The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed misconduct in office by applying for credential payment in reliance upon an online doctorate degree obtained without academic effort and thus violated Section 1012.33(6)(b), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-4.009(3) and 6B-1.006(5).
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an assistant principal at Toussaint L'ouverture Elementary School in Miami. He graduated from the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, in 1978. While serving in the military in Pensacola, Respondent obtained a master's degree from Troy State University in 1985 by way of its extension program. Respondent is 54 years old. In 1994, when first employed as a teacher in the Miami- Dade County public school system, Respondent was admitted to the doctoral program in education leadership at the University of Miami. He attended classes a couple of times per week per course and submitted tuition reimbursement vouchers to Respondent. Respondent left that program the following year without completing the requirements for a doctoral degree. In 1996, Respondent reviewed brochures that he had received in the mail and decided to pursue his doctorate degree at Northwestern University, Ltd. He sent Northwestern International University, LLC, (NW) a check for about $8000 to a post office box in Brussels, but did not seek reimbursement from Respondent. For some reason, Respondent also decided to obtain a doctorate degree from Northeastern University (NE) and sent them a check for about $7000 to a post office box in New York, but again did not seek reimbursement. Respondent testified that he believed that he had already obtained the maximum reimbursement available to him. Respondent engaged in academic activities with both institutions from 1996-2000, but the activities did not rise in scope or intensity to those associated with a legitimate doctoral program. In 1998, Respondent applied for an assistant principal position, omitting any mention of his academic activities with NW and NE. He obtained the job. In 2000, Respondent completed his academic activities with NW and NE. NW sent him a transcript showing the completion of 19 courses and the Ph.D. dissertation, with grades assigned to each. Only one typo undermines the credibility of the transcript itself: the second "i" is dropped from "Administration" in a human resources course, but the transcript omits dates for the courses. Respondent received very good grades with only one C and A+s in Education Program Evaluation and his dissertation. Less care went into the preparation of the NE transcript, which also appears to culminate in the award of a Ph.D. "Curriculum" is spelled "Cirriculum, ""Philosophy" is spelled "Philosphy," and "Evaluation" is spelled "Evaluaton." The NE envelope covering the transcript misspelled "transcript." Respondent received all As and Bs. Shortly after obtaining his dual doctorates, Respondent submitted them to Petitioner. The credential payment program for administrators went into effect in April 2006, so Respondent's motivation at the time that he submitted the transcripts was to obtain the prestige, and perhaps advancement, that went with the advanced degrees. However, on June 8, 2006, Respondent submitted an application for the credential pay increment due to an administrator in possession of a relevant, legitimate doctorate degree. In the application, Respondent stated that he possessed a Ph.D. from NE, which he had obtained in 2000. He signed the application beside a statement, "I certify that all the foregoing information is true to the best of my knowledge." Respondent claims that he submitted papers, including dissertations, in connection with both programs, but offered no detailed description of his academic activities. Instead, he seems to be "sticking to his story" that he thought he was completing coursework from legitimate educational institutions, even though it is indisputable that he did not. At all material times, Respondent has known that NE and NW were diploma mills. He never explained why he spent the money and, presumably, time pursuing doctorate degrees at both institutions over the same timeframe. He is aware of the rigor of legitimate programs, having attended the Naval Academy, Troy State, and University of Miami. Respondent was undaunted by the sloppiness apparent in the transcripts. He claims now that, "[i]f there is any fault, in this matter, it is one of trusting the advertisements that I saw, brochures I received and the syllabi, course work and transcripts I received from the [sic] non-accredited institution." However, it is inescapably apparent that there was fault, and the fault is that Respondent, with the intent to deceive Petitioner, submitted these transcripts and a fraudulent application for credential pay, to which Respondent knew he was not entitled. There is no testimony explicitly to the effect that Respondent's fraudulent application for credential pay is so serious as to impair his effectiveness in the school system. However, this fact is inferred from the nature of a fraudulent application, to Respondent's professional employer, for credential pay based on fraudulently obtained academic credentials. After a conference for the record, Petitioner proceeded to discipline Respondent for his misconduct. By letter dated December 10, 2007, Petitioner informed Respondent that the Superintendent would be recommending to the School Board suspension without pay for "30 workdays," effective at the close of the workday on December 19, 2007. The School Board subsequently approved this recommendation and, by letter dated December 20, 2007, the Assistant Superintendent informed Respondent that he was suspended for "30 workdays" without pay and he was not to report to any work location from December 20, 2007, through February 13, 2008. The penalty is not excessive. At the final hearing, Respondent elected not to admit to his misdealings with his employer, but instead produced exculpatory witnesses, one of whom testified that she had done some typing for him and one of whom testified that he had seen the damage done to Respondent's home by a hurricane and a lot of water damage to Respondent's belongings. Respondent has evidently not yet accepted responsibility for his misconduct. Respondent rightly questions the accuracy of the Assistant Superintendent's calculation of the period of the suspension, which was to cover "30 workdays." Equating workdays with days for which Respondent was to be paid, Respondent claims that the suspension actually covers 40 workdays, not 30 workdays. The Manual of Procedures of Managerial Exempt Personnel, dated April 18, 2006, states at Section B-3 that a 12-month employee works a 260-day work year. This means that he works 52 weeks times five days per week, for a total of 260 days. Respondent's suspension started December 20, so, in accordance with the determination of the School Board, the suspension should have ended at the close of the workday on January 30.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of misconduct in office for intentionally misrepresenting his academic qualifications in applying for credential pay for a doctorate degree and imposing a 30-workday suspension, as previously authorized by the School Board, but paying Respondent back pay for the period after January 30 through which the suspension was mistakenly implemented. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of May, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 9th day of May, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Rudolph F. Crew, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, No. 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1308 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 James C. Casey, Esquire Law Offices of Slesnick & Casey, LLP 2701 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 200 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Janeen L. Richard, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board Attorney's Office 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is licensed as a psychologist in Argentina, where she was educated. She attended the University of Buenos Aires completing a six-year program in four years. Petitioner received a degree in psychology from the University of Buenos Aires on December 23, 1977, but did not receive her diploma from that institution until June of 1979. She became licensed as a psychologist by the Ministry of Health in 1979. Upon her graduation from the University of Buenos Aires, Petitioner began to practice psychology in Argentina. She worked in a hospital from 1979 to 1983. Petitioner describes this period of work as her "internship." She also worked in a drug abuse program, which she also describes as an "internship." During these work experiences, Petitioner supervised other personnel. During the same period of time, specifically from 1980 to 1982, Petitioner also engaged in private practice. In 1981 Petitioner enrolled in the Argentina School of Psychotherapy for Graduates, where she took a number of courses and wrote a paper which she presented to the faculty there. The Argentina School of Psychotherapy for Graduates is not a degree-granting institution. Upon completion of the four year program, only a certificate is issued. Petitioner did not produce a transcript from the Argentina School of Psychotherapy for Graduates as part of her application for licensure in Florida. She submitted only a syllabus, i.e., a listing of the names of the courses she took at that institution. A syllabus, however, is not a transcript. Subsequently, Petitioner moved to the state of Michigan where she applied for licensure as a psychologist at the master's degree level. Based upon her education and training, she received a limited license to practice psychology in 1989. Michigan recognizes master's degree level psychologists. In Florida, however, master's degree level applicants are not eligible for licensure as psychologists. In 1991 Petitioner was interviewed by the licensure board in Michigan. Subsequent to that interview, Michigan granted her full licensure to practice as a psychologist in that state. In granting Petitioner full licensure, the Michigan licensing board deemed that her education and training were equivalent to education and training at the doctorate level even though between 1989 and 1991, Petitioner had not added to her education credentials. She had merely obtained additional supervised experience. At some point, Petitioner took and passed the Michigan examination for licensure. The Michigan examination is not the same as the examination for licensure developed by Professional Examination Services. Petitioner has never taken the national examination required for licensure in Florida. In 1993, Petitioner applied for licensure as a psychologist in Florida. She maintains that Michigan's determination that her education and training are equivalent to a doctorate level education should be sufficient to qualify her for Florida licensure as well. She admits, however, that she does not have a Ph.D. She also admits that there is "a huge difference" between the training in Argentina and the training in the United States. As part of her application process and in order to demonstrate to Respondent her qualifications for licensure in Florida, Petitioner submitted her education and training credentials to two foreign education credentialing services. One of those services determined that Petitioner has the equivalent of a Bachelor of Science degree in psychology from an institution in the United States that has regional academic accreditation, plus completion of four years of advanced theoretical and clinical training. The other service found that Petitioner has the equivalent of a bachelor's degree in psychology. The second credentialing service was unable to evaluate Petitioner's studies at the Argentina School of Psychotherapy for Graduates because that institution is not recognized as a degree-granting institution of higher education. Neither of those evaluations could verify that Petitioner possesses the equivalent of a doctorate degree as a result of her training and education in Argentina. In 1992, the University of Buenos Aires created a Ph.D. program in psychology; however, that program did not exist at the time that Petitioner attended that institution. The Argentina School of Psychotherapy for Graduates is not a degree granting institution and does not offer a doctorate program in psychology. At the time that Petitioner chose to attend the University of Buenos Aires and the Argentina School of Psychotherapy for Graduates, it was possible to obtain a Ph.D. in psychology in Argentina, but Petitioner chose not to pursue that course of study. Based upon Petitioner's advanced education beyond her bachelor's degree, she has the educational equivalent of a master's level degree without the thesis generally required to obtain such a degree.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a psychologist either by endorsement or by examination. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of June, 1996, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of June, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 94-4675 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 20- 22, 24, 28 and 46 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 4 and 10 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 6, 13-17, 19, 39, 41- 43, 47, and 50-54 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 8, 12, 18, 25-27, 34- 38, 40 and 49 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the competent evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 23, 29-33, 44, 45, and 48 have been rejected as being subordinate to the issues herein. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-10, 12 and 15 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 11, 13 and 14 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank P. Rainer, Esquire 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 815 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Virginia Daire, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol PL-01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Dr. Kay Howerton, Executive Director Agency for Health Care Administration Board of Psychology 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues in this case are: Whether Respondent, Everest University (the "School"), discriminated against Petitioner, Hashim Aboudaya, on the basis of his place of natural origin (Middle Eastern), race (Caucasian), and/or religion (Muslim) in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act by twice failing to promote Petitioner to the position of associate dean or director of Student Services; and Whether the School retaliated against Petitioner based on his place of natural origin, race, and/or religion by refusing to pay for his doctoral level college courses.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Caucasian male, born in Lebanon and, therefore, of Middle Eastern heritage. He is a practicing Muslim. In July 2003, Petitioner began teaching as an adjunct professor at the School, teaching computer information services and teaching a few classes per year. In or around August 2007, Petitioner was promoted to senior network administrator, a non-teaching position, for the School. At all times relevant hereto, Petitioner served in that position. He currently teaches classes on an as-needed basis also. The School is a private college formerly known as Florida Metropolitan University. There are ten related campuses in the State of Florida, with one being in Melbourne, Brevard County, Florida. The Melbourne campus has two locations, one on Sarno Road and the "main" campus on U.S. Highway 1. Petitioner holds two master's degrees, one in management and one in computer resources and information management, from Webster University in Saint Louis, Missouri. He is pursuing a third master's degree, but it is "on hold" pending his completion of studies in a doctoral program. The doctoral program being sought by Petitioner is in the field of business administration with a major field of study in computer security. The degree is being pursued on-line through Capella University based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Petitioner's resume indicates that the Ph.D. will be "done in the end of 2007," but it has obviously taken longer than planned. Petitioner has applied for several vacancies listed at the School, but for purposes of this proceeding, the following are relevant: (1) The associate academic dean position advertised in January 2010; (2) The associate academic dean position advertised in April 2010; and (3) The director of Student Services position advertised in August 2009. Associate Academic Dean Positions The following qualifications were specified in the School's job description for the associate academic dean positions. The applicant must: Possess the necessary academic credentials and work related experience mandated by the Company, State accreditation agencies and any other regulatory agency that monitors compliance. Have a minimum of 2 years practical work experience in business or education. Have a minimum of 1 year teaching experience, but The years of experience may be waived at the sole discretion of the college president so long as the incumbent meets the accreditations, State and Federal requirements necessary to hold the position. There was also a job posting (as opposed to a job description) for the associate dean position on a website associated with Corinthian Colleges, Inc. ("CCI"), the School's parent company. That job posting indicated that a master's degree was required for the job and included other requirements not set out in the School's official job description. The college president, Mark Judge, could not verify the accuracy of the job posting. There is no persuasive, credible evidence that the job posting was produced by the School or intended to be used as the basis for filling the associate dean position. The first associate dean position was for the Sarno Road site which housed the School's allied health programs, e.g., medical assistant training, pharmacy technician associate degrees, medical insurance billing and coding, and healthcare administration. Besides the requirements set forth in the job description, the School was looking for someone with health- related experience as well. Terri Baker, a registered nurse, was ultimately hired to fill the associate dean position. Baker had approximately 20 years of experience with the School. During that time, Baker had taught classes in the allied health program, had served as a program director, and was an associate dean at other campuses within the CCI system. Baker does not hold a master's degree, but the job description issued by the School does not require that level of education. The job posting, which appeared in a publication issued by the School, does say that a master's degree is required, but there is no competent and substantial evidence to suggest the job posting supersedes the job description. Notwithstanding her level of schooling, it is clear Baker was a perfect fit for the job. The decision to appoint her, rather than Petitioner, to the position was based on factors other than race, national origin or religion. The second associate dean position was advertised in the Spring of 2010. The job description for that job is the same as the previous associate dean position. However, there are many different duties and expectations associated with the second position. For example, while the first position was related directly to the allied health programs at the School, the second position had a different focus. The person filling this position would be working on the main Melbourne campus, rather than the satellite campus. His or her duties would be directed toward tasks such as transfer of credit analysis, scheduling, and registering new students. The dean would also be responsible for monitoring the School's compliance with accreditation standards and internal audit standards. Betty Williams was hired to fill the second associate dean position. Williams had significant management experience in academic settings. She had served as an academic dean for one of the School's competitors and had extensive knowledge and experience with compliance accreditation standards. As compared to Petitioner, Williams was a much better fit for the position. Her experience would allow her to step into the position and begin working on problems immediately without the necessity of a period of training and acclimation. Director of Student Services Position The director of Student Services was expected to help students who were experiencing hardships in their academic progress. The director would help students who were forced to withdraw from school for financial or other personal reasons. He/she would provide support for students taking online classes and assist students trying to re-enroll into school following dismissal or withdrawal. A close working relationship with students was an important factor in this position. The School's job description listed the following requirement for the director of Student Services position: Bachelor's degree required Minimum of 3 years practical work experience or equivalent training Excellent communication and customer service skills Excellent computer skills The person who ultimately was hired for this position, Stacey Jacquot, was an outstanding employee at the School and had been selected as its Employee of the Year in two different positions. Jacquot is a Caucasian female; neither her religion, nor her place of natural origin was alluded to at final hearing. The hiring of Jacquot, as opposed to Petitioner, for this position was based on Jacquot's experience and background. She had worked in the student services department for the school as both an online coordinator and as a re-entry coordinator. Thus, her experience was directly related to the requirements of the position. Petitioner provided unsubstantiated testimony that by virtue of his teaching a number of classes over the past few years, he has some experience in counseling students concerning their issues. However, even if true, his experience did not match that of Jacquot. Request for Reimbursement for Doctoral Coursework Petitioner alleges retaliation by the School. The specific retaliatory action was the denial of his request to be reimbursed for coursework as he pursued a doctorate degree. In February 2010, Petitioner submitted a request to the School, asking that tuition expenses for his coursework be paid under the School's tuition reimbursement program. The program is set forth in policies maintained by the School and is available to "eligible employees for eligible classes." A benchmark for reimbursable tuition is that the courses being taken enable the employee to be more efficient in a current role or prepare them for a role at the next level of their employment. There are a number of written policies addressing the tuition reimbursement program. Those policies are fluid and have changed from time to time over the past few years. The policies are implemented and overseen by the director of Organizational Development for CCI, Jeanne Teeter. Teeter resides and works in California, corporate home of CCI. It is Teeter's duty to ultimately approve or deny all requests for tuition reimbursement by employees of all of CCI's colleges around the country. Teeter reviewed Petitioner's request for tuition reimbursement pursuant to a preliminary approval by the School's president, Mark Judge. It was Judge's initial decision to approve Petitioner's request, but Judge sent it to Teeter for a final decision. Teeter had never met Petitioner and did not know anything about him, except as found in his personnel file and his application for tuition reimbursement. Teeter, as was her normal procedure, considered the relevance of the degree being sought, not only to Petitioner's current role, but as to potential future roles as well. Because the course work for which reimbursement was being sought related to an advanced degree, a doctorate, Teeter was less inclined to approve it. Approval would necessitate a clear line of sight between the employee's current role to a role that would require a Ph.D. Inasmuch as Petitioner's role as senior network administrator did not require a doctorate and there was no clear line of sight between his present position and that of a professor or management employee requiring one, Teeter declined the request. At the time she made her decision, Teeter was not aware that Petitioner had made a discrimination claim against the School. Her decision, therefore, could not be retaliatory in nature. Rather, she acted in concert with the policies that address tuition reimbursement and made a decision based solely upon those policies. Petitioner appears to be an energetic and hard-working member of the School's staff. His testimony was credible, but was sometimes off the point. Although he is a well-educated person with three college degrees and is pursuing others, it is clear that English is his second language.1/ Petitioner seemed to be sincere in his belief that he was discriminated against, but did not provide persuasive evidence to support that claim.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by Hisham Aboudaya in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of November, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of November, 2011.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Criminal Justice Standards And Training Commission enter a final order: Dismissing, as moot, the petition of Margherita Renzi insofar as it seeks a determination of prospective eligibility for salary incentive monies under Section 943.22, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1984); and Dismissing, as having no merit, the petition of Margherita Renzi insofar as it seeks a determination of retroactive entitlement to salary incentive payments before October 1, 1984, under Section 943.22, Florida Statutes (1983). RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of April, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of April, 1985.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and administrative rules or section 1012.795(1)(a),1/ as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The Commissioner is responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding educator's certificates. Mr. Richardson holds Florida Educator's Certificate 696450, covering the areas of Elementary Education and English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), which is valid through June 30, 2019. At all pertinent times, Mr. Richardson was employed as a fourth and fifth-grade reading teacher at WHE. As Ms. Kristen Rodriguez later testified, during the 2012-2013 school year, she encountered several students who asked her to let them remain with her in the media center at WHE rather than return to their scheduled class with Mr. Richardson. Based upon their accounts of Mr. Richardson's behavior in the classroom, she took the students to the school office and asked them to talk to the principal. The Broward County School District (District) subsequently conducted an investigation. Student A.C. credibly testified at hearing that during the 2012-2013 school year, when she was a fourth-grade student in his class, Mr. Richardson would sometimes scream at students who were not behaving, but did not scream at the well-behaved students. She testified that on a loudness scale of 1 to 10, he was a "7," while she rated other teachers at "5." Student A.C.'s testimony was supplemented and explained by the written statements of other students in that class: Student G.R. wrote that Mr. Richardson screamed at him close to his face; Student H.T. wrote that Mr. Richardson would scream if he was mad; Student J.G. wrote that when Mr. Richardson yelled at some students, he put his face within inches of the students' faces; Student T.W. wrote that he would yell in students' faces; and Student M.D. wrote that Mr. Richardson would yell in students' faces from inches away. The evidence was clear and convincing that when students were misbehaving, Mr. Richardson would sometimes yell or scream at them, placing his face close to theirs. Student J.G. credibly testified that if a student "wouldn't do like the work or behaved bad, he [Mr. Richardson] would grab them by their shoulders and yell at them and shake them." Student J.G. went on to clarify, "I mean not that bad, but like to get ahold." Student J.G.'s testimony was supplemented and explained by the written statements of other students: Student G.R. reported that Mr. Richardson "grabbed this kid and shook him"; and Student A.C. wrote that Mr. Richardson would shake students who were being bad, writing that "[w]hen he shaked [sic] kids he would shake them by the shoulders, on a scale from 0 to 5 he would shake kids like about a 2." The Department of Education (DOE) was notified of the allegations against Mr. Richardson. On or about April 5, 2013, Mr. Richardson received notice from Chief Marian Lambeth that the Office of Professional Practices of DOE had opened a case for purposes of investigating Mr. Richardson's alleged inappropriate conduct; and, if founded, the allegations could lead to disciplinary action against Mr. Richardson's Florida Educator's Certificate. On April 18, 2013, Mr. Richardson's attorney sent written notice to Chief Lambeth informing the DOE of her representation of Mr. Richardson in their investigation and requesting a copy of their investigative report upon its completion. Mr. Richardson was copied on the correspondence. As documented by letter later sent to Mr. Richardson, the Professional Standards Committee of the Broward County Public Schools met on May 8, 2013, and determined that there was no probable cause to support a charge of battery. However, the letter stated, "[l]et this correspondence serve as reprimand that any future violation of the Code of Ethics and Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession will result in a recommendation for further disciplinary action up to and including termination."2/ Mr. Richardson successfully filed a grievance regarding the letter of reprimand imposed by the District. By letter dated March 26, 2014, Mr. Lerenzo Calhoun, employee and labor relations specialist of the District, advised the Broward Teachers Union, "[I]t has been determined that the written reprimand issued to the grievant be rescinded." On April 16, 2014, Mr. Richardson completed a "GC-10R Renewal Application Form rev 06/10 Legal Disclosure 1 - District Version" to initiate renewal of his Florida Educator Certificate, which was due to expire on June 30, 2014. Instructions on the bottom of the form direct the applicant to provide additional detailed information on a Legal Disclosure Supplement if any of the preceding 21 questions on the page are answered affirmatively. Mr. Richardson, having correctly answered "no" to 20 of these questions that deal with sealed records, criminal records, and license sanctions, but "yes" to the single question that asks if there is a "current investigative action" pending, turned to the supplementary page, "GC10R Application Form rev 06/10 Legal Disclosure 2 - District Version." Other than the applicant's name, however, the supplementary form solicited information about only three topics, each in its own section: "Sealed or Expunged Records"; "Criminal Offense Records"; and "Professional License or Certificate Sanctions." Mr. Richardson had no sealed or expunged records and so could not provide any supplementary information in response to the questions in that section. He had no criminal offense records and thus similarly could not provide responses to the questions in that section. He had no professional license or certificate sanctions and so could not answer those questions either. There were no questions pertaining to ongoing investigations. He logically left the supplementary page blank, and submitted the renewal application to the District's office, which was authorized to reissue the certificate. On the application, he made full disclosure of the pending investigation, complete with a handwritten notation indicating that there was no decision as of yet and including the investigation case number for easy reference (he volunteered this, for remarkably there is no question or blank space to include this information anywhere on the forms). The renewal application was reviewed on behalf of the District by Ms. Sheila Gipson, a certification specialist for the District. Ms. Gipson, dutifully implementing the policy reflected in the form's directions to complete the supplemental disclosure, refused to process the renewal application, deeming it incomplete. On April 23, 2014, Ms. Gipson sent an e-mail to Mr. Richardson illogically repeating the instruction on the form that if any question on page 4 was answered in the affirmative, that page 5 (the supplement) must be completed, and directed him to do so. If Mr. Richardson—eager to have his license renewed—was baffled by Ms. Gipson's e-mail and nonplussed at the impossible guidance it contained, his bewilderment might be excused. As previously noted, he had already provided complete details about the ongoing investigation to the District and could provide absolutely no information responsive to any of the supplemental questions. In any event, it is clear that strict enforcement of this "catch-22"3/ has the practical effect of preventing anyone under investigation but awaiting determination from completing an application at all. It is not clear if this structure results from accident or disingenuous design. Mr. Richardson testified that he telephoned Ms. Gipson and explained his dilemma. According to Mr. Richardson, Ms. Gipson concluded that he should not have said "yes" to the investigation question if no sanctions had been imposed, again explaining to him that any "yes" response meant that the application could not be processed without sanctions information. He testified that she directed him to change his answer on page 4 and resubmit the application so it could be considered complete. Mr. Richardson's testimony as to what Ms. Gipson told him was unrefuted. Ms. Gipson's instruction to Mr. Richardson did not make sense, any more than the form itself did. Mr. Richardson did as Ms. Gipson had instructed and filled out a second application form, which he dated April 26, 2014, indicating no "current investigative action pending" as he was told to do. He executed the Affidavit, which in bold print states: "Giving false information in order to obtain or renew a Florida Educator's Certificate is a criminal offense under Florida law. Anyone giving false information on this affidavit is subject to criminal prosecution, as well as disciplinary action by the Education Practices Commission."4/ On or about April 23, 2014, notice had been sent to both Mr. Richardson and his attorney that the DOE's preliminary investigation was completed and available for review. An Informal Conference was scheduled for May 22, 2014. Both Mr. Richardson and his attorney acknowledged receipt of the notice on April 28, 2014. After some delays, reflected in e-mail communications, Mr. Richardson hand-delivered the second application to Ms. Gipson, who received it on May 2, 2014. The Commissioner has failed to show that Mr. Richardson gave false information with the intent to deceive or defraud the District or DOE. Mr. Richardson's alternative explanation of his intent is plausible given the irrational structure of the application form and the fact that he had already fully disclosed the existence of the investigation to the District in the earlier application dated April 16, 2014. His insistence that his only intent was to break the bureaucratic logjam and allow his application to be considered complete, as the District's certification specialist, Ms. Gipson, advised him to do, is plausible. Mr. Richardson's testimony that Ms. Gipson advised him to fill out the second application as he did was not a new assertion: he had said so nearly two years prior to the hearing in his deposition. The Commissioner did not list Ms. Gipson as a witness, and she did not testify. Mr. Richardson's testimony regarding the April 26, 2014, application was unrefuted. The Commissioner failed to prove fraudulent intent. There was no competent evidence presented at hearing that Mr. Richardson ever used profanity in the classroom. Although there was considerable testimony at hearing about a clinic pass associated with an injury to Student N.M. on an occasion when Mr. Richardson's class was engaged in "indoor P.E.," it was not shown that Mr. Richardson in any way caused that injury, and he was not charged with doing so in the Administrative Complaint. There was no competent evidence that Mr. Richardson or any other person ever threw a book at Student N.M., as was charged. Mr. Richardson has been employed by the District for almost 21 years. He has never before had any discipline imposed against his license. He has taught successfully at Challenger Elementary School for almost five years after the 2012-2013 school year, without incident. Ms. Kalima Carson testified that she co-taught with Mr. Richardson. As she testified, he was a good classroom manager. Ms. Carson also credibly testified that he was a good teacher and that his students showed tremendous academic gains. As Ms. Diane Velasco-Ortiz credibly testified, Mr. Richardson was good at motivating his students, and he did well with students who faced challenges at home.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Mr. Elijah Mark Richardson in violation of section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, through his violation of Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a) and 6B-1.006(3)(e); issuing him a letter of reprimand; and placing him on probation for a period of one employment year. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of April, 2018.
The Issue The ultimate issue to be resolved in this proceeding is whether the Petitioner should be awarded a doctor of education degree by Florida State University. Petitioner contends that he properly completed the requirements for the degree, that a valid offer of the degree was made to him, that he accepted the offer, and that the degree was then wrongfully withheld. The university contends that Petitioner did not meet the requirements for the degree and that no valid, enforceable offer of it was made to Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact In 1976, Petitioner was admitted into the doctoral program in biology at Florida State University. He applied to transfer to the science education program and was admitted to the doctoral program in science education within the College of Education at Florida State University on June 24, 1977. He was pursuing a doctor of philosophy (Ph.D.) degree. Among the requirements that Petitioner needed to meet in order to receive the degree were successful completion of a diagnostic examination, completion of thirty-six resident hours of course work, course work in the field of statistics, a preliminary examination, approval of a prospectus for a doctoral dissertation, and presentation of an acceptable dissertation and a successful dissertation defense. Following his admission into the Ph.D. program in science education, a supervisory committee was established for the Petitioner, and a major professor was appointed. It was the major professor's and supervisory committee's function to monitor Petitioner's progress and ultimately to make a recommendation as to whether petitioner should be awarded a degree. By November 7, 1980, Petitioner had completed all of the requirements for a Ph.D. degree except for the presentation of his dissertation and the dissertation defense. These were scheduled to be conducted by the supervisory committee on November 7, 1980. Petitioner had been advised by at least two members of the committee that he might not be ready to present and defend his dissertation. Petitioner felt that he was. On November 7, 1980, Petitioner met with his supervisory committee and presented and defended his dissertation. After his presentation, Petitioner left the room, and the committee evaluated the dissertation and defense. The committee unanimously concluded that the dissertation and defense were inadequate. The dissertation was not marginally inadequate. It was grossly below standards. The committee unanimously and appropriately concluded that the dissertation and defense were not acceptable, and that Petitioner had not met the requirements for a Ph.D. degree. Petitioner's major professor felt that the Petitioner had devoted considerable time, energy, and hard work to the degree program. He was concerned that the effort not be totally wasted. He requested that the committee consider accepting the dissertation as adequate for the award of a doctor of education (Ed.D.) degree or a "master's specialist" degree, and that the committee recommend that Petitioner be awarded one of those degrees or that he be allowed to continue working toward a Ph.D. degree. None of the members of the supervisory committee had had experience with the Ed.D. degree. They all considered it an inferior degree and felt that awarding it to Petitioner would constitute something of a "consolation prize." In fact, an Ed.D. degree from Florida State University is not intended to be an inferior degree. Its focus is somewhat different, but the requirements for obtaining the degree are basically the same. The committee was mistaken in considering the offer of such a degree to Petitioner. Indeed, the requirements for an Ed.D. degree being similar, and in some cases identical to those for the Ph.D. degree, Petitioner had not qualified for the award of an Ed.D. degree. After the committee adjourned its proceedings on November 7, Petitioner's major professor discussed the committee's actions with Petitioner. He told Petitioner that pending proper approval, Petitioner would have the options of continuing to work toward a Ph.D. degree, or receiving an Ed.D. or master's specialist degree. It appears that the major professor was overly sensitive about the Petitioner's feelings, and he may not have bluntly advised Petitioner that he failed his dissertation, presentation, and defense. Petitioner considered his options and told his major professor that if it was possible, he would be amenable to accepting an Ed.D. degree. The major professor contacted administrative officials and was advised that the award of an Ed.D. degree would be possible. The major professor advised the Petitioner of that and told him that pending approval from the department chairman who had charge of the science education program, Petitioner could receive the Ed.D. degree. The major professor also advised Petitioner that some revisions would need to be made in the dissertation and that the title page would need to be retyped in order to reflect that it was being submitted in support of an Ed.D. degree. Petitioner complied with the direction to retype the first page, but made only minor revisions in the dissertation. Members of the supervisory committee signed off on the dissertation as being acceptable in support of an Ed.D. degree. The matter was submitted to the department chairman. The department chairman read the dissertation and concluded that it was grossly inadequate. He determined that he would not authorize the award of an Ed.D. degree because Petitioner would need to be properly accepted into an Ed.D. program before he could be awarded such a degree, and additionally because he considered the dissertation inadequate to support an Ed.D. degree. This action was communicated to the supervisory committee. The committee met again and determined that since the Ed.D. degree could not be awarded, that Petitioner should be given failing grades for the dissertation, presentation, and defense. Prior to the department chairman's review of the dissertation, Petitioner had paid his fees and was anticipating being awarded an Ed.D. degree. Since it was not approved by the department chairman, the degree was not awarded. Thereafter, the Petitioner opted not to apply to have his work considered in support of an Ed.D. degree or master's specialist degree. He continued working toward a Ph.D. degree for approximately six months. Ultimately, he decided to drop out of the program, and he initiated this proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by Florida State University denying Petitioner's application for award of an Ed.D. degree and dismissing the Petition for Administrative Hearing. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of January, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of January, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John D. Carlson, Esquire Woods, Johnston & Carlson 1030 East Lafayette Street Suite 112 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Patricia A. Draper, Esquire Charles S. Ruberg, Esquire Florida State University Suite 311, Hecht House Tallahassee, Florida 32306 Dr. Bernard F. Sliger President Florida State University 211 Westcott Tallahassee, Florida 32306
The Issue The issue is whether the School Board has just cause to terminate Respondent’s employment.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has worked for the Polk County School District (District) in various capacities –- e.g., classroom teacher, physical education instructor, dean of students, assistant principal –- for the past 20 years. Respondent has been an assistant principal for the past 11 years, and at the time of the suspension giving rise to this proceeding, he was an assistant principal at Homer K. Addair Career Academy. Respondent has a Master’s degree in educational leadership from Nova Southeastern University (Nova), and he is certified in that field by the Florida Department of Education (DOE). Respondent is in the District’s “principal pool,” which is the program from which principals are selected for the District’s schools. He has also served as a “teacher recruiter” for the District. Respondent and another assistant principal, Jennifer Dean, started talking about pursuing doctorate degrees together at some point between the summer of 2004 and April 2005.1 Respondent and Ms. Dean are neighbors and close friends. They attend the same church, and their families regularly spend time together. Ms. Dean is the Respondent in the related DOAH Case No. 06-0683. The primary reason that Respondent and Ms. Dean were interested in obtaining doctorate degrees was to enhance their standing in the principal pool so as to give themselves a better chance of being hired as school principals.2 Respondent also believed that a doctorate degree would help him get a teaching position at a college or university. Respondent and Ms. Dean credibly testified that they were unaware that they would be eligible for $1,750 pay supplements from the District if they had doctorate degrees. Respondent and Ms. Dean looked into the doctoral program at Nova and several other traditional universities in the area, but they determined that those programs were not suitable for their needs because of the cost of the programs and the time that it would take them to obtain degrees. Respondent looked into several online universities that offered doctoral degrees, including Belford University (Belford). He learned about Belford through a “pop up” advertisement while he was browsing on the Internet. In September 2005, Respondent sent Ms. Dean an e-mail referring her to Belford’s website and told her that “I think this may be the program for us.” Belford is described on its website as a “virtual university with administration offices located in Humble, Texas,” and according to the website, Belford is accredited by “two renowned accreditation agencies on-line education, namely the International Accreditation Agency for Online Universities (IAAOU) and the University Council for Online Education Accreditation (UCOEA).” Notwithstanding Belford’s accreditations and its characterization of itself as a “virtual university,” Belford’s website includes a number of statements that call into question its legitimacy as an educational institution, such as: “Get a degree for what you already know!”; “No admissions. No attendance. No hassle.”; “Add degrees to your resume in just 7 days and open avenues to promotion and better jobs!”; and “Get all your money back if you do not get approved!” The website explains that to obtain a doctorate degree from Belford, an applicant must have “at least 8 years of work or life experience relevant to [his or her] desired major.” That eligibility requirement “may be satisfied in any of the following ways: prior job experience in any field; previous educational achievements; employer-sponsored training and attendance of workshops; participation in organizations, both professional and non-professional; personal goals, lifestyle, hobbies, and travel; participation in volunteer activities and community service; and independent reading, viewing, listening or writing.” A doctorate degree can be received from Belford “without attending classes or taking admissions anywhere.” Respondent reviewed the information on Belford’s website, and he also contacted Belford by phone to get additional information about its doctoral program and its accreditation status. When he called Belford, Respondent was told that its degrees were accepted “worldwide” but he was told that information as to whether Belford’s degrees were accepted in Florida was “confidential.” Ms. Dean told Respondent that she contacted Lois Schuck, the District’s certification specialist, regarding whether a doctorate degree from Belford would be accepted for certification purposes. Respondent did not have any direct communications with Ms. Schuck on the issue. Respondent relied on Ms. Dean’s representation that Ms. Schuck told her to go ahead and get the degree from Belford and then submit it for a determination as to whether it would be accepted for certification purposes. However, as detailed in the Recommended Order in DOAH Case No. 06-0683, the evidence was not persuasive that Ms. Schuck actually gave Ms. Dean that advice. On or about November 10, 2005,3 Respondent applied for a doctorate degree from Belford by filling out the form on Belford’s website. In the boxes provided on the form, he entered information detailing his education, work, and other life experiences. The information Respondent provided to Belford included his resume, a five-page summary of his life experiences, and the materials that he put together as part of the application process for the principal pool. He did not submit transcripts or other official evidence of his Bachelor’s or Master’s degrees to Belford. Respondent did not attend any classes at Belford, nor did he prepare or defend a dissertation in order to obtain his doctorate degree from Belford. He received the degree based solely on the package of information described above. Respondent testified that the information that he submitted to Belford to obtain his degree accurately reflected his education, work history, life experiences, and other qualifications. The School Board offered no evidence to the contrary and, indeed, its witnesses acknowledged that they had no reason to believe that the information Respondent submitted to Belford was inaccurate.4 Respondent obtained the base-level doctorate degree, which according to Belford’s website costs $549. The degree was issued to Respondent within two weeks of the time that he applied for it, and Respondent was not required to pay for the degree until he was advised by Belford that he would receive the degree based upon the information submitted. A traditional doctorate degree, such as a Ph.D., takes several years to receive, costs thousands of dollars, and involves extensive coursework as well as the preparation and defense of a lengthy dissertation. Respondent’s “official transcript” from Belford reflects that he was awarded a Doctor of Arts degree with a major in educational administration on November 10, 2005. The transcript makes no reference to the fact that the degree was based upon “life experiences” rather than a traditional course of study. Respondent’s transcript includes a grade point average (GPA) of 3.18. Unlike Ms. Dean, Respondent was not interested in a higher GPA, which cost more money. Respondent’s transcript lists eight courses with specific grades -- from “A” to “C+” -- awarded for each course. Respondent testified that he did not attend those courses, and that it was his understanding that the grades shown on the transcript were based upon the information that he submitted to Belford, which reflected the extent of his experience in the areas identified in the course descriptions. On November 29, 2005,5 Respondent and Mr. Dawson met with Ms. Schuck to give her copies of their Belford transcripts for certification purposes. Ms. Schuck was unable to process the transcripts for certification purposes at that time because they did not include the date that the degrees were awarded. She handed the transcripts back to Respondent and Ms. Dean during the meeting and advised them to get her dated transcripts.6 Respondent and Ms. Dean obtained dated copies of their transcripts from Belford, and Ms. Dean sent them to Ms. Schuck through interoffice mail. Ms. Dean testified that she called Ms. Schuck to confirm that she received the degrees and to check on their status. Ms. Dean testified that Ms. Schuck told her that she had received the degrees and that she had given them to Ms. Butler for processing. Ms. Dean passed that information along to Respondent. Ms. Dean’s testimony regarding her conversation with Ms. Schuck was not persuasive. Indeed, the more persuasive evidence establishes that Ms. Schuck never received the dated transcripts, but rather that they were received by Pam Merritt, an administrative assistant in the District’s personnel office. Ms. Merritt put the transcripts in Judy Butler’s in- basket for processing. Ms. Butler’s responsibilities include processing salary changes for District staff. Ms. Butler is not responsible for reviewing transcripts or degrees for certification purposes. That review is done by the District’s certification office and is supposed to occur prior to the transcript or degree being forwarded to the personnel office for purposes of a salary change. Ms. Butler assumed that Ms. Dean’s degree was in her in-basket for purposes of a salary change even though there was no cover letter or other directions with the transcript. She did not see Respondent’s transcript because it had somehow gotten affixed to Ms. Dean’s transcript. Ms. Butler placed Ms. Dean’s salary change on the agenda for the Salary Classification Committee (SCC), and on January 26, 2006, the SCC approved a $1,750 salary supplement for Ms. Dean based upon her Belford doctorate degree. On January 28, 2006, Ms. Butler discovered Respondent’s transcript as she was pulling apart the documents from the SCC meeting for inclusion in a package for the Superintendent to review. On that same date, she e-mailed Respondent congratulating him on the award of his degree and advising him that his degree would be placed on the agenda for the SCC’s next meeting “so that [Respondent] can begin getting the supplement of $1,750.” Respondent assumed from this e-mail (and the representations given to him by Ms. Dean) that the salary change was being processed because his degree had been reviewed by Ms. Schuck and that it had been accepted for certification purposes. However, as noted above, Ms. Schuck had never received the degree. Ms. Butler sent a copy of the e-mail to David Lauer, the District’s assistant superintendent for human relations. Mr. Lauer received the e-mail on January 31, 2006, when he returned to the office. Mr. Lauer knew Respondent, and he was surprised to learn that he had obtained a doctorate degree. He asked Ms. Butler to give him the documentation related to Respondent and Ms. Dean, which she did. Mr. Lauer reviewed the Belford website for approximately 45 minutes and determined that it was a “diploma mill” and that the doctorate degrees obtained by Mr. Dawson and Respondent were “bogus.” Mr. Lauer also spoke with Ms. Schuck and asked her to determine whether Belford is an accredited university for DOE certification purposes. Ms. Schuck did so by e-mailing Mandy Mims, her contact at DOE. Ms. Mims advised Ms. Schuck that “Belford is not accredited by any agency recognized by the U.S. Dept. of Education, so degrees earned would not be appropriate for certification purposes.” Mr. Lauer was “flabbergasted” by the situation, and because he considered the submittal of bogus degrees to be “so serious and so contrary to what we believe in as educators,” he went directly to the Superintendent, Dr. Gail McKinzie, instead of first speaking to Respondent and Ms. Dean to get their side of the story. Mr. Lauer reported the situation to Dr. McKinzie on February 1, 2006. That same day, Dr. McKinzie reviewed the Belford website for approximately an hour and came to the same conclusions as Mr. Lauer regarding Belford and the nature of Respondent’s and Ms. Dean’s doctorate degrees. On February 3, 2006, Respondent was called to a meeting with Dr. McKinzie and Mr. Lauer. Dr. McKinzie told Respondent that she was going to recommend that the School Board fire him because he had misrepresented his professional qualifications though the submission of the Belford degree. The meeting lasted approximately five minutes. Respondent was not given a meaningful opportunity to explain his side of the story at the meeting and, prior to the meeting, Respondent had no indication that the validity of his Belford degree was in question. To the contrary, he was under the impression -- through representations made by Ms. Dean and his interpretation of Ms. Butler’s e-mail -- that his degree had been accepted by the District and DOE. By letter dated February 8, 2006, Dr. McKinzie informed Respondent that she had recommended to the School Board that his employment be terminated. The letter advised Respondent of his right to request an administrative hearing, and Respondent timely did so through a letter dated February 10, 2006. The School Board approved Dr. McKinzie’s recommendation at its meeting on February 14, 2006, and Respondent has been suspended without pay since that date pending the outcome of this proceeding. The negative characterization of Belford and its degrees by Mr. Lauer and Dr. McKinzie is reasonable based upon the evidence of record. For example, in addition to the statements from the website referred to in Finding of Fact 12 that should put a reasonable person on notice that Belford is not a legitimate educational institution, a degree from Belford can be obtained in as little as one week; the applicant is allowed to select his or her GPA, with a higher GPA costing more money; the applicant is not required to pay for his or her degree until after learning that the degree will be issued; the applicant is allowed to select his or her graduation date, with back-dating available at an additional cost; Belford will “introduce [a major] as a new addition to [its] doctorate curriculum” if the major sought by the applicant is not on Belford’s list of majors; Belford does not require transcripts or other proof beyond the applicant’s representations that he or she has received lower degrees (e.g., Bachelor’s and Master’s) prior to awarding a higher degree (e.g., Doctorate); and a base- level doctorate degree from Belford costs only $549.00. It is unreasonable for anyone, and particularly someone like Respondent who has 20 years of experience in the education system, to believe that Belford is a legitimate educational institution or that a doctorate degree from Belford is a legitimate educational degree that would be accepted as such by DOE or the District. Thus, it is inferred that Respondent knew or should have known that a doctorate degree from Belford is not a legitimate educational degree that could be used to enhance his standing in the principal pool or bolster his professional qualifications. Respondent’s conduct was slightly less egregious that Ms. Dean’s because, unlike Ms. Dean, Respondent did not make any affirmative representations to the District about completing a “doctorate program,” and Respondent relied upon Ms. Dean’s representations about the substance of her alleged conversations with Ms. Schuck. Nevertheless, it is clear from the evidence that Respondent was attempting to misrepresent and improperly bolster his qualifications through the submission of a “doctorate degree” from Belford that he knew or should have known was not a legitimate educational degree. Respondent’s decision to purchase a doctorate degree over the Internet calls into question his judgment as well as his respect for the educational process, which, in turn, raises serious doubts about Respondent’s ability to be effective in the school system. Indeed, it is clear from the totality of the evidence -- and particularly the testimony of Dr. McKinzie and Mr. Lauer -- that Respondent’s ability to be an effective leader (as assistant principals and aspiring principals are supposed to be) in the District has been significantly impaired through his submission and continued defense of his Belford degree as a legitimate educational degree.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Polk County School Board issue a final order terminating Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of July, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of July, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Amita A. Patil submitted her application for licensure as a medical technologist pursuant to Rule 10D-41.25, F.A.C. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services denied her application for licensure as a medical technologist asserting that Patil failed to demonstrate that she had the necessary educational and experience requirements to be licensed. Patil requested a hearing on the Department's denial asserting that she possessed the necessary qualifications for licensure. Patil presented evidence at the hearing that she graduated with a BS in microbiology from the University of Poona, Poona, India and had had one year experience with a pharmaceutical firm after her graduation. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services presented evidence that the International Educational Research Foundation, Inc. (IERFI) had evaluated Patil's educational credentials and had determined that Patil had less than 60 semester hours of equivalent credit. Patil presented her transcripts from the University of Poona and a letter from one of her professors who was experienced with American universities. Her former professor stated that Patil had the equivalent of a 4 year college degree from an American university. Patil subsequently introduced as a late-filed exhibit an outline of the hours she spent in class while at the University of Poona. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services presented as a late- filed exhibit a reevaluation by IERFI of the transcripts presented by Patil at the hearing. The IERFI determined that Patil had "at least 60 semester hours of credit with at least 57 hours credit in microbiology, chemistry, and botany." The evaluation by IERFI did not state the exact number of equivalent semester hours Patil had. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services reevaluated Patil's application based upon the second evaluation by IERFI, and based upon Patil's having at least 60 semester hours and one year's experience at Karhpha Pharmaceuticals India and denied Patil's application because she did not meet the requirements of Rule 10D-41.25 F.A.C.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the hearing officer recommends that the application of Amita A. Patil be denied. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of February, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard Helfand, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1320 South Dixie Highway Coral Gables, Florida 33146 Mrs. Amita A. Patil 3565 Northwest 36th Street D 420 Miami, Florida 33142
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is licensed by the State of Florida as a laboratory technologist. Petitioner applied to the Respondent for licensure as a supervisor. On February 2, 1982, Respondent denied Petitioner's application to take the supervisory examination for the stated reason that Petitioner did not have ten years of experience. Petitioner holds a Bachelor's degree in Fine Arts from Florida International University. Petitioner has supplemented his education by taking additional science courses. The science courses taken before and after Petitioner received his Bachelor's degree total 26 semester credits. The courses taken after receipt of his degree have been specifically related to his field. Petitioner has been employed by the Miami Heart Institute since July 11, 1976, except for the period between September, 1976, and August, 1977. Dr. Jerome Benson is a pathologist and is the Director of Laboratories at the Miami Heart Institute. He is also Vice Chairman of the National Accreditation for Clinical Laboratory Sciences, the organization which accredits approximately 1,000 programs in the medical technology field and which is responsible for the Committee on Higher Education and Accreditation of the United States Office of Education, which accredits laboratories. He is familiar with accreditation of medical technology programs throughout the country and locally. He serves on the Advisory Committee at Miami-Dade Community College, and he planned the curriculum for the medical technology programs at both Miami- Dade Community College and at Florida International University. He was recognized as an expert by both parties. Dr. Benson believes that Petitioner is qualified to sit for the supervisory examination in terms of education, in terms of experience time, in terms of intent of the law, and in terms of protecting the public safety. He further believes that the science courses Petitioner has taken, both pre-baccalaureate and post-baccalaureate, qualify Petitioner for a Bachelor's degree in medical technology. Norman Bass was formerly Petitioner's immediate supervisor. He evaluates Petitioner's performance in the laboratory as excellent and believes that Petitioner is qualified through experience and academic courses to sit for the supervisory examination. At the time of the formal hearing in this cause, Petitioner had a total of 12,935 hours of work time at the Miami Heart Institute. Respondent considers 37.5 hours as constituting a full work week. George S. Taylor, Jr., reviewed Petitioner's application on behalf of Respondent. The application was received on January 18, 1982, and was denied on February 2, 1982, for the reason that Petitioner did not have ten years' experience. At the time, Respondent did not have current transcripts reflecting courses taken by Petitioner. Respondent did not request any, but simply used transcripts on file with Respondent which had been filed when Petitioner applied for his technologist's license, even though Petitioner's application for licensure as a supervisor reflected that he had taken various science courses at Miami-Dade Community College. Taylor is of the opinion that an applicant with 120 college credits must have between 25 and 30 of those credits in science courses in order to have a major in science; an applicant with 90 semester hours in college is required to have 17 to 24 credits in science in order to have a science major.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application to take the examination for a supervisor's license. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 14th day of January, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of January, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Samuel S. Forman, Esquire The Counsel Building 2016 Harrison Street Hollywood, Florida 33020 Morton Laitner, Esquire Dade County Health Department 1350 North West 14th Street Miami, Florida 33125 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an instructor of mathematics at Glades Junior High School in Dade County, Florida. On May 10, 1967, Petitioner received a Rank III teacher's certificate from the Respondent. Petitioner has been certified as a Rank III teacher since that time. Petitioner most recently requested reevaluation of her certificate status on or about September 15, 1975. Petitioner sought certification as a Rank II teacher. The Respondent denied the request. Petitioner was awarded a Bachelor of Arts Degree from Hunter College on June 19, 1940. Petitioner was awarded a Bachelor of Law Degree by St. Johns University School of Law in September, 1943. At the time that Petitioner enrolled in the St. Johns University School of Law, the St. Johns University School of Law did not require that candidates for admission possess an undergraduate Bachelor's Degree in order to be enrolled. Candidates for admission were required to have completed at least two years of college in order to be enrolled.
