its nine-month faculty the opportunity to teach extra classes as an overload before hiring additional staff. The same is true for teaching summer school. Respondent's nine-month faculty has first choice to earn additional pay by teaching classes in summer school before Respondent hires adjunct professors. The nine-month faculty is not required to teach summer school. The non-credit activities include the following: supervision of cooperative education; (b) clinical instruction; (c) other instructional efforts (non-credit); (d) research; (e) public service; (f) academic advisement; (g) academic administration; (h) university governance; (i) leave of absence with pay; and (j) collective bargaining release time. There is no set percentage of designated effort for any particular non-credit activity. Respondent's faculty can always request that some percentage of their designated effort be attributable to one of the non-credit activities, such as research. In such a case, Respondent would assign the faculty member less designated effort to other non-credit activities such as academic advisement. In every case, tenure-earning faculty members know or should know that Respondent expects them to begin working on research projects when they are hired in order to meet the tenure criteria for scholarly publications within the required time frame. This is true regardless of whether they elect to teach overloads or summer school and regardless of whether they request and receive a specific amount of designated effort for research each academic term. Other than as set forth below, there is no evidence that Petitioner ever requested Respondent to assign her a greater percentage of designated effort to research. On April 28, 1998, Petitioner signed the Assignment of Responsibility Form for the 1998 Spring semester. The form indicates that 86 percent of Petitioner's designated effort was spent teaching five classes for a total of 13 credit hours. Her only other assignment was academic advisement, which represented 14 percent of her designated effort. Petitioner agreed to teach during the 1998 Summer B semester. She taught two classes for a total of 3 credit hours, representing 64 percent of her designated effort. She had no other assignments that summer. For the 1998 Fall semester, Petitioner accepted a teaching overload. She taught six classes for a total of 15 credit hours, representing 99 percent of her designated effort. She also performed academic advisement for 21 percent of her designated effort. In the Spring semester of 1999, Petitioner taught five classes for a total of 13 credit hours, representing 86 percent of her designated effort. She was assigned to perform academic advisement for the balance of her time, equal to 14 percent of her designated effort. On April 28, 1999, Petitioner received her 1998-1999 faculty evaluation form. The form again reflected her poor rating for evidence of papers or articles published in professional journals and/or books published. On June 1, 1999, Petitioner received a tenure appraisal for the 1998-1999 academic year. The appraisal informed Petitioner that she needed to improve in the research category. Specifically, she needed to publish and present at least three to four research articles within a five-year period before applying for tenure. For the Summer B semester of 1999, Petitioner taught two classes for a total of four credit hours, representing 84 percent of her designated effort. She had no other assignments that summer. In the Fall semester of 1999, Petitioner taught seven classes for a total of 16 credit hours, representing 106 percent of her designated effort. She also performed academic advisement for an additional 20 percent of designated effort. For the Spring Semester 2000, Petitioner taught six classes for a total of 14 credit hours, representing 93 percent of her designated effort. She served as an academic advisor for an additional 20 percent of her designated effort. On April 26, 2000, Petitioner received her 1999-2000 faculty evaluation form. The form indicates that Petitioner's research and creative ability were not applicable. The record does not show that Petitioner engaged in any scholarly presentations or research and writing projects during the 1999- 2000 academic year. In the Summer B term of 2000, Petitioner taught one class for a total of one credit hour, representing four percent of her designated effort. She did not have any other assigned duties that summer. For the Fall semester 2000, Petitioner taught seven courses for a total of 14.5 credit hours, representing 91 percent of her designated effort. She also agreed to devote three percent of her designated effort in each of the following areas: (a) research; (b) public service; and (c) academic advisement. In the Spring semester of 2001, Petitioner taught six classes for a total of 14 hours, representing 93 percent of her designated effort. She also was assigned the following responsibilities: (a) five percent of her time in research; (b) five percent of her time in public service; and (c) 10 percent of her time in academic advisement. For the Summer A term of 2001, Petitioner taught two classes for a total of three credit hours, representing 62 percent of her designated effort. In Summer B term of 2001, Petitioner taught two classes for a total of three credit hours, representing 65 percent of her designated effort. She had no other assignments that summer. On July 5, 2001, Petitioner received her annual faculty evaluation for the 2000-2001 academic term. Petitioner received a fair rating regarding evidence of papers or articles published in professional journals and/or of books published. On August 27, 2001, Petitioner received her annual tenure appraisal for the 2000-2001 academic term. The appraisal acknowledges that Petitioner had improved significantly in the areas of research and scholarly activities. According to the appraisal, Petitioner had made several research presentations, submitted articles for publication, and choreographed several dance pieces for the Orchesis Dance Concert and public school activity programs. The appraisal stated that after a few of Petitioner's research articles were published, she would be on par for complete satisfaction of the scholarly publications requirements. The August 27, 2001, tenure appraisal also commended Petitioner for her public service work. At the same time, the appraisal warned Petitioner not to commit too much of her time to public service because she might neglect other tenure criteria areas. The appraisal advised Petitioner that it was extremely important to balance her time between teaching, research, and service. In the Fall semester of 2001, Petitioner taught five classes, for a total of 16 credit hours, representing 96 percent of her designated effort. She spent 20 percent of her designated effort working as an academic advisor. For the Spring semester of 2002, Petitioner taught six classes for a total of 14 credit hours, representing 93 percent of her designated effort. She divided the balance of her designated effort as follows: (a) five percent to research; five percent to public service; and (c) 10 percent to academic advisement. In the Summer A term of 2002, Petitioner taught two classes for a total of three credit hours, representing 65 percent of her designated effort. She had no other assignments that summer. For the 2001-2002 academic term, Respondent did not perform a faculty evaluation or tenure appraisal of Petitioner. Dr. Virden Evans, Chairman of DHPER, gave Petitioner copies of the evaluation forms and requested that she perform a self- evaluation before meeting with him to discuss her performance. Petitioner never returned the evaluation forms to Dr. Evans. On September 9, 2002, Petitioner submitted her applications for tenure and promotion, together with a portfolio to document her qualifications. The tenure application listed the following two research projects as in progress: (a) a 2001 project titled "Exercise Adherence Among African-American Females"; and (b) a 2002 project titled "Perceived Stress and Burnout of MEAC Track and Field Athletes." There is no evidence that Petitioner completed, or submitted for publication, a paper or article based on either of these research projects. The tenure application also listed a 2002 research project titled "An Assessment of NCAA D-1A Academic Advisors Salaries", naming Petitioner as a contributing, but not leading participant. The application indicated that the participants in the study submitted the research project for acceptance at the 2003 American Alliance of Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance (AAHPERD) 118th National Convention as part of its program and proceedings during a research consortium poster session. There is no persuasive evidence that the research project was accepted at the national convention in Baltimore, Maryland, as submitted. During the hearing, Petitioner presented evidence that the research project involving academic advisors salaries was submitted as a one-page abstract in May or June of 2002, and accepted in November or December 2002, for poster presentation at the February 2003 Southern District AAHPERD Convention, in Savannah, Georgia. There is no persuasive evidence that Petitioner timely provided Respondent with documentation of the abstract's acceptance as a poster presentation during a convention proceeding or that the research project resulted in a peer-reviewed written paper that was ever published other than as an abstract in the convention program. The tenure criteria at issue here specifically exclude abstracts/proceedings. Petitioner's tenure application listed several dance productions, naming her as the director and choreographer. It is apparent that Petitioner spent valuable time creating the dances, writing scripts for skits, designing costumes, etc. However, the greater weight of the evidence indicates that these creative activities are not scholarly publications in journals that meet the peer-review process. During the hearing, Petitioner presented evidence that she included a reference to her doctoral dissertation in her portfolio. The dissertation, entitled "A Comparison of Perceived Stress Levels of College Freshman Athletes and Non- Athletes" was published in 1987 by the Florida State University, College of Education, Department of Movement Science and Physical Education, in partial fulfillment of the requirement for Petitioner's degree of Doctor of Philosophy. The most persuasive evidence indicates that the dissertation is not a peer-reviewed scholarly publication in a journal or a book, completed by Petitioner within her tenure-earning time frame. Petitioner is credited as the author of one scholarly publication that meets the requirements of the applicable tenure and promotion criteria. In August 2002, Petitioner's article entitled "Introductory Activities in Elementary Physical Education Classes" was accepted for publication in the Winter 2003 Journal of the Florida Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance. In September 2002, Dr. Evans continued to serve as Chairman of DHPER. As a tenured professor, Dr. Evans attended some of DHPER's Tenure and Promotion Committee meetings but did not vote on Petitioner's applications for two reasons. First, he abstained because, as Chairman of DHPER, he would have to make a recommendation on the applications to the COE Tenure and Promotion Committee. Second, Dr. Evans had a close professional relationship with Petitioner and reserved his input on her applications, hoping that she would meet the publication requirements before he had to take a position. Dr. Janet Sermon, COE's Assistant Dean for Academic Affairs, was one of DHPER's tenured faculty members. In the fall of 2002, Dr. Sermon often was required to act on behalf of the COE's Dean or, occasionally, in the capacity of COE's Acting Dean in recommending approval or disapproval of tenure and promotion applications to the University Tenure and Promotion Committee. Therefore, she did not participate in DHPER's Tenure and Promotion Committee meetings. She did not vote on Petitioner's applications due to this potential conflict of interest. Coach Bobby Lang was one of DHPER's tenured faculty members. He was on medical leave during the fall of September 2002. The most credible evidence indicates that Coach Lang had notice of Petitioner's pending applications but chose not to participate in DHPER's Tenure and Promotion Committee meetings while on medical leave. Coach Samuel Bogan was one of DHPER's tenured faculty. His coaching schedule made it difficult for him to participate in DHPER Tenure and Promotion Committee meetings. Coach Bogan had notice about Petitioner's pending applications but was absent when the DHPER Tenure and Promotion Committee voted on her applications. DHPER had four other tenured faculty members: (a) Dr. Steve Chandler; (b) Dr. Maria Okeke; (c) Dr. Barbara Thompson, Chairperson of DHPER's Tenure and Promotion Committee; and (d) Dr. Joseph Ramsey. DHPER's Tenure and Promotion Committee met for the first time on September 16, 2002. The committee did not consider Petitioner's application at that meeting. The DHPER Tenure and Promotion Committee met again on October 2, 2002, to vote on Petitioner's tenure and promotion applications. Coach Bogan, Dr. Evans, Dr. Sermon, and Coach Lang were not present for reasons stated above. A secret ballot on Petitioner's tenure application resulted in two (2) votes to deny and two (2) abstentions. A secret ballot on Petitioner's promotion application resulted in three (3) votes to deny and one (1) abstention. In a memorandum dated October 3, 2002, Dr. Thompson advised Dr. Evans of the committee's decision to recommend denial of Petitioner's request for tenure and promotion. In a letter dated October 4, 2002, Dr. Evans advised Petitioner of the committee's vote to recommend denial of her applications. In a letter dated October 8, 2002, Dr. Evans explained to Petitioner that the committee based its recommendation on the apparent lack of a sufficient number of publications. Subsequently, Dr. Evans recommended approval of Petitioner's applications to the COE Tenure and Promotion Committee. Thereafter, the COE committee voted to recommend denial of both applications. Subsequently, COE's Dean recommended denial of Petitioner's applications to the University Tenure and Promotion Committee. The University committee voted to recommend approval of Petitioner's promotion application and denial of her tenure application. Dr. Fred Gainous was Respondent's President during the time that Petitioner's applications were pending. Dr. Gainous had the responsibility to nominate candidates for tenure to Respondent's Board of Trustees, the entity with the authority to make final decisions granting tenure. The Board did not consider applications for tenure without such a nomination. Dr. Gainous did not nominate Petitioner for tenure before Respondent's Board of Trustees. President Gainous had authority to make the final decision regarding Petitioner's application for promotion. Dr. Gainous took no action in this regard because Petitioner's promotion was a moot question in light of the denial of her application for tenure and the issuance of a terminal contract for the 2003-2004 academic term. In a letter dated March 31, 2003, President Gainous advised Petitioner that her application for tenure was denied and that she would not be offered further employment beyond the end of her seventh year of employment. The letter states that the action was based on Petitioner's failure to meet the publication requirements of the COE. Dr. Gainous sent Petitioner a letter dated June 3, 2003. The letter advised Petitioner that her application for promotion was denied.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying Petitioner tenure and promotion and terminating her employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of October, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 5th day of October, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Avery D. McKnight, Esquire Ruth Nicole, Esquire Florida A & M University 300 Lee Hall Tallahassee, Florida 32307-3100 Patricia A. Tucker 2802 Primrose Lane Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Elizabeth McBride, General Counsel Florida A & M University 300 Lee Hall Tallahassee, Florida 32307-3100 Dr. Fred Gainous, President Florida A & M University 400 Lee Hall Tallahassee, Florid 32307-3100
The Issue Whether the suspension of Petitioner was for good cause shown as indicated in the letter of suspension dated August 19, 1976.
Findings Of Fact Ralph L. Wilson was suspended for a three (3) day work period August 20, 1976 through August 24, 1976. The certified mail letter to Mr. Wilson stated, "This suspension is caused by your unauthorized absence for the period August 10 through August 13, 1976." Appellant Wilson is an Accountant at Florida A & M University working under the direct supervision of William Schnitt, Acting Budget Officer at Florida A & M University. Vinod K. Sharma Associate University Comptroller at Florida A & M University, is the supervisor of William Schmitt. James R. Barrett, Comptroller of Florida A & M University, is the supervisor of Vinod K. Sharma. Appellant Wilson requested a leave of absence from his position to attend a church conference to be held in Lake City, Florida, on August 10-13 1976. His immediate supervisor, Mr. Schmitt, orally refused the request but advised Mr. Wilson that the denial could be appealed to Mr. Vinod K. Sharma. Mr. Wilson appealed in writing the denial by Mr. Schmitt on August 4, 1976 to Mr. Sharma. Mr. Sharma, on August 4, 1976, sustained the denial of the request citing as the basis an August 1, 1976 memorandum to all fund accountants from J. R. Barrett, University Comptroller, asking all fund accountants not to request annual leave during the period from August 3, 1976 through September 7, 1976. The Appellant called in sick on August 9, 1976. He also called in sick on August 10, 1976. He did not call in to explain his absence on August 11, 12, and 13, 1976. Appellant Wilson presented a memo signed by W. H. Baker, M.D., as follows: "8-9-76 Mr. Ralph Wilson visited my office today because of illness." There was uncontroverted testimony that Appellant Wilson attended a church meeting on August 11, 12 and 13, 1976, in Lake City, Florida. Evidence was submitted that Appellant Wilson was an active member of the conference in Lake City who served, according to a portion of the program for the conference, as a member of the Board of Examiners at said conference. Appellant Wilson was transferred to the Comptroller's Office on July 10, 1976. His job description included the following statement by Mr. Barrett: "Your immediate supervisor will be Bill Schmitt, who at his discretion, may assign you additional duties." Appellant Wilson admitted that he was in Lake City, Florida on August 11, 12 and 13, 1976, and took an active part in a church conference in Lake City during that period. He admitted that he knowingly violated the personnel rules of being absent without proper authorization. The Appellant contends that he is discriminated against by his supervisors in that a statement from the doctor is required of other employees and that he is required to bring in certification on sickness anytime that he is sick for more than two (2) days. Appellant contends that his duties assigned are not nearly as much as the Respondent claims them to be, that he was given no credit for coming to work before 8 o'clock or while he stayed at work while his supervisors went on coffee break daily from around 8:15 to 9:00 A.M., that each time he was going to be more than fifteen (15) minutes late he did call in and report the same. Appellant further contends that the Respondent did not prove that he was not sick on the days claimed. He stated he was sick August 9-13, 1976. Appellant Wilson was notified by mail that he was suspended for three (3) days by the Agency Head, President B. L. Perry, Jr. Said suspension notice stated that the suspension was for being absent without authorization. He was without authorized leave.
Recommendation Inasmuch as the Appellant has been orally reprimanded and reprimanded by written notice, it is recommended that the three (3) day suspension without pay be sustained. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of May, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Ralph L. Wilson Post Office Box 2392 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Bishop Holifield, Esquire Legal Department Florida A & M University Tallahassee, Florida 32307 Mrs. Dorothy Roberts Appeals Coordinator Department of Administration Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact Phillip Ortwein was employed by USF December 1, 1966 on a 7-month contract expiring June 30, 1967. On his application for employment (Exhibit 16) he indicated that he held a Masters Degree in Physical Education from Indiana University in 1948 and that he had done 1 1/2 years work on a Doctorate Degree which he expected to complete in 1968. He was employed in the Physical Education Department and assigned duties in the functional program as well as in the activities program instructing in tennis. His contract was renewed on July 1, 1967 for the period 9/1/67 to 6/30/68 on a 12-month appointment (Exhibit 4). His contract was again renewed July 1, 1968 for the 12-month period ending 6/30/69 (Exhibit 5). By memo dated March 3, 1969 Petitioner was notified that his contract would not be renewed effective June 30, 1970. Upon receipt of this notice Petitioner went to the Director of the Physical Education Division who had authored the notice to see if there was any hope his contract would be renewed. The Director, Dr. Bowers, advised Petitioner that there was always hope but that the notice remained effective. He was advised that he should upgrade his knowledge of changes in the academic physical education field. Petitioner was also aware that his immediate superior, Professor Prather, was not satisfied with his performance in the functional program of the Physical Educa-tional Division. Then or shortly thereafter Petitioner requested to be relieved of his duties in the functional program to devote more time to upgrading his knowledge and this was granted. Some six months later Petitioner first spent time in the library for this purpose. On January 27, 1969 the Physical Education Tenure Committee was requested by Bowers to submit a recommendation regarding the tenure status of Ortwein. At this time Ortwein was not eligible for tenure as he had not been employed by USF for the three years required. However, this was the only professor evaluation committee extant and Bowers, in order to get faculty input on whether or not to recommend renewal of Ortwein's contract, asked for the evaluation. On February 26, 1969, Bowers was advised the committee had voted 3 for granting tenure and 3 for deferring tenure. By letter dated December 22, 1969 Dean Edwin P. Martin, following a discussion with Ortwein, advised Petitioner that, due to an apparent misunderstanding by Ortwein regarding Bowers' notice he, Martin, was rescinding the termination notice of March 3, 1969, and that his employment would be terminated December 31, 1970. Following further discussion with Bowers Petitioner requested the full faculty in the Physical Education Division be polled to evaluate him. Results of this poll were 3 recommending granting tenure, 9 opposed, and 3 undecided. Due to administrative error Appointment-Reappointment Notice dated September 1, 1970 (Exhibit 7) renewing Petitioner's contract from" September 18, 1971 to June 13, 1971 was forwarded to and accepted by Petitioner. By letter to Ortwein dated October 9, 1970 (Exhibit 11) Dean Martin acknowledged that the contract (Exhibit 7) served to extend Petitioner's termination dated to June 13, 1971. Exhibit 12, letter of December 14, 1970, incorrectly dated December 14, 1971, Harris Dean, Acting President of USF, notified Petitioner that his employment would be terminated at the end of quarter 1, 1971, more than one year from the date of the letter. Exhibit 8, Notice of Appointment - Reappointment dated December 14, 1970 extended Ortwein's appointment to December 16, 1971. The parties stipulated that evidence subsequent to this latter termination date was not relevant to these proceedings. The pleadings indicate Ortwein was finally terminated in June, 1975. The letter of termination (or nonreappointment) dated December 14, 1970 was the first notice received by Respondent signed by the president of USF and this notice provided twelve months advance notice to Ortwein that his appointment would not be renewed. By letter of December 10, 1970 (Exhibit 13) Bowers presented to Acting President Dean four reasons for the recommendation not to reappoint Ortwein. These were: (1) Lack of performance in the area of functional physical education; (2) Contribution limited to area of tennis; (3) No contribution to the department outside the area of tennis; and (4) When the entire faculty of the Physical Education Division were polled there were 3 votes for and 9 against his continuing employment with 3 abstentions. Petitioner's performance in the Physical Education Division was unsatisfactory. He exhibited difficulty handling large groups and communicating instructions to them. His contributions at staff meetings were non-existent or negligible. His relations with students were considered brusk and too militaristic by his superiors. Neither Petitioner nor any other witness testified to any personal animosities between them and Petitioners; or of any conflict with any religious, political or social philosophies between them and Petitioner. In fact all witnesses testified no such personal difficulties existed or were apparent.
Conclusions It is hereby ordered and adjudged that Petitioner's complaint be and the same is hereby dismissed. Even if the complaint were to stand, the record supports, with competent substantial evidence, the conclusion that the Petitioner should not be re-employed by the University. Therefore, that decision is affirmed and adopted as the final action of this agency. Done and ordered at Tampa, Florida, on September 14, 1977. Wm. REECE SMITH JR. President
The Issue A notice dated July 2, 1996 and an administrative complaint dated September 30, 1996, charge Respondent with willful neglect of duty. The issue for disposition is whether he committed this violation and if so, whether he should be terminated as a member of the instructional staff of the Palm Beach County School Board.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Walter Auerbach, has been employed as a classroom teacher with the Palm Beach County school district since the 1976-77 school year and is employed pursuant to a continuing contract from which he may be discharged only in accordance with the terms of section 231.36, Florida Statutes. (Stipulation of the parties) Respondent was administratively placed in the district’s Department of Information Management in the 1994-95 school year pending resolution of allegations of misconduct brought by a female student. He was transferred to the district’s textbook/library media service office for the 1995-96 school year. (Stipulation of the parties) The reassignment was by agreement between Respondent’s representative, Clarence Gunn, Associate Executive Director of the Palm Beach County Classroom Teachers’ Association (CTA) and district staff. In December 1994, Respondent entered into a deferred prosecution agreement in the criminal case related to the student’s allegations. An investigation and proceedings by Professional Practices Services continued, however, and any disposition of that proceeding is not a matter of record here. Respondent satisfied the terms of his deferred prosecution agreement in December 1995. Jane Terwillegar was Respondent’s supervisor in the district’s library media services department. His duties were primarily computer searches for bibliographic records. When he came to work Respondent did his assignments, worked quietly and left; there were no concerns about his performance. However, he attended only sporadically in the fall of 1995, and starting in January 1996 he attended very rarely. At one point Ms. Terwillegar said something to him about showing up to earn his money, but he responded that he had a great deal of sick leave. By early 1996, Respondent had depleted all of his sick leave, but continued to be absent far more than he attended. Vernon Crawford is the district’s director of multimedia services and is Jane Terwillegar’s immediate supervisor. Because of budget cuts in his department, Mr. Crawford has a standing request for assistance from employees with available time. He is happy to take on individuals placed on special or temporary assignment by Dr. Walter Pierce, assistant superintendent for personnel relations. The understanding that he has with the personnel department is that the individuals are assigned on a temporary or day-to-day basis. Mr. Crawford does not question why the individual is assigned and he usually asks his staff not to question the circumstances. From time to time, Ms. Terwillegar advised Mr. Crawford that Respondent was absent; and after the first part of 1996, when the absences were increasing, Mr. Crawford sought the guidance of Dr. Pierce’s office in addressing the problem with Respondent. On the advice of Paul LaChance, an administrative assistant for employee relations, Mr. Crawford sent this letter to Respondent on April 17, 1996: Dear Mr. Auerbach: Since your interim assignment to the Department of Multimedia Services on August 15, 1995, you have taken one hundred twenty five (125) days of sick leave without medical documentation. You have not requested nor received approval for short term or long term leave of absence. Consequently, I am directing you to provide Jane Terwillegar, Specialist for Library/Media Support and your assigned supervisor, with a written, signed statement from your doctor documenting the necessity of your sick leave as well as a date when s/he projects you able to return to work. Your failure to provide this information within ten (10) days of receipt of this letter may result in my recommending disciplinary action for violation of proper reporting procedures and use of sick leave as outlined in School Board Policy 3.80, Leaves of Absence, and leave provisions contained in Article V, Section A.2 and Section B.1(f), and any other pertinent provision of the Agreement between the School Board of Palm Beach County and the Classroom Teachers Association. (Respondent’s exhibit 1) Respondent took the letter to his representative, Mr. Gunn, who told him to take a doctor’s statement to his supervisor, so that he could work out the appropriate leave based on the doctor’s determination. In response, Respondent turned in to Jane Terwillegar a statement from his chiropractor, Dr. Brian Soroka, dated April 26, 1996 stating: This is to certify that Walter Auerbach has recovered sufficiently to be able to return to regular work. Restrictions: none. (Petitioner’s exhibit 1) Instead of returning to work, Respondent continued his practice of calling in every morning early and leaving a message on the office answering machine. Jonathan Leahy, an employee in the Library/Media Services Department at the McKesson Building answered the phone when Respondent called in after 8:00 a.m., but most frequently he took Respondent’s messages from the answering machine. Starting in mid-April, at Mr. Crawford’s instruction, he wrote the messages down, verbatim. The messages were typically brief: “I’m not going to make it today”; or “I’m under the weather”; or, on a couple of occasions, Respondent said that he needed to meet with his lawyer. Between April 16 and June 14, 1996, Respondent was absent forty-two work days. Meanwhile, on May 7, 1996, Mr. Crawford sent another letter to Respondent: Dear Mr. Auerbach: Yesterday, May 6, 1996, Jane Terwillegar, your assigned supervisor, brought me a work release form from the Family Chiropractic Center, dated April 26, 1996, that you were able to return to regular work duty with no restrictions. Be advised that your actions to date remain in noncompliance with my April 17, 1996 letter to you. Further, even though the Family Chiropractic Center cleared you on April 26, 1996, to return to work, you have not done so and have remained continuously absent. At this point, I am directing you to provide me with the information I directed you in my April 17, 1996 letter to provide me: medical verification from your attending physician as to the specific reason(s) and need for your continual absenteeism. Such documentation is to be provided to Jane Terwillegar or to my office within five (5) working days from your receipt of this letter. Failure to provide this information may result in my recommending disciplinary action outlined in my April 17, 1996, letter which you received and signed for on April 18, 1996. (Petitioner’s exhibit 3) There was no response by Respondent to the May 7th letter and a meeting was convened on June 14, 1996 with Respondent, Mr. Gunn, Mr. LaChance and Mr. Crawford. Respondent was given another opportunity to present a physician’s statement justifying his absences. Respondent returned to Dr. Soroka and obtained this statement dated June 18, 1996: Mr. Auerbach has been treating in this office for low back pain and stress related complaints. He treats on a supportive care basis as his symptoms necessitate. On occasion, he is unable to work due to the severity of his symptoms. (Respondent’s exhibit 3) On July 2, 1996, the superintendent, Dr. Kowal, notified Respondent of her recommendation that he be terminated for willful neglect of duties based on his excessive use of sick leave without approved leave and his failure to return to duty after being released by his doctor. There are leave forms indicating that Respondent’s sick leave was “approved”. These forms are ordinarily turned in when an employee returns from an illness. Many of the forms were not completed or signed by Respondent, but rather were signed by someone else, when he never returned during a pay period and the forms needed to go to the payroll office. The leave forms are marked “approved”. Mr. Crawford approved the leave because Respondent called in and because Respondent was only a temporarily-assigned employee. Nevertheless, after the early part of 1996 when the absences increased in frequency, Mr. Crawford appropriately sought advice of the personnel office and he followed that advice regarding a physician’s statement to justify Respondent’s absences. Dr. Soroka was the only medical professional treating Respondent during the relevant period. Based on Respondent’s complaints to him, Dr. Soroka performed chiropractic adjustments to relieve muscle strains and irritations to his nervous system. Nothing in Dr. Soroka’s records indicated that Respondent was incapable of working and he never told Respondent to not return to work. Respondent contends that his absences were justified by the stress that he was suffering from his legal problems. He was the caregiver for aged and ailing parents; and he also suffered from anxiety attacks, headaches and lower back pain. Respondent’s contract with the district was for 196 days in the 1995/96 school year. Of those 196 days, he was absent approximately 167 days. The Collective Bargaining Agreement between Palm Beach County Classroom Teachers Association and the School District of Palm Beach County, Florida, July 1, 1995 - June 30, 1997, governs Respondent’s employment during the relevant period. Paid leave is available for illness of an employee and the employee’s family. All absences from duty must be covered by leave applications which are duly authorized. Leave for sickness or other emergencies will be deemed granted in advance if prompt report is made to the proper authority. When misuse of sick leave is suspected, the superintendent may investigate and require verification of illness. (Respondent’s exhibit 2, Collective Bargaining Agreement, Article V, Section A). When employees have used all accumulated leave, but are still qualified for sick leave, they are entitled to sick leave without pay. Except in emergency situations, short or long-term leaves of absences without pay must be approved in advance. As with paid leave, leave for sickness or other emergencies may be deemed granted in advance if prompt report is made to the proper authority. An eligible employee may be granted family medical leave under procedures described in the collective bargaining agreement. (Respondent’s exhibit 2, Collective Bargaining Agreement, Article V, Sections C and D) Respondent did not request leave in advance for his own illness or for that of his parents or for his meetings or depositions related to his pending professional practices case. Instead, he apparently relied on the automatic approval process described above when he called in day after day, for weeks at a time. By April it was entirely appropriate for his supervisor and her superiors to require that he provide some evidence of his need for leave. He failed to comply with two requests for that evidence. The collective bargaining agreement describes procedures for discipline of employees, including this: Without the consent of the employee and the Association, disciplinary action may not be taken against an employee except for just cause, and this must be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence which supports the recommended disciplinary action. The collective bargaining agreement also requires progressive discipline (reprimand through dismissal) ...[e]xcept in cases which clearly constitute a real and immediate danger to the district or the actions/inactions of the employee constitute such clearly flagrant and purposeful violations of reasonable school rules and regulations. (Respondent’s exhibit 2, Collective Bargaining Agreement, Section M)
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that the complaint be dismissed for the reason that Petitioner did not meet his burden of demonstrating that the tenure decision reviewed herein was unlawfully reached. Respectfully submitted and entered this 28th day of May, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: President Cecil Mackey Office of the President University of South Florida Tampa, Florida 33620 David A. Maney, Esquire Gordon and Maney, P.A. Suite 2919, First Financial Tower Tampa, Florida 33602 D. Frank Winkles, Esquire Shackleford, Farrior, Stallings Evans First Financial Tower Post Office Box 3324 Tampa, Florida 33601
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Department of Labor and Employment Security (Department), in implementing a workforce reduction that resulted in layoffs and demotions for employees, should have adopted by rulemaking, policies related to compensation reductions that occurred during the workforce reduction.
Findings Of Fact In 1999, a funding shortfall at the Department of Labor and Employment Security resulted in implementation of a workforce reduction plan. Petitioners Altamese Thompson and Sue Ezell were employees of the Department with permanent status in the Career Service system and whose employment and compensation were substantially affected by the Department’s workforce reduction program. Petitioner Florida Public Employees Council 79, AFSCME, represented the employees on collective bargaining issues affected in the workforce reduction. AFSCME members’ employment and compensation were substantially affected by the Department’s workforce reduction program. The 1999 workforce reduction was not the Department’s first experience with employee layoffs. In previous reductions, Department policy, set forth in LES Manual 1101.1.1.1 (October 1, 1996) was to retain, at existing salaries, as many employees as funding permitted. The Department policy was not adopted as an administrative rule. When the Department began to consider the workforce reduction of mid-1999, the Department apparently decided to increase the number of retained employees by reducing the salaries of workers who accepted "voluntary" demotions in lieu of layoff. By issuance of a "Change Notice" to LES Manual 1101.1.1.1, dated May 14, 1999, the Department redefined voluntary demotion to include "demotions requested by associates in lieu of layoff during workforce reduction pursuant to Chapter 60K-17, F.A.C." The revision also set forth a formula by which the compensation paid to employees who accepted voluntary demotion in lieu of transfer would be reduced. The change in the Department policy was not adopted as an administrative rule. Chapter 60K-17, Florida Administrative Code, sets forth the rules applicable to reduction of Career Service employees through the layoff process. The rule essentially establishes what is generally identified as the "bumping" procedure utilized by state agencies when employee levels are reduced. Rule 60K-17.004(3)(j), Florida Administrative Code, states in part, "[w]ithin 7 calendar days after receiving the notice of layoff, the employee shall have the right to request a demotion or reassignment. " Rule 60K-17.004(3)(p), Florida Administrative Code, states that "[a]n employee who accepts a voluntary demotion in lieu of layoff and is subsequently promoted to a position in the same class in the same agency from which the employee is demoted in lieu of layoff, shall be promoted with permanent status." Chapter 60K-17, Florida Administrative Code, does not prohibit salary reductions implemented as part of a voluntary demotion. Rule 60K-4.007, Florida Administrative Code, governs "demotion appointments" in the career service system. The rule states that a "demotion appointment" includes assignment to a job class having a "lower maximum salary or having the same or higher maximum salary but a lower level of responsibility. Rule 60K-2.004, Florida Administrative Code, governs salary determinations upon appointment to employment. Rule 60K- 2.004(4), Florida Administrative Code, states, "[a]n employee who is given a demotion appointment in accordance with Chapter 60K-4, F.A.C., may be demoted with or without a reduction in base rate of pay. " Rule 60K-9.005, Florida Administrative Code, addresses a Career Service employee’s right to appeal employment actions to the Public Employees Relations Commission. Generally, an employee who has attained permanent status in the Career Service System can appeal employment actions to the Public Employees Relations Commission. However, Rule 60K-9.005(5)(c), Florida Administrative Code, states than "[a]n employee who receives a reduction in pay, a demotion, or a transfer shall waive all rights to appeal such action if the employee has signed a written statement that the action is voluntary." By certified letters dated May 24, 1999, Petitioners Thompson and Ezell were advised that "[d]ue to impending budget cuts" the Department was reducing the number of positions in the Department’s Division of Jobs and Benefits (where Petitioners Thompson and Ezell worked) and that "[r]egretfully, you will be adversely affected by this work force reduction on June 30, 1999, at the close of business." The May 24 letter included a form titled "STATEMENT OF CHOICE OF OPTIONS DUE TO LAYOFF SITUATION" which set forth available jobs and included an option allowing the employee to select a layoff rather than the job demotion. The form included a signature line that stated, "I understand that by selecting demotion as an option, I am requesting a voluntary demotion in lieu of layoff, and my pay upon such voluntary demotion will be subject to the newly revised Section 1101.1.1.1.9d of the LES Personnel Manual." The evidence fails to establish the content of Section 1101.1.1.1.9d of the revised LES Personnel Manual. The documents entered into evidence at the hearing are identified as 1101.1.1.1. There is no subsection 9d. Subsection (c)2.c. addresses pay upon voluntary demotion and states as follows: Associates requesting voluntary demotions must have their base rate of pay reduced by one-half (1/2) of the percentage/salary increase received upon promotion and/or reassignment. For example, if an associate received a 10 percent promotional increase, his/her base rate of pay must be reduced by 5 percent. Permanent career service associates who have not had a promotional increase will have their base rate reduced by 5 percent. The Division Director/Commission Chairman equivalent has authority to take final action provided, however, that any variations must be submitted to the Assistant Secretary of Administration for review prior to final action. This provision also applies to demotions to classes that are higher or lower than the classes held prior to promotion and/or reassignment. Ms. Thompson noted her preferences as to the available jobs positions and signed the form. Ms. Ezell noted her preferences as to the available jobs positions and signed the form, but wrote a notation on the form indicating her disagreement with the situation, in part stating, "I am not voluntarily requesting demotion. I have absolutely no other choice after 27 years. A pay reduction should not occur. " At hearing, both Ms. Thompson and Ms. Ezell suggested that being forced to accept a demotion and pay reduction in lieu of total layoff did not present an entirely voluntary choice. There is no evidence that the Department provided copies of the cited Personnel Manual revision directly to affected employees either before or after the May 24 letters were issued. There is no evidence that either Ms. Thompson or Ms. Ezell saw the revised Personnel Manual prior to signing the "STATEMENT OF CHOICE" forms. During the spring of 1999, the Division’s Director circulated a publication entitled "Friday Fax" to employees of the Department’s Division of Jobs and Benefits. The "Friday Fax" dated March 19, 1999 indicates that an employee demoted as part of the pending reduction in force would retain their current salary. This reflects the existing policy of the Department that had been applied in prior workforce reductions. There is no credible evidence that the Division Director was explicitly authorized to restate the Department policy in the March 19, 1999 Friday Fax. There is evidence that the Department executives were considering the possibility of salary reductions during the ongoing planning for the workforce reduction. By the following week, a new Division Director had been appointed. By April 2, 1999, publication of "Friday Fax" was suspended. A new publication "Just The Facts. . ." began to be issued by the Department’s Office of Communications and was circulated to agency personnel. On May 24, 1999, the same day that the workforce reduction letters were mailed to Petitioners Thompson and Ezell, an issue of "Just The Facts" was published which stated that demotions in lieu of layoff would incur salary reductions, and referenced the revised LES Personnel Manual section as "1101.1.1.1 9.d.(1)(6)(c)2.c."
Findings Of Fact In September, 1970, Dr. Van Twyver was appointed Assist-ant Professor of Psychology by the University. The appointment was made in accordance with a contract which ran from September, 1970 through June, 1971. He was given a similar appointment for the academic year beginning September, 1971. Prior to the academic year beginning September, 1972, Dr. Van Twyver was promoted to the rank of Associate Professor (Complaining Party's Exhibit 8). Dr. Van Twyver received appointments as Associate Professor of Psychology for the academic years beginning in September, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975 and 1976. Dr. Van Twyver also received several appointments to the same position for summer academic terms. Copies of the various appointments offered to and accepted by Dr. Van Twyver were received in evidence as Complaining Party's Exhibit 6. Prior to the appointment for the academic year beginning in September, 1976, each of Dr. Van Twyver's appointments was to tenure earning positions. The position covered by the appointment for the present academic year which commenced in September, 1976, is not a tenure earning position. Dr. Van Twyver's present contract provides that it is a terminal contract and will not be renewed. During his fifth year with the University (the academic year beginning September, 1974) Dr. Van Twyver applied for tenured status on the faculty. He was told by the Chairman of the Psychology Department that due to a change in policy he would not be considered for tenured status until his sixth year. During his sixth year (the academic year beginning September, 1975) Dr. Van Twyver again applied for tenured status. He submitted an application to the Department Chairman. The application was forwarded to the Department of Psychology Faculty Evaluation of Faculty Committee. The Committee was composed of five members. The members of the Committee originally voted unanimously in favor of recommending Dr. Van Twyver for tenure. The vote was based upon an evaluation in which areas of performance substantially equivalent to those itemized in Rule 6C-5.05(2) F.A.C. were considered. At a meeting of the Committee conducted on October 10, 1975, two members urged that Dr. Van Twyver and other tenure applicants be evaluated based upon an additional criterion, that being whether granting tenure would serve the best interests of the University. Dr. Burroughs who chaired the Committee indicated that Dr. Abbott, the Chairman of the Department, thought the additional criterion should be considered. The other members of the Committee rejected the argument, and at an October 15 meeting the Committee voted to recommend Dr. Van Twyver for tenure by a vote of three in favor and two abstaining. A copy of the Committee's final evaluation form dated October 15, 1976, was received in evidence as Complaining Party's Exhibit 2. The Committee considered Dr. Van Twyver acceptable or above acceptable in each of the categories evaluated other than in "research and other creative activities" in which he was rated outstanding. Dr. Van Twyver's application was next considered by members of the tenured faculty of the Department of Psychology. By a vote of four to one the tenured faculty voted against recommending tenure. The lone favorable vote came from Dr. Phillip Tell. The meeting at which the vote was taken was brief, lasting less than ten minutes, and matters other than Dr. Van Twyver's application were considered. Dr. Abbott, the Department Chairman, stated that the vote should be based upon a determination of whether granting tenure would serve the best interests of the University. Dr. Tell asked what was meant by "best interests of the University". Dr. Abbott answered by reading Paragraph G from the recommendation form utilized by department chairpersons in recommending granting or denying tenure or other promotions. Paragraphs A through E of the form set out criteria for evaluating an applicant which correspond with the criteria for evaluating faculty performance set out in Rule 5.05(2), F.A.C. Paragraph F of the form provides a space for recording the results of the tenured faculty vote. Paragraph G contains the following language: I (am, am not) satisfied that the nominee has met all of the criteria for (tenure, promotion) of this university and the Board of Regents, and that he/she (has, has not) demonstrated a high degree of competence in his/her professional field. I believe that granting him/her (tenure, promotion)(will, will not) serve the best interests of the institution and the State University System of Florida. I recommend that: ( )tenure ( )promotion to the rank of (be, not be) granted. The form then provides a space for comments and the chairperson's signature. Dr. Abbott expressed the view that the criterion "best interests of the institution" was apart from and in addition to the criteria for evaluation listed in paragraphs A through E of the form. The vote of the tenured faculty of the Department was based upon this interpretation as was Dr. Abbott's recommendation that tenure not be granted. A copy of Dr. Abbott's evaluation and negative recommendation for Dr. Van Twyver was received in evidence as Complaining Party's Exhibit 3. It cannot be determined from the evidence whether the tenured faculty would have voted in the same manner, or whether Dr. Abbott would have made the same recommendation if the criterion "best interests of the institution" had not been considered as additional to criteria set out in Paragraphs A through E of Complaining Party's Exhibit 3. It does appear that Dr. Van Twyver was considered at least satisfactory in each of those areas. It cannot be determined from the evidence why the tenured faculty voted against recommending tenure or why Dr. Abbott recommended against tenure unless it was for the reason that the concept of "best interests of the institution" was given some unknown interpretation and applied as an area to be evaluated apart from the other criteria. The college of Social Sciences Personnel Committee considered Dr. Van Twyver's application. By a vote of three to two it recommended in favor of granting tenure. The Personnel Committee's evaluation was received in evidence as Complaining Party's Exhibit 4. Charles N. Millican, President of the University decided against recommending to the Board Of Regents that Dr. Van Twyver's application for tenure be granted. His decision is set out in a letter dated March 19, 1976. Copies of the letter were received in evidence as Exhibit A to Hearing Officer's Exhibit 2 and to Complaining Party's Exhibit 1. President Millican set out the following as the basis for his decision: "A careful review of your file indicates that 80 per cent of the tenured faculty members in your Department voted against your tenure nomination, and in addition, your Department Chairman forwarded a negative recommendation. "The University President's decision was thus based upon the tenured faculty vote and Dr. Abbott's recommendation, both of which utilized the test of "best interest of the institution" as determinative. No evidence was presented at the hearing from which it could be determined that constitutionally impermissible criteria were applied to Dr. Van Twyver's application at any stage of the tenure application process. Dr. Van Twyver did not have an objective expectation of reemployment at the University at the time that he applied for tenured status or at any material time.
The Issue Whether the suspension of the Petitioner Nelson was based on just cause.
Findings Of Fact Allen T. Nelson, Petitioner, was employed by the Department of Education, Division of Universities, University of Florida, as a Career Service employee Custodial Worker in the Physical Plant Division. During a three and a quarter month period of time the official attendance record disclosed 20 attendance deficiencies ranging from 15 minutes tardy to unauthorized absences for a full day. The employee had received an oral reprimand on July 8, 1977 for unsatisfactory attendance; a written reprimand on July 29, 1977 for unsatisfactory attendance and on September 29, 1977 was advised that his probationary period as a Groundskeeper II was unsatisfactory because of his attendance record. Because his probation was unsatisfactory, he was returned to his permanent position as a Custodial Worker. Notwithstanding official reprimands as well as counseling from his immediate supervisor, Mr. Earl Davis, and the Personnel representative for the Physical Plant Division, Mr. Danny Busseni, the employee's pattern of poor attendance and tardiness continued. While suggesting that some of his tardiness was caused by transportation problems and some of his absences were caused by family sickness and personal business, the employee was unable to give any clear or convincing reason why his attendance patterns were in any manner excusable. The employee indicated that he felt that the agency had not treated him fairly and this was one of the reasons for his poor attendance. Documentary evidence submitted by the employer confirms the steps of progressive discipline taken against the employee in an effort to improve his attendance record. The Guidelines for Standards of Disciplinary Action promulgated by the University provide that for unsatisfactory attendance the first offense shall result in an oral reprimand, the second offense in a written reprimand and that following a third offense the employee may be suspended for one week or dismissed. 8, All employees were aware of the guidelines which were incorporated in an Employee Handbook, covered in employee orientation sessions as well as being posted in areas where Career Service Employees are employed. Competent substantial evidence exists to sustain the action of the agency and "just cause" for the suspension of the employee is evident.
Recommendation Sustain the decision of the Respondent University of Florida. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of May, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Allen T. Nelson 227 N.W. 7th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32611 Ashmun Brown, Esquire 207 Tigert Hall University of Florida Gainesville, Florida 32611 Mrs. Dorothy Roberts Career Service Commission 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue The issues presented for decision in the above-styled matter are as follows: Can tenure be denied, as opposed to being granted or postponed, during the fifth year of employment? If so, was petitioner wrongfully denied tenure? Did respondent wrongfully determine that petitioner's employment contract would not be renewed beyond June of 1975? 4 Was petitioner wrongfully terminated before he received a due process hearing?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the admissible oral ad documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following pertinent facts are found: Petitioner Jeffrey Rosner was hired by the respondent in September of 1969 as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science, College of Social and Behavioral Sciences, a tenure-earning position. He was reappointed to this position for the school years 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74, and 1974-75. During the period of time between September, 1969 and June of 1975, petitioner received and reviewed student evaluations of his teaching effectiveness. Although his student evaluations improved over the five-year period in question, petitioner's evaluations from students were consistently below the college median. Also, for the calendar year 1973, rating scores were assigned to all fifteen faculty members of petitioner's department. In the area of teaching, petitioner ranked fourteenth. 1/ At all times, petitioner's primary assigned duty was teaching. At all times relevant to this proceeding - from the time petitioner received his first appointment to the present time - the Florida Board of Regents had established and set forth three areas in which faculty members would be evaluated for purposes of tenure, promotion, salary and retention. These three areas are teaching, research and other creative activities and service. Also, "tenure" has been consistently defined in terms of a high degree of competence in the three areas mentioned above. The respondent University, at least since 1970, has employed the use of "tenure forms" in order to gather information from the individual faculty members being considered for tenure in the areas of teaching, research and service. Such forms may be supplemented as was done in the instant case by a six-page supplementary statement. In the middle of his fifth year of continuous employment at the University of South Florida, petitioner was considered for tenure. It was the common practice in the Political Science Department to consider faculty members for tenure during their fifth year. The faculty member himself is not given a choice as to whether he wishes to be considered or postponed for tenure. At the time petitioner was considered for tenure, from December of 1973 through March of 1974, the procedure utilized in the Political Science Department was as follows. The tenured faculty members of the Department review the candidate's file, which is at least partially prepared by him, and then vote by secret ballot to either grant, deny or defer the tenure decision. An advisory committee consisting of four persons (three acting and an alternate) elected by the faculty members also reviews the candidate's file. Each member of the advisory committee makes an independent evaluation of the candidate and then the members' get together, rate the candidate on a scale of 1 to 5 in the areas of teaching effectiveness, research and creative activity, service and overall quality. The committee members than vote upon the recommendation to be made to the Department Chairman to either grant, deny or defer tenure. The Department Chairman then reviews everything to date, rates the candidate on the same areas and makes his decision. The candidate is then notified of the Department's decision and is given an opportunity to request to meet with the Chairman and/or the advisory committee to discuss reconsideration of the decision. Thereafter, the recommendation is finalized and everything is sent to the Dean of the College. The Dean recommends to the Vice president of Academic Affairs and the Vice President recommends to the President of the University. The above procedure was followed in Dr. Rosner's case and the following transpired: The tenured faculty, consisting of six persons, voted four opposed to granting tenure, two to defer the tenure decision and none in favor of granting tenure. During its first consideration, the departmental advisory committee, consisting of three faculty members - one tenured and two non-tenured - voted as follows: two opposed to granting tenure, one to defer the tenure decision and none in favor of granting tenure. That committee found that while petitioner's areas of specialization were relevant to the Department's needs, plans and goals, his performance in the categories of evaluation - teaching, research and service - "is insufficiently high to justify granting him tenure." On a scale of 1 to 5 (1 - below average, 3 - average, 5 - above average) the committee rated petitioner 2 in teaching effectiveness, 2 in research and creative activity, between 2 and 3 in service and 2 in overall quality. Upon the first evaluation, the Department Chairman, Dr. Robert Bowman, voted that he was opposed to granting tenure. He rated Rosner between 2 and 3 in teaching effectiveness, 1 in research and creative activity, between 3 & 4 in academic advisement, between 2 & 3 in service and 2.33 in overall quality. The Chairman also found that Rosner's talents and resources did not fit the needs, plans and goals of the Department. Upon reconsideration at petitioner's requests the advisory committee and the Chairman rated Rosner 2.5 in teaching effectiveness, 1.5 in research and creative activity, 2.5 in service activities and 2.0 as the overall evaluation. (Attachments 1 through 4 of Exhibit 1 lists the material relied upon in arriving at these ratings). The Department therefore recommended "denial of tenure and absolute termination at the end of the 1974-75 contract period." The Dean of the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Dr. Travis Northcutt, having the choices set forth on a form to recommend either the granting, denying or deferring of tenure, voted to recommend the denial of tenure in Rosner's case. He based this decision on a full review of all materials submitted by Rosner and the file sent by the Chairman. The Vice president for Academic Affairs, Dr. Carl Riggs, also recommended that tenure be denied. On March 15, 1974, Dr. Riggs notified petitioner of his decision not to recommend to President Mackey that Rosner be granted tenure. Petitioner was further notified by the same letter that "your employment will not be renewed after Quarter III of the academic year 1974/75." Petitioner was further advised of the opportunity for review of cases in which a faculty member asserts that his contract of employment is not being renewed for constitutionally impermissible reasons. Upon petitioner's request, Dr. Riggs explained in writing the reasons for the non-renewal of petitioner's appointment. The reasons listed related to the denial of tenure. This memorandum is dated June 19, 1974. On December 13, 1974, Dr. Bowman wrote petitioner a letter denying his request to be considered for tenure for 1975-76 for the current (1974-75) evaluation cycle, because of the previous decision to deny tenure and terminate his appointment effective June 19, 1975. On May 22, 1975, Dr. Rosner filed his complaint with the University President and asked that it be referred to the Academic Relations Committee. After receiving the Committee's report dated June 18, 1975, the President determined that he was not prepared to render a decision in petitioner's favor, and ordered that the complaint be considered in a plenary proceeding as defined in F.A.C. 6C-5.08(3). On July 16, 1975, the Division of Administrative Hearings received a letter from Steven Wenzel, General Counsel of the University, requesting, on behalf of the President that a Hearing Officer be assigned to conduct the plenary hearing. The undersigned Hearing Officer was so assigned, and, on July 31, 1975, notified Dr. Rosner of certain procedural problems relating to the complaint. Between this date and the date of the prehearing conference in this matter, numerous inquiries were made by the undersigned to the petitioner and his counsel as to the status of the case and anticipated dates for a hearing. Little, if any, response was forthcoming until early October, when this case, along with six others, was set for prehearing conference. On September 6, 1975, Dr. Rosner sent a letter to president Mackey stating: "Because it now appears that the administrative hearing in my case will not be scheduled until after classes begin for the fall term, I am requesting that I be given an interim faculty appointment, beginning with the fall term and continuing until the case is decided." Dr. Mackey responded on September 12, 1975, that ". . .Inasmuch as your contract expired according to its terms following the tendering of the appropriate notice of non-renewal, I am not prepared to direct that you be reemployed during the pendency of your hearing."
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that the complaint be dismissed for the reasons that petitioner did not meet his burden of demonstrating that the decisions to deny tenure and to not renew his employment contract were unlawful. Respectfully submitted and entered this 29th day of December, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of December, 1975.
The Issue Proposed transfer of Bernice Ino, as specified in letter of Anthony Ninos, Director of Division of Hotels and Restaurants, dated July 27, 1976. This is an appeal of a career service employee pursuant to Section 110.061, Florida Statutes. The appeal was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings by the Career Service Commission on November 24, 1976.
Findings Of Fact By the General Appropriations act emanating from the 1976 state legislative session, 38 employee positions of the Respondent's Division of Hotel and Restaurants were abolished. Although the specific positions were not identified in the appropriations act, the Division director was informed by a staff representative of the legislative committee on appropriations that 25 Hotel and Restaurant Inspector I positions and six Inspector II positions should be among those eliminated. The Division previously had 103 Inspectors of the two classes. Respondent identified the positions statewide to be eliminated and requested the Secretary, Department of Administration, to approve the concept that the competitive area for layoff of employees be statewide within the Division. Approval of this plan was secured and Respondent proceeded to abolish the positions and to layoff Inspectors in its various districts throughout the state. Since the Division at the time had eight vacancies for Inspector positions only 23 employees were actually eliminated. Layoffs were carried out under a retention point system based on length of service and performance evaluations, computed and applied under the provisions of Department of Administration Emergency Rule 22AER76-1, Subject "Emergency Rule Governing Layoff of Career Service Employees". As to Inspectors I, the 83 such positions in the state were placed on a numerical list, according to total number of retention points of each employee, and those with the lowest numbers were selected for layoff. Seven employees were terminated in District I (Jacksonville) and one in District IV (Ft. Lauderdale). (Testimony of Ninos, Dorn, Exhibits 1, 9-12) As a result of the abolishment of Inspector positions, there was an imbalance in manning levels in the various state districts. In Jacksonville, there had been eight inspector positions. The abolishment of three of these left five vacancies that had to be filled. On the other hand, there were negative vacancies in the Ft. Lauderdale district. The Division director therefore instructed the Respondents' personnel officer, Lee Dorn, to reapportion the state to effectively cover all inspection areas. Specifically, he directed that five Inspector I positions be transferred to Jacksonville, 3 of them to come from the Ft. Lauderdale district. In a Memorandum to Dorn, dated July 15, 1976, the director identified the three positions in Ft. Lauderdale for transfer as those held by A. V. Maloni, Bernice N. Ino, and J. F. Friedman. The retention points of these employees had been calculated respectively at 210, 169, and 165. These three employees, and two others to be transferred to Jacksonville from District V, were those Inspectors who had the lowest number of retention points after those having less retention points had been laid off. It was stipulated by the parties that the number of retention joints calculated for Petitioner is correct based on the criteria set forth in the Department of Administration's Emergency Rule. (Testimony of Ninos, Dorn, Exhibit 2) It thereafter developed that of the three Ft. Lauderdale employees, Petitioner was the only one who would actually have had to take an involuntary transfer to Jacksonville. Mr. Friedman, who had less retention points, secured a new position with another agency. Maloni, who had more retention points than Petitioner, was reassigned to a position in the Ft. Lauderdale district that was vacated when the incumbent, in turn, was reassigned to another position made vacant by the illness and eventual separation of its incumbent, John W. Murray. The person replacing Murray, A. J. Pergament, had 792 retention points. (Testimony of Ninos, Dorn, Smith, Exhibits 4, 6-8, 14-21) Petitioner was orally informed in late June of her proposed transfer by her District Supervisor, Chauncey D. Smith. This was followed by a letter, dated July 27, 1976, from the Division director that formally advised her of the transfer of her position to the Jacksonville district, effective August 1, 1976. The letter gave as a basis for the transfer the fact that legislative abolishment of positions made it necessary for the Division to reapportion its staffing to effectively cover all inspection areas and that the proposed changes were being made to obtain "equity, effectiveness, and efficiency within our districts". The letter further advised Petitioner of her right to appeal the transfer to the Career Service Commission. Although this letter did not reach Petitioner through the mail due to an incorrect address, a copy was personally served on her on July 29. Petitioner acknowledges that the incorrect address was due to her negligence in advising Respondent correctly as to the same. In a memo to Petitioner, dated July 28, Smith had conveyed Division instructions for her to report to Jacksonville on August 2. Petitioner declined to accept the transfer. She filed her appeal by letter of July 31, 1976 and thereafter resigned, effective August 2, 1976. Her appeal letter stated that she had not been given sufficient notice to relocate and that the transfer would be a great financial hardship due to the fact that she had purchased a home in the area recently. (Testimony of Dorn, Smith, Ino, Exhibits 3, 13, 22-23) At a meeting with Smith and the Division's Chief of Enforcement, B. E. Fernandez, in early August, Petitioner was informed that she would be given the next opening in Ft. Lauderdale. In fact, Inspector Murray was not separated until November but his job had been filled on a temporary basis by Maloni. When Murray was finally separated, Maloni stayed in the position. Petitioner had been told by Smith that it would be a hardship for Maloni to suffer a transfer because of family considerations, but would not be so difficult for her because she could obtain unemployment compensation and she need not be concerned because her husband was working. When Murray finally departed, Petitioner called the Division director regarding the promise that she would have the next opening and he wrote her in December, 1976, that, although she was next in line for any vacancy, Maloni had received Murray's job because he had more retention points. Also, during this period, Fernandez and Smith offered Petitioner openings in Gainesville and Daytona Beach, but she declined to accept them because she wished to stay in Broward County. Smith also suggested that she get a job as a hostess or cocktail waitress because she was cute and petite. (Testimony of Ino, Smith, Fernandez, Exhibit 4) Petitioner testified that she was of the opinion her sex was a factor in the matter because nothing was done for her by Division personnel and because of the comments made by Smith concerning her eligibility for unemployment compensation and his comments concerning the possibility of her becoming a cocktail waitress. (Testimony of Ino) Petitioner was employed by Respondent from June 1, 1973 to August 2, 1977. She had performed her duties in an exemplary manner. (Testimony of McCulley)
Recommendation It is recommended that the Career Service Commission deny the appeal. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd of March, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence D. Winson Staff Attorney Department of Business Regulation The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Roger D. Haagenson 800 E. Broward Building Suite 610 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301
