11-000943TTS Miami-Dade County School Board vs. Lisa Parker
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Friday, February 15, 2013.


View Dockets  
Summary: Thirty-day suspension recommended for a lead staffing specialist who failed to follow policies in determining a student's eligibility for ESE services and in drafting two IEPs.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8MIAMI-DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, Petitioner, )

14)

15vs. )

17)

18LISA PARKER, ) Case No. 11-0943TTS

24)

25Respondent. )

27)

28)

29)

30RECOMMENDED ORDER

32Pursuant to notice, a formal administrative hearing was

40conducted by in Miami, Florida, on May 14-16 and June 12-14,

512012, before Administrative Law Judge Claude B. Arrington of the

61Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH).

66APPEARANCES

67For Petitioner: Christopher J. La Piano, Esquire

74Miami-Dade County School Board

78Suite 430

801450 Northeast Second Avenue

84Miami, Florida 33132

87For Respondent: Maria del Carmen Calzon, Esquire

94Suite 249

961825 Ponce de Leon Boulevard

101Coral Gables, Florida 33134

105STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

109Whether Lisa Parker (Respondent) committed the acts alleged

117in the Miami-Dade County School Board's (School Board) Notice of

127Specific Charges and, if so, the discipline that should be

137imposed against Respondent's employment.

141PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

143Respondent is a lead staffing specialist with the Miami-

152Dade County School Board's Exceptional Student Education (ESE)

160program. At the times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent's

169supervisor was a woman who will be referred to as Ms. S.-N. in

182an effort to protect the privacy of Ms. S.-N.'s daughter, S.N.

193The School Board seeks to terminate Respondent's employment.

201At its regularly scheduled meeting on February 9, 2011, the

211School Board took action to suspend Respondent's employment

219without pay and institute this proceeding to terminate her

228employment. Respondent timely challenged the School Board's

235action, the matter was referred to DOAH, and this proceeding

245followed. On March 25, 2011, the School Board filed with DOAH

256its Notice of Specific Charges.

261The Notice of Specific Charges alleged certain facts, and,

270based on those facts, alleged in five separate counts that

280Respondent was guilty of (I) misconduct in office, (II)

289immorality, (III) violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21

297relating to Responsibilities and Duties of School Board

305employees, (IV) violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.213

313relating to the Code of Ethics, and (V) School Board Rule 6Gx13-

3254A-1.212 relating to Conflict of Interests. The Notice of

334Specific Charges relied on the provisions of sections

3421001.32(2), 1022.22(1)(f), 1022.33(1)(a) and (6)(a), and

348447.209, Florida Statutes (2010), and Florida Administrative

355Code Rules 6B-1.001, 6B-1.006, and 6B-4.009.

361The gravamen of the Notice of Specific Charges is that

371Respondent improperly assisted Ms. S.-N. in creating and

379expediting a purposely flawed Individual Education Plan (IEP)

387and a Matrix of Services form for Ms. S.-N.'s benefit in

398securing a McKay Scholarship for her daughter, S.N. 1 /

408Paragraphs 8-13 of the Notice of Specific Charges contain

417the following factual allegations:

4218. The McKay Scholarship Program is

427administered by the Florida Department of

433Education's (hereafter "FDOE"), Office of

439Independent Education and Parental Choice.

444The Scholarship allows parents of students

450with disabilities multiple options to choose

456the best academic environment for their

462child, including, inter alia, an opportunity

468to receive tuition monies to attend a

475participating private school.

4789. As a staffing specialist Respondent is

485charged with the duty of ensuring compliance

492with Federal statutes, State statutes, and

498School Board rules concerning exceptional

503student education (hereinafter "ESE" or

"508SPED").

51010. Respondent also oversees and

515participates in the creation of Individual

521Education Plans (herein after "IEP's") for

528students with disabilities. These IEP's are

534used to determine eligibility for McKay

540Scholarships.

54111. On or about October 2008, Respondent's

548supervisor and long time friend, [Ms. S.-

555N.], enlisted Respondent to aid in the

562expedited preparation of an IEP for her

569daughter, S.N., for purposes of obtaining a

576McKay Scholarship to pay for S.N.'s private

583school tuition.

58512. Respondent served as the Local

591Educational Agency's (hereinafter "LEA")

596representative for purposes of creating the

602IEP.

60313. The Respondent knew or should have

610known that the IEP development process was

617flawed and did not comply with the law or

626established School Board policies and

631procedures.

632At the final hearing, the School Board presented the

641testimony of Jesse Bernstein, Respondent Lisa Parker, Lawrence

649Davidson, Dr. Yolando Sklar, Mark Finkelstein, Dr. Garnett

657Reynolds, Will Gordillo, Dr. Richard Rosen, Dr. Sue Buslinger-

666Clifford, Laura Harrison, Jesus Aviles, and Edna Waxman.

674Ms. Waxman testified during the School Board's case in chief and

685as a rebuttal witness. The parties stipulated to and the

695undersigned took official recognition of the relevant statutes

703and rules. Petitioner's pre-marked Exhibits 1, 6-8, 16-18, and

71220-22 were admitted into evidence by stipulation. Petitioner's

720pre-marked Exhibits 2, 9-14, 19, and 24 were also admitted into

731evidence.

732Respondent testified on her own behalf and presented the

741additional testimony of Dr. Laurie Karpf, Udyss Romano, S.N.,

750and Tanya Jackson. Respondent's pre-marked Exhibits 29, 73, 82,

75986, 102, 103, 108, 130-132, and 154 were admitted into evidence.

770A Transcript of the proceedings, consisting of eight

778volumes, was filed on November 6, 2012. The deadline for the

789filing of Proposed Recommended Orders was extended twice on

798unopposed motions. Thereafter, each party timely filed a

806Proposed Recommended Order, which has been duly considered by

815the undersigned in the preparation of this Recommended Order.

824Unless otherwise noted, all statutory references are to

832Florida Statutes (2012), and all references to rules are to the

843version thereof in effect as of the entry of this Recommended

854Order.

855FINDINGS OF FACT

8581. At all times material hereto, Petitioner was the

867constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and

874supervise the public schools in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

8822. Respondent has been employed by the School Board since

8921986. During the time relevant to this proceeding, Respondent

901was the lead staffing specialist for the School Board's ESE

911program in Region I.

9153. During the 2008-2009 school year, Michael J. Krop Sr.

925High School (Krop) was a school for which Respondent had

935responsibility.

9364. The School Board's ESE program provides services to

945students who are determined eligible for such services. The

954eligibility determination is made by a staffing committee

962consisting of a minimum of three School Board professional

971employees.

9725. The School Board has adopted the following procedure

981pertaining to the eligibility staffing committee 2 / :

990A staffing committee, utilizing the process

996of reviewing student data including but not

1003limited to diagnostic, evaluation,

1007educational, or social data, determines a

1013student's eligibility. A minimum of three

1019(3) professional personnel, one (1) of whom

1026is the district administrator of exceptional

1032students or designee, meet as a staffing

1039committee. For students being considered

1044for eligibility as a student with a

1051disability, the parent is invited to

1057participate in this meeting . . . .

10656. If a student is determined to be eligible for services

1076through the ESE program, an IEP team is assembled to conduct an

1088IEP meeting and to prepare an IEP for the student. The parents

1100of the student are entitled to attend the IEP meeting as part of

1113the IEP team. A local education agency (LEA) representative is

1123a required member of an IEP team. The other required members of

1135the IEP are a general education teacher, a special education

1145teacher, and an evaluation specialist. 3 / Relevant to this

1155proceeding, a general education teacher and an evaluation

1163specialist can be excused from the IEP meeting before the close

1174of the meeting.

11777. The members of a staffing committee that determines

1186eligibility can also constitute the members of an IEP team. An

1197eligibility determination is frequently made with an IEP team

1206meeting ensuing immediately thereafter. There is nothing

1213unusual about an eligibility determination and an initial IEP

1222being accomplished on the same day.

12288. "Specific learning disability" and "other health

1235impaired" are two categories that qualify a student for ESE

1245services. 4 /

12489. School-based staffing specialists are assigned to

1255schools to hold staffing meetings to determine eligible for

1264services from the ESE program, and to write an IEP for a student

1277found to be eligible. Generally, a lead staffing specialist is

1287a position of support for school-based staffing specialists in

1296the areas of organization, scheduling, and compliance with

1304relevant substantive and procedural requirements of the

1311Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Florida Statutes,

1318and rules. A lead staffing specialist also provides

1326professional development to school-based personnel through in-

1333service training and individual support to schools. A lead

1342staffing specialist is responsible for ensuring that eligibility

1350determinations were based on adequate documentation in a timely

1359fashion.

136010. On June 27, 2008, the School Board published a

"1370Memorandum" that solicited applicants for the position of "lead

1379staffing specialist." That Memorandum contained the following

1386under the heading "Job Responsibilities Include":

1393Serve as the Local Education Agency (LEA)

1400Representative of the Multi-Disciplinary

1404Team for eligibility, placement and

1409dismissal decisions for students in the

1415least restrictive environment.

1418Collect and review staffing data and

1424allocation of personnel to facilitate

1429adherence to required procedures and

1434timelines for staffings.

1437Assist the SPED Instructional Supervisor in

1443monitoring unit allocations, program

1447enrollment and suspension and inclusion

1452percentages.

1453Demonstrate knowledge in procedural

1457safeguards, due process and mediation

1462procedures.

1463Consult with the Regional Center SPED

1469Instructional Supervisors to resolve issues

1474related to the provision of programs and

1481services to individual students.

1485Provide on-site technical assistance to

1490teachers, administrators and support

1494personnel in areas involving program

1499planning, curriculum and instructional

1503techniques for students.

1506Provide program assistance to parents and

1512community agencies. Identify school needs

1517regarding enrollment, unit allocation,

1521equipment, materials and transportation.

1525Plan and conduct regularly scheduled staff

1531meetings to maintain communication and

1536provide for the dissemination of

1541information.

1542Serve as the Region Center SPED

1548Instructional Supervisor's designee in the

1553identification and resolution of problems,

1558issues and concerns related to special

1564education services.

156611. When necessary, a lead staffing specialist is also

1575expected to serve as the LEA representative at a school-based

1585staffing to determine a student's eligibility for services from

1594the ESE program and to participate in the preparation of an IEP

1606as a member of the IEP team.

161312. A lead staffing specialist who serves as the LEA at an

1625initial eligibility meeting or an IEP meeting is charged with

1635ensuring that the School Board's policies are followed and that

1645all necessary documentation is obtained. It is the School

1654Board's responsibility to ensure that its policies comply with

1663all applicable Federal and Florida statutes and rules.

167113. The LEA at an IEP meeting has the responsibility of

1682preparing a Matrix of Services form based on the services

1692provided by the IEP. The completion of the form results in the

1704generation of a number that is used to determine the level of

1716funding the School Board receives for the student. For ease of

1727reference, that number will be referred to as the matrix number.

1738A higher matrix number generates more funding than a lower

1748number. A matrix number is also used to determine the level of

1760funding for a McKay Scholarship. Again, a higher matrix number

1770will result in greater funding.

177514. Respondent has been adequately trained in the

1783procedures for determining eligibility for ESE program services,

1791for the completion of IEPs, and for the completion of Matrix of

1803Service forms.

180515. At the times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. S.-N.

1815served as the School Board's Instructional Supervisor of ESE and

1825was Respondent's direct supervisor. In addition to their

1833professional relationship, Ms. S.-N. and Respondent had been

1841close personal friends for over 25 years at the time of the

1853formal hearing. S.N. is the daughter of Ms. S.-N..

186216. At the request of Ms. S.-N., Respondent served as the

1873LEA for the eligibility staffing and subsequent creation of an

1883IEP for S.N. at Krop on October 15, 2008. Also at Ms. S.-N.'s

1896request, Respondent served as the LEA on an IEP team that

1907prepared a second IEP for S.N. on February 9, 2009.

191717. Prior to the eligibility determination on October 15,

19262008, S.N. was a student at American Heritage Academy, a private

1937school in Plantation, Broward County, Florida.

194318. Prior to the eligibility determination, Dr. Laurie

1951Karpf, a psychiatrist, had diagnosed S.N. with attention deficit

1960hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and mood disorder, NOS (not

1968otherwise specified). Dr. Karpf prescribed for S.N. medication

1976to treat ADHD. 5 /

198119. Prior to the eligibility determination, Dr. Garnett

1989Reynolds, a speech and language pathologist employed by the

1998School Board, screened S.N. to determine whether S.N. had speech

2008or hearing deficits. Dr. Reynolds determined that S.N. had no

2018such deficits. Dr. Reynolds did not participate further in the

2028eligibility determination or in drafting either IEP at issue.

203720. On August 22, 2008, Dr. Yolanda Sklar, a school

2047psychologist employed by the School Board, evaluated S.N. at the

2057request of Ms. S.-N. Because S.N. was enrolled in a private

2068school in Broward County, Dr. Sklar conducted the evaluation in

2078her capacity as a "clinical psychologist," using the DSM-IV

2087model, as opposed to the capacity as a school psychologist using

2098School Board protocols.

210121. Dr. Sklar's report stated the following as the "Reason

2111for Referral":

2114[S.N.] is a 15 year, nine month old female

2123who was referred for a psychological

2129evaluation for reasons of academic

2134difficulties in school. [S.] is enrolled in

2141tenth grade at American Heritage School.

2147Information was requested regarding [S.'s]

2152level of intellectual functioning, academic

2157achievement, and her learning aptitude in

2163order to address the possibility of learning

2170disabilities. [S.] presents with a history

2176of attentional difficulties and academic

2181problems in school. She has struggled

2187throughout her schooling years, but her

2193difficulties in school have become more

2199evident at the higher grades, with higher

2206academic demands and expectations. [S.]

2211also has Attention Deficit Disorder. She is

2218currently on medication (Focalin) for

2223treatment of attentional difficulties and

2228she appears to be responding well to the

2236medication. The purpose of this evaluation

2242is to provide diagnostic clarification and

2248assist with determination of [S.'s]

2253educational needs. Recommendations are

2257provided based on [S.'s] learning abilities

2263and her instructional needs in order to

2270insure her academic potential and her

2276success in school.

227922. Ms. S.-N. had, at times, been Dr. Sklar's direct

2289supervisor. Dr. Sklar felt intimated when Ms. S.-N. requested

2298that she evaluate S.N. Nevertheless, Dr. Sklar's report and her

2308testimony at the formal hearing established that she evaluated

2317S.N. in a thorough and professional manner.

232423. Dr. Sklar administered to S.N. the following tests:

2333Wechsler Intelligence Scale for

2337Children-IV

2338Woodcock-Johnson-III Tests of Achievement

2342Woodcock-Johnson-III Tests of Cognitive Ability

2347Beery Developmental Test of Visual- Motor Integration-V

2354Behavior Assessment System for

2358Children, Parent Rating

2361Behavior Assessment System for

2365Children, Self-Report

2367Sentence Completion Test-Adolescent

2370Clinical Interview and Observations

237424. Dr. Sklar's report contained the following "Summary

2382and Conclusions":

2385[S.N.] is a 15 year, nine month old female

2394who is functioning within the Average range

2401of intellectual classification. Assessment

2405of learning aptitude indicates a learning

2411disorder or learning disability in

2416processing speed. Academically, [S.] is not

2422performing to the best of her ability and

2430not reaching her potential due to learning

2437disabilities. She is achieving

2441significantly below her level of expectancy

2447in reading fluency. Psychometric findings

2452strongly support evidence of a specific

2458learning disability in processing speed. A

2464childhood history of Attention Deficit

2469Disorder is also supported. The overall

2475implications are that [S.] will require

2481accommodations in the classroom and in

2487testing situations to fully utilize her

2493intellectual potential. The failure to

2498accommodate may lead to academic performance

2504well below her expected ability. Based on

2511findings, it is imperative that [S.] receive

2518individualized instructional adjustments in

2522the classroom and test accommodations in

2528order to meet her educational goals.

2534Results and clinical impressions are

2539consistent with a diagnosis of Attention

2545Deficit Disorder/Hyperactivity Disorder,

2548Predominately Inattentive Type, and Learning

2553Disorder NOS (Not Otherwise Specified).

255825. Dr. Sklar's report contained the following under the

2567heading "Diagnostic Impressions":

2571The following diagnostic criteria is met in

2578accordance with the Diagnostic and

2583Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV

2588(DSM-IV-TR), American Psychiatric

2591Association:

2592Axis I: 314.00 Attention

2596Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder,

2598Predominately Inattentive Type

2601Axis II: 315.9 Learning Disorder, NOS

260726. Dr. Sklar's report contained the following under the

2616heading "Educational Strategies and Recommendations":

2622[S.] would benefit from educational software

2628programs that are multi-modal and emphasize

2634visual skills, as her visual memory

2640processing skills appear to be her strongest

2647learning modality. Software programs, such

2652as Talking Books would be beneficial.

2658As [S.] has a history of Attention Deficit

2666Disorder, it is imperative that directions

2672be specific and given clearly. It may be

2680necessary to repeat directions in order to

2687assure attending skills and comprehension of

2693instructions regarding the task at hand.

2699In light of deficits in processing speed, it

2707is imperative that [S.] receive time

2713accommodations in classroom assignments,

2717exams, and standardized tests. Restrict the

2723amount of work required on a single page if

2732possible. Teaching techniques should begin

2737with identification of individual parts,

2742moving to integrated wholes. Keep visually

2748presented material simple in format and

2754uncluttered by excessive stimuli.

2758Classroom lectures may be taped in order of

2766[S.] to play back lectures and take notes at

2775her own pace. Strategies that may

2781facilitate written tasks include providing

2786outlines and visual cues such as color

2793coding, numbering lines, etc.

2797Educational materials and tools, such as a

2804computer/word processor, calculator, tape

2808recorder, spell-checker, ruler, etc., should

2813be allowed as deemed necessary.

281827. Dr. Sklar's report does not reflect an opinion as to

2829whether S.N. met the eligibility criteria for ESE services in

2839Miami-Dade public schools. At the formal hearing Dr. Sklar

2848testified that S.N. did not meet criteria for eligibility under

2858the SLD category. The School Board uses a discrepancy model,

2868which measures the statistical difference from IQ and level of

2878academic functioning. The difference in S.N.'s evaluation was

2886one-half point short of the differential required by the School

2896Board, which determined that she was not eligible, but suggested

2906that further testing was warranted.

291128. Prior to October 15, 2008, Ms. S.-N. instructed

2920Respondent to determine S.N.'s eligibility for ESE services and

2929to prepare an IEP for her daughter as soon as possible.

2940Respondent could not remember the date that conversation took

2949place, but it is clear that Respondent worked on very short

2960notice.

296129. The School Board contends that Respondent acted to the

2971detriment of other students who were waiting to be evaluated for

2982eligibility of ESE services or for an IEP by giving S.N.

2993priority over those other students. The School Board's

3001contention is rejected because there was insufficient evidence

3009to establish that any student's staffing was delayed by

3018Respondent's actions.

302030. Ms. S.-N. enrolled S.N. as a student at Krop on

3031October 15, 2008. The enrollment record reflected that S.N.

3040resided at an address in Miami-Dade County, Florida, within the

3050Krop school zone. That was a false address. Although

3059Respondent utilized that false address on the October 15, 2008,

3069IEP, Respondent testified, credibly, that she pulled the address

3078from the school computer. Respondent had no duty to verify the

3089accuracy of that address. There was no evidence that Respondent

3099knew or should have known that the address was false.

310931. In response to Ms. S.-N.'s instruction, Respondent

3117attempted to convene an eligibility team meeting and an IEP

3127meeting at Krop on October 15, 2008. The meeting was held in

3139the office of Elissa Rubinowitz, the Program Specialist (for

3148ESE) at Krop.

315132. On October 15, 2008, Respondent generated an IEP for

3161S.N. that reflected that S.N. had been determined eligible for

3171the following ESE programs: "Specific Learning Disabilities"

3178and "Other Health Impaired." Under the heading "Signatures and

3187Positions of Persons Attending Conference [sic]", the following

3195signatures appear with the positions of each signer in

3204parenthesis: Ms. S.-N. (parent), S.N. (student), Respondent

3211(LEA representative), Ms. Rubinowitz (ESE teacher), Dr. Richard

3219Rosen (evaluation specialist), and Lawrence Davidson (general

3226education teacher).

322833. Mr. Davidson was not at the staffing committee team

3238meeting that determined S.N.'s eligibility for services, nor did

3247he attend the IEP meeting at Krop on October 15, 2008.

3258Mr. Davidson's office at Krop was next door to Ms. Rubinowitz's

3269office. After Respondent completed the IEP without

3276Mr. Davidson's presence or input, Ms. Rubinowitz went to

3285Mr. Davidson's office, gave him the IEP, and asked him to sign

3297the IEP as the general education teacher. Mr. Davidson signed

3307the IEP as the general education teacher. 6 /

331634. The IEP reflects that S.N. was to be placed in all

3328general education classes at Krop. Consequently, a general

3336education teacher should have been a participating member of the

3346IEP team. Because there was no general education teacher, the

3356IEP team was inappropriately composed.

336135. Similarly, Dr. Rosen was not at Krop on October 15,

33722008. On the afternoon of October 15, 2008, Dr. Rosen happened

3383to be at the Region I office when Ms. S.-N. asked him to come

3397into her office to review Dr. Sklar's psychological report. The

3407only persons present were Ms. S.-N., Respondent, and Dr. Rosen.

341736. Dr. Rosen has known Dr. Sklar for many years and

3428quickly reviewed her report. Ms. S.-N. had no questions about

3438the report. After his review, Dr. Rosen signed the IEP as the

3450evaluation specialist.

345237. Although Dr. Sklar is a school psychologist employed

3461by the School Board, her report pertaining to S.N. is properly

3472considered as being a private psychological evaluation because

3480Dr. Sklar's evaluation of S.N. was not prepared pursuant to

3490School Board protocol.

349338. Either Dr. Rosen or Respondent should have signed a

3503form styled "Receipt of Private Psychological Evaluation," which

3511would have acknowledged receipt of the private evaluation from

3520Ms. S.-N. The form contains the following caveat: "A copy of

3531this form should be kept in the student's cumulative folder."

3541Respondent failed to ensure that this form was signed and placed

3552in S.N.'s cumulative folder.

355639. Dr. Rosen should have completed and signed a form

3566styled "Review of Psychological Reports Originating Outside

3573Miami-Dade County Public Schools." That form includes a section

3582for the school psychologist to determine whether the report is

3592sufficiently recent and whether the evaluator meets professional

3600background criteria. At the bottom of the form is a note that

"3612This form is required for all psychological evaluations

3620originating outside M-DCPS." Respondent failed to ensure that

3628Dr. Rosen completed and signed that form.

363540. The determination that S.N. met ESE eligibility was

3644not made by a properly convened staffing committee. There were

3654three persons employed by the School Board at the Krop meeting

3665(Respondent, Ms. Rubinowitz, and Ms. S.-N.). Likewise, there

3673were three persons employed by the School Board at the Region I

3685office meeting (Respondent, Dr. Rosen, and Ms. S.-N.). Ms. S.-

3695N. attended both meetings as a parent; not as a School Board

3707professional. Ms. Rubinowitz and Dr. Rosen did not participate

3716in the same meeting. Consequently, no staffing meeting as

3725contemplated by the School Board's policies occurred because a

3734minimum of three School Board professionals did not meet as a

3745staffing committee to determine eligibility.

375041. There was a dispute as to whether the staffing

3760committee had adequate information to determine that S.N. met

3769the criteria for ESE services under the SLD category or under

3780the OHI category. That dispute is resolved by finding that a

3791properly convened staffing committee had the right to rely on

3801Dr. Sklar's report, on Dr. Karpf's records, and on input from

3812Ms. S.-N. in concluding that S.N. was eligible under both

3822categories. Further, the available information would have been

3830sufficient for a properly convened staffing committee to

3838determine that S.N. was eligible for ESE services under both

3848categories.

384942. There was insufficient evidence to establish that the

3858substantive contents of the IEP developed October 15, 2008, were

3868inappropriate. 7 /

387143. The Matrix of Services form contains five "domains."

3880Domain A relates to "Curriculum and Learning Environment."

3888Domain B relates to "Social/Emotional Behavior." Domain C

3896relates to "Independent Functioning." Domain D relates to

"3904Health Care." Domain E relates to "Communication." Under each

3913domain is a "Level of Service" that begins with Level 1 and ends

3926with Level 5. There is a descriptor on the form and in a

3939handbook as to what constitutes a level of service. The person

3950completing the Matrix of Service form assigns a number to each

3961domain based on the level of service provided in the IEP. The

3973numbers for the five domains are added together to produce what

3984is referred to as the "Cost Factor Scale," which is used to

3996determine state funding to the School Board. The higher the

4006Cost Factor Scale, the more state funding the School Board would

4017receive for the student. The Cost Factor Scale is also utilized

4028in determining the funding for McKay Scholarships.

403544. As part of the IEP process, Respondent completed a

4045Matrix of Services form in conjunction with the October 15,

40552008, IEP. Petitioner established that Respondent should have

4063scored Domain A as a 3 as opposed to a 4. As scored by

4077Respondent, the total domain rating was 12. If Respondent had

4087correctly scored Domain A, the total domain rating would have

4097been 11. Domain totals ranging from 10-13 produce a cost factor

4108scale of 252. Because the Cost Factor Scale was not changed,

4119this error did not become significant until Respondent completed

4128the Matrix of Services form in conjunction with the February

41382009 IEP.

414045. S.N. withdrew from Krop on October 23, 2008, and

4150returned to her private school placement shortly thereafter.

415846. Between October 2008 and February 2009, S.N.'s

4166negative behaviors escalated.

416947. On February 5, 2009, Ms. S.-N. re-enrolled S.N. at

4179Krop. On the instructions of Ms. S.-N., Respondent convened an

4189interim IEP meeting on February 9, 2009. The purpose of the

4200meeting was to "review accommodations." An interim IEP

4208coversheet was prepared by Respondent. Those purporting to sign

4217the coversheet as having participated in the IEP team meeting

4227and their positions were: Ms. S.-N. (parent), S.N. (student),

4236Respondent (LEA), Ms. Rubinowitz (ESE teacher and evaluation

4244specialist), and Mr. Davidson (general education teacher). As

4252he did with the earlier IEP, Mr. Davidson signed the interim IEP

4264coversheet on February 9, 2009, without having attended the IEP

4274meeting or providing any input. No general education teacher

4283participated in the IEP meeting. Consequently, this IEP team

4292was not appropriately formed. Respondent failed to adhere to

4301School Board procedures in assembling the IEP team.

430948. At that meeting, the level of counseling for S.N. was

4320changed from weekly to daily, and a provision was added for the

4332counselor to consult with the family on a monthly basis to

4343monitor the status of S.N.'s focus on schoolwork. This change

4353was based on input from Ms. S.-N. as to S.N.'s escalating

4364behavior.

436549. The body of the IEP was not changed to reflect the

4377change in counseling for S.N. from a weekly basis to a daily

4389basis. That omission was an error by Respondent. A note was

4400added to the IEP to reflect the added provision for family

4411counseling.

441250. Respondent completed a Matrix of Service form on

4421February 9, 2009, based on the interim IEP. Domain B was

4432increased from a 3 to a 4 because of the change from weekly

4445counseling to daily counseling. Domain D was increased from a 1

4456to a 2 because of the addition of monthly counseling with the

4468student's family. The total domain rating increased from 12 to

447814 based on the increases in Domains B and D. The Cost Factor

4491Scale increased from a score of 252 to a score of 253.

450351. Petitioner established that Domain B should not have

4512been increased because the IEP does not reflect that the student

4523would begin receiving daily counseling.

452852. Because of Respondent's scoring errors, the final Cost

4537Scale Factor was 253. Had Respondent correctly scored the

4546Matrix of Services form, the final Cost Scale Factor would have

4557been 252. Determining a level of service under a particular

4567domain requires some subjectively. While Respondent made the

4575scoring errors reflected above, Petitioner failed to prove that

4584Respondent deliberately "fudged" her scoring to benefit Ms. S.-

4593N. 8 /

459653. On February 20, 2009, S.N. was withdrawn from Krop by

4607her father. Subsequent to that withdrawal, Ms. S.-N. applied

4616for a McKay Scholarship for S.N. for the 2009-10 school year.

4627The application included the two IEPs discussed herein and the

4637two Matrix of Services forms completed by Respondent. Had Ms.

4647S.-N. been successful in obtaining a McKay Scholarship, the

4656amount of the scholarship would have been greater if it had been

4668awarded on a Cost Factor Scale of 253 as compared to a Cost

4681Factor Scale of 252.

468554. Respondent had no knowledge that Ms. S.-N. intended to

4695apply for a McKay Scholarship on behalf of S.N. at any time

4707relevant to this proceeding.

471155. S.N. has now graduated from a high school in Broward

4722County, Florida. Until her graduation, S.N. received services

4730and accommodations similar to those reflected on the IEPs at

4740issue in this proceeding.

4744CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

474756. DOAH has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and

4757the parties to this case pursuant to sections 120.569 and

4767120.57(1).

476857. Because Petitioner seeks to terminate Respondent's

4775employment, which does not involve the loss of a license or

4786certification, Petitioner has the burden of proving the

4794allegations in its Notice of Specific Charges by a preponderance

4804of the evidence, as opposed to the more stringent standard of

4815clear and convincing evidence. See McNeill v. Pinellas Cnty.

4824Sch. Bd. , 678 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Allen v. Sch. Bd.

4838of Dade Cnty. , 571 So. 2d 568, 569 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Dileo v.

4852Sch. Bd. of Dade Cnty. , 569 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).

486558. The preponderance of the evidence standard requires

4873proof by "the greater weight of the evidence," Black's Law

4883Dictionary 1201 (7th ed. 1999), or evidence that "more likely

4893than not" tends to prove a certain proposition. See Gross v.

4904Lyons , 763 So. 2d 276, 289 n.1 (Fla. 2000)(relying on American

4915Tobacco Co. v. State , 697 So. 2d 1249, 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)

4928quoting Bourjaily v. United States , 483 U.S. 171, 175 (1987)).

493859. The School Board's Notice of Specific Charges alleges

4947that Respondent is guilty of (I) misconduct in office, (II)

4957immorality, (III) violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21

4965relating to Responsibilities and Duties of School Board

4973employees, (IV) violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.213

4981relating to the Code of Ethics, and (V) School Board Rule 6Gx13-

49934A-1.212 relating to Conflict of Interests.

499960. Section 1012.33(6)(b) applies to Respondent's

5005employment and provides grounds for the dismissal or suspension

5014of that employment. Included among those grounds are

"5022immorality" and "misconduct in office" as those terms are

5031defined by the State Board of Education.

503861. Count I of the Notice of Specific Charges alleges that

5049Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office. Florida

5057Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009(3) defines that term as

5065follows:

5066(3) Misconduct in office is defined as a

5074violation of the Code of Ethics of the

5082Education Profession as adopted in Rule 6B-

50891.001, F.A.C., and the Principles of

5095Professional Conduct for the Education

5100Profession in Florida as adopted in Rule 6B-

51081.006, F.A.C., which is so serious as to

5116impair the individual's effectiveness in the

5122school system.

512462. Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.001 and 6B-

51321.006 have been transferred to Florida Administrative Code Rules

51416A-10.080 and 6A-10.081, respectively. Florida Administrative

5147Code Rule 6A-10.080(2) and (3) provide as follows:

51552. The educator's primary professional

5160concern will always be for the student and

5168for the development of the student's

5174potential. The educator will therefore

5179strive for professional growth and will seek

5186to exercise the best professional judgment

5192and integrity.

51943. Aware of the importance of maintaining

5201the respect and confidence of one's

5207colleagues, students, parents, and other

5212members of the community, the educator

5218strives to achieve and sustain the highest

5225degree of ethical conduct.

522963. Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(5)

5235provides, in relevant part, as follows:

5241(5) Obligation to the profession of

5247education requires that the individual:

5252(a) Shall maintain honesty in all

5258professional dealings.

5260* * *

5263(h) Shall not submit fraudulent information

5269on any document in connection with

5275professional activities.

527764. The two IEPs at issue in this proceeding reflect Mr.

5288Davidson's participation on the IEP team as a general education

5298teacher. That representation is false. The IEP dated

5306October 15, 2008, reflects Dr. Rosen's participation on the IEP

5316team as an evaluation specialist. That representation is false.

5325Respondent failed to follow established School Board policies

5333regarding assembling a staffing committee and an IEP team, and

5343Respondent failed to collect required documentation. Respondent

5350did not exercise the best professional judgment and integrity,

5359did not maintain honesty in all professional dealings, and

5368submitted documents (IEPs) that contained false information.

537565. The definition of "misconduct" requires that the

5383conduct is so serious "as to impair the [Respondent's]

5392effectiveness in the school system." Impaired effectiveness in

5400the school system can be found based on the conduct alone if the

5413conduct is sufficiently serious. See Purvis v. Marion County

5422School Board , 766 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). Respondent's

5433conduct as found in this Recommended Order is sufficient without

5443other proof to establish that Respondent's effectiveness in the

5452school system has been impaired.

545766. Count II of the Notice of Specific Charges alleges

5467that Respondent is guilty of immorality. Florida Administrative

5475Code Rule 6B-4.009(2) defines that term as follows:

5483(2) Immorality is defined as conduct that

5490is inconsistent with the standards of public

5497conscience and good morals. It is conduct

5504sufficiently notorious to bring the

5509individual concerned or the education

5514profession into public disgrace or

5519disrespect and impair the individual's

5524service in the community.

552867. Petitioner's allegations of immorality are based on

5536alleged facts that Petitioner did not prove. Respondent is not

5546guilty of immorality as alleged in Count II of the Notice of

5558Specific Charges.

556068. Count III of the Notice of Specific Charges alleges

5570that Respondent violated School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, which

5578relates to Responsibilities and Duties of School Board employees

5587and provides, in relevant part, as follows under the heading

5597Employee Conduct:

5599All persons employed by [the School Board]

5606are representatives of the Miami-Dade County

5612Public Schools. As such, they are expected

5619to conduct themselves, both in their

5625employment and in the community, in a manner

5633that will reflect credit upon themselves and

5640the school system.

564369. For the reasons discussed under Count I (misconduct in

5653office), it is concluded that Respondent committed the violation

5662alleged in Count III.

566670. Count IV of the Notice of Specific Charges alleges

5676that Respondent violated School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.213, which

5684relates to the Code of Ethics and provides, in relevant part, as

5696follows:

5697I. INTRODUCTION

5699All members of [the School Board],

5705administrators, teachers, and all other

5710employees of Miami-Dade County Public

5715Schools, regardless of their position,

5720because of their dual roles as public

5727servants and educators are to be bound by

5735the following Code of Ethics. Adherence to

5742the Code of Ethics will create an

5749environment of honesty and integrity and

5755will aid in achieving the common mission of

5763providing a safe and high quality education

5770to all Miami-Dade County Public Schools

5776students.

5777* * *

57802. The educator's primary professional

5785concern will always be for the student and

5793the development of the student's potential.

5799The educator will therefore strive for

5805professional growth and will seek to

5811exercise the best professional judgment and

5817integrity.

58183. Aware of the importance of maintaining

5825the respect and confidence of one's

5831colleagues, students, parents, and other

5836members of the community, the educator

5842strives to achieve and sustain the highest

5849degree of ethical conduct.

5853* * *

5856III. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES

5859The fundamental principles upon which this

5865Code of Ethics is predicated are as follows:

5873* * *

5876Honesty - Dealing truthfully with people,

5882being sincere, not deceiving them nor

5888stealing from them, not cheating or lying.

5895* * *

5898Each employee agrees and pledges:

59031. To abide by this Code of Ethics, making

5912the well-being of the students and the

5919honest performance of professional duties

5924core guiding principles.

59272. To obey local, state and national laws,

5935codes and regulations.

5938* * *

59415. To take responsibility and be

5947accountable for his or her actions.

59536. To avoid conflict of interest or any

5961appearance of impropriety.

5964* * *

59678. To be efficient and effective in the

5975delivery of job duties.

597971. For the reasons discussed under Count I (misconduct in

5989office), it is concluded that Respondent committed the violation

5998alleged in Count IV.

600272. Count V of the Notice of Specific Charges alleges that

6013Respondent violated School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.212, which

6020relates to Conflicts of Interest and provides, in relevant part,

6030as follows:

6032No School Board employee shall corruptly use

6039or attempt to use his or her official

6047position or perform his or her official

6054duties to secure a special privilege,

6060benefit, or exemption for himself, herself,

6066or others.

606873. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent acted

"6076corruptly" in using her position to expedite the IEP process

6086for her supervisor's daughter or by the errors she made scoring

6097the Matrix of Services form. Respondent was acting on her

6107supervisor's instructions when she expedited the IEP process.

6115The scoring errors were mistakes that do not constitute a

6125violation of the Conflict of Interest Rule. Respondent is not

6135guilty of the violations alleged in Count V of the Notice of

6147Specific Charges.

614974. Because of the findings of misconduct in office, the

6159School Board has the authority to dismiss, suspend, or otherwise

6169discipline Respondent's employment. In its Proposed Recommended

6176Order Petitioner asserts that Respondent's employment should be

6184terminated. That assertion is based, largely, on factual

6192allegations it did not prove. Termination is, in the opinion of

6203the undersigned, not warranted. In forming this opinion, the

6212undersigned has considered Respondent's long history of

6219employment with the School Board, the absence of any harm to any

6231person or entity, and that she was dealing with her supervisor

6242as the parent of the student. She failed to comply with

6253procedures and she made mistakes, but she did not act corruptly.

6264RECOMMENDATION

6265Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of

6275Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Miami-Dade

6285County, Florida, enter a final order adopting the Findings of

6295Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in this Recommended Order.

6305It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order find Lisa Parker

6316guilty of the violations alleged in Count I (misconduct in

6326office), Count (III) (Violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-

63351.21 relating to Responsibilities and Duties of School Board

6344employees), and Count (IV) (Violation of School Board Rule

63536Gx13-4A-1.213 relating to the Code of Ethics) of the Notice of

6364Specific Charges and as found in this Recommended Order. It is

6375further recommended that the final order find Lisa Parker not

6385guilty of the violations alleged in Count II (immorality) and

6395(V) (Violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.212 relating to

6404Conflict of Interests). For the violations found, it is

6413recommended that the final order suspend Lisa Parker's

6421employment without pay for a period of 30 school days. Because

6432Lisa Parker has been suspended for more than 30 school days, it

6444is RECOMMENDED that her employment be reinstated with back pay.

6454The calculation of back pay should not include pay for the 30-

6466day suspension period.

6469DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of February, 2013, in

6479Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

6483CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON

6486Administrative Law Judge

6489Division of Administrative Hearings

6493The DeSoto Building

64961230 Apalachee Parkway

6499Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

6502(850) 488-9675

6504Fax Filing (850) 921-6847

6508www.doah.state.fl.us

6509Filed with the Clerk of the

6515Division of Administrative Hearings

6519this 15th day of February 2013.

6525ENDNOTES

65261/ Ms. S.-N. was the respondent in DOAH Case No. 10-4143 (Fla.

6538DOAH May 16, 2012.) Beginning at paragraph 5 of the Findings of

6550Fact section of that Recommended Order, ALJ Edward T. Bauer

6560described the John M. McKay Scholarships for Students with

6569Disabilities Program, which is codified at section 1002.39. It

6578is unnecessary to describe that program in this Recommended

6587Order because there was, as found below, insufficient evidence

6596to establish that Ms. Parker knew that Ms. S.-N. intended to

6607apply for a McKay Scholarship on behalf of her daughter.

66172/ See Petitioner's exhibit 19, Bates stamped page 653).

66263/ See Petitioner's exhibit 19, Bates stamped page 660.

66354/ Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-6.03018 and 6A-6.030152,

6643define those terms.

66465/ Dr. Karpf established that S.N.'s issues were serious and

6656substantial.

66576/ Mr. Davidson testified that it was not an unusual practice at

6669Krop for a general education teacher to review and sign an IEP

6681after it had been prepared without having participated as a

6691member of the IEP team.

66967/ The IEP contained a scrivener's error. On page 2 of the IEP

6709(Petitioner's exhibit 22, Bates stamped page 1155) the word

"6718not" was left out of the following statement: "[S.] has a

6729learning disability in processing speed that is [not] allowing

6738her to reach her full potential . . . ." In finding no

6751substantive deficits, the undersigned has not ignored the

6759criticism Ms. Waxman had of the October 15, 2008, IEP.

67698/ Errors in scoring Matrix of Services numbers are apparently

6779not unusual. In 2008, the School Board initiated what was

6789called the "Matrix Project," during which Matrix Service forms

6798were reviewed and Matrix of Services scores were changed upward,

6808which resulted in an increase in Cost Factor Scales. That

6818project generated some $20 million for the School Board in

6828additional state funding.

6831COPIES FURNISHED :

6834Christopher J. La Piano, Esquire

6839Miami-Dade County School Board

6843Suite 430

68451450 Northeast Second Avenue

6849Miami, Florida 33132

6852Maria del Carmen Calzon, Esquire

6857Suite 249

68591825 Ponce de Leon Boulevard

6864Coral Gables, Florida 33134

6868Karen Lowell, Esquire

6871Law Offices of Karen Lowell

68761683 Southwest 109th Terrace

6880Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33324

6884Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent

6888Miami-Dade County School District

68921450 Northeast Second Avenue

6896Miami, Florida 33132-1308

6899Matthew Carson, General Counsel

6903Department of Education

6906Turlington Building, Suite 1244

6910325 West Gaines Street

6914Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

6917Dr. Tony Bennett, Commissioner

6921Department of Education

6924Turlington Building, Suite 1514

6928325 West Gaines Street

6932Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

6935NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

6941All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

695115 days from the date of this recommended order. Any exceptions

6962to this recommended order must be filed with the agency that

6973will issue the final order in this case.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 11/08/2019
Proceedings: Settlement Agreement filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/07/2013
Proceedings: Other
PDF:
Date: 02/21/2013
Proceedings: Transmittal letter from Claudia Llado forwarding Respondent's Exhibits 109, 133, and 143, which were not admitted into evidence, to the agency.
PDF:
Date: 02/15/2013
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 02/15/2013
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 02/15/2013
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held May 14-16, and June 12-14, 2012). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 12/26/2012
Proceedings: Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/21/2012
Proceedings: Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/07/2012
Proceedings: Order Granting Extension of Time.
PDF:
Date: 12/07/2012
Proceedings: Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Proposed Recommended Orders filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/19/2012
Proceedings: Order Granting Extension of Time.
Date: 11/16/2012
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 11/15/2012
Proceedings: Notice of Unavailability filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/14/2012
Proceedings: School Board's Motion for Extension of Time to File Proposed Recommended Orders filed.
Date: 11/06/2012
Proceedings: Transcript of Proceedings Volume I-VII (not available for viewing) filed.
Date: 08/21/2012
Proceedings: Petitioner's Exhibits admitted at hearing (exhibits not available for viewing) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/20/2012
Proceedings: School Board's Notice of Identification of Admissions of Respondent filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/02/2012
Proceedings: Notice of Use of Impeachment Evidence filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/29/2012
Proceedings: Deposition of Yolanda Sklar filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/29/2012
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Impeachment Exhibit filed.
Date: 06/12/2012
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 06/11/2012
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Karen Lowell) filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/11/2012
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Karen Lowell) filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/18/2012
Proceedings: Order Re-scheduling Hearing (hearing set for June 12 through 14, 2012; 9:00 a.m.; Miami, FL).
Date: 05/14/2012
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Partially Held; continued to June 12, 2012; Miami, FL.
PDF:
Date: 05/11/2012
Proceedings: Joint Stipulation in Compliance with Order of Pre-hearing Instructions filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/11/2012
Proceedings: Voluntary Dismissal filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/11/2012
Proceedings: Respondent's (Second) Amended (Proposed) Exhibit List filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/11/2012
Proceedings: Appendix to Emergency Petition for Writ of Prohibition filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/11/2012
Proceedings: Emergency Petition for Writ of Prohibition filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/11/2012
Proceedings: Respondent's Amended (Proposed) Exhibit List filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/11/2012
Proceedings: Respondent's Amended Witness List filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/11/2012
Proceedings: Petitioner's Amended List of (Proposed) Exhibits filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/11/2012
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Petitioner's Amended Witness List filed.
Date: 05/08/2012
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Pre-Hearing Conference Held.
PDF:
Date: 05/08/2012
Proceedings: Petitioner's Pre-hearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/07/2012
Proceedings: Respondent's Response to the School Board's Motion to Permit Former Testimony filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/07/2012
Proceedings: Respondent's Unilateral Compliance with Order of Pre-hearing Instructions filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/07/2012
Proceedings: Respondent's (Proposed) Exhibit List filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/07/2012
Proceedings: Respondent's Witness List filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/04/2012
Proceedings: School Board's Motion to Permit Former Testimony as Evidence filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/03/2012
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing (hearing set for May 14 through 16, 2012; 12:00 p.m.; Miami, FL; amended as to Starting Time).
PDF:
Date: 05/02/2012
Proceedings: Order Denying Motion to Dismiss.
PDF:
Date: 04/25/2012
Proceedings: School Board's Response to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/19/2012
Proceedings: Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/16/2012
Proceedings: Respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/02/2012
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing (hearing set for May 14 through 16, 2012; 9:00 a.m.; Miami, FL).
PDF:
Date: 03/30/2012
Proceedings: Motion for Continuance and to Reset Final Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/30/2012
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (filed by Maria del Carmen Calzon).
PDF:
Date: 03/30/2012
Proceedings: Order Allowing Testimony by Telephone.
PDF:
Date: 03/27/2012
Proceedings: School Board's Motion to Permit Testimony at Final Hearing via Telephone filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/16/2012
Proceedings: Order Allowing Withdrawal of Counsel for Respondent.
PDF:
Date: 03/05/2012
Proceedings: Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Respondent filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/22/2012
Proceedings: Notice of Unavailability filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/30/2012
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing (hearing set for April 10 through 12, 2012; 1:00 p.m.; Miami, FL).
PDF:
Date: 01/25/2012
Proceedings: Joint Motion to Continue and Reschedule Final Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/10/2011
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing by Video Teleconference (hearing set for February 2 and 3, 2012; 9:00 a.m.; Miami and Tallahassee, FL).
PDF:
Date: 11/10/2011
Proceedings: Joint Motion to Continue and Reschedule Final Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/09/2011
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing by Video Teleconference (hearing set for November 16 and 17, 2011; 9:00 a.m.; Miami and Tallahassee, FL; amended as to Video and Hearing Locations).
PDF:
Date: 10/20/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Unavailability filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/14/2011
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing (hearing set for November 16 and 17, 2011; 9:00 a.m.; Miami, FL; amended as to Dates of Hearing).
PDF:
Date: 10/05/2011
Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Unavailability filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/02/2011
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing (hearing set for November 17 and 18, 2011; 9:00 a.m.; Miami, FL).
PDF:
Date: 08/31/2011
Proceedings: Respondent's Response to Request for Admissions filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/30/2011
Proceedings: Joint Motion to Reset Final Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/01/2011
Proceedings: Petitioner's First Request for Admissions to Respondent filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/24/2011
Proceedings: Subpoena Duces Tecum wothout Deposition (No Testimony will be taken) filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/22/2011
Proceedings: Order Re-scheduling Hearing by Video Teleconference (hearing set for September 21 and 22, 2011; 9:00 a.m.; Miami and Tallahassee, FL).
PDF:
Date: 06/17/2011
Proceedings: Joint Response to Order Requiring Response filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/08/2011
Proceedings: Order Requiring Response.
PDF:
Date: 05/31/2011
Proceedings: Petitioner's Responses to Respondent's Second Request for Production filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/17/2011
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance (parties to advise status by May 27, 2011).
PDF:
Date: 05/16/2011
Proceedings: Joint Motion to Continue filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/16/2011
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Specific Charges filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/10/2011
Proceedings: Order Granting Motion to Compel More Definite Statement.
Date: 04/29/2011
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 04/29/2011
Proceedings: Respondent's Second Request to Produce filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/26/2011
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Service of Responses to Respondents Request for Admissions and Request for Production filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/25/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Responses to Respondent's Request for Admissions and Request for Production filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/20/2011
Proceedings: Motion to Compel More Definite Statement filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/14/2011
Proceedings: Order Denying Respondent`s Pending Motions.
PDF:
Date: 03/30/2011
Proceedings: Respondent's Notice of Service of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/28/2011
Proceedings: Order Directing Filing of Exhibits
PDF:
Date: 03/28/2011
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing by Video Teleconference (hearing set for May 26 and 27, 2011; 9:00 a.m.; Miami and Tallahassee, FL; amended as to Video Hearing and Hearing Locations).
PDF:
Date: 03/25/2011
Proceedings: Motion for Hearing or Entry of Order on Motion to Compel Compliance with Section 28-106.2015, DOAH Uniform Rules filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/25/2011
Proceedings: Respondent's Request to Produce filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/25/2011
Proceedings: Respondent's Request for Admissions filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/25/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Specific Charges filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/14/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (of C. LaPiano) filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/14/2011
Proceedings: Petitioner's Reply to Respondent's Motion to Compel Compliance with Section 28-106.2015 DOAH Uniform Rules filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/10/2011
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 03/10/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for May 26 and 27, 2011; 9:00 a.m.; Miami, FL).
PDF:
Date: 03/08/2011
Proceedings: Motion to Compel Compliance with Section 28-106.2015, DOAH Uniform Rules filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/08/2011
Proceedings: Respondent's Unilateral Response to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/03/2011
Proceedings: Petitioner's Response to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/02/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Unavailability (Petitioner) filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/23/2011
Proceedings: Initial Order.
PDF:
Date: 02/23/2011
Proceedings: Agency action letter filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/23/2011
Proceedings: Request for Administrative Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/23/2011
Proceedings: Agency referral filed.

Case Information

Judge:
CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON
Date Filed:
02/23/2011
Date Assignment:
02/23/2011
Last Docket Entry:
11/08/2019
Location:
Miami, Florida
District:
Southern
Suffix:
TTS
 

Counsels

Related DOAH Cases(s) (2):

Related Florida Statute(s) (6):

Related Florida Rule(s) (6):