The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at the final hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: At all times material to the instant case, Respondent has been a Florida-certified teacher. At all times material to the instant case, Respondent has taught chemistry at Coral Gables Senior High School (CGSHS), which is a school operated by the Miami-Dade County School Board (School Board). Respondent is a dedicated educator who has a passion for teaching. On Saturday, October 7, 2000, the mathematics portion of the High School Competency Test (HSCT) was administered at CGSHS. 2/ The HSCT is a standardized statewide examination that students must pass to qualify for a regular high school diploma. 3/ It contains multiple choice questions testing basic skills in reading/communications and mathematics. It has been administered since the 1980's and has always been a "secure" test. There are approximately three or four "editions" of the mathematics portion of the HSCT. 4/ Having to replace one of these "editions" because of a breach of security would entail "significant cost." Respondent was one of the test administrators at CGSHS on October 7, 2000. She had served as a HSCT test administrator five or six times prior to October 7, 2000. Prior to the administration of the test on October 7, 2000, Respondent had been provided training at CGSHS on how to properly discharge her responsibilities as a test administrator. The importance of maintaining test security was emphasized during the training. As part of the training, Respondent received a packet of written materials. It was Respondent's responsibility to read these materials. The training materials repeatedly warned that test administrators were not to open the test booklets. Included in the materials was the version of the "Florida Test Security Statute," Section 228.301, Florida Statutes, in effect prior its amendment by Chapter 97-190, Laws of Florida, 5/ and the version of "Florida Test Security Board of Education Rule," Rule 6A-10.042, Florida Administrative Code, that has been in effect since October 26, 1994. The pre-Chapter 97-190 version of Section 228.301, Florida Statutes, provided as follows: It is unlawful for anyone knowingly and willfully to violate test security rules adopted by the State Board of Education or the Commissioner of Education for mandatory tests administered by or through the State Board of Education or the Commissioner of Education to students, educators, or applicants for certification or administered by school districts pursuant to s. 229.57, or, with respect to any such test, knowingly and willfully to: Give examinees access to test questions prior to testing; Copy, reproduce, or use in any manner inconsistent with test security rules all or any portion of any secure test booklet; Coach examinees during testing or alter or interfere with examinees' responses in any way; Make answer keys available to examinees; Fail to follow security rules for distribution and return of secure test as directed, or fail to account for all secure test materials before, during, and after testing; Fail to follow test administration directions specified in the test administration manuals; or Participate in, direct, aid, counsel, assist in, or encourage any of the acts prohibited in this section. Any person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than 90 days, or both. A district superintendent of schools, a president of a community college, a president of a university, or a president of a private postsecondary institution shall cooperate with the Commissioner of Education in any investigation concerning the administration of a test administered pursuant to state statute or rule. Rule 6A-10.042, Florida Administrative Code, provides as follows: Maintenance of Test Security Tests implemented in accordance with the requirements of Sections 229.053(2)(d), 229.57, 231.087, 231.0861(3), 231.17, 233.011, 239.301(10), 240.107(8), and 240.117, Florida Statutes, shall be maintained and administered in a secure manner such that the integrity of the tests shall be preserved. Test questions shall be preserved in a secure manner by individuals who are developing and validating the tests. Such individuals shall not reveal in any manner, verbally or in writing, the test questions under development. Tests or individual test questions shall not be revealed, copied, or otherwise reproduced by persons who are involved in the administration, proctoring, or scoring of any test. Examinees shall not be assisted in answering test questions by any means by persons administering or proctoring the administration of any test. Examinees' answers to questions shall not be interfered with in any way by persons administering, proctoring, or scoring the examinations. Examinees shall not be given answer keys by any person. Persons who are involved in administering or proctoring the tests or persons who teach or otherwise prepare examinees for the tests shall not participate in, direct, aid, counsel, assist in, or encourage any activity which could result in the inaccurate measurement or reporting of the examinees' achievement. Each person who has access to tests or test questions during the development, printing, administration, or scoring of the tests shall be informed of specifications for maintaining test security, the provisions in statute and rule governing test security, and a description of the penalties for breaches of test security. During each test administration, school district and institutional test administration coordinators and contractors employing test administrators and proctors shall ensure that required testing procedures are being followed at all test administration sites. Officials from the Department are authorized to conduct unannounced observations of test administration procedures at any test administration site to ensure that testing procedures are being correctly followed. Test materials, including all test booklets and other materials containing secure test questions, answer keys, and student responses, shall be kept secure and precisely accounted for in accordance with the procedures specified in the examination program administration manuals and other communications provided by the Department. Such procedures shall include but are not limited to the following: All test materials shall be kept in secure, locked storage prior to and after administration of any test. All test materials shall be precisely accounted for and written documentation kept by test administrators and proctors for each point at which test materials are distributed and returned. Any discrepancies noted in the number or serial numbers of testing materials received from contractors shall be reported to the Department by designated institutional or school district personnel prior to the administration of the test. In the event that test materials are determined to be missing while in the possession of an institution or school district, designated institutional or school district personnel shall investigate the cause of the discrepancy and provide the Department with a report of the investigation within thirty (30) calendar days of the initiation of the investigation. At a minimum, the report shall include the nature of the situation, the time and place of occurrence, and the names of the persons involved in or witness to the occurrence. Officials from the Department are authorized to conduct additional investigations. In those cases where the responsibility for secure destruction of certain test materials is assigned by the Department to designated institutional or school district personnel, the responsible institutional or school district representative shall certify in writing that such destruction was accomplished in a secure manner. In those cases where test materials are permitted by the Department to be maintained in an institution or school district, the test materials shall be maintained in a secure manner as specified in the instructions provided by the Department. Access to the materials shall be limited to the individuals and purposes specified by the Department. In those situations where an employee of the educational institution, school district, or contractor, or an employee of the Department suspects a student of cheating on a test or suspects other violations of the provisions of this rule, a report shall be made to the department or test support contractor, as specified in the test administration procedures, within ten (10) calendar days. The report shall include a description of the incident, the names of the persons involved in or witness to the incident, and other information as appropriate. Officials from the Department are authorized to conduct additional investigations. (4) Violations of test security provisions shall be subject to penalties provided in statute and State Board Rules. Notwithstanding the instructions she had been given (both verbally and in writing), towards the end of the testing period on October 7, 2000, when there were only a few students remaining in Respondent's classroom, Respondent took an "unsealed" 6/ test booklet that a student had handed in, sat down at her desk, looked at the test questions and multiple choice answers in the booklet, and wrote down (on the back of a piece of paper that contained an assignment for a course that she was taking at Florida International University) the numbers of some questions (Questions 1 through 16, 30, 31, 35, 38, 43, 45, 50, 53, and 56 through 60), and, next to each number, what she believed to be the correct (letter) choice for that item. 7/ Respondent was motivated, not by any evil intent, but by mere intellectual curiosity. She simply wanted to see whether the Factor-Label method she had touted to her chemistry students as the best way to solve stoichiometry problems could also be used by them to answer the mathematics questions on the test. She had no intention whatsoever to disseminate, or in any way reveal, to anyone any of the questions on the test or any of her answers to these questions or to otherwise use in a dishonest manner the information she obtained by looking inside the test booklet contrary to the instructions she had been given. To be sure, in failing to follow these directions, Respondent exercised poor judgment 8/; but her actions certainly do not reflect a lack of integrity, good morals, or honesty on her part. Maria Cristina Noya, an educational specialist in the School Board's assessment and educational testing office, monitored the administration of the HSCT at CGSHS (and other schools) on October 7, 2000, to make sure that there were no breaches of security. When she walked into Respondent's classroom, she saw Respondent at her desk engaging in the conduct described above. As Ms. Noya approached, Respondent got up from her seat, with the test booklet in her hand, and greeted Ms. Noya. She did not try to hide from Ms. Noya that she was looking at an open test booklet. Ms. Noya left Respondent's classroom without discussing with Respondent Respondent's non-compliance with test administration protocol. Ms. Noya notified her supervisor, Ada Fernandez- Vicaria, the administrator of the School Board's assessment and educational testing office, of what she had observed in Respondent's classroom. Pursuant to Ms. Fernandez's directive, Respondent was asked to leave the classroom 9/ and go to the office of one of the assistant principals at the school, Dr. Lisa Robertson (who was in charge of the testing at CGSHS that day). Respondent thought that she was going to be admonished for sitting at her desk and not getting up to monitor the activities of the students in her classroom. When she left her classroom to go to Dr. Robertson's office, Respondent took with her the aforementioned piece of paper on which she had written the numbers of certain test questions and her answers to those questions. She did so, not because she intended to make use of what she had written on the paper, but because the other side of the paper had information (unrelated to the test) that she needed. Upon her arrival at Dr. Robertson's office, Respondent discovered that she was summoned to the office to discuss her actions in examining the contents of the test booklet and writing down answers to test questions. At the meeting, Respondent freely admitted that she had engaged in such conduct and turned over to the administrators at the meeting 10/ the piece of paper on which she had written her test answers. Ms. Fernandez-Vicaria placed the paper in a manila envelope, which she sealed with tape placed across the flap. She took the sealed envelope with her when she left the meeting and kept it in her possession until she turned it over to an investigator with the state Department of Education. Respondent subsequently received a letter of reprimand from the principal of CGSHS for her actions on October 7, 2000. Furthermore, she was prohibited from serving as a test administrator until further notice. A "school site investigation" did not reveal that "any students had benefited" from Respondent's non-compliance with test security requirements and therefore no test results had to be voided as a result of Respondent's actions.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the EPC issue a final order dismissing the instant Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of September, 2002.
The Issue The primary issue is whether the process used by the Department of Education (Department) for evaluating and ranking the proposals submitted in response to Request For Proposal (RFP) 99-03 for the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) administration contract was contrary to the provisions of the RFP in a way that was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact The RFP for the FCAT describes a five stage process for evaluating proposals. In Stage I, the Department’s Purchasing Office determined whether a proposal contained certain mandatory documents and statements and was sufficiently responsive to the requirements of the RFP to permit a complete evaluation. Stage II involved the Department’s evaluation of a bidder’s corporate qualifications to determine whether the bidder has the experience and capability to do the type of work that will be required in administering the FCAT. Stage III was the Department’s evaluation of a bidder’s management plan and production proposal. In Stage IV, the Department evaluated a bidder’s cost proposal. Stage V involved the ranking of proposals based on points awarded in Stages II-IV. If a proposal did not meet the requirements at any one stage of the evaluation process, it was not to be evaluated in the following stage. Instead, it was to be disqualified from further consideration. Stages II and III of the evaluation process were conducted by an evaluation team comprised of six Department employees: Dr. Debby Houston, Ms. Lynn Joszefczyk, Dr. Peggy Stillwell, Dr. Cornelia Orr, Dr. Laura Melvin, and Ms. Karen Bennett. Dr. Thomas Fisher, head of the Department’s Assessment and Evaluation Services Section, and Dr. Mark Heidorn, Administrator for K-12 Assessment Programs within the Department’s Assessment and Evaluation Services Section, served as non-voting co-chairs of the evaluation team. The focus of this proceeding is Stage II of the evaluation process addressing a bidder’s corporate qualifications. RFP Provisions Regarding Corporate Qualification The FCAT administration contractor will be required to administer tests to approximately one and a half million students each year in a variety of subject areas at numerous grade levels. The FCAT program involves a complex set of interrelated work activities requiring specialized human resources, technological systems and procedures. The FCAT must be implemented annually within limited time periods. The FCAT administration contractor must meet critical deadlines for the delivery of test materials to school districts and the delivery of student scores prior to the end of the school year. In developing the RFP, the Department deliberately established a set of minimum requirements for corporate qualifications that a bidder was to demonstrate in order for its proposal to be eligible for further evaluation. The purpose of the RFP’s minimum corporate qualifications requirements was to limit bidding to qualified vendors who have demonstrated prior experience in successfully administering large-scale assessment projects like the FCAT, thereby providing the Department with some degree of assurance that the winning bidder could successfully administer the FCAT. The instructions to bidders regarding the minimum requirements for corporate qualifications are contained in RFP Section 10, which gives directions on proposal preparation. Section 10.1, which lists certain mandatory documents and statements to be included in the bidder’s proposal, requires that a transmittal letter contain "[a] statement certifying that the bidder has met the minimum corporate qualifications as specified in the RFP." These "minimum corporate qualifications" are set forth in RFP Appendix J. RFP Section 10.2 identifies what a bidder is required to include in its proposal with respect to corporate qualifications. The first paragraph of Section 10.2 directs a bidder generally to describe its qualifications and experience performing tasks similar to those that it would perform in administering the FCAT, in order to demonstrate that the bidder is qualified where it states: Part II of a bidder’s proposal shall be entitled Corporate Qualifications. It shall provide a description of the bidder’s qualifications and prior experience in performing tasks similar to those required in this RFP. The discussion shall include a description of the bidder’s background and relevant experience that qualifies it to provide the products and services required by the RFP. RFP Section 10.2, however, is not limited to a directive that qualifications and past experience be described generally. Instead, Section 10.2, also communicates, in plain and unambiguous terms, that there are specific minimum corporate qualifications a bidder must demonstrate: The minimum expectations for corporate qualifications and experience are shown in Appendix J. There are two separate sets of factors, one set of eight for the developmental contractor and another set of nine for the administration contractor. Bidders must demonstrate their Corporate Qualifications in terms of the factors that are applicable to the activities for which a bid is being submitted -- development or administration. For each criterion, the bidder must demonstrate that the minimum threshold of experience has been achieved with prior completed projects. (Emphasis added.) Moreover, Section 10.2 singles out for emphasis, in relation to the administration component of the RFP, the importance placed on a bidder’s ability to demonstrate experience processing a large volume of tests: The [bidder’s prior completed] projects must have included work tasks similar to those described herein, particularly in test development or processing a comparable number of tests. The bidder will provide a description of the contracted services; the contract period; and the name, address, and telephone number of a contact person for each of the contracting agencies. This description shall (1) document how long the organization has been providing similar services; (2) provide details of the bidder’s experience relevant to the services required by this RFP; and (3) describe the bidder’s other testing projects, products, and services that are similar to those required by this RFP. (Emphasis added.) The Department thus made clear its concern that bidders demonstrate experience with large-scale projects. RFP Appendix J sets forth nine different criteria (C1 through C9) for the administration contractor. As stated in RFP Section 10.2, "[f]or each criterion, the bidder must demonstrate that the minimum threshold of experience has been achieved with prior completed projects . . . ." (emphasis added). Appendix J contains a chart which lists for each criterion: (1) a summary of the related FCAT work task, (2) the detailed criteria for the bidder’s experience related to that work task, and (3) the necessary documentation a bidder must provide. Criterion C4 and Criterion C6 include work tasks that involve the use of image-based scoring technology. C4 and C6 are the only corporate qualifications criteria at issue in this proceeding. RFP Provisions Involving Corporate Qualifications for Image-Based Scoring "Handscoring" is the test administration activity in which open-ended or performance-based student responses are assessed. This practice involves a person reading something the student has written as part of the test, as distinguished from machine scoring multiple choice responses (i.e., the filled-in "bubbles" on an answer sheet). There are two types of handscoring: (1) paper-based handscoring, and (2) image-based handscoring. Paper-based handscoring requires that a student response paper be sent to a reader, who then reviews the student’s response as written on the paper and enters a score on a separate score sheet. Image-based handscoring involves a scanned image of the student’s response being transmitted to a reader electronically. The student’s response is then projected on a computer screen, where the reader reviews it and assigns a score using the computer. The RFP requires that the reading and math portions of the FCAT be handscored on-line using imaging technology beginning with the February 2000 FCAT administration. The RFP provides that the writing portion of the FCAT may be handscored using either the paper-based method or on-line imaging technology during the February 2000 and 2001 FCAT administrations. However, on-line image-based scoring of the writing portion of the FCAT is required for all FCAT administrations after February 2001. An image-based scoring system involves complex computer technology. William Bramlett, an expert in designing and implementing large-scale imaging computer systems and networks, presented unrefuted testimony that an image-based scoring system will be faced with special challenges when processing large volumes of tests. These challenges involve the need to automate image quality control, to manage the local and wide area network load, to assure adequate server performance and storage requirements, and to manage the work flow in a distributed environment. In particular, having an image-based scoring system process an increasing volume of tests is not simply a matter of adding more components. Rather, the system’s basic software architecture must be able to understand and manage the added elements and volume involved in a larger operation. According to Bramlett, there are two ways that the Department could assess the ability of a bidder to perform a large- scale, image-based scoring project such as the FCAT from a technological perspective: (1) have the bidder provide enough technological information about its system to be able to model or simulate the system and predict its performance for the volumes involved, or (2) require demonstrated ability through completion of prior similar projects. Dr. Mark Heidorn, Administrator for Florida’s K-12 Statewide Assessment Programs, was the primary author of RFP Sections 1-8, which describe the work tasks for the FCAT -- the goods and services vendors are to provide and respond to in their technical proposals. Dr. Heidorn testified that in the Department’s testing procurements involving complex technology, the Department has never required specific descriptions of the technology to be used. Instead, the Department has relied on the bidder’s experience in performing similar projects. Thus, the RFP does not specifically require that bidders describe in detail the particular strategies and approaches they intend to employ when designing and implementing an image-based scoring system for FCAT. Instead, the Department relied on the RFP requirements calling for demonstrated experience as a basis to understand that the bidder could implement such an image-based scoring system. Approximately 717,000 to 828,000 student tests will be scored annually by the FCAT administration contractor using imaging technology. The RFP, however, does not require that bidders demonstrate image-based scoring experience at that magnitude. Instead, the RFP requires bidders to demonstrate only a far less demanding minimum level of experience using image-based scoring technology. Criterion C4 and Criterion C6 in Appendix J of the RFP each require that a bidder demonstrate prior experience administering "a minimum of two" assessment programs using imaged- based scoring that involved "at least 200,000 students annually." The requirements for documenting a "minimum of two" programs or projects for C4 and C6 involving "at least 200,000 students annually" are material because they are intended to provide the Department with assurance that the FCAT administration contractor can perform the large-scale, image-based scoring requirements of the contract from a technological perspective. Such experience would indicate that the bidder would have been required to address the sort of system issues described by Bramlett. Dr. Heidorn testified that the number 200,000 was used in C4 and C6 "to indicate the level of magnitude of experience which represented for us a comfortable level to show that a contractor had enough experience to ultimately do the project that we were interested in completing." Dr. Fisher, who authored Appendix J, testified that the 200,000 figure was included in C4 and C6 because it was a number judged sufficiently characteristic of large-scale programs to be relevant for C4 and C6. Dr. Fisher further testified that the Department was interested in having information that a bidder’s experience included projects of a sufficient magnitude so that the bidder would have experienced the kinds of processing issues and concerns that arise in a large-scale testing program. The Department emphasized this specific quantitative minimum requirement in response to a question raised at the Bidder’s Conference held on November 13, 1998: Q9: In Appendix J, the criteria for evaluating corporate quality for the administration operations C4, indicates that the bidder must have experience imaging as indicated. Does this mean that the bid [sic] must bid for using [sic] imaging technology for reading and mathematics tests? A: Yes. The writing assessment may be handscored for two years, and then it will be scored using imaging technology. To be responsive, a bid must be for imaging. The corporate experience required (200,000 students annually for which reports were produced in three months) could be the combined experience of the primary contractor and the subcontractors. (Emphasis added.) Criterion C4 addresses the RFP work tasks relating to handscoring, including both the image-based handscoring of the reading and math portions of the FCAT for all administrations and the writing portions of the FCAT for later administrations. The "Work Task" column for C4 in Appendix J of the RFP states: Design and implement efficient and effective procedures for handscoring student responses to performance tasks within the limited time constraints of the assessment schedule. Handscoring involves image-based scoring of reading and mathematics tasks for all administrations and writing tasks for later administrations at secure scoring sites. Retrieve and score student responses from early district sample schools and deliver required data to the test development contractor within critical time periods for calibration and scaling. The "Necessary Documentation" column for C4 in Appendix J states: Bidder must document successful completion of a minimum of two performance item scoring projects for statewide assessment programs during the last four years for which the bidder was required to perform as described in the Criteria column. (Emphasis added.) The "Criteria" column for C4 in Appendix J, like the related work tasks in the RFP, addresses both image-based handscoring of reading and math, as well as paper-based or image- based handscoring of writing. In connection with all handscoring work tasks, "[t]he bidder must demonstrate completion of test administration projects for a statewide program for which performance items were scored using scoring rubrics and associated scoring protocols." With respect to the work tasks for handscoring the reading and math portions of the FCAT, "[t]he bidder must demonstrate completion of statewide assessment programs involving scoring multiple-choice and performance items for at least 200,000 students annually for which reports were produced in three months." In addition, for the reading and math work tasks, "[e]xperience must been shown in the use of imaging technology and hand-scoring student written responses with completion of scoring within limited time restrictions." This provision dealing with "imaging technology" experience self-evidently addresses the reading and math components, because separate language addresses imaging experience in connection with the writing component. The relevant handscoring experience for the reading and math aspects of the program is experience using image-based technology. By contrast, with respect to the work tasks for scoring the writing portions of the FCAT, "the bidder must also demonstrate completion of statewide assessment programs involving paper-based or imaged scoring student responses to writing assessment prompts for at least 200,000 students annually for which reports were produced in three months." (Emphasis added.) Criterion C6 addresses work tasks relating to designing and implementing systems for processing, scanning, imaging and scoring student responses to mixed-format tests within limited time constraints. The "Work Task" column for C6 in RFP Appendix J states: Design and implement systems for the processing, scanning, imaging, and scoring of student responses to test forms incorporating both multiple-choice and constructed response items (mixed-format) within the limited time constraints of the assessment schedule. Scoring of student responses involves implementation of IRT scoring tables and software provided by the development contractor within critical time periods. The "Necessary Documentation" column for C6 in Appendix J states: Bidder must document successful completion of a minimum of two test administration projects for statewide assessment programs during the last four years in which the bidder was required to perform as described in the Criteria column. (Emphasis added.) The Criteria column for C6 in Appendix J states: The bidder must demonstrate completion of test administration projects for statewide assessment programs or other large-scale assessment programs that required the bidder to design and implement systems for processing, scanning, imaging, and scoring responses to mixed-format tests for at least 200,000 students annually for which reports were produced in three months. Experience must be shown in use of imaging student responses for online presentation to readers during handscoring. (Emphasis added.) RFP Provisions Per Corporate Qualifications The procedure for evaluating a bidder’s corporate qualifications is described in RFP Section 11.3: The Department will evaluate how well the resources and experience described in each bidder’s proposal qualify the bidder to provide the services required by the provisions of this RFP. Consideration will be given to the length of time and the extent to which the bidder and any proposed subcontractors have been providing services similar or identical to those requested in this RFP. The bidder’s personnel resources as well as the bidder’s computer, financial, and other technological resources will be considered in evaluating a bidder’s qualifications to meet the requirements of this RFP. Client references will be contacted and such reference checks will be used in judging a bidder’s qualifications. The criteria to be used to rate a bidder’s corporate qualifications to meet the requirements of this RFP are shown in Appendix J and will be applied as follows: * * * Administrative Activities. Each of the nine administration activities criteria in Appendix J will be individually rated by members of the evaluation team. The team members will use the rating scale shown in Figure 1 below. Individual team members will review the bidder’s corporate qualifications and rate the response with a rating of one to five. The ratings across all evaluators for each factor will be averaged, rounded to the nearest tenth, and summed across all criteria. If each evaluator assigns the maximum number of points for each criterion, the total number of points will be 45. To meet the requirements of Stage II, the proposal must achieve a minimum rating of 27 points and have no individual criterion for which the number of points averaged across evaluators and then rounded is less than 3.0. Each proposal that receives a qualifying score based on the evaluation of the bidder’s qualifications will be further evaluated in Stage III. Figure 1 Evaluation Scale for Corporate Qualifications 5 Excellent 4 3 Satisfactory 2 1 Unsatisfactory The bidder has demonstrated exceptional experience and capability to perform the required tasks. The bidder has demonstrated that it meets an acceptable level of experience and capability to perform the required tasks. The bidder either has not established its corporate qualifications or does not have adequate qualifications. RFP Section 11.3 provides that each of the nine corporate qualifications criteria for administration operations in Appendix J (C1 through C9) will be individually rated by the six members of the evaluation team using a scale of one to five. A rating of three is designated as "satisfactory" which means that "[t]he bidder has demonstrated that it meets an acceptable level of experience and capability to perform the required tasks." In order to be further evaluated, Section 11.3 provides that there must be no individual corporate qualifications criterion for which the bidder’s proposal receives a score less than 3.0 (average points across evaluators). Dr. Fisher, the primary author of Section 11.3 of the RFP, referred to the 3.0 rating as the "cut score." (Emphasis added.) The RFP’s clear and unambiguous terms thus establish the "minimum threshold" of experience that a bidder "must demonstrate" in its proposal for Criterion C1 through Criterion C9. The "minimum threshold" of experience that a bidder must demonstrate for each criterion is described in Appendix J of the RFP. If a proposal failed to demonstrate that the bidder meets the minimum threshold of experience for a particular criterion in Appendix J, the bidder obviously would not have demonstrated "that it meets an acceptable level of experience and capability to perform the required tasks." Thus, in that setting, an evaluator was to have assigned the proposal a rating of less than "satisfactory," or less than three, for that criterion. (Emphasis added.) The fact that a score less than "3" was expected for -- and would eliminate -- proposals that did not demonstrate the "minimum threshold" of experience does not render meaningless the potential scores of "1" and "2." Those scores may reflect the degree to which a bidder’s demonstrated experience was judged to fall below the threshold. Although some corporate capability minimums were stated quantitatively (i.e., "minimum of two," or "at least 200,000"), others were open to a more qualitative assessment (i.e., "large-scale," "systems," or "reports"). Moreover, a proposal that included demonstrated experience in some manner responsive to each aspect of Appendix J might nevertheless be assigned a score of less than "3," based on how an evaluator assessed the quality of the experience described in the proposal. By the terms of the RFP, however, an average score across evaluators of less than 3 represented essentially a decision that the minimum threshold of experience was not demonstrated. Had the Department truly intended Appendix J to reflect only general targets or guidelines, there were many alternative ways to communicate such an intent without giving mandatory direction about what bidders "must demonstrate" or without establishing quantitative minimums (i.e. "a minimum of two," or "at least 200,000"). RFP Appendix K, for instance, sets forth the evaluation criteria for technical proposals in broad terms that do not require the bidder to provide anything in particular. Even within Appendix J, other than in Criterion C4 and Criterion C6, bidders were to show experience with "large-scale" projects rather than experience at a quantified level. Pursuant to the RFP’s plain language, in order to meet the "minimum threshold" of experience for Criterion C4 and Criterion C6, a bidder "must demonstrate," among other things, successful completion of a "minimum of two" projects, each involving the use of image-based scoring technology in administering tests to "at least 200,000 students annually." Department’s Evaluation of Corporate Qualifications In evaluating Harcourt’s proposal, the Department failed to give effect to the plain RFP language stating that a bidder "must document" successful completion of a "minimum of two" testing projects involving "at least 200,000 students annually" in order to meet the "minimum threshold" of experience for C4 and C6. Dr. Fisher was the primary author of Sections 10, 11 and Appendix J of the RFP. He testified that during the Stage II evaluation of corporate qualifications, the evaluation team applied a "holistic" approach, like that used in grading open-ended written responses in student test assessments. Under the holistic approach that Dr. Fisher described, each member of the evaluation team was to study the proposals, compare the information in the proposals to everything contained in Appendix J, and then assign a rating for each criterion in Appendix J based on "how well" the evaluator felt the proposal meets the needs of the agency. Notwithstanding Dr. Fisher’s present position, the RFP’s terms and their context demonstrate that the minimum requirements for corporate qualifications are in RFP Appendix J. During the hearing, Dr. Fisher was twice asked to identify language in the RFP indicating that the Department would apply a "holistic" approach when evaluating corporate qualifications. Both times, Dr. Fisher was unable to point to any explicit RFP language putting bidders on notice that the Department would be using a "holistic" approach to evaluating proposals and treating the Appendix J thresholds merely as targets. In addition, Dr. Fisher testified that the Department did not engage in any discussion at the bidders’ conference about the evaluation method that was going to be used other than drawing the bidders’ attention to the language in the RFP. As written, the RFP establishes minimum thresholds of experience to be demonstrated. Where, as in the RFP, certain of those minimum thresholds are spelled out in quantitative terms that are not open to interpretation or judgment, it is neither reasonable nor logical to rate a proposal as having demonstrated "an acceptable level of experience" when it has not demonstrated the specified minimum levels, even if other requirements with which it was grouped were satisfied. The plain RFP language unambiguously indicates that an analytic method, not a "holistic" method, will be applied in evaluating corporate qualifications. Dr. Fisher acknowledged that, in an assessment using an analytic method, there is considerable effort placed up front in deciding the specific factors that will be analyzed and those factors are listed and explained. Dr. Fisher admitted that the Department went into considerable detail in Appendix J of the RFP to explain to the bidders the minimums they had to demonstrate and the documentation that was required. In addition, Dr. Orr, who served as a member of the evaluation team and who herself develops student assessment tests, stated that in assessments using the "holistic" method there is a scoring rubric applied, but that rubric does not contain minimum criteria like those found in the RFP for FCAT. The holistic method applied by the Department ignores very specific RFP language which spells out minimum requirements for corporate qualifications. Harcourt’s Corporate Qualifications for C4 and C6 Harcourt’s proposal lists the same three projects administered by Harcourt for both Criterion C4 and Criterion C6: the Connecticut Mastery Test ("CMT"), the Connecticut Academic Performance Test ("CAPT") and the Delaware Student Testing Program ("DSTP"). Harcourt’s proposal also lists for Criterion C4 projects administered by its proposed scoring subcontractors, Measurement Incorporated ("MI") and Data Recognition Corporation ("DRC"). However, none of the projects listed for MI or DRC involve image- based scoring. Thus, the MI and DRC projects do not demonstrate any volume of image-based scoring as required by C6 and by the portion of C4 which relates to the work task for the imaged-based scoring of the math and reading portions of the FCAT. Harcourt’s proposal states that "[a]pproximately 35,000 students per year in grade 10 are tested with the CAPT." Harcourt’s proposal states that "[a]pproximately 120,000 students per year in grades 4, 6 and 8 are tested with the CMT." Harcourt’s proposal states that "[a]pproximately 40,000 students in grades 3, 5, 8, and 10" are tested with the DSTP. Although the descriptions of the CMT and the CAPT in Harcourt’s proposal discuss image-based scoring, there is nothing in the description of the DSTP that addresses image-based scoring. There is no evidence that the evaluators were ever made aware that the DSTP involved image-based scoring. Moreover, although the Department called the Delaware Department of Education ("DDOE") as a reference for Harcourt’s development proposal, the Department did not discuss Harcourt’s administration of the DSTP (including whether the DSTP involves image-based scoring) with the DDOE. Harcourt overstated the number of students tested in the projects it referenced to demonstrate experience with image-based scoring. Harcourt admitted at hearing that, prior to submitting its proposal, Harcourt had never tested 120,000 students with the CMT. In fact, the total number of students tested by Harcourt on an annual basis under the CMT has ranged from 110,273 in the 1996- 97 school year to 116,679 in the 1998-99 school year. Harcourt also admitted at hearing that, prior to submitting its proposal, Harcourt had never tested 35,000 students in grade 10 with the CAPT. Instead, the total number of grade 10 students tested by Harcourt on an annual basis with the CAPT ranged from 30,243 in 1997 to 31,390 in 1998. In addition, Harcourt admitted at hearing that, prior to submitting its proposal, it had conducted only one "live" administration of the DSTP (as distinguished from field testing). That administration of the DSTP involved only 33,051, not 40,000, students in grades 3, 5, 8 and 10. Harcourt itself recognized that "field tests" of the DSTP are not responsive to C4 and C6, as evidenced by Harcourt’s own decision not to include in its proposal the number of students field tested under the DSTP. Even assuming that the numbers in Harcourt’s proposal are accurate, and that the description of the DSTP in Harcourt’s proposal reflected image-based scoring, Harcourt’s proposal on its face does not document any single project administered by Harcourt for C4 or C6 involving image-based testing of more than 120,000 students annually. When the projects are aggregated, the total number of students claimed as tested annually still does not reach the level of "at least 200,000;" it comes to only 195,000, and it reaches that level only once due to the single administration of the DSTP. Moreover, even if that 195,000 were considered "close enough" to the 200,000 level required, it was achieved only one time, while Appendix J plainly directs that there be a minimum of two times that testing at that level has been performed. The situation worsens for Harcourt when using the true numbers of students tested under the CMT, CAPT, and DSTP, because Harcourt cannot document any single image-based scoring project it has administered involving testing more than 116,679 students annually. Moreover, when the true numbers of students tested are aggregated, the total rises only to 181,120 students tested annually on one occasion, and no more than 141,663 tested annually on any other occasion. Despite this shortfall from the minimum threshold of experience, under the Department’s holistic approach the evaluators assigned Harcourt’s proposal four ratings of 3.0 and two ratings of 4.0 for C4, for an average of 3.3 on C4; and five ratings of 3.0 and one rating of 4.0 for C6, for an average of 3.2 on C6. Applying the plain language of the RFP in Sections 10 and 11 and Appendix J, Harcourt did not demonstrate that it meets an acceptable level of experience and capability for C4 or C6, because Harcourt did not satisfy the minimum threshold for each criterion by demonstrating a minimum of two prior completed projects involving image-based scoring requiring testing of at least 200,000 students annually. Harcourt’s proposal should not have received any rating of 3.0 or higher on C4 or C6 and should have been disqualified from further evaluation due to failure to demonstrate the minimum experience that the Department required in order to be assured that Harcourt can successfully administer the FCAT program. NCS’s Compliance With RFP Requirements Even though the NCS proposal did not meet all of the mandatory requirements, and despite the requirement of Section 11.2 that the proposal be automatically disqualified under such circumstances, the Department waived NCS’s noncompliance as a minor irregularity. The factors in C4 and C6 were set, minimal requirements with which NCS did not comply. For example, one of the two programs NCS submitted in response to Criteria C4 and C6 was the National Assessment of Educational Progress program ("NAEP"). NAEP, however, is not a "statewide assessment program" within the meaning of that term as used in Criteria C4 and C6. Indeed, NCS admitted that NAEP is not a statewide assessment program and that, without consideration of that program, NCS’s proposal is not responsive to Criteria C4 and C6 because NCS has not have submitted the required proof of having administered two statewide assessment programs. This error cannot be cured by relying on the additional experience of NCS’s subcontractor because that experience does not show that its subcontractor produced reports within three months, and so such experience does not demonstrate compliance with Criteria C4. The Department deliberately limited the competition for the FCAT contract to firms with specified minimum levels of experience. As opined at final hearing, if the Department in the RFP had announced to potential bidders that the type of experience it asked vendors to describe were only targets, goals and guidelines, and that a failure to demonstrate target levels of experience would not be disqualifying, then the competitive environment for this procurement would have differed since only 2.06 evaluation points (out of a possible 150) separated the NCS and Harcourt scores. Dr. Heidorn conceded that multiple companies with experience in different aspects of the FCAT program -- a computer/imaging company and a firm experienced in educational testing -- might combine to perform a contract like the FCAT. Yet, that combination of firms would be discouraged from bidding because they could not demonstrate the minimum experience spelled out in the RFP. Language in the RFP, indicating the "holistic" evaluation that was to be applied, could have resulted in a different field of potential and actual bidders.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Education, enter a Final Order rejecting the bids submitted by Harcourt and NCS for the administration component of the RFP. The Department should then seek new proposals. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of May, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen D. Walker, Esquire Holland and Knight, LLP Post Office Drawer 810 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mark D. Colley, Esquire Holland and Knight, LLP Suite 400 2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest Washington, D.C. 20037 Charles S. Ruberg, Esquire Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Paul R. Ezatoff, Jr., Esquire Christopher B. Lunny, Esquire Katz, Kutter, Haigler, Alderman, Bryant and Yon, P.A. 106 East College Avenue, Suite 1200 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-7741 Tom Gallagher Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent is guilty of committing gross immorality or moral turpitude, in violation of Section 231.2615(1)(c), Florida Statutes; violating the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession, in violation of Section 231.2615(1)(i), Florida Statutes; or failing to maintain honesty in all professional dealings, in violation of Rule 6B-1.006(5)(a), Florida Administrative Code. If so, an additional issue is what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent has held Florida Educator's Certificate 615429. Respondent is certified in business, drivers' education, and physical education. The School District of Palm Beach County hired Respondent to teach high-school business at Jupiter High School for the 1995-96 or 1996-97 school year. After changing schools with another teacher, the assistant principal of Respondent's new high school, Palm Beach Lakes High School, assigned Respondent to teach mathematics. Respondent has a very limited background in mathematics. Although he objected that he was not qualified to teach mathematics, he had no option but to accept the new assignment, or terminate his employment. Respondent reluctantly agreed to teach mathematics starting in the 1998-99 school year, but he was justifiably concerned about his ability to meet the needs of his mathematics students. In January 1999, Respondent walked past an unsecured room and saw a large number of test booklets in boxes stacked on a table in the school library. Respondent entered the room, picked up and examined a test booklet, and made a copy of the booklet before returning it to the table. The test booklet was the High School Competency Test (HSCT) that was being administered that year. Respondent claims to have copied the test booklet innocently, unaware that the test questions were not to be disclosed, except as was necessary to administer the test. Respondent also claims that he took the booklet to learn what generally he was supposed to be teaching and that he did not know that a future HSCT would be identical to the one that he had copied. Respondent's claims that he did not know that the test booklet was not to be removed or copied and that he took the booklet merely to learn what he was supposed to teach in general are discredited as highly unlikely. If Respondent had thought that the test booklets were freely available to teachers, he would have merely taken one, not copied one and returned it to the table. Respondent never asked for a booklet, nor did he ever disclose to anyone else at the school that he had taken a copy of a booklet. From the start, Respondent knew that his possession of the test booklet was improper. Respondent's claim that he did not know anything about the HSCT, such as its importance or confidentiality, undermines his claim that he took a copy of the test booklet to learn what to teach in mathematics. At the time, students had to pass the HSCT to graduate from high school. Respondent likely knew this fact, otherwise, he would not have relied so heavily upon this test booklet as the source of information as to what he had to teach in mathematics. Rather than taking his cue as to what to teach from the mathematics textbook or from other mathematics teachers, Respondent took the shortcut of obtaining the ultimate test instrument and relying on the test contents for deciding what to teach in his mathematics class. On the other hand, Respondent did not know that the identical test would be administered again. This fact was not widely known by teachers or even administrators. Once he had examined the test booklet, Respondent worked out the answers, although he required assistance to do so. He then cut and pasted questions onto worksheets for use by his students, who would complete the worksheets in class and turn them into Respondent, who would go over the answers in class. The investigator of The School District of Palm Beach County concludes that Respondent's rearranging of questions is part of his attempt to conceal his wrongdoing. This conclusion is incorrect, as the rearranging of questions allowed Respondent to save copying costs. The evidence likewise fails to establish that Respondent told his students not to disclose the worksheets. Thus, the sole evidence of concealment is Respondent's failure to disclose his possession of the HSCT booklet to administrators or other teachers. In fact, once confronted with his possession of the HSCT, Respondent admitted to his wrongdoing and cooperated with the investigation. However, it is impossible to harmonize Respondent's claims of innocence and good faith with the proximity of his use of the copied test with the test date. If, as Respondent claims, he intended only to learn what he should be teaching in mathematics, he could have examined the copied test booklet, noted the areas covered, and covered them in an orderly fashion through the school year, using different questions from those found in his copy of the test booklet. Instead, Respondent gave his students numerous questions from his copy of the test booklet on September 24 and 26-29 and October 1. The presentation of a variety of mathematical concepts in such close proximity to the HSCT test date suggest a knowing misuse of the copied test booklet. Respondent's knowing misuse of the test, combined with the chance occurrence of the administration of the same test in October 2000, led to distorted results among his students, many of whom recognized that questions on the real test were identical with questions with which Respondent had prepared them. After an investigation, the Florida Department of Education and The School District of Palm Beach County decided to invalidate the mathematics scores of the hundreds of students at Respondent's high school who had taken the October 2000 HSCT and require them to retake a different version of the mathematical portion of the test. The question naturally arises whether October 2000 marked the first time that Respondent used the HSCT booklet that he had taken in January 1999. Respondent claims that he filed the test booklet and forgot about it until shortly before the October 2000 test. The investigation revealed that the scores of Respondent's students on the mathematics portion of the HSCT during the 1999-2000 school year were considerably better than the scores of similarly situated students, but investigators lacked the evidence to pursue this matter further. Thus, the evidence fails to establish that Respondent improperly used the copied test material more than once. Petitioner's reliance on Respondent's training as a proctor does not tend to establish Respondent's knowledge of his misuse of the test booklet that he copied. The training materials do not directly address older testing materials in the possession of a proctor, and Respondent possesses only limited ability to draw the inferences that Petitioner claims were inescapable. Also, the late recollection of one of Petitioner's witnesses that Respondent had inquired whether he might obtain a bonus if his students performed well on the HSCT is discredited. Petitioner has proved that Respondent obtained a copy of an HSCT under circumstances that he knew were improper, and he knowingly misused the copied test materials to prepare his students to take the HSCT. Undoubtedly, Respondent did not know that the October 2000 HSCT would be identical to the test that he had copied. Also, Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent tried to conceal his misuse of the copied HSCT materials, other than by not mentioning to an administrator or other teacher that he possessed these materials. Lastly, Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent's actions were motivated by self-interest. Respondent doubted his ability to teach mathematics, and he misused the test materials to serve the interests of his students, although at the expense of thousands of other students whose preparation did not include exposure to HSCT prior to taking it. Undoubtedly, this commitment to his students is partly responsible for the testimony of Respondent's principal, who described him as an "outstanding teacher," although Respondent received a decidedly mixed review from the four students whom he called as witnesses on his behalf. After an investigation, the Superintendent of The School District of Palm Beach County recommended to the School Board that it suspend Respondent without pay for ten days. The School Board adopted this recommendation. This is the only discipline that Respondent has received as a teacher, and he proctored last school year the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, which has replaced the HSCT.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of failing to maintain honesty in all professional dealings, in violation of Rule 6B-1.006(5)(a), Florida Administrative Code; suspending his Educator's Certificate for six months; and placing his certificate on probation for three years. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of September, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of September, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Florida Education Center Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street 1244 Turlington Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Program Director Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Charles T. Whitelock Whitelock & Associates, P.A. 300 Southeast 13th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Matthew E. Haynes Chambleee, Johnson & Haynes, P.A. The Barrister's Building, Suite 500 1615 Forum Place West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to receive an allocation of affordable housing funds from the Florida Housing Finance Corporation as a result of the alleged improper scoring of another applicant's application during the 2001 funding cycle.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing and the parties' stipulations, the following findings are made: Parties Petitioner is a Florida limited partnership that is engaged in the business of developing affordable housing projects. FHFC is a statutorily-created public corporation. It is the State's designated "housing credit agency," and it is responsible for the allocation of tax credits and the distribution of other funds for the development of affordable housing projects. FHFC is administratively housed in the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), and it is governed by a nine-member board. Eight members of the board are appointed by the Governor; the ninth member of the board is the Secretary of DCA, who serves in an ex officio capacity. FHFC Programs The programs administered by FHFC include the State Apartment Incentive Loan (SAIL) Program and the Low-Income Housing Tax Credits Program (Housing Credits Program). The funds from the SAIL Program are used to provide low-interest loans to developers. The funds come from various sources of state revenue, and the loans are typically secured by a second mortgage on the property on which the affordable housing project is developed. The Housing Credits Program is governed by federal law, namely Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code. The program provides dollar-for-dollar federal tax credits to developers that can be used over a 10-year period so long as the related affordable housing project satisfies the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code throughout that period. The tax credits can be, and often are sold or "syndicated" by the developer in order to generate the funds necessary to construct the project. Each state receives an annual allotment of tax credits from the federal government to be used in its Housing Credits Program. For 2001, Florida's allocation of tax credits was approximately $23.9 million, of which approximately $20.7 million was available for allocation. FHFC received requests totaling approximately $81.3 million in the 2001 funding cycle for the available $20.7 million in tax credits Some of the available tax credits are apportioned by FHFC into a "set-aside" for projects in small counties. Only projects located in small counties compete for the tax credits in the small county set-aside. For 2001, the small county set-aside was $1,739,586.90, and FHFC received requests for those funds totaling approximately $5.5 million. FHFC Evaluation Process Because the funds requested from the SAIL Program and the Housing Credits Program typically exceed the available funds (as was the case in 2001), FHFC has established a competitive application process through which the applications are evaluated, scored, and ranked. The applications are first reviewed for all of the "threshold" items identified in the application forms and FHFC’s rules. If an application does not have all of the threshold items, it is rejected. By contrast, the failure to include non- threshold items or the failure to provide complete, consistent, and accurate information in the format and location prescribed in the application forms results in the application not receiving the full amount of points available or the imposition of a penalty that reduces the overall score given to the application. Next, FHFC staff reviews all of the applications that were not rejected for omitting a threshold item. That review results in a “preliminary score” for each application, which is provided to all of the applicants. Then, there is a 10-day period in which applicants may challenge FHFC's preliminary scoring of their application or the preliminary scoring of any other applicant's application. Such a challenge is called a Notice of Possible Scoring Error (NOPSE). FHFC provides each applicant the NOPSEs relating to its application as well as a statement of FHFC's position on the NOPSE. The applicants are then given a period of time -- referred to as the "cure period" -- to submit additional documentation, revised forms or other information they deem appropriate to address the issues raised in the NOPSEs, FHFC's comments on the NOPSEs, and/or FHFC's preliminary scoring of the application. The additional submittals are referred to as "cures." After the cures are submitted, the applicants again have an opportunity to bring deficiencies in competing applications to FHFC's attention. The mechanism for doing so is a Notice of Alleged Deficiency (NOAD). After reviewing the cures and any NOADs, FHFC staff prepares a revised score for each application. This score is referred to as the “pre-appeal score.” Along with the pre-appeal scores, each applicant is given notice of its right to challenge its score through a formal administrative proceeding at the Division or through an informal proceeding before a hearing officer appointed by FHFC. Most applicants opt for an informal hearing because, as a result of the time constraints imposed by the funding cycle, those who opt for a formal hearing will not be funded until a subsequent cycle if they prevail at the hearing. After all of the informal hearings are completed and any scoring adjustments are made based upon the results of those hearings, the applications are ranked based upon their “post- appeal scores.” The post-appeal scores and rankings are approved by the FHFC board and are used to award the available funds. The standards and procedures for ranking applications for tax credits are set forth in the Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP). The QAP is required by the Internal Revenue Code and it is adopted and incorporated by reference in FHFC's rules. Among other things, the QAP establishes the priority of applications which receive the same scores. That priority is established through two "tie-breakers." The first tie-breaker is whether the application is in Group A or Group B, and the second tie-breaker is a random lottery number assigned to the application prior to the final rankings. The group into which the application falls is determined based upon the Corporation Funding per Set-aside Unit (CFSU) amount identified on Form 10 of the application. Group A includes the 65 percent of the applications that have the lowest CFSU amounts. Applications in Group A receive priority over applications in Group B in the event that the applications receive the same final score. For applications in the same group with the same score, priority is given to the application with the lower lottery number. 2001 Combined Cycle Generally The 2001 funding cycle was referred to as a "combined cycle" because it combined the SAIL Program, the Housing Credits Program, and another program not implicated in this case called the Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME Program), into a single application and review process. The application package for the 2001 Combined Cycle included 23 numbered forms, not all of which were applicable to every applicant. The applications submitted in the 2001 Combined Cycle, including those submitted by Petitioner and TWC, were reviewed and scored in accordance with the procedures described above. Relevant Forms Form 1 of the application is entitled "Applicant and Development Data." Page 10 of Form 1 includes the following statements: The Applicant and all Financial Beneficiaries understand and agree that full points will be awarded only in the event that all information required by each form is provided in accordance with the Application requirements. Failure to provide complete, consistent and accurate information in the format and location prescribed by the Application will result in a REDUCTION OF POINTS OR REJECTION OF THE APPLICATION as indicated on each form. Only information contained within the Application will be considered for purposes of points awarded or appealed. . . . . Form 5 of the application is entitled "Local Government Contributions." Page 1 of Form 5 states that: Each applicable verification form must have an Original signature by one of the designated signatories indicated on the appropriate verification form. Zero points will be awarded if Applicant uses the incorrect form or if the form is not signed by one of the designated signatories. Separate verification forms are included in Form 5 for the different types of local government contributions. There are separate verification forms for grants (Form 5, page 6), fee waivers (Form 5, page 7), loans (Form 5, page 8), tax exempt bond financing (Form 5, page 9), “other contributions” (Form 5, page 10), and exemptions from ad valorem taxation (Form 5, page 11). The verification form for fee waivers states that “[n]o credit will be given for fee waivers unless the computations by which the total amount of each waiver is determined accompanies this verification form in the Application.” That same language is not included on the verification form for "other contributions”; however, that verification form includes a sentence stating that “[t]he amount of this contribution was calculated as shown behind the tab labeled ‘Form 5, Exhibit .’” The verification form for “other contributions” also includes the following statement: THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED BY THE MAYOR, CITY MANAGER, COUNTY MANAGER/ADMINISTRATOR, CHAIRPERSON OF THE CITY COUNCIL/COMMISSION OR CHAIRPERSON OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. . . . . OTHER SIGNATORIES ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE. THE APPLICANT WILL NOT RECEIVE CREDIT FOR THIS CONTRIBUTION IF THE VERIFICATION FORM IS IMPROPERLY SIGNED AND/OR DOES NOT HAVE AN ORIGINAL SIGNATURE IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION. Form 6 of the application is entitled "Local Government Planning Efforts." Pages 2 and 3 of Form 6 are the verification forms for any affordable housing incentives being offered for the project by the applicable local government. Both pages include the following statement: This form must be signed by the MAYOR, CITY MANAGER, COUNTY MANAGER/ADMINISTRATOR, OR CHAIRPERSON of the CITY COUNCIL/COMMISSION OR CHAIRPERSON of the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. OTHER SIGNATORIES ARE UNACCEPTABLE. ZERO POINTS WILL BE AWARDED. . . . . The application and all of these forms are adopted and incorporated by reference in FHFC's rules. Applications Submitted by Petitioner and TWC Petitioner submitted an application for an allocation of $561,000 in tax credits and for an award of funding under the SAIL Program for its proposed Ochlocknee Pointe development in Gadsden County. Petitioner's application was designated by FHFC as No. 01-131CS. A competing application for $890,000 in tax credits was filed by TWC for its proposed Windsong II development in Columbia County. TWC's application did not seek funding under the SAIL Program. TWC’s application was designated by FHFC as No. 01-125C. Neither Petitioner nor TWC applied for funds under the HOME Program. Because of their locations, the applications submitted by Petitioner and TWC were competing for the tax credits available in the small county set-aside. There were also seven other applicants competing for the tax credits in the small county set-aside. Alleged Deficiencies in TWC's Application and Initial Scoring by FHFC Staff Form 5 of TWC's original application indicated that the project had not received any local government contributions. As a result, the original application did not include any executed local government contribution verification forms. Form 6 of TWC's original application did not identify any affordable housing incentives being offered by the local governments. As a result, the original application did not include any executed verifications forms for such incentives. As part of its cure submittals, TWC submitted a revised Form 5 and a revised Form 6. The revisions were made because TWC had received verification of local government contributions and affordable housing incentives. The revisions included executed verification forms for Form 5 (page 10)1 and for Form 6 (pages 2 and 3). The verification forms at issue in this proceeding were executed by Dale Williams; the title listed for Mr. Williams was County Coordinator. A letter signed by Mr. Williams was included along with the “other contributions” verification form (Form 5, page 10). The letter was on the letterhead of the Board of County Commissioners of Columbia County and includes the words "County Coordinator" under Mr. Williams name and signature. The letter was designated as and included in the cure submittal behind a tab marked "Form 5, Exhibit A." The letter states that "Columbia County will provide the installation of roadway turn lanes at Branford Highway to service Windsong II Apartments for a contribution equivalent to a total value of $102,000." The letter does not include any calculations showing how the “total value of $102,000” was computed, and no such calculation was included elsewhere in TWC's cure submittals. There is nothing in TWC’s cure submittals that explained the nature of the County Coordinator position or stated that Columbia County does not have a County Manager/Administrator designated as such. TWC was not awarded four points on Form 6 because County Coordinator was not specifically listed along with “City Manager, County Manager/Administrator, or Chairperson of the City Council/Commission or Chairperson of the Board of County Commissioners” as an authorized signatory for that form. For that same reason, TWC also was not awarded any points on Form 5 for the $102,000 local government contribution referred to in Mr. Williams' letter. That contribution was worth 7.64 points. TWC was also penalized 1.5 points on Form 5 because no documentation was provided showing how the "total value of $102,000" was calculated for the local government contribution described in Mr. Williams' letter. These scoring determinations were made by Debra King, the FHFC staff person who reviewed TWC’s application and cure submittals, and they were concurred in by Ms. King’s “scoring partner.” Scoring Appeals by Petitioner and TWC FHFC completed the scoring process for the 2001 Combined Cycle on August 1, 2001, when it advised the applicants of their pre-appeal scores. TWC's pre-appeal score was 608.86, which included the penalty and point reductions described above. Petitioner's pre-appeal score was 620.5, which included a 1.5 point penalty for Petitioner’s failure to specify a unit of measurement on Form 7. TWC and Petitioner both requested informal hearings to challenge their pre-appeal scores. Those hearings, which are commonly referred to as “scoring appeals,” were conducted by hearing officers appointed by FHFC. At the informal hearing on TWC’s scoring appeal, FHFC conceded that Mr. Williams was an authorized signatory for Forms 5 and 6 because, as the "County Coordinator," Mr. Williams was the de facto County Manager/Administrator for Columbia County. FHFC also conceded that documentation relating to the computation of the $102,000 in roadway improvement being contributed by Columbia County was not necessary because it was a lump-sum contribution. FHFC agreed to re-score TWC's application in light of those concessions. The concession that Mr. Williams was an authorized signatory was based upon FHFC staff's review of the job description for the County Coordinator position and the organizational chart for Columbia County attached to TWC's Petition for Informal Administrative Hearing as well as phone calls that FHFC staff made to Columbia County after receiving that information to confirm that the county did not have a County Manager/Administrator designated as such. The concession that a document showing how the local government contribution was calculated was based upon FHFC staff’s review of excerpts from prior applications that were attached to TWC’s Petition for Informal Administrative Hearing. Those applications apparently received full points for their “other contributions” even though they did not include detailed calculations for the contributions; however, almost all of the excerpts showed at least a general breakdown of the items which made up the total shown on the verification form. As a result of FHFC's concessions, the hearing officer concluded that the TWC’s scoring appeal was "moot" and she issued a Recommended Order which contained no findings of fact or conclusions of law. The hearing officer's Recommended Order, which FHFC adopted in toto as its Final Order, recommended that TWC's application "be rescored to reflect the removal of the 1.5-point penalty to Form 5; to add 7.64 points to Form 5; and to add 4 points to Form 6." The net effect of that rescoring was that TWC's application received a post-appeal score of 622. Petitioner did not fare as well in its scoring appeal. The hearing officer made the following findings of fact with respect to the 1.5-point penalty assessed based upon Petitioner's failure to specify the unit of measure on Form 7: Form 7, Page 11, is entitled "Local Government Verification that Development is Consistent with Zoning and Land Use Regulation." On Page 11 of Form 7, there is a requirement to state the "Size of Parcel (acreage, number of lots, or square footage)." In its Revised Page 11 of Form 7 [Petitioner], in response to that requirement entered the numbers "9.99" without any accompanying unit of measure. It is clear from a review of other pertinent parts of the application that the appropriate unit of measure to accompany the number "9.99" is "acres." Further, its [sic] reasonable to conclude on the face of [Petitioner's] Revised Page 11 of Form 7, when read in conjunction with the entire application . . . , that the number "9.99" refers to acres. (Citations omitted). Despite those findings, the hearing officer recommended that the 1.5-point penalty be affirmed. That recommendation was based primarily on the following conclusion of law: The instructions on Page 11 of Form 7 require a unit of measure be appended to the number of units placed in the answer blank. While it may be true that such a result is particularly frustrating to the applicant in light of the reality that its omission has created no confusion or inconsistency nor diminished the accuracy of the application, [FHFC] has nevertheless adopted rules requiring strict compliance with regard to providing complete information in the format and location prescribed by the instructions on the forms. That rule cannot be ignored. Thus, the failure of [Petitioner] to include a unit of measure on its Revised Page 11 of Form 7 is an error that does result in a single 1.5-point penalty. FHFC adopted the hearing officer's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation in toto as its Final Order, and Petitioner did not seek judicial review of the Final Order. As a result, Petitioner's pre-appeal score of 620.5 became its post-appeal score. Petitioner's application was in Group B, and its lottery number was 68. TWC's application was in Group A, and its lottery number was 27. Thus, in the event that Petitioner and TWC received the same final score, priority for funding would be given to TWC. If Petitioner's application had received a higher score than TWC's application, then Petitioner's application would have been in the "funding range" and Petitioner would have received an allocation of tax credits for its project. If Petitioner had received the tax credits, it would have also received SAIL funding. The record does not reflect the total amount of tax credits and SAIL funding that Petitioner would have received; however, if TWC's application was moved below Petitioner's application on the final funding list (Exhibit R2), then $339,164.90 in tax credits would have been available to Petitioner after the higher-ranked applicants were fully funded.2 Additional Facts Established at the De Novo Final Hearing in this Case The $102,000 “total value” for the roadway improvements referred to in Mr. Williams' letter is reasonable. Indeed, the itemized cost-estimate prepared by professional engineer Greg Bailey in the design phase for the improvements was $106,064. The $102,000 in roadway improvements cannot be characterized as a lump-sum contribution. As Mr. Bailey’s cost- estimate shows, the improvements include 16 components such as paving, grading, and drainage; and a cost-per-unit and an estimated quantity is listed for each component. At the time Mr. Bailey prepared the cost-estimate, he was working for C&W Land Trust. Accordingly to one of the documents in TWC’s application (Form 7, Exhibit A), C&W Land Trust was the landowner from whom TWC acquired the property where its Windsong II project will be located. Mr. Bailey provided the cost-estimate to the county engineer for Columbia County for his use in evaluating bids submitted for the construction of the roadway improvements. The county engineer forwarded a memo to Mr. Williams on June 14, 2001, stating that the construction cost for the improvements “is estimated to be $102,000.00.” Requiring documentation to support the calculation of a local government contribution is important because it helps prevent an applicant from “gaming” the system in order gain an advantage in the scoring of its application. For example, where the contribution is based upon a per-unit amount, the calculations help to ensure that the number of units committed by the applicant as a basis for the local government contribution is the same number of units committed by the applicant in the application to FHFC. Documentation showing the calculation of the $102,000 local government contribution referenced in Mr. Williams letter is equally important because without such documentation there was no way for FHFC to determine during its review whether that figure is a reasonable estimate of the cost of the roadway improvements which are being contributed by Columbia County. It is necessary for FHFC to be able to make such a determination because the points awarded to the applicant for the contribution are based in large part on the amount of the contribution. At the time that TWC submitted the verification forms and letter signed by Mr. Williams, Columbia County did not have a position called County Manager or County Administrator. The County Coordinator position was the de facto County Manager/Administrator. The County Coordinator was appointed by the Board of County Commissioners to "administer all programs and to ensure that County government operates efficiently and effectively." The County Coordinator reported directly to the Board of County Commissioners and, among other duties, the position supervised all department heads (except the head of Public Works Department) and provided "direction, leadership and supervision to all County Department heads." Presently, Columbia County has a County Manager and Mr. Williams serves in that position. The job duties for the County Manager position are virtually identical to those of the County Coordinator position. Indeed, even though text of the position description no longer excepts the Public Works Department from Mr. William’s supervision, the county’s organizational chart still shows the Public Works Department outside of Mr. Williams chain of command.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Housing Finance Corporation issue a final order which determines that Petitioner is entitled to an allocation/award of tax credits and SAIL funds in the next available cycle. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 2004.
Findings Of Fact The following findings of fact, stipulated to by the parties (and edited by the undersigned where appropriate to reflect that the facts are common to both Respondents), are hereby accepted: USTC is incorporated under the laws of New York State and has its principal place of business at 1415 Park Avenue, Hoboken, New Jersey. It performs testing and inspection services in most of the states in the continental United States. USTC is registered and qualified to do business in the State of Florida. The primary activities of USTC in the State of Florida are crane training, inspection and certification services, project inspections, quality control, and non- destructive testing inspection performed for utility and petrochemical companies. USTC (trade name) business in Florida is conducted under several trade names including: Crane Inspection & Certification Bureau R&T Supply Company SGS Industrial Services USTC's wholly owned subsidiaries, all of which have or may in the future conduct business in the State of Florida, are: Instrument Marketing Services, Inc. Nationwide Consumer Testing Institute, Inc. Qualitiest, Inc. Examples of Florida public entities for whom USTC has rendered services are: Brevard County Maintenance Department City of Lakeland Florida Department of Transportation Orlando Utilities Company [sic] Orange County Port Everglades Port Authority Tampa Port Authority USTC has a large number of commercial customers who also do business with Florida public entities. In addition to its wholly owned subsidiaries, affiliates of USTC in the United States include the following corporations which are not controlled by USTC, and were not involved with the events leading to the criminal conviction of USTC: CH&A Corporation Commercial Testing & Engineering Co. GAB Business Services, Inc. INS Investigation Bureau, Inc. Intermodal Transportation Services, Inc. SGS Control Services, Inc. SGS Government Programs, Inc. SGS International Certification Services, Inc. SGS North America, Inc. The affiliates have or may in the future do business with Florida public entities or with commercial customers who do business with Florida public entities. Crane Inspection and Certification Bureau, located at 5874 South Semoran Boulevard, Orlando, Florida 32812, is a Division of USTC owned 100 percent by USTC. CICB inspects cranes for a variety of city, county, and state authorities in Florida. Inspection services are performed on an on call basis and pursuant to award of competitive contracts. CICB conducts crane safety training programs for State of Florida, local, county, and state employees. On April 17, 1991, USTC was convicted of the commission of a public entity crime as defined within subparagraph 287.133(1)(g), Florida Statutes. Exhibit A Pursuant to the Plea Agreement and Information attached as Exhibits B and C, USTC pled guilty in United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to one count of making false statements to a federal official in violation of 18 U.S.C. s. 1001. On July 9, 1992, Mr. Richard Posner a former Vice President of USTC, was convicted of a public entity crime as defined within subparagraph 287.133(1)(g), Florida Statutes, pursuant to an Information and Plea agreement. Exhibits D, E, F Mr. Posner pled guilty in United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to one felony count of making false statements to a federal official in violation of 18 U.S.C. s. 1001. The conviction of Mr. Posner was derived from the same investigation that resulted in the conviction of USTC. Mr. Posner entered into an agreement effective upon his conviction, with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which barred him for life from Federal Contracting activities. Exhibit G Mr. Posner was placed on the Florida Convicted Vendor List, by Florida Department of Management Services Order dated May 17, 1993. Exhibit H U.S. Testing, Inc. was suspended from Federal contracting by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on April 24, 1990. The suspension was removed April 4, 1991. Exhibit I Pursuant to subparagraphs 287.133(3)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, USTC made timely notification to DMS and provided details of the convictions. Exhibit J On February 10, 1994, DMS issued a notice of intent pursuant to subparagraph 287.122(3)(e)1, Florida Statutes. Exhibit K On February 28, 1994, pursuant to subparagraph 287.133(3)(e)2, Florida Statutes, USTC and CICB timely filed petitions for formal administrative hearing pursuant to subparagraph 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, to determine whether it is in the public interest for USTC and/or CICB to be placed on the State of Florida Convicted Vendor List. Exhibit L Subparagraph 287.133(3)(e)3, Florida Statutes, establishes factors which, if applicable to a convicted vendor, will mitigate against placement of that vendor upon the convicted vendor list. Subparagraph 287.133(3)(e)3d, Florida Statutes, established "[p]rompt or voluntary payment of any damages or penalty as a result of the conviction" as a factor mitigating against placement on the convicted vendor list. Pursuant to its Plea Agreement, USTC has made restitution to the federal government of all amounts it received under two federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contracts totaling $913,717.74. Exhibit M USTC also paid a fine in the amount of $100,000 and contributed $200 to the crime victims' reimbursement fund. Exhibit M Subparagraph 287.133(3)(e)3e, Florida Statutes, establishes "[c]ooperation with state or federal investigation or prosecution of any public entity crime" as a mitigating factor. (a) In open court the Assistant United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey informed the Court of the cooperation of USTC with the federal investigation. Furthermore, the Assistant United States Attorney wrote to the EPA advising it of the cooperation of USTC. Exhibit I, pp. 18-19 USTC fully cooperated with DMS in connection with its investigation initiated pursuant to Section 287.133, Florida Statutes. Subparagraph 287.133(3)(e)3f, Florida Statutes, establishes "[d]isassociation from any other persons or affiliates convicted of the public entity crime" as a mitigating factor. On July 9, 1992, Richard Posner, former Vice President of the Chemical Services Division of USTC was also convicted in United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on one count of making false statements to a federal official in violation of 18 U.S.C. s. 1001 in connection with events related to the conviction of USTC. See Exhibit D Mr. Posner is the only person thus far charged or convicted of any crimes pertaining to the conviction of USTC. Mr. Posner left the employment of USTC in 1989, before the EPA investigation of USTC commenced. Subparagraph 287.133(3)(e)3g, Florida Statutes, established "[p]rior or future self-policing by the person or affiliate to prevent public entity crimes" as a mitigating factor. (a) USTC has instituted a corporate Code of Business Conduct, a corporate responsibility program and taken other steps to prevent a recurrence of the events resulting in its conviction. Those steps were reviewed in administrative proceedings hereinafter described, and were contributing factors to the decisions therein. Subparagraph 287.133(3)(e)3h, Florida Statutes, establishes "[r]einstatement or clemency in any jurisdiction in relation to the public entity crime at issue in the proceeding" as a mitigating factor. On April 23, 1991, the EPA lifted the administrative suspension of USTC. It is now under no constraints whatsoever as a federal contractor. See Exhibit I In December 1991, after an administrative proceeding, the City of New York lifted a debarment from contracting with City agencies which had been imposed because of the EPA suspension. USTC is now under no constraints whatsoever as a contractor with agencies of the City of New York. Exhibit O Subparagraph 287.133(3)(e)3i, Florida Statutes, established "[c]ompliance by the person or affiliate with the notification provisions of paragraph (a) or paragraph (b)" as a mitigating factor. Exhibits J, P This joint stipulation provides a full and complete factual basis for determining whether USTC and/or CICB should be placed on the convicted vendor list.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner's application for licensure as an assisted living facility should be granted.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED THAT a Final Order be entered granting Petitioner's application for a license to operate an ALF, subject only to Petitioner providing the required inspection report from the Palm Beach County Public Health Unit. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of July, 1997, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 18th day of July, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian M. O'Connell, Esquire Boose, Casey, Ciklin, Lubitz, Martens, McBane & O'Connell Post Office Box 4626 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Jennifer Stewart, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 3810 Inverrary Boulevard Lauderhill, Florida 33319 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32309 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building III, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32309
The Issue Whether Respondent should be subject to demotion for directing staff to violate testing protocols related to the administration of the February 28, 2012, FCAT Writes test (FCAT test); for subsequently failing to report violations that were known to Respondent at the time of the administration of the FCAT test; and for making inappropriate comments to staff regarding the investigation of the reported violations, as alleged in Petitioner?s January 3, 2013, Notice of Discipline and, if so, the nature of the sanctions.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the system of public schools in Duval County, Florida. Art. IX, § 4(b), Florida Constitution; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Petitioner has the authority to discipline instructional staff and other school employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent, Sharon Sanders, was the principal at Windy Hill, a Duval County public school. She has been in the field of education for approximately 35 years, and has been with the Duval County public school system for 13 or 14 years. Ms. Sanders had been the principal at Windy Hill for four-and-a-half years prior to her demotion, and previously served as the principal at Holiday Hill Elementary School for four years, with an intervening stint of a year or so as the school district?s executive director of language arts. Since the demotion that forms the basis for this proceeding, Ms. Sanders has been the assistant principal at Landmark Middle School. In her 35 years of service as an educator prior to the incidents that are the subject of this proceeding, Ms. Sanders had not been subject to any disciplinary action. On March 6, 2012, the Duval County school district launched the investigation that resulted in the January 3, 2013, issuance of the Notice of Discipline. The investigators assigned by the school district were Mr. Thomas Scott, the district assessment coordinator, and Ms. Jessica Altman, a school district investigator. General FCAT Testing Duties and Responsibilities The Florida Department of Education issued a 2011-2012 Writing Test Administration Manual (DOE Manual) to govern and direct the process of administering the FCAT test. In order to ensure that the appropriate personnel were familiar with its contents, the DOE Manual provided that “[e]ven experienced district and school assessment coordinators and test administrators are responsible for reading and becoming familiar with all information in this manual.” Ms. Sanders was not a district or school assessment coordinator, or a test administrator. The DOE Manual establishes duties and responsibilities to be performed by the district assessment coordinator, school assessment coordinators, test administrators, and proctors for ensuring that standards for testing facilities, accommodations, pre-test and post-test procedures, and test administration are met. Other than general admonitions against violating test security applicable to anyone having exposure to the test or the process of its administration, the DOE Manual imposes no duties or responsibilities regarding FCAT testing on school administrators unless they hold one of the listed positions. Ms. Sanders has never participated in FCAT testing as a member of the school administration, properly leaving duties and responsibilities for testing to the assigned school assessment coordinator and test administrators. During FCAT testing, Ms. Sanders would generally go to her office and “let the testing coordinator and the teachers handle testing because they're the ones with the training and they're the ones with the expectation that they should handle it.” Ms. Sanders? position regarding her role in the FCAT-testing process is consistent with the DOE Manual. Windy Hill FCAT Assessment Coordinator At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Kasey Williams was the assigned FCAT school assessment coordinator for Windy Hill, having held that assignment for two years prior to the February 28, 2012, FCAT Writes exam. She had assisted as co-coordinator for a year previous to her assignment. Based on Ms. Williams? experience and training, Ms. Sanders had a justifiable expectation that she would be capable of performing the responsibilities assigned to her as set forth in the DOE Manual. As a result of personal issues unrelated to her employment, Ms. Williams routinely arrived late for work. Although the Windy Hill school workday started at 7:40 a.m., Ms. Williams? normal arrival time was between 8:00 and 8:10. Ms. Sanders was willing to accommodate Ms. Williams, allowing her to work a flexible schedule “as long as she was doing her job and making sure everything was taken care of and she was willing to stay late and make sure everything was handled.” Whether she stayed late is difficult to determine, since Ms. Williams rarely signed in and out of work, a task expected of and performed by other teachers and staff. In the weeks leading up to the administration of the FCAT test, Ms. Williams? personal issues had gotten to the point that she was observed crying on numerous occasions, walking out of her office on the telephone crying, and snapping at teachers and administrators. She was planning to move out of her home on the weekend following the FCAT test. Ms. Williams? job performance was affected by her personal situation. Pre-FCAT Staff Meeting Several weeks before the FCAT test, a meeting was held in Ms. Sanders? office to discuss preparations for the FCAT test. Attendees, in addition to Ms. Sanders, were Ms. Rebecca Nelson, Mr. Chris Bacca, and Ms. Branaii Kennell. Ms. Williams, as the school assessment coordinator, had been advised of the meeting and was expected to attend. As the participants were assembling, Ms. Williams “stuck her head in” and advised that she would not be attending the meeting, but rather had an unspecified meeting “off-campus.” The purpose of the off-campus meeting was not explained. The greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that Ms. Williams knew of the pre-FCAT meeting, but chose to be elsewhere. When Ms. Williams made her brief appearance at the meeting, Ms. Sanders, consistent with her practice when teachers miss faculty or planning meetings, advised her to “make sure you get with. . . one of us and find out what you need to know.” Ms. Kennell knew that Ms. Williams was not at the meeting, but did not know why she was not there. In that regard, Ms. Sanders was not certain that Ms. Kennell had arrived for the meeting when Ms. Williams made her appearance. Items for discussion at the pre-FCAT staff meeting included where to do testing, assignment of teachers as administrators and proctors, accommodations for ESE students, the need for seating charts -- in general the “nitty-gritty things.” The issue of student seating was not discussed. Harris Hall, a large, carpeted multipurpose room with an elevated stage, was suggested as the testing location because students had been going to Harris Hall since the beginning of the year for collaborative writing labs and writer?s workshops. A consensus among the attendees developed that Harris Hall would be the setting that the children would be the most comfortable in, and would be an appropriate location for a preparatory Writer?s Camp and the FCAT testing. The plan was to have basic testing conducted on the floor level of Harris Hall, and to have ESE students test on the smaller stage level, with large flat-screen televisions and a white board used to visually separate the areas. The ESE teacher, Ms. Miller, was to be consulted to ensure that the arrangement was suitable to meet the accommodations required by her students? Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). If Ms. Miller decided that Harris Hall was not suitable to accommodate her students? IEPs, a different location would be provided. Ms. Williams did not follow up with Ms. Nelson about the meeting, and there was no evidence that she followed up with any other attendee. Ms. Williams? testimony that, by holding the pre-FCAT meeting as previously scheduled, “[m]y administrator chose to pretty much coordinate the FCAT without me” is not supported by the evidence, and is rejected. Based almost entirely on Ms. Williams? self-serving statements, Mr. Scott determined, and made part of his report, that Ms. Williams was “excluded” from the meeting. Mr. Scott?s investigatory finding is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Harris Hall Preparation As the FCAT test approached, and in order to ensure that Harris Hall could accommodate students for the Writer?s Camp and the FCAT test, Ms. Sanders prepared a rough sketch showing tables and chairs on the floor level and the stage of Harris Hall. Ms. Sanders gave the sketch, which included the dates on which the tables and chairs were needed, to the school custodian. The sketch was not intended to be a seating chart, but was for the purpose of making sure that tables and chairs were brought to Harris Hall so that the teachers and test administrators involved in the Writer?s Camp and the FCAT test would not have to get them on their own. It was then the responsibility of the test administrators to arrange them, and to make the final decisions as to where the children were to sit. Writer?s Camp A “Writer?s Camp” designed to familiarize students with, and prepare them for, the FCAT test has been conducted at Windy Hill for at least five years. A writer?s camp was conducted at Holiday Hill Elementary School during the period when Ms. Sanders was the principal and Ms. Nelson was the instructional coach, and was implemented at Windy Hill when Ms. Sanders and Ms. Nelson were reassigned to Windy Hill. The purpose of Writer?s Camp is to recognize the work of the students over the course of the year, and to build up their confidence through guest speakers and activities. The Windy Hill Writer?s Camp has become a model that is used at other schools in the district. Ms. Sanders had been asked by Sylvia Johnson, a district school administrator, to use her program as a model for other schools. In order to implement that request, Ms. Nelson has met with principals and fourth- grade teachers at elementary schools in the district to instruct them on developing writer?s camps at their schools. The Windy Hill Writer?s Camp was generally the same as camps operated in at least six other elementary schools in the district. Writer?s Camp was to be held on February 21-24 and 27, 2013 in Harris Hall. Ms. Sanders authorized teachers who had been designated as test administrators for the FCAT test to develop the expectations for the camp, identify the speakers, develop the lessons, and plan how the students were to be broken into small groups. The agenda and schedule were developed by Ms. Nelson, Ms. Kennell, Mr. Bacca, and Ms. Hurst working as a team. Ms. Sanders did not participate in the planning. Rather, she provided the teachers and Ms. Hurst with the opportunity to work together. Consistent with the written schedule developed by the planning group, Writer?s Camp was held for several hours per day for five days preceding the FCAT test, commencing on Tuesday, February 21, 2012. Writer?s Camp did not take up the entirety of the school day, though it did focus on writing for more than the normal period. For the five days on which Writer?s Camp was held, the written schedule allotted a total of 10 hours for Writer?s Camp. The remaining 18.5 hours of the scheduled portion of the school days were to be devoted to math and science instruction, recess, lunch, “resource/common planning,” and “share time.” The written schedule generally reflected what was done on those days. During the period that Writer?s Camp was ongoing, Ms. Payne found sufficient time to teach math and science in her classroom. Ms. Kennell testified that she did not teach other subjects except to go over homework and worksheets during the days on which Writer?s Camp was held, but admitted that it is up to the teacher?s discretion as to how much time they spend on various subjects in their classroom. Ms. Boney testified that she could not teach math to her fourth-grade students because of their participation in Writer?s Camp. She acknowledged that she had up to two hours per day for subjects other than Writer?s Camp, which time included lunch, recess, and bathroom breaks. The greater weight of the competent, substantial, and credible evidence in this case indicates that there was sufficient time during the day for instruction in math and reading to take place, though not to the extent that it might have been taught without Writer?s Camp. The fact that Ms. Kennell and Ms. Boney felt that they were unable to teach other subjects appears to be a function of their own classroom organization, rather than a lack of time. After the FCAT Writes test, most teachers temporarily increased their focus on other subjects so as to equalize the time spent on each subject. A district math coach came to Windy Hill for five Fridays after the FCAT test was done for a kind of informal math camp. Ms. Payne chose to take advantage of the math coach and as a result believed that her students did not lose out on any math instruction as a result of Writer?s Camp. Ms. Boney did not opt to use the services of the district math coach for reasons that were not well explained, although Ms. Kennell and Ms. Boney had their students do “double block math” the week following Writer?s Camp so that they did not miss anything. Since the specifics of classroom instruction are up to each teacher?s discretion, the manner by which Ms. Kennell and Ms. Boney chose to make up the class time was by no means improper. There is nothing inappropriate in concentrating on writing leading up to the FCAT Writes test, as long as there is a greater emphasis on the other subjects after the FCAT Writes test is complete. In that regard, Mr. Scott acknowledged that a school may conduct a writer?s camp at the temporary expense of instruction in other subjects, as long as the time for those other subjects is balanced out with greater instruction at a later time.1/ Even though he acknowledged that a balancing of instructional time was appropriate, Mr. Scott did not discuss the Writer?s Camp with Mr. Bacca, Ms. Payne, or Ms. Nelson, did not receive or review the written schedule and curriculum, and did not ask the fourth-grade teachers whether time in Writer?s Camp had been subsequently balanced out with time devoted to other subjects. As justification for his failure to ask questions that would reasonably bear on whether the Writer?s Camp violated section 1008.22(4), Mr. Scott testified that “writing camp had been done in the past and it was not precedent . . . for there to be a math camp or for there to be a reading camp.” Mr. Scott?s assumption was without any support in the record of his investigation or of this proceeding. Despite his failure to review the written schedule or to conduct meaningful interviews regarding the issue, Mr. Scott testified as to his understanding that students “spent five days in Harris Hall preparing for the FCAT Writes by doing practice prompts and that type of thing,” and that “from what I gathered,” Writer?s Camp was all day long. Mr. Scott?s understanding of the Writer?s Camp schedule is unsupported by competent, substantial, and credible evidence in the record. What is clear from the record of this proceeding is that Writer?s Camp did not take up the entire day on the days of its administration, and that the time spent on focusing on writing before the FCAT test was “balanced out” with greater instruction in other subjects the following week. The manner in which such balancing was accomplished was within the discretion of the classroom teachers, and was not the decision of Ms. Sanders or the school administration. The School Assessment Coordinator Engages Ms. Williams was an experienced school assessment coordinator. Ms. Sanders had no reason to doubt that Ms. Williams would fail to perform her duties as the school assessment coordinator as she had done in the past in a very reliable fashion. Having assigned responsibility for the FCAT test preparations to the person designated in the DOE Manual as having such responsibility, a person she reasonably believed to be a competent member of her staff, Ms. Sanders was not remiss in having confidence that Ms. Williams would perform her duties. Ms. Williams made no effort to engage in planning for the upcoming FCAT test until February 22, 2012, the day after Writer?s Camp started, and four school days before the FCAT test was to be administered. On that date, Ms. Williams sent an e-mail to Ms. Sanders in which she stated that “[t]his one snuck up on me.”2/ She then testified at the hearing that “the FCAT always snuck up on us.” The evidence demonstrates that remainder of the staff appeared to be fully engaged in their preparations for the FCAT test, including Writer?s Camp. The only person that the FCAT “snuck up on” was the person with the greatest assigned and expected responsibilities, Ms. Williams. Ms. Sanders responded to Ms. Williams? February 22, 2012, e-mail by suggesting that Ms. Nelson would help with the selection of proctors. Proctors were thereafter selected, and were in attendance during the administration of the FCAT test. Ms. Sanders also advised Ms. Williams that Ms. Turner would “send information” to the teachers and proctors about picking up the manual on Friday, and meeting on Monday afternoon for training. Ms. Turner had no specific recollection of sending information, but it would have been consistent with her normal practice of complying with Ms. Sanders? requests to have done so. Ms. Sanders responded and assisted Ms. Williams in a reasonable and appropriate manner. Her offer of modest assistance cannot reasonably be construed as an assumption of control over the duties of the school assessment coordinator. In the days following her February 22, 2012, e-mail, Ms. Williams did little to fulfill her duties as the school assessment coordinator. The only “preparation” performed by Ms. Williams involved her effort to locate partitions that she believed should have been placed at the testing tables to create visual barriers between students. As will be discussed in detail herein, Ms. Williams? belated effort to obtain partitions was rushed and disorganized. More to the point, there is little in the way of competent, substantial, and credible evidence that Ms. Sanders was told of Ms. Williams? efforts until minutes before the test was to begin. The DOE Manual requires that the school assessment coordinator train test administrators and proctors prior to the test. Such training is typically performed well in advance of the test. Ms. Williams determined that she could fulfill her obligation to train test administrators by providing them with copies of the DOE Manual on the afternoon before the FCAT test for them to review on their own. Ms. Williams asserted that she typed up “brief training notes” to hand out with the DOE Manual, though no other witness mentioned having received notes from Ms. Williams. With her distribution of the DOE Manuals, Ms. Williams “preparations” for the FCAT test were complete. February 28, 2012 - Testing Day On the day of FCAT testing, Ms. Williams showed up for work at approximately 8:10 a.m. Ms. Williams saw no problem with arriving late to work on testing day because, with regard to the necessary preparations, “usually most of it's done prior to the morning of testing.” To the extent that FCAT preparations were done, they were done in spite of her lack of preparation. Ms. Turner encountered Ms. Williams as Ms. Williams arrived for work. It appeared to Ms. Turner that Ms. Williams was having emotional problems as she was teary-eyed and visibly upset. Ms. Turner went with Ms. Williams to her office due to her concern for Ms. Williams? well-being. Ms. Turner spoke with Ms. Williams about her needing to move, her having ongoing family issues, and it having been a rough night for her. Ms. Turner knew that Ms. Williams had responsibilities for the administration of the test, and wanted to make sure that she was alright. Ms. Williams? account of the discussion differs from that of Ms. Turner. Ms. Williams testified that Ms. Turner “spent 40 minutes in my office berating me.” She further testified that Ms. Turner instructed her to pack her things and get ready to leave campus, a statement finding no support in the investigative report or otherwise in the record of this proceeding. The preponderance of the competent, substantial, and credible evidence adduced at the hearing fails to support a finding that Ms. Turner berated Ms. Williams on the morning of the FCAT test, that she interfered with Ms. Williams? duties as school assessment coordinator, or that she suggested to Ms. Williams that she needed to leave the school campus while the FCAT test was ongoing. Ms. Williams estimated that her discussion with Ms. Turner lasted for approximately 40 minutes. Accepting Ms. Williams? time estimate, she began to distribute FCAT test materials to the test administrators at approximately 8:50 a.m. Each of the four test administrators received his or her tests and materials in turn, counted them, and signed for them. The process took, in Ms. Williams? estimation, a total of ten minutes. According to the security logs, Ms. Kennell entered Harris Hall at 8:50 a.m., Mr. Bacca and Ms. Miller at 9:00 a.m., and Ms. Nelson at 9:20 a.m. By the time Ms. Williams got to Harris Hall, the students were assembled “in the front corner with Mr. Bacca reading a book or talking to them.” Since Mr. Bacca entered Harris Hall with his materials at 9:00 a.m., the time necessary for him to put his things down, assemble a group of fourth-grade students, and start to read to them, suggests that Ms. Williams showed up well after 9:00 a.m. for the 9:30 a.m. test. The circumstances regarding Ms. Williams? appearance in Harris Hall, and the testing conditions that form the grounds for the School Board?s Notice of Discipline, will be discussed in detail herein. Ms. Williams returned to her office. Ms. Sanders then delivered her pep talk to the students. The talk was brief, whereupon Ms. Sanders went to her office. Ms. Sanders had no further involvement with the testing. At the conclusion of the pep talk, Ms. Nelson took about 17 high-performing students to Room 21 for testing because that was where they had received the majority of their writing instruction during the year. The remaining students were individually seated by the test administrators. The basic students were seated at tables at the floor level of Harris Hall, and the ESE Students were seated at tables on the stage. Ms. Miller, the ESE teacher, and the person most qualified and knowledgeable about her students? IEPs and accommodations, had no issue with her students being tested on the stage. There was no evidence that the accommodations for the ESE students included anything other than additional time for testing. Mr. Scott was critical of the arrangement, testifying that if a prompt had to be read to an ESE student, other students probably would have heard it. However, Mr. Scott did not review any of the IEPs to determine what accommodations were provided, did not know whether any verbal prompts were necessary or required, and otherwise had no evidence to suggest that the testing of the ESE students had the potential to, or did, cause a disruption to any student being tested in Harris Hall. After the students were seated, Mr. Bacca read the testing scripts to the students and testing commenced. Mr. Bacca gave the students the required warning with ten minutes remaining, and the basic testing ended as scheduled without incident. At the conclusion of basic testing, and after a short break, Ms. Miller?s ESE students resumed testing in Room 21, which had been vacated by Ms. Nelson?s students. There, they were accommodated with additional time to complete their tests. Although Mr. Scott found it unusual for students to move during the break, there was no allegation or proof that allowing the ESE students to complete their testing in Room 21 was improper or a violation of FCAT testing protocols. In any event, there is no evidence that Ms. Sanders was aware of the move. Ms. Kennell, Mr. Bacca, and Ms. Nelson took their completed test materials, which included the tests themselves, student work papers, scripts, security logs, and other documents to Ms. Williams as required. Although the test administrators were to have turned in their seating charts to Ms. Williams, they did not. Ms. Williams did not ask the test administrators about their seating charts. Further issues regarding the seating charts that form a basis for the School Board?s Notice of Discipline, will be discussed in detail herein. After basic testing was complete, Ms. Williams left the school campus. Further issues regarding Ms. Williams? departure that form a basis for the School Board?s Notice of Discipline, will be discussed in detail herein. After Ms. Williams left campus, Ms. Miller completed the FCAT testing of her ESE students. She gave the testing materials to Ms. Turner, who placed them in Ms. Williams? locked and secured office. The Investigation After the conclusion of the FCAT test, a report was made to the school district that Mr. Bacca had received information regarding the testing prompt, and that he had shared that information with other teachers. The report resulted in the initiation of an investigation to determine the merits of the complaint. The investigation was assigned to Mr. Scott and Ms. Altman. At approximately 9:30 on the morning of March 6, 2012, Mr. Scott sent an e-mail to Ms. Williams advising her that he would be coming to the school later that morning to start an investigation of the complaint. Ms. Williams was with Ms. Kennell when the e-mail was received. Ms. Kennell told Ms. Williams that she believed the investigation was related to Mr. Bacca and the testing prompt. Mr. Scott and Ms. Atwater arrived at Windy Hill at approximately 10:30 a.m. and went to see Ms. Sanders. Mr. Scott advised Ms. Sanders of the nature of his investigation, and requested Ms. Sanders? cooperation in making teachers available for interviews. Ms. Sanders agreed to do so. Ms. Sanders expressed her support for her teachers, and advised Mr. Scott of her belief that the fourth-grade teachers at Windy Hill would not cheat on the FCAT test. During their initial discussion, Ms. Sanders advised Mr. Scott of her concerns with Ms. Williams, and described some of her recent emotional difficulties. Ms. Sanders made inquiry as to the process for changing the school?s assessment coordinator before the next round of tests. Mr. Scott provided the information to Ms. Sanders, which she subsequently implemented, assigning Ellen Rubens to be the assessment coordinator for the next round of FCAT testing. Ms. Sanders walked with Mr. Scott through the school, and showed him the testing rooms. During their tour, Ms. Sanders engaged in a very general discussion of Writer?s Camp and of the reasons that Harris Hall was selected for testing. She showed Mr. Scott the student papers that remained on the walls of Harris Hall. At the time of the tour, Ms. Sanders did not know whether the papers had been covered at time of test, and Mr. Scott asked no questions about them. Mr. Scott and Ms. Atwater interviewed a number of students, along with Ms. Williams, Mr. Bacca, Ms. Payne, Ms. Kennell, and Ms. Boney. Brief questionnaires used by Mr. Scott for his teacher interviews were preserved. During the interviews, Ms. Nelson, who was a test administrator during the FCAT test and a participant in the pre- FCAT staff meeting, stuck her head into the room and asked Mr. Scott and Ms. Altman if they needed to see her. They indicated that they did not. Ms. Nelson was never interviewed. On March 8, 2012, Mr. Scott and Ms. Altman returned to Windy Hill to continue their interviews with the five teachers previously interviewed. The thrust of the investigation remained the allegation that Mr. Bacca had learned of the prompt prior to the FCAT test. Ms. Sanders allowed Mr. Scott to use her office to continue the interviews. After Ms. Kennell appeared for her interview, Ms. Sanders received a call from counsel for the Duval Teachers Union, David Hertz, who asked her to advise the teachers and the investigators that he was in route to the school, and to ask them to postpone further discussions until his arrival. Ms. Sanders did not know who called Mr. Hertz. Ms. Sanders complied with Mr. Hertz?s request, and acted appropriately in doing so. Mr. Scott believed that Ms. Sanders? act of advising the teachers of Mr. Hertz?s request was somehow improper, commenting that “[i]t?s very unusual for a principal to tell us that the Union lawyer is on their way.” He further testified that Ms. Sanders “inhibit[ed]” his investigation and “cause[d] a delay in some of the information happening quickly.” While Ms. Scott may have preferred to conduct his investigation free from the interference of the teachers? legal counsel, there is no evidence that Ms. Sanders had any intent or reason to hinder the investigation when she forwarded Mr. Hertz?s message, or that by so doing she inhibited the investigation. Rather, her actions were reasonable, appropriate, and in keeping with the legal rights of the teachers. During one of the two days that she was on campus, Ms. Altman advised Ms. Sanders to speak with her staff, instruct them not to discuss the investigation, and advise them that progressive discipline could result if they discussed the investigation amongst themselves. Further issues regarding Ms. Sanders? delivery of Ms. Altman?s message will be discussed in detail herein. On or about March 12, 2012, Mr. Hertz provided the investigators with written statements from Ms. Kennell, Mr. Bacca, and Ms. Boney. Follow-up interviews with those three teachers were conducted on March 13, 2012. Approximately two weeks after the test, and after Mr. Scott and Ms. Altman had completed their interviews, Ms. Williams discovered the Writer?s Camp papers and decorations that remained on the walls of Harris Hall. Ms. Williams photographed the papers, and sent the photographs to Ms. Altman. No cheating regarding the testing prompt was uncovered in the investigation. The FCAT Writes test scores were validated by DOE, and the writing scores were released and counted as part of Windy Hill?s school grade announced in June or July of 2012. At some indeterminate point, the investigation turned from one regarding the testing prompt to one directed at Ms. Sanders for alleged violations of testing conditions. After the focus of the investigation turned to Ms. Sanders, neither Mr. Scott nor Ms. Altman saw fit to conduct further interviews of Ms. Sanders or any other member of the Windy Hill staff regarding specific testing improprieties, including those for which allegations of disciplinary conduct against Ms. Sanders were sustained. The bulk of the information relied upon by the investigators to sustain allegations against Ms. Sanders came from Ms. Williams. Mr. Scott had previously worked with Ms. Williams, and believed her to be “a reliable test coordinator.” Mr. Scott glossed over the possible effect that Ms. Williams? personal issues may have had on the performance of her duties as the school assessment coordinator, testifying that in her interviews “[s]he was the same Kasey I had known the year before.” When asked about his unquestioning acceptance of Ms. Williams? statements, Mr. Scott testified as follows: Q: Because [Ms. Williams] was somebody who's been in your classes, you've worked with her, you've trained her, right? And you just assumed that she was telling you the truth, didn't you? I had no other reason to believe she was not. As will be discussed herein, Ms. Williams? had a clear self-interest in covering for her inadequacies. At the very least she had her attention directed to other concerns as the FCAT test approached, failed to make any meaningful preparations for the FCAT test, neglected her duty to train the test administrators and proctors, and knowingly falsified seating charts that she submitted to the Department of Education. Mr. Scott went to considerable effort to minimize and dismiss the failings of Ms. Williams. After having admitted that Ms. Williams should have called his office with her purported concerns, as was standard procedure for all school assessment coordinators, Mr. Scott stated that “I don't think she felt comfortable that she could do that. I had to give her a comfort level to do that without retribution.” He further testified that Ms. Williams “was a person who did not feel comfortable calling my office because of retribution, as indicated by all the teachers I spoke to, other than Mr. Bacca maybe.” Finally, he testified that “I felt that one of the reasons Kasey did not report and that they didn't, they feel there's retribution. They were very, very fearful that day in that room giving me testimony. There was -- fearful of retribution, what might happen in terms of their jobs.” There is not a scintilla of competent, substantial, and credible evidence that Ms. Sanders expressed, implied, or intimated that there would be retaliation for anything associated with the FCAT test before, during, or after its administration. Furthermore, there is no evidence of retaliatory action being meted out for anything related to the FCAT test or subsequent investigation, despite the almost ten months that passed between the commencement of the investigation and the date of the disciplinary notice. The suggestion that Ms. Williams? description of events is entitled to any degree of credibility due to her professed fears of “retaliation,” is rejected. The investigators? unquestioning acceptance of Ms. Williams? account of events -- particularly in light of their failure to interview material witnesses and to review “best-evidence” materials, including the Writer?s Camp schedule and the recording of the March 7, 2012, faculty staff meeting -- causes the undersigned to seriously question the completeness and accuracy of the conclusions drawn from the investigation. In October 2012, more than seven months after the commencement of the investigation, Ms. Altman typed her first draft report. All notes of the student and teacher interviews that formed the basis of the report were then destroyed by Ms. Altman. On or about October 20, 2012, Ms. Altman sent her first draft report to the chief human resource officer for the school district, Ms. Young, for her review and comments. Ms. Young provided written comments and returned the edited draft document to Ms. Altman. The original draft report and Ms. Young?s comments were then destroyed by Ms. Altman. The only version of the investigative report entered into evidence is the version created after the School Board voted to sustain the demotion of Ms. Sanders. Copies of the investigative report created prior to the time that the School Board voted to demote Ms. Sanders were destroyed. Upon finalization of the investigative report, Ms. Young prepared and sent a memorandum to Nikolai Vitti, the Superintendant of Schools, that provided the results of the investigation, outlined the investigators? findings, and sustained the allegations against Ms. Sanders, concluding that the evidence “proves the allegation(s) to be true. The Superintendant of Schools had the disciplinary matter referred to the School Board with a recommendation for Ms. Sanders? demotion from the position of principal, and reassignment to the position of assistant principal. The Charges On January 3, 2013, Ms. Sanders was provided with notice of her recommended demotion when she was called to Ms. Young?s office and handed the Notice of Discipline. Prior to that time, Ms. Sanders assumed that the investigation into improprieties in the FCAT Writes test was closed, since the scores had been validated and released, and the school grade announced. She did not know that she was the target of an investigation, and had been provided with no opportunity to respond or to provide information regarding her role, or lack thereof, in any of the specific allegations. Ms. Sanders, through her counsel, requested an opportunity to respond to the allegations before the School Board took action at its January 7, 2013, meeting. On the day of the School Board meeting, the request was denied. Ms. Sanders was advised that she would have an opportunity to speak at the School Board meeting. During the School Board meeting, Ms. Sanders again asked for time to respond to the allegations before action was taken. Her request, along with similar requests made by between 20 and 30 attendees, was denied. The School Board approved the report, and voted to demote Ms. Sanders to the position of assistant principal. Ms. Sanders challenged the action of the School Board, and this proceeding ensued. The Notice of Discipline alleged that Ms. Sanders “directed staff to violate testing protocols, failed to report violations that were known to her at the time of the administration of the test, and made inappropriate comments to staff regarding the investigation of the reported infractions.” The specific testing protocols alleged to have been violated by Sanders, as reflected in Ms. Young?s memorandum sustaining the allegations, are identified and addressed as follows: 1008.22(4) - Writer?s Camp The Notice of Discipline alleged that Ms. Sanders violated section 1008.22(4) by “suspending a regular program of curricula for purposes of administering practice tests or engaging in other test-preparation activities for a statewide assessment.” Ms. Sanders was never interviewed about her involvement with the Writer?s Camp, how it was set up, or how many hours of the day it was held. The circumstances of the planning and conduct of the Writer?s Camp are set forth in detail above. The evidence demonstrates that the Writer?s Camp was developed and administered for the purpose of administering practice tests and engaging in test preparation activities that were determined by Windy Hill faculty and their education consultant to be appropriate to familiarize students with the organization, format, and directions for the FCAT test. The evidence demonstrates that the Windy Hill Writer?s Camp was accepted by the district office as a model for use in other schools, and was, in fact, implemented at other Duval County schools. The assumption made by Mr. Scott that Writer?s Camp was a day-long event that subsumed the regular curricula, was made without having reviewed the actual schedule and without having interviewed material witnesses, and is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The increased time that was devoted to allowable FCAT test preparation activities during the five-day Writer?s Camp was balanced out with greater instruction in math and other subjects over the following weeks, a practice recognized as appropriate by Mr. Scott. The School Board has failed to prove that the Writer?s Camp was contrary to the allowable scope of activities described in section 1008.22(4)(e) by a preponderance of the competent, substantial, and credible evidence in this proceeding. 1008.24(1) - Test Security The Notice of Discipline alleged that Ms. Sanders violated section 1008.24(1) by “knowingly and willfully” violating test security rules for the following specified reasons: Failure to follow security rules for distribution and return of secure test as directed, or failure to account for all secure test materials before, during and after testing. The facts underlying this count are those related to the allegation that Ms. Sanders did not allow Ms. Williams to monitor testing rooms, and that Ms. Sanders did not allow Ms. Williams to supervise make-up administrations, both of which were pled as violations of the DOE Manual. The specific findings that apply to this count are set forth in detail in the analysis of the corresponding DOE Manual violation counts, which are incorporated as to this count. In addition to the findings of fact incorporated in this analysis, the evidence demonstrates that FCAT test materials were distributed and accounted for in compliance with applicable standards before and during the FCAT test. The only potential irregularity in the return of the completed FCAT tests was that occasioned by Ms. Williams? decision to leave campus to attend to her personal affairs before ESE testing was complete. To ensure the integrity of Ms. Miller?s test materials in Ms. Williams? absence, Ms. Turner accepted those tests and locked them in Ms. Williams? office pending her return. The evidence demonstrates that Ms. Sanders did not know of Ms. Williams? departure from campus prior to the completion of testing on February 28, 2012, nor was she advised of Ms. Turner?s acceptance of Ms. Miller?s ESE class FCAT tests. In light of the findings of fact made regarding Ms. Williams? ability to monitor testing rooms and supervise make-up administrations, the School Board has failed to prove by a preponderance of the competent, substantial, and credible evidence that Ms. Sanders “knowingly and willfully” failed to follow security rules for the distribution and return of the FCAT test and testing materials as directed, or that she “knowingly and willfully” failed to account for all FCAT tests and testing materials before, during, and after testing. Failure to follow test administration directions specified in the test administration manuals The Notice of Discipline alleged that Ms. Sanders “knowingly and willfully” failed to follow test administration directions specified in the test administration manuals. The DOE Manual provides that it is the responsibility of the test administrator to administer the FCAT test in accordance with the directions. The greater weight of the competent, substantial, and credible evidence demonstrates that the test administration directions, including scripts and prompts, were followed to the letter. The only potential breach was that of Ms. Kennell, who told the students that they should not forget their conclusions as the test was winding down. There is absolutely no evidence that Ms. Sanders was advised of that possible minor irregularity. There is no evidence in the record of this proceeding that Ms. Sanders failed to follow test administration directions specified in the test administration manuals. The School Board has failed to prove by a preponderance of the competent, substantial, and credible evidence that Ms. Sanders “knowingly and willfully” failed to follow test administration directions specified in the test administration manuals. Participate in, direct, aid, counsel, assist in, or encourage any of the acts prohibited in this section. By this count, the School Board has, essentially, thrown the kitchen sink at Ms. Sanders in a broad and general count with little specificity. Thus, the undersigned concludes that the only way this count can be addressed, consistent with accepted tenets of due process, is to limit the “acts prohibited in this section” to those pled and specifically identified elsewhere. In addressing this count, the undersigned incorporates the findings of fact as to each of the acts alleged in the Notice of Discipline. In light of the findings of fact made as to each of the acts alleged in the Notice of Discipline, the School Board has failed to prove by a preponderance of the competent, substantial, and credible evidence that Ms. Sanders “knowingly and willfully” participated in, directed, aided, counseled, assisted in, or encouraged any act alleged to have violated the provisions of section 1008.22 or section 1008.24, the DOE Manual, or the educators? Code of Ethics. Violations of the DOE Manual The Notice of Discipline alleged that Ms. Sanders failed to adhere to the following requirements of the DOE Manual: School Assessment Coordinator not able to monitor testing rooms: The Notice of Discipline alleged that Ms. Sanders caused Ms. Williams, the school assessment coordinator, to be unable to monitor the testing rooms in accordance with the DOE Manual. As set forth previously herein, Ms. Williams appeared in Harris Hall on the morning of February 28, 2012, well after 9:00 a.m. Students had already assembled, and Mr. Bacca was reading to them. Ms. Sanders had entered the room, was speaking with students, and was preparing to deliver her “pep talk.” When she entered Harris Hall, Ms. Williams was still visibly upset. She began to gather, count, and place and tape partitions onto the tables, which will be discussed in greater detail herein. The evidence supports Ms. Sanders impression that Ms. Williams “was stressed out and she was stressing teachers and students out.” In order to minimize the effect of Ms. Williams? hurried efforts, and to avoid “a big discussion about whether or not we were going to use those partitions in front of the students right before their test started,” Ms. Sanders recommended that Ms. Williams return to her office in order to start to normal testing procedures. Ms. Sanders? request that Ms. Williams return to her office was driven in part by the need to have the FCAT test started on time. During the FCAT test, all of the other children at the school are on “lockdown” to minimize movement around the school and potential distractions for the fourth- grade students being tested. Essentially, everyone stays in place until basic testing is finished. Therefore, it was important that the testing be started on time so as to be completed by lunchtime. In order to ensure that testing staff can quickly locate the assessment coordinator if needed, it has been the normal FCAT testing protocol at Windy Hill for the assessment coordinator to be located at a central location when the testing is in progress, typically in the assessment coordinator?s office. It had been determined during previous tests that the assessment coordinator should not be “roaming” about the school grounds. Thus, the instruction that Ms. Williams return to her office was consistent with the standard testing protocol at Windy Hill, and was not a new or unusual practice. Windy Hill staff members not engaged in test administration are stationed in or near the assessment coordinator?s office to act as “runners” at the direction of the assessment coordinator in the event of an emergency, which can range from a student getting sick to an unauthorized person walking into the testing area. However, there is nothing to prevent the assessment coordinator from personally handling an incident. The greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that, although Ms. Sanders advised Ms. Williams to return to her office to start the testing process, she did not direct Ms. Williams “to go to her office and stay there,” or tell Ms. Williams that she could not leave her office. To the extent Ms. Williams remained in her office during the basic testing, such was consistent with the normal testing protocol at Windy Hill. Mr. Scott?s conclusions that Ms. Williams “was constrained” from performing her duties as a school assessment coordinator, and his statement that “Ms. Sanders chose to take over that responsibility [of assessment coordinator] when she sent Ms. Williams to her office,” both of which were based predominantly on Ms. Williams? statements, are contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and are rejected. Basic testing was completed prior to 11:00 a.m. Mr. Bacca, Ms. Kennell, and Ms. Nelson returned their testing materials to Ms. Williams at that time. Ms. Miller moved her ESE students to Room 21 to complete their testing so that Harris Hall could be freed up for other uses. Therefore, Ms. Miller did not return the test materials for her students to Ms. Williams when basic testing was completed. After the return of the basic testing materials, but while Ms. Miller?s ESE student tests were still out, Ms. Williams went to the office of Jennifer Green, the school?s speech pathologist.3/ Ms. Green?s office is not in the same building as Ms. Williams? office. Ms. Williams admitted that she was emotionally upset as she sat in Ms. Green?s office, but attributed it to Ms. Turner?s interaction with her earlier that morning. She further testified that she had gone to Ms. Green?s office “to ask her to take care of some things that needed to be taken care of while I was forced off campus.” Having previously found that Ms. Williams was not forced off campus by Ms. Turner, Ms. Williams? testimony that she was emotionally upset as a result of anything to do with the FCAT test or her duties as the school assessment coordinator is not accepted. Ms. Turner received the information that Ms. Williams was in Ms. Green?s office, upset and crying, and having a conversation with Ms. Green. She reported that information to Ms. Sanders, who instructed Ms. Turner that “if she?s finished testing, that?s fine with me. Tell her she can go home and do what she needs to do.” Since it was later in the day, Ms. Sanders believed that ESE testing had been completed, and could think of no reason for Ms. Williams to be in Ms. Green's office in a different building if testing had not been completed. Ms. Sanders testified credibly that her instruction to Ms. Turner was not intended to mean that Ms. Williams was to leave before testing was finished. The intent behind Ms. Sanders? instruction to Ms. Turner was one of compassion and support for Ms. Williams, allowing her to deal with what was understood by many at Windy Hill to be a difficult and troubling personal situation. There is no credible evidence that Ms. Sanders intended to restrict Ms. Williams from performing her duties as the school assessment coordinator if she was capable of doing so, or to authorize her departure from school grounds before testing was complete. After discussing the issue with Ms. Sanders, Ms. Turner spoke with Ms. Williams and told her that “if testing is finished, . . . why don't you go home. You've got some stuff going on. You're trying to move. You need to find a home, that kind of thing. Why don't you go home.” Ms. Turner testified credibly that she did not order Ms. Williams to leave the campus before testing was completed. Ms. Williams decided to act on the offer to go home. She advised Ms. Turner that she had not yet received tests from Ms. Miller. Ms. Turner, who considered herself to be a friend of Ms. Williams, and understood that she was upset and had been so since her arrival at school that morning, allowed her to leave even though the last of the tests had not been returned. Ms. Turner walked with Ms. Williams to her car. As with Ms. Sanders, Ms. Turner?s act was driven by concern for Ms. Williams? well-being. She testified credibly that she was not “marching” Ms. Williams out of the office. Ms. Turner?s account is accepted. After Ms. Williams? departure, Ms. Turner accepted the responsibility of taking delivery of Ms. Miller?s tests and testing materials in Ms. Williams? absence and, upon receipt, locked them in Ms. Williams? office for her to handle. Given the circumstances, that was the only viable course of action. There has been no suggestion in this case that any of Ms. Miller?s materials were missing, or that security was breached so as to cause the invalidation of the test scores. There is no evidence that Ms. Sanders knew that Ms. Williams left campus before testing was complete, or that Ms. Turner had agreed to accept delivery of Ms. Miller?s tests on her behalf. Ms. Sanders was never interviewed about her alleged instruction that Ms. Turner order Ms. Williams off campus while testing was ongoing. Despite the fact that Ms. Turner?s account of the incident would appear to be critical to any reasoned investigation, neither Mr. Scott nor Ms. Altman interviewed Ms. Turner. Mr. Scott -- either in an effort to discount Ms. Turner?s subsequent testimony or to minimize the effect of the failure to interview her -- testified that he “absolutely” believed, based on his “interactions with Ms. Turner” that Ms. Turner “was influenced by Ms. Sanders.” Since Mr. Scott did not interview Ms. Turner, those “interactions” are a mystery. In any event, there is no legitimate reason for an investigator to decline an interview with a material witness because of a subjective belief that the witness may have been influenced by events. Furthermore, there is no evidence to support a finding that Ms. Turner?s testimony in this case was shaded or influenced in any way by the fact that she served as Ms. Sanders? assistant principal. Although Mr. Scott understood that Ms. Turner “escorted” Ms. Williams off campus -- an understanding that is not supported by the evidence -- he was not able to determine that Ms. Sanders directed Ms. Williams to leave. In addition, Ms. Altman testified candidly that she uncovered no evidence or information that Ms. Sanders was aware that Ms. Williams left campus prior to the conclusion of the day?s testing. Mr. Scott?s determination that Ms. Sanders had taken over the testing process or assumed the responsibilities of the school assessment coordinator when she instructed Ms. Williams to return to her office, and later allowed her to go home to attend to her pressing personal affairs, is not supported by the evidence and is rejected. The School Board has alleged that the actions of Ms. Sanders resulted in the inability of the school assessment coordinator to monitor the testing rooms. The School Board has failed to prove the allegation by a preponderance of the competent, substantial, and credible evidence. Student Seating Seating Arrangements The Notice of Discipline alleged that Ms. Sanders failed to ensure that students were seated at least three feet from one another, and that they were not facing one another. Testing in Harris Hall4/ was done at conference-type tables. The estimated size of the tables varied from Ms. Kennel?s estimate of 8 feet in length, to Ms. Boney?s estimate of 12 to 15 feet in length. The most persuasive evidence was that provided by Mr. Scott and Ms. Sanders who described the tables as being 10 feet in length. By applying simple mathematics, six students may be seated at a table 10 feet in length without being less than three feet apart.5/ There was no persuasive evidence as to the width of the tables. The only estimates provided were those of Ms. Williams, who described the width as “maybe” three feet plus a few inches, and Ms. Kennell, who described the tables as “maybe 3 feet wide.” The lack of competent, substantial evidence as to the width of the tables constitutes a failure of proof on the part of the School Board, the size of the tables being a material element of the allegation that students were seated too closely. Ms. Kennell testified that students were seated six to a table, with one on each end, and two on each side. Her testimony was persuasive that the students on the sides were facing the students on the other side. Even though the evidence supports a finding that students were seated facing each other -- though not that they were seated too close together -- that fact alone does not prove that such a violation was attributable to Ms. Sanders. The DOE Manual makes it clear that test administrators have the direct and primary responsibility to prepare the testing facilities, and includes the instruction that the test administrators are to: Arrange the room so the each student will have enough workspace for the test materials. There must be at least three feet between students. Make sure that students are not facing each other when seated at tables and are not in seating (stadium or staggered) that allows them to easily view other students? writing. The DOE Manual also makes it the responsibility of the school assessment coordinator to “[e]nsure that students are not facing each other when seated and are not in seating (stadium or staggered) that allows them to easily view other students? writing . . . . Make sure there is at least three feet between students to prevent cheating.” Neither the DOE Manual nor any other authority cited makes it the responsibility of a school principal to make decisions regarding student seating. Ms. Sanders testified convincingly that the decision as to how students were to be seated was best made by test administrators, stating that “I would not go into a teacher's classroom and say, you need to seat your children here, here, and here. That would be something a teacher would decide.” Her understanding is consistent with the duties and responsibilities established in the DOE Manual. Ms. Sanders? hand-drawn sketch was not a seating chart, and does not support an inference that Ms. Sanders had assumed responsibility or control from the school assessment coordinator and test administrators for seating students. If Ms. Williams had made a timely request for additional resources for the FCAT test, Ms. Sanders would have directed the school custodian to provide her with help and with what was needed before the test was to begin. There were more tables and chairs in the building and, if anyone had indicated that they were needed, there was ample time to have brought them to Harris Hall. No one suggested to Ms. Sanders that the students could not be properly seated, or that additional seating was needed. Ms. Sanders did not know how the test administrators and proctors arranged seating. She gave her motivational speech on the morning of testing, and left before students were seated. Ms. Kennell testified that the “teachers were responsible for the seating of the students. That wasn?t the principal?s duty.” Mr. Scott acknowledged that the test administrator is responsible for the administration of the FCAT test. As applied to the decision to seat students at the tables, he stated “[t]hat would have been [Mr. Bacca?s] responsibility.” Ms. Altman admitted that there was no evidence that Ms. Sanders ever directed that students sit less than three feet apart. The School Board has alleged that Ms. Sanders violated the DOE Manual regarding the seating of students for testing. The School Board has failed to prove the allegation by a preponderance of the competent, substantial, and credible evidence. Partitions Although not pled with specificity, the School Board argued that problems with seating -- if they had been proven -- could have been resolved if partitions had been used to separate students seated at the tables. Ms. Williams stated that “[w]e?ve been given permission from the District coordinator to use partitions in cases where we can?t sit them 3 feet apart.” Mr. Scott admitted that there was nothing in the DOE Manual that allows the use of dividers or partitions. Having reviewed the DOE Manual, the undersigned agrees that it does not address the issue. During the Writer?s Camp, partitions were not used to separate or divide students seated at a table. Ms. Hurst testified that it would not be appropriate to practice without dividers or partitions at tables, and then administer an exam with partitions and dividers in place. To do so would subject the students to different conditions, which would likely reflect on their performance. Ms. Williams first discussed the issue of partitions with Mr. Bacca on Friday, February 24, 2012. While Writer?s Camp was ongoing, Ms. Williams entered Harris Hall, apparently for the first time after she became aware of the FCAT test. She expressed her concern with student seating. Her concern was directed to the effect that improper seating arrangements might have on her certificate. Ms. Williams made her statements in the presence of the students who were participating in Writer?s Camp. Ms. Kennell testified that Ms. Williams “[w]asn?t any louder than she normally is.” Ms. Kennell thought that she may have been loud enough for students to hear, though she could not be certain if they did. In the investigative report, Mr. Bacca was reported to have stated that Ms. Williams expressed her concern that the decision to not use partitions would cause someone to lose their job in the presence of students, and that her statement had impacted the students in a negative way. Mr. Bacca?s statement as set forth in the investigative report is corroborated by Ms. Kennell?s testimony, both of which are accepted. By the time Mr. Bacca brought the issue of partitions to Ms. Sanders? attention, the practice testing was complete. Mr. Bacca and Ms. Sanders discussed the fact that the students had not practiced with partitions, which was a concern. Ms. Sanders recognized that dividers are not mentioned in the DOE Manual or DOE directions. She noted the size of the room, and thought that as long as the students were spaced out, they could be accommodated without dividers. There is no evidence that Mr. Bacca suggested that students could not be appropriately seated. For those reasons, it was decided that partitions would not be needed. Ms. Sanders understood that Mr. Bacca related their discussion to Ms. Williams. Ms. Williams did not thereafter seek to express her disagreement to Ms. Sanders, or to otherwise ask Ms. Sanders to explain the decision to her. Since the issue of student seating had been discussed as early as the pre-FCAT staff meeting, and since no one suggested to Ms. Sanders that students could not be seated with plenty of space, Ms. Sanders reasonably understood that the issue was being managed by the test administrators. Ms. Williams testified that she approached Ms. Sanders at a party being held at the home of “Pastor G” on Sunday, February 26, 2012, to inquire about where she could obtain some partitions. The alleged discussion was not corroborated by Ms. Sanders, who had no recollection of having had a discussion with Ms. Williams regarding partitions until the morning of the test. Given the totality of the evidence in this proceeding, the undersigned credits the testimony of Ms. Sanders. The investigative report indicates that Ms. Williams sent an e-mail to four teachers late in the evening of Sunday, February 26, 2012, indicating that she was in search of partitions to use on the following Tuesday morning. At some point prior to the FCAT test, Ms. Williams asked Ms. Turner if she knew where she could get some partitions. The most reasonable inference that can be drawn from the evidence is that the inquiry was made on Monday, February 27, 2012. Ms. Turner directed Ms. Williams to a third- grade teacher that she believed may have had some -- either Ms. Marcham or Ms. Boney. The discussion was limited to who might have had partitions, not whether or not they should be used. There is no evidence that Ms. Turner advised Ms. Sanders of the discussion. On Monday afternoon, Ms. Williams and Ms. Boney had a discussion regarding partitions. Ms. Boney had some partitions, but they were too flimsy. They discussed trying to get better ones and taping them down to the tables. In Ms. Boney?s opinion, the effort to get partitions was not planned out. By the morning of February 28, 2012, Ms. Kennell had located some pre-made partitions, and had some that had been made the day before by substitute teachers. She brought them to Harris Hall. She believed that she had plenty of time to go around and ask for more partitions. Her attempt would have been rushed, but she felt that she could have done it. Minutes before the test was to start, when Ms. Sanders had already begun speaking with students, Ms. Boney appeared in Harris Hall with some free-standing three-fold partitions. Others available on the morning of the test would have to have been taped down. Ms. Williams appeared at Harris Hall well after 9:00 a.m. on the morning of testing with the intent to set up partitions. As to the reason for her hurried and last minute efforts, Ms. Williams testified that “[w]e couldn?t set them up prior to [Tuesday morning] because we have car riders coming in and out of [Harris Hall] every day.” That purported reason is not consistent with the evidence as to the availability of partitions prior to the morning of the FCAT test. Ms. Williams did not know whether the number of partitions gathered up by Ms. Kennell and Ms. Boney was sufficient. Even as she was directed to return to her office, Ms. Williams stated to Ms. Sanders that “I don't know if there are enough partitions.” There is no competent, substantial evidence that, even if partitions were necessary, Ms. Williams had arranged for a sufficient number to be available before testing was to begin. Ms. Williams expressed her belief that in the few minutes remaining before testing was to begin, she could have counted out the partitions, gotten more if necessary, and placed the partitions and taped them to the tables without distracting students or disrupting test procedures. Ms. Williams? belief is far-fetched. After her arrival in Harris Hall, Ms. Williams commenced gathering up and placing partitions, not knowing whether there were enough to go around, in a hurried and agitated manner. Ms. Sanders justifiably felt that Ms. Williams? actions were detrimental to the students, and she did not want them to be upset before the testing began. Ms. Sanders instruction to Ms. Williams to return to her office so that testing could commence was an appropriate way of dealing with the issue given Ms. Williams rushed and disruptive efforts. It was not done with intent or effect of taking over the duties of the school assessment coordinator, or of assuming the responsibility of seating students. There is no evidence that Ms. Sanders? decision to forego the use of partitions was made with any understanding that students could not be appropriately seated at the tables and chairs available. She did not believe that partitions were allowed by the DOE Manual -- which they do not appear to be -- and was not aware of Mr. Scott?s ad hoc determination that they were allowable. There is no evidence that Ms. Sanders acted in any way except that calculated to be in the best interests of the students. Her actions were not designed or intended to encourage cheating amongst the students, to influence the test results, or for any improper purpose. The School Board did not allege the issue of partitions as a separate basis for its disciplinary decision apart from that of student seating. To the extent the issue is determined to be included as a basis for discipline, the School Board has failed to prove by a preponderance of the competent, substantial, and credible evidence that the decision to forego the use of partitions was unreasonable or improper under the circumstances, or that the decision violated any provision of the DOE Manual. Visual aids not removed or covered in testing room The Notice of Discipline alleged that Ms. Sanders failed to ensure that visual aids in Harris Hall were removed or covered prior to the administration of the test. During Writer?s Camp, students practiced writing and did sample tests. As the camp progressed, certain pieces that were done by students were taped to the wall of Harris Hall, along with maps and materials related to local colleges and universities, and a large sign that said “Mapping Our Way to a “6”!” The papers and decorations from Writer?s Camp remained on the wall on the day of testing and after. As indicated previously, it is regarded as a sound practice for a school assessment coordinator to inspect the testing venue a day or two before the test, a practice acknowledged as appropriate by Mr. Scott. In that regard, the DOE Manual directs the school assessment coordinator as follows: “In your walk-through of the school prior to testing, check for and remove all unauthorized visual aids posted in classrooms or affixed to student desks.” Ms. Altman confirmed that it is the school assessment coordinator's responsibility to remove any unpermitted visual aid from the walls of the testing venue. As the trained school assessment coordinator, Ms. Williams was in the best position to recognize whether the papers and decorations were a problem, particularly since she had failed to conduct training for the test administrators and proctors that may have refreshed their knowledge of the issue. Ms. Williams testified that she could not inspect Harris Hall on the Monday prior to the test because students were, according to the schedule, having Writer?s Camp until 11:00 a.m. She testified that she could not perform her duty of walking through Harris Hall after Writer?s Camp was done for the day because “I believe I had a meeting off campus, so I was going to do things Tuesday morning.” That explanation is not credible. Ms. Williams met with Ms. Boney to discuss partitions, and distributed the DOE Manuals to test administrators on the Monday afternoon prior to the FCAT test. There was no suggestion that a purported “meeting off campus” interfered with those on-campus activities. The evidence demonstrates that Ms. Williams had time to inspect Harris Hall if she had been interested enough to do so. Instead, she neglected her duty to inspect Harris Hall in any meaningful or timely manner prior to testing. Ms. Williams stated that she had no time to notice the items on the wall upon her appearance in Harris Hall on February 28, 2012, because she was told by Ms. Sanders to leave. Ms. Williams? suggestion that in the few minutes before testing was to commence she could have performed all of her duties regarding the testing venue that she should have done days in advance is unrealistic and rejected. Furthermore, there was no testimony as to how the assembled students may have reacted to a rushed and hurried act of tearing down their work, but common sense suggests that it would have been distracting at best, and likely upsetting to some. The DOE Manual provides that it is the responsibility of the test administrator to: Remove or cover all visual aids on student desks or displayed in the room, including word lists, spelling lists, word definitions, punctuation charts, transitional devices, organizational patterns, etc. Students may not have access to any unauthorized aids. Discuss any concerns with your school assessment coordinator. Ms. Kennell stated that the materials were not something that would be used by a teacher for instructing children. She understood that there were to be no instructional materials on the walls, but saw no need to take down the papers and decorations. Ms. Nelson was in Harris Hall a few days before the administration of the FCAT test to make sure the room was ready for testing. Ms. Nelson could not recall what was on the walls, but had she seen anything inappropriate, she would have taken it down or covered it up. Ms. Boney testified that she thought the materials were testing violations, but did not see fit to remove them because “[i]t wasn't my duty to take them off.” Not only did Ms. Boney take no steps to act on her purported concern, she did not tell anyone of her belief that the papers and decorations might be a violation. When Ms. Sanders entered Harris Hall on the morning of the test, her purpose was to deliver her “pep talk” to the children and leave. She did not inspect the room, and did not notice what was on the walls. No one, including Ms. Boney, suggested to Ms. Sanders that there was anything posted that would have been a concern. Having had an opportunity to review the photographs of the papers and decorations, Ms. Sanders did not believe that they were instructional materials. Since the materials contained no information regarding the prompt that was to be the subject of the February 28, 2012, test, she saw no reason to believe that the papers would help the students to do well on the test. The papers and decorations from Writer?s Camp do not correspond to the examples of prohibited visual aids provided by the DOE, i.e., they were not word lists, spelling lists, word definitions, punctuation charts, transitional devices, or organizational patterns. The greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that the papers and decorations were not unauthorized visual aids. The School Board has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the materials on the walls were unauthorized visual aids, that Ms. Sanders ever saw the papers and decorations, or that Ms. Sanders, rather than the assessment coordinator or test administrators, was responsible for removing any such materials. Seating charts not properly maintained The Notice of Discipline alleged that Ms. Sanders failed to ensure that seating charts were properly maintained. The February 28, 2012 FCAT test was the first FCAT test for which student seating charts were required. During the pre-FCAT planning meeting that Ms. Williams chose to skip, the requirement that student seating charts were to be made by the test administrators was briefly discussed. Ms. Kennell testified that, despite her attendance at the pre-FCAT planning meeting, she was unaware that she had to do a seating chart because she had not received the required training from Ms. Williams. Mr. Scott testified convincingly that it is the responsibility of the school assessment coordinator to train the test administrators to make seating charts and turn them in with the completed tests, and that it is the responsibility of the school assessment coordinator to collect the seating charts at the end of testing. Ms. Williams admitted that it was purely her duty to communicate the need for seating charts to the teachers, and that she knew of nothing in the DOE Manual that created a duty on the part of a school principal to do anything with regard to seating charts. Ms. Williams did not train the test administrators to make seating charts, or to turn them in with the completed tests, nor did she collect the seating charts at the end of testing. Ms. Williams testified that she instructed the teachers “at least six times” to make sure that they prepared seating charts. Her testimony was not substantiated by any other witness, and the suggestion that she provided multiple instructions to the test administrators is not credible. The greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that Ms. Williams gave no instruction to the test administrators regarding seating charts. Ms. Nelson and Ms. Miller were able to glean sufficient information from the DOE Manual or otherwise to know that they were to prepare seating charts, and they did so. They did not, however, know enough to turn them in at the conclusion of testing with their testing materials. Mr. Bacca and Ms. Kennell did not maintain seating charts. On Friday, March 2, 2012, Ms. Williams administered the last of the make-up tests. As she prepared the tests and materials for submission to the DOE, she discovered that she did not have seating charts from any of the test administrators. She went to each of the four test administrators to ask for seating charts. Ms. Nelson and Ms. Miller gave her their charts. Mr. Bacca and Ms. Kennell did not have seating charts for the children in their classes. After make-up testing was complete, Ms. Turner was going to use the restroom located across the hall from Ms. Williams? office. Ms. Williams was having a discussion with one of the fourth-grade teachers about missing seating charts, and they made mention of the situation to Ms. Turner. Having never done a seating chart, and having not known of the requirement for seating charts until that moment, Ms. Turner advised Ms. Williams to figure out what she was supposed to do. Since she was not the school assessment coordinator or a test administrator, it was Ms. Turner?s expressed intent that the testing coordinator and the teachers having that knowledge figure out who was sitting where. Ms. Turner testified credibly that she did not suggest that Ms. Williams falsify the seating charts. Rather, she wanted it done accurately. In order to meet the requirement that she submit seating charts with the other test materials, Ms. Williams decided to make up seating charts “out of the clear blue sky.” As explanation for her falsification of the seating charts, Ms. Williams asserted that she was instructed to do so by Ms. Turner. The greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that Ms. Turner did not instruct Ms. Williams to fabricate seating charts, or to otherwise act improperly in their preparation. Ms. Turner never discussed the issue of the seating charts with Ms. Sanders. Ms. Altman testified candidly that she uncovered no evidence or suggestion that Ms. Sanders was aware of any inaccuracy or problem in the seating charts, or that Ms. Sanders was otherwise involved with them. Despite the complete lack of evidence against Ms. Sanders with regard to the seating charts, Mr. Scott testified, based solely on Ms. Williams? self-serving statements, that Ms. Williams fabricated seating charts “at the request of Administration, from my understanding.” Mr. Scott never interviewed Ms. Turner or anyone else from “Administration” who may have had information regarding such a serious allegation. The undersigned would have not the least bit of hesitation in recommending the most severe sanctions available if the evidence suggested that Ms. Sanders, or any other person in authority, instructed Ms. Williams -- either directly or by any reasonable implication -- to falsify records. However, the preponderance of competent, substantial, and credible evidence in this case demonstrates that such an instruction was never given. Rather, when asked to perform her duty as the school assessment coordinator to see to it that seating charts were provided, Ms. Williams accomplished that task by simply making them up. The School Board has alleged that Ms. Sanders failed to properly maintain seating charts for the FCAT test. The School Board has failed to prove the allegation by a preponderance of the competent, substantial, and credible evidence. School assessment coordinator not able to supervise make-up administrations The Notice of Discipline alleged that Ms. Sanders prevented Ms. Williams from being able to supervise make-up FCAT test administrations. After having departed for the day on February 28, 2012, Ms. Williams e-mailed Ms. Sanders to ask if she could come back, finish the make-ups, and pack up tests. Ms. Sanders responded in the affirmative. In general, it was Ms. Sanders? expectation that Ms. Williams would make sure everything for the FCAT test was properly done and turned in. Ms. Nelson administered a make-up test on the morning of February 29, 2012. Ms. Williams should have, and could have, been on campus for that test but elected not to return since all of the make-up tests had not been completed. Ms. Williams? decision was hers, not Ms. Sanders?. Ms. Williams attended a training off-campus on March 1, 2012. She returned to campus and administered a make- up test on the morning of March 2, 2012. She thereupon packed up and delivered the testing materials to the district office. The evidence does not support a finding that Ms. Sanders either prevented or discouraged Ms. Williams from supervising make-up FCAT test administrations on February 29, 2012, or otherwise. The School Board has alleged that the actions of Ms. Sanders resulted in the inability of the school assessment coordinator to supervise make-up test administrations. The School Board has failed to prove the allegation by a preponderance of the competent, substantial, and credible evidence. No training for test administrators or proctors The Notice of Discipline alleged that Ms. Sanders failed to ensure that test administrators and proctors received training. The DOE Manual provides that it is the responsibility of the district assessment coordinator to “ensure that all school administrators, school assessment coordinators, test administrators and proctors receive adequate training prior to test administration.” The district assessment coordinator failed to ensure that such training occurred. The DOE Manual further provides that the school assessment coordinator is responsible for training all test administrators and proctors. The evidence demonstrates that Ms. Williams did not offer or perform training for test administrators and proctors. Neither the DOE Manual nor any other cited authority makes it the duty or responsibility of a school principal to conduct or ensure that test administrators and proctors have received training. Training of school assessment coordinators was held in mid-January, 2013 for the test to be administered in late February. The idea behind offering training well in advance is to provide plenty of time to prepare for the FCAT test and conduct the test properly. Ms. Kennell and Ms. Boney testified that training of test administrators and proctors is usually done weeks before the test. In her February 22, 2012, e-mail, Ms. Williams asked Ms. Sanders to help her to make arrangements for training. Ms. Sanders offered the modest assistance of Ms. Nelson and Ms. Turner. There is no evidence that such assistance was not provided. Under no reasonable assessment of the facts can Ms. Sanders? response to Ms. Williams be construed as an assumption of the duties of the school assessment coordinator to train test administrators and proctors. In lieu of training, Ms. Williams intended to provide copies of the DOE Manual to the fourth-grade teachers on the Friday before testing so they could read them over the weekend. She did not do so, blaming her neglect on Ms. Turner?s alleged -- but unsubstantiated -- failure to advise teachers and proctors to pick up manuals from Ms. Williams on that Friday. No test administrator or proctor received training from Ms. Williams. All Ms. Williams did to fulfill her duty was to give the test administrators copies of the DOE Manual on the afternoon before the FCAT test. The test administrators were thereafter left to their own devices. Ms. Kennell, who left campus on Monday afternoon before school let out, did not receive the DOE Manual until the morning of the FCAT test, and did not have an opportunity to read it. In her view, things were rushed and last minute. The evidence suggests that Ms. Williams did not give the test proctors, who were also entitled to training, a copy of the DOE Manual. Despite meeting with Ms. Williams on the afternoon of February 27, 2012 regarding partitions, Ms. Boney did not receive a DOE Manual or even minimal training. All Ms. Boney received was the “booklet” that she was to pass along to Ms. Kennell. Ms. Williams testified that she typed up “brief training notes,” and gave them to the test administrators along with the DOE Manuals. No other witness mentioned having received training notes. No training notes were introduced as evidence. The contents of the training notes were not described. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that training notes were not provided to test administrators. What is clear is that Ms. Williams failed to take any initiative to perform even the most rudimentary “training,” and made no meaningful effort to timely provide DOE Manuals to the test administrators and proctors, as was her job. Her failure in that regard was in spite of, and not because of, Ms. Sanders? offer of assistance. The evidence is overwhelming that Ms. Williams, due to her own neglect, failed to provide the training that was her responsibility under the DOE Manual. No one advised Ms. Sanders that Ms. Williams had not provided training. Ms. Altman, relying exclusively on Ms. Williams? account, concluded that Ms. Sanders and Ms. Nelson had prevented Ms. Williams from conducting the training. That conclusion was drawn without having interviewed Ms. Sanders or Ms. Nelson regarding FCAT training. The investigatory conclusion that Ms. Sanders prevented, prohibited, or blocked Ms. Williams from conducting FCAT training is not supported by a shred of competent, substantial, and credible evidence. Furthermore, the suggestion that Ms. Sanders either knew of or was responsible for Ms. Williams? misfeasance is without evidentiary support. The School Board has alleged that Ms. Sanders failed to properly adhere to the requirement in the DOE Manual regarding training for test administrators and proctors. The School Board has failed to prove the allegation by a preponderance of the competent, substantial, and credible evidence. Allegation of Failing to Report Violations that were Known to Respondent at the Time of the Administration of the Test The Notice of Discipline alleged that Ms. Sanders “failed to report violations that were known to [Ms. Sanders] at the time of the administration of the test.” The evidence in this case, as recited herein, does not support a finding that Ms. Sanders failed to report violations of FCAT testing standards that were known to her at the time of the administration of the test. Ms. Sanders appointed a school assessment coordinator who, based on past performance, she trusted to competently perform her duties. Except with regard to the disputed issue of the need for partitions -- an issue that was not proven to be a violation -- no issue regarding Ms. Williams? concerns with testing conditions, or of her neglect and malfeasance regarding the FCAT test, were brought to the attention of Ms. Sanders by the faculty or staff of Windy Hill. Ms. Sanders? understanding of testing violations, until her receipt of the Notice of Discipline, was limited to the allegation that Mr. Bacca had learned of and divulged the testing prompt, an allegation that was brought to her attention after-the-fact by Mr. Scott and Ms. Altman. Ms. Sanders knew of no irregularities in the administration of the February 28, 2012, FCAT test at the time of the administration of the test. The suggestion that Ms. Sanders had taken over the duties of the school assessment coordinator, and that knowledge of alleged testing violations should be therefore imputed to her, is not supported by any competent, substantial, and credible evidence. The School Board has failed to prove by a preponderance of the competent, substantial, and credible evidence that Ms. Sanders failed to report violations that were known to her at the time of the administration of the test. Allegation that Respondent Made Inappropriate Comments to Staff Regarding the Investigation of the Reported Violations The Notice of Discipline alleged that Ms. Sanders “made inappropriate comments to staff regarding the investigation of the reported violations.” On or about March 6, 2012, Ms. Altman advised Ms. Sanders of the investigation. She did not reveal the precise nature or target(s) of the investigation, only that it involved teacher improprieties related to the administration of the FCAT test. March 7, 2012, was an early release day. After students were released for the day, Ms. Sanders attended a regularly scheduled early-release staff meeting. All teachers were required to attend. The allegation that Respondent made inappropriate statements to staff came as the result of her statements at the faculty staff meeting. Since the School Board did not specify what comments were “inappropriate,” or what might make a comment “inappropriate,” the allegation is so vague and non-specific as to raise issues of a lack of meaningful notice and due process. However, having heard the recording of the meeting, reviewed the transcript, and taken testimony from attendees, the undersigned is prepared to make findings as to whether any comment might reasonably be construed as “inappropriate,” given the facts of this case. Ms. Sanders was never interviewed about her allegedly threatening and inappropriate comments. The staff meeting was taped by one of the attendees. Thus, a record of exactly what was said and not said was available. Ms. Altman testified that she learned of the recording during the investigatory interviews, and spoke to the person who had the recording. However, in one of the more baffling elements of the investigation, neither Mr. Scott nor Ms. Altman obtained a copy of the recording, and never listened to it before making their conclusions as to what was said by Ms. Sanders. Thus, Mr. Scott and Ms. Altman proceeded to form conclusions regarding statements made at the meeting without any reference to the available best evidence of that meeting. Comments Regarding Discussions of the Investigation, and Progressive Discipline for a Violation While she was on the Windy Hill campus conducting interviews, Ms. Altman advised Ms. Sanders that she should instruct her staff that they were not to discuss the investigation, and that progressive discipline could result if they discussed the investigation. Ms. Altman testified that she intended Ms. Sanders to advise only the handful of teachers that had been interviewed that they were not to discuss the investigation. Ms. Sanders testified that she understood Ms. Altman?s advice to be that she was “to pull my staff together and have a conversation with them about an open investigation and that -- how serious that was and that they were not to talk about [the] open investigation.” Ms. Sanders? interpretation was reasonable. She thereafter complied with Ms. Altman?s advice. When Ms. Sanders appeared at the staff meeting, she was very emotional as a result of the allegations directed towards the fourth-grade teachers. She expressed her trust that the fourth-grade teachers had done nothing improper, and asked the faculty to rally their support. Ms. Sanders dutifully related Ms. Altman?s instruction that faculty members were not to discuss the investigation. Ms. Sanders included co-workers, friends, and family in her admonition. The instruction that faculty could not discuss the matter with family members may have been overly restrictive, but it was not improper or inappropriate. Ms. Sanders believed it to be warranted, given the seriousness of the allegations, and it was a restriction that she complied with herself. Ms. Sanders also related Ms. Altman?s instruction that discussing the investigation could result in progressive discipline. Progressive discipline is a means of administering discipline in steps, starting with a verbal warning, then a written reprimand, proceeding to suspension, and eventually termination. Based on her knowledge of other investigations, Ms. Sanders viewed the instruction provided to the faculty as a first-step verbal warning of the prohibited conduct. She understood that a breach of the prohibition would thus be subject to discipline at the next step. Ms. Sanders? expression of her understanding, which was given in an effort to keep her teachers from getting into trouble, was not inappropriate. Due to the vagueness of the School Board allegation, certain of the conclusions and statements referenced in the investigative report and witness testimony must be addressed. Ms. Boney testified that Ms. Sanders privately asked her to pray before the staff meeting, and publically asked her to pray at the end of the meeting. Ms. Sanders did not corroborate Ms. Boney?s testimony regarding a pre-meeting prayer, and such a private request -- if made -- was not during the faculty meeting and would not support the allegation as pled. The recording of the faculty meeting, which is the best evidence of the meeting, provides no evidence of a request having been made during the meeting. Thus, the allegation that Ms. Sanders asked Ms. Boney to pray, such as it is, is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Ms. Williams testified that Ms. Sanders stated that “nothing was anonymous and she would find out who made the phone call.” A simple review of the recording would have revealed her statement to be false. Ms. Sanders commented on the fact that the complaint was made anonymously, and stated her understanding that calls made to the district office were not anonymous to the district because the district used caller ID. Contrary to Ms. Williams? account, Ms. Sanders plainly stated during the meeting that “I don?t know who the individual is, and, frankly, I don?t want to know . . . . And they?re not going to tell me who it is. . .” Furthermore, the meeting concluded with her stating that “[t]his is not going to become a witch hunt. This is no longer about the person who called in the report. We?re going to walk out this door and get back up because what?s done is done.” Thus, any suggestion that Ms. Sanders intended to ferret out the source of the phone call as stated by Ms. Williams is completely unfounded. Ms. Kennell testified that Ms. Sanders said that if any “snoops” came on campus, the teachers should not talk to them but should ask for a lawyer, a statement that was memorialized in the investigative report. The statement has no basis in fact. The instruction given by Ms. Sanders was clearly that staff was not to discuss the investigation with “family, your friends, your neighbors,” or with other staff members. There was no reference to lawyers at all. Having listened to the recording and read the transcript, and having heard testimony from attendees, the undersigned finds nothing to support that Ms. Sanders suggested in any way that staff was not to cooperate with the investigation. Ms. Young testified that “some of the comments were inappropriate . . . the tone of the conversation and certainly that the way the message was received by those who have shared this information was very threatening.” Although she read the transcript,6/ Ms. Young admitted that she had not listened to the recording of the meeting. She was therefore in no position to gain a sense of the tone of the conversation. Had she listened to the recording, she would have heard expressions of support and determination, laughter, and positive comments from a faculty faced with difficult circumstances. While Ms. Sanders was emotional and upset, and tended to repeatedly drive home Ms. Altman?s instructions, her comments, taken in their entirety and in context were not inappropriate or threatening. If some perceived Ms. Sanders? comments as threatening, it was not due to the substance or delivery of the comments themselves. Ms. Young also testified that Ms. Sanders? statements caused “great concern by the teachers that there would be some type of retribution.” There is no evidence whatsoever in the record of this proceeding that would support an attribution of retaliatory intent or conduct on the part of Ms. Sanders, and the suggestion that faculty members had legitimate and well- founded fears of retaliation is rejected. The allegation regarding Ms. Sanders? statements at the March 7, 2012, faculty meeting appears to be directed to the supposition that she made her statements with the intent to intimidate staff or to discourage others from reporting illegal conduct regarding the FCAT. That conclusion cannot be reasonably drawn from the record. Having heard the recording of the meeting, and the testimony of the participants, it is clear that Ms. Sanders delivered an accurate accounting of what she had been told to do by Ms. Altman. There is no competent, substantial, and credible evidence in the record of this proceeding that Ms. Sanders would not cooperate, or would encourage others to not cooperate with the investigation. Furthermore, if staff was “intimidated,” their intimidation was due to their own subjective but incorrect impressions of Ms. Sanders? comments. The School Board has alleged that Ms. Sanders made inappropriate comments to staff regarding a prohibition against discussing the investigation, and the discipline for a breach of the prohibition. The School Board has failed to prove the allegation by a preponderance of the competent, substantial, and credible evidence. Comments Regarding Ms. Sanders? Faith, including Biblical References The School Board also appears to contend that Ms. Sanders? references to her faith, including recitation of verses from the Bible, constituted a violation of standards applicable to school administrators. How such comments might be construed as being ones “regarding the investigation of the reported violations” is unclear. In any event, both Mr. Scott and Ms. Young testified that references to religion and scripture at a faculty staff meeting were “inappropriate.” The only standard referenced in the Notice of Discipline to which a reference to one?s faith and to scripture might reasonably apply is rule 6B-1.001(3), which has since been transferred to rule 6A-10.080(3), and which provides that: Aware of the importance of maintaining the respect and confidence of one?s colleagues, of students, of parents, and of other members of the community, the educator strives to achieve and sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct. Thus, the School Board?s allegation suggests that Ms. Sanders? references to her faith and scripture was conduct that was, to a degree, unethical. The March 7, 2012, faculty staff meeting, coming close on the heels of her being notified of the allegation that a member or members of her staff had been alleged to have cheated in the administration of the FCAT, was a troubling matter for Ms. Sanders. Ms. Sanders acknowledged that she was very emotional by what she perceived as an unwarranted complaint against a group that she regarded as her “family.” She expressed concern not only for the fourth-grade teachers involved, but for the effect that allegations of cheating would have on the students at Windy Hill. In dealing with the issue, Ms. Sanders presented a description of her beliefs. She made it clear that she was not trying to tell anyone what to believe, but was offering it “because this is the only way I know that I can do this job everyday.” The context and words of her comments made it clear that she was not proselytizing. Rather, as stated by Ms. Sanders, “it was not to persuade them. It was to let them know this is bad, I'm upset, you're upset . . . . But this is who I am. If you don't believe what I believe, that's okay.” The undersigned recognizes the historical precedent and importance of the doctrine generally known as the separation of church and state, which derives from the establishment clause of the United States Constitution7/ and the Florida Constitution.8/ The question in this case, however, is not whether Ms. Sanders? comments may have violated the establishment clause -- a question best suited for resolution by the judicial branch -- but whether a non-proselytizing reference to one?s faith and to scripture, delivered in a meeting of adult faculty and in the context of a trying and emotional occurrence, results in a conclusion that an educator has failed to strive to “achieve and sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct” so as to warrant the imposition of disciplinary sanctions. Ms. Sanders stated that, she had done the best of her ability to handle a very difficult situation. It is clear that her quoting of scripture was not intended to bring anyone to her point of view. Though her emotion and concerns could have, and perhaps should have, been channeled differently, neither the substance nor the delivery of her comments at the March 7, 2012, faculty meeting was “inappropriate” under the circumstances, nor were they less than “ethical conduct.” The School Board has alleged that Ms. Sanders made inappropriate comments to staff regarding the investigation of the reported violations as a result of her references to her faith and to scripture so as to violate applicable provisions of the Code of Ethics. The School Board has failed to prove the allegation by a preponderance of the competent, substantial, and credible evidence. Violations of the Code of Ethics Rule 6B-1.001(2) The Notice of Discipline alleged that Ms. Sanders violated rule 6B-1.001(2), which has been transferred and now exists as rule 6A-10.080(2). That rule provides that: The educator?s primary professional concern will always be for the student and for the development of the student?s potential. The educator will therefore strive for professional growth and will seek to exercise the best professional judgment and integrity. Given the complete record of this proceeding, including the findings of fact herein, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that Ms. Sanders? actions were motivated by her professional and personal concern for the students at Windy Hill, particularly those involved in the FCAT test. The greater weight of the evidence also demonstrates that Ms. Sanders? actions with regard to the February 28, 2012, FCAT test and the subsequent investigation of alleged testing irregularities constituted a reasonable and appropriate exercise of her best professional judgment and integrity. There is no competent, substantial and credible evidence to the contrary. The School Board has alleged that Ms. Sanders failed to direct her primary professional concern to the students at Windy Hill and for the development of the students? potential, and that she failed to exercise her best professional judgment and integrity. The School Board has failed to prove the allegation by a preponderance of the competent, substantial, and credible evidence. Rule 6B-1.001(3) The Notice of Discipline alleged that Ms. Sanders violated rule 6B-1.001(3), which has been transferred and now exists as rule 6A-10.080(3). That rule provides that: Aware of the importance of maintaining the respect and confidence of one?s colleagues, of students, of parents, and of other members of the community, the educator strives to achieve and sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct. Given the complete record of this proceeding, including the findings of fact herein, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that, with regard to the February 28, 2012, FCAT test and the subsequent investigation of alleged testing irregularities, Ms. Sanders acted in a manner that was designed to, and did, achieve and sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct. There is no competent, substantial and credible evidence to the contrary. Given the facts of this case, there is no reason why Ms. Sanders should not have the respect and confidence of her colleagues, of students, of parents, and of other members of the community. The School Board has alleged that Ms. Sanders failed to achieve and sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct, and that her actions resulted in a loss of the respect and confidence of her colleagues, of students, of parents, and of other members of the community. The School Board has failed to prove the allegation by a preponderance of the competent, substantial, and credible evidence. Conclusion The School Board failed to prove the allegations in the Notice of Discipline by a preponderance of competent, substantial evidence. Ms. Sanders did everything expected or required of a principal in administering the FCAT test and in responding to allegations of irregularities. She was, however, faced with a school assessment coordinator who thoroughly neglected her duties, and who was all too willing to deflect personal responsibility for her failings onto others. Far from trying to find a scapegoat, Ms. Sanders? defense of the allegations in this case was warranted and effective. Thus, the Notice of Discipline and other charges that form the basis of this proceeding should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Duval County School Board, enter a final order dismissing the Notice of Discipline in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of August, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of August, 2013.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent may place on probation for 2017 Petitioner's approved program offering an associate's degree in nursing (ADN) due to the failure of its relevant graduates to achieve the required passing rate on the nursing licensing examination for 2015 and 2016.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner operates an ADN program. Graduates of Petitioner's ADN program are eligible to take the NCLEX, which, if passed, renders them eligible for nursing licensure. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, Respondent is required to penalize any approved program whose first-time test takers taking the NCLEX within six months of graduation fail to achieve a minimum passing rate. The minimum passing rate is ten points less than the first-time test taker average (National Test Taker Average) announced by the National Council of State Boards of Nursing (Council). The first full year that Petitioner's graduates took the NCLEX was 2015. For 2015, the National Test Taker Average for ADN graduates was 82%. For 2016, the National Test Taker Average for ADN graduates was 81.68%. For 2015, ten first-time test takers of the NCLEX who had graduated from Petitioner's approved program passed out of 73 such takers. For 2016, 13 first-time test takers of the NCLEX who had graduated from Petitioner's approved program passed out of 143 such takers. The passing rates were thus 15.07% for 2015 and 9.1% for 2016. During the years at issue, Florida law restricted the calculation of passing rates of first-time test takers to persons who took the NCLEX within six months of graduation. The Council obtains and reports, by test taker, the graduation month and year, but not the day, month, and year. Respondent obtains graduation dates only of applicants to take the NCLEX in Florida. However, through discovery in this case, Respondent obtained exact graduation dates of a sufficient number of the relevant test takers to meet the applicable evidentiary standard. As adjusted for test takers taking the NCLEX within six months of graduation, the passing rate of Petitioner's relevant graduates in 2015 was 22.58%. There were two students for whom precise graduate dates could not be obtained; one student passed the NCLEX and one student failed the NCLEX. If the figures include the student who passed, but not the student who failed, the adjusted passing rate of Petitioner's relevant graduates in 2015 was 25%. Making the same adjustment for one student who failed the NCLEX and for whom a precise graduation date is unavailable, the adjusted passing rate of Petitioner's relevant graduates in 2016 was 12.5%. By clear and convincing evidence, Respondent has proved that graduates of Petitioner's approved program taking the NCLEX for the first time and within six months of graduation did not come anywhere near passing the NCLEX at the statutory minimum rates for 2015 and 2016.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Nursing enter a final order placing Petitioner's approved program on probation for 2017. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of April, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 24th day of April, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Diane L. Guillemette, Esquire Deborah Bartholow Loucks, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 (eServed) Lynette Norr, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 (eServed) Gregory M. Ochalek, Esquire Law Offices of Gregory M. Ochalek, PLLC 19553 Northwest Second Avenue, Suite 217 Miami Gardens, Florida 33169-3366 (eServed) Joe Baker, Jr., Executive Director Board of Nursing Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3252 (eServed) Nichole C. Geary, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 (eServed) Jody Bryant Newman, EdD, EdS, Board Chair Board of Nursing Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin D-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
