08-005576 Florida A And M University Board Of Trustees vs. Novella Franklin
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Tuesday, June 23, 2009.


View Dockets  
Summary: Several allegations against Respondent were not established. The proven allegation did not constitute a violation of University regulations.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8FLORIDA A & M UNIVERSITY, )

14BOARD OF TRUSTEES, )

18)

19Petitioner, )

21)

22vs. ) Case No. 08-5576

27)

28NOVELLA FRANKLIN, )

31)

32Respondent. )

34)

35RECOMMENDED ORDER

37Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was conducted in this

47case on March 4, 2009, in Tallahassee, Florida, before

56Barbara J. Staros, Administrative Law Judge with the Division of Administrative Hearings.

68APPEARANCES

69For Petitioner: Linzie F. Bogan, Esquire

75Florida A & M University

80Office of the General Counsel

85300 Lee Hall

88Tallahassee, Florida 32307

91For Respondent: John Londot, Esquire

96Greenberg Traurig, P.A.

99101 East College Avenue

103Post Office Drawer 1838

107Tallahassee, Florida 32302

110STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

114The issue is whether Respondent should be dismissed from

123her employment with Petitioner for the reasons set forth in a

134termination letter dated October 3, 2008.

140PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

142By letter dated October 3, 2008, Petitioner, Florida A&M

151University, Board of Trustees (FAMU), notified Respondent,

158Novella Franklin, that she was dismissed from employment,

166effective at the close of business on October 16, 2008.

176Respondent filed a Request for Formal Hearing and Protest

185of Dismissal Action. Petitioner referred the request for

193hearing to the Division of Administrative Hearings on or about

203November 4, 2008.

206A Notice of Hearing, dated November 14, 2008, scheduled the

216hearing for February 2 and 3, 2009.

223On January 15, 2009, Petitioner filed a Motion to Compel

233and Request for Continuance. Following a telephone hearing on

242the Motion, the Request for Continuance was granted and the

252hearing rescheduled for March 3 and 4, 2009. The parties later

263indicated that only one day would be necessary. The case was

274heard on March 4, 2009.

279At hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of five

287witnesses: Janet Johnson, Sharla Givens, Rosa Christie,

294Danielle Kennedy-Lamar, and Ronald Gaines. Petitioner offered

301exhibits lettered A through M, which were admitted into

310evidence.

311Respondent testified on her own behalf and presented the

320testimony of two additional witnesses, Allison McNealy and

328Saundra Inge. Respondent offered Exhibits numbered 12, 14, 19,

337and 20 which were admitted into evidence. Respondent’s Exhibit

34621 was proffered. A ruling on the admissibility of Respondent's

356Exhibit 21 was withheld and the parties given the opportunity to

367address this issue in proposed orders. Upon consideration,

375Respondent’s Exhibit 21 is rejected and not in evidence. 1/

385A Transcript consisting of two volumes was filed on

394March 19, 2009. On April 16, 2009, the parties filed an Agreed

406Motion for Continuance to Submit Proposed Recommended Order.

414The Agreed Motion was granted and the parties timely filed

424Proposed Recommended Orders which have been duly considered in

433the preparation of this Recommended Order.

439FINDINGS OF FACT

4421. Respondent Novella Franklin began her employment with

450FAMU in 1987. From 1993 to December 1996, and again from

461November 1999 through 2008, Ms. Franklin worked in the

470Registrar’s Office. At all times material to this proceeding,

479Respondent held the position of Office Manager in the

488Registrar’s Office.

4902. On or about June 2, 2008, Ms. Janet Johnson accepted

501the position of Registrar at FAMU. Ms. Johnson’s first day of

512employment was July 7, 2008. Prior to that date, the position

523of Registrar had been vacant for some time.

5313. Ms. Johnson had previously worked for FAMU at a time

542not material to this proceeding. Ms. Johnson and Respondent

551knew each other from the time of Ms. Johnson’s previous

561employment there.

5634. In mid-June 2008, Respondent asked Roland Gaines, Vice

572President for Student Affairs, for Ms. Johnson’s telephone

580number so that she could contact Ms. Johnson regarding several

590matters related to her transition to employment at FAMU.

599Mr. Gaines’ assistant provided Ms. Johnson’s telephone number to

608Respondent.

6095. In mid-to-late June 2008, Respondent phoned Ms. Johnson

618to welcome her back to FAMU and to assist Ms. Johnson with her

631transition back to FAMU. During telephone conversations,

638Respondent asked Ms. Johnson if she needed Respondent’s

646assistance with securing employment related items such as a

655parking decal, name plate, business cards, and access into the

665building where the Registrar’s Office is located. Respondent

673also asked Ms. Johnson if she wanted Respondent to order

683signature stamps for the office.

6886. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Denise Jones

698was the Administrative Assistant for the Office of the

707Registrar.

7087. On June 26, 2008, Ms. Johnson sent an e-mail addressed

719to Respondent and Ms. Jones which stated as follows:

728Good morning ladies,

731Novella, thanks for contacting me and

737gathering pertinent information to assist

742with my arrival to FAMU.

747Attached are several copies of my signature,

754select one (a good looking clear one) and

762use for the documents & stamps needed in the

771office. Select from one of the Janet E.

779Johnson signatures.

781Please protect these signatures. In the

787past they should be destroyed once used.

794I look forward to seeing you all on the 7th.

804Janet E. Johnson

8078. Attached to the e-mail were several versions of

816Ms. Johnson’s signature, as referenced in the e-mail.

8249. After receiving Ms. Johnson’s e-mail, Respondent spoke

832to Ms. Jones, who provided Respondent with the name and phone

843number of the Tallahassee Stamp Company. Ms. Jones is the

853person who typically orders supplies for the Registrar’s Office

862through a requisitioning process. Respondent learned from

869Ms. Jones that the budget had not yet been approved to purchase

881office supplies.

88310. In late June or the beginning of July, Respondent

893called Tallahassee Stamp Company and spoke to an employee there.

903On July 2, 2008, Respondent sent an e-mail to Tallahassee Stamp

914Company wherein she placed an order for a signature stamp

924containing Ms. Johnson’s signature. The e-mail contained the

932same attachment that Ms. Johnson provided in her e-mail to

942Respondent and Ms. Jones. Respondent’s e-mail to the stamp

951company stated, “Good morning. See attached signature for a

960stamp. The third from the top.”

96611. At the time she placed the order for the stamp,

977Respondent did not inform anyone at FAMU that she had placed the

989order.

99012. On July 21, 2008, Ms. Jones prepared a requisition for

1001five signature stamps containing Ms. Johnson’s name. On

1009July 24, 2008, Ms. Johnson approved the requisition for the five

1020signature stamps.

102213. In addition to her position as Office Manager at the

1033Registrar’s Office, Respondent was the Head Coach of the FAMU

1043women’s bowling team. On July 25, 2008, Respondent left to

1053attend a funeral in Chicago for a student athlete who had been

1065killed in a car accident. Respondent returned to work mid-day

1075on July 29, 2008.

107914. On July 30, 2008, Respondent reported to work in the

1090morning and then left for a doctor’s appointment. On the way

1101back to work, she stopped by Tallahassee Stamp Company. She

1111picked up one stamp with Ms. Johnson’s signature and paid for it

1123with her personal funds. She then stopped for lunch and

1133thereafter returned to work around 12:30 p.m.

114015. Upon returning to work, Ms. Sharla Givens, a

1149Transcript Specialist in the Registrar’s office, walked by

1157Respondent’s desk. Respondent then showed Ms. Givens the

1165signature stamp she had just picked up from the stamp company

1176and informed Ms. Givens that she had purchased it with her own

1188funds. Ms. Givens describes her reaction to Respondent having

1197the stamp as “shocked.”

120116. Respondent then went to the desk of Rosa Christie, the

1212receptionist for the Registrar’s Office, and showed Ms. Christie

1221the stamp. Ms. Christie’s desk is just outside Ms. Johnson’s

1231office.

123217. Respondent informed Ms. Christie that she had

1240purchased the stamp for Ms. Johnson and that Ms. Johnson should

1251not have to wait until funds were available to receive a

1262signature stamp. Ms. Christie told Respondent that that was

1271“nice.” Respondent also told Ms. Jones and another staff

1280member, Ms. Thomas, about having the signature stamp.

128818. That afternoon, at approximately 4:45 p.m., Respondent

1296was called into Ms. Johnson’s office and received a written

1306reprimand for a matter unrelated to the allegations which form

1316the basis for this proceeding. This meeting took 20 to 25

1327minutes. Respondent did not inform Ms. Johnson that she had the

1338signature stamp during this meeting or at any other time.

134819. Respondent was upset at having received a written

1357reprimand. She prepared a written response which was ultimately

1366submitted to the Assistant Registrar on August 5, 2008.

137520. Danielle Kennedy-Lamar is the Associate Vice President

1383for Student Affairs and is in charge of enrollment management.

1393Prior to the time that Ms. Johnson was hired as Registrar and

1405for a short time thereafter, student transcripts were stamped by

1415Ms. Kennedy-Lamar’s administrative assistant, Allison McNealy.

142121. Ms. McNealy learned from Ms. Givens that Respondent

1430had a signature stamp. Ms. McNealy reported this to

1439Ms. Kennedy-Lamar and inquired whether she, Ms. McNealy, would

1448continue to stamp transcripts.

145222. On August 1, 2008, Ms. Kennedy-Lamar had a previously

1462scheduled meeting with Ms. Johnson. During this meeting,

1470Ms. Kennedy-Lamar asked Ms. Johnson if Ms. Johnson was aware

1480that Respondent had a stamp bearing Ms. Johnson’s signature.

1489Ms. Johnson informed Ms. Kennedy-Lamar that she was not aware

1499that Respondent had a signature stamp.

150523. Ms. Kennedy-Lamar then instructed Ms. McNealy to ask

1514Ms. Givens if she had any transcripts and, if so, to have

1526Respondent stamp them. Ms. Kennedy-Lamar did this to determine

1535whether such a stamp existed.

154024. Ms. Givens then delivered several transcripts to

1548Respondent, asked Respondent to stamp the transcripts, and

1556advised Respondent that Respondent had the authority to stamp

1565the transcripts.

156725. Respondent did not immediately stamp the transcripts,

1575but eventually stamped them as instructed.

158126. At the time she stamped the transcripts, Respondent

1590did so with authorization form Ms. Kennedy-Lamar’s office.

159827. The transcripts then were returned to Ms. Kennedy-

1607Lamar, who recalls that there were approximately 20 transcripts.

1616Ms. Kennedy-Lamar then gave the stamped transcripts to

1624Ms. Johnson. The stamped transcripts were not disseminated to

1633the students or whoever requested them.

163928. Ms. Johnson thereafter instructed Ms. Jones to cancel

1648the stamp order that she had previously authorized and prepared

1658another signature to order a different signature stamp.

166629. At the time Respondent was instructed to stamp

1675transcripts, the standard procedure was as follows: Ms. Givens

1684or Ms. Thomas from the Registrar’s Office, or on some occasions

1695Respondent, would bring printed transcripts to Ms. McNealy in

1704Ms. Kennedy-Lamar’s office. Ms. McNealy would stamp the

1712transcripts. Ms. McNealy would then notify Registrar staff that

1721the transcripts were ready for pickup. Ms. Givens, Ms. Thomas,

1731or on some occasions Respondent, would retrieve the stamped

1740transcripts. Ms. McNealy did not conduct a review of the

1750transcripts before stamping or ask Ms. Kennedy-Lamar to review

1759them prior to stamping them.

176430. Roland Gaines is Vice-President for Student Affairs at

1773FAMU. On May 8, 2008, Dr. James Ammons, President of FAMU,

1784delegated to Mr. Gaines the authority to administer all

1793applicable FAMU regulations, policies, and procedures affecting

1800employment and personnel actions consistent with Chapter 10 of

1809FAMU regulations.

181131. On September 18, 2008, Mr. Gaines wrote a letter to

1822Respondent notifying her of the University’s intent to dismiss

1831her from employment and placing her on leave with pay. The

184210.302(3)(y), and 10.302(3)(cc) as authority, and states in

1850pertinent part as follows:

1854This employment action is being considered

1860against you for the following alleged work

1867violations:

1868* * *

1871This proposed employment action is being

1877considered against [sic] for your alleged

1883failure to follow the protocols established

1889by the University Registrar’s Office for

1895processing student transcript requests. In

1900addition, you allegedly requested, via e-

1906mail, the production of a facsimile stamp

1913bearing the signature of the Registrar; used

1920your personal funds to purchase the stamp;

1927and embossed 43 transcripts totaling 140

1933documents which were released without

1938appropriate review and approval by the

1944designated University authority. The

1948enclosed documents from the Division of

1954Audit and Compliance provide further details

1960of the subject allegations of misconduct.

196632. The September 18, 2008, letter also provides

1974Respondent with an opportunity to request a predetermination

1982conference to present an oral or written statement, or both, to

1993refute or explain the charges against her.

200033. Respondent submitted a written response and a

2008predetermination conference was held on September 29, 2008.

201634. On October 3, 2008, Mr. Gaines notified Respondent by

2026letter that she was dismissed from employment effective at the

2036close of business October 16, 2008. The letter again cited the

2047same FAMU regulations which were cited in the September 18,

20572008, letter and added no additional or different factual bases

2067for Respondent’s termination.

207035. The October 3, 2008, letter also advised Respondent of

2080her right to appeal this action.

208636. FAMU referred Respondent’s appeal of her termination

2094to the Division of Administrative Hearings, and this de novo

2104proceeding ensued.

2106CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

210937. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

2116jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter pursuant to

2126Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2008), and its

2135contract to hear such cases.

214038. The parties stipulated that FAMU has the burden of

2150proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent

2159should be dismissed from her employment for the reasons

2168specified in the October 3, 2008, termination letter from

2177Mr. Gaines to Respondent.

218139. FAMU Regulations 10.111, 10.302, and 1.019 are duly

2190promulgated regulations which were in effect at all times

2199material to this proceeding.

220340. The October 3, 2008, dismissal letter alleged that

2212Respondent violated Regulation 1.019(4) which reads in pertinent

2220part as follows:

2223University Code of Conduct:

2227(4) Conflict of Interest and Commitment-

2233Faculty and staff of the University owe

2240their primary professional allegiance to the

2246University and its mission to engage in

2253education, scholarship and research. . .

2259Thus, all officers, faculty, principal

2264investigators, staff, student employees and

2269others acting on behalf of the University

2276hold positions of trust, and the University

2283expects them to carry out their

2289responsibilities with the highest level of

2295integrity and ethical behavior. In order to

2302protect the University’s mission, members of

2308the University community with private or

2314other professional or financial interests

2319which conflict with applicable State of

2325Florida’s, state or federal laws and

2331University rules and policies must disclose

2337them in compliance with the University’s

2343conflict of interest/conflict of commitment

2348policies and the Florida Code of Ethics for

2356Public Officers and Employees.

236041. The October 3, 2008, dismissal letter alleges that

2369Respondent violated Regulation 10.111(1) and (2)(b), which reads

2377as follows:

2379(1) Disruptive Conduct—Faculty,

2382Administrative and Professional, and USPS

2387employees who intentionally act to impair,

2393interfere with, or obstruct the orderly

2399conduct, processes, and functions of the

2405University shall be subject to appropriate

2411disciplinary action by the University

2416authorities.

2417* * *

2420(2) Disruptive conduct shall include,

2425but not be limited to, the following:

2432* * *

2435(b) Theft, conversion, misuse or

2440willful damage or destruction of University

2446property, or the property of employees of

2453the University.

245542. The October 3, 2008, dismissal letter alleges that

2464Respondent violated Regulation 10.302(3)(y) and (cc), which

2471reads as follows:

2474Disciplinary and Separation from Employment

2479Actions for University Support Personnel

2484System Employees.

2486(3) Offenses- Standards for

2490Disciplinary Action. The most common

2495occurrences are listed below, but the list

2502is not all-inclusive. The disciplinary

2507actions for the listed offenses have been

2514established to help assure that employees

2520who commit offenses receive similar

2525treatment in like circumstances.

2529* * *

2532(y) Willful Violation of University

2537Written Rules: Regulations and Policies; or

2543Willful violation of State Laws - This

2550includes the willful disregard of internal

2556department written rules and policies. . .

2563* * *

2566(cc) Conduct unbecoming a Public

2571Employee-Conduct, whether on or off the job,

2578that adversely affects the employee’s

2583ability to continue to perform his/her

2589current job, or which adversely affects the

2596University’s ability to carry out its

2602assigned mission.

26041. First occurrence- Written reprimand,

2609five (5) days suspension or dismissal.

26152. Second occurrence- Five (5) days

2621suspension or dismissal.

26243. Third occurrence- Dismissal.

262843. Before analyzing the individual regulations alleged to

2636have been violated, the allegations of Respondent’s conduct must

2645be examined. These allegations or charges were set out in

2655Mr. Gaines’ September 18, 2009, letter to Respondent and were

2665not expanded in the October 3, 2008, termination letter. These

2675letters constitute the charging documents in this case and,

2684therefore, define the parameters of this analysis. The

2692September 18, 2008, letter states in pertinent part:

2700This proposed employment action is

2705being considered against [sic] for your

2711alleged failure to follow the protocols

2717established by the University Registrar’s

2722Office for processing student transcript

2727requests. In addition, you allegedly

2732requested, via e-mail, the production of a

2739facsimile stamp bearing the signature of the

2746Registrar; used your personal funds to

2752purchase the stamp; and embossed 43

2758transcripts totaling 140 documents which

2763were released without appropriate review and

2769approval by the designated University

2774authority. The enclosed documents from the

2780Division of Audit and compliance provide

2786further details of the subject allegations

2792of misconduct.

279444. The evidence does not establish the allegation or

2803charge that Respondent failed to follow protocols established by

2812the Registrar’s office for processing transcript requests. The

2820evidence established that Respondent stamped the transcripts

2827only after being instructed to do so and with the understanding

2838that she, at that particular time and under the particular

2848circumstances, had the authority to do so from the Office of the

2860Associate Vice-President of Student Affairs.

286545. The evidence does not establish the allegation or

2874charge that Respondent embossed 43 transcripts, totaling 140

2882documents which were released without appropriate review and

2890approval by the designated University authority. As to the

2899number of transcripts, the evidence established that 15-to-20

2907transcripts totaling approximately 43 sheets of paper were

2915stamped or embossed.

291846. Further, the evidence does not establish the

2926allegation or charge that the transcripts were released without

2935appropriate review. The usual practice for stamping transcripts

2943was, in essence, ministerial in nature. The transcripts stamped

2952by Respondent received as much “review and approval” as any

2962other transcripts stamped at that time, inasmuch as they usually

2972were stamped at the direction of Ms. Kennedy-Lamar, but not with

2983any substantive review or approval by her or her office.

299347. The evidence does establish the allegation or charge

3002that Respondent requested via e-mail the production of a

3011facsimile stamp bearing the signature of the Registrar, and paid

3021for with her personal funds. Since this allegation or charge

3031was established by the evidence, the question then becomes, did

3041Respondent violate any of the regulations cited as authority in

3051the charging documents when she ordered the production of the

3061facsimile stamp bearing the signature of the registrar and paid

3071for it with her personal funds? 2/

307848. FAMU argues that by securing the Registrar’s signature

3087stamp, which it characterizes as a clandestine process, which

3096did not involve the Registrar, and by failing to timely inform

3107the Registrar that the stamp was in her possession, that

3117Respondent violated both Regulations 1.019(4) and 10.302(3)(cc).

312449. Respondent was one of two recipients of an e-mail from

3135the incoming Registrar specifically instructing the recipients

3142to select a clear signature and order a signature stamp. The

3153body of the e-mail from the incoming Registrar references

3162Respondent, not the other recipient. This communication clearly

3170involved the incoming Registrar. Once Respondent picked up the

3179stamp, she showed it to other staff members upon returning to

3190the office. The facts simply do not support the description of

3201Respondent’s procurement of the stamp as clandestine.

320850. There is no evidence that Respondent violated

3216University Regulation 1.019(4) relating to the University Code

3224of Conduct. The thrust of subsection (4) goes to disclosure of

3235potential conflicts of interest, of which there are none in this

3246case. Further, no evidence was presented that Respondent used

3255or attempted to use the signature stamp for her own benefit.

3266Finally, this regulation does not provide a disciplinary basis

3275with respect to the conduct alleged to have been committed in

3286this case.

328851. Nor does the evidence support a conclusion that

3297Respondent engaged in conduct unbecoming a public employee.

3305Accordingly, the evidence does not support a conclusion that

3314Respondent violated University Regulation 10.302(3)(cc).

331952. Finally, the charging documents allege that Respondent

3327violated University Regulation 10.111(1) and (2)b. Subsection

3334(1) advises that University employees who intentionally act to

3343impair, interfere with, or obstruct the orderly conduct,

3351processes, and functions of the University shall be subject to

3361appropriate disciplinary action. Subsection (2)b. references

3367theft, conversion, misuse or willful damage or destruction of

3376University property.

337853. Respondent did not steal, convert, misuse, or

3386willfully damage or destroy University property when she ordered

3395and purchased the signature stamp. She only used it when

3405instructed to do so.

340954. Finally, The undersigned is not persuaded that

3417Respondent engaged in disruptive conduct as contemplated by

3425subsection (1) of the above regulation. While Respondent did

3434not use the requisition process that is normally used, she

3444ordered the stamp after having received direction to do so.

3454RECOMMENDATION

3455Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

3465Law, it is

3468RECOMMENDED:

3469That Petitioner enter a final order rescinding its

3477October 3, 2008, letter terminating Respondent from employment,

3485thereby entitling Respondent to reinstatement to a comparable

3493position, and appropriate back pay from the effective date of

3503her termination until the date of reinstatement.

3510DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of June, 2009, in

3520Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

3524S

3525BARBARA J. STAROS

3528Administrative Law Judge

3531Division of Administrative Hearings

3535The DeSoto Building

35381230 Apalachee Parkway

3541Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

3544(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675

3548Fax Filing (850) 921-6847

3552www.doah.state.fl.us

3553Filed with the Clerk of the

3559Division of Administrative Hearings

3563this 23rd day of June, 2009.

3569ENDNOTES

35701/ At hearing, FAMU objected to the admission of Respondent’s

3580Exhibit 21 on the basis of attorney-client privilege. Counsel

3589for the parties describe Respondent’s Exhibit 21 as an e-mail

3599from FAMU’s General Counsel to Dr. O’Dour, Vice President of

3609Audit and Compliance for FAMU. Petitioner argues that the

3618document was disclosed during discovery and, therefore, any

3626privilege has been waived. FAMU describes the disclosure as

3635inadvertent and made on the eve of hearing. FAMU argues that

3646the document is protected as attorney work product, citing

3655Section 119.07(1)(d)1., Florida Statutes. That argument is

3662rejected as the disclosure was made during discovery, not as a

3673result of a public records request. However, the undersigned

3682recognizes that waiver of the attorney-client privilege is not

3691favored in Florida. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Lease Am., Inc. ,

3702735 So. 2d 560, 562 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), cited with approval in

3715TIG Insurance Corp. of America v. Aben E. Johnson, et al. , 799

3727So. 2d 339 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Moreover, the undersigned has

3738considered the limited facts regarding the disclosure, has

3746applied the “relevant circumstances test,” See Abamar Housing

3755and Development, Inc. v. Lisa Daly Lady Décor, Inc. , 698 So. 2d

3767276 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1997), and has determined that this

3777inadvertent disclosure does not constitute a waiver of the

3786privilege. Accordingly, Respondent’s proffered Exhibit 21 is

3793not in evidence and has not been considered.

38012/ In its Proposed Recommended Order, FAMU conceded that no

3811evidence was offered that suggests that Respondent violated

3819internal department written rules and policies in violation of

3828University Regulation 10.302.(3)(y). Therefore, the analysis

3834will not address that regulation.

3839COPIES FURNISHED :

3842Avery McKnight, Esquire

3845Linzie F. Bogan, Esquire

3849Florida A & M University

3854Office of the General Counsel

3859300 Lee Hall

3862Tallahassee, Florida 32307

3865John K. Londot, Esquire

3869Greenberg Traurig, P.A.

3872101 East College Avenue

3876Post Office Drawer 1838

3880Tallahassee, Florida 32302

3883Dr. Eric J. Smith

3887Commissioner of Education

3890Turlington Building, Suite 1514

3894325 West Gaines Street

3898Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

3901Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel

3906Department of Education

3909Turlington Building, Suite 1244

3913325 West Gaines Street

3917Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

3920NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

3926All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

393615 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

3947to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

3958will issue the Final Order in this case.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 11/08/2019
Proceedings: Agency Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/15/2009
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 06/23/2009
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 06/23/2009
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held March 4, 2009). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 06/23/2009
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 05/01/2009
Proceedings: Respondent Novella Franklin`s Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/01/2009
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/01/2009
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Notice of Filing Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/16/2009
Proceedings: Agreed Motion for Continuance to Submit Proposed Recommended Order filed.
Date: 03/19/2009
Proceedings: Transcript (Volumes 1&2) filed.
Date: 03/04/2009
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 02/27/2009
Proceedings: Letter to Judge Staros from J. Londot advising that Respondent has no objection to changing the hearing date filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/27/2009
Proceedings: Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/27/2009
Proceedings: Letter to Judge Staros from L. Bogan regarding agreed upon date for hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/24/2009
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Motion for Continuance filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/23/2009
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing and Order on Motion to Compel (hearing set for March 3 and 4, 2009; 9:30 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL).
PDF:
Date: 01/22/2009
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance by John K. Londot, Esq. filed.
Date: 01/22/2009
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 01/15/2009
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Motion to Compel and Request for Continuance filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/05/2009
Proceedings: Order Granting Motion to Withdraw as Counsel.
PDF:
Date: 12/15/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Withdrawal of Notice of Appearance filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/11/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (filed by N. Wallace) filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/05/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Interrogatories to Respondent filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/25/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Non-representation of Respondent Before the Division of Administrative Hearings filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/14/2008
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 11/14/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for February 2 and 3, 2009; 9:30 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL).
PDF:
Date: 11/13/2008
Proceedings: Response to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/06/2008
Proceedings: Initial Order.
PDF:
Date: 11/05/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Dismissal from Employment filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/05/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Intent to Dismiss from Employment filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/04/2008
Proceedings: Petititoner`s Request for Formal Hearing and Protest of Dismissal Action filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/04/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (filed by C. Cummings).
PDF:
Date: 11/04/2008
Proceedings: Agency referral filed.

Case Information

Judge:
BARBARA J. STAROS
Date Filed:
11/05/2008
Date Assignment:
11/06/2008
Last Docket Entry:
11/08/2019
Location:
Tallahassee, Florida
District:
Northern
Agency:
ADOPTED IN TOTO
 

Counsels

Related DOAH Cases(s) (1):

Related Florida Statute(s) (3):