The Issue The central issue in this cause is whether the Respondent, Jose Antonio Blanco, should be placed in the Dade County School Board's opportunity school program due to his alleged disruptive behavior and failure to adjust to the regular school program.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: During the 1986-87 academic year, Respondent attended Palm Springs Junior High School in Dade County, Florida. Respondent (date of birth: 11-13-72) was enrolled in the seventh grade and was administratively assigned to Jan Mann Opportunity School-North on March 9, 1987, due to his alleged disruptive behavior and failure to adjust to the regular school program. Respondent's grades for the 1986-87 school year, the first grading periods, were as follows: COURSE ACADEMIC EFFORT CONDUCT GRADE Mathematics 1st F 3 F 2d F 3 F Physical 1st F 3 F Education 2d F 3 F Industrial 1st F 3 F Arts 2d F 3 F Education Language 1st F 3 F Arts 2d F 3 F Social 1st F 3 F Studies 2d F 3 F Science 1st F 3 F 2d F 3 F SYMBOLS: GRADE "F" UNSATISFACTORY EFFORT "3" INSUFFICIENT CONDUCT "F" UNSATISFACTORY Respondent did not enroll at the opportunity school and did not attend classes. Instead, Respondent's mother enrolled the student in a private school. His conduct has improved but his grades and academic progress are still below level. When a student is disruptive or misbehaves in some manner, a teacher or other staff member at Palm Springs Junior High School may submit a report of the incident to the office. These reports are called Student Case Management Referral forms, and are used to report behavior problems. During the first two grading periods of the 1986-87 school year, Respondent caused 16 Student Case Management Referral Forms to be written regarding his misbehavior. All incidents of his misbehavior were not reported. A synopsis of Respondent's Student Case Management Referral Forms is attached and made a part hereof. Eva Alvarado is a science teacher in whose class Respondent was enrolled. While in Ms. Alvarado's class, Respondent was persistently disruptive. Respondent refused to do homework and in-class assignments. Respondent was unprepared 90 percent of the time and would disturb the class with loud talking. During lectures Respondent would attempt to talk to other students and ignore Ms. Alvarado's instructions. Ms. Alvarado tried to correct the situation by sending notices to Respondent's parents, but little improvement was made. Valdez Murray is a social studies teacher in whose class Respondent was enrolled. While in Mrs. Murray's class Respondent was persistently tardy. Respondent refused to complete homework and in-class assignments. Mrs. Murray contacted Respondent's mother, but the student's work and conduct did not improve. Respondent talked in a loud voice to interrupt class. On one occasion, Respondent walked out of the class without permission and on two other occasions Respondent fell asleep at his desk. Respondent made a practice of talking to others who were trying to do their work, and would laugh at Mrs. Murray's efforts to control the situation. Mrs. Murray would instruct the class to ignore Respondent's noise making activities. Mrs. Alicia Robles is an English teacher in whose class Respondent was enrolled. While in Mrs. Robles' class Respondent refused to perform any work assignments, including in-class oral work. Respondent would instead throw paper darts to the ceiling. Respondent tried to keep other students from working and would interrupt lectures. According to Mrs. Robles, Respondent played with the wires on his braces to create a reason he could be excused from class. Barry Jones is a physical education teacher in whose class Respondent was enrolled. Respondent refused to dress out and participate with the class. Despite Mr. Jones' effort to notify both Respondent and his parents of the problem, no change in conduct or performance was made. Mrs. Blanco acknowledged that her son has a behavior problem, but believes if given another chance his conduct would improve. During the time he has attended private school his conduct has improved tremendously. Although Respondent has not caught up academically, Mrs. Blanco believes he is ready to return to the regular school program.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order affirming the assignment of Respondent to Jan Mann Opportunity School-North. DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of October, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of October, 1987. SYNOPSIS OF STUDENT CASE MANAGEMENT REFERRAL FORMS DATE INCIDENT DISCIPLINE 10/29/86 disrupting class; parent arguing, talking, conference refusing to work 11/3/86 interrupt class parent refuse to obey conference instruction 11/26/86 tardy, disrupts request be class talking, walking removed changing seats from class- parent contact attempted 12/03/87 tardy, talking to parent contact classmates, showing 3 days out in class in-school suspension 01/13/87 tardy, unprepared 13 days disruptive - noisy, attention defiant parent contact attempted 01/114/87 tardy, refused to additional serve detention detention parent contact 01/15/87 refusal to dress out, 3 days left class area detention without permission 02/014/87 tardy, talks, walks parent contact around disrupting attempted class 02/05/87 refused to do parent contact assignment or test attempted 02/06/87 refused to work, parent contact shouting in class, attempted moving from one seat to another 02/10/87 disrupts class, parent contact running, shouting, unprepared, tardy 02/11/87 tardy, unprepared parent contact for class, failing grades 02/11/87 habitual misbehavior, parent contact lack of respect - refusal to cooperate 02/12/87 refusal to sit in seat; requested threats to other parent to student and teacher get counseling for student 02/25/87 highly disruptive requested during indoor outdoor suspension suspension 02/27/87 disruptive in requested indoor suspension opportunity school APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-1453 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Paragraph 1 is accepted in Findings of Fact paragraphs 1 and 2. Paragraph 2 is accepted in Finding of Fact paragraph 3. The only "D" Respondent received, however, was an exam grade. The grading period was "F." Paragraphs 3 and 4 are accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact paragraph 6. Paragraph 5 is accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact paragraph 9 and the Synopsis attached. Paragraphs 6 and 7 are accepted. See Finding of Fact paragraph 7. Paragraph 8 is accepted. See Finding of Fact paragraph 8. Paragraph 9 is rejected as unnecessary, argumentative. Paragraph 10 is accepted. See Finding of Fact paragraph 5 and the Synopsis. Paragraph 11 is accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Jaime Claudio Bovell, Esquire 370 Minorca Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 3313 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Assistant School Board Attorney Board Administration Building 11450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Mrs. Bertha Blanco 14535 West 114 Lane Hialeah, Florida 33012 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Building 11450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact C. T. "Pete" Knowles, III, was ,a student in Western Civilization, HY102, at Seminole Community College. This course was instructed by Leonard Zilles. Zilles established a grading format for HY102 which was announced orally to the class. The establishment of this system and its oral publication to the students was within his discretion under the college's policy handbook, although instructors are encouraged to publish course requirements in writing. The course, HY102, was an eight (8) week summer course presented in four, two week segments. There were four noncumulative examinations, one after each two week segment. Each examination consisted of two parts, a multiple choice portion and an essay portion. A total of six course points could be earned on each examination, two points maximum for the multiple choice portion and four points for the essay portion. One course point was earned for obtaining a numerical score between sixty and eighty-three on the multiple choice portion, or the equivalent of a letter grade of "D". Two points were earned for a numerical score of eighty-four points or higher on the multiple choice portion of the examination, or the equivalent grade of "C". No student could earn more than two points, or a "C", on the multiple choice portion of the examination. Letter grades were assigned to the essay portion of the examinations and three course points were earned for a "B" and four course points for an "A". No credit was received by the student on the essay portion of the examination for performance determined by the instructor to be below a grade of "B". A student who received less than a numerical grade of sixty on the multiple choice portion of the examination could still be awarded points for his performance on the essay portion. Final grades for the course were determined upon the accumulation of course points by a student. For the accumulation of four points a student received a grade of "D" in the course, for eight points a grade of "C," for sixteen points a grade of "B," and for twenty points a grade of "A." Attendance in the course was not mandatory and no statement was made regarding whether examinations were mandatory. Paul Jenkins, the only student in this course who made an "A," stated that a discussion was held during a class break immediately preceding the fourth examination in the course concerning whether students could skip the last examination and based their final grade upon the number of course points they had accumulated. This question was not raised in class and the matter clarified. There is no indication that Knowles was a party to this discussion; however, both Knowles and Frederick Norris testified that Zilles never stated that taking all examinations was a course requirement. Knowles arranged with his Health instructor, John Panatallis, to take his final examination in Health early so that Knowles could begin his vacation with his family. Panatallis inquired of Knowles when he came to take the Health examination how Knowles stood in Zilles' class, and Knowles advised Panatallis that he had enough points to ensure a "C." Pantallis stated that he did not require attendance at examinations but averaged a zero for a missed examination in his grading system. Knowles was aware that he had accumulated eight points on the basis of a discussion with Zilles one week before the fourth examination, at which time Zilles told Knowles that he had made a "B" on the essay portion of the third examination giving Knowles a total of eight points for the course. Knowles did not take the fourth examination because he did not believe that the examination was mandatory and in accordance with the professor's grading process, Knowles could not improve his course grade even if he earned a maximum of six course points. Zilles gave Knowles an "F" based upon Knowles' failure, in Zilles' opinion, to complete the course by taking the fourth examination. The director of academic affairs, Dr. Anita Harrow, stated that the college's handbook required that instructors be responsible for identifying course objectives and for making grading procedures clear to students. Instructors were urged, but not required, to present course objectives and grading procedures to the students in writing. In accordance with the college's policy, instructors were free to choose from any recognized standard of evaluation in grading the performance of their students, and attendance at examinations was not a uniform requirement for course completion. In response to a hypothetical question based upon the facts presented regarding the grading procedures and the information presented to the students in HY102 by Mr. Zilles, Dr. Harrow stated that in her opinion she would deem the course grade to be based upon the points accumulated by the students without regard to completion of all the examinations in the course. Mr. Zilles' grade sheet for the course, HY102, was introduced as Exhibit 1. Examination of this exhibit reveals that of the eleven students who finished the course and took the fourth examination, only four students received grades in accordance with the grading format which Zilles had announced. Grades of "B" were reported for Laplant and McDonald who had accumulated only eleven points. Rios accumulated a total of ten points, four of which were earned on the fourth examination, but received a grade of "D." Only two students, Bland and Laplant who could not improve their grades by taking the fourth examination took it. Lastly and most importantly, Pagan, who received no credit for the final examination, received a grade of "D" in the course based upon his accumulation of five course points for his previous work. Analysis of Exhibit 1 shows no consistency in the assignment of grades based upon the stated criteria.
Recommendation During the hearing process Mr. Knowles made the counsel for the College and the Hearing Officer aware of the fact that a determination on his petition was necessary for his continued enrollment in junior college. Mr. Milwee, the representative of the College, advised that if the Trustees of the College did not obtain a recommendation in time to consider it on the evening of the hearing, that it would be a month before the recommendation of the Hearing Officer could be considered. After the conclusion of the hearing, a posthearing conference was held in which the parties, having been advised of their procedural rights under Section 120.57, requested and agreed to the Hearing Officer making an oral recommendation for consideration by the Trustees to be followed by a formal written recommended order as required by the statute. After deliberation, the Hearing Officer's recommendation was announced to the parties. This written order is based upon the notes prepared by the Hearing Officer during his deliberations on the question. The following recommendation is essentially that presented to the parties in the posthearing conference. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that Seminole Community College adjust the grade received by C. T. "Pete" Knowles in Western Civilization, HY102, from a "F" to a "C" based upon the course points accumulated by Knowles through the third examination. DONE and ORDERED this 13th of January, 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: C. T. "Pete" Knowles 712 Eagle Avenue Longwood, Florida 32750 O. H. Eaton, Esquire Winter Park Federal Building 355 East Semonian Boulevard Altamonte Springs, Florida 32701
The Issue The issue presented for decision in this case is whether Petitioner, St. Petersburg College, should dismiss Respondent from his employment and terminate his continuing contract.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is an instructor in humanities at the College's Clearwater campus. Respondent has been an instructor at the College since 1996. He began as an adjunct professor and has been a full-time instructor since 1998. Respondent works under a continuing contract of employment, which is tantamount to a tenured position, entitling the instructor to maintain his position from year-to-year unless terminated by mutual consent, by the instructor’s resignation, or by the suspension or removal of the instructor for cause pursuant to the statutes and rules of the State Board of Education. Prior to the incidents giving rise to this proceeding, Respondent had never been subject to disciplinary proceedings during his employment with the College. At Respondent's July 2004 annual evaluation meeting, Provost Stan Vittetoe and Program Director Anne Cooper expressed concerns about Respondent's failure to keep office hours and the fact that he did not show up for a class he was scheduled to teach. Respondent attributed these problems to his ongoing divorce proceedings. Dr. Vittetoe lectured Respondent on the importance of not allowing "life issues" to affect his work, but did not otherwise discipline Respondent. In the fall semester of 2003, Respondent taught three humanities courses: Humanities I, Humanities II, and East/West Synthesis. Humanities I and II consist of a chronological study of Western civilization. East/West Synthesis focuses on non- Western cultures, such as those of India, China, Japan, Africa, and the Middle East. Pamela Socorro has been a student at the College since 2002. She enrolled in Respondent's East/West Synthesis class in August 2003. The class was scheduled to meet twice a week, on Monday and Wednesday evenings, for the length of the fall semester. Each class period lasted one hour and 45 minutes. Respondent also played keyboards for a local jazz and rhythm and blues band called Bus Stop. Respondent was not a regular member of the band, but sat in for the band when its regular keyboardist was unavailable. Bus Stop played at nightclubs and bars in the Tampa Bay area. In his humanities classes, Respondent would announce the dates of his engagements with Bus Stop and invite the students to come out and hear the band. In response to one such general invitation in late October 2003, Ms. Socorro and a group of friends went to a bar called the Rare Olive in Ybor City to see Respondent perform with Bus Stop. The Rare Olive did not admit persons under 21 years of age. Ms. Socorro was 19 years old at the time, and her friends were also under 21. Respondent intervened with management, asking if Ms. Socorro could come into the bar provided she did not drink alcoholic beverages. Ms. Socorro was allowed to come into the bar, though at least one of her friends, Rian Salmun, was not admitted. During a break from playing, Respondent spoke with Ms. Socorro for five-to-ten minutes. This was their first one- to-one conversation. During this conversation, Respondent asked Ms. Socorro her age. She told Respondent that she was 19 years old, and he told her that he was 33 years old. In November 2003, Ms. Socorro and Respondent had a conversation on the College campus during which Respondent mentioned that Bus Stop would be playing at the Rare Olive in St. Petersburg on November 21, 2003. Because Respondent was sitting in with the band on short notice, he did not have an opportunity to announce this performance to his humanities classes. On November 21, 2003, Ms. Socorro went to the Rare Olive in St. Petersburg with her mother, her aunt, and a group of friends. Ms. Socorro used a friend's identification card to obtain admittance to the bar. Respondent joined Ms. Socorro and her party during a break. Respondent asked Ms. Socorro if she wanted a drink, and she told him that she liked "fruity drinks" and shots. Respondent walked to the bar and came back with two shots. They downed the shots together.2 After about an hour at the Rare Olive, Ms. Socorro's mother wanted to leave. Respondent did not want Ms. Socorro to leave and asked what she would be doing later, after she took her mother home. Respondent gave Ms. Socorro his cellular telephone number, and she said she would call him later. She entered the number into her mother's cellular telephone directory. Ms. Socorro and her group left the bar. Once outside, Ms. Socorro realized that she had neglected to save Respondent's phone number into her mother's cell phone directory. Maria Albornoz, one of Ms. Socorro's friends, went back into the bar and obtained Respondent's cell phone number again for Ms. Socorro. Ms. Socorro did not call Respondent later on the night of November 21, 2003. She did call him on the afternoon of November 22, 2003, and left a message on his cellular telephone. Respondent returned the call that evening. From this point forward, Respondent's and Ms. Socorro's versions of that evening's events differ in several particulars. According to Ms. Socorro, Respondent asked her if she would like to attend the Fall Dance Concert at the College with him that evening. Respondent testified that he had mentioned the concert in class that week, and asked Ms. Socorro whether she was planning to attend, but did not ask her to go with him. Ms. Socorro testified that they arranged on the telephone to meet outside the theater, met as planned, went in together, and sat together in the back row of the theater. Respondent testified that they happened to arrive at the same time and that they sat together in the back of the theater because the recital had already started when they entered. Ms. Socorro testified that, after the recital, she and Respondent arranged to meet at the Marble Slab, a local ice cream shop. Respondent testified that he mentioned that he was going for ice cream but that he did not ask Ms. Socorro to join him. Before proceeding to the ice cream shop, Respondent spoke to several performers of his acquaintance, while Ms. Socorro went across the street from the College to the residence of her friend, Mr. Salmun, and spoke with him for a few minutes. At the hearing, Mr. Salmun testified that Ms. Socorro told him she was meeting Respondent for ice cream at the Marble Slab. Ms. Socorro recalled walking past Respondent's car in the Marble Slab's parking lot and seeing two child car seats in the back. At the time, she was unaware that Respondent was involved in divorce proceedings or that he was the father of twin three-year-old daughters. Respondent was already seated at a table in the Marble Slab when Ms. Socorro entered. Neither Respondent nor Ms. Socorro ordered ice cream. They sat at the table and talked about their families, their astrological signs, Pilates and dance teachers they had in common, yoga, and Latin dance. They eventually felt self- conscious about sitting at the table in the ice cream shop without making a purchase, and they continued their conversation outside the Marble Slab. Ms. Socorro testified that Respondent told her that she was a good student and was doing very well in his class. He asked Ms. Socorro not to "announce" that she had seen him play at the Rare Olive or had gone with him to the dance recital, "because he could get in trouble." He told her that he should not see her again while she was in his class, but he did not tell her that he was forbidden to see her. Respondent urged Ms. Socorro to complete her class assignments and exams as quickly as possible, the implication being that they could begin dating once she had completed the class and received a final grade. Despite his cautionary statements, Respondent also discussed going out to a Latin club with Ms. Socorro so that she could help him with his dance technique. Respondent testified that he was surprised to see Ms. Socorro arrive at the Marble Slab, especially given that she did not order ice cream. He stated that this was the first clear signal that Ms. Socorro might have a romantic interest in him. Respondent recalled that Ms. Socorro asked him to go out with her to a dance club, but that he told her that was "out of bounds." However, he also told Ms. Socorro that he was interested in pursuing a relationship once she was out of his class. To the extent that Respondent's and Ms. Socorro's versions of events on November 22, 2003, differ, Ms. Socorro's version is credited. Even in his own version of events, Respondent agreed that he returned Ms. Socorro's telephone call. He denied asking Ms. Socorro to go with him to the dance recital. However, Respondent admitted telling Ms. Socorro that he was going to the recital and asking Ms. Socorro if she was going. Similarly, Respondent denied asking Ms. Socorro to go with him to the Marble Slab, but there could be little other reason for him to tell her that he was going there. Finally, Respondent admits that he made it clear to Ms. Socorro that he was very much interested in pursuing a relationship with her, as soon as the formality of having her as a student in his class could be dispensed with. On the evening of November 29, 2003, Ms. Socorro attended a performance of the play "Miss Saigon" at Ruth Eckerd Hall in Clearwater. When she came home after the play, she learned that Respondent had telephoned her. She returned the call the next day, while shopping in Orlando with her mother. Ms. Socorro talked to Respondent about "Miss Saigon," because the play was related to the East/West Synthesis course Respondent was teaching. They discussed the Thanksgiving break, then made plans to see the movie "Gothika" that evening at the AMC Woodlands 20 theater complex in Oldsmar. Respondent and Ms. Socorro attended a late showing of "Gothika," then sat and talked in the theater's parking lot until approximately 5:30 a.m. Respondent testified that this was his first "real talk" with Ms. Socorro and that they began to get to know each other at this time. They also shared their first kiss, described by both principals as a "French kiss." Ms. Socorro was scheduled to report to her job as a nanny at 5:45 a.m. on December 1, 2003. She went straight to work from the movie theater parking lot, but arrived late to her job. Because she was unable to change clothes before work, she ended up reporting to Respondent's class that evening wearing the same clothes she had worn on their date the night before. When she arrived at class, Ms. Socorro noted that Respondent was also wearing the same clothes he had worn the previous evening. While Respondent agreed that he went with Ms. Socorro to see the movie "Gothika," and accepted her version of what happened that night after the movie, Respondent contended that this date occurred on December 9, 2003, the day after he gave out the final grades for Ms. Socorro's East/West Synthesis class. Respondent contended that he did not speak with or see Ms. Socorro on November 30, 2003. He denied any recollection of seeing Ms. Socorro in his class wearing the same clothes she had worn on their date. Ms. Socorro testified that she did go to the movies again with Respondent on December 10, 2003, but that they saw "The Last Samurai." Respondent denied ever having seen "The Last Samurai." Ms. Socorro's version of the chronology of these events is more credible and is accepted. Ms. Socorro's recollection of the events of November 30, 2003, was precise in its detail, belying Respondent's contention that she was somehow confused or mistaken as to when they saw "Gothika" together. On December 8, 2003, Ms. Socorro took her last exam in Respondent's class. The exam was a multiple choice "fill in the bubble" test that Respondent machine graded that evening while the students waited. Respondent was able to tell Ms. Socorro that she had made an "A" in his class before she left his classroom on December 8th. However, Respondent did not officially post the grades for his class until December 16, 2003. The semester officially ended on December 19, 2003. Prior to the end of the fall semester, Ms. Socorro told Respondent that her friends Ms. Albornoz and Mr. Salmun knew that she and Respondent were dating. Ms. Socorro testified that Respondent told her that she should tell Ms. Albornoz and Mr. Salmun not to speak to anyone about their relationship. Ms. Socorro and Mr. Salmun were best friends. They saw or spoke to each other every day, and they prepared their schedules for spring semester together before the end of fall semester. Mr. Salmun told Ms. Socorro that he intended to take a class from Respondent, because he needed one more humanities course and Respondent's class fit into his schedule. Ms. Socorro explained to Mr. Salmun that she had discussed this matter with Respondent, who had told her that they could not socialize with any friends of Ms. Socorro's who were taking classes from Respondent. Mr. Salmun nonetheless signed up for the class, though he dropped it for a humanities class taught by another instructor prior to the close of the fall semester. Ms. Socorro told another friend, Teona Gogoladze, that she should not enroll in Respondent's class for the spring semester, due to Respondent's concerns about his relationship with Ms. Socorro becoming widely known. Ms. Gogoladze registered for Respondent's class anyway, because it fit her schedule better than any other humanities class, and she had done well in a previous class taught by Respondent. Ms. Gogoladze told Ms. Socorro that it would not be "the end of the world" if she had to avoid seeing Ms. Socorro with Respondent for one semester. As it happened, Respondent and Ms. Socorro did socialize with Ms. Gogoladze once during the spring semester, attending a party at her house for the airing of the last episode of the television show "Friends." During the Christmas break between fall and spring semesters, Respondent and Ms. Socorro went out to clubs at least twice. On December 19, 2003, they went with a group of College students to an "end of semester" party at Terra, a Latin club in Ybor City. The next weekend, they went to 10 Beach Drive, a piano bar in St. Petersburg. The couple spoke on the telephone on Christmas Day, exchanged Christmas gifts, and spent New Year's Eve together. Respondent introduced Ms. Socorro to his sister and his father. Respondent and Ms. Socorro continued to see each other during the spring semester of 2004. Ms. Socorro had registered for classes, but withdrew from the College for the semester in order to visit her sick father in Venezuela. Ms. Socorro testified that, although Respondent did not press her to withdraw from the College, their relationship improved when she was not in school because Respondent felt less stress about students seeing him on his dates with Ms. Socorro. Ms. Socorro testified that Respondent "constantly" bought her alcoholic beverages during their relationship, though he knew she had not reached the legal drinking age. Ms. Socorro went to the bars at which Respondent was playing with Bus Stop. Respondent would "hang out" with Ms. Socorro during breaks and buy her drinks. At a bar called J.B.'s in Sarasota, Respondent used his credit card to open a tab for a group of people, including Ms. Socorro. At the end of the evening, Respondent was startled at the amount of the bill. Everyone in the group except Ms. Socorro reimbursed Respondent for their drinks. Ms. Socorro did not register for classes at the College for the 2004 summer semester. She cited her relationship with Respondent as her main reason for staying out of school: I knew that when I went back to school, I knew it was going to be a little difficult, because when we would go out to anywhere around town, restaurants, Gary knew everyone. His students were everywhere. He felt uncomfortable. He always asked if the person knew me. So, I knew it was going to be difficult. * * * At that point, by the summer, we were a couple and we had been together for months. I knew it was going to be stressful again and I was working at-- I believe I was beginning to work at a bank and the bank, if I was there long enough, was going to pay for school. And I decided that, putting all these things together, that I would not go in the summer, either. Respondent taught classes during the 2004 summer semester. Margaret Gunn was a student enrolled in one of his classes. Once while Ms. Gunn was in his office, Respondent asked her to come out to a bar to hear his band play. Ms. Gunn declined the offer. Respondent asked her again in September 2004, and Ms. Gunn again declined. Ms. Gunn testified that Respondent's requests made her somewhat uncomfortable, but that she nonetheless maintained a cordial relationship with him. During the annual fall semester orientation in 2004, College president Dr. Carl Kuttler spoke about sexual harassment during a faculty and staff meeting attended by Respondent. Dr. Kuttler stressed that relationships between instructors and students were not allowed if the instructor could in any way affect the student's grade, academic progress, or academic environment. Ms. Socorro described Respondent's reaction to Dr. Kuttler's presentation: He was upset and that was the first time I heard the name "Dr. Kuttler." I remember him saying that they had emphasized the subject of teacher and student relationships. And it was kind of like, "you see, I told you" kind of thing. He said that now he needed to be very, very careful. He was actually concerned, because me and Rian [Salmun] were having problems in our friendship and he was concerned that now Rian was going to be upset and he might say something to people out of spite. He was just-- he was scared. He was paranoid. He told me about a teacher that was fired. And he said, you know, they don't even know if he did it, they just think he did it and he was fired or he left or something happened and he was just scared. Ms. Socorro, who was planning to return to the College in fall 2004, offered to take her classes at a different campus, or at Hillsborough Community College in Tampa, to assuage Respondent's fears. Despite the offer, she eventually registered to take classes at the College's Clearwater campus. Ms. Socorro also asked Respondent why their being seen together remained a concern, given that she was no longer his student. Ms. Socorro stated, "And he kept saying that it just looked bad, it just looked bad that I was his student at the school, because people would wonder how we met. It would be too much of a coincidence that we met, where we met or how." Respondent and Ms. Socorro agreed to give a false story to anyone curious about how they met. Ms. Socorro testified: He would ask me, please, just tell people that you met me at the bar or we would come up with kind of like a script of what I was going to say to [Respondent's] friends. It was usually I met Gary while he was playing out [with the band]. That's what I told everybody. * * * I was protecting him from anyone at all finding out. I don't know if-- I don't know. I don't know if he felt bad himself about it and he just didn't want people to know. He said people don’t-- he would say people don't know our relationship, they don't know us, they don't know how we are, and it doesn't look good that you're so young, it doesn't look good that I was your teacher and people perceive things differently, so let's not let them do that. Throughout their relationship, Respondent stressed to Ms. Socorro that she should not befriend students enrolled in his classes. Respondent testified that he did so not out of fear for his job but because he wanted to keep his professional and personal life as separate as possible. More credibly, Ms. Socorro testified that Respondent told her that he was "risking everything" to continue his relationship with Ms. Socorro. During the 2004 fall semester, Ms. Socorro met and befriended Ms. Gunn, who had taken a class from Respondent during the summer semester and was taking a second class from Respondent in the fall. When they discussed their classes and teachers, Ms. Socorro pretended she did not know Respondent. Respondent became concerned that Ms. Socorro was seeing too much of Ms. Gunn, because he was afraid Ms. Gunn might "put things together." Respondent asked Ms. Socorro to stay away from Ms. Gunn. Ms. Gunn testified that it took only a few weeks for her to determine that Respondent was the "boyfriend" that Ms. Socorro described in their conversations. Respondent told Ms. Socorro that she should just go to her classes, sit through the lectures, then get in her car and leave the campus. Respondent demanded that Ms. Socorro decide between her relationship with him and the life of a "typical student," because he was "risking too much" to have Ms. Socorro jeopardize it by "hanging out" at school. Ms. Socorro testified that "things got really bad" between Respondent and her during the 2004 fall semester, due to their conflicts concerning Ms. Gunn and the pressure of hiding their relationship. They had "a lot of fights," some so bad that they would decide to "take breaks from each other" for as long as one week. Ms. Socorro recalled three such "breaks" before their final breakup in late November and early December 2004. On November 30, 2004, Respondent and Ms. Socorro went to the AMC Woodlands 20 movie complex to see a movie, but never made it past the parking lot because an argument commenced. Ms. Gunn had told Ms. Socorro that Respondent had quizzed her regarding her whereabouts on certain evenings, with the idea of ascertaining whether Ms. Socorro had lied to him when she promised to stop seeing Ms. Gunn. Ms. Socorro confronted Respondent about his questioning of Ms. Gunn. Respondent called her a "compulsive liar" and said that he was "torn" about their relationship and needed time to decide what to do. Ms. Socorro described this fight as "sad" and "horrible." Respondent testified that, despite her promise not to see Ms. Gunn during the fall semester, Ms. Socorro had surreptitiously gone over to Ms. Gunn's house on at least one occasion of which he was aware. He agreed that the confrontation over Ms. Gunn occurred on November 30, though he placed it at a Ruby Tuesday's restaurant.3 Respondent assured Ms. Socorro that they would talk things over the next day, but testified that he also made it clear to her that the romantic relationship was over. On December 1, 2004, Ms. Socorro repeatedly phoned Respondent, who did not answer her calls.4 She sent several e- mail messages to which Respondent did not respond. Respondent was staying at his father's house because relatives were visiting from out of town. That evening, Ms. Socorro went to Respondent's father's house. Respondent did not want a confrontation with Ms. Socorro because his children were with him. He promised to speak with her the next day. On the morning of December 2, 2004, Ms. Socorro drove over to Respondent's house. She had concluded that her relationship with Respondent was over, and she wanted to retrieve some possessions that she kept at his house. Respondent was not at home, but Ms. Socorro knew that the lock was broken on Respondent's sliding glass back door, and she let herself in the house.5 While looking for some of her jewelry on Respondent's bedroom dresser, Ms. Socorro found a letter from and photographs of one of Respondent's former girlfriends, a former College student named Marianna Csongova. She read the letter, and concluded that Respondent was having a relationship with Ms. Csongova at the same time he was dating Ms. Socorro. Ms. Socorro recalled having seen an e-mail exchange between Respondent and Ms. Csongova earlier in 2004. Respondent had explained away this e-mail, but Ms. Socorro now wondered if there were more e-mails between Respondent and Ms. Csongova. She went into Respondent's computer room and checked his e- mails. She found "tons and tons" of e-mails from Ms. Csongova, and responses from Respondent.6 Ms. Socorro continued searching Respondent's e-mail and found correspondence between Respondent and several other female students at the College. She printed "tons" of the e- mails. Respondent's printer ran out of paper before all of the e-mails printed. Ms. Socorro began forwarding the e-mails to her own e-mail account, but then got worried that Respondent would come home and catch her. She turned off Respondent's computer and left the house, taking a half-inch thick stack of printed e-mails with her. Respondent had spent the night at his father's house. He woke up on the morning of December 2, 2004, and drove to his own house to shower and dress for work. He noticed that the sliding glass door had been opened. He went to check his e-mail and noticed that the printer was out of paper. Respondent surmised that Ms. Socorro had been in his house and on his computer. As he had promised Ms. Socorro the previous evening, Respondent phoned Ms. Socorro and arranged for her to come over to his house early in the afternoon to discuss their relationship. Ms. Socorro had a doctor's appointment that afternoon to which Respondent had planned to accompany her. During their phone conversation, Respondent told Ms. Socorro that he would not accompany her to the appointment because he was driving to Orlando to see his brother, who was down from Atlanta on business. Ms. Socorro arrived at Respondent's house at approximately 12:30 p.m. She went in and they sat down to talk. They talked for nearly an hour about Ms. Gunn and the other issues between them. They did not discuss Ms. Socorro's having gone into Respondent's house that morning and printing his e- mails. Ms. Socorro testified that they both "pretended" not to know what she had done. At about 1:15 p.m., Respondent reminded Ms. Socorro of her doctor's appointment at 1:30 p.m. Respondent was also anxious to begin his trip to Orlando. Ms. Socorro again asked Respondent to accompany her to her doctor's appointment, but Respondent again declined. Ms. Socorro told Respondent that she still wanted things to work out. Respondent said that he did not think it would work, but agreed to talk with her again. Respondent walked Ms. Socorro out of his house and to her car. Respondent was the first to reach Ms. Socorro's car. He looked inside. Ms. Socorro then recalled that she had placed the stack of e-mails on the back seat of her car and that they were plainly visible from outside. Respondent asked Ms. Socorro to unlock the car so that he could retrieve a CD that he claimed to have left in her car. Ms. Socorro used her keyless entry device to open the front door. Before Ms. Socorro could get in the car, Respondent reached in and opened the back door. He grabbed the stack of e- mails. Ms. Socorro threw herself onto Respondent's back, and they struggled over the e-mails on the back seat of the car. The papers were falling to the ground outside the car.7 Ms. Socorro pressed the "panic" button on her keyless entry device, setting off the car's alarm system. Respondent took the keys from her, stopped the alarm, and threw the keys outside the car. They continued to struggle inside the car, until Respondent managed to get out of the car. Neighbors were beginning to notice the struggle. Respondent told Ms. Socorro to calm down, that they both needed to act normal. They stopped fighting and picked up the e-mails. Respondent asked Ms. Socorro to go back into the house and talk about matters.8 They walked to the front door. Respondent opened the door, slipped part way into the house, then tossed his stack of e-mails into the house, with the apparent attempt to deny entry to Ms. Socorro. She ran inside the house before Respondent could close the door. They began yelling at each other again. Respondent demanded to know what Ms. Socorro intended to do with the e- mails and threatened to kill her if she tried to "do anything to destroy everything I've worked for all of my life." Respondent tried to force Ms. Socorro out of the house. He pushed her against the wall near the front door and hurt her arm. As Ms. Socorro held on to the jamb of the open front door, Respondent hit her in the chest with his head and shoulder, shoving her off the front porch and into a bush below.9 Respondent took advantage of Ms. Socorro's fall to lock his front door from the outside. Ms. Socorro became hysterical. She began to laugh, unnerving Respondent, who tried to calm her down. As Ms. Socorro quieted, they discussed the e- mails. Respondent explained that he stayed in touch with Ms. Csongova because he needed to keep his options open. She asked him about the e-mails to the other girls. Respondent replied that the College would not care if he "flirted" with a couple of his students. Ms. Socorro asked Respondent why he went to such lengths to keep their relationship a secret, if the College didn't care. According to Ms. Socorro, the exchange proceeded as follows: He said, why do you want to do this? You're going to hurt my kids. . . . He said, you have to understand that I'm 34 years old. I'm not a child like you. You have your whole life ahead of you and I need to find a role model. I need to find a good woman for my kids to marry. And I knew that you and I were rocky and I had to do this and I was leading more than one life, more than one relationship and if I had to do it, I did it for my kids, that they need a mother. He said, I can't be alone when I'm 44. I remember telling him that he was sick. I said that you're just sick. That's sick. He said, do you want me to tell you the truth. He said, from the moment you told me that you had an eating disorder, I knew that you and I weren't going to work. And I kept yelling at him, if it was that long ago, why didn't you stop the relationship, because you have known that forever. He said, I thought you would change, but you never did. Ms. Socorro got into her car and started to drive away. Believing that Ms. Socorro was in no condition to drive, Respondent tried to talk her into waiting while he called her mother or some other person to come over and help her. Ms. Socorro declined any assistance from Respondent. She told him that she was hurt and needed to get to the hospital. She drove away. From her car, Ms. Socorro phoned her doctor's office, because she had missed her appointment. The doctor's receptionist was so alarmed that she stayed on the phone with Ms. Socorro until she reached her mother's office. Ms. Socorro's mother, Patricia Mills, drove Ms. Socorro to the emergency room of Morton Plant Hospital in Clearwater, where she was treated for scrapes, an injured wrist, and a slightly cracked rib. Due to the injured rib, Ms. Socorro had to take time off from her job as a waitress at Applebee's. She also wore a splint on her wrist for a time. The emergency room staff at Morton Plant Hospital notified the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, which dispatched deputies to interview Ms. Socorro while she was still at the hospital. The Sheriff's deputies also interviewed Respondent. No arrests were made and no charges were filed in the matter. The Sheriff's Office reported the incident to the College. Ms. Mills phoned the College's security office to inform the College of the altercation between Respondent and Ms. Socorro. The security office passed the complaint to Clearwater campus Provost Dr. Stan Vittetoe. The College's standard procedure is to lock the computer of any instructor who is the subject of a complaint. Dr. Vittetoe locked Respondent's computer. On December 3, 2004, Dr. Vittetoe and Dr. Cooper met with Respondent to inform him that Ms. Socorro had lodged a complaint against him and to provide Respondent with an opportunity to give his side of the story. Respondent told them that during the physical confrontation with Ms. Socorro, he was merely trying to protect himself. He showed them a scratch on his cheek and stated that he had been trying to retrieve some papers that belonged to him. Respondent admitted that he had been involved in a romantic relationship with Ms. Socorro. This initial meeting with Dr. Vittetoe and Dr. Cooper lasted only about 15 minutes, because Respondent had a class to teach. Also on December 3, 2004, Dr. Vittetoe met with Ms. Socorro and her mother. Ms. Socorro told Dr. Vittetoe that she began dating Respondent during the fall semester of 2003, when she was a student in his class. She told Dr. Vittetoe that she and Respondent often discussed the need to hide their relationship, because of its impropriety. She told Dr. Vittetoe that Respondent often bought alcoholic drinks for her when they went out to bars. Ms. Socorro admitted that she had printed e- mails from Respondent's computer and that it was Respondent's seeing those e-mails that triggered their physical altercation. Dr. Vittetoe requested a formal written statement detailing the facts of her relationship with Respondent. Ms. Socorro furnished a written statement to the College on December 8, 2004. On December 7, 2004, Dr. Vittetoe and Dr. Cooper met with Respondent again. At the outset of the meeting, Dr. Vittetoe made clear the gravity of the situation, letting Respondent know that his job was in jeopardy. Dr. Vittetoe questioned Respondent about his involvement with female College students other than Ms. Socorro. Respondent admitted that he had been involved with Ms. Csongova. Dr. Cooper, as Respondent's immediate supervisor, expressed concern at what appeared to be a pattern of romantic involvement with students.10 Dr. Cooper noted that Respondent was not following college procedures and appeared to view the female student population as potential candidates for relationships. Dr. Cooper recounted the meeting as follows: I raised questions with him in regards to his ability to maintain his professional boundaries and expressed great concern over the fact that he didn't seem to recognize that, in his position as an instructor, he had a position of authority and power and could easily use that to influence students' decisions. I remember that he said that, well, they weren't students in my class at the time that he had become involved with them. My concern was that if you say to a young, impressionable individual, well, I don't date students if they're in my class, well, then what you're saying is, well, just get out of my class and then we can have a relationship. And I tried to express that concern over the fact that he was not maintaining his professional boundaries. And then he shared that, well, he didn't want students to dislike him and, you know, he didn't know how to respond when a student came on to him. Dr. Cooper attempted to explain that the student/teacher relationship should not be a matter of "liking" or "disliking," but a matter of respect based on the teacher's knowledge of his subject matter and ability to foster the student's quest for knowledge in the teacher's field of expertise. Dr. Cooper was extremely concerned that Respondent seemed unable to understand or respect basic professional boundaries established between students and teachers. Dr. Cooper was also concerned that Respondent issued invitations to students to come watch his band play in bars that served alcoholic beverages, when most of those students were underage. She did not agree with Respondent's contention that a band playing in an Ybor City bar constituted a "cultural event." She suggested that, if Respondent wanted to share his music with his classes, then he should have the band come to the class and play. During the meeting, Respondent attempted to defend his relationship with Ms. Socorro, first by denying that it commenced prior to the end of the 2003 fall semester, then by pointing out how careful he had been to instruct Ms. Socorro not to discuss their relationship with other students and not to make friends with students on the Clearwater campus. At the conclusion of this meeting, both Dr. Vittetoe and Dr. Cooper concluded that Respondent had breached College rules and could not be trusted with the safety of College students. Dr. Vittetoe gave Respondent the option of resigning before completion of the investigation and a possible recommendation for termination. Respondent declined the offer of resignation. On December 14, 2004, Ms. Socorro met with associate provost Maria Edmonds. Because she was also an Hispanic female, Ms. Edmonds believed that Ms. Socorro might be more comfortable discussing the issues with her than she had been with Dr. Vittetoe. After the meeting, Ms. Edmonds drafted a memorandum summarizing her conversation with Ms. Socorro, the substance of which was consistent with the findings of fact above. Ms. Socorro executed a sworn affidavit attesting to the accuracy of Ms. Edmonds' memorandum, which was forwarded to Dr. Vittetoe. Dr. Vittetoe investigated Respondent's relationships with Socorro and other female College students. Associate Provost Jeff Davis interviewed students at the Clearwater campus to determine their knowledge of Respondent's relationships with various female College students. The investigation disclosed that Respondent had been involved with College students other than Ms. Socorro and Ms. Csongova. Respondent admitted to a relationship with Harmony Holt, who had been a student in his class during the 1999 fall semester. However, Respondent's romantic relationship with Ms. Holt did not commence until 2002, after she had graduated. Respondent admitted to a relationship with Kimberly Kimball. Ms. Kimball was in Respondent's class twice, first in the 2004 spring semester, then in the 2004 summer session. The summer session ended in July 2004, then Respondent dated her for a short time in September 2004, during one of his periodic breakups with Ms. Socorro. Respondent testified that he stopped dating Ms. Kimball because he was not over Ms. Socorro. Respondent admitted to a "friendly, casual" dating relationship with his former student Kelly McGill in 2003. Respondent testified that, although there was a mutual attraction, no sexual relationship occurred with Ms. McGill. On December 13, 2004, Respondent submitted to Dr. Vittetoe his written statement concerning his relationship with Ms. Socorro. This document is a remarkable mixture of rationalization, self-pitying emotional immaturity, and self- centered moral obtuseness.11 Respondent commences with an irrelevant narrative of his divorce proceedings. He next describes his first contacts with Ms. Socorro. Respondent states that there was a "decision to meet and get to know each other on a more personal level." Though he "can't remember exactly how or when it happened," he is absolutely certain that it occurred after the conclusion of the 2003 fall semester. Respondent notes that he stopped dating other women after he had sexual intercourse with Ms. Socorro, on "about the 5th date." Respondent writes that he was concerned about the age difference, but that such differences are the norm in Ms. Socorro's Latin American culture. Respondent states, "Ultimately I was able to handle it because she seemed mature for her age." Respondent devotes a long passage to a discussion of Ms. Socorro's bulimia, notable for its emphasis on the impact her disease was having on its real victim, Respondent: "She could tell the bulimia was putting a strain on me to know what she was doing to herself everyday and that it was hurting me." Respondent writes that he accompanied Ms. Socorro to a therapist whose name he could not recall. This therapist, whom Ms. Socorro never saw again, apparently introduced the concept of "borderline personality disorder" to Respondent. The therapist also commended Respondent on how well he was dealing with Ms. Socorro. Respondent now realized that the borderline personality disorder was responsible for Ms. Socorro's "pathological lying," the fact that she could not hold a job, and the fact that she spent all her money on "binge foods and/or shopping." Respondent described the impetus for the final breakup as follows: The relationship problems came to a head this past month when she continued to socialize in the student population instead of with friends outside the school which was a boundary we set in the relationship and it made it uncomfortable for us to go out. I was too worried someone would see the two of us together. Eventually she met someone in a class that was in one of my classes and I asked her not to pursue the friendship until after the class was over so that there would be no possible problems. She continued to pursue a close relationship with the woman and lied about it on at least a couple of occasions. I wanted to look beyond it and even began to question why I asked her to do it and felt guilty that I might be negatively affecting her college experience and knew it needed to end quickly. Once again I was being manipulated and didn't realize it. I also was having difficulty because although this would only be an issue until she graduated in May of '05, I still felt it was something she knew was important to me but she didn't see it and just ignored it and lied to me about it. I couldn't see being in a relationship where a set boundary was ignored. Respondent concludes by alleging that Ms. Socorro "is retaliating against me for ending our eleven month long relationship and this retaliation is a form of sexual harassment." From the beginning to the end of the relationship, Respondent claims he was victimized, manipulated, and finally smeared by Ms. Socorro. Respondent claimed his only failing was being too nice for his own good. On December 16, 2004, Dr. Vittetoe issued a memorandum to Dr. Kuttler, the College president, stating as follows, in relevant part: The evidence, which we have received to date, causes us to have great and immediate concerns for our female students' safety and freedom from sexual harassment and inappropriate relationships. We have evidence that he has been assisting under age students with unlawful drinking, which is a serious violation of the law. With the evidence presented thus far, I have no choice but to recommend his suspension, effective immediately. Because of the above matters, I further recommend he not be allowed to come on campus or have any contact or conversations with students. Any retaliation by Mr. Rodriguez should be a separate cause for disciplinary action. I further recommend his dismissal be presented to the Board of Trustees. On December 17, 2004, Dr. Kuttler issued a memorandum adopting Dr. Vittetoe's recommendations. Respondent was suspended with pay, effective immediately. Dr. Kuttler anticipated that he would petition the College's Board of Trustees for the suspension without pay and dismissal of Respondent at the Board's next meeting, on January 18, 2005. Dr. Kuttler filed the Petition for Dismissal on January 12, 2005. By Order dated January 18, 2005, the Board of Trustees voted to suspend Respondent without pay and to forward the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings, should Respondent request a hearing. Through counsel, Respondent filed an Answer on January 20, 2005, asserting his right to a hearing. As noted above, the matter was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings on January 24, 2005. Based upon the findings of fact set forth above, the College has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent did aid and abet at least one student under the age of 21, Ms. Socorro, in the unlawful drinking of alcoholic beverages. Based upon the findings of fact set forth above, the College has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent did improperly use his position and abuse his power to encourage and induce female students to come to a nightclub in an attempt to establish a personal relationship, by giving female students inappropriate attention, which Respondent knew could lead to romantic and/or sexual relationships. The evidence established that Respondent would make blanket invitations to his entire class, male and female. However, Respondent would also select individual females, such as Ms. Socorro and Ms. Gunn, for personal invitations. The evidence established that Respondent knew, or should have known, that he was using his position as an instructor to manipulate impressionable young female students into attending his performances, whereby he hoped to impress them sufficiently to make them susceptible to his romantic overtures. As Dr. Cooper said to Respondent at one of their meetings, "[I]t seems like what's more important is for you to organize a set of groupies to follow your band," than to maintain the proper professional relationship with students. Based upon the findings of fact set forth above, the College has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent did cause a female student, Ms. Socorro, with whom he had a romantic and sexual relationship, to stop her academic progress by inducing her not to continue her schooling at this College, adversely affecting the student's academic progress for Respondent's sole benefit. The evidence did not establish that Respondent made a direct demand that Ms. Socorro quit school. By her own testimony, Ms. Socorro did not attend classes during the 2004 spring semester because she wanted to visit her father in Venezuela. However, she also testified that her relationship with Respondent was much improved when she was not in school, because Respondent felt less pressure about students seeing him on dates with her. Ms. Socorro also testified that her relationship with Respondent was her main reason for not enrolling during the 2004 summer session. Respondent testified that he encouraged Ms. Socorro to complete her education, but only on his terms: that she stay on the campus only long enough to attend classes and that she socialize with none of her classmates. The unreasonable pressure placed on her by Respondent was unquestionably the cause of Ms. Socorro's decision not to attend classes for at least one semester during their relationship. Based upon the findings of fact set forth above, the College has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent did have a sexual and/or romantic relationship with a female student, Ms. Socorro, during a time when the student was enrolled in Respondent's class or when Respondent was in a position to determine the student's grade or otherwise affect the student's academic progress or environment. The weight of the evidence leads to the finding that the romantic relationship between Ms. Socorro and Respondent commenced prior to the end of the 2003 fall semester, when Ms. Socorro was a student in Respondent's class. By the time the semester ended, Respondent and Ms. Socorro had attended a dance recital and a movie together. Their romantic relationship was well underway while Ms. Socorro was still a student in Respondent's class. Even if Respondent's testimony were fully credited, the couple went on their first "date" (not counting the dance recital and the Rare Olive meeting) on the night after Ms. Socorro took her final exam in his class. This fact, coupled with Respondent's admission that on November 22, 2003, the night of the dance recital, he told Ms. Socorro that he was very interested in pursuing a relationship with her, indicates that the romantic relationship between Respondent and Ms. Socorro did not blossom suddenly after she completed Respondent's class. Respondent's rationalization appears to be that it was perfectly acceptable for him to use his classes as a dating service, planning romantic relationships with his female students while they were in his class, so long as the actual dating did not begin until the semester ended. The College naturally and reasonably disagreed with Respondent's reading of the applicable rule, discussed in the conclusions of law below. Based upon the findings of fact set forth above, the College has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed an assault and battery upon Ms. Socorro. While their testimony about the events of December 2, 2004, differed in many particulars, both Ms. Socorro and Respondent agreed that she initiated the physical confrontation by jumping on Respondent's back as he attempted to get the e-mails out of the back seat of her car. It could be reasonably contended that matters then cooled off and that the second physical altercation at the front door of the house was initiated by Respondent and did constitute assault and battery. In any event, the facts of the situation were ambiguous enough that the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office did not charge either party after completing its investigation. Though Respondent's conduct during the events of December 2, 2004, was an embarrassment to himself and the College, the specific allegation of assault and battery was not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Based upon the findings of fact set forth above, the College has not demonstrated that Respondent made untruthful or deceitful statements to College representatives during the investigation. At worst, Respondent appeared to suffer convenient lapses during which his memory became "fuzzy" or "foggy" when the thrust of his testimony varied from that of other witnesses. The evidence established that Respondent was deceitful to the various women in his life, but failed to establish that he said anything to College officials that he did not believe was true. The College's allegation that Respondent was married while some of the alleged misconduct occurred was technically proven but should have no bearing on the discipline imposed. Respondent had been separated from his wife for well over a year at the time he met Ms. Socorro and was in the process of finalizing his divorce and custody arrangements. For all the good reasons Respondent had to avoid a romantic relationship with Ms. Socorro, remaining faithful to his wife was not one of them.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Board enter a final order dismissing Respondent from any and all employment by the Board and/or the College and canceling his contract status retroactive to January 12, 2005. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 8th day of February, 2006.
The Issue As to DOAH Case No. 12-2859TTS, whether Rhea Cohen (Respondent), a classroom teacher, committed the acts alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed by Robert Runcie, as Superintendent of the Broward County Schools (Superintendent) and, if so, the discipline that should be imposed against Respondent’s employment. As to DOAH Case No. 13-0704PL, whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed by Pam Stewart, as Commissioner of Education (Commissioner) and, if so, the discipline that should be imposed against Respondent’s teacher’s certificate.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the School Board has been the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Broward County, Florida; and Robert Runcie was Superintendent of Schools. At all times material hereto, the Commissioner has been the head of the state agency responsible for certifying and regulating public school teachers in the State of Florida; and Pam Stewart was the Commissioner. Respondent has been employed by the School Board since 2002 and holds a Professional Services Contract, issued in accordance with section 1012.33(3)(a). During the time relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was an ESE classroom teacher at Crystal Lake. During the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent was employed as an ESE classroom teacher at Atlantic West Elementary School teaching students on the autism spectrum. During that school year, the Education Practices Commission (EPC) reprimanded Respondent for sleeping in class while students were present and for using restraints inappropriately to control or manage autistic and exceptional student education students. The EPC imposed an administrative fine against her in the amount of $500.00. Thereafter, Respondent transferred to Crystal Lake. Respondent taught ESE students at Crystal Lake for the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years. The events at issue in this proceeding occurred during either the 2010-2011 school year or the 2011-2012 school year. Exact dates were available for some of the events, but unavailable for other events. Respondent’s classroom at Crystal Lake for those two school years was divided into two halves, separated by tables and rolling chalkboards that did not form a solid wall. For the 2010-2011 school year, Respondent taught her class of ESE students on one side of the divided classroom and a Ms. Knighton taught on the other side. For the 2011-2012 school year Respondent shared the classroom with Mr. Montalbano. On one side of the classroom was Respondent’s class, consisting of 11 ESE students. On the other side of the room was Mr. Montalbano’s class, consisting of seven ESE students. Mr. Montalbano’s class was smaller because his class functioned at a lower level than Respondent’s class. On October 4, 2011, student J., a non-verbal, wheel chair-bound boy, and student D., a boy with Down’s syndrome, were sitting next to each other in Respondent’s classroom. Student D. did something to irritate student J. Student J. balled up his fist as if to strike student D. Respondent, in front of the entire class, Lisa Phillips (an ESE paraprofessional), and Ms. Sorren, made the following statement: “So is the cripple [student J.] going to beat up the retard [student D.]”./4 Other students in the classroom laughed at student J. and student D. Student J.’s wheelchair is motorized. After making the statement quoted above, Respondent attempted to move student J. into a corner. When student J. moved the wheelchair away from the corner, Respondent unplugged the wheelchair’s battery and made the statement: “Now who has the power. I am in control, not you.” The other students laughed at student J. Respondent then moved student J. to the corner./5 On October 11, 2011, Respondent sent student J. to Mr. Montalbano’s classroom and commented that “he’s too much of a bother.” One day at dismissal, student J. asked Respondent three or four times to be taken to the bathroom. Respondent did not respond to student J. The bus arrived, but the driver refused to accept student J. because of his request to go to the toilet. Mr. Montalbano, who overheard student J.’s requests to Respondent, took over the responsibility for student J. Respondent became frustrated while helping student J. with the computer after student J. got the wires to the headphones tangled. Respondent ripped the headphones out of the back of the computer leaving the male connection in the female end of the computer. In a private discussion with Mr. Montalbano, Respondent referred to student D. as being a “moron.” Respondent sent her 11 students to Mr. Montalbano’s side of the classroom, which housed ten computers. There was a disturbance because one student did not have a computer. Respondent came to Mr. Montalbano’s side of the classroom and told student D. to give up his computer. Student D.’s first language is Bulgarian. When student D. muttered in protest, Respondent yelled at him to express himself in English. When student D. left the computer, his place was quickly taken by another student. Student D. began to cry. Respondent walked back to her side of the classroom, leaving student D. crying in Mr. Montalbano’s side of the classroom. On October 11, 2011, student Mi., an 11 year-old female on the autism spectrum, was playing with a puzzle during free time when she spotted an open computer. Student Mi. left the puzzle pieces out to go to the computer. Respondent noted the puzzle on the table and yelled out, “Who left this puzzle out?” Student Mi. hid under a table in reaction to Respondent’s statement. Respondent came to the table, roughly grabbed student Mi., and pulled her out from under the table. Respondent led student Mi. to the table with the puzzle and yelled in front of the class: “I don’t know what your mother teaches you at home, but you’re a little, spoiled brat and I am not going to clean up after you.” Respondent then took student Mi.’s doll away from her and put her in time out for the remainder of the day, approximately 30 minutes. On another occasion, Respondent had the other members of the class imitate student Mi., after student Mi. had engaged in self-stimulatory behavior. The other students laughed at student Mi. In October 2011, Ms. Hudson discovered Respondent and student Mi. in Mr. Montalbano’s half of the classroom with the lights dimmed. Ms. Hudson thought student Mi. had been crying. Ms. Hudson reported the incident to her principal, but she did not question Respondent, nor did Respondent volunteer to Ms. Hudson an explanation of the circumstances that resulted in Respondent being in the darkened classroom with student Mi. At the formal hearing, Respondent explained that student Mi. had run into traffic while waiting to be transported from school. Respondent testified, credibly, that she was trying to calm down student Mi./6 Ms. Sorren testified, credibly, that during the short time she was in Respondent’s classroom (approximately three school days), she heard Respondent address the students as morons, monkeys, jungle monkeys, and animals. That testimony was consistent with the other testimony as to the language used by Respondent in her classroom. Petitioners established that Respondent repeatedly yelled at her students to “shut up,” described a student’s behavior as being “stupid,” and called at least one student a “brat.” Student Mo., a female on the autism spectrum, was new to Respondent’s class. On an unidentified date, Respondent directed student Mo. to go to timeout. After student Mo. refused to go to timeout, Respondent shoved student Mo. into the timeout area. During the 2010-2011 school year, Respondent became upset with student C., a female, and ordered her out of her classroom. When student C. talked back to Respondent, Respondent threw student C.’s backpack and her shoes over the chalkboard that divided the classroom. Ms. Knighton and her class were in the part of the classroom into which Respondent threw the objects. Student C. became very upset. Respondent became upset with Ma., a male student. Ma. had a snack on his desk. Respondent knocked the snack to the floor and smashed it with her foot. Petitioners established that Respondent engaged in a pattern of misconduct. Respondent’s effectiveness in the school system has been impaired.
Recommendation The following recommendations are based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law: As to Case No. 12-2859TTS, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Broward County, Florida, enter a final order adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order uphold the suspension without pay of Rhea Cohen’s employment and terminate that employment. As to Case No. 13-0704PL, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order suspend Rhea Cohen’s educator’s certificate for a period of five years, to be followed by probation for three years with conditions to be set by the Education Practices Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of July, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of July, 2013.
The Issue Does the challenged language contained in the Academic Policy Statement Handbook constitute "curricula" so as to be exempt from rule-making pursuant to Section 120.81(1)(a), Florida Statutes [1996 Supp.]? Is Petitioner entitled to a de novo hearing on the merits of her dismissal from the University pursuant to Section 120.57(1) Florida Statutes in light of the provisions of Section 120.81(1)(f) Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was enrolled in Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University's College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences. On December 18, 1996, Petitioner was dismissed from the pharmacy program by a letter from the Dean of the College which stated, in pertinent part, After reviewing your academic record and the recommendation of the Admission and Academic Standards Committee, I must inform you that you are being dismissed from the College of Pharmacy. Please be advised that further request for readmission will not be considered. Because pharmacy is a career directed toward the safeguarding of community health, it also is a demanding career. We must insist that our students meet the academic challenges of the College of Pharmacy so that they will be well prepared to meet the challenge of a dynamic health care system. (Emphasis in original) [See, Exhibit to the First Amended Petition] Count I of the First Amended Petition challenges "Academic Policy Statement Handbook, Section 2 Dismissal", found on pages 9 and 10 of the publication. (See, Paragraph 5 of the First Amended Petition) The full title of this handbook is "Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University Academic Policy Handbook for BS and PharmD Students." The "Disclaimer" on page one of the Handbook makes clear that the Handbook is, ". . .for information purposes only and should not be construed as the basis of a contract between the student and the FAMU College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Services . . ., the College reserves the right to change any provision listed, including but not limited to academic requirements for graduation, . . . it is especially important that each student note that it is his/her responsibility to keep himself/herself apprised of current graduation requirements by regular consultation with his/her advisor." The portion of the Handbook specifically challenged by Count I of the First Amended Petition provides as follows: ACADEMIC POLICY STATEMENT The Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University (FAMU) College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences (the College) has a responsibility to prepare students to enter the practice of pharmacy with competencies demanded by his/her role in health care. Further, the College serves to provide breadth and depth of scientific and professional background so as to allow versatility of practice within the subsystems of pharmacy. Students must make a commitment to their chosen profession by making those sacrifices necessary to insure academic success in their course of study. Being admitted to the College comes with the understanding that excellence in academic performance is expected. Failure to maintain academic performance will result in some action by the appropriate College of Pharmacy Committee. **It should be further understood that failing a course will usually result in the suspension of the student's program due to the structure of the curriculum and the associated prerequisite requirements in addition to any academic sanctions that may be imposed. The curriculum is designed to be followed from a course prerequisite standpoint while maintaining the integrity of the courses based on the year offered in the curriculum (i.e. 3rd year courses must be completed before entering 4th year courses, etc.). In addition to University Academic Regulations, the following rules will be used to provide for the immediate intervention of the Admissions and Academic Standards (A&AS) Committee. Additionally, the A&AS Committee may intervene at times other than specifically stated below if it is deemed necessary in order to ensure the academic integrity of the College. ProbationA student will be placed on academic probation if EITHER of the following occurs:Two or more D's in any course work in any semesterFailure of a professional courseA G.P.A. less than 2.0 in any semester. While on academic probation, the student will be required to meet with his/her advisor to determine what steps are needed to increase the student's academic performance. The student will be expected to adhere to the plan worked out with the student's advisor. The advisor will inform the A&AS Committee of the student's compliance and progress. **A "C" grade or better is required for passing all pharmacy courses.Probation will be lifted when BOTH of the following occur:A G.P.A. above 2.00No additional D's or F's DismissalA student may be dismissed from the program under provisions set by the A&AS Committee if EITHER of the following occurs:Two or more failures in one semesterA total of three failures in professionalcourses semester A G.P.A. less than 2.00 for the thirdThe student will be required to attend ALL professional courses in the semester in which he/she is retaking courses.The A&AS Committee will review every case separately and reserves the right to determine the provisions for each individual situation.The A&AS Committee will define the conditions for readmission for each individual student. DismissalA student will be dismissed from the program if EITHER of the following occurs:The fifth failure in professional coursesThe fifth failure in non-professionalcoursesThree failures in professional courses inone semesterThe second failure of a single courseThe student is eligible to reapply and be considered for admission one year after studies in the College have been discontinued. It is the student's responsibility to ask to be withdrawn from a course in a timely manner. Failure to seek counseling or guidance in a situation that negatively impacts his academic performance will not be used as cause to prevent the imposition of the appropriate academic penalty. (Emphasis in original) [See, Paragraph 5 of the First Amended Petition and Exhibit attached thereto] In her Supplementary Response to the Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Petition, Petitioner conceded that "No doubt the major text of the 'ACADEMIC POLICY STATEMENT' challenged, constitutes 'curriculum' which is exempt from rulemaking under Florida Law." The thrust of her challenge was then directed to the fifth paragraph on page 9 of the Handbook which reads, Additionally, the A & AS Committee may intervene at times other than specifically stated below if it is deemed necessary in order to ensure the academic integrity of the College. Petitioner further argued that she "contends that it is not what the challenged agency statement says . . . but what is not specifically in that text. The statement granted the A&AS Committee authority to take action against the Petitioner to preserve the 'academic integrity of the College,' but the text did not state what grounds that action must be based upon or what reasons are needed to take such action." Petitioner ultimately argued that she is "not challenging the 'curricula' use of the challenged statement to judge academic standards, but the use of the statement for other purposes as used against her." [See Petitioner's Supplementary Response to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss]. However, Petitioner conceded in the March 7, 1997 oral argument that she had no idea what those "other purposes" (also referred to as "discipline" or "other or secret agenda" in oral argument) might be, if any. Count II of the First Amended Petition adds anew a petition for a de novo review of the action of the Dean in dismissing Petitioner from the College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Services. See, Finding of Fact 2, above.
The Issue Are proposed amendments to Rules 6C-6.001, 6C-6.002 and 6C-6.003, Florida Administrative Code, calling for language to be repealed and added, "invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority?" Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, NAACP, Inc., individually and through its Florida Conference of Branches of NAACP, is a foreign not-for- profit corporation that has a certificate of authority to conduct its affairs in the State of Florida. Petitioner Mattie Garvin has not applied for admission to any state university within the State University System (SUS) for school year 2000-2001. The goal of Petitioner, Mattie Garvin, is to provide her son, Keith Garvin, with the best possible educational opportunities, a goal shared by many parents of the State of Florida. Petitioner, Keith Garvin, has not applied for freshman admission to any state university within the SUS. Petitioner, Keith Garvin, has not applied to any limited access program offered by any state university within the SUS. Petitioner Keith Garvin has not applied for admission to any preteacher education or teacher education pilot program at any state university within the SUS. Petitioners Keith Garvin and Mattie Garvin are members of the NAACP, but are not members of Florida Now. The Board of Education is a body corporate created by Article IX, Section 2 of the Florida Constitution, consisting of the Governor and members of the cabinet. The Board of Education is constitutionally mandated to supervise the system of public education as provided by law. Section 229.053, Florida Statutes (1999), designates the Board of Education as the chief policymaking and coordinating body of public education in Florida. With respect to the SUS, the Board of Education is required to approve all rules adopted by the Board of Regents before the rules are filed with the Department of State, and to exercise general supervision and control over the Board of Regents pursuant to Section 240.203, Florida Statutes (1999). The Board of Regents is a body corporate created by Section 240.205, Florida Statutes (1999), and is an agency of the State of Florida for purposes under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes (1999). The Board of Regents consists of the Commissioner of Education and 13 citizens of Florida who are selected from the state at large, and is representative of the geographical areas of the state. Programs Section 240.529(9), Florida Statutes (1999), authorizes universities to establish preteacher education and teacher education pilot programs to encourage promising minority students to prepare for a career in education. The programs shall be designed to recruit and provide additional academic, clinical, and counseling support for students who are potentially successful teacher education candidates but who may not meet teacher education program admission standards. Those programs may admit students who may not meet the requirements for entrance into an approved teacher education program. The establishment of preteacher education or teacher education pilot programs as described in Section 240.529, Florida Statutes (1999), is not mandatory. No SUS university currently offers a preteacher education and teacher education pilot program. Enrollment in preteacher education and teacher education pilot programs offered by state universities within the SUS is a separate process from freshman admission into a state university. Enrollment in limited access programs offered by state universities within the SUS is a separate process from freshman admission into a state university. Neither the Board of Regents nor any of the ten universities in the SUS has adopted a rule establishing an admissions quota. There is no provision in the existing rules of the Board of Regents which requires that public universities grant race or gender-based preferences in admissions. Case History On November 9, 1999, the Governor issued Executive Order 99-281, requesting that the Board of Regents implement a policy prohibiting the use of racial or gender set-asides, preferences, or quotas in admissions to all Florida institutions of higher education. The Board of Regents, at its November 18-19, 1999, meeting directed its staff to develop appropriate language to amend admission rules to prohibit the use of race, ethnicity, and gender-based preferences in the university admissions process, and to implement other policies outlined in the Governor's Equity in Education Plan. The Board of Regents published its "Notice of Rule Development" in the Florida Administrative Weekly on November 24, 1999. At the meeting of the Board of Regents held on December 9-10, 1999, the Board of Regents reviewed proposed language for the rule amendments and data that was presented in support of the rule amendments. On December 23, 1999, and February 4, 2000, the Board of Regents published its "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" in the Florida Administrative Weekly. On February 3, 2000, the Agenda for the Board of Regents' February meeting was mailed to each Board of Regents member; this Agenda included over 145 pages of information on the Proposed Rule Amendments. At the Board of Regents' meeting held on February 17- 18, 2000, the Board of Regents heard comments from 78 members of the public regarding the proposed rule amendments. At the conclusion of the public comments, the presidents of each of the ten SUS universities also offered comments on the proposed rule amendments. At the Board of Regents meeting on February 17-18, 2000, the Board of Regents voted to approve the proposed rule amendments. The Board of Education approved the proposed rule amendments on February 22, 2000. On February 25, 2000, the Petitioners filed a Petition to Determine Invalidity of the Proposed Rule Amendments. By order dated March 30, 2000, the Florida National Organization of Women was granted leave to Intervene in support of the petition filed by the Petitioners. The Board of Regents has granted the Petition for Emergency Variance filed by the ten SUS universities on April 11, 2000. The universities were granted a variance from the portion of Rule 6C-6.002(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, that requires entering freshman to possess four additional academic electives from five specific subject areas referenced in the rule, i.e., English, math, natural science, social science and foreign language. Gender In the 1998-99 academic year, 56.7 percent of the students enrolled in SUS universities were women. Other Facts: Standing NAACP The NAACP is chartered under laws in the State of New York. It has affiliates throughout the country. There are 39 state conferences. There is a Florida conference. The Florida conference, as other state conferences, is made up of local Adult Branches, Youth Councils, and College Chapters. Within the NAACP national office is a department of education. That department has the function of development of educational policy at the state and national level through affiliated units in the NAACP. NAACP, in pursuit of educational policy and in particular in relation to the desegregation of public education in elementary schools, secondary schools, undergraduate, and graduate studies in universities, is engaged in litigation. The Florida Conference State Convention takes up topics concerning education related to enrollment in colleges and universities. The Constitution and By-Laws for Branches of NAACP, Article I, Section 3, describes the purpose of its branches, to include: . . . to improve the . . . educational . . . status of minority groups: to eliminate racial prejudice; to keep the public aware of the adverse effects of racial discrimination; and to take lawful action to secure, its elimination, consistent with the efforts of the National Organization and in conformity with the Articles of Incorporation of the Association, its Constitution and By-Laws and as directed by the National Board of Directors. Article II, Section 1, establishes that "membership in the Branches shall include membership in the National Association." Under Article IV, Section 4, in that document, NAACP has a standing committee for education. Article IV, Section 5(d), refers to the education committee which shall, among other responsibilities, "(1) Seek to eliminate segregation and other discriminatory practices in public education; (2) Study local educational conditions affecting minority groups . . ." (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 18) NAACP has a Constitution for Youth Councils. Under Article I, Section 2, to that constitution, Youth Councils are subordinate units of the NAACP and are expected to coordinate their activities to achieve the aims and objectives of NAACP. Article I, Section 3, within the Constitution for Youth Councils states the purpose of the Youth Councils to, among other expectations, advance educational status of Black people and other minority groups. Article II, Section 1, identifies members in Youth Councils as persons under the age of 25. Those members of the Youth Council may become members of the Youth and College Division by accepting the terms of the Constitution of the NAACP. Membership in the Youth Council constitutes membership in the NAACP. The Constitution for Youth Councils, Article V, Section 4(f), establishes a standing committee for education. That committee is charged with the responsibility to, "(1) Seek to eliminate segregation or other discriminatory practices in public education; (2) Study local educational conditions affecting minority groups . . ." (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 19) NAACP has a Constitution for College Chapters. According to Article I, Section 2, the College Chapters are affiliated with NAACP and shall subscribe to the general policies and programs of NAACP. The College Chapters shall have as their purpose, among other goals and responsibilities, the improvement of educational status in minority groups, elimination of racial prejudice and assistance to the public in becoming aware of the adverse affects of racial discrimination. In accordance with Article II, Section 1, membership in the College Chapters pertains to persons under the age of 25. Membership in the College Chapters shall include membership in the NAACP. Article IV, Section 4(e), identifies a standing committee on education within the College Chapters charged with the study of educational conditions affecting Black people and other minority groups and in particular, charged to: Concern itself with educational practices on its own campus as well as other campuses. Be a center for popular education on the problems of Black students in the work of the NAACP. To work for the integration of students, faculty and non-teaching personnel; elimination of quota systems, particularly in medical, dental and engineering schools and to give attention to upgrading and granting tenure to professors. Seek to secure unprejudiced presentation in the teaching of materials pertaining to racial and other minority groups. . . . (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 20). NAACP has established State Youth and College Division By-Laws. Article I, Section 3, to the By-Laws states the objectives of a State Youth and College Division of NAACP to advance the educational status of Black people. Article II, Section 1, refers to membership partially composed of Youth Councils and College Chapters. Under Article IV (c), the By- Laws establish a standing committee on education charged to organize and study conditions affecting the education of Black people in Florida. (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 23) NAACP sponsors the Afro-Academic, Cultural, Technological and Scientific Olympics (Act-So). Act-So was designed to stimulate, promote, and encourage high academic and artistic achievement among Afro-American high school students. NAACP Branches throughout the country conduct annual local Act- So competitions in the sciences, the humanities, the performing arts, and the individual arts. The competition is for students in grades 9-12. Winners in local competitions then compete with winners from other cities in national Act-So finals. (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 21) Branches within NAACP work through the Back To School/Stay In School program to assist students who are "at risk" to remain enrolled in school. This program includes tutoring and mentoring. The Florida Conference in relation to the Youth and College Divisions brings representatives of colleges and universities to address students about the opportunities for attending college. Recently 13 colleges and universities sent representatives for this presentation. NAACP prepared a membership report for its members in Florida for the period February 1, 1999 through February 29, 2000. The report reflects the number of members in Adult Branches, Youth Councils, and College Chapters. In the reporting period there were 7,205 regular adult members, and there were 2,587 regular youth members, further divided into 1,835 Youth Council members and 602 College Chapter members, all categories having membership in NAACP. (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 22) The number of members in Youth Councils enrolled as high school students cannot be discerned from the report; however, it is estimated to be 70 percent to 80 percent of Youth Council membership. In its challenge, NAACP considers the term "preferences" to be a "negatively charged word" as used in the proposed rules amendments. It believes that the term is used to enflame passions and create prejudice against the use of affirmative action programs. It alleges that in prohibiting "preferences" programs benefiting minorities such as scholarships, tutoring, and recruitment will be negatively affected. NAACP has its greatest concern in the Board of Regents' choice to refer to "prohibition of preferences" in the proposed amendment to Rule 6C-6.003(5), Florida Administrative Code. Mattie Garvin and Keith Garvin: Mattie Garvin and Keith Garvin reside in Miami, Florida. Mattie Garvin is Keith Garvin's mother. Mattie Garvin and Keith Garvin are African-American. Both are members of NAACP. Keith Garvin is a minor; he is 15 years old, a tenth grader at Miami Lakes Senior High School, in Hialeah, Florida. To this point Keith Garvin has received his education in public school. He anticipates graduating in the year 2002. Keith Garvin has a 2.6 grade point average (GPA). He is unfamiliar with his class rank. (Respondents' Exhibit Nos. 98 and 99) Class rank is not determined until the twelfth grade. Keith Garvin plans to attend college. He has particular interest in attending Florida State University within the SUS. He has interests in computer engineering and computer programming as possible college majors. In addition to his school course work, Keith Garvin visits with a counselor to assist him in identifying his needs in the interest of attending college following graduation from high school. These sessions also involve the discussion of the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), and overall study habits. Keith Garvin has taken the PSAT. His aggregate score was 1400, divided 700 in English and 700 in Math. For future reference concerning hypothetical admissions possibilities for Keith Garvin, information has been taken from the SUS Fact Book 1997-98. (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 40 Respondents' Exhibit No. 54) It shows that for the fall of 1997 regular admissions the average SAT score was 1150.7 and the average GPA was 3.6. In that term, the entering freshmen class at the University of Florida had an SAT score of 1242.1 and a 3.8 GPA. In that term, the Florida State University entering class had an SAT score of 1151.6 and 3.5 GPA. At the other end of the scale, the Florida Gulf Coast University entering freshmen class had an SAT score of 1047 and a 3.5 GPA. Keith Garvin participates in other activities aside from his education. He plays high school football, is involved with Future Business Leaders of America, as well as his membership in NAACP in the Miami Dade Youth Council. His NAACP Youth Council has approximately 500 members with approximately 80 percent of that membership attending high school. Mattie Garvin actively participates in the education of Keith Garvin and her other two children. She is committed to advancing the education of her children, and she intends to have her children attend college. Florida Now Florida Now is incorporated by the State of Florida. (Intervenor's Exhibit No. 1) As its Statement of Purpose, Florida Now indicates it [I]s to take action to bring women into full participation in the mainstream of American society now, exercising all privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men. This includes, but is not limited to, equal rights and responsibilities in all aspects of . . . education . . .; and it includes freedom from discrimination because of race, ethnic origin, age, marital status, sexual preference/orientation, or parenthood. (Intervenor's Exhibit No. 2A) In its brochure, Florida Now describes its support for affirmative action, and equal opportunity for women and people of color. The brochure reflects that members of Florida Now are actively involved in issues relating to the full equality for women in society in relation to education and the stated opposition to discrimination in education. The brochure states the purpose as "we actively pursue the rights of girls and women to full and equal educational opportunities." Further, "we oppose discrimination or gender segregation." (Intervenor's Exhibit No. 2B) The National Organization of Women, Inc. (Now) has a number of resolutions that direct its members at the local and state level to monitor the circumstances of education for women of all colors to make certain that state university systems comply with federal law and the state and local laws concerning equity in education for women. Some of its members have established a scholarship for women in Florida to attend college in the state. There is particular concern about having women educated in non-traditional careers, to allow those women to earn more income. The organization has a concern about discrimination from the earliest educational experience for girls through the educational experience for women who attend college. The organization is concerned that guidance counselors not give women information that causes those students to be "trapped into womanly-type careers" that are underpaid. There are 36 chapters of Florida Now with approximately 6,000 members in Florida. Part of the membership is constituted of high school students, college students, and graduate students. Florida Now has both men and women as members. Members of Florida Now are parents who have students in high school who expect to attend the SUS. Members of Florida Now are parents who have children who attend the SUS. The number of Florida Now members who have children currently enrolled in Florida high schools was not established. The number of Florida Now members currently enrolled in undergraduate programs within the SUS was not established. The number of Florida Now members who have children currently enrolled in undergraduate programs in the SUS was not established. The number of Florida Now members currently enrolled in limited access programs within the SUS was not established. The Florida Now members currently enrolled in graduate or post-baccalaureate or professional programs in the SUS was not established. This information was not established because Florida NOW does not call upon its members to identify their places in the educational system. Florida Now Witnesses Maxene Tuchman is an Hispanic woman. She is a member of Florida Now. She is a senior at Palmetto Senior High School, in Miami, Florida. Her unweighted GPA is 3.8 and her weighted GPA is 4.2. Under the unweighted GPA the maximum is 4.0 and under the weighted GPA the maximum is 6.0. She is in the 27th percentile ranking of her class at Palmetto Senior High School. She attended the Design Architecture Senior High in Dade County before transferring to Palmetto Senior High School. Had she remained in that smaller school she would have been in the top 10 percent ranking by her estimate. Maxene Tuchman has participated in the National Honor Society and Social Science Honor Society, among other school activities. She has taken college courses at Miami Dade Community College. In pursuing admission to the SUS Maxene Tuchman received a combined score of 1120 on the SAT. Maxene Tuchman has been accepted to the University of Florida, Florida State University, and the University of South Florida, and New College within the SUS, together with a number of other universities outside that system. Information concerning Maxene Tuchman and her educational performance is found in Intervenor's Exhibit No. 4. Carla Denise Edwards came from an upper-middle-class background and attended the University of Pennsylvania at which she earned both bachelor's and master's degrees. Carla Denise Edwards is a member of Now. Carla Denise Edwards is a graduate student at the University of Florida. She is pursing a doctoral program in sociology. When she applied for admission to the program her Graduate Record Examination (GRE) score was 980. The minimum requirement for regular graduate admission was a GRE score of 1000. Because the program which she applied for was interested in bringing African-American women into that department she was accepted as a student and has excelled. The basis of admission for Carla Denise Edwards was in the interest of "diversifying" the department. Her initial admission was conditional. To be retained in the program, Carla Denise Edwards submitted additional writing materials and attended a minority enhancement program sponsored by the Board of Regents before commencing course work in the following term. Carla Denise Edwards maintains a 3.85 GPA out of a possible 4.0 GPA in her studies. She has won the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Pre- Dissertation Award, the Graduate Student Teaching Award, and the Graduate Student Paper Award within her department. Information concerning Carla Denise Edwards' background in education is found in Intervenor's Exhibit No. 3. As a sociologist, Carla Denise Edwards explained her belief in the need for diversity in her discipline when dealing with the study of social groups and social organization and the importance of student diversity in her graduate program. Background: State of Florida/Office of Civil Rights (OCR) Consistent with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the State of Florida has committed itself to equal access and equal opportunity to all its citizens who pursue public higher education. Over time, these commitments have been formalized through agreements between the State of Florida and the Federal Government. To this end, a plan was established in February 1978, entitled Florida's Commitment to Equal Access and Equal Opportunity in Public Higher Education. This plan represented the agreement between the State of Florida and the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office for Civil Rights. This commitment was in the interest of continuing efforts by the State of Florida to overcome the effects of past segregation in public higher education and to put in place an integrated and unitary system of higher education. The commitment included the provision of adequate opportunities and necessary support services to assist African- American students in addressing their educational needs and achieving their educational goals. (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 37) The State of Florida completed a higher education desegregation plan for the years 1978-1985, but its efforts of providing equal access to higher education continue to be the subject of an agreement between the State of Florida and the United States Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR). The present basis for OCR action is Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As well, OCR has pursued its role in accordance with the decision in U.S. vs. Fordice, U.S. 112 S. Ct. 2727 (1992). The State of Florida and OCR entered into a partnership agreement in the interest of providing higher educational opportunities for minorities in the state in relation to access, enrollment, retention, and graduation of minority students. A document was prepared in 1998 entitled "Partnership Report and Commitments" describing the progress and future expectations in arrangements between the State of Florida and OCR. (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 2 and Respondents' Exhibit No. 8). This document in describing access for first-time-in- college (FTIC) enrollment, indicated that admission standards, in addition to considering an applicant's academic ability, might also consider creativity, talent, and character. It went on to state that there was an on-going goal to establish diversity in the composition of student population in public post-secondary institutions. It addressed the commitment to pursing alternative means for admitting students to the SUS, aside from the regular admissions process. In particular, it addressed admissions based upon persons having a satisfactory high school record and who had submitted appropriate evidence that the student could be expected to succeed academically once admitted to the university. Alternative means of admissions were described in the report as pertaining to persons who do not meet regular requirements for admission but who have important attributes or special talents, and who in the judgment of a faculty committee could be expected to succeed in performing academic work. The 1998 Report and Statement of Commitment also addressed limited access programs within the SUS. The discussion concerning those programs described how SUS policy required universities to develop Equal Opportunity Impact Studies to make certain that minorities and females are not negatively affected when limited access programs are established or modified. According to the report, in the event that negative impact is anticipated universities are expected to develop a corrective action plan. The 1998 Report and Statement of Commitment discussed access to graduate programs, recognizing the decentralized nature of those programs and the resulting variation in admissions criteria. The report described how students who did not meet stated criteria may be subject to admission as an exception under alternative admissions criteria when supported by faculty in the admissions request. The report described outreach to recruit minorities and the availability for financial incentives in recruiting minority students. The report gave examples of these pursuits. The future commitment under the 1998 partnership statement spoke of monitoring the SUS efforts on access and enrollment issues for minority students and, as needed, enhancement of outreach to increase enrollment of African- American and Hispanic students to reduce disparities in comparing the enrollment of those students to that of the majority. A future commitment was made to use of alternative admissions criteria to broaden the opportunities of students, to include minorities who attend the SUS. The partners stated the commitment to continue in efforts at retention and graduation of minority students. The 1998 Partnership Report and Commitments was made effective on July 16, 1998 by the Honorable Richard W. Reilly, Secretary of the United States Department of Education, following execution by Florida Governor Lawton Chiles on June 11, 1998. In 1999, the State of Florida and OCR prepared a "Partnership Agreement Interim Report" disseminated on December 29, 1999. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 69) The Civil Rights Partnership Agreement Interim Report was prepared in anticipation that Secretary Reilly and Florida Governor Jeb Bush would be apprised. The 1999 Interim Report made reference to the expectation that the commitments made in the 1998 agreement would be concluded in 2003. The 1999 Interim Report in its executive summary described the One Florida Initiative and the Equity in Education Plan component. The plan was explained in the report to include: The elimination of race, national origin, and sex in public university admission decisions; guarantee of admission to a public university to the 'Talented 20,' the top 20 percent of students in every Florida high school senior class who have completed 19 required credits; a $20 million increase in need-based financial aid; proposed funding to make the Preliminary Scholastic Achievement Tests available to all 10- graders to prepare them to test better in the 11th grade on the Scholastic Achievement Tests; increased availability of Advanced Placement classes at low performing secondary schools; a new partnership with the College Board to improve preparation for students in low-performing high schools; and, the creation of a Task Force to make recommendations of how to eliminate inequities within the K-12 education system. Those aspirations coincide with the Governor's Equity in Education Plan goals to be explained. The 1999 Interim Report included summary tables addressing ongoing commitments by the SUS. A table identified the anticipated change by the proposed rule amendments concerning alternative admissions criteria, proposed Rule 6C- 6.003(3)(c), by the process referred to as "Academic Profile Assessment," with a 10 percent limitation on FTIC admissions. A summary table also addressed access for minority graduate students, in relation to changes anticipated with the Governor's One Florida Initiative through the education component known as the "Equity in Education Plan." It was anticipated that each university would be held accountable for providing access to minority graduate students. SUS Existing Admission/Enrollment The SUS prepared a Fact Book for 1997-98. Among other statistics, Table 18 discusses a student headcount by part- time/full-time students for the fall 1997 in relation to gender, race, and level. The reference to level pertains to placement within the academic hierarchy. The statistics reflect aggregate student numbers in the SUS and numbers for the ten universities. More discreet demographic information is provided in the tables within the Fact Book concerning students and academic programs. (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 40 and Respondents' Exhibit No. 54) As revealed at Table 18, in the fall of 1997, 112,430 females were enrolled, and 96,848 males were enrolled in the SUS. Of these numbers 27,692 were African-American students; 28,555 were Hispanic students; 8,042 were Asian students; 717 were American Indian/Alaska native; and 130,566 were referred to as white. Other information was prepared by the SUS concerning headcount/enrollment by ethnic origin/race from the fall of 1990 to the fall of 1999. It provides SUS totals and totals concerning the various universities. It reflects percentages of enrollment by ethnic origin/race. Within the overall SUS, the fall of 1990, 9.64 percent of students enrolled in the SUS were African-American. In the fall of 1999, 14.02 percent of the students enrolled in the SUS were African-American. In the fall of 1990, 9.53 percent of the students enrolled in the SUS were Hispanic. In the fall of 1999, 14.23 percent of the students enrolled in the SUS were Hispanic. In the fall of 1990, 22.01 percent of all students enrolled in the SUS were described as minority. In the fall of 1999, 32.78 percent of all students enrolled in the SUS were described as minority. In the fall of 1990, 74.07 percent of all students enrolled in the SUS were described as white. In the fall of 1999, 62.40 percent of all students enrolled in the SUS were described as white. A further comparison shows that in the fall of 1990, 7.00 percent of the students enrolled at the University of North Florida were African-American. In the fall of 1999, 9.71 percent of the students enrolled at that university were African-American. In the fall of 1990, 2.35 percent of the students enrolled at the University of North Florida were Hispanic. In the fall of 1999, 3.58 percent of the students enrolled at that university were Hispanic. In the fall of 1990, 12.99 percent of the students enrolled were described as minority at the University of North Florida. In the fall of 1999, 18.49 percent of the students enrolled at the University of North Florida were described as minority. In the fall of 1990, 6.91 percent of the students enrolled at Florida State University were described as African- American. In the fall of 1999, 12.23 percent of the students enrolled at Florida State University were described as African- American. In the fall of 1990, 3.95 percent of the students enrolled at that university were described as Hispanic. In the fall of 1999, 7.19 percent of the students enrolled at that university were described as Hispanic. In describing overall minorities in the fall of 1990, 12.59 percent of students enrolled at Florida State University were in that category. In the fall of 1999, 22.32 percent of the students enrolled at that university were described as minority. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 21) In another report prepared by the Board of Regents, comparing the circumstances in 1994-95 to those in 1980-81, and at times in between, in 1994-95, men represented 46 percent of the total enrollment, a 4.8 percent decrease over the years. Women represented 54 percent of total enrollment in 1994-95, a 5.01 percent increase over the years. Whites represented 68 percent of total enrollment in 1994-95, a 12.2 percent decrease over the years. African-Americans represented 12.0 percent of total enrollment in 1994-95, a 2.6 percent increase over the years. Hispanics represented 12.4 percent of total enrollment in 1994-95, a 6.9 percent increase over the years. Asian and Pacific Islanders represented 3.7 percent of total enrollment in 1994-95, a 2.6 percent increase over the years. American Indians and Alaska Natives represented a 0.3 percent of total enrollment in 1994-95, a 0.1 percent increase over the years. (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 42). Statistics have been maintained in the SUS in relation to the overall system and the respective universities concerning alternative admissions. One document compares the experience of students regularly admitted and students admitted alternatively. On the subject of retention and graduation it shows that students regularly admitted tend to be retained and to graduate sooner and in higher numbers by percentage measurement. For example, the four-year retention rate for regular admissions in the 1989 cohort was 76.9 percent for regular admissions and 61.7 percent for alternative admissions. The four-year graduation rate for that cohort was 28.4 percent for regular admissions and 9.5 percent for alternative admissions. The six-year graduation rate for that cohort was 63.1 percent for regular admissions and 38.0 percent for alternative admissions. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 19) A more complete data set was described in a November 1998 report prepared by the SUS concerning alternative admissions to the SUS. It presents information commencing in the 1989-90 academic year and succeeding academic years through the 1997-98 reporting period. This report describes the reason why alternative admissions were necessary. (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 36) The report shows that in 1989-90, 14.5 percent of student admissions in the SUS were alternative admissions. In 1990-91, 15.3 percent of student admissions in the SUS were alternative admissions. The lowest number of alternative admissions in the data set was for 1992-93. In that year 11.9 percent were alternative admissions. In 1997-98 12.7 percent were alternative admissions. The November 1998 alternative admissions report for the academic year 1997-98 reflects the total of alternative admissions as 53.5 percent female and 46.5 percent male. That is as compared to the overall admissions to the SUS which was 56.4 percent female and 43.6 percent male. According to the November 1998 SUS report on alternative admissions, 61.4 percent of all admissions were non- minority and 38.6 percent were minority in the academic year 1997-98. Limited to alternative admissions, 33.3 percent were non-minorities and 66.7 percent were minorities. The description of non-minorities is in relation to "only white, non-Hispanic." The minorities referred to were described as African-Americans, Hispanics, Asian or Pacific Islanders, American Indians or Alaska natives, and non-resident aliens. In the academic year 1998-99 the number of alternative admissions to the SUS had fallen to 11.7 percent, the lowest number yet reported. In that reporting period 31.77 percent of the alternative admissions, representing 1,039 of the 27,977 overall students admitted to the SUS, were premised upon "diversity" as the alternative criterion for admission. This is contrasted with alternative admissions criteria described in the chart as fine arts, athlete, returning or non-traditional student (including veterans and military), recommendation, institutional mission, direct appeal, unique exception based on potential, first generation college student, non-exception and other. All universities within the SUS, save Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University (FAMU), had alternative admissions in the reporting period based upon diversity. Most alternative admissions for FAMU were related to the criterion described as "institutional mission," which constituted 27.86 percent of the overall alternative admissions in the SUS, totaling 911 students. (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 12) FAMU in its institutional alternative admissions practices, under Code "G," identified the criterion "institutional mission" as one basis for deciding admissions. The form used by FAMU notes that Code "G" constitutes "compliance with 1998 State of Florida agreement with the US Office of Civil Rights." (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 30) Another SUS report reflects that in the academic year 1997-98 in the SUS, 4,398 African-Americans were regularly admitted and 1,513 African-Americans were alternatively admitted. In that same year 3,446 Hispanics were regularly admitted and 451 Hispanics were alternatively admitted. In that year 15,094 students were regularly admitted as whites and 1,041 whites were alternatively admitted. This same report shows information in relation to academic year 1993-94 and intervening academic years leading to the academic year 1997-98. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 7) The SUS Limited Access Monitoring Report 1999 pertains to all limited access programs for the respective universities in the system. The report describes minimum admission standards and the reasons why the programs need limited access designation, based upon lack of resources, proficiency requirements for students, or accreditation requirements. This report does not reflect information about student applications, admissions, or enrollment. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 62) The Fact Book 1997-98, Table 23, reflects the academic degree programs' inventory for programs approved by the Board of Regents as of November 1998, to include an indication of the limited access programs for the respective universities. The degree programs are reported in major categories and sub- categories. Academic programs are further discussed in Table 27 in relation to the SUS and respective universities, in somewhat different terms. Table 27 sets out student headcount by race and sex for fall 1997. It cannot be ascertained from a reading of Table 23 and Table 27 the number of males and females and persons by race who participate in a discrete limited access program. The Fact Book 1997-98 reflects in Tables 30, 31, 32, and 33 baccalaureate degrees, master's degrees, doctoral degrees, and first professional degrees by academic discipline, with a report of numbers and percentages for race and sex. The depiction of gender numbers breaks those numbers down into categories of white, African-Americans, Hispanics, and others. The others refer to Asian or Pacific Islanders, American Indians, and Alaska Natives. The percentage factors describe the percentage of total degrees granted for females, African- Americans, and Hispanics. The data that has been referred to gives a glimpse of information on student demographics leading to the proposed amendments to the rules. University Rules: Non-discriminatory Practices Various universities in the SUS have rules in place which are designed to protect against discrimination in student admissions and/or to promote diversity in the student population. Rule 6C1-1.006, Florida Administrative Code, (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 43), a rule promulgated by the University of Florida states: 6C1-1.006 Non-Discriminatory Policy. The university shall actively promote equal opportunity policies and practices conforming to laws against discrimination. The University is committed to non- discrimination with respect to race, creed, color, religion, age, disability, sex, marital status, national origin, political opinions or affiliations, and veteran status as protected under the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act. This commitment applies in all areas to students, faculty, administrative and Professional staff and Career Service personnel. The University realizes that it must continue to intensify its concern and devote itself to the elimination of conditions from which discrimination spring. In this respect the University accepts the responsibility for solving problems related to these matters. Accordingly, the University will continue to search for the most appropriate ways and means to provide an effective and enduring contribution to the improvement of these relationships. See 6C-5.103, Florida Administrative Code. (Emphasis supplied) Rule 6C3-2.015, Florida Administrative Code, (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 44), refers to the admissions at FAMU where it states: Admissions in general (a) Admission of students to Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University (FAMU) is within the jurisdiction of the University and subject to standards promulgated by the Board of Regents. In all admissions the University will give attention to the need to satisfy equal opportunity/affirmative action goals. (See 6C-6.002(3), Florida Administrative Code.) (Emphasis supplied) Rule 6C5-2.001, Florida Administrative Code (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 45), refers to the admissions requirements at Florida Atlantic University where it states: Florida Atlantic University (FAU) encourages applications from qualified applicants and is committed to non- discrimination regardless of race, creed, color, sex, ethnic origin, age or physical handicap. . . . * * * (2)(a) If the number of qualified applicants exceeds the number that the University is permitted to enroll admissions will be on selective basis. The selection process may include such factors as grades, test scores, educational objectives, class rank, pattern of courses completed, school recommendations, personal recommendations, and personal records. Priorities for admission will be as outlined in Rule 6C5- 2.004, Enrollment Priorities and Limitations. In addition, maximum numbers of credit hours allowed may be limited. Application of these criteria to prospective students will be made in such a way as to avoid reducing the proportion of minority students. Waiver of admission criteria up to the maximum allowed by the Board of Regents may be utilized for minority students. FAU is committed to realizing the goals established under the Equal Opportunity Plan of Florida (See Section 110.112, F.S. re Affirmative Action). (Emphasis supplied) Rule 6C7-2.001, Florida Administrative Code (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 46), refers to admissions requirements for the University of Central Florida where it states: Admissions (a) Admission of Students to UCF is within the jurisdiction of the University, but subject to the minimum standards adopted by the Board of Regents. (See 6C-6.001 FAC) In all admission activity, the University will give attention to the need to satisfy equal opportunity affirmative action goals. (Emphasis supplied) Rule 6C9-1.0025, Florida Administrative Code (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 47), refers to equal opportunity and affirmative action at the University of North Florida, where it states: Equal Opportunity -- The University will actively promote equal opportunity policies and practices which conform to all laws against discrimination and is committed to non-discrimination with respect to race, religion, age, political affiliation, handicap, sex, marital status, national origin and veteran status as protected under the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act. This commitment applies in all areas with students, faculty, Administrative and Professional staff and Career Service personnel. This policy also applies to the University's procedures for the selection of contractors, suppliers of goods and services and to the use of University facilities. Affirmative Action in the Recruitment of Students, Faculty and Other Personnel -- The University is committed to the equalization of educational and employment opportunities by encouraging applications for qualified applicants of all cultural, racial, religious, and ethnic groups. The University shall issue an annual report on the status of the Affirmative Action Plan to the Board of Regents. (Emphasis supplied) University Admissions Policies (Diversity) The proof in this case provides examples concerning the manner in which universities actively pursue diversity in admissions policies. The law schools at the University of Florida and Florida State University consider race as a factor in admissions decisions. The Florida State University College of Law through its Bylaws, revised June 3, 1997, states its admissions standards at I.B.5.c.(14). to include an "applicant's contribution to a diverse academic environment in terms of race . . . ethnic background . . . ." This criterion is considered among numerous other criteria in deciding the outcome. Moreover, in Appendix II to the Statement of Admissions Requirements Florida State University, the College of Law Bylaws refer to "The Faculty Statement on Diversity" as follows: Diversity is essential to the mission and values of educational institutions. The bylaws of the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) require that member schools "seek to have a faculty, staff, and student body which are diverse with respect to race, color and sex." The purpose of such diversity is "to create an educational community that incorporates the different perspectives necessary to a more comprehensive understanding of the law and its impact on society" and "to produce a legal profession prepared to meet the needs of American society." Thus, the College of Law has a compelling interest in seeking actively to ensure a diverse student body. * * * Therefore, the recruitment and admission of persons from different racial and ethnic backgrounds is [sic] appropriate to enrich legal education and to make the learning experience more vibrant for both majority and minority students. (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 13) In the past Florida State University in considering admissions for undergraduate enrollment had assigned a plus (+) for applicants who were racial or ethnic minorities, specifically in the categories of African-American and Hispanic. Commencing with the classes for summer and fall of 2000, the university plan was to replace the race and ethnic plus (+) policy with consideration of socio/economic circumstances of applicants and other considerations such as fee waiver eligibility for minority admissions. As reported, in the summer of 1999, 89 African-American and 133 Hispanic students were admitted to the university. In the fall of 1999, 527 African- American and 557 Hispanic students were admitted to the university. By contrast for the summer of 2000, 177 African- American and 164 Hispanic students have been admitted. For the fall of 2000, 582 African-American and 570 Hispanic students have been admitted to the university. These are comparisons of information known at the end of January 2000 to the year before. In his remarks prepared February 2, 2000, Lawrence Abele, the Florida State University Provost commented that departments within the university responsible for graduate admissions had not changed anything in relation to the use of race as a factor for graduate admissions procedures for the summer or fall of 2000. According to Provost Abele, gender and national origin have not been used in the university admissions process. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 59) Minutes pertaining to the October 20, 1999, Florida State University Admissions Committee for undergraduate studies indicate the continuing practice to provide a plus (+) for minority status in admissions. The November 19, 1999, minutes for that committee show a change in policy removing the plus (+) indicator for race. The December 15, 1999 minutes for the committee indicated that applications and acceptances for all race and ethnic categories for fall and summer of 2000 had increased compared to 1999. The above changes in admissions policies of Florida State University anticipate the changes to admissions practices under the proposed rules. David R. Colburn, Provost of the University of Florida, prepared a memorandum on the removal of race and ethnicity as considerations in admissions practices for "summer B" and fall classes of 1999 at the university. (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 59) The memorandum stated: Attached is the review of this year's freshman class that was conducted by our Admissions Office. Where is says "Summer 99" that, of course, is the number we admitted and the number who enrolled. Where it says "Summer 00" that indicates the number who would have been admitted and the number who would have likely enrolled if race and ethnicity were removed as factors. The standard for the summer to be admitted to UF was 3.80; for the fall 4.20. We admitted in our freshmen classes every minority student who was in the top 20 and who applied to UF. Minority Admits with and without ethnic considerations African American Hispanic American Indian Admits Enrolls Admits Enrolls Admits Enrolls Summer 99 783 400 484 302 20 15 *Summer 99 134 87 258 144 8 7 Fall 99 546 211 1008 407 35 20 *Fall 99 329 117 847 348 24 4 Total 99 1329 611 1492 709 55 35 Total 00 11@ 463 204* 1105 492# 32 *56 African-Americans who were admitted for fall in '99 would not be admitted for fall '00 would be offered summer. If all enrolled, our total freshman African-American enrollment for academic year 2000 could reach as high as 260. #53 Hispanics who were admitted for fall '99 would not be admitted in fall '00 would be offered summer. If all enrolled out total freshman American Indian enrollment for academic year 2000 could reach as high as 545. @3 American Indians who were admitted for fall '99 would not be admitted in fall '00 would be offered summer. If all enrolled our total freshman American Indian enrollment for academic year 2000 could reach as high as 14. This memorandum demonstrates a considerable reduction in minority admissions and prospective enrollment for the academic year 2000 in the scenario portrayed when removing race and ethnic considerations. The FTIC admissions policy for the University of North Florida dated August 1998, sets forth enrollment goals for the university. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 82) It details the basis for admissions. It notes "no exceptions to the UNF admission policy will be made without approval from the Faculty Admissions Committee, the Provost and/or the Assistant Provost. No student who requires English and/or Reading remediation will be admitted. A minimum of 20 SAT I Verbal or 16 ACT Reading and English score are required." No mention is made concerning use of admission factors related to race or gender. The University of North Florida has instituted programs to assist students within the region served by the University who come from low socio-economic backgrounds. The intent is to allow those families to learn about access and opportunities for attending the University of North Florida or other universities and colleges. A pamphlet describes those pre-college programs. Through this outreach minority students, in particular African Americans, are encouraged to pursue formal education. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 84) Highlights of some of the programs described are as follows: UNF/Duval County Public School System Junior Horizons Program: This program is offered in local high schools which serve primarily students from low socio-economic families. All junior-level students are provided with "Countdown to College" information including the college prep high school courses and standardized tests required for admission, information about selecting a college, and paying for college. Over 1,200 students participate in this program each year. UNF and Duval/Clay County Public School System Minority Recognition Program: This annual event hosted by UNF recognizes outstanding minority students in 11th grade. Approximately 800 students are recognized each year. William Raines High School-Alliance for Education: Project Hope is a joint business partnership among UNF, Raines High School, and 20 Jacksonville businesses. These businesses provide career awareness programs and parent information sessions, student mentoring, and academic assistance. UNF/Duval County Public School SAT Preparation Programs: Free after-school SAT prep programs are offered at schools primarily economically disadvantaged students and in regional community centers. Since its inception in 1992, this program has served over 700 students. UNF/African-American Church SAT Programs: Since 1994, six churches have offered test prep programs with over 600 students participating. All churches reported that students benefited from these programs. Bethel Baptist Institutional Church and St. Paul A.M.E. are currently participating in this program. Pathways Program: The Pathways Scholarship Program primarily targets minority economically disadvantaged students (approximately ten million dollars in funding). Specific scholarship programs target the following high schools: William M. Raines, Andrew Jackson, Paxon School for Advanced Studies, Robert E. Lee, and Ribault. The David and Hicks Scholarship targets students living in Section 8, Habijax, and public and federal assisted housing projects. UNF currently has approximately 100 students receiving scholarships through this program. INROAD/UNF Sponsored Summer Overnight college Experience Program: Approximately 130 high school minority students spend four nights and five days on the campus of UNF. The program includes SAT preparation, college planning, and leadership training. These programs are designed to assist minorities in preparing to attend universities or colleges, without rewarding minority status when reviewing applications for admission to the University of North Florida. Assistance is given to minorities in college preparation. Special recognition is not provided when determining admissions. A chart was prepared which reflects ethnicity at the University of North Florida in the fall of 1989 compared to the fall of 1999. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 83) It depicts the following: Fall 1989 Fall 1999 White 87.3% 79.7% Black 6.9% 9.9%* Hispanic 2.0% 3.5%* Asian/ Pacific Islander 2.7% 4.8%* American Indian Alaskan Native .2% .3% Other .8% 1.8% *Total Minority 12.0% 18.6% 112. In promulgating the proposed amendments to the rules, the Board of Regents took into account the experience by the University of North Florida in its outreach and recruitment of minorities to attend the university, while disallowing special consideration in admissions decisions as a means to promote participation by minorities in formal education in the SUS. Against the background of specific policies in admissions pursued by the universities that have been described, together with data compiled by the SUS, and other sources, the Board of Regents has undertaken proposed amendments to Rules 6C- 6.001, 6C-6.002, and 6C-6.003, Florida Administrative Code. It removes "preferences" in the admissions process for applicants to the universities on the basis of race, national origin, or sex. The proposed amendments promote other approaches which the Board of Regents contends will continue "to advance opportunities for minorities and women" to receive formal education in the SUS. The Proposed Amendments: The Process On November 9, 1999, Governor Jeb Bush issued Executive Order No. 99-281 (Respondents' Exhibit No. 1), in which he declared: WHEREAS, the Florida Constitution provides that all natural persons, females and male alike, are equal before the law and that no person shall be deprived of any right because of race or national origin; and WHEREAS, Florida's government has a solemn obligation to respect and affirm these principles in its policies relating to employment, education and contracting; and WHEREAS, the use of racial and gender set- asides, preferences and quotas is generally inconsistent with the obligation of government to treat all individuals as equals without respect to race or gender; and WHEREAS, the use of racial and gender set- asides, preferences and quotas is considered divisive and unfair by the vast majority of Floridians, produces few, if any, long-term benefits for the intended beneficiaries, and is of questionable legality; and WHEREAS, the laudable goal of increasing diversity in Florida's government and institutions of Higher Education, and in the allocation of state contracts, can and should be realized without the use of racial and gender set-asides, preferences and quotas; and WHEREAS, the obligation of Florida's government to root out vestiges of discrimination can and should likewise be accomplished without resort to remedies involving the use of racial and gender set- asides, preferences and quotas. The Governor went on to make known his intentions through Section 1: Non-discrimination in Government Employment, Section 2: Non-discrimination in State Contracting and Section 3: Non-discrimination in Higher Education. Relevant to this cause Section 3: Non-discrimination in Higher Education stated: It is the policy of my Administration to support equal educational opportunities for all qualified Floridians, to prohibit discrimination in education because of race, gender, creed, color or national origin, and to promote the full realization of equal educational opportunities throughout the State. I hereby request that the Board of Regents implement a policy prohibiting the use of racial or gender set-asides, preferences or quotas in admissions to all Florida institutions of Higher Education, effective immediately. The Office of Policy and Budget is hereby ordered to develop an implementation strategy for all other aspects of my Equity in Education Plan by December 31, 1999. (Emphasis supplied) Given this charge the Board of Regents pursued a course leading to the proposed rules amendments in controversy. On November 9, 1999, Governor Bush in furtherance of the "One Florida Initiative" contemplated in the Executive Order released a document entitled, "Governor Bush's Equity in Education Plan." (Respondents' Exhibit No. 2) The plan describes efforts at expanding opportunities for students in low-performing secondary schools through: the implementation of the A+ Plan making the PSAT test available to all tenth graders establishment of a partnership with the College Board increasing availability in advanced placement courses targeting utilization of Florida's On-Line High School creation of post-secondary "opportunity alliances" a mentoring initiative, and the creation of an Equity in Education Opportunity Task Force. Details concerning the assistance to be provided the secondary school students is set forth in Respondents' Exhibit No. 2. Most relevant to this inquiry, the Governor's Equity in Education Plan contained an element setting forth the means for expanding diversity in state universities without race or ethnic-based preferences wherein it stated: Eliminate Race and Ethnicity as a Factor in Admissions Decisions. Florida's SUS is committed to diversity. However, diversity can be achieved without having to make race or ethnicity a factor in admissions decisions. State universities now rely on other race-neutral socio-economic factors in admissions decisions that can be indicative of race or ethnicity - factors such as income level, geography, special talents and whether an applicant is a first generation college student. Utilizing these factors without regard to race or ethnicity, Florida universities can continue to achieve the level of diversity desired, while providing a legally sound statewide policy of admissions. The Talented 20 Percent: In a further effort to bolster diversity - and to replace race and ethnic-based admissions policies with achievement-based admissions policies - Florida will create the Talented 20 program. This initiative will guarantee admissions to one of our state universities to the Top 20% of each graduating public high school class in Florida without regard to SAT or ACT scores, and boost need-based financial aid by 43% - a $20 million increase. By casting this broad net, students attending low performing schools or schools with heavy minority enrollment will see their chances for admissions improve, and Florida's commitment to diversity will continue. As a result of the Talented 20 program, approximately 1,200 additional minority high school graduates will be given the opportunity to attend a state university. We already know that 410 of these minority students are qualified now by virtue of completing the required college preparatory curriculum. The remaining 800 will be admitted if they can complete missing threshold credits prior to admission. We will not penalize high performers who might not otherwise qualify for university admissions because they attend low performing schools. The Board of Regents placed Governor Bush's Equity in Education Plan on its meeting agenda for November 18 and 19, 1999, for discussion. At this session Dr. Adam W. Herbert, SUS Chancellor, explained steps necessary to facilitate the Board's implementation of the Governor's education initiative. Dr. Herbert indicated that at a subsequent meeting the Board would have before it the proposed amendments to admissions rules designed to implement the Governor's program. Dr. Herbert explained that he intended to set forth key elements of the program to give further guidance to the Board staff. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 33) Board of Regents' Chairman Thomas F. Petway, III, acknowledged members of the public in attendance at the November 18 and 19, 1999 meeting and the Board's willingness to hear from those persons concerning the Governor's initiative calling for elimination of race and ethnicity as factors in admissions decisions. In particular, State Representative Denise Lee and State Senator Betty Holzendorf were recognized. Senator Holzendorf addressed the Board concerning her sentiments on issues of race as a factor in university admissions. She cautioned the Board of Regents against acting too quickly. Messrs. Jose Gonzalez and Jose Amaro who represented the University of Florida Hispanic Student Association spoke to the Board of Regents on this occasion, asking that the Board table consideration of the admissions issue pending the opportunity for students to see its impact. Others who addressed the Board of Regents on this occasion were Mr. Thane Gordon, a pre-med student at the University of Florida; Ms. Jennifer Lin, representing the U.F. Student Association; Mr. Cornelius Minor, II, president of FAMU's student government; Mr. Dev Gilrose, a student at the University of Florida; Ms. Kim Fedele, president of the student government of Florida State University; Mr. David Jarvic, Club Creole at the University of Florida; Mr. Gil Sanchez, University of Florida graduate; Mr. Issiah Rumlin, Jacksonville NAACP; Mr. Brent Gordon, president of student government of the University of Florida; and Ms. Jocelyn Moore, vice-president of student government of the University of Florida. United States Representative Corrine Brown addressed the Board of Regents at the November 1999 meeting. Representative Brown was concerned about the influence of the Governor's Executive Order related to the compliance agreement between the State of Florida and OCR previously described in these facts. She urged the Board of Regents to slow down the process concerning changes in the admissions policies. Representative Brown noted that she was joined in her remarks by United States Representatives Carrie Meek and Alcee Hastings. At the November 1999 meeting State of Florida Education Commissioner Tom Gallagher, as member of the Board of Regents, addressed the Board of Regents stating that the issue before the Board of Regents was to instruct the Chancellor and staff to work on expanding diversity. Regent McLin spoke to the need for more opportunity for input. Regent Henriques also addressed the need for further study. Chairman Petway then recognized Dr. Herbert for more extensive remarks. Those remarks are reported in the appendix to the index of minutes for the Board of Regents' meetings on November 18 and 19, 1999. They highlight the Governor's Plan calling for changes in admissions policies of the Board of Regents for undergraduate, graduate, and professional students. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 33) Commissioner Gallagher moved the Board of Regents to approve measures to: Support Governor Bush's 'One Florida' education initiatives of the 'Talented 20' Program and the elimination of race and ethnicity as a factor in admissions decisions. Authorize Chancellor Herbert and his staff to work collaboratively with the universities to: Modify a System and University Admissions standards consistent with the Governor's 'One Florida' initiative; Modify BOR and University rules which guide universities in their admissions policies and practices; Modify the SUS enrollment plan to accommodate additional students; Amend the Legislative Budget Request to incorporate additional lower level FTE; and Make other changes if necessary to be in compliance with the Governor's policy. The motion was seconded and eventually the Gallagher motion was approved as amended by Chairman Petway adding the phrase "action would be subject to final approval of the Board." During this session the Board of Regents entered into extensive discussion concerning changes to Board policy for university admissions. This discussion is reflected in Board of Regents' minutes for the November 18 and 19, 1999 meeting, pages 32 through 38. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 33) On December 9, 1999, a meeting was held between Dr. Herbert and the Council of University Presidents to discuss the "Talented 20" aspect of the Governor's Education Initiative. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 47) This discussion was supported by information available to the council members to include preliminary text to the proposed amendments to Rules 6C-6.001, 6C-6.002, and 6C-6.003. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 48) The Board of Regents met December 10, 1999, and considered the Governor's "One Florida" initiative pertaining to university admissions criteria. Extensive support and documentation on this subject provided the Regents for their meeting are reflected in appendices to the amended agenda. Included for consideration was the Executive Order 99-281, the Equity in Education Plan, data on distribution of FTIC students by ethnicity, high school enrollment projections, analysis of public high school graduates, graduates from low-performing schools, preliminary report of "Talented 20" (top 20 percent) Implementation Task Force, graduate and professional admissions, OCR correspondence, and a draft of proposed amendments to Rules 6C-6.001, 6C-6.002, and 6C-6.003. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 34) At the meeting Chancellor Herbert described the documentation as a series of data and related materials to be considered by the Board of Regents in formulating admissions criteria to implement the Governor's plan. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 38) During the December 10, 1999 meeting Mary-Anne Bestebreurtje, Corporate Secretary and Associate General Counsel for the Board of Regents, made a presentation concerning the rule promulgation process. She indicated that the Regents were to treat the session as a workshop to afford Board of Regents members the opportunity to "wordsmith" changes to the rule. The intent was for the rules amendments to be presented to the Board of Regents in a further session allowing comment and discussion by the public on January 21, 2000. At the December 1999 session Debi Gallay, Associate Vice Chancellor, Planning and Policy Analysis, described components of the "One Florida" initiative to include the end to racial preferences in admissions to the universities and the guarantee of admissions to students graduating in the top 20 percent of their respective school classes without regard for test scores, taken to mean SAT or ACT scores. Ms. Gallay reviewed materials in the agenda. Chancellor Herbert introduced Dr. Lynda Lewis, Assistant Provost at the University of North Florida, to the Board. Dr. Lewis headed the task force for implementation of the "Talented 20" Program, part of the process for ascertaining the best approaches for admitting the top 20 percent FTIC students. Dr. Lewis reported on task force activities in relation to the process engaged in by the Board of Regents in considering amendments to admissions rules for freshmen. Representatives from the universities also attended the December 1999 meeting, to include some university presidents. These officials were allowed to enter into the discussion conducted by Board of Regents members and presenters. The particulars concerning the December 10, 1999 meeting to consider the "One Florida" initiative in relation to university admissions policies are found at pages 4 through 14 in the index of the minutes. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 38) In a related process, discussion of admissions pertaining to the "Talented 20" Program took place as agendaed for the January 11, 2000 meeting of the SUS Council of Academic Vice Presidents. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 49) On February 17 and 18, 2000, the Board of Regents met to consider proposed amendments to Rules 6C-6.001, 6C-6.002, and 6C-6.003, Florida Administrative Code. Following discussion and public comment, the Board of Regents voted in favor of amendments to the rules. The remarks of persons who testified at the meeting and discussion by Board of Regents members were reflected in the index of minutes at pages 21 through 33. Although not invited to be intricately involved in the rule development, representatives from NAACP and Now addressed the Board of Regents at its February 17th and 18th session. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 40) Persons who testified at this session included Congresswoman Corrine Brown, members of the Florida Legislature, and state university presidents. Details of the proposed amendments were discussed in this session and changes were made to the final text. On February 22, 2000, the Board of Education met, discussed and approved the proposed amendments offered by the Board of Regents to Rules 6C-6.001, 6C-6.002, and 6C-6.003, Florida Administrative Code. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 42) Before the vote was taken legislators, regents, educators, and others addressed the Board of Education. The Board of Education session approving the proposed amendments was transcribed. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 44) The Board of Regents' rule development within the SUS is a collaborative effort involving the Council of Academic Vice Presidents, comprised of Chief Academic Officers within the ten SUS institutions; the Council Presidents, comprised of the presidents of the SUS institutions; the Board of Regents and its staff; and ultimately the Board of Education. In promulgating the proposed rules amendments that collaborative process was carried out. The Rules: Proposed Amendments 6C-6.001 Admissions. Based on minimum standards adopted by the Board, through rule, the uUniversities shall establish the criteria by rule for the admission of students. In the admission of students, the universities shall take into consideration the applicant's academic ability, and may also consider creativity, talent, and character. If determined not to be in the best interest of the university to deny admission to admit an applicant because of past misconduct, the university may do so. The Board affirms its commitment to equal educational opportunity and to increasing student diversity in each of the state universities. (4)(3) Applicants denied admission shall be given notice of denial within a reasonable period of time following the decision. Upon the applicant's written request, the university shall provide the reasons for the rejection in writing. (5)(4) Each student accepted for admission shall, prior to registration, submit on a form, provided by the institution, a medical history signed by the student. Documentation of appropriate immunization for measles and rubella is required. Proof of immunization must be provided. This shall be a minimum requirement, and institutions may require in addition such other evidence of examination as they may determine necessary. Where physician examinations or certificates are required, they must be signed by a doctor of medicine or a doctor of osteopathy. The universities reserve the right to refuse registration to any student whose health record or report of medical examination indicates the existence of a condition which may be harmful to members of the university community. (6)(5) The universities may return to the applicant without action any application and fees received after the closing date for applications designated by each institution in its official calendar. (7)(6) False or fraudulent statements - In addition to any other penalties which may be imposed an individual may be denied admission or further registration, and the universities may invalidate college credit for work done by a student at an SUS institution and invalidate the degree based upon such credit if it finds that the applicant has made false or fraudulent or incomplete statements in his application, residence affidavit, or accompanying documents or statements in connection with, or supplemental to, his application for admission to, or graduation from one of the SUS institutions. (8)(7) Students may be required to have immunizations and to have undergone diagnostic procedures prior to registration. (9)(8) Each university shall provide registration opportunities for admitted transfer students that allow these students access to high demand courses comparable to that provided to native students. (10)(9) Each university shall provide orientation programs for first-time-in- college and transfer students. (11)(10) Enrollment limitations--The Board shall establish a plan for the enrollment of the SUS, consistent with the Strategic Master Plan. The Board shall recommend each budget cycle to the Legislature an enrollment plan in which each university's future State University System FTE enrollment shall be specified by level. The Board will establish an assigned FTE enrollment plan limit for each university for each fiscal period. This assigned FTE enrollment plan limit will be based upon the enrollment plan described in (a) and upon the funding decisions of the Legislature. This assigned FTE enrollment limit will constitute the maximum enrollment within five percent for that fiscal period. If actual student credit hours productivity exceeds funded enrollment, course enrollment in subsequent terms shall be controlled by the university and may be reduced by limiting admission of new students, limiting course loads of enrolled students and/or other measures as may be necessary to stay within funded enrollment levels. Each university shall establish, by rule, procedures and criteria to manage limit enrollments to meet to be within five percent (above and below) of planned enrollment established pursuant to (b) above. These rules shall not be inconsistent with Board rules. Programs at the University of Florida and the University of South Florida in the Health Centers receive separate appropriations from the Legislature; therefore, students enrolled in such programs will be excluded from the above enrollment limitations. Upper level programs registered as limited access programs with the Board and the Articulation Coordinating Committee (competitive admission due to limited space or other resources, or due to higher standards) and rules limiting enrollment as provided in (c) above shall observe the following guidelines in the selection of students for the spaces available in the program: There will be a documented justification for the program to be classified as limited access. This documentation should be submitted by the university requesting limited access to the Board for review and approval at least 6 months prior to the start of limiting access to the program. Annually, each university will reevaluate the need to continue to classify the program as limited access. The university will report to the Board by October 1 of each year a list of all limited access programs, the minimum admissions standards for each program, the reasons the program is designated as limited access, and a copy of the most recent review demonstrating the need for retention of limited access status. An annual report shall include for each limited access program the following categories, by race and gender: the number of applicants, the number of applicants granted admission, the number of applicants who are granted admission and enroll, the number of applicants denied admissions, and the number of applicants neither granted admission nor denied admission (no action taken). Each category shall be reported by type of student, including the following subcategories: native students (students who started at the university as first-time- in-college students with less than 12 semester hours of transfer credit), community college Associate in Arts degree transfer students, and all other students. Each category and subcategory shall further be reported according to the number of students who meet the minimum eligibility requirements for admission to the program and the number of students who do not meet the minimum eligibility requirements for admission to the program. Programs assigned limited access status will be reviewed by the Board in the course of its cyclical systemwide program review process. All criteria shall be approved by the Board and registered with the Articulation Coordinating Committee prior to implementation. Any criteria used to select students shall not discriminate against community college transfers with Associate in Arts degrees from Florida public community colleges in favor of SUS students who are applying for admission or plan to continue enrollment after the completion of 60 semester credits at the lower division level. Any criteria used to select students shall be appropriate indicators of academic ability, creativity or talent to perform required work within the program and of the potential for success. Any criteria used shall be publicized in catalogues, counseling manuals, and other appropriate publications in accordance with Rule 6A-10.024(14)(13), FAC, with sufficient time for prospective students to adjust programs to meet criteria. Where necessary to achieve established equal access enrollment goals, up to ten percent of the students may be admitted to a limited access program with different criteria. 6.7. Each university shall advise students who meet the minimum requirements for admission to the upper division of a state university, but are denied admission to limited access programs, of the availability of similar programs at other SUS institutions and the admissions requirements of such programs. 7.8. Associate in Arts degree graduates from Florida community colleges and university students who have successfully completed 60 or more credit hours of course work and met the requirements of Section 240.107, Florida Statutes, shall receive priority over out-of-state students for admission to limited access programs. The Board may declare certain degree programs as limited access programs, upon request by a university. In the case of programs for which prerequisite courses are required for admission, the prerequisites, and grades for the prerequisite courses determined acceptable by the program, by themselves, will not cause a program to be declared limited access. That is, if all the applicants completing the prerequisite courses, with any specified grade requirement, are admitted to the program, the program need not be designated a limited access program. Associate of Arts graduates from Florida public community colleges and universities who have not completed prerequisite courses for a given major shall be admitted to a university in order to complete those prerequisite courses, after which program admission can be determined. University degree programs may be declared as limited access programs for the following reasons: The number of students who have met all the requirements for admission to the university and to the program is in excess of available resources (examples are: space, equipment or other instructional facilities; clinical facilities; adequate faculty to meet acceptable student-faculty ratios; fiscal or other resource limitations). In the case of such programs, selection for admissions shall be competitive. The selection criteria shall be determined by the program, recognizing that the standards applied to the criteria may vary from term to term depending on the number of student spaces available and the quality of the applicant pool. The selection criteria shall be published in the university catalogue along with the standards used for admissions decisions at the time the catalogue is published. The program is of such a nature (normally in the fine or performing arts) that applicants must demonstrate through an audition or submission of a portfolio that they already have the minimum skills necessary for them to benefit from the program. The program is of such a nature that in order to demonstrate potential for success in the program, applicants must attain a grade point average (GPA) and/or other standard (e.g. standardized test scores) that are above those required for admission to the university offering the program. Note: teacher preparation programs are mandated by Section 240.529, F.S., to maintain certain admission requirements, and, therefore, will be classified and reported as limited access programs only if enrollment is limited for reasons (e.g. limited resources) that exceed statutory requirements. Teacher preparation programs will be monitored for compliance with requirements of Subsection 240.529(3), F.S., through a report which is separate from the limited access reports. When the institution has exceeded its upper-level FTE enrollment limit as assigned by the Legislature by more than five percent, programs which have not normally been designated as limited access programs may need to limit enrollment. If the institution's actual student credit hour productivity exceeds the institution's funded enrollment to this extent, the institution may take corrective actions in subsequent terms such as limiting admission of new students into upper level programs, limiting course loads of enrolled students and/or other measures as may be necessary to stay within funded enrollment levels. Florida community college Associate in Arts graduates and university students who have successfully completed 60 credit hours of course work and met the requirements of Section 240.107, Florida Statutes, shall receive priority for admission to such limited access programs over out-of-state and transfer students from private institutions. Specific Authority 240.209(1)(3)(r) F.S. Law Implemented 240.209(1)(3)(s), (4)(5)(a), 240.227(8), 240.233, 240.2097, 240.529, 240.271, F.S. History Formerly 6C-2.41, 11-18-70, Amended and Renumbered 12-17-74, Amended 1-6-76, 7- 13-77, 3-21-82, 12-13-83, 8-11-85, Formerly 6C-6.01, Amended 8-31-86, 4-9-87, 1-7-91, 9-15-91, 11-27-95, 8-12-96, . 6C-6.002 Entering Freshmen. Normally a diploma from a Florida public or regionally accredited high school, from an accredited out-of-state high school or if foreign, its equivalent, or a diploma pursuant to Section 229.814, Florida Statutes, shall be required for admission of beginning freshman students to a state university. Students admitted under acceleration mechanisms in accordance with Rule 6C-6.006 are exempted from this requirement. Students applying for admission will submit test scores from the Scholastic Assessment Test of the College Entrance Examination Board or from the American College Testing program. Students may be considered eligible for admission to any of the state universities in one each of the following three alternative ways, except as provided in subsection (4) below: A student applying for admission who has a satisfactory high school record, including at least a "B" average (3.0 on a 4.0 scale) in the required high school academic units normally offered in grades 9 through 12, and who submits other appropriate evidence that the student can be expected to carry out successful academic progress in the university, is academically eligible for admission to any of the universities. In computing the high school grade point average for purposes of admission to a state university, additional weights will be assigned to grades in Honors, International Baccalaureate, and Advanced Placement courses. The high school academic unit requirements are as follows: English1 4 Math 2 3 Natural Science3 3 Social Science4 3 Foreign Language5 2 Additional Academic Electives from the Above Five Subject Areas 4 TOTAL 19 1 Three of which must have included substantial writing requirements. 2 At the Algebra I and above levels. 3 Two of which must have included substantial laboratory requirements. 4 Includes: History, Civics, Political Science, Economics, Sociology, Psychology and Geography. 5 Both credits must be in the same language. (For the purposes of this admissions requirement, American sign language will be accepted in place of a foreign language). An alternative method for students to demonstrate equivalent foreign language competence by examination to meet admissions requirements is described in Rule 6C-6.004(1)(c). A student applying for admission who has less than a "B" average in the required academic units described in (a) above, must present a combination of high school GPA and admission test scores as indicated on the list below. Academic eligibility for admission will be determined according to the following Admissions Scale: If the High School GPA the SAT/Recentered SAT I*/ACT in the required academic Score must equal or exceed courses equals any entry the corresponding entry in the in this column, appropriate column below. Recentered GPA SAT SAT* ACT 2.0 1,050 1140 25 2.1 1,020 1110 24 2.2 990 1090 23 2.3 960 1060 22 2.4 930 1030 22 2.5 900 1010 21 2.6 890 1000 21 2.7 880 990 21 2.8 870 980 20 2.9 860 970 20 *SAT taken after March 1995 A student applying for admission who does not meet these requirements may be eligible for admission through a student profile assessment which considers additional factors, including but not limited to, the following: family educational background, socioeconomic status, graduate of a low performing high school, international baccalaureate program graduate, geographic location and special talents. These additional factors shall not include preferences in the admissions process for applicants on the basis of race, national origin or sex. The student bring to a university other important attributes or special talents and may be admitted if, in the judgment of an appropriate faculty committee, it is determined from appropriate evidence that the student can be expected to do successful academic work as defined by the institution to which the student applies. The number of first time in college students admitted through profile assessment at each university is determined by the Board: the system is limited each year to ten percent of the total system first-time-in-college-students. Changes in the portion of a university's entering freshmen admitted under this alternative, based upon a university validation study with a 50 percent probability of success in the first year, may be approved by the Board. However, the annual number of applicants enrolled at a university under profile assessment this alternative without the equivalent of two high school credits in foreign language must not exceed 5 percent of the total number of freshmen (students who had not completed their first year of college or university) who entered the university the prior year. Upon request by the president, the Board may approve a one year increase in a university's 5 percent limitation as long as the SUS as a whole maintains the 5 percent limit. Any freshman student admitted without meeting the foreign language requirement must earn 8 to 10 semester hours in a foreign language or American sign language, or demonstrate equivalent competence in either a foreign language as described in Rule 6C-6.004(1)(c) prior to completing 60 credit hours at the state university. The university will provide an individual learning plan for each student enrolled who does not meet the normal admissions requirements listed in Rules 6C-6.002(1) and 6C-6.002(3). The Board will review and will submit annual follow=up reports of the success of those students admitted under the profile assessment process. this alternative for Board review. In determining eligibility for admission, a university will provide for reasonable substitution for any requirement or high school unit distribution requirement for any student with a disability, as prescribed in Rule 6C-6.018. A student applying for admission who is participating in a non-traditional program must present credentials equivalent to those described in Rule 6C-6.002(3) as judged by the individual SUS institution to which the student has applied. A student whose educational program is not measured in Carnegie Units must present a test score of at least 1010 on the recentered SAT I, or the equivalent on the ACT, or the SAT taken prior to April, 1995. A student applying for admission who is a graduate of a public Florida high school, has completed nineteen required high school units as listed in Rule 6C-6.002(3)(a) and who ranks in the top 20% of his/her high school graduating class shall be admitted to a university in the SUS. The SUS will use class rank as determined by the Florida Department of Education. The Board reaffirms its Equal Educational Opportunity (EEO) commitments. Universities may utilize the above alternative admission methods to increase the enrollment of a diverse student body. The universities have the authority to adopt and promulgate rules which have the effect of increasing the standards for eligibility for admission, as listed in alternatives (3)(a) and (b) above, or to provide additional criteria in making admissions decisions. Changes to these institutional rules will be reviewed annually by the Board prior to September 1. Neither SUS nor individual university admissions criteria shall include preferences in the admissions process for applicants on the basis of race, national origin or sex. Specific Authority 240.209(1),(3)(r) F.S. Law Implemented 240.209(1), (4)(5)(a). 240.227(8), 240.115(4), 240.152, 240.233, 232.246 F.S. History - Formerly 6C-2.42, 11-18-70, Amended 5-27-74, Amended and Renumbered 12- 17-74, Amended 6-25-80, 3-21-82, 4-16-84, Formerly 6C-6.02, Amended 4-14-86, 4-20-87, 10-19-88, 1-23-90, 1-7-91, 9-15-91, 8-4-92, 5-17-95, 11-27-95, . 6C-6.003 Entering or Transferring Graduate Students and Post-baccalaureate Professional Students. Each applicant to a graduate degree program or to a post-baccalaureate professional program shall be required to meet minimum systemwide requirements. Each applicant to a graduate degree program or to a post-baccalaureate professional program must have a bachelor's degree or equivalent from a regionally accredited institution and meet at least one of the following criteria: Earned a "B" average or better in all work attempted while registered as an upper division student working for a baccalaureate degree, or A total Quantitative-Verbal Graduate Record Examination score of 1000 or higher or an equivalent score on an equivalent measure approved by the Board, or A graduate degree from a regionally accredited institution. Each applicant to a graduate program or a post-baccalaureate professional program shall be required to present his/her score on the Aptitude Test of the Graduate Record Examination, or an equivalent score on an equivalent measure approved by the Board. The university may waive this requirement in individual cases. Applicants denied admission shall be given notice of denial within a reasonable period of time following the decision. Upon the applicant's written request, the university shall provide the reasons for the rejection in writing. Applicants denied admission who meet the minimum systemwide standards may request reconsideration by written request to the university within thirty days of the date of denial. The request shall contain reasons why reconsideration is warranted. Each university shall establish the method for reconsideration by rule. The Board encourages each university to impose more restrictive admission requirements than the above established for post-baccalaureate programs. Effective for Fall of 2001 admissions, these requirements shall not include preferences in the admissions process for applicants on the basis of race, national origin or sex. These criteria shall be published, and the university catalog shall give notice where copies of such criteria may be obtained. In any academic year, up to 10 percent of the graduate students may be admitted as exceptions to these criteria. The university may develop criteria for students admitted as exceptions. Students who do not meet the systemwide criteria and who wish to enroll in courses but not degree programs at the post- baccalaureate level may enroll under the classification of special post-baccalaureate non-degree students. Universities wishing to admit special post-baccalaureate non- degree students to graduate degree programs after the students have satisfactorily completed a specified number of credits may do so provided that the number so admitted is included as part of the 10 percent exception, as defined in (6) above. Specific Authority 240.209(1),(3)(m), 240.233 F.S. Law Implemented 240.209(1),(3)(m) (4)(5)(a), 240.227(8), 240.233 F.S. History - Formerly 6C-2.43, 11-18-70, Amended 11-20-70, Amended and Renumbered 12-17-74, Amended 1-24-77, 2-28- 78, 10-17-78, 8-11-85, Formerly 6C- 6.03, . Challenged Provisions The Petitioners and the Intervenor challenge the portions of the proposed rules identified below. The proposed repeal of Rule 6C-6.001(10)(e)6 which states: Where necessary to achieve established equal access enrollment goals, up to ten percent of the students may be admitted to a limited access program with different criteria. The proposed addition to Rule 6C-6.002(3)(c) that states: These additional factors shall not include preferences in the admissions process for applicants on the basis of race. The proposed addition to Rule 6C-6.002(3)(c) that states: The number of first time in college students admitted through profile assessment at each university is determined by the Board; the system is limited each year to ten percent of the total system first-time-in college students. The proposed addition of a new Rule 6C- 6.002(5) that states: A student applying for admission who is a graduate of a public Florida high school, has completed nineteen (19) required high school units as listed in Rule 6C- 6.002(3)(a) and who ranks in the top 20% of his/her high school graduating class shall be admitted to a university in the SUS. The SUS will use class rank as determined by the Florida Department of Education. The proposed repeal of existing Rule 6C-6.002(5) that states: The Board reaffirms its Equal Educational Opportunity (EEO) commitments. Universities may utilize the above alternative admission methods to increase the enrollment of a diverse student body. The proposed addition of Rule 6C-6.002(7) that states: Neither State University System nor individual university admissions criteria shall include preferences in the admission process for applicants on the basis of race, national origin or sex. The addition to Rule 6C-6.003(5) that states: Effective for Fall, 2001 admissions, these requirements shall not include preferences in the admission process for applicants on the basis of race, national origin, or sex. Support and Rationale Early on, John Lee Winn, Coordinator for Education Policy, and Budget, Executive Office of the Governor, was involved in the "One Florida Initiative" related to education, as it pertains to the proposed rules on admissions. He looked at experiences in the states of California, Washington, and Texas where admissions policies had changed by virtue of voter ballot initiatives or court decision prohibiting consideration of race in admission decisions for applicants to public universities. The experiences in those states were examined to determine if similar changes in admissions practices in those jurisdictions in response to the prohibitions would be feasible in Florida. Mr. Winn also examined Florida Department of Education data concerning high school graduates, high school course work, GPAs for those students, the availability of college preparatory course work in Florida high schools, together with SUS admissions policies and practices. The data Mr. Winn reviewed for the other states concerned enrollment in the state university systems. In particular, Mr. Winn examined information concerning the "Talented 10" in Texas that allows the top 10 percent of students in Texas high schools to be accepted in Texas public universities with emphasis on the opportunities for minority students to be enrolled under that program. Mr. Winn was not alone in looking at the experiences in the other states. Additional persons who had input in the Florida effort to change admissions policies were involved. The information gathered from other states was through conversation with persons in those jurisdictions as well as exposure to data. This data collection and analysis took place in August, September, and October 1999. After the "One Florida Initiative" was announced on November 9, 1999, Mr. Winn and others continued to examine data from other places. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 13) In performing his analysis Mr. Winn was also cognizant of court actions in Georgia and Michigan concerning admissions issues in universities. Ultimately, Mr. Winn in the interest of the Governor, was concerned that Florida not experience the reductions in minority student enrollment in Florida's public universities that had occurred in the state university systems in California and Texas following voter ballot initiative and court decision respectively. The Texas court case is in reference to the University of Texas Law School, in Austin, Texas. The court disallowed the consideration of race in admissions decisions at the law school in Hopwood v. State of Texas, 78 F.3d 932 (5th Cir. 1996). The California voter initiative calling for race-blind admissions policies in the university system was in accordance with Proposition 209. Mr. Winn was also pursuing research concerning changes to the admissions policies for the Florida universities knowing that a ballot initiative in Florida was being attempted as a constitutional amendment that would influence admissions policies in the SUS. In trying to determine the existing use of race and gender in the SUS admissions process, Mr. Winn relied upon research by the Board of Regents staff. Mr. Winn looked into the experience at the University of North Florida when Chancellor Herbert served as the President of the institution. At that time, the approach described in the facts was promoted in which minority outreach and recruitment before deciding on admissions were emphasized. Race was not considered in admissions decisions. Mr. Winn, through information provided by the Board of Regents staff, determined that race was being considered in the admissions process, although not specifically required by rule of the Board of Regents or individual university rule. Nonetheless, as exemplified in the university rules referred to in the fact-finding, some university rules allow some consideration of race in admissions practices in promoting diversity in the student body at those universities. In addition, Rules 6C-6.001(10)(e)6, and 6C-6.002(5), Florida Administrative Code, as they currently exist, contemplate promotion of diversity. Mr. Winn in his research was unable to discover the Florida Statutes which specifically required the use of race or gender in the admissions process. The term Mr. Winn used to describe his research on the use of race or gender in the admissions process was "race or gender preferences." In his research, Mr. Winn, similar to the fact- finding here, discovered that universities were pursuing "non- rule policy" that took into account race or gender in admissions decisions. Mr. Winn pointed to attempts to improve the performance in the K-12 public school system, in particular for students in low-performing schools, as constituting the long- term solution for establishing diversity in higher education. This refers to the goals in the Governor's Equity in Education Plan. Mr. Winn found that typically the demographic characteristics in low-performing high schools in Florida, D and F schools, show that 70 percent of the student body in those schools were minority students. Information on the racial and ethnic composition of low-performing high schools in Florida is maintained by the Department of Education. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 16) Mr. Winn perceived a relationship between expanding opportunities in the low-performing schools as described in the Equity in Education Plan and changes to Board of Regents' admissions policies in the SUS. Mr. Winn in explaining the policy choice to implement the "Talented 20" program described the expectation that the number of students in D and F schools who would attend the SUS would increase from previous levels. A graph illustrates the previous experience taken from the Readiness For College, 1997- 1998 Florida Department of Education report. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 15) That exhibit shows the percentage of students in the 1997-1998 reporting period from D and F schools attending the SUS is much lower than 20 percent, closer to 10 percent. Mr. Winn identified attempts that would accompany implementation of the "Talented 20" program to provide need- based state financial aid. Mr. Winn made mention of previously existing financial aid programs such as Bright Futures and Federal Pell Grants as means to assist students admitted under the "Talented 20" program. Mr. Winn identified assumptions that with the advent of the "Talented 20" program, 400 minority students who did not meet regular admissions criteria could be admitted, with another prospective 1,200 admissions subject to the latter group's taking one or two courses to make them eligible. In his research, Mr. Winn became aware of the difference in graduation rates between students regularly admitted and those admitted by alternative means. Proposed changes to the alternative admissions Rule 6C-6.6002(3)(c), Florida Administrative Code, contemplate additional factors not articulated before, which Mr. Winn, from the policy perspective, cited as being indicators of the ability of students to perform in the university. Mr. Winn described the proposed 10 percent limitation of persons admitted under the alternative admissions provisions in Rule 6C-6.002(3)(c) as justified by the reduction in need for alternative admissions due to increases brought about through the "Talented 20" program, a new admissions program. There was also the concern that a number of universities within the system had high numbers of alternative admissions as a means to bolster enrollment. This occurrence was in a setting wherein the Legislature was concerned about the policy of admitting students who were not being successful in their academic endeavors. Mr. Winn described the policy explanation for postponing until the fall of 2001 proposed amendment to Rule 6C- 6.003, prohibiting "preferences in the admissions process for applicants on the basis of race, national origin, or sex." The postponement was needed to allow more study to be done in those programs at the graduate and post-baccalaureate professional level to "increase diversity in graduate programs," as Mr. Winn explains it. Ultimately Mr. Winn was persuaded that the experience of Chancellor Herbert, while president of the University of North Florida, is a predictor of the ability to promote diversity through the "One Florida" plan, including the rules amendments, without race as a factor. Mr. Winn described the lack of consideration of race in admissions at the same time Dr. Herbert embarked on an active recruitment and outreach effort, mentoring, financial need matching, and privately matched scholarships to bring about diversity. Leading to the promulgation of proposed amendments to the rules, Mr. Winn discussed pending changes to the admissions rules two or three times a week with the Board of Regents. Dr. George Russell Perkins, Board of Regents Director of Research and Policy Analysis, was charged with analyzing data from the Florida Department of Education to ascertain the impact of the "Talented 20" program. The data he analyzed also included information from the SUS. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 31) The process Dr. Perkins engaged in was one in which a student's unweighted GPA formed the basis for the analysis. Contrary to these assumptions, the Board of Regents anticipates resort to both weighted and unweighted GPA ranking, depending upon the school district, in applying proposed Rule 6C-6.002(5), Florida Administrative Code. That is, some school districts report weighted GPAs and some report only unweighted GPAs. Class rank under the proposed rule will be determined by the Department of Education in relation to the "Talented 20" program by taking the results of school district systems for ranking. Dr. Perkins recognizes this distinction and the possibility that weighted GPAs might change the relative ranking of students within a school, in the school districts where weighted GPA would be assigned in determining the eligibility for participation in the "Talented 20" program. An unweighted system for assigning GPA counts all the units earned regardless of the subject matter and the rigors of the courses. The weighted systems take into account the relative rigor of classes taken in assigning GPA. Weighted systems give a grade received in the college-preparatory curriculum greater value when compared to a less rigorous curriculum. In performing his analysis Dr. Perkins referred to data on all completers in public high schools in the academic year 1997-1998. This included 95,958 standard diplomas, 2,729 special education diplomas, and 1,541 GED diplomas. These students were tracked in accordance with admissions applications to the SUS for the Summer term 1998, Fall 1998, Spring 1999, and Fall 1999. Having in mind proposed Rule 6C-6.002(5), Dr. Perkins sought to hypothetically identify high school students graduating in the academic year 1997-1998, who would have benefited from the "Talented 20" program admissions opportunity. In addition to determining class rank, the analysis made by Dr. Perkins depended upon a student's complying with the 19 required high school academic units as specifically set forth in Rule 6C- 6.002(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code. That meant that additional academic electives must have been completed in the five specific subject areas identified in the rule. From the information gathered and considered Dr. Perkins created tables to depict the hypothetical influence of the "Talented 20" program in creating admissions opportunities. Tables 1 through 15 (Respondents' Exhibit No. 34, Appendix H). The tables below reflect the following: Table 1 Ethnicity Distribution of All Completers1 Public High School Graduates, 1997-98 Unweighted Ethnicity Completers Percent GPA African-Amer 21,325 21.28% 2.44 Asian 2,764 2.76% 3.06 Hispanic 14,409 14.38% 2.56 Native Indian 197 0.20% 2.84 Not Reported 190 0.19% 2.80 White 61,343 61.20% 2.81 Total 100,228 100.00% 2.70 1 Includes 95,958 standard, 2,729 special education and 1,541 GED diplomas Table 2 Ethnicity Distribution of All Completers Who Had 19 Required Academic Credits Unweighted Ethnicity Completers Percent GPA African-Amer 9,152 15.85% 2.73 Asian 2,065 3.58% 3.19 Hispanic 5,838 10.11% 2.87 Native Indian 127 0.22% 3.04 Not Reported 128 0.22% 3.01 White 40,445 70.03% 3.04 Total 57,755 100.00% 2.98 Table 3 Percentage of All Completers Who Had 19 Required Academic Credits Ethnicity Percent African-Amer 42.92% Asian 74.71% Hispanic 40.52% Native Indian 64.47% Not Reported 67.37% White 65.93% Total 57.62% Table 4 Ethnicity Distribution of Top Twenty Percent Who Did Not Have the 19 Required Academic Credits Unweighted Ethnicity Completers Percent GPA African-Amer 793 21.28% 2.98 Asian 152 4.08% 3.44 Hispanic 998 26.78% 3.20 Native Indian 9 0.24% 3.30 Not Reported 7 0.19% 3.06 White 1,768 47.44% 3.12 Total 3,727 100.00% 3.12 Table 5 Ethnicity Distribution of Top Twenty Percent Who Had the 19 Required Academic Credits1 Unweighted Ethnicity Completers Percent GPA African-Amer 1,525 9.41% 3.36 Asian 970 5.99% 3.61 Hispanic 1,557 9.61% 3.46 Native Indian 39 0.24% 3.59 Not Reported 44 0.27% 3.57 White 12,071 74.48% 3.59 Total 16,206 100.00% 3.56 1Includes 16,201 standard, 2 special education and 3 GED diplomas. Table 6 Ethnicity distribution of top Twenty Percent Who Had 19 Required Academic Credits OR Students Who Had at Least 2.9 GPA Over All Courses And Who Had 19 Required Academic Credits Unweighted Ethnicity Completers Percent GPA African-Amer 3,341 10.13% 3.21 Asian 1,494 4.53 3.45 Hispanic 2,848 8.63% 3.30 Native Indian 83 0.25% 3.35 Not Reported 81 0.25% 3.37 White 25,142 76.21% 3.36 Total 32,989 100.00% 3.34 Table 7 Unweighted GPA Distribution of Top Twenty Percent Who Had 19 Required Academic Credits Unweighted GPA Cumulative Range Number Percent Number Percent ========================================================= 4.0 517 3.19% 517 3.19% 3.90 - 3.99 1,187 7.32% 1,704 10.51% 3.80 - 3.89 1,515 9.35% 3,219 19.86% 3.70 - 3.79 1,812 11.18% 5,031 31.04% 3.60 - 3.69 2,296 14.17% 7,327 45.21% 3.50 - 3.59 2,598 16.03% 9,925 61.24% 3.40 - 3.49 2,221 13.70% 12,146 74.95% 3.30 - 3.39 1,732 10.69% 13,878 85.63% 3.20 - 3.29 1,082 6.68% 14,960 92.31% 3.10 - 3.19 610 3.76% 15,570 96.08% 3.00 - 3.09 356 2.20% 15,926 98.27% 2.90 - 2.99 160 0.99% 16,086 99.26% 2.90 120 0.74% 16,206 100.00% Note: This table is based on the GPA earned on all high school credits as opposed to the GPA on the 19 required credits as specified in the Board of Regents admissions rule. Data on the GPA on the required 19 credits were not immediately available. Table 8 Ethnicity Distribution of Top Twenty Percent Who Had 19 Required Academic credits Who Applied to an SUS Institution Unweighted Ethnicity Completers Percent GPA African-Amer 1,130 10.16% 3.38 Asian 752 6.76% 3.63 Hispanic 1,027 9.23% 3.48 Native Indian 25 0.22% 3.67 Not Reported 29 0.26% 3.61 White 8,163 73.37% 3.62 Total 11,126 100.00% 3.58 Table 9 Ethnicity Distribution of Top Twenty Percent Who Had 19 Required Academic Credits But Did Not apply to an SUS Institution Unweighted Ethnicity Completers Percent GPA African-Amer 395 7.78% 3.28 Asian 218 4.29% 3.56 Hispanic 530 10.43% 3.42 Native Indian 14 0.28% 3.45 Not Reported 15 0.30% 3.51 White 3,908 76.93% 3.54 Total 5,080 100.00% 3.51 Table 10 Ethnicity Distribution of Top Twenty Percent Who Had 19 Required Academic Credits Who applied to an SUS Institution Ethnicity And Completers Were Accepted Percent Unweighted GPA African-Amer 1,022 10.90% 3.38 Asian 631 6.73% 3.62 Hispanic 908 9.68% 3.46 Native Indian 21 0.22% 3.66 Not Reported 24 0.26% 3.58 White 6,773 72.21% 3.61 Total 9,379 100.00% 3.57 Table 11 Ethnicity Distribution of Top Twenty Percent Who Had 19 Required Academic Credits Who Applied to an SUS Institution And Registered for Classes Unweighted Ethnicity Completers Percent GPA African-Amer 843 10.62% 3.38 Asian 506 6.38% 3.60 Hispanic 709 8.93% 3.47 Native Indian 19 0.24% 3.65 Not Reported 22 0.28% 3.56 White 5,838 73.55% 3.61 Total 7,937 100.00% 3.57 Table 12 Ethnicity Distribution of Top Twenty Percent Who Had 19 Required Academic Credits Percentage of Those Who Applied Who Were Accepted Ethnicity Accepted_ Percentage African-Amer 1,022 90.44% Asian 631 83.91% Hispanic 908 88.41% Native Indian 21 84.00% Not Reported 24 82.76% White 6,773 82.97% Total 9,379 84.30% Table 13 Ethnicity Distribution of Top Twenty Percent Who had 19 Required Academic Credits Percentage of Those Who Were Accepted Who Subsequently Registered for Classes Ethnicity Enrolled Percentage African-Amer 843 82.49% Asian 506 80.19% Hispanic 709 78.08% Native Indian 19 90.48% Not Reported 22 91.67% White 5,838 86.20% Total 7,937 84.63% Table 14 Ethnicity Distribution of Top Twenty Percent Who had 19 Required Academic Credits Who Applied to an SUS Institution Were Accepted, Enrolled and Required Remediation Ethnicity Completers Percent of Total Unweighted of Enrolled GPA African-Amer 105 50.24% 12.46% 3.22 Asian 16 7.66% 3.16% 3.42 Hispanic 34 16.27% 4.80% 3.35 Native Indian 0 0.00% 0.00% N/A Not Reported 2 0.96% 9.09% 3.30 White 52 24.88% 0.89% 3.41 Total 209 100.00% 2.63% 3.30 Table 15 Ethnicity Distribution of Top Twenty Percent Who had 19 Required Academic Credits Who Applied to an SUS Institution Were Denied Admission Percent Unweighted Ethnicity Completers of Total of Applicants GPA African-Amer 22 12.57% 1.95% 3.20 Asian 10 5.71% 1.33% 3.47 Hispanic 13 7.43% 1.27% 3.42 Native Indian 0 0.00% 0.00% N/A Not Reported 0 0.00% 0.00% N/A White 130 74.29% 1.59% 3.44 Total 175 100.00% 1.57% 3.41 These tables were an integral part of the materials presented to the Board of Regents for its deliberations in considering the influence of the "Talented 20" program on university admissions. It is significant that the tables reflect not only the hypothetical opportunities for admission in accordance with the "Talented 20" program but indicate the actual experience of students who applied in the relevant periods. With this in mind, Table 8 compared with Table 10 reflects slight increases in the number of minorities, African-Americans and Hispanics, who would be hypothetically entitled to admission under the "Talented 20" program compared to the actual experience of application and acceptance. There would be 108 additional African-Americans and 119 additional Hispanics. Consideration is given to the explanation of increases for those minorities, in that those persons responsible for changes to the admissions policies contemplated by the rules amendments are persuaded that the "Talented 20" program will bring about significant future opportunities for minority admissions in those cohorts. Table 9 reflects 5,080 students in the hypothetical, among those 395 African-Americans and 530 Hispanics who would be entitled to admission under the "Talented 20" program, but who did not apply to the SUS. The reasons for not applying under preexisting admissions procedures were not explained in the hearing record. How many similarly situated students might apply in the future should the proposed amendment creating the "Talented 20" program be allowed is uncertain. As Dr. Perkins describes it, Table 9 reflects the opportunity for the "Talented 20" program to bring additional students into the SUS; however, no attempt has been made to predict how many students might take advantage of the opportunity for admission. Dr. Perkins did establish that the "Talented 20" program would create potential opportunities for students in low performing schools, schools graded D and F, who met requirements for the program to be admitted, assuming compliance with the 19 required academic credits and top 20 percent. Exercising the hypothetical in relation to the 1997-1998 class 1,842 graduates from D and F schools would have the opportunity for admissions under the proposed rule. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 34, I-1) Substantial numbers of those students in D and F schools in that academic year were minorities. Unlike the portrayal of the application process identified in the "Talented 20" program, proposed Rule 6C- 6.002(5), no increases are foreseen in African-American and Hispanic minorities under the "student profile assessment" admissions policy described in proposed Rule 6C-6.002(3)(c). In the latter process the system is limited to 10 percent of total FTIC students. This reflects a reduction in the absolute numbers of alternative admissions by history, most of whom have traditionally been minority admissions. The prohibition against consideration of race and national origin in a setting where race and ethnicity have played a role in alternative admissions, as already described, creates a change in the outcome. The possibility exists that minority groups might suffer further reductions in numbers of minority students admitted pursuant to this rule as a result of competition with all applicants. The effect is tempered in recognition that factors such as family educational background, socio-economic status, and graduate of a low-performing high school, would assist minorities as much, or perhaps more, than others in their application for admission. When Dr. Lewis worked for then-president Herbert at the University of North Florida, she was charged with overseeing enrollment services at the university. She pursued admissions policies at the university consistent with Dr. Herbert's expectations by not referring to race at the point in time when students were admitted. All students were treated the same. The emphasis for increasing diversity was directed to activities prior to the point when a student's application was being considered in competition with other applicants, regardless of race. These pre-collegiate programs associated with outreach and recruitment have been discussed and are basically comparable to the ideas contemplated for the SUS under the Governor's Equity in Education Plan for expanding opportunities for students in low performing schools. Based upon her association with the University of North Florida admissions activities, Dr. Herbert called upon Dr Lewis to chair the "Talented 20" Task Force. Dr. Lewis accepted that responsibility in recognition that the program would be pursued in conjunction with a "profile assessment" method of alternative admissions. The "Talented 20" Task Force formed was constituted of university representatives and representatives from public schools in Florida. University students were invited to be members of the task force. Board of Regents staff, Department of Education staff, and persons from the Florida Community College system were also invited. Within this group were admissions personnel from the universities, guidance personnel from the high schools, and persons responsible for financial aid to benefit university students. Teams were established to consider issues promoted by the "Talented 20" program. Efforts by the "Talented 20" Task Force eventuated in a report of recommendations dated December 8 and 9, 1999. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 70) That report was provided to Chancellor Herbert. It was highlighted by recommendations that identification of the "Talented 20" students be made at the seventh semester in high school, creation of a "Talented 20" office within the Board of Regents to assist in dealing with problems of admissions to the universities under the plan, and calculation of GPA premised upon the ranking process already in place in the school districts. These recommendations were made known to the Board of Regents at its December 9 and 10, 1999 meeting, and were discussed by Dr. Lewis at that meeting, together with an explanation of the function of the "Talented 20" Task Force. As envisioned through the process leading to rule adoption, the proposed "Talented 20" admissions standards do not require SAT and ACT tests. This deletion is perceived by proponents of the program as having the potential to benefit students. According to Dr. Lewis, within her knowledge, recently 86 students in D-rated schools in Jacksonville would be eligible for admissions under the "Talented 20" program, proposed rule 6C-6.002(5), without having taken SAT or ACT tests. Dr. Judith G. Hample, Vice Chancellor for Planning Budgeting and Policy Analysis, Board of Regents had principal responsibility for developing the proposed rules. She was assigned that obligation by Dr. Herbert. The rule development was with the knowledge that universities were considering race and ethnicity as factors in admissions. No such policies were being pursued in relation to gender. No proof at hearing demonstrated that gender was being considered as a factor in either aiding or hindering admissions. Certain data available to Dr. Hample and staff lent credence to the statements by university personnel that race and ethnicity were considered in admissions. Data consisted of the alternative admissions statement from the SUS November 1998. (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 36) The universities reported on their alternative admissions under the preexisting rule. Approximately one-third of those students were described as admitted for reason of "diversity." Diversity was taken by Dr. Hample and her staff to mean consideration for admission based on race or ethnicity, in some cases. Dr. Hample and her staff observed universities reporting that extra points were given for race, such as University of Florida 0.6 points and Florida State one point when considering applications for admissions. In performing her duties, Dr. Hample took her lead from the Governor's Equity in Education Plan, the components for improving the education received by high school students and admissions practices for universities. In the latter category, the two major considerations were first, the prohibition of race, ethnicity, or sex as factors in admissions and second, creation of the "Talented 20" program. The "Talented 20" program allows admission to a university in the SUS without guaranteeing the choice of a particular university. Dr. Hample conducted research on the question of whether there was a requirement that race or gender be considered in admissions practices, not whether those practices were allowed. Given the demographics for minorities and females entering the 1999 fall term in the SUS, approximately 38 percent and 57 precent respectively, Dr. Hample and staff felt that this was a reasonable performance in meeting the educational needs for those groups, and it would be a reasonable and sound educational policy to implement amendments calling for elimination of race, ethnicity, or sex in undergraduate admissions. This conclusion was reached with a view toward the past performance in the State of Florida in which desegregation orders had been entered under federal law to increase the number of minorities and women in the university student population. Dr. Hample and staff wanted to make certain that there was no present evidence of past discrimination that needed to be addressed, as it influenced the rights of minorities and women to receive a public education. In preparing the draft language for the proposed amendments to the rules Dr. Hample was unconvinced, and remains so today, that there are any present effects of past discrimination in the admissions practices of the SUS. Nothing presented in the hearing created a different impression. As Dr. Hample explains, the proposed amendments to Rule 6C-6.0002(3)(c), establishing factors for student "profile assessment" in alternative admissions were not designed solely to capture minorities in the admissions process, although as previously found some factors described in the proposed rule might be especially beneficial to minorities. The 10 percent limitation in alternative admissions under proposed Rule 6C-6.0002(3)(c), had its origins before the Governor announced his Equity in Education Plan, according to Dr. Hample. As she explained, the State of Florida relies on community colleges to educate the majority of students coming out of high schools. Given the expectation that those students will then transfer for their final two years to a four-year college, the Legislature has invested in the two systems, lower division education (community colleges) and upper division education (universities). The Legislature has expressed concern that universities not use alternative admissions as a means to expand their student populations. As Dr. Hample understood, the Legislature was worried that FTIC students were being admitted who did not meet all entrance requirements and had to undergo remediation to succeed in their educational pursuits at the university, students more appropriately placed in community colleges. These concerns and the desire to remove race and gender as a factor in admissions influenced the Board of Regents' decision to limit the number of alternative admissions under the proposed rule. Dr. Hample in drafting the proposed language to the rules amendments did not proceed with the expectation that the changes would affect scholarship awards, outreach programs, enrichment programs, and the like, offered through the SUS. Dr. Hample understands that the university admissions rules as they exist and are intended for amendment involve the process of reviewing a student's application to determine whether the student is accepted or denied admission to the university solely. This is an appropriate reading of the preexisting rules and the proposed amendments. Any assistance or consideration given to prospective applicants for admission to the universities, or students enrolled in the universities, by way of scholarships, outreach programs, recruitment, enrichment programs, financial aid, or similar assistance upon grounds of race, ethnicity, or gender, to promote diversity, is not the subject of the admissions rules as they now exist or would exist with the amendments. Those practices are not at issue in this proceeding. Dr. Hample, who authored the language which prohibits "preferences," interprets that word to mean that universities should not give advantage to one student over another in reviewing a student's application through consideration of race or ethnicity or gender as a factor. The giving of extra points in the evaluation process involved with admissions constitutes such advantage. This interpretation is a reasonable and appropriate reading limited to the admissions process per se. Rule 6C-6.001(10)(e)6, Florida Administrative Code, is subject to repeal. The limited access programs described in that provision are upper level programs. To this point universities have not identified criteria to the Board of Regents for approval which would establish up to 10 percent of admissions to the limited access programs with different criteria in the interest of establishing equal access enrollment goals. Rule 6C-6.0001(10)(e)2, Florida Administrative Code. As Dr. Hample discovered, in practice, some universities were considering race in admissions to limited access programs without the formality of Board approval. Dr. Hample does not view retention of Rule 6C-6.001(10)(e)6 as necessary at present, given the basic opportunity for universities to establish limited criteria, taken to mean under other provisions within Rule 6C-6.001(10)(e), Florida Administrative Code. By her analysis of the data Dr. Hample was persuaded that minorities and women already have sufficient access to limited access programs. How those persons gained access is less apparent. Dr. Hample concedes that there is a link between Rule 6C- 6.001(10)(e)6, Florida Administrative Code, in the establishment of the 10 percent equal access enrollment opportunity under different criteria and the Florida/OCR Partnership Agreement 1998. At page 7, there is a description of the 1983 adoption of a policy to apply a 10 percent admissions exception to the limited access programs to benefit minorities and others in admissions to those programs. (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 2 and Respondents' Exhibit No. 68) Dr. Hample explains that the prohibition against preferences in the admissions process for applicants on the basis of race, national origin, or sex, effective fall of 2001 in proposed rule 6C-6.003(5) was intended to establish consistency for admissions at any level in the SUS. The review that Dr. Hample and her staff performed pointed out that in the graduate and post-baccalaureate professional programs, much attention had been paid to diversity, so much so, that the demographics for minorities in those programs exceeds the demographic breakdown for minorities in the overall state population. In the research Dr. Hample and her staff performed did not have detailed information as to all graduate and professional programs and their respective criteria for admissions. Postponement of the prohibition against consideration of race, national origin, or sex until 2001 recognizes the decentralized nature of those programs at the graduate and professional level, institution-to-institution and within the institution themselves, as to criteria used for admissions decisions and the need to prepare for the change. Dr. Hample points to the belief that the "Talented 20" program, in its terms, does not require SAT or ACT tests to be admitted. In her analysis this is a significant consideration in dealing with students from D and F schools who are not always encouraged to take those tests but would still comply with proposed rule 6C-6.002(5). In preparing proposed amendments to the rules, Dr. Hample discovered that not all universities were requiring compliance with the selection of four electives from the listed subject area within Rule 6C-6.002(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, when considering student admissions. This dilemma was caused by university admissions offices using information from a high school guidance counseling manual that was less rigorous in establishing the curriculum for high school students compared to the Rule. This led to students being admitted to the universities without rule compliance in the electives, about 60 percent of all students. The problem was addressed when the 10 universities petitioned the Board of Regents for a variance from the requirement in Rule 6C-6.002(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, for entering freshmen to possess four additional academic electives in the five subject areas. The petition in accordance with Section 120.542, Florida Statues, was submitted on April 11, 2000. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 45) It requested relief from compliance until summer of 2003. On April 21, 2000, an order was entered granting the Petition. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 46) By these arrangements the counseling information could form the basis for compliance with Rule 6C-6.002(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, with the expectation that counseling information would be modified to reflect the literal requirements in the Rule concerning compliance with electives by students seeking admission for summer of 2003. The variance for the electives changed the expectation in proposed rule 6C-6.002(5), the "Talented 20" program, in that the proposed rule relies upon the requirements in Rule 6C-6.002(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, pertaining to the four electives. As envisioned by the rule adoption process, until the summer of 2003, students who would be admitted under proposed rule 6C-6.002(5), would receive the same treatment as students admitted under Rule 6C-6.002(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code. OCR AWARENESS From the inception the Board of Regents made OCR aware of the Governor's Executive Order 99-281 and Equity in Education Plan by copies provided on November 10, 1999. This was followed by correspondence on November 23, 1999, from Chancellor Herbert directed to Ms. Norma V. Cantu, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education, and Suong Mai Cavalli, Chief Civil Rights Attorney, U.S. Department of Education, explaining the further development of those initiatives through the Chancellor's presentation to the Board of Regents on November 19, 1999. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 135B). On December 7, 1999, a meeting was held between the Board of Regents staff, the Governor's office, and OCR. On January 14, 2000, Gary S. Walker, Director Atlanta Office for Civil Rights, Southern Division, United States Department of Education, wrote Chancellor Herbert to express the preliminary assessment which OCR had concerning the Governor's Executive Order and Equity in Education Plan, with emphasis on the implementation of the "Talented 20" program, profile assessment and graduate and professional admissions contemplated by the proposed amendments to the admissions rules. This preliminary assessment indicated that the Executive Order and Equity in Education Plan could be reconciled with the partnership commitments between Florida and OCR expanding access for minority students to higher education. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 60) On February 18, 2000, Director Walker wrote to Chancellor Herbert commenting on the need to meet to discuss how the State of Florida intended to ensure the goals of the partnership commitments would be met for the undergraduate and graduate level students, with the adoption of the proposed rules changes. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 61) Topics to be discussed in the meeting, among others, would be: 1. The impact of the 19-course credit requirements for college admission on minority students; 2. plans for ensuring access for minority students to the "Flagship Institutions" in Florida; and 3. graduate and professional school admissions. On March 3, 2000, before the meeting was held, Mr. Walker sent correspondence to Ms. Regina E. Sofer, Chairperson, Florida/OCR Partnership Team, State University System of Florida, reference Monitoring- Florida/United State Office for Civil Rights Partnership Commitments Interim Report 1999. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 63A) The March 3, 2000, correspondence from Mr. Walker to Ms. Sofer established a list of subjects to be discussed at the upcoming meeting between Florida officials and OCR officials. Although not exhaustive, the list mentioned the following subjects: How the 19 course credit requirements for college admissions will impact on minority students? How the SUS will ensure access for minority students to the Flagship Institutions in Florida? How will capping the profile assessments student admissions at 10% affect those students who may have been admitted previously under the Alternative Admission standards? How will the SUS seek to maintain an increased minority enrollment in the graduate/professional schools within the SUS? How will the "Talented 20" students be distributed among the SUS institutions? What kinds of information OCR will need concerning the implementation of the new admissions rules in the time table for providing this information. On March 8, 2000, Ms. Sofer wrote to Ms. Cavalli to confirm the upcoming March 2000 meeting to be held between Florida officials and OCR representatives. The subject matter to be considered, according to the correspondence was: 1. the impact of the 19-course credit requirements for college admission on minority students; 2. plans for ensuring access to minority students to the Flagship Institutions in Florida; and graduate and professional school admissions. (Respondents' Exhibit No. 64) The March 2000 meeting between the Board of Regents staff and OCR took place. That meeting was not followed by further written comment from OCR concerning the proposed amendments. Critique Dr. Barbara Newell was recognized as an expert in university admissions and affirmative action. Dr. Newell has had an extensive career as educator and administrator. Dr. Newell served as SUS chancellor in the years 1981-1985. Dr. Newell correctly criticizes the admissions policy in proposed rule 6C-6.002(5), in which the SUS relies upon the Florida Department of Education to determine class rank for participation in the program. She offers her opinion realizing that the Department of Education at the inception intends to rely upon the class-ranking systems in the various school districts which employ weighted and unweighted grading systems. Dr. Newell expressed concerns about the "unevenness, unreasonableness and unfairness" for students between schools, taken to mean between school districts, where a course in physics compared to a course in physical education is a non- equivalent measurement of academic achievement. In her opinion, Dr. Newell thinks that the process should be as transparent as possible when considering the basis for admissions under the "Talented 20" program and that the citizenry expects equitable treatment of people with similar track records, taken to mean measuring student performance under similar grading systems. Program Enrollment By Gender As pointed out by Florida Now, in SUS programs such as mathematics, computer and information sciences, and engineering, a noticeable disparity exists between male and female enrollment. Female numbers at every academic level, bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degree programs reflect this disparity. Substantially more males than females participate in those programs. This is not reflected in the overall experience within the SUS. No proof was offered that the explanation for the disparities in the select programs pointed out by Florida Now is premised upon discrimination in admissions practices that penalizes females. House Bill 1567 Pending a decision in this case the Legislature made significant amendments to Sections 240.209, 240.227, and 240.33, Florida Statutes, when it passed House Bill 1567. That act took effect July 1, 2000. It creates legal consequences for the Board of Regents in adopting the proposed amendments to the rules. It changes the outcome in some of the assumptions made by the Board about the manner in which the proposed amendments would be allowed to function. Its effect is discussed in the conclusions of law.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to sit for the examination for licensure as a psychologist. The resolution of that issue turns on whether Petitioner has a “doctoral-level psychological education” or a “doctoral degree in psychology” within the meaning of Section 490.003(7), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied to sit for the psychologist licensure examination by application dated November 18, 1994. Petitioner earned a bachelor of science in electrical engineering degree from the University of California at Berkley, in 1970. Petitioner earned a masters degree in business administration from the University of California at Berkley in 1972. Petitioner earned a masters degree in engineering from the University of California at Berkley in 1975. Petitioner enrolled in the Union Institute on July 1, 1977, where he was a student until he withdrew on September 30, 1981. He was readmitted to the Union Institute on March 14, 1986. He was awarded the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by the Union Institute on March 31, 1987. Petitioner’s area of specialization was “Electrical Engineering and Applied Behavioral Science”. The title of his dissertation was “A Procedural Model in a Knowledge System of a Generalized Intelligent Decision Support System Which Employs Psychological and Biological Characteristics”. Petitioner’s doctorate degree from Union Institute was with dual majors, electrical engineering and psychology. Respondent stipulated that Petitioner’s degree from the Union Institute included a Ph.D. with a major in psychology. Based on the testimony of Respondent’s expert, it is found that Petitioner was awarded a Ph.D. in psychology from Union Institute within the meaning of Section 490.003(7), Florida Statutes (1995). 1/ Petitioner’s course work at the Union Institute included a total of 135 credits for the psychological portion of his Union degree. 2/ The Union Institute was accredited by a regional accrediting agency, the North Central Association, for the first time in the year 1985. Between the time Petitioner matriculated in the Union Institute in 1977 and the time he withdrew as a student in 1981, the Union Institute was not an accredited institution. At all times after he was readmitted in 1986, the Union Institute was an accredited institution. The Union Institute did not have a formal program in psychology until 1992. The American Psychological Association (APA) is an accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education. The Union Institute’s doctorate program in psychology has never been accredited by the APA or by any other accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education. The doctoral program pursued by Petitioner was developed for him as a result of his negotiations with a faculty committee. 3/ His doctoral program did not include an appropriate psychological internship. The parties agreed that an appropriate psychological internship is an essential element of an APA comparable doctoral program. There was a conflict in the testimony between Dr. David Singer, an expert for the Petitioner, and Dr. Barry Schneider, an expert for the Respondent as to whether Petitioner’s doctoral program was comparable to an APA approved program. Dr. Singer testified that except for the absence of a psychological internship, Petitioner’s doctoral program at the Union Institute was comparable to an APA approved program. Dr. Schneider’s opinion was that Petitioner’s doctoral program was not comparable to an APA approved program. Both of these experts have impressive credentials and both testified at length as to the underlying reasons for their opinions. Dr. Singer has far greater experience than Dr. Schneider working with APA accreditation standards. Because of that greater experience and because Dr. Schneider misunderstood part of the work for which Petitioner was awarded credit, 4/ Dr. Singer’s opinion that except for an internship the Petitioner’s doctoral program was comparable to an APA approved program is accepted.1 Following his graduation from Union Institute, Petitioner completed two psychological internships to augment his education. The first, under the supervision of Dr. James J. Thompson, Ph. D., a California psychologist, began November 11, 1988, and ended August 1, 1990. The second, under the supervision of Dr. Cheryl A. Woodson, Ph. D., a Florida psychologist, began October 1, 1993, and ended December 31, 1994. The internship he took from Dr. Woodson was comparable to an internship that would have been required from a doctoral program approved by the APA. When he took his internship, the Board had rules that explicitly permitted a candidate to augment his or her education with a post-doctoral internship. See, Chapter 59AA-14, Florida Administrative Code. That chapter was repealed January 7, 1996. The Board is still authorized to accept evidence that a candidate has augmented his or her education. See, Section 490.005(1)(b)3, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order finding Petitioner qualified to sit for the subject licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of February, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of February, 1997.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act.
Findings Of Fact Madison County School District is a school district which consists of eight schools, serving approximately 2600 students. It employs approximately 400 people. Since 2012, Doug Brown has been the Superintendent of Schools for Madison County. Willie Williams is Respondent’s Chief Operations Officer. As part of his duties in that position, he serves as the head of the Human Resources Department, and is involved in the screening of applicants for positions within the district. He also serves as the human resources equity officer with responsibility for ensuring that the district’s procedures are followed in employment interviews and that all interview questions are asked in the same order and manner for all employment candidates. As an employer, Respondent established standard hiring procedures which included procedures for the advertising, screening, and interviewing for all open positions within the district. As part of such procedures, all applications for open positions with Respondent are screened by a screening committee prior to any interview by the Respondent. During screening, the committee reviews every application for completeness and for compliance with the requisite experience and certifications required for that position. Only those applicants who were determined by the screening committee to possess the requisite experience and certification and whose applications are determined to be complete are granted an interview with Respondent. Respondent also had a policy which prohibited retaliation and discrimination on the basis of gender. The policy provided a procedure for a complaint to be made by any person who believed they were a victim of retaliation or discrimination. Petitioner, who is male, is a former employee of Respondent. During his prior employment with Respondent, Petitioner was employed in a variety of positions until June 2012, when his annual contract expired and was not renewed. Following his non- renewal, Petitioner filed a Complaint of Employment Discrimination with FCHR, wherein he claimed race discrimination and retaliation. FCHR investigated Petitioner’s complaint and, on February 15, 2013, issued a Notice of Determination finding no cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice had occurred. Petitioner took no further action with regard to this complaint and FCHR’s determination became final. In July of 2013, Respondent had a vacancy for a Dean of Students/Lead Teacher ESE position. Pursuant to its collective bargaining agreement, Respondent first advertised the position internally for three days to current district employees for whom the open position would be a lateral transfer. Respondent did not receive any internal applications. Accordingly, Respondent subsequently advertised the Dean of Students/Lead Teacher ESE position to the public. The required qualifications for the Dean of Students/Lead Teacher ESE position were: Bachelors Degree or higher from an accredited educational institution. Certified in an education field. Minimum of three (3) years teaching experience. Applicant must be certified in ESE. Respondent required that applicants for the Dean of Students/Lead Teacher ESE position hold the general exceptional student education (ESE) certification that is currently offered by the Florida Department of Education. Respondent did not accept any grandfathered special education certifications other than the full ESE certification for this position. There was no evidence that this requirement was discriminatory or retaliatory toward Petitioner.2/ Around this same time, Respondent also had openings for other Dean of Students positions. Unlike the other Dean of Students positions available at the time, the Dean of Students/Lead Teacher ESE position was a hybrid position which would fulfill both the role of Dean of Students, as well as that of ESE teacher. As a result, the Dean of Students/Lead Teacher ESE position for which Petitioner applied required ESE certification while other Dean of Students positions did not. Petitioner, along with 22 other individuals, applied for the Dean of Students/Lead Teacher ESE position. The applicants for the Dean of Students/Lead Teacher ESE position were approximately half male and half female. On his application, Petitioner reflected that he held a varying exceptionalities certification in special education. He also held certification in the areas of driver’s education, law enforcement, mental retardation, and secondary school principal. The applications for the Dean of Students/Lead Teacher ESE position were screened in compliance with Respondent’s established procedures. During the screening committee’s review, the screening committee verified Petitioner’s certification coverage with the Florida Department of Education. The Department of Education confirmed that Petitioner possessed certification in the areas of mental retardation and varying exceptionalities, but did not have the general ESE certification that Respondent required. Based upon Petitioner’s application and the certification report obtained from the Florida Department of Education, the screening committee members agreed that Petitioner did not meet the required qualifications for the Dean of Students/Lead Teacher ESE position and screened him out of the interview process for such position. In fact, several applicants, both male and female, were screened out of the interview process for the Dean of Students/Lead Teacher ESE position due to not being qualified. The only applicants who passed the screening process and were granted interviews for the Dean of Students/Lead Teacher ESE position were those applicants who possessed the full ESE certification. There was no evidence that Respondent’s or the screening committee’s actions in processing these applications were discriminatory or retaliatory against Petitioner. The applicant who was ultimately selected for the Dean of Students/Lead Teacher ESE position was a female who was a current school board employee at the time of her application and who possessed the full ESE certification that Respondent required for the position. After learning that he had been screened out of the interview process for the Dean of Students/Lead Teacher ESE position, Petitioner met with Superintendent Brown and inquired as to why he was screened out of the interview process for such position. The Superintendent indicated to Petitioner that if he was qualified for the position he should have been interviewed and advised Petitioner he would look into the matter. Following such meeting, Superintendent Brown conferred with Willie Williams regarding the screening and interview process for the position at issue. The chief operating officer informed Superintendent Brown that Petitioner did not possess the required full ESE certification and that he was therefore not qualified for the position. After receiving this information, Superintendent Brown concurred that Petitioner was not qualified for the Dean of Students/Lead Teacher ESE position and took no further action in relation to the issue. In July 2013, Petitioner applied for a Dean of Students position with Respondent. This position did not require ESE certification. Eighteen individuals applied for the position. The applications for this Dean of Students position were also screened in compliance with Respondent’s established procedures. Petitioner was determined to be qualified for this position by the screening committee and received an interview. Petitioner, however, was not recommended for the position and the position was ultimately filled by an African American male. Subsequently, Petitioner applied for an open driver’s education position with Respondent for the summer of 2014. This position did not require ESE certification. Likewise, the applications for the driver’s education position were screened in compliance with Respondent’s established procedures. Petitioner was deemed qualified for this position by the screening committee and received an interview. The interview committee recommended Petitioner to Superintendent Brown for this position and Superintendent Brown subsequently presented that recommendation to the School Board. The School Board approved the Superintendent’s recommendation and Petitioner was hired for the position. Petitioner also applied for an Assistant Principal position with Respondent in July 2014. This position did not require ESE certification. The applications for the Assistant Principal position were screened in compliance with Respondent’s established procedures. Petitioner was determined to be qualified for this position by the screening committee and was offered an interview. Petitioner, however, did not respond to Respondent’s attempts to schedule that interview and thus was not interviewed for the position. Ultimately, Petitioner failed to present any evidence to show that he was, in fact, qualified for the Dean of Students/Lead Teacher ESE position or that he was screened out of the interviews for such position for any reason other than his failure to meet the required qualifications. Based on this lack of evidence, the Petition for Relief should be dismissed. Finally, in his Employment Complaint of Discrimination and Petition for Relief, Petitioner alleged that Respondent provided “false and defaming references as further acts of retaliation” and “a negative derogatory reference letter.” However, Petitioner presented no evidence in support of these allegations. To the contrary, the evidence showed that at some point in time, Petitioner requested that Superintendent Brown write a reference letter for Petitioner. Following that request, Superintendent Brown wrote a letter for Petitioner to provide to potential employers which recommended Petitioner for employment and stated that Petitioner had not had any disciplinary issues with Respondent. Given Petitioner’s failure to present any evidence to support his allegations of retaliation, the Petition for Relief should be dismissed
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Rights enter a Final Order finding that Respondent did not discriminate or retaliate against Petitioner and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of November, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 18th day of November, 2014.
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.
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
