14-004055PL Pam Stewart, As Commissioner Of Education vs. Theresa Catherine Ackerman Status: Closed Recommended Order on Monday, December 22, 2014.

Summary: Petitioner demonstrated that Respondent committed an act of moral turpitude by defrauding her insurance company with respect to a theft claim. Recommend two year's suspension, probation, and fine.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

PAM STEWART, AS COMMISSIONER OF

EDUCATION,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 14 - 4055PL

THERESA CATHERINE ACKERMAN,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

On Nove mber 6, 2014, Administrative Law Judge Lisa Shearer

Nelson conducted a duly - noticed hearing by means of video

teleconference with sites in Tallahassee and Jacksonville,

Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: J. David Holder, Esquire

J. David Holder, P. A.

387 Lakeside Drive

Defuniak Springs, Florida 32435

For Respondent: Theresa Ackerman, pro se

4722 Leah Creek Drive

Jacksonville, Florida 32257

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue to be addressed is whether Respondent violated

sectio n 1012.795(1)(d) and (j) , Florida Statutes (2011), and/or

Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A - 10.081(5)(a), and if so, what

penalty should be imposed.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On December 18, 2013, Pam Stewart, as Commissioner of

Education (Petitioner), filed an Administrative Complaint against

Respondent, Theresa Ackerman (Respondent or Ms. Ackerman),

charging her with violating section 1012.795(1)(d). Initially,

Respondent filed a request for a hearing pursuant to section

120.57(2), Florida Statutes, and a hearing before a Teacher

Hearing Panel of the Education Practices Commission was convened

on July 31, 2014. However, during the course of the hearing it

became apparent that there were disputes of material fact. As a

result, on August 28, 2014, the case was referred to the Division

of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of an

administrative law judge.

On September 11, 2014, the case was scheduled for hearing to

take place on November 6, 2014. On October 8, 2014, Petitioner

moved for leave to amend the Administrative Complaint, which was

granted by Order dated October 20, 2014. The Amended

Administrative Complaint was filed October 20, 2014, adding

charges for allegedly violating section 1012.795(1)(j) and rule

6A - 10.081(5)(a).

The hearing proceede d and concluded as scheduled, on

November 6, 2014. Petitioner presented the testimony of Corporal

Michael Abate, Lieutenant Edward Johnson, and Respondent , and

PetitionerÓs Exhibits 1 - 12 were admitted into evidence, including

the deposition testimony of R espondent and of Charles Beall.

Respondent did not present any witnesses and did not submit any

exhibits.

The T ranscript of the proceedings was filed with the

Division of Administrative Hearings on November 24, 2014.

Respondent and Petitioner filed the ir Proposed Recommended Orders

on December 1 and December 3, respectively. Petitioner moved to

strike RespondentÓs Proposed Recommended Order on December 1,

2014, and after consideration of the motion and the document, the

motion is denied. However, the information contained in the

final paragraph of RespondentÓs Proposed Recommended Order

contain s information not presented at hearing, and that

information has not been considered in the preparation of this

Recommended Order.

All statutory references are t o the 2011 codification unless

specifically indicated. Based on the testimony and demeanor of

the witnesses, and the documentary evidence received, the

following findings of fact are made.

FINDING S OF FACT

1. Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate number

972355, covering the area of elementary education. RespondentÓs

certificate was issued on July 1, 2008, renewed on March 5, 2013,

and is valid through June 30, 2018.

2. Respondent moved to the State of Florida in

approximately March of 2011, from the State of Maine. She, her

husband, and two small children moved into an apartment in Ocean

Park Apartments at 801 First Street South, Jacksonville, Florida.

RespondentÓs apartment face d the beach and was within 100 - 200

yards from the beach. Shortly after moving there, Respondent

obtained renters Ó insurance through Geico. The ren t ers Ó

insurance was issued on approximately March 23, 2011 .

3. On March 26, 2011 , Respondent called the Jacksonville

Beach Police Department to report a burglary at her resi dence.

Respondent reported that she and her husband had taken their

children to the beach for the day, and upon their return that

afternoon , she and her husband placed the stroller, containing a

beach bag and various other belongings they took to the beac h,

inside the front door to the apartment. Respondent and her

husband then went upstairs to put the children down for a nap.

When they returned downstairs approximately an hour later, the

stroller and its contents were missing.

4. Officer Michael Abate of the Jacksonville Beach Police

D epartment responded to RespondentÓs call. He found no signs of

forced entry or any other indications that there had been an

intruder. However, the home was apparently unlocked at the time

of the reported incident, which would negate the need of forced

entry. Assuming for the sake of this Recommended Order that the

burglary occurred, 1/ it appears that the theft was a crime of

opportunity, given the apartmentÓs proximity to the beach and the

number of people in the area on a spring weekend.

5. Respondent furnished to Officer Abate a list of

approximately twelve items she claimed were stolen: the baby

stroller; a beach bag; a canon digital camera; an Apple i Pad;

sunglasses; flip flops; a Coach ® wallet; a Maine Driver Ó s

L i cense; a Bank of America credit card; $100 in cash; childrenÓs

shoes; and towels.

6. On May 5, 2011, Respondent went to the police department

and provided a more extensive list (supplemental list) of items

she claimed were stolen. This list contained 47 items as opposed

to the 12 originally described for Office Abate.

7. In addition to the number of items described, there were

a number of discrepancies between the first and second lists.

For example, the original list identified $100 in cash. The

s upplemental list reported $160 in cash. The Coach® wallet was

originally valued at $200, while the supplemental list valued the

wallet at $248. The value of a pair of sunglasses changed from

$150 to $199, and the digital cameraÓs value was amended from

$ 799 to approximately $1,200. Other items added to the claim in

the supplemental list included an iPhone 4, Otterbox Defender

case, and Invisible SHIELD screen protector; an iPad case; a Kobo

E - reader; make - up and name - brand cosmetics; monogram m ed beach

wr aps; and a pair of Lacoste sunglasses in addition to the pair

of sunglasses previously listed .

8. On April 1, 2011, Respondent filed a written claim with

Assurant Insurance Company, which provided her renterÓs policy.

The value of the claim submitted wa s $6,024.56. With the

exception of her wallet and driverÓs license, Respondent claimed

that all of the missing items were purchased within a year of the

alleged theft. No depreciation was acknowledged for any item.

9. Assurant referred the claim to its special

investigations unit for further review, which was conducted by

Special Investigator Charles Beall. Mr. Beall interviewed

Respondent by telephone on May 17, June 21, and August 3, 2011.

During his investigation , Mr. Beall had discovered that some

photographs submitted by Respondent of items supposedly taken in

the burglary were actually taken two to three weeks after the

burglary had been reported. Moreover, the photographs were taken

with the camera that was listed as stolen. When Mr. Beall

con fronted Respondent in the telephone conference on June 21,

with the times the pictures were taken, she could not provide an

explanation.

10. Respondent was hired at a Duval Charter School at

Baymeadows on June 21, 2011. She continues to teach there.

1 1 . Mr. Beall also discovered during his investigation that

a receipt from Amazon.com submitted by Respondent for the camera

equipment was altered to reflect a higher purchase price by $639.

The original receipt indicated that a single item, the camera,

wa s purchased for $599. The receipt was altered to show the

purchase of two items (a more expensive camera and a separately

purchased lens) for $1198.95. When asked to confirm the

information on the invoice she had provided to Assurant,

Respondent initiall y confirmed the information as accurate. When

confronted with the information received from Amazon regarding

the purchase, Respondent admitted to alter ing the Amazon.com

invoice in order to make up the monetary difference in her claims

deductible.

12. I t is found that neither the camera, nor the items

photographed with the camera after the date the theft was

reported to the Jacksonville Beach Police Department, w as

actually stolen.

1 3 . Based upon its investigation, Assurant denied

RespondentÓs claim in full and notified Respondent of the denial

by certified mail dated August 1, 2011 . It also referred the

case to the National Insurance Crime Bureau and to the Florida

Department of Financial Services, Division of Insurance Fraud.

Investigator Ed Johnson (now Lieutenant) from the Division of

Insurance Fraud was assigned to the case, and during his

investigation interviewed Respondent. During the interview,

Respondent provided a sworn statement, which reads in part:

In March of 2011 my family moved to th e

above listed address. Within two weeks of

our arrival, we were the victims of a theft.

I then filed a police report with the

Jacksonville Beach Police Department, and

filed a claim with my insurance company.

While filing a report and claim, I purposel y

[sic] and untruthfully stated that a Canon

T2i camera was stolen. Through the

investigation of Mr. Charles Beall at

Assurant Insurance it was determined that my

claim for the camera was false, and my claim

was denied. I falsified the camera being

stole n in order to make up for the

deductible on my claim.

I also claimed that my ME (Maine)

license was stolen. It has been determined

that my ME license was actually used to

acquire a F lorida Drivers License on

April 11, 2011. [ 2 /]

1 4 . Lt. Johnson prepar ed and submitted an arrest warrant

for RespondentÓs arrest on September 29, 2011, and a warrant was

issued that same day. Respondent was charge d with filing false

insurance claims, a third - degree felony. Respondent was arrested

the following day.

1 5 . O n December 14, 2011, Respondent entered a pre - trial

intervention program. On October 2, 2012, based upon her

completion of the program, the State AttorneyÓs Office declined

to prosecute the charges.

1 6 . On April 29, 2013, Respondent submitted a letter t o Pam

Stewart as Commissioner of Education, in response to the

preliminary investigation by DOE . The letter stated in pertinent

part:

In April, 2011, my home was robbed, while

myself and my husband were settling our two

young children upstairs for a nap. Our

stroller was taken, along with all of the

contents. The contents totaled less than

$5,000, however the emotional toll was far

more extensive. In the aftermath of such an

event, our emotions were heightened, and we

were in dismal spirits. Although w e had

renterÓs insurance, we knew that we would

struggle financially to replace all of the

items that were stolen. At that time, I

made a foolish decision to add an extra item

to my insurance claim to make up for our

deductible, so that we wouldnÓt end up

losing money.

* * *

They reported the case to local law

enforcement, and I met with a Detective to

explain how a law - abiding, well - respected

community leader such as myself, [3/] had made

such a decision. The Attorney General

decided to pursue the cas e, and charge me of

[sic] Insurance Fraud in the 3rd degree. I

fully cooperated with law enforcement

officers, and drove myself [to] the jail to

accept my consequence.

I bonded out of jail, hired a lawyer,

and enrolled in a ÐPre - Trial DiversionÑ

program . . . . I completed several hours of

community service, and paid a hefty fine

during my ÐPre - Trial DiversionÑ program.

After a year, upon successful completion of

the program, the charges were dropped, and I

am left with an arrest record. I feel like

I have paid the price for what I did, and

learned several valuable lessons during the

recovery process.

My family has moved on financially from

this crisis, but the emotional scars will

remain. Educating children is my truest

love. Giving back to my comm unity and

country by educating our future leaders, and

enhancing the lives of people around me is

really who I am. This situation has

encouraged me to reflect deeply upon my

character, and what I am passionate about.

I appreciate your time and careful

c onsideration regarding this situation. I

made a poor decision, for which I have

suffered immensely for [sic].

17. In both the letter submitted to the Commissioner of

Education and during her appearance before a panel of the

Education Practices Commi ssion, Respondent consistently

maintained that the residence was in fact robbed. RespondentÓs

admission that she inflated the amount of her insurance claim in

order to cover the amount of her deductible is consistent with a

burglary occurring. The fact t hat there was no evidence of

forced entry into an unlocked home near the beach is not clear

and convincing evidence that the theft did not occur. 4/

PetitionerÓs claim that Respondent was lying when she made

statements that there was in fact a theft at her home is

rejected.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1 8 . The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this

action in accordance with sections 120.569 and 120.57(1) , Florida

Statutes .

1 9 . This is a proceeding to discipline Respondent's

educator certificate. Because disciplinary proceedings are

considered penal in nature, Petitioner is required to prove the

allegations in the Administrative Complaint by clear and

convincing evidence. Dep't of Banking & Fin. v. Os borne Stern &

Co. , 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996); Ferris v. Turlington , 510 So. 2d

292 (Fla. 1987).

20 . Clear and convincing evidence Ðrequires more proof than

a Òpreponderance of the evidenceÓ but less than Òbeyond and to

the exclusion of a reasonable doub t.ÓÑ In re Graziano ,

696 So. 2d 744, 753 (Fla. 1997) . As stated by the Florida

Supreme Court, the standard includes both qualitative and

quantitative components :

Clear and convincing evidence

requires that the evidence must be

found to be credible; the facts to

which the witnesses testify must

be distinctly remembered; the

testimony must be precise and

lacking in confusion as to the

facts in issue. The evidence must

be of such a weight that it

produces in the mind of the trier

of fact a firm belief or

c onviction, without hesitancy, as

to the truth of the allegations

sought to be established.

In re Davey , 645 So. 2d 398, 404 (Fla. 1994)(quoting, with

approval, Slomowitz v. Walker , 429 So. 2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA

1983)); see also In re Henson , 913 So. 2d 579, 590 (Fla. 2005).

ÐAlthough this standard of proof may be met where the evidence is

in conflict, it seems to preclude evidence that is ambiguous.Ñ

Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Shuler Bros. , 590 So. 2d 986, 989

(Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

2 1 . Petitioner a lle ged that Respondent violated section

1012.795(1)(d) and (j), Florida Statutes, and Florida

Administrative Code Rule 6A - 10.081 (5)(a ). Section 1012.795

provides in relevant part:

(1) The Education Practices Commission may

suspend the educator certificate of any

person as defined in s. 1012.01(2) or (3)

for up to 5 years, thereby denying that

person the right to teach or otherwise be

employed by a district school board or

public schoo l in any capacity requiring

direct contact with students for that period

of time, after which the holder may return

to teaching as provided in subsection (4);

may revoke the educator certificate of any

person, thereby denying that person the

right to teach or otherwise be employed by a

district school board or public school in

any capacity requiring direct contact with

students for up to 10 years, with

reinstatement subject to the provisions of

subsection (4); may revoke permanently the

educator certificate of any person thereby

denying that person the right to teach or

otherwise be employed by a district school

board or public school in any capacity

requiring direct contact with students; may

suspend the educator certificate, upon an

order of the court or n otice by the

Department of Revenue relating to the

payment of child support; or may impose any

other penalty provided by law, if the

person:

* * *

(d) Has been guilty of gross immorality or

an act involving moral turpitude as defined

by rule of the State Board of Education.

* * *

(j) Has violated the Principles of

Professional Conduct for the Education

Profession prescribed by State Board of

Educati on rules.

2 2 . At the time of the events alleged in the Administrative

Complaint, the Principles of Professional Conduct for the

Education Profession in Florida were contained in Florida

Administrative Code Rule 6B - 1.006. The rule was transferred to

the current rule, rule 6A - 10.081. The relevant text, however, is

the same. Rule 6A - 10.081 provides in pertinent part:

(1) The following disciplinary rule shall

constitute the Principles of Professional

Conduct for the Education Profession in

Florida.

(2) Violation of any of these principles

shall subject the individual to revocation

or suspension of the individual educatorÓs

certificate or other penalties as provided

by law.

* * *

(5) Obligation to the profession of

education requires that the individ ual:

(a) Shall maintain honesty in all

professional dealings.

2 3 . Section 1012.796(7) provides, in pertinent part:

1012.796 Complaints against teachers and

administrators; procedure:

* * *

(7) A panel of the commission shall enter a

final order eith er dismissing the complaint

or imposing one or more of the following

penalties:

(a) Denial of an application for a teaching

certificate or for an administrative or

supervisory endorsement on a teaching

certificate. The denial may provide that the

applic ant may not reapply for certification,

and that the department may refuse to

consider that applicantÓs application, for a

specified period of time or permanently.

(b) Revocation or suspension of a

certificate.

(c) Imposition of an administrative fine n ot

to exceed $2000 for each count or separate

offense.

(d) Placement of the teacher, administrator,

or supervisor on probation for a period of

time and subject to such conditions as the

commission may specify, including requiring

the certified teacher, a dministrator, or

supervisor to complete additional appropriate

college courses or work with another

certified educator, with the administrative

costs of monitoring the probation assessed to

the educator placed on probation. An

educator who has been placed on probation

shall, at a minimum:

1. Immediately notify the investigative

office in the Department of Education upon

termination of employment in the state in any

public or private position requiring an

educator's certificate.

2. Have his or her imm ediate supervisor

submit annual performance reports to the

investigative office in the Department of

Education.

3. Pay to the commission within the

first 6 months of each probation year the

administrative costs of monitoring probation

assessed to the ed ucator.

4. Violate no law and shall fully

comply with all district school board

policies, school rules, and State Board of

Education rules.

5. Satisfactorily perform his or her

assigned duties in a competent, professional

manner.

6. Bear all cost s of complying with the

terms of a final order entered by the

commission.

(e) Restriction of the authorized scope of

practice of the teacher, administrator, or

supervisor.

(f) Reprimand of the teacher, administrator,

or supervisor in writing, with a co py to be

placed in the certification file of such

person.

(g) Imposition of an administrative

sanction, upon a person whose teaching

certificate has expired, for an act or acts

committed while that person possessed a

teaching certificate or an expired

ce rtificate subject to late renewal, which

sanction bars that person from applying for a

new certificate for a period of 10 years or

less, or permanently.

(h) Refer the teacher, administrator, or

supervisor to the recovery network program

provided in s. 10 12.798 under such terms and

conditions as the commission may specify.

2 4 . Section 1012.795 is considered a penal statute and as

such, it must be strictly construed, with any ambiguity construed

against the agency . Elmariah v. DepÓt of ProfÓl Reg. , 574 So. 2d

164 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Taylor v. DepÓt of ProfÓl Reg. , 534 So.

2d 782, 784 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Disciplinary statutes must be

construed in terms of their literal meaning, and words used by

the Legislature may not be expanded to broaden their appl ication.

Latham v. Fla. CommÓn on Ethics , 694 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 1st DCA

1997); see also Beckett v. DepÓt of Fin. Svcs. , 982 So . 2d 94,

100 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Dyer v. DepÓt of Ins. & Treas. , 585

So. 2d 1009, 1013 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

25. Count 1 of the Amended Administrative Complaint allege s

that Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(d), Ðin that

Respondent has been guilty of gross immorality or an act

involving moral turpitude as defined by rule of the State Board

of Education . Ñ Petitioner indicates in its Proposed Recommended

Order that it is not relying on the authority to discipline for

gross immorality, but rather, is relying on the part of section

1012.795(1)(d) authorizing discipline for acts of moral

turpitude.

26. The ter m Ðmoral turpitudeÑ is defined in rule 6A - 4.009,

which has been transferred to rule 6A - 5.056. All of the acts

upon which this proceeding is based occurred prior to a

substantial rewording of rule 6A - 5.056 on July 8, 2012. Thus,

whether such acts constitu ted ones involving moral turpitude must

be gauged against the standard in effect at the time the acts

giving rise to this proceeding occurred, i.e., that version of

the rule as it existed prior to its 2012 amendment. Childers v.

Dep't of Envtl. Prot. , 696 So. 2d 962, 964 (Fla. 1st DCA

1997)(ÐThe version of a statute in effect at the time grounds for

disciplinary action arise controls.Ñ).

27. Prior to its 2012 amendment, rule 6A - 5.056(6) defined

Ðmoral turpitudeÑ as Ða crime that is evidenced by an act o f

baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties,

which, according to the accepted standards of the time a man owes

to his or her fellow man or to society in general, and the doing

of the act itself and not its prohibition by statute fixe s the

moral turpitude.Ñ Moral turpitude also has been defined by the

Supreme Court as:

involv[i ng] the idea of inherent baseness or

depravity in the private social relations or

duties owed by man to man or by man to

society . . . . It has also been defi ned as

anything done contrary to justice, honesty,

principle or good morals, though it often

involves the question of intent as when

unintentionally committed through error of

judgment when wrong was not contemplated.

(citations omitted) .

State ex rel. Tullidge v. Hollingsworth , 108 Fla. 607, 611

(1933).

28 . ÐBy virtue of their leadership capacity, teachers are

traditionally held to a high moral standard in a community.Ñ

Adams v. Fla. ProfÓl Practices Council , 406 So. 2d 1170, 1172

(Fla. 1st DCA 1981). As a group of professionals placed in the

position of safeguarding and teaching children, educators are in

a position of the highest trust. It is unnecessary for

Respondent to have been convicted of a crime in order to be

disciplined for conduct reflect ing moral turpitude. It is enough

for her to have committed the acts forming the basis for such a

crime. Walton v. Turlington , 444 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 1st DCA

1984).

29. Petitioner has proven the charge in Count I by clear

and convincing evidence. Respon dent chose to engage in a series

of false statements for the purpose of financial benefit at the

expense of the insurance company. She chose an insurance policy

with a deductible, which she then attempted to thwart by claiming

the loss of items that were not stolen from her, and inflating

the value of other items . Despite her effort to cast herself as

a victim and describe her conduct as Ða foolish decision,Ñ in

fact she made a series of decisions and engaged in a course of

conduct calculated for personal gain. The course of action

Respondent chose and the steps she took to defraud the insurance

company are irreconcilable to the standards she is pledged to

uphold and to instill in those entrusted to her care.

30. Count 2 of the Administrative Complaint c harges

Respondent with violating the Principles of Professional Conduct

for the Education Profession as described by the State Board of

Education rules. Because the evidence does not support a

violation of rule 6A - 10.081 as explained below, Count 2 has no t

been established by clear and convincing evidence.

31. Finally, Count 3 alleges a violation of rule 6A -

10.081(5)(a), which requires a teacher to maintain honesty in all

professional dealings . The Department has not established this

violation by clear a nd convincing evidence. As noted in the

findings of fact, Respondent was not employed as a teacher when

the theft was reported. She did not make any false statements

related to her teaching duties. Moreover, as found in paragraph

17, Petitioner did not prove that the theft at RespondentÓs

residence did not occur. Accordingly, Petitioner did not

establish that Respondent lied to the EPC panel when she

maintained that there was a burglary at her home.

32. The Education Practices Commission has adopted

d isciplinary guidelines for the imposition of penalties

authorized by section 1012.796 for violations of section 1012.795

and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education

Profession. For a violation of section 1012.795(1)(d) , rule 6B -

11.007(2)( c) provides that the guideline penalty is probation to

revocation of her teaching certificate. Needless to say, this is

a wide range of penalties. If Respondent had been convicted of a

felony pursuant to section 1012.795(1)(e), as opposed to entering

the pre - trial diversion program, the guideline penalty would have

been suspension to revocation.

33 . The undersigned has given careful consideration to the

violation proven, including the circumstances leading to

RespondentÓs decision to engage in fraudulen t conduct and her

responses to both the criminal charges and to the Commission.

Also taken into account is the fact that Petitioner has proven

one, as opposed to three, violations charged.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Concl usions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission

enter a Final Order finding Respondent has violated section

1012.795(1)(d), Florida Statutes. It is further recommended that

the Commission suspend her teaching certificate for a per iod of

two years, followed by a period of probation for three years, and

impose a fine of $1,000, payable within one year of the entry of

the Final Order.

DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December , 2014 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

LISA SHEARER NELSON

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 22nd day of December , 2014 .

ENDNOTE S

1/ Petitioner contends that the burglary never occurred, while

Respondent has repeatedly disputed this assertion. T aking the

evidence as a whole, it is mor e likely than not that the burglary

occurred. In any event, Petitioner did not establish by clear

and convincing evidence that it did not occur.

2/ At hearing, Ms. Ackerman claimed that the Maine license was in

fact stolen, and that she had a duplicate of the license that was

used to obtain her Florida license. Her testimony to that effect

was not credible.

3/ Respondent does not explain how she could be viewed as a Ðwell

respected community leaderÑ when she had just moved to the state

weeks before.

4/ In order to establish this count, Petitioner is placed in the

position of having to prove a negative, which is a very high

burden to meet.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Gretchen Kelley Brantley, Executive Director

Education Practices Commission

Department of Education

Suite 316

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

(eServed)

Theresa Catherine Ackerman

4722 Leah Creek Drive

Jacksonville, Florida 32257

(eServed)

David Holder, Esquire

J. David Holder P.A.

387 Lakeside Drive

Defuniak Springs, Florida 32435

(eServed)

Lois S. Tepper, Interim General Counsel

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1244

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

(eServed)

Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief

Bureau of Profession al Practices Services

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 224 - E

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

(eServed)

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.