The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for certification should be denied for the reasons set forth in the Amended Notice of Reasons.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is presently 25 years of age. His date of birth is July 29, 1974. Petitioner had a troubled youth; however, since the August 6, 1994, incident (described below) that is the focus of the instant case, he has matured and gained a reputation of being a responsible adult member of his community. On Saturday, August 6, 1994, shortly after his twentieth birthday, at approximately 5:55 p.m., Petitioner was driving north on Andrews Avenue in downtown Fort Lauderdale. He had just finished running errands for his father in the downtown area and was on his way home. 5/ There were no passengers in his vehicle. As Petitioner approached the intersection of North Andrews Avenue and Second Street, there was a woman standing on the sidewalk on the northeast corner of the intersection, facing south, who attracted his attention. Unbeknownst to Petitioner, the woman, Joyce Fleming was a police officer employed by the Fort Lauderdale Police Department. Officer Fleming was participating in an undercover operation designed to "combat street level prostitution activity." Her role in the operation was to pose as a street prostitute. When Petitioner stopped for a red light at the intersection of North Andrews Avenue and Second Street, he made eye contact with Officer Fleming, who waved at him and pointed him toward a nearby parking garage, which was underneath an office building. Petitioner pulled into the parking garage and parked his car, head first, facing a concrete wall and beside concrete pilings. Officer Fleming, who was wearing a wire, then walked up to the driver's side of Petitioner's vehicle and started talking to Petitioner. The conversation she had with Petitioner was tape recorded 6/ and monitored by backup officers (who were in the vicinity). Officer Fleming began her conversation with Petitioner by complaining that a certain police officer, who, she told Petitioner, had been across the street from where she had been standing on North Andrews Avenue, was always "bothering" her. It was because of this police officer, she explained to Petitioner, that she had not "want[ed] to get in over there." After being told about the police officer, Petitioner asked Officer Fleming, "Why don't I meet you somewhere else?" To allay Petitioner's concerns, Officer Fleming told him that the police officer was no longer across the street and that therefore she could "get in" his vehicle. Petitioner, however, indicated to Officer Fleming that he was still "nervous about it," to which Officer Fleming replied, "If you're nervous, you can go on." Petitioner, though, did not "go on." He chose to stay. 7/ Officer Fleming then asked Petitioner what he "want[ed] to do." Petitioner answered, "I don't know, what do you want?" Officer Fleming's response was, "Well, I don't care; just tell me what you want to do and I'll tell you how much." Petitioner told Officer Fleming (whom he believed to be a prostitute) that he was interested in a "blow job." 8/ He and Officer Fleming then haggled over the price. Petitioner ultimately agreed to pay Officer Fleming $10.00, 9/ after which the following exchange took place between Petitioner and Officer Fleming: Officer Fleming: Okay. We can do that then. Petitioner: Why don't I meet you somewhere else? Officer Fleming: You don't want to do it here? Petitioner: Well, I don't want a cop pulling up. It was at this point in time that back up officers arrived on the scene and arrested Petitioner for "soliciting for prostitution" in violation of Fort Lauderdale Municipal Ordinance 16-1. At no time did Petitioner actually pay Officer Fleming any money; nor was there ever any physical contact, sexual or otherwise, between Petitioner and Officer Fleming. (Petitioner remained in his vehicle, while Officer Fleming stood alongside the vehicle on the driver's side, throughout their conversation in the parking garage.) The charge that Petitioner had violated Fort Lauderdale Municipal Ordinance 16-1 10/ by agreeing to pay Officer Fleming for oral sex was filed in Broward County Court, and it was docketed as Case No. 94-15421MO10A. On March 23, 1995, Petitioner filed a Sworn Motion to Dismiss in Case No. 94-15421MO10A. Appended to the motion was a copy of a transcript that had been prepared of the tape recording of the conversation Petitioner had had with Officer Fleming immediately prior to his arrest. The transcript, however, did not accurately and completely reflect the contents of the tape recording. It omitted Petitioner's affirmative response when he was asked by Officer Fleming, during price negotiations, whether he would be agreeable to paying $10.00 for her services. 11/ Pursuant to an agreement with the Municipal Prosecutor, Petitioner entered a Pre-Trial Intervention Program on or about July 5, 1995. Petitioner successfully completed the Pre-Trial Intervention Program. Consequently, on October 23, 1995, prior to any ruling having been made on Petitioner's Sworn Motion to Dismiss, the Municipal Prosecutor issued a Nolle Prosequi in Case No. 94-15421MO10A announcing that the "City of Fort Lauderdale decline[d] prosecution on all municipal violations against [Petitioner] arising out of [his] arrest on [August 6, 1994]." Petitioner graduated from the University of South Florida in December of 1997 with a B.A. degree in English. On or about February 17, 1998, Petitioner submitted to the Department of Education (Department) an Application for Florida Educator's Certificate seeking an "initial two-year nonrenewable temporary" teaching certificate. On the application, he acknowledged his August 6, 1994, arrest. From August of 1998 to January of 1999, Petitioner was employed as a tenth-grade English teacher at MacArthur High School in Hollywood, Florida (which, at the time, had an enrollment of 2,200 students). The principal of the school was (and still is) Beverly James. In Ms. James' opinion, Petitioner did a "very good job" while at the school, and she "would not hesitate" to rehire him if he received his teaching certification. In addition to his classroom responsibilities at MacArthur High School, Petitioner also served as the assistant coach of the school's wrestling team. The head coach of the team was Michael Zarra. In Mr. Zarra's opinion, Petitioner did a "good job coaching," and he would not "have any hesitation to have [Petitioner] back as an assistant wrestling coach." As evidenced by his job performance at MacArthur High School, by engaging in the conduct for which he was arrested on August 6, 1994, Petitioner has not impaired his ability to be an effective teacher. The incident, which took place when Petitioner was a 20-year old college student, four years before he began teaching at the school, was not widely publicized and it has not adversely affected his reputation in the community. By letter dated December 28, 1998, Petitioner was notified that his Application for Florida Educator's Certificate was being denied for the reasons set forth in the Notice of Reasons that accompanied the letter. Shortly thereafter, Ms. James terminated Petitioner's employment at MacArthur High School. She did so only because she was told she had to inasmuch as Petitioner "would not be certified." On or about March 17, 1999, Petitioner was provided with an Amended Notice of Reasons reflecting that the denial of his application was based solely upon the August 6, 1994, incident involving Officer Fleming. Petitioner subsequently sought to reopen Broward County Court Case No. 94-15421MO10A. His efforts were successful. On June 23, 1999, Broward County Court Judge Joel T. Lazarus issued a Final Order of Dismissal in the case, which provided as follows: CAME ON TO BE HEARD on June 21, 1999 Defendant's Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Disposition and Defendant's Sworn Motion to Dismiss and the Court having heard the arguments of counsel and being further advised, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Disposition be and the same is hereby GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, as to Defendant's Sworn Motion to Dismiss and the Court's consideration of the matters before it, this Court makes a determination that no material issue of fact that sustains the criminal charges against this Defendant exist[s] and that the Defendant is entitled to dismissal as a matter or law. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's Sworn Motion to Dismiss be and same is hereby GRANTED and the Defendant is herewith discharged.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission issue a final order reversing the Department of Education's preliminary denial of Petitioner's Application for Florida Educator's Certificate and directing the Department to issue, unconditionally, the "initial two-year nonrenewable temporary" teaching certificate sought by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of April, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of April, 2000.
The Issue The issues presented are whether check marks that Respondent placed on the test booklets of some students during the second day of a Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test violated Subsections 1008.24(1)(c) and 1012.795(1)(c), (f), and (i), Florida Statutes (2003), and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.042(1)(c), (d), and 6B-1.006(3)(a), (b), (d), and , (4)(b), and (5)(a), and, if so, what penalty should be imposed against the teaching certificate of Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate No 484481 (teaching certificate). Respondent is certified to teach physical education through June 30, 2009. The Hillsborough County School District (District) has employed Respondent as a physical education teacher for 10 years. In March 2004, the District employed Respondent as a physical education teacher at Gorrie Elementary School (Gorrie). At Gorrie, Respondent proctored the math and science portions of the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) for some fifth grade students sometime in March 2004. Ms. Jacquelyn Cross was the teacher and test administrator for the class. As a proctor, Respondent's responsibilities during the FCAT were minimal. Respondent was responsible to assist the test administrator and to be available in the event of an emergency. It is undisputed that during the second day of testing Respondent made check marks in the test booklets of some students. The check marks coached the affected students during the FCAT test in violation of Subsection 1008.24(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2003). Neither Petitioner nor the legislature has defined the term "coach" for the purpose of the cited statute. Nor did Petitioner adduce evidence to support a finding that the definition is a matter within the scope of agency expertise. The plain and ordinary meaning of the term "coach," in relevant part, is to "train or tutor" a student. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 353 (4th ed. Houghton Mifflin Company 2000) (American Heritage). Respondent tutored the affected students because the check marks had the effect of instructing the affected students. American Heritage at 1860. Respondent "knowingly or willfully" coached the affected students in violation of Subsection 1008.24(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2003). Respondent intended a check mark to signal a student that the student should reread the particular question or passage. No aggravating factors are evidenced in the record. However, several mitigating factors are in evidence. For reasons discussed hereinafter, no finding is made that Respondent had actual knowledge that her actions violated the relevant statute. The evidence to support such a finding is less than clear and convincing. Similarly, the evidence is less than clear and convincing that Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.006(3)(d), (e), (4)(b), and (5)(a), respectively, by intentionally suppressing or distorting subject matter relevant to a student's academic program, intentionally exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement, intentionally distorting or misrepresenting facts concerning an educational matter in direct or indirect public expression, or by failing to maintain honesty in all professional dealings. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that Respondent received any training from either her employer or Petitioner in how to proctor an FCAT. Gorrie administrators assigned Respondent to proctor approximately a week before the scheduled test. During the first day of testing, the test administrator walked through the classroom and pointed to incorrect answers recorded by some of the students. The test administrator also used verbal prompts such as, "you obviously haven't read that passage," and "you need to go back and reread that." During the second day, Respondent followed the example set by the test administrator during the first day of the FCAT and chose check marks as a means of prompting the students to recheck their answers. The test administrator had received training in the administration of the FCAT. Respondent's reliance on the example of the test administrator was reasonable under the circumstances. Nothing in the record shows that the check marks made by Respondent on the test booklets intentionally distorted or misrepresented facts concerning an educational matter within the meaning of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(4)(b). Respondent would not accept similar assistance from a proctor during a test Respondent was taking and was concerned about the actions she took during the second day of testing. That night during a class attended by Respondent, she asked a peer if the actions of the test administrator and Respondent were appropriate. The peer stated the actions were inappropriate and explained that Respondent could be disciplined for her actions. When Respondent proctored the FCAT on the third day of testing, Respondent did not coach the examinees. Another teacher reported to the assistant principal that some of the students proctored by Respondent had received assistance during the FCAT. When the assistant principal questioned Respondent, Respondent freely admitted her actions, but denied that she knew at the time that her actions were inappropriate. Nothing in the record shows that Respondent failed to maintain honesty in all her professional dealings within the meaning of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(5)(a). Although Respondent had proctored the FCAT in previous years, the evidence is less than clear and convincing that Respondent had received any training in how to proctor an FCAT. Respondent's name does not appear on the sign-in sheet for the FCAT training session in March of 2003. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that Respondent did anything in previous years except follow the lead of the test administrator. Respondent did not receive a copy of the 2004 FCAT test manual. Gorrie administrators did not ask Respondent to read the manual or instruct Respondent as to its contents. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that the check marks provided by Respondent were a material violation. It is less than clear and convincing that the check marks altered or interfered with the responses of the affected students within the meaning of Subsection 1008.24(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2003). Although some test booklets showed changes in student answers, it is less than clear and convincing that any check mark by Respondent caused a student to change his or her answer. None of the affected students testified. In the absence of clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's actions affected the answers of examinees, no finding is made that Respondent assisted examinees in answering test questions in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.042(1)(c). For the same reasons, no finding is made that Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A- 10.042(1)(d) and 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (b), respectively, by interfering with an examinee's answers to questions, failing to make a reasonable effort to protect examinees from conditions harmful to learning, or unreasonably restraining a student from independent action in his or her pursuit of learning. Nothing in the record shows that the check marks on test booklets were intended to suppress or distort subject matter within the meaning of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(d). Gorrie administrators invalidated the test results of the 15 students in the test administrator's class. However, the invalidation of those tests did not invalidate the FCAT as a whole and did not prevent students with invalidated results from progressing to a higher grade. It is less than clear and convincing that the violation committed by Respondent was an act of "moral turpitude" or "gross immorality" within the meaning of Subsection 1012.795(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2003). No rule applicable to the discipline of a teaching certificate defines the quoted terms. However, rules applicable to teacher dismissal proceedings provide definitions that are instructive. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that the violation was a base, vile, or depraved act within the meaning of moral turpitude in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009(6). Nor did the violation satisfy the definition of immorality in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009(2). In relevant part, the violation did not impair Respondent's service in the community. It is clear and convincing that Respondent continues to be an effective employee of the District within the meaning of Subsection 1012.795(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2003). Although Respondent's employer issued a letter of reprimand to Respondent, suspended her without pay for two days, and transferred Respondent to a different school, the District continues to employ Respondent. The testimony of District personnel, including fellow teachers and parents, makes it clear that Respondent has been and continues to be an effective teacher. Although the incident received attention in two newspaper articles, the articles are not in evidence, and no finding can be made concerning the adverse effect of the publicity. For similar reasons, no finding is made that the check marks on test booklets violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e) by intentionally exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. None of the affected students testified.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of coaching students in violation of Subsection 1008.24(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2003), not guilty of the remaining charged violations, issuing a written reprimand to Respondent, and requiring Respondent to complete relevant training before proctoring another FCAT. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of December, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 December, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert F. McKee, Esquire Kelly and McKee Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 5675 Douglasville, Georgia 30154-0012 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 1244 Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Charge of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on December 30, 2002.
Findings Of Fact Veita Jackson-Carter is the assistant principal at Eastside High School (Eastside) which is located in Gainesville, Florida, and is part of the Alachua County School District (school district). In the summer of 2002, Petitioner came to Eastside to talk to Ms. Jackson-Carter about employment there. At that initial meeting, Petitioner and Ms. Jackson-Carter discussed instructional positions at Eastside. While Petitioner gave a resume to Ms. Jackson-Carter, Ms. Jackson-Carter informed Petitioner that he needed to submit an employment application with the school district's personnel office. Ms. Jackson-Carter was very interested in hiring Petitioner. However, she explained to Petitioner that while the individual schools make recommendations regarding hiring, the school district actually hires applicants. Petitioner submitted a completed Application for Instructional Position on June 28, 2002, to the school district.2/ Because of her interest in hiring Petitioner, Ms. Jackson-Carter checked with someone in the school district's personnel office on the status of his application for an instructional position. She learned that there was a problem with his obtaining a teaching certificate. During this same period of time, Petitioner met with Marcia Shelton. At that time, Ms. Shelton was a certification specialist with the school district's department of personnel services. She worked with applicants in assisting them in determining eligibility for certification. However, neither she, nor anyone who works for the school district, has the authority to issue teaching certificates or statements of eligibility for teaching certificates as only the Florida Department of Education has the authority to do that. At the initial meeting between Petitioner and Ms. Shelton, Petitioner informed Ms. Shelton that a particular school was interested in hiring him for an instructional position. She began the process of assisting him to determine his eligibility for certification. Petitioner's application contained his educational achievements. He earned a bachelor's degree from Kentucky State University with a major in criminal justice and a minor in political science, and a master's degree with a major in human resource management and a minor in the area of public administration. Ms. Shelton asked for and received copies of Petitioner's academic transcripts. Ms. Shelton's review of the transcripts revealed that Petitioner had a cumulative undergraduate grade point average (GPA) of 2.322. She informed Petitioner that the minimum GPA required for issuance of an initial teaching certificate was 2.5 and that he would not be eligible for certification because the GPA for the courses needed for certification were not high enough. While Petitioner had the course work to meet specialization requirements for political science, the grades were not what was required. In an effort to help Petitioner, Ms. Shelton contacted Jean Morgan with the Bureau of Educator Certification of the Florida Department of Education (Department), to inquire as to whether public administration courses Petitioner had taken could be counted toward those required for certification in political science or social science. Petitioner's own exhibits establish that Ms. Shelton made numerous attempts to assist Petitioner by making repeated inquiries in August 2002 to Ms. Morgan and Ms. Morgan's supervisor, Kathy Hebda, in an effort to find a way for Petitioner to meet the Department's requirements. Ms. Shelton's efforts included faxing course descriptions to the Department for evaluation in an effort to satisfy the Department's certification requirements. Ms. Shelton's efforts, however, on Petitioner's behalf were unsuccessful. That is, she learned from both Ms. Morgan and Ms. Hebda that the Department would not accept the public administration courses to bring up Petitioner's GPA in political science. On August 5, 2002, Petitioner again went to Eastside to meet with Ms. Jackson-Carter. She informed him of some career service positions at Eastside for which he could apply. Petitioner completed and filed a Career Service Application Form dated August 13, 2002, with Respondent. There is an inconsistency in Petitioner's answers to a question regarding criminal background on each application for employment with Respondent. Each application contains a question regarding whether the applicant had ever been found guilty of, regardless of adjudication, or entered a plea of nolo contendere to offenses listed in three categories. On the Application for Instructional Position, Petitioner checked "no" for all three categories: felony, first degree misdemeanor, and second degree misdemeanor involving a minor child or involving violence. He then answered "yes" to the question, "Have you ever been judicially determined to have committed abuse or neglect against a child." The application instructs the applicant that if any question was answered yes, to explain and attach all pertinent documents. Despite having answered yes to one question, Petitioner wrote "N/A" in the blank provided. However, on the Career Service Application Form, he answered "yes" to the category generally entitled "misdemeanor." The application instructs the applicant that if the answer to any of the criminal background questions was "yes," that the applicant must list charge(s) and disposition. In the blank provided to list charge(s) and disposition, Petitioner put "N/A" in the blank provided, despite having answered "yes" to the category entitled "misdemeanor." The application also instructs the applicant to attach all pertinent documents. On or about August 16, 2002, Petitioner again went to Eastside to meet with Ms. Jackson-Carter. He inquired of Ms. Jackson-Carter when he was to report to work. Ms. Jackson- Carter inquired of Petitioner if the school district had offered him a position as she was not aware of any position having been offered to him. The last correspondence in the record from Ms. Shelton to the Department is dated August 29, 2002, in which she notes that the Bureau Chief of the Department's Bureau of Educator Certification was personally reviewing Petitioner's documents. She also noted that "he still has not applied to DOE." In Ms. Shelton's and Dr. Pratt's experience, it is unusual for the bureau chief to become personally involved in such a review. Ms. Shelton received a call from Ms. Hebda and the bureau chief during which Ms. Shelton learned that the bureau chief personally was going to accept the course work to enable Petitioner to meet specialization requirements for a temporary certificate in political science. Ms. Shelton did not have the authority to make that determination that was ultimately made by the bureau chief of the Bureau of Educator Certification. On August 23, 2002, the school district sent a letter to Petitioner informing him that his application for substitute teaching had been approved for the 2002-2003 school year. The letter informed him about a mandatory new employee orientation. It also specified that state law requires that all new employees be fingerprinted. The letter was signed by Josephine Brown, Coordinator, Personnel Services. Being a substitute teacher requires direct contact with students. The position of substitute teacher is not a permanent position with the school district. It is a conditional offer pending cleared fingerprint processing. Dr. Leila Pratt was Director of Personnel Services for the Alachua County School Board in August 2002. She was Ms. Shelton's and Ms. Brown's supervisor. She has since retired. On August 27, 2002, Dr. Pratt attended the criminal history review committee meeting during which Mr. Price was discussed. Of particular concern to Dr. Pratt were certain entries on Mr. Price's criminal history record received from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the Federal Bureau of Investigation which Ms. Pratt believed reflected violent behavior. She was concerned that these offenses would make Petitioner ineligible for employment because of statutory and school district policy requirements. She was also concerned about the inconsistencies between the answers provided on the two applications. A Criminal Records form was completed regarding Petitioner as a result of the committee meeting which included the following notations: "criminal possession of handgun (87); possession of handgun (93); DUI & suspended license (2000); violation of KY charges (01). Falsification of application." The recommendation of the committee was termination. The school board issued a Separation of Service form to Petitioner dated and signed by Petitioner and Dr. Pratt August 28, 2002. The form identifies the reason for separation as "background check." Petitioner requested and was given the opportunity to explain his criminal history. On August 29, 2002, he went to Dr. Pratt's office to discuss his criminal background and to provide Dr. Pratt with pertinent documentation. However, the information which Petitioner provided to Dr. Pratt did not satisfy her concerns. On August 29, 2002, Dr. Pratt wrote a letter to Petitioner which stated as follows: Dear Mr. Price: In response to the three charges: criminal possession of a weapon, menacing and assault filed in August 1987, your documentation does not indicate your charges were dropped to a misdemeanor. It indicates that you pled guilty and was sentenced to thirty (30) days confinement. [sic] In response to your charge filed on April 6, 1989 for trespassing on property after a warning, you provided no official documentation from the court records. In response to the charge filed on November 12, 1993 for possession of a handgun by a convicted felon, your documentation does not officially state that your charges were dismissed or that the charges were dropped. We are unable to determine what is meant by the statement, "lack of probable cause" on the paperwork you submitted. In response to the charge filed on April 20, 2000 for DUI and suspended license, your documentation stated the case was dismissed, but there was probable cause for the arrest and your case was remanded back to another court for the disposition. You submitted no documentation as to the final disposition. A restraining protection order was issued from 2000 to 2003 for domestic battery. No official court documentation regarding this charge has been provided. In addition to the information you submitted being incomplete, one of the documents you presented was not an official court document, which is what we requested, official court records. To provide further consideration to your request for employment, official court documents will need to be provided for all of the charges that have been filed. Until this information is received and reviewed, you are not eligible to work for the School Board of Alachua County. According to Ms. Price, official court documents are required of everyone under these circumstances. Even if the court documents had been official, Dr. Pratt's concerns would have remained because of the violent nature of some of the offenses in the documents and the statutory and school district policy requirements. Petitioner did not submit further documentation to Respondent clarifying his criminal history. Petitioner completed an Application for Florida Educator Certificate which was mailed to the Department on August 30, 2002. The Department issued an Official Statement of Status of Eligibility to Petitioner dated May 28, 2003, which explained to Petitioner what was required of him to get a temporary certificate and a professional certificate covering political science for grades 6 through 12. The Official Statement of Status of Eligibility also informs Petitioner that issuance of a certificate will be contingent upon a review of any criminal offense as a result of fingerprint processing. Dr. Pratt characterized Ms. Shelton's efforts on Petitioner's behalf as going "beyond the call of duty." She believes that her entire staff acted appropriately in dealing with Petitioner. Petitioner is an African-American male. At the time of the adverse employment action giving rise to this proceeding, Petitioner was 42 years old. Ms. Jackson-Carter and Dr. Pratt are African-American females. Ms. Shelton is a white female. Beyond Petitioner's allegation of discrimination, Petitioner presented no evidence that his race, sex, or age played any role in any action taken by Respondent regarding Petitioner's eligibility for teacher certification or its decision to terminate his probationary employment as a substitute teacher. The Department's ultimate acceptance of coursework and issuance of a Statement of Status of Eligibility some eight months after the adverse employment action taken by Respondent does not establish that Respondent engaged in discriminatory conduct.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 19th day of December, 2003.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Williams has been employed by the School Board since January 8, 2000. She is employed as a bookkeeper at Alva Middle School. She is governed by the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the Support Association of Lee County (SPLAC). The standard for the discipline of support personnel is "just cause" pursuant to Article 7 of the SPLAC Agreement. On or about November 24, 2010, Ms. Williams was charged with 33 felony counts of Fraud and Concealing Information to obtain prescriptions pursuant to section 893.17(7)(a)8., Florida Statutes. Ms. Williams timely notified the School District of her arrest. On December 21, 2010, the Office of the State Attorney, Twentieth Judicial Circuit of Florida (State Attorney), elected not to prosecute Ms. Williams for 27 of the 33 charges and formally charged Ms. Williams by criminal information with five felonies for withholding information from a practitioner pursuant to section 893.17(7)(a)8. On January 13, 2011, Ms. Williams entered into a Pretrial Diversion Program contract for a period of not less than six months and not more than 18 months. In the agreement, Ms. Williams agreed to certain conditions including, but not limited to, reporting to a probation officer, submission to drug testing, and the completion of 20 hours of community service. Upon Ms. Williams's successful completion of the Pretrial Diversion Program agreement, the State Attorney agreed to drop the charges and dismiss the Information. On November 30, 2010, Ms. Williams was suspended with pay and benefits, pending the outcome of the School District's investigation into the alleged misconduct. In accordance with provision 7.10 of the SPLAC Agreement, a predetermination conference for Ms. Williams was scheduled for March 3, 2011. Ms. Williams attended the predetermination conference, accompanied by her union-retained attorney, Robert Coleman. Ms. Williams was advised that the purpose of the predetermination conference was to give her an opportunity to respond to the allegations. On March 10, 2011, the School District concluded its investigation. It determined that Ms. Williams's employment should be terminated pursuant to School Board Policy 5.04 due to Ms. Williams having committed a disqualifying offense enumerated under chapter 435, Florida Statutes; violation of School Board Policy 5.02, Ethical Standards, by failing to adhere to the highest ethical standards expected of all School District employees; violation of School Board Policy 5.03, General Requirements for Appointment and Employment, which requires that an employee be of good moral character; and violation of School Board Policy 5.29, Complaints Relating to Employees, by failing to exemplify conduct that is lawful and professional and contributes to a positive learning environment for students.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered pursuant to section 435.06, suspending Ms. Williams from employment without pay effective April 19, 2011, with such suspension to continue until the State Attorney has dismissed the felony drug offenses against Ms. Williams; providing that Ms. Williams be reinstated to her position immediately upon the expiration of the suspension period; providing that, if Ms. Williams is prosecuted for and convicted of, or pleads guilty (or nolo contendere) to the pending charges as a result of her failing to successfully complete the Pretrial Diversion Program, she will be discharged from her employment; and finding that Ms. Williams has not violated School Board Policies 5.02, 5.03, and 5.29. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of July, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 1st day of July, 2011.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Jenny Lancett (Petitioner) is entitled to additional credit for the answers she provided to challenged examination questions. The Petitioner has challenged the State Officers Certification Examination (SOCE) for Law Enforcement Officers given in July of 2005 (DOAH Case No. 05-4544) and September of 2005 (DOAH Case No. 06-0325).
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an applicant for certification as a law enforcement officer. In order to be eligible to sit for the state examination, the Petitioner successfully completed an academy course that was sponsored by the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office. To become fully certified, the Petitioner must take and achieve a passing score on the SOCE. The Petitioner took the SOCE on July 27, 2005, but did not pass. She also took the SOCE on September 21, 2005, and did not pass. The Respondent is the state agency charged with the responsibility of administering examinations for certification for the SOCE. After the July and September examinations for the SOCE were administered and the Petitioner received failing scores, she requested and attended examination review sessions conducted at the Respondent’s headquarters in Tallahassee, Florida. The review sessions were held at the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the Petitioner was given copies of the examination questions for which she did not provide the correct answers. The Petitioner was not told the correct answers. As to the July examination, the Petitioner timely challenged Questions 45, 56, 90, 141, 151, 156, 161, 163, 207, 227, 234, 238, and 242. That examination challenge was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings on December 14, 2005, and was designated as DOAH Case No. 05- 4544. The Petitioner withdrew her challenge to Question 238. As to the September examination, the Petitioner timely challenged Questions 44, 63, 134, 160, 162, 165, 166, 178, 189, 194, 195, and 208. That examination challenge was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings on January 26, 2006, and was assigned DOAH Case No. 06-0325. On February 3, 2006, in response to the Joint Motion to Consolidate, the cases were consolidated for formal hearing and rescheduled for hearing to March 21-22, 2006. The case was heard on April 5, 2006. As to each challenged examination, the applicant must answer 250 questions and achieve at least 180 correct answers. Twenty-five questions of the 250 do not count but are considered “throw-away” questions. All questions are posed in English. All questions are multiple choice and an applicant is given credit for only the correct answer. The Respondent deems the correct answer to be the best choice from among the options offered. The Petitioner is an Hispanic female who reads, writes, and speaks English. Although she inquired about accommodations, the Petitioner was not afforded any accommodations while taking the challenged examinations based upon English as her non-native language. The Commission requires that all applicants take the examination in English. Similarly, accommodations are not afforded applicants who maintain “test anxiety” as a basis for concern. All questions and answers for the challenged examinations are considered confidential as a matter of law. As to each of the questions challenged by the Petitioner, the Petitioner failed to select the correct and best option from the multiple-choice selections noted. As to each of the questions challenged by the Petitioner, the wording and options noted are clearly stated and are within the curriculum covered by the academy. Of the numerous Hispanic candidates who have successfully completed the Palm Beach County academy during Mr. Kozyra’s tenure, only two have failed to achieve a passing score on the SOCE within three attempts. The Petitioner submitted no credible evidence to support her claim that the answers she provided on the challenged examination questions were correct or that the questions in their wording or grading were flawed. The persuasive weight of the evidence was to the contrary. A question which asks the applicant to provide a response that is “most accurately” describing the situation (as did Question 56 on the July examination) means that of the choices offered only one can be considered “most accurate.” If the applicant chooses an answer that is not the “most accurate,” credit is not given. Many of the Petitioner’s responses fell into this type of erroneous response. The Petitioner simply failed to provide the “most accurate” from the selections offered. As to each of the selections chosen by the Petitioner, a clear majority of the applicants taking the examinations selected the correct option. None of the examinations questions challenged by the Petitioner were incorrectly answered by a majority of the applicants. In some instances as many as 94 percent of the test takers chose the correct answer whereas the Petitioner did not. The Respondent provided sufficient explanation and the record clearly establishes that as to each of the erroneous answers provided by this Petitioner, the correct answer (as scored by the Respondent) was the best or correct answer. The Petitioner cannot be entitled to additional credit when her answers were not correct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner’s challenges to the July and September 2005 certification examinations be denied. S DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH 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 28th day of June, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Crews, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Bruce A. Minnick, Esquire Minnick Law Firm Post Office Box 15588 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5588 Linton B. Eason, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his solutions to four problems on the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the engineering licensure examination administered on October 30, 1998, by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: On October 30, 1998, as part of his effort to obtain a Florida engineering license, Petitioner sat for the Principles and Practice of Engineering Examination (Examination). This is a national examination developed and administered by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors (NCEES). Petitioner chose to be tested in civil engineering. Petitioner received a raw score of 45 on the Examination. For the civil engineering specialization, a raw score of 45 converts to a score of 67. To pass the Examination, a converted score of 70 is needed. Petitioner formally requested (in writing, by letter dated March 26, 1999) that his solutions to Problems 120, 125, and 222 on the Examination be rescored. Petitioner's written request was made to Natalie Lowe of the Board, who forwarded it to the NCEES. Appended to Petitioner's letter to Ms. Lowe were two pages of "scratch paper" on which Petitioner had written during his post-examination review on March 19, 1999. On the first page were written comments he had made regarding the scoring of Problems 120 and 125. On the second page were the following written comments he had made regarding the scoring of Problems 220 and 222: 220 a, b, & c 2 parts b & c correct. Min. mark I should get[:] At least 5 instead of 2 and maybe 7. There is an error. 222 ok The NCEES's rescoring of Petitioner's solutions to Problems 120, 125, and 222 resulted in his receiving a raw score of 43 (or a converted score of 65, 5 points less than he needed to pass the Examination). The Board received the NCEES's rescoring results on May 12, 1999. The Board subsequently referred the matter to the Division to conduct an administrative hearing. At the administrative hearing that was held pursuant to the Board's referral, Petitioner challenged the grading of his solutions to Problems 120, 125, and 220 of the Examination, and indicated that he had "no dispute concerning the grading of [his solution to Problem] 222," notwithstanding that he had requested, in his March 26, 1999, letter to Ms. Lowe, that his solution to Problem 222 be rescored. Petitioner explained that he had made this request as a result of inadvertence and that he had actually intended to seek rescoring of his solution to Problem 220, not Problem 222. Problems 120, 125, and 222 were worth ten raw points each. Problem 120 contained four subparts (or requirements). Petitioner initially received four raw points for his solution to Problem 120. Rescoring did not result in any change to this score. Petitioner solved two subparts of Problem 120 correctly (subparts (a) and (b)). The solutions to the other two subparts of Problem 120 (subparts (c) and (d)), however, were incorrect inasmuch as Petitioner had neglected, in making the lateral force calculations and drawing the diagrams required by these subparts, to include the force attributable to the movement of the groundwater referred to in the problem. Therefore, in accordance with the requirements and guidelines of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem, the highest raw score that he could have received for his solution to this problem was a four, which is the score he received. Problem 125 contained three subparts (or requirements). Petitioner initially received a raw score of two for his solution to Problem 125. Upon rescoring, no change was made this raw score. Petitioner correctly solved only one of the three subparts of Problem 125 (subpart (c)). In his solution to subpart (a) of Problem 125, Petitioner did not provide, as required by this subpart, the quantities of water, cement, and aggregate necessary for the project described in the problem. Petitioner's solution to subpart (b) did not describe one of the acceptable slump increasing methods that the candidates were required describe in their solution to this subpart. Accordingly, giving Petitioner a raw score of two for his solution to Problem 125 was consistent with the requirements and guidelines of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem. Petitioner received a raw score of two for his solution to Problem 220. He did not request, in his March 26, 1999, letter to Ms. Lowe, a rescoring of his solution to this problem, and, as a result, his solution was not rescored. At the administrative hearing, Petitioner testified on his own behalf regarding the scoring of this solution and, during his testimony, contended that the score he received was too low; however, neither a copy of the problem, nor a copy of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem, was offered into evidence. Accordingly, the record is insufficient to support a finding that the score Petitioner received for his solution to Problem 220 was undeservedly low in light of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem. Petitioner initially received a raw score of eight for his solution to Problem 220. Rescoring resulted in this score being reduced two points to a six. Petitioner did not present any evidence supporting the position (which he advances in his Proposed Recommended Order) that he should have received a higher score for his solution to this problem, and, consequently, Respondent's expert, in his testimony at hearing, did not address the matter. While there were exhibits offered (by Respondent) and received into evidence relating to the scoring of Petitioner's solution to Problem 222, it is not apparent from a review of these exhibits that such scoring deviated from the requirements of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem (which was received into evidence as part of Respondent's Exhibit 12).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered rejecting Petitioner's challenge to the failing score he received from the NCEES on the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the October 30, 1998, engineering licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 20th day of December, 1999.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner should receive credit for any or all of the four challenged questions from the State Officers Certification Examination (“SOCE” or “Exam”).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner attended law enforcement proficiency training and was provided with 76 hours of instruction. Petitioner was instructed from the 2018 versions of the law enforcement and high liability textbooks. Respondent utilized experienced field training officers, curriculum development staff, and advisory teams to develop curriculum and corresponding examination questions for the SOCE. The questions are evaluated and validated through a process that includes internal and external review for content and accuracy and are field tested as non-graded questions a minimum of 100 times in actual exams for further validation and statistical data collection prior to use on graded exams. When examinees sit for the SOCE, they are informed prior to beginning the Exam that the questions and answers are derived solely from the curriculum and that there is only one correct answer for each question. Petitioner took and failed the Exam three times: on April 4, 2019; April 17, 2019; and July 25, 2019. Petitioner obtained a raw score of 149 correct answers out of a total of 190 graded questions on his third and final attempt on July 25, 2019. A passing score for the Exam is 80 percent, which requires a minimum of 152 correct answers. In order to pass the Exam, Petitioner would need credit for at least three more questions added to his score. Petitioner challenged a total of four multiple-choice questions. Respondent provides each examinee who fails to achieve a passing score the opportunity to review and challenge any question for which he or she did not receive credit. Exam questions challenged by examinees are reviewed by subject-matter experts from advisory teams, and credit is awarded when warranted. The review process strictly addresses the accuracy of the examination questions as they relate to the training curriculum. If credit is awarded, thereby invalidating a challenged exam question, that question is removed from use in all future exams. Each of the four exam questions at issue was challenged by Petitioner and reviewed by Respondent. Following the review process for each of the four challenged questions, no additional credit was awarded. Respondent upheld the validity and accuracy of each of the four questions and answers as originally scored in accordance with the exam key as having no other possible correct answers based on the curriculum. With respect to Question One: Methamphetamine Laboratory, examinees were asked to select which of four statements about such laboratories is accurate. Petitioner chose answer A. for Question One, based on his reasoning that it stated that methamphetamine labs produce an odor similar to bleach and that the training materials mention bleach in the relevant section. Petitioner’s selection of answer A. is based on a misreading of the training materials. The clear language of Question One dictates a single correct answer, which is directly based on the training curriculum. The curriculum describes a range of sizes for how small or large a methamphetamine lab may be, which is reflected verbatim in answer B. The correct answer to Question One is B., consistent with Respondent’s answer key. With respect to Question Two: Battery by a First Responder, examinees were asked to determine what crime an officer could be charged with based on a hypothetical wherein the officer provided first aid to a person without consent. Petitioner chose answer D., stating that the question was open to interpretation because it did not state whether the officer actually touched the person in the hypothetical. Petitioner’s answer was based on the assumption of elements of a negligence claim that were not presented in the question. The clear language of Question Two dictates a single correct answer, which is directly based on the training curriculum. The curriculum states that first responders may be charged with battery for rendering emergency care without the patient’s consent, which is accurate to the hypothetical described in Question Two and reflected in Answer A. The correct answer to Question Two is A., consistent with Respondent’s answer key. With respect to Question Three: First Aid, examinees were asked to select which step a first-aid provider should take first when trying to stop a specified type of bleeding. Petitioner chose answer B., which Petitioner stated was described in the curriculum as a step to be used to control bleeding. Although the step Petitioner chose was described as a step to be used to control bleeding in the curriculum, it was not listed as the first step. The clear language of Question Three dictates a single correct answer, which is directly based on the training curriculum. The curriculum lists, in order, what steps a first-aid provider should take to control bleeding. The first step listed in the curriculum is reflected in answer D. The correct answer to Question Three is D., consistent with Respondent’s answer key. With respect to Question Four: Sexual Harassment, examinees were presented with a hypothetical exchange between two officers and then prompted to select which type of sexual harassment was demonstrated in the hypothetical. Petitioner chose answer D., based on his opinion that the question was poorly worded, leaving the answer open for interpretation. Petitioner did not cite to any portion of the training curriculum as a basis for his selection of answer D. The clear language of Question Four dictates a single correct answer, which is directly based on the training curriculum. The curriculum specifically states that a conversation of the type described in Question Four’s hypothetical is verbal sexual harassment, as reflected in answer A. The correct answer to Question Four is A., consistent with Respondent’s answer key.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, enter a final order rejecting Petitioner’s challenge to the failing score he received on the July 25, 2019, SOCE. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of March, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRITTANY O. FINKBEINER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of March, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Lester Blount 6025 Wedgewood Village Circle Lake Worth, Florida 33463 (eServed) Christopher David Bufano, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 (eServed) Linton B. Eason, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 (eServed) Jason Jones, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 (eServed) Dean Register, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for her solution to Problem 120 on the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the engineering licensure examination administered on April 14, 2000, by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: On April 14, 2000, as part of her effort to obtain a Florida engineering license, Petitioner sat for the Principles and Practice of Engineering Examination (Examination). This is a national examination developed and administered by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors (NCEES). Petitioner chose to be tested in civil engineering. Petitioner received a raw score of 46 on the Examination. For the civil engineering specialization, a raw score of 46 converts to a score of 68. To pass the Examination, a converted score of 70 is needed. Petitioner formally requested that her solution to Problem 120 on the Examination be rescored. Petitioner's written request was referred to the NCEES. The NCEES's rescoring of Petitioner's solution to Problem 120 resulted in her receiving no additional points. The Board received the NCEES's rescoring results on or about December 5, 2000. After receiving a letter from Petitioner (dated December 14, 2000) requesting a "formal hearing," the Board referred the matter to the Division. Problem 120 was worth ten raw points. Petitioner received six raw points for her solution to Problem 120. In her solution to Problem 120, Petitioner failed to properly take into consideration the height of the water table, did not compute the factor of safety for load-bearing capacity in the manner required, and made an arithmetic mistake. Therefore, in accordance with the requirements and guidelines of the NCEES's scoring plan for this problem, the highest raw score that she could have received for her solution to this problem was a six, which is the score she received. In rescoring Petitioner's solution to this problem, the NCEES rescorer made the following "comments": The examinee made three errors. The solution approved by the Civil Engineering Exam committee called for a correction in requirement (a) for the mid height water table. The examinee ignored this correction. A two point grade reduction is called for. The examinee made a numerical error in evaluating the bearing capacity equation. This error called for a one point grade reduction. In evaluating the factor of safety the examinee added an erroneous load factor. A two point grade reduction is called for. With a total of five grade points lost a final grade of six is called for. SCORER'S RECOMMENDATION: Recommended score = six There has been no showing that the rescorer's analysis was in any way flawed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered rejecting Petitioner's challenge to the failing score she received from the NCEES on the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the April 14, 2000, engineering licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 April, 2001.
