91-004075 Seminole Community College vs. Robert R. Reko
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Thursday, July 30, 1992.


View Dockets  
Summary: Welding program eliminated by community college resulted in loss of teaching job as respondent not qualified for open position.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8SEMINOLE COMMUNITY COLLEGE, )

12)

13Petitioner, )

15)

16vs. ) CASE NO. 91-4075

21)

22ROBERT R. REKO, )

26)

27Respondent. )

29)

30________________________________)

31RECOMMENDED ORDER

33Pursuant to notice, a final hearing in the above-styled matter was held on

46February 13-14, 1992, in Sanford, Florida, before Joyous D. Parrish, a

57designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings. The

67parties were represented at the hearing as follows:

75APPEARANCES

76For Petitioner: J. Dana Fogle

81FOGLE & FOGLE, P.A.

85217 East Plymouth Avenue

89Post Office Box 817

93DeLand, Florida 32721-0817

96For Respondent: Joseph Egan, Jr.

101EGAN, LEV & SIWICA, P.A.

106P.O. Box 2231

109Orlando, Florida 32802

112STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

116The central issue in this case is whether Respondent's employment with the

128Petitioner should be terminated.

132PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

134This case began on April 9, 1991, when the Board of Trustees, Seminole

147Community College met and voted to eliminate three vocational programs then

158offered by the college. The programs (upholstery, culinary arts, and welding)

169were taught by three instructors who had been on continuing contract with the

182college. The Respondent in this case, Robert R. Reko, taught the welding

194course. The decision to eliminate the programs was viewed as a concurrent

206determination to not renew the continuing contracts held by Reko and the other

219instructors.

220Respondent challenged the decision to not renew his continuing contract,

230and the Board of Trustees met again to reconsider the matter. At that time, the

245Respondent requested a continuance so that the matter could be referred to the

258Division of Administrative Hearings for formal hearing. By order entered June

26924, 1991, the continuance was granted, and the request for assignment of hearing

282officer was issued. That request was filed with the Division of Administrative

294Hearings for formal proceedings on June 28, 1992.

302Initially, the case was scheduled to be heard October 16, 1991; however,

314the Respondent filed a motion for continuance which was granted, and the case

327was rescheduled for February 13, 1992. At the hearing, the Petitioner presented

339the testimony of the following witnesses: Joseph Williams, Jr., former

349upholstery instructor; Matilda Morabito, former instructor of the culinary arts

359class; Robert R. Reko; Suzanne Tesinsky, Dean of Applied Technologies; Margaret

370Culp, Dean of Student Services; Russ Calvet, Dean of Personnel Services; and

382Keith Samuels, Vice President for Instructions. The Petitioner's exhibits

391numbered 1-43, 45-57, and 60 were admitted into evidence. Petitioner's exhibits

40258 and 59 were proffered for the record.

410The Respondent testified in his own behalf and presented the testimony of

422the following witnesses: Russ Calvet, Joseph Williams, Jr., and Matilda

432Morabito. The Respondent's exhibits numbered 1 through 4, 6, 8, 9, and 12

445through 19 were admitted into evidence.

451The transcript of the hearing was filed on April 2, 1992. The Respondent

464filed two motions for enlargement of time within which to file the proposed

477recommended orders; those requests were granted. The Respondent's corrected

486brief was filed on May 29, 1992. The proposed findings of fact submitted by the

501parties have been considered in the preparation of this order. Specific rulings

513addressing those proposed findings of fact are included in the attached

524appendix.

525FINDINGS OF FACT

528Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence

539received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made:

5501. The Petitioner, Seminole Community College, is a community college

560governed by a community college district board of trustees vested with the

572responsibility of operating the college in accordance with applicable statutes,

582rules of the State Board of Education and State Board of Community Colleges, as

596well as its own rules.

6012. Each community college board of trustees is responsible for

611establishing and discontinuing programs and course offerings.

6183. Each community college board of trustees is responsible for the

629appointment, employment, and removal of personnel. Such personnel includes

638course instructors employed by the college to teach specific courses or programs

650offered by the school.

6544. The Petitioner offers instruction in courses ranging from basic

664academic subjects, which might be comparable to high school courses, to

675sophisticated courses that might be comparable to four-year college courses.

685Additionally, the Petitioner is the area vocational center and adult continuing

696education function for Seminole County.

7015. Prior to April 9, 1991, the Respondent had been a continuing contract

714instructor employed by the Petitioner for several years. Respondent was

724employed to teach the welding course/program offered by the college.

7346. In January, 1991, Dr. Samuels, as Vice President for Instructions,

745issued a memorandum to the Deans' Council advising them of budget cuts incurred

758and expected by the college. Further, the memorandum provided that it was

770expected that instruction would have to absorb a major fraction of the expected

783future decrease in funding.

7877. On January 17, 1991, the college president issued a memorandum to all

800full-time college employees that addressed the cuts experienced to that date and

812the expectation of cuts which would be considered for planning the next budget

825year.

8268. In connection with planning for the 1991-92 budget year, Dr. Samuels

838met with the deans for areas of instruction under his supervision and requested

851that they consider alternatives given budget cuts of three levels: $200,000;

863$400,000; and $600,000. The goal was to prioritize spending to meet the

877instructional needs of the college, and to assume potential budget "worst case"

889scenarios.

8909. Dean Tesinsky gave the directors of her applied technologies area the

902following guidelines to prepare their proposals for services and programs: to

913preserve full-time faculty positions; to preserve full-time equivalent ( FTE)

923student hours; if possible, to reduce regular part-time support first; and to

935eliminate unproductive programs.

93810. "Unproductive programs" were defined as having low enrollment relative

948to capacity and a decreasing enrollment trend. Such programs are also referred

960to as "weak programs" in this record.

96711. When the directors completed the reviews of their programs, Dean

978Tesinsky reported the findings to Dr. Samuels. Ultimately, such findings

988recommended the elimination of the upholstery, welding and culinary arts (on-

999campus) programs at the $600,000 budget cut level.

100812. The reviews performed by the directors and Dean Tesinsky did not

1020follow the guidelines set forth in Appendix K. Appendix K is a procedure

1033utilized by the Petitioner to evaluate and review programs or courses offered by

1046the school.

104813. Concurrent with the planning performed incidental to the expected

1058budget cuts, Dr. Samuels reviewed information regarding the course offerings and

1069courses or sections not available at the college but for which large numbers of

1083students had expressed demand.

108714. Courses of instruction which were identified as being in critical need

1099of full-time instructors were: computer assisted drafting (CAD); biology, with

1109laboratory experience; mathematics, foreign languages, and humanities. Further,

1117there were vocational programs within the applied technologies area where

1127additional sections and, consequently, instructors, were needed to meet student

1137demand for courses.

114015. As a result of the foregoing, Dr. Samuels concluded that the budget

1153amounts needed for instructors' salaries would have to increase, not decrease.

1164To that end, Dr. Samuels concluded that monies captured from the elimination of

1177unproductive programs could be redistributed to fund sections in the high demand

1189areas of instruction previously identified.

119416. Given the notion that they would have to eliminate Respondent's

1205program, Dean Tesinsky, Dr. Samuels, and Russ Calvet attempted to relocate

1216Respondent to another program or course of instruction. However, no course or

1228instructor opening was found for which they felt Respondent could qualify.

123917. On March 22, 1991, the college president issued a letter to Respondent

1252that provided, in part, as follows:

1258I have been informed that it is no longer feasible to

1269continue the Welding program. Therefore, in

1275consideration of the College's mission to meet the

1283educational needs of the community, the current budget

1291concerns for the next fiscal year, and the past,

1300present, and projected future enrollments of the

1307Welding program, it has been determined that the

1315program will be discontinued at the end of this fiscal

1325year.

1326It is therefore with considerable regret that I inform

1335you that a recommendation shall be made to the District

1345Board of Trustees on April 9, that your contract with

1355the College be terminated as of June 30, 1991.

1364Your educational qualifications do not make it possible

1372to reassign you to another instructional program area;

1380however, should a position vacancy occur for which you

1389are qualified, you will be notified.

139518. On April 1, 1991, the president forwarded a memorandum to the district

1408board of trustees members that addressed the proposed termination of employment

1419of the three vocational instructors. That memorandum reiterated the

1428information given to the Respondent in the letter dated March 22, 1991.

144019. On April 9, 1991, the board of trustees voted to terminate the full-

1454time, continuing contract position held by Respondent.

146120. Subsequently, Respondent timely requested an administrative hearing to

1470review that decision.

1473CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

147621. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the

1486parties to, and the subject matter of, these proceedings.

149522. Rule 6A-14.0411, Florida Administrative Code, sets forth the

1504provisions related to community colleges and the issuance of continuing

1514contracts for instructional personnel. That rule provides, in pertinent part:

1524(5) Should the board have to choose from among its

1534personnel who are on continuing contracts as to which

1543should be retained, among the criteria to be considered

1552shall be educational qualifications, efficiency,

1557compatibility, character and capacity to meet the

1564educational needs of the community. Whenever a board

1572is required to or does consolidate or reduce its

1581program, the board may determine on the basis of the

1591foregoing criteria from its own personnel and any other

1600instructional personnel, which college employees shall

1606be employed for service at the college and any employee

1616no longer needed may be dismissed. The decision of the

1626board shall not be controlled by any previous

1634contractual relationship. In the evaluation of these

1641factors, the decision of the board shall be final.

165023. The foregoing rule is reiterated as part of Seminole Community College

1662Policy 3.1900.

166424. Seminole Community College Policy 3.1910 sets forth the guidelines the

1675college is to follow in the event of a reduction in non-project work force.

1689That rule directs the president of the college to implement a defined course

1702when "either significantly decreased enrollments, decreased funding or changes

1711in Federal, State, or local mission have occurred during the current year or are

1725anticipated for the succeeding year." In this case, it is concluded that the

1738guidelines addressed by that rule are not applicable. First, Petitioner has

1749not experienced a decrease in enrollment. Its enrollment has steadily increased

1760over the last few years. While the enrollment trends have changed (i.e. from

1773courses like upholstery to biology), the overall enrollment projections suggest

1783current and future growth. Thus, the college is in a state of growth, not

1797cutback.

1798Secondly, the funding for instructional purposes has not decreased. In

1808fact, Petitioner increased the amounts for instructional personnel despite the

1818looming threat of budget cuts. While they planned for potentially severe cuts,

1830those measures did not result in a reduction of non-project work force.

1842Finally, the mission of the college has remained constant. That it has

1854eliminated three programs deemed weak has not altered its mission to meet the

1867needs of the community it serves. In fact, by adding the highly requested

1880sections of biology, foreign languages, and mathematics, it is meeting a greater

1892number of students' need.

189625. Respondent has not shown that his termination was for any purpose

1908other than that acknowledged by the Petitioner. Additionally, efforts to

1918reassign Respondent to another area of instruction were reasonable given the

1929Respondent's record and qualifications. Respondent has not shown he was

1939qualified to teach a subject or that an opening was available for which he was

1954refused consideration. In fact, Respondent was offered, and accepted, a

1964position teaching welding in the evening program at the college.

1974RECOMMENDATION

1975Based on the foregoing, it is

1981RECOMMENDED:

1982That the Board of Trustees of the Seminole Community College enter a final

1995order confirming the elimination of the welding program and the termination of

2007Respondent's continuing contract.

2010DONE and ENTERED this __30th__ day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon

2022County, Florida.

2024____________________________

2025JOYOUS D. PARRISH

2028Hearing Officer

2030Division of Administrative

2033Hearings

2034The DeSoto Building

20371230 Apalachee Parkway

2040Tallahassee, Florida 32301

2043(904)488-9675

2044Filed with the Clerk of the

2050Division of Administrative

2053Hearings this __30th__ day of

2058July, 1992.

2060APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER

2064RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER:

20751. Paragraphs 1 through 3, 5 through 8, 11, 13 through 21 are accepted.

20892. As to paragraph 4, it is accepted that Respondent was hand-delivered the

2102letter notice dated March 22, 1991; otherwise rejected as a conclusion of law,

2115not fact. It has been concluded, however, that such letter was sufficient to

2128place the Respondent on notice of the college's position regarding the proposed

2140actions.

21413. Paragraph 9 is rejected as a misstatement of Petitioner's exhibit 42. That

2154exhibit showed the headcounts as stated but showed the "instructor salary

2165w/benefits" to be $57,133.

21704. With the following clarifications, paragraph 10 is accepted: that additional

2181full-time instructors were needed; that the number of adjunct instructors would

2192be reduced since full-time instructors would be added; that adding full-time

2203instructors was a meaningful goal in order to upgrade programs/courses; add

"2214therapy" after the word "respiratory" in the first sentence of 11b.; add under

222711c., that there are now less than 500 students on overload status.

22395. The first sentence of paragraph 12 is accepted. The remainder is rejected

2252as irrelevant.

2254RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT:

22651. To the extent addressed in the foregoing findings of fact, paragraphs 1 and

22792 are accepted.

22822. Paragraphs 3 through 5 are accepted but are irrelevant.

22923. With regard to paragraph 6, it is accepted that Dr. Samuels is Vice

2306President for Instructions with the general responsibility for all the

2316instructional programs at the college and that he made recommendations to the

2328president of the college; otherwise rejected as not supported by the record

2340cited.

23414. Paragraph 7 is accepted.

23465. Paragraph 8 is rejected as not supported by record cited.

23576. Paragraph 9 is accepted with the clarification that Mr. Calvet's title is

2370Dean of Personnel Services.

23747. Paragraph 10 is accepted.

23798. Paragraph 11 is rejected as it does not make sense.

23909. Paragraph 12 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence.

240310. Paragraph 13 is rejected as not supported by the record cited.

241511. Paragraph 14 is rejected as irrelevant; no wrongdoing or misconduct has

2427been suggested by the Petitioner.

243212. With regard to paragraph 15, it is accepted that the letter dated March 22,

24471991, was the first written notice of the proposed action; otherwise rejected as

2460contrary to the weight of the evidence.

246713. With regard to paragraph 16, see comment above regarding proposed finding

2479of fact 15.

248214. Paragraph 17 is rejected as a misstatement of the record. To suggest the

2496Petitioner contemplating "firing" Respondents grossly misstates their position.

2504The Respondents' programs were eliminated and, consequently, their continuing

2513contracts terminated. No suggestion of misconduct, incompetence, or wrongdoing

2522on the part of these instructors should be suggested. To the contrary, these

2535instructors were well qualified in their respective fields and respected by the

2547employer.

254815. Paragraphs 18 and 19 are accepted.

255516. Paragraph 20 is accepted to the extent addressed ruling 12 above.

256717. Paragraph 21 is rejected as repetitive; see above.

257618. Paragraph 22 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence.

258919. Paragraph 23 is rejected as repetitive; see above.

259820. Paragraphs 24 through 30 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the

2612evidence, irrelevant, or not supported by the record cited.

262121. Paragraphs 31 through 37 are accepted.

262822. Paragraph 38 is accepted when clarified to add "an administrative

2639procedure" for "the" after the word "out."

264623. Paragraph 39 is accepted.

265124. Paragraph 40 is rejected as a conclusion not supported by the record cited.

266525. Paragraph 41 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence.

267826. Paragraph 42 is accepted.

268327. Paragraph 43 is rejected as repetitive or irrelevant.

269228. Paragraph 44 is rejected as not supported by the record cited or

2705irrelevant.

270629. Paragraph 45 is rejected as not supported by the record cited or

2719irrelevant.

272030. Paragraph 46 is accepted but is irrelevant.

272831. Paragraph 47 is rejected as argument and irrelevant.

273732. Paragraph 48 is rejected as argument and irrelevant.

274633. Paragraphs 49 through 52 are accepted.

275334. Paragraph 53 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible

2766evidence.

276735. Paragraph 54 is accepted.

277236. Paragraph 55 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible

2785evidence.

278637. Paragraph 56 is accepted.

279138. With the deletion of the word "only" paragraph 57 is accepted.

280339. Paragraph 58 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible

2816evidence.

281740. Paragraph 59 is rejected as not supported by the record cited.

282941. Paragraph 60 is rejected as repetitive or irrelevant.

283842. Paragraph 61 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the

2852evidence.

285343. Paragraph 62 is accepted.

285844. The first sentence of paragraph 63 is accepted; otherwise rejected as

2870irrelevant or not supported by the evidence cited or speculation.

288045. Paragraph 64 is accepted.

288546. Paragraphs 65 and 66 are rejected as not supported by the record cited.

289947. Paragraphs 67 is accepted to the extent that the meeting(s) identified the

2912programs as "weaker."

291548. Paragraph 68 is accepted but is irrelevant.

292349. Paragraph 69 is accepted but is irrelevant.

293150. Paragraphs 70 through 73 are rejected as argumentative, irrelevant, or not

2943supported by record cited.

294751. The first sentence of paragraph 74 is accepted; otherwise rejected as

2959argument, irrelevant, or not supported by record cited.

296752. Paragraph 75 is rejected as argumentative, irrelevant, or not supported by

2979record cited.

298153. The first two sentences of paragraph 76 are accepted; otherwise rejected as

2994not supported record cited or contrary to the weight of evidence.

300554. Paragraph 77 is rejected as repetitive, irrelevant, and not supported by

3017record cited.

301955. Paragraph 78 is rejected as conclusion of law or irrelevant.

303056. Paragraph 79 is rejected as it does not make sense or irrelevant.

304357. Paragraph 80 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence.

305658. Paragraph 81 is rejected as irrelevant.

306359. With the addition of the phrase "or could be" after the word "would,"

3077paragraph 84 is accepted; otherwise rejected as contrary to the record cited.

308960. Paragraphs 85 and 86 are rejected as contrary to the record cited.

310261. Paragraph 87 is accepted.

310762. Paragraph 88 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence.

312063. Paragraph 89 is repetitive in part but is accepted.

313064. Paragraph 90 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence.

314365. Paragraph 91 is rejected as irrelevant.

315066. Paragraphs 92 and 93 are accepted.

315767. Paragraph 94 is rejected as irrelevant.

316468. Paragraph 95 is rejected as not supported by the record cited.

317669. Paragraph 96 is rejected as repetitive or irrelevant.

318570. Paragraph 97 is rejected as irrelevant.

319271. Paragraph 98 is rejected as not supported by record cited, contrary to the

3206weight of evidence.

320972. Paragraph 99 is rejected as repetitive and irrelevant.

321873. Paragraph 100 is rejected as repetitive and irrelevant.

322774. Paragraph 101 is accepted.

323275. Paragraphs 102 through 105 are rejected as repetitive or irrelevant.

324376. Paragraphs 106 through 110 are accepted but are irrelevant.

325377. Paragraph 111 is rejected as contrary to the evidence.

326378. Paragraphs 112 through 115 are accepted.

327079. Paragraph 116 is rejected as argumentative.

327780. Paragraph 117 is accepted but is irrelevant.

328581. Paragraph 118 is rejected as not supported by record cited.

329682. Paragraphs 119 through 122 are accepted.

330383. Paragraph 123 is rejected as repetitive.

331084. Paragraphs 124 and 125 are accepted. Insert word "contact" after "thirty"

3322in paragraph 125.

332585. Paragraph 126 is rejected as irrelevant or argumentative.

333486. Paragraph 127 is accepted but is irrelevant.

334287. Paragraph 128 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence.

335588. Paragraph 129 is accepted.

336089. Paragraph 130 is rejected as irrelevant.

336790. Paragraphs 131 through 134 are accepted.

337491. Paragraph 135 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence.

338792. Paragraphs 136 and 137 are accepted with the addition to paragraph 137 that

3401such position was only part-time and not vacant.

340993. Paragraph 138 is rejected as irrelevant.

341694. Paragraphs 139 through 141 are accepted.

342395. Paragraph 142 is rejected as repetitive or irrelevant.

343296. Paragraphs 143 through 147 are accepted.

343997. Paragraph 148 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence.

345298. Paragraphs 149 through 152 are accepted.

345999. Paragraph 153 is rejected as not supported by the record cited.

3471100. Paragraph 154 is rejected as not supported by the record cited.

3483101. Paragraphs 155 through 160 though repetitive in part are accepted.

3494102. Paragraph 161 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence.

3507103. Paragraph 162 is rejected as repetitive, argumentative, or irrelevant.

3517104. Paragraph 163 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence.

3530COPIES FURNISHED:

3532J. Dana Fogle

3535FOGLE & FOGLE, P.A.

3539217 East Plymouth Avenue

3543Post Office Box 817

3547DeLand, Florida 32721-0817

3550Joseph Egan, Jr.

3553EGAN, LEV & SIWICA, P.A.

3558P.O. Box 2231

3561Orlando, Florida 32802

3564Margaret T. Roberts

3567COBLE, BARKIN, GORDON,

3570MORRIS & REYNOLDS, P.A.

35741020 Volusia Avenue

3577Post Office Drawer 9670

3581Daytona Beach, Florida 32120

3585NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

3591All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended

3603Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit

3617written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit

3629written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final

3641order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions

3654to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be

3666filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.

3679=================================================================

3680AGENCY FINAL ORDER

3683=================================================================

3684STATE OF FLORIDA

3687DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

3691SEMINOLE COMMUNITY COLLEGE,

3694Petitioner,

3695vs. Case Number 91-4075

3699ROBERT REKO,

3701Respondent.

3702_____________________________/

3703FINAL ORDER

3705This cause came before the District Board of Trustees of SEMINOLE COMMUNITY

3717COLLEGE the 13th day of October, 1992 for consideration of the Recommended

3729Order, including Appendix entered by the Hearing Examiner on July 30, 1992,

3741containing her Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation of Final

3753Order and the Board having duly considered the pleadings, stipulations and

3764statements of the parties hereby FINDS THAT:

37711. Each of the individual Board Members of the District Board of Trustees

3784heretofore received a copy of the Recommended Order, has read same, and has been

3798advised that the entire record of the Administrative Hearing, including all

3809transcribed testimony and documentary exhibits is available to each of them for

3821review, pursuant to Fla. Stat. Ch. 120.

38282. Pursuant to Schomer v. Dept. of Professional Regulation, 417 So.2d 1089

3840(Fla. 3rd DCA 1982), the District Board of Trustees hereby adopts, and

3852incorporates herein by reference and by attachment certain parts of the

3863Recommended Order dated July 30, 1992, as executed by Hearing Examiner Joyous D.

3876Parrish, Esquire, as follows: Findings of Fact, paragraphs 1 through 23,

3887inclusive, and Conclusions of Law, paragraphs 1 through 3, inclusive, and 5.

38993. The District Board of Trustees of SEMINOLE COMMUNITY COLLEGE

3909specifically rejects in part the Conclusions of Law contained in paragraph 4.

3921The Petitioner planned for potentially severe cuts in funding, the cuts being

3933anticipated for the succeeding year. SEMINOLE COMMUNITY COLLEGE Policy 3.1910

3943applies when decreased funding is anticipated for the succeeding year and

3954results in a reduction in non-project work force. It is hereby

3965ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:

39691. ROBERT REKO's continuing contract shall be reinstated effective October

397914, 1992 and shall continue in full force and effect pursuant to the laws of the

3995State of Florida and the Rules and policies of SEMINOLE COMMUNITY COLLEGE.

40072. ROBERT REKO, by formal waiver made for the record by counsel at the

4021October 13, 1992 hearing has waived all elements of wages and compensation

4033accruing since the effective date of his dismissal to October 14, 1992, except

4046Florida Retirement System contributions, annual leave accruals, if and as

4056mandated by law including sick leave accruals, and reimbursement for replacement

4067coverage premiums paid on health and life insurance, if any.

40773. As to Florida Retirement System contributions, SEMINOLE COMMUNITY

4086COLLEGE shall pay an amount equal to the contributions that would have

4098ordinarily been contributed on behalf of ROBERT REKO, notwithstanding the

4108dismissal which was the subject of this cause. Said payment shall be made to

4122the employee upon receipt of evidence that the employee has bought back credits

4135in the Florida Retirement System for the time between dismissal and

4146reinstatement.

41474. ROBERT REKO shall be deemed to have retained his status as a continuing

4161contract employee of SEMINOLE COMMUNITY COLLEGE during the subject dismissal and

4172administrative proceedings, as though he had never been dismissed.

41815. SEMINOLE COMMUNITY COLLEGE Administration shall conduct a review of the

4192welding program in accordance with applicable laws, rules and policies, and

4203shall report its findings and recommendations to the Board of Trustees. This

4215ORDER shall not be construed to entitle ROBERT REKO to instruct the same program

4229or course offering as assigned prior to the dismissal.

4238DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of November, 1992 in Seminole County,

4250Florida.

4251DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF

4256SEMINOLE COMMUNITY COLLEGE

4259By:________________________

4260Its Chairman

4262ATTEST:___________________

4263Secretary

4264COPIES FURNISHED:

4266Dana Fogle, Esquire

4269P.O. Box 817

4272DeLand, Florida 32721-0817

4275Joseph Egan, Jr., Esquire

4279P.O. Box 2231

4282Orlando, Florida 32802

4285Joyous D. Parrish, Hearing Examiner

4290Department of Administrative Hearings

4294The DeSoto Building

42971230 Apalachee Parkway

4300Tallahassee, Florida 32301

4303NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW

4309Pursuant to Fla. Stat. Sec. 120.68, any appeal of this Order shall be

4322instituted by filing a petition in the Fifth District Court of Appeals, Daytona

4335Beach, Florida, within thirty (30) days of rendition of the above stated Order.

4348See Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.110; Denson v. Sang, 491 So.2d 288

4361(Fla. 1st DCA 1986).

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 11/10/1992
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
Date: 11/02/1992
Proceedings: (Joint) Stipulation for Extension of Time to Issue Final Order filed.
Date: 09/23/1992
Proceedings: (Petitioner) Notice of Hearing filed.
Date: 08/28/1992
Proceedings: Notice filed. (From Margaret T. Roberts)
Date: 08/20/1992
Proceedings: (Respondents) Introduction filed.
Date: 08/11/1992
Proceedings: (Respondents) Motion for Extension of Time to File Exceptions to Hearing Officer`s Recommended Order; Motion for Extension of Time to File Exceptions to Hearing Officer`s Recommended Order (CORRECTED) filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/30/1992
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 07/30/1992
Proceedings: Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held February 13-14, 1992.
Date: 05/29/1992
Proceedings: (Corrected) Brief of the Respondents filed.
Date: 05/27/1992
Proceedings: Certificate of Service (for Recommended Order) & Cover Letter to JDP from D. Fogle filed.
Date: 05/22/1992
Proceedings: (Respondents) Motion for Enlargement of Time filed.
Date: 05/21/1992
Proceedings: Brief of the Respondents; Respondent`s Proposed Findings of Fact filed.
Date: 05/18/1992
Proceedings: (Respondents) Motion for Enlargement of Time filed.
Date: 05/12/1992
Proceedings: Deposition of Larry Dale filed.
Date: 05/12/1992
Proceedings: Petitioner Seminole Community College`s Proposed Recommended Order (unsigned) filed.
Date: 05/12/1992
Proceedings: (Respondents) Motion for Enlargement of Time filed.
Date: 04/13/1992
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Notice of No Objection to Respondents` Motion for Enlargement of Time filed.
Date: 04/09/1992
Proceedings: (Respondents) Motion for Enlargement of Time; Petitioner`s Notice of No Objection to Respondents` Motion for Enlargement of Time filed.
Date: 04/02/1992
Proceedings: Transcript of Proceedings (Volumes I - III) filed.
Date: 02/13/1992
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
Date: 11/21/1991
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for Feb. 13, 1992; 9:00am; Sanford).
Date: 10/16/1991
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance sent out. (Hearing cancelled; Parties` status report due Oct. 31, 1991).
Date: 10/15/1991
Proceedings: First Amended Notice of Depositions filed. (From J. Dana Fogle)
Date: 10/15/1991
Proceedings: (Respondents) Motion to Continue Hearing filed.
Date: 10/14/1991
Proceedings: Notice of Depositions filed. (From J. Dana Fogle)
Date: 10/04/1991
Proceedings: (Petitioner) Notice of Service of Answers to Interrogatories filed.
Date: 09/30/1991
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for October 17, 1991: 9:00 am: Sanford)
Date: 09/03/1991
Proceedings: Respondent`s First Set of Interrogatories filed.
Date: 09/03/1991
Proceedings: Respondent`s First Request for Production of Documents filed.
Date: 08/09/1991
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for Oct. 17, 1991; 9:00am; Sanford).
Date: 07/26/1991
Proceedings: (Petitioner) Response of Seminole Community College filed. (From J. Dana Fogle)
Date: 07/11/1991
Proceedings: Initial Order issued.
Date: 06/28/1991
Proceedings: Agency Referral Letter; Request for Assignment of Hearing Officer; Order; Cc of Board Meeting filed.

Case Information

Judge:
J. D. PARRISH
Date Filed:
06/28/1991
Date Assignment:
07/11/1991
Last Docket Entry:
11/02/1992
Location:
Sanford, Florida
District:
Middle
Agency:
ADOPTED IN PART OR MODIFIED
 

Related DOAH Cases(s) (1):

Related Florida Statute(s) (1):

Related Florida Rule(s) (1):