06-001075 Miami-Dade County School Board vs. Cedric Mitchell Status: Closed Recommended Order on Thursday, February 15, 2007.

Summary: Respondent did not complete the academic work to achieve credits for certification. Recommend dismissal.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 06-1075

)

CEDRIC MITCHELL, )

)

Respondent. )

_________________________________)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice a formal hearing was held on October 23,

2006, by video teleconference with the parties appearing from

Miami, Florida, before J. D. Parrish, a designated Administrative

Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Jean Marie Middleton, Esquire

Miami-Dade County School Board

1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400

Miami, Florida 33132

For Respondent: Lawrence R. Metsch, Esquire

Metsch & Metsch P.A.

20801 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 307

Aventura, Florida 33180-1423

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The issue is whether the Respondent, Cedric Mitchell

(Respondent), committed the violations alleged and, if so, what

penalty should be imposed.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On or about March 15, 2006, the Petitioner, School Board of

Miami-Dade County (Petitioner or School Board) took action to

initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Respondent. The

Petitioner alleged that the Respondent had violated School Board

Rules 6Gx-13-4A1.21, 6Gx13-1.213, and Sections 1001.32, 1001.22,

1001.33, 447.209 Florida Statutes (2004). More specifically, the

Notice of Charges in this matter alleged that the Respondent had

utilized credit for which he did no academic work to achieve

credentials that supported his employment with the School Board.

At the hearing, the Petitioner presented the deposition

testimony of the Respondent, and the following witnesses:

Michael Alexander, a detective employed by the School Board; and

Lucy Iturrey, a director in the Petitioner’s Office of

Professional Standards. The Petitioner’s Exhibits 1-9, 11-13,

15, and 20-22 were admitted into evidence. The Respondent

presented testimony from Michael Molnar, a union representative

for the United Teachers of Dade. The Respondent’s Exhibits 1-3

were also received in evidence.

The transcript of the proceedings was filed with the

Division of Administrative Hearings on January 9, 2007. The

parties timely filed Proposed Recommended Orders that have been

fully considered in the preparation of this Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Petitioner is a duly constituted entity charged with

the responsibility and authority to operate, control, and

supervise the public schools within the Miami-Dade County Public

School District. As such, it has the authority to regulate all

personnel matters for the school district. See § 1001.32, Fla.

Stat. (2006).

2. At all times material to the allegations of this case,

the Respondent, Cedric Mitchell, was an employee of the School

Board and was subject to the disciplinary rules and regulations

pertinent to employees of the School District.

3. On or about July 20, 2005, the Petitioner’s Office of

the Inspector General issued a memorandum to Dr. Rudolph F. Crew,

the Superintendent of Schools, that referenced 106 teachers who

were identified by a grand jury investigation of teachers who

obtained academic credits from Eastern Oklahoma State College.

The Respondent was one of the teachers.

4. Thereafter, a lead sheet was generated to direct the

Miami-Dade County Schools Police Department to conduct an

investigation of the allegations. The claim asserted that the

Respondent had obtained academic credits for the purpose of

certification, recertification and/or endorsements without

availing himself of actual academic class time, work, or effort.

5. Michael Alexander, a detective with the Miami-Dade

Schools’ Police Department, was assigned to the matter.

Detective Alexander interviewed the Respondent on or about

November 29, 2005. At that time the Respondent waived his right

to representation and freely admitted to the detective that he

obtained course credit from Eastern Oklahoma State College but

attended no classes and did no coursework.

6. According to the detective, the Respondent described a

scenario whereby the Respondent went to Palmetto High School on a

Saturday and spoke with a “Dr. McCoggle” who advised him as to

the coursework needed for certification and charged him $775.00.

After making the payment to Dr. McCoggle, the Respondent did

nothing of an academic nature to complete coursework.

7. Sometime later a transcript denoting the appropriate

coursework came to the Respondent’s home.

8. Despite having performed no academic work to achieve the

credits, when he received the transcripts for the courses, the

Respondent submitted them to the Petitioner to achieve

certification. Had he not submitted documentation of the courses

needed for certification, the Respondent would have been

terminated from his employment with the School District.

9. There is no evidence in this record that the Respondent

actually ever legitimately completed the academic course work

necessary for certification. Even after the Respondent knew or

should have known that the procedure he used to achieve

certification was unacceptable, there is no evidence that the

Respondent ever completed academic course work to support the

Respondent’s certification to teach for the Miami-Dade Public

Schools.

10. Once the Respondent became aware that he was under

investigation for participating in the inappropriate scheme to

obtain college credit, he joined the teachers’ union and sought

the union representative’s advice regarding the matter.

11. According to the union representative, Michael Molnar,

the Respondent did not indicate to him that he had done no course

work or attended no classes. Had the Respondent been candid in

that matter, Mr. Molnar would have advised the Respondent not to

implicate himself or to resign before implicating himself.

Because that was not the case, the union representative told the

Respondent to be truthful and honest in answering the questions

posed by the Petitioner. To that end, the Respondent confirmed

the information regarding his credits from Eastern Oklahoma State

College when questioned by the Petitioner.

12. The Respondent did not contest the findings reached in

Detective Alexander’s report of the investigation.

13. The Respondent did not contest the findings asserted in

the Summary of Conference-For-The-Record prepared by Lucy

Iturrey.

14. The Respondent was not coerced or otherwise forced to

admit that he accepted college credit from Eastern Oklahoma State

College and submitted that credit for certification purposes.

Had the Respondent been candid with the union representative and

been advised that he could refrain from making a statement to the

Petitioner (and obviously did not admit the facts of the scheme),

the underlying facts regarding the scheme (to give academic

credits where no credits were earned) could have been ascertained

through other means. The widespread use of the scheme was well-

documented and led to the successful criminal prosecution of its

“kingpin.”

15. The School Board of Miami-Dade County took action at

its meeting on March 15, 2006, to suspend and initiate dismissal

proceedings against the Respondent. That preliminary action

acknowledged that the outcome of the matter was subject to an

administrative hearing if requested by the employee.

16. The Respondent timely requested an administrative

hearing to contest the proposed action and the case was timely

forwarded to the Division of Administrative hearings for formal

proceedings.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

17. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of,

these proceedings. §§ 120.569 and 120.57(1), Fla. Stat. (2006).

18. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof in this cause

to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the

Respondent committed the violations alleged. See McNeill v.

Pinellas County School Board , 678 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).

19. Pursuant to Section 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2005),

the Petitioner has the authority to dismiss professional service

contract teachers for “just cause.”

20. “Just cause” as that term is defined includes, but is

not limited to, misconduct in office, incompetency, gross

insubordination, willful neglect of duty, or the conviction of a

crime involving moral turpitude. See Dietz v. Lee County County

School Board , 647 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1994).

21. Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009 defines

“misconduct in office” as:

. . . a violation of the Code of Ethics of

the Education Profession as adopted in Rule

6B-1.001, FAC., and the Principles of

Professional Conduct for the Education

Profession in Florida as adopted in Rule 6B-

1.006, FAC., which is so serious as to impair

the individual’s effectiveness in the school

system.

22. At all times material to this matter, the Principles of

Professional Conduct for teachers required the Respondent to not

intentionally distort or misrepresent facts concerning an

educational matter in direct or indirect public expression, to

maintain honesty in all professional dealings, not to

misrepresent his own professional qualifications, and not to

submit fraudulent information on any documents in connection with

professional activities. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 6B-1006.

23. “Misconduct in office” may be established where the

conduct engaged in by the teacher is of such a nature that it

“speaks for itself” in terms of its seriousness and its adverse

impact on the teacher’s effectiveness. In some cases, the proof

of the underlying conduct itself constitutes proof of impaired

effectiveness. See Purvis v. Marion County School Board , 766 So.

2d 492 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).

24. In this case the Respondent did not complete any

academic work to achieve the credits he submitted for

certification. The Respondent freely admitted this to the

detective. And, although the Respondent bears no burden of proof

in this matter, he did not provide any credible explanation for

his behavior when given the opportunity to do so. Had the

Respondent provided any reasonable explanation in this matter,

his conduct might have been excusable or understandable. As it

is, the Respondent submitted documents to achieve certification

when he knew he had done no real academic work for the credits.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

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

enter a Final Order terminating the Respondent’s employment

contract. Whether or not the Respondent could be eligible for

re-employment with the Petitioner should be based upon whether

the Respondent ever achieves the academic status for

certification based upon academic performance and coursework

completed through a legitimate means.

DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of February, 2007, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

___________________________________

J. D. Parrish

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

[phone] SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing [phone]

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 15th day of February, 2007.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Dr. Rudolph F. Crew, Superintendent

Miami-Dade County School Board

1450 Northeast Second Ave, No. 912

Miami, Florida 33132-1394

Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1244

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

John L. Winn, Commissioner of Education

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1514

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

Jean Marie Middleton, Esquire

School Board of Miami-Dade County

1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400

Miami, Florida 33132

Lawrence R. Metsch, Esquire

Metsch & Metsch, P.A.

Aventura Corporate Center

20801 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 307

Aventura, Florida 33180-1423

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15

days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to

this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will

issue the Final Order in this case.