20-003936SP Richard Corcoran, As Commissioner Of Education vs. Academy Of Education School (6979) Status: Closed Recommended Order on Tuesday, December 8, 2020.

Summary: Respondent proved that the reasons cited in the Commissioner?s denial of Respondent?s application to participate in the Florida state scholarship programs are not supported by the facts.

S TATEMENT OF T HE I SSUE

Whether grounds exist to deny the application of Respondent, Academy of

Education School (6979), to participate in the Florida state scholarship

programs under chapter 1002, Florida Statutes.

P RELIMINARY S TATE MENT

On March 25, 2020, Respondent, Academy of Education School (6979) (the

“Academy”), submitted a request to Petitioner, Richard Corcoran, as

Commissioner of Education (the “Commissioner”) , to participate in the state

scholarship programs pursuant to sec tion 1002.421.

On May 21, 2020, the Commissioner issued a letter denying the

Academy’s request . To explain its decision, the Commissioner’s letter stated

that probable cause existed to believe that “there is fraudulent activity on the part of [the Academ y].”

Respondent challenged the Commissioner’s action by timely filing a

Petition for Chapter 120 Administrative Hearing on June 15, 2020.

Respondent subsequently filed an Amended Petition for Chapter 120 Administrative Hearing on July 28, 2020, as well as a Second Amended

Petition for Chapter 120 Administrative Hearing on August 10, 2020. On

August 31, 2020, the Commissioner referred this matter to the Division of

Administrative Hearings ( “ DOAH ” ) for assignment of an Administrative Law

Judge ( “ ALJ ” ) to con duct a chapter 120 evidentiary hearing.

The final hearing was held on September 29, 2020. At the final hearing,

the Commissioner called Phylea Daugherty and Whitney Blake to testify. The

Academy called Blaire Bishop ,

2 Ingrid Bishop, and Cassandra Cook a s

2 To avoid confusion, Blaire Bishop is identified as “Ms. Bishop . ” Her mother, Ingrid Bishop,

is referred to by her full name.

witnesses. Joint Exhibits 1 and 2 were admitted into evidence. The

Commissioner’s Exhibit s 1 through 19 were admitted into evidence . The

Academy’s Exhibits 1 through 3 were admitted into evidence.

A two - volume Transcript of the final hearing was filed w ith DOAH on

October 21 , 2020. At the close of the hearing, the parties were advised of a

ten - day timeframe following DOAH ’ s receipt of the hearing transcript to file

post - hearing submittals. The Commissioner timely submitted a Proposed

Recommended Order. F ollowing the hearing, the Academy requested an

extension of the timeframe to file its post - hearing submittal, which was

granted for good cause shown. 3 The Proposed Recommended Orders from

both parties were duly considered in preparing this Recommended Orde r.

F INDINGS OF F ACT

1 . The Commissioner is the chief educational officer for the State of

Florida. The Commissioner is responsible for assist ing the State Board of

Education in enforcing compliance with the mission and goals of the K - 20

education system. See § 1001. 1 0 (1), Fla. Stat.

2 . The Academy is a private school formed in Orlando, Florida. The

Academy registered as a private school with the Florida Department of

Education (the “Department”) in March 2020.

3 . On March 25, 2020, the Academy submitted a request to participate in

the state educational scholarship programs established under chapter 1002.

These programs include the John M. McKay Scholarship for Students with

Disabilities Program, the Florida Tax Credits Scholarship Program, the

Gardiner Sch olarship Program, the Hope Scholarship Program, the Reading

3 The Academy’s motion for extension was filed after the expiration of the ten - day deadline it

sought to e xtend, which is contrary to Florida Administrative Code R ule 28 - 106.204(4).

However, the Commissioner did not oppose the undersigned’s consideration of Academy’s

Proposed Recommended Order .

Scholarship Program, and the Family Empowerment Scholarship Program

(collectively referred to as the “Scholarship Programs ”) . 4

4 . The Scholarship Programs distribute state funds to pay tuition fo r

students who come from low - income families or have disabilities. The

scholarships help children attend their (private) school of choice. For a school

to be eligible to receive money from one or more of the Scholarship Programs,

it must comply with the re quirements set forth in section 1002.421.

5. The Commissioner 's is the state government entity charged with

administering and overseeing the Scholarship Programs. Pertinent to this

matter, s ection 1002.421(3) authorizes the Commissioner to deny a private

s chool’s eligibility to participat e in the S cholarship P rogram s if it is

determined that the owner or operator of the school has exhibited a previous

pattern of failure to comply with section 1002.421.

6. After reviewing the Academy’s application, o n May 21, 2020, the

Commissioner issued a letter denying the Academy’s request. The

Commissioner explained that its decision was based on the (alleged)

inappropriate relationship between the Academy and another private school

named Agape Christian Academy (“Agap e”). Agape was the subject of prior discipline from the Commissioner regarding its improper activity involving

the Scholarship Programs.

7. As background information, Agape was founded as a private school in

2002, and remained operational until 2018. Aga pe was housed in a building

located at 2425 N. Hiawassee Road, Orlando, Florida.

8. From 2015 through 2018, Ingrid Bishop served as president of Agape’s

corporate entity. Also during this time, Cassandra Cook was an employee of

Agape, and served on Agape’ s board of directors.

9. After its formation, Agape requested, and was granted, e ligibility to

participate in the Scholarship Programs.

4 See §§ 1002.385, 1002.39, 1002.39 4, 1002.395, 1002.40 , and 1002.411, Fla. Stat .

10. In March 2016, however, the Commissioner initiated an action to

revoke Agape’s eligibility. The revocation was b ased on the Commissioner’s

findings that Agape was operating from an unapproved location and had filed

a fraudulent annual fire inspection report with the Department.

11. Thereafter, in August 2016, Agape and the Commissioner entered into

a Settlement Agre ement wherein the Commissioner allowed Agape to remain

eligible for the Scholarship Programs on a probationary status, if Agape

agreed to reimburse the Commissioner for past scholarship funds received while not in compliance with state law.

12. Soon there after, however, Agape breached the terms of the Settlement

Agreement. Consequently, on May 11, 2018, the Department issued a Final Order terminating Agape’s authority to participate in the Scholarship

Programs. The Commissioner further ordered that:

Agape’ s … officers, directors, principal, or

controlling persons [are] ineligible to participate in the Gardiner, McKay or Florida Tax Credit

Scholarship Programs for a period of ten years from

the date of the Final Order.

13. Regarding the action against the A cademy, as articulated in its

May 21, 2020 , letter, the Commissioner bases its decision to deny the

Academy’s application on the following reasons:

1) The Academy’s relationship with Cassandra Cook : Ms. Cook was

employed as an officer, director, principal, or controlling person of Agape.

Pursuant to the Agape Final Order, Ms. Cook is ineligible to participate in

the Scholarship P rograms for ten years. The Commission er asserts that the

circumstances surrounding the creation of the Academy indicate that the

A cademy is “operating as a proxy or surrogate for Agape and/or Cassandra

Cook.” Consequently, the Academy’s association with Ms. Cook renders the

Academy ineligible to participate in the Scholarship Programs.

2) The Academy’s relationship with Ingrid Bishop : Ingrid Bishop was

employed as an officer, director, principal, or controlling person of Agape.

Pursuant to the Agape Final Order , Ingrid Bishop is ineligible to participate

in the Scholarship P rograms for ten years. The Commisioner asserts that the

circu mstances surrounding the creation of the Academy indicate that the

Academy is “operating as a proxy or surrogate for Agape and/or … Ingrid

Bishop.” Consequently, the Academy’s association with Ingrid Bishop renders

the Academy ineligible to participate in the S cholarship P rogram s .

3) The relationship between Academy officers or employees and Ingrid

Bishop : The Academy intends to employ Blaire Bishop, Braelyn Bishop, and

Brooke Bishop in some capacity. All three women are related to Ingrid Bishop

(her daught ers). The Commissioner's position is that the relationship

between these Academy personnel and Ingrid Bishop renders the Academy

ineligible to participate in the S cholarship P rogram s .

4) The Academy’s relationship with Northwestern Learning Center , Inc.

(“ Northwestern”) : In addition to Agape, the Commissioner previously denied

Northwestern’s eligibility to participate in the state scholarship programs. Northwestern’s denial was based on its relationship with Ms. Cook. The

Academy intends to set up its schoo l on property owned by Northwestern.

The business relationship between the Academy and Northwestern (and Ms. Cook) renders the Academy ineligible to participate in the S cholarship

P rogram s .

14. In short, the Commissioner believes that the same parties who owned

and operated Agape (Ingrid Bishop and Ms. Cook) are behind the formation

of the Academy. This time, however, Ingrid Bishop’s children (Blaire,

Braelyn, and Brooke Bishop) are the named officer s , director s , principal s , or

controlling person s. The Comm issioner alleges that Blaire Bishop is not the

legitimate owner/operator of the Academy, and the Academy’s “true” founders

(Ingrid Bishop and Ms. Cook) are fraudulently conducting a shell game in “an effort to circumvent the Department’s Final Order.”

1 5 . To support its position, the Commissioner first called Phylea

Daugherty to testify regarding the Commissioner’s investigation into the

connection between Agape and the Academy. As a “site visit specialist” for

the Department’s Office of Independent Educat ion and Parental Choice

(“IEPC”) , Ms. Daugherty is tasked with visiting private schools that apply to

participate in the Scholarship Programs. She explained that a school must

pass her inspection prior to becoming eligible to receive scholarship funds for

its students.

16. Ms. Daugherty expressed that the Academy’s application raised

concerns when her office noticed that the Academy’s facilities were located

close by a school (Agape) whose eligibility to receive scholarship funds had

been revoked. Her offi ce also noted that the last name of the person who

signed the Academy’s application (“Bishop”) matched the name of an

individual who the Commissioner had deemed ineligible to participate in the

Scholarship Programs.

17. That being said, Ms. Daugherty div ulged that, aside from the possible

issues regarding the relationship between the Academy and Agape (the

schools’ locations and biologically related officers or employees), the

Academy’s application was complete. Therefore, nothing else on the face of the application explicitly indicated that the Commissioner should deny it.

18. Whitney Blake, a Compliance Specialist for IEPC, also testified

regarding the Commissioner’s decision to deny the Academy’s application. As

part of her responsibilities, Ms. Blake reviews applications from Florida

private schools that request to take part in the Scholarship Programs.

19. Echoing Ms. Daugherty’s testimony, Ms. Blake expressed that the

Academy’s application raised two concerns: 1) the Academy’s intended

location sugge sted a close association with a sanctioned entity (Agape), and

2) the fact that the Academy’s officers and employees might be related to the

officers or employees of another school (Agape) whose authority to participate

in the Scholarship Programs was revo ked.

20. Ms. Blake explained that the Commissioner’s Final Order from

May 11, 2018 , banned Ingrid Bishop and Ms. Cook from participating in the

Scholar ship Programs for a period of ten years. Consequently, neither Ingrid

Bishop nor Ms. Cook may personally serve as officers, directors, principals, or

controlling parties at any other private school that is authorized to accept

scholarship funds.

2 1. In June 2018, however, Ms. Cook 5 became involved in a new school

that registered with the Department called O rlando Christian Academy

(“Orlando Christian”) . Soon thereafter, Orlando Christian applied to

participate in the Scholarship Programs. In November 2019, after discovering

its association with Ms. Cook, the Commissioner denied Orlando Christian ’s

applicatio n.

22. Moreover, Ms. Blake testified that Orlando Christian’s listed address,

2425B N. Hiawassee Drive, Orlando, Florida, is situated very near the

Academy’s intended address of 2332 N. Hiawassee Drive , Orlando, Florida.

This address is also close to Agap e’s former location at 2425 N. Hiawassee

Road, Orlando, Florida .

23. In addition, based on Orange County, Florida, property records, the

current owner of 2332 N. Hiawassee Drive is Northwestern . Ms. Cook served

on Northwestern’s board of directors from 20 17 through 2019. (Ms. Cook is

not listed as an officer or director on Northwestern’s annual corporate report

for 2020.) Northwestern acquired the property in 2012 from Agape via a

quitclaim deed executed by Ingrid Bishop. Ms. Blake expressed that the facts

and circumstances surrounding the Academy’s formation insinuate a similar

attempt by Ms. Cook to start another private school to unlawfully take

advantage of the state scholarship funds.

24. Ms. Blake testified that based on all the circumstantial evidenc e

connecting the Academy to Agape, Northwestern, Ms. Cook, and Ingrid

5 Ms. Cook has used several names over the past twenty years including Cassandra Cook

Wood, C. D. Wood, and Sandra Wood. When Orlando Christian applied for scholarship

eligibility in 2019, Ms. Cook identified herself as " Sandra Wood. "

Bishop, the Commissioner had serious cause for concern that Ms. Cook and/or

Ingrid Bishop were also involved in the administration, management, and

operation of the Academy. According to Ms. Blake, s uch “undue participation” by prohibited persons in the Academy’s attempt to obtain scholarship funds is

grounds to deny the Academy’s application.

25. Despite these facts, Ms. Blake acknowledged that no former officer,

director, principal, or controlling party from Agape is included or referenced

in any corporate document related to the Academy’s formation or application.

In particular, neither Ingrid Bishop nor Ms. Cook are listed on any Academy

corporate records.

26. Further, Ms. Blake re peated Ms. Daugherty ’s statement that, other

than the Academy’s proposed location and the fact that Ingrid Bishop is

related to the Academy’s officers and employees, the Academy’s application

does not contain information that would cause the Commissioner t o

automatically deny it.

27. At the final hearing, the Academy argued that the Commissioner’s

decision to deny its application is based on false and unsupported

assumptions regarding the relationship between the Academy’s founders and

officers (Blaire , Braelyn, and Brooke Bishop) and Agape’s founders and

officers (Ingrid Bishop and Ms. Cook). The Academy charges that the Commissioner unfairly ties Ms. Bishop to the sins of her mother, with no

proof that Ingrid Bishop is connected to the Academy in any way.

28. Blaire Bishop testified on behalf of the Academy. Ms. Bishop fou nded

the Academy and serves as president of its board of d irectors. She also

intends to fill t he role of the Academy’s first p rincipal.

29. Ms. Bishop described herself as a product of her community. She

attended Agape from kindergarten through high school. Upon graduation from college at Florida A&M University (“FAMU”) in 2018, she returned to Orlando and is pursuing a master’s degree in educational leadership from the

University o f Central Florida.

30. Ms. Bishop expressed that she now finds herself in a position to give

back to the community in which she grew up. She has dreamed of opening a

school for some time. Ms. Bishop voiced that she created the Academy as a

way to provide educational opportunities for underp rivileged children who

live in n orthwest Orlando.

31. Ms. Bishop explained that, currently, the Academy is still in the

development and planning stage. She envisions opening her school with

about 100 students. She would like to offer classes from kindergarten through high school. At this time, however, she has not hired any employees.

Neither has she enrolled any students. She anticipates, however, that her

two sisters, Braelyn and Brooke Bishop, who have agreed to serve as officers

of the Academy’s corporate entity, will also have a role with the school.

32. Ms. Bishop conveyed that, from an administrative standpoint, she is

ready to open the Academy. However, to effectively operate as a private institution, her school wi ll be dependent upon money from the Scholarship

Programs. The vast majority of the low - income children she hopes to attract

cannot afford private school tuition. Consequently, scholarship money is

essential to help fund their enrollment. Ms. Bishop estimat es that each

student who qualifies for a scholarship will receive approximately $ 4,500 -

$ 5,000 a year, which will be forwarded to the Academy if its application is

approved . Ms. Bishop disclosed that she cannot feasibly run her school unless

the Commissio ner allows it to participate in the Scholarship Programs.

33 . Ms. Bishop expounded that, with the financial assistance awarded

through the Scholarship Programs, the Academy will offer free, private school

education to low - income students living nearby. Con sequently, the

Commissioner’s decision to disallow the Academy from accepting scholarship funds only serves to negatively impact needy children in the Orlando area.

34. Ms. Bishop urges that she independently founded the Academy, and

her school has no con ne ction with the now - defunct Agape or any of its

previous officers, directors, or employees. Ms. Bishop insists that the

Academy is not a strawman or surrogate for Agape. She has not allowed

anyone associated with Agape to help her incorporate or organize her school.

Specifically, Ms. Bishop testified that neither her mother nor Ms. Cook have played any role in creating the Academy. They have not provided any

financial assistance to the Academy. Neither will they receive any benefits or

compensation from Ac ademy income or resources.

35. In addition, Ms. Bishop asserted that she was not involved in, nor did

she have any connection with, the administration, creation, or management

of Agape. Ms. Bishop further testified that she was not personally bound by,

nam ed, identified, or referenced in the Settlement Agreement between Agape

and the Commissioner. Accordingly, she argues it is fundamentally unfair to

deny the Academy the ability to participate in the Scholarship Programs

based on the breach of an agreement to which she was not a party.

36. Regarding the Academy’s location, Ms. Bishop explained that she is

interested in leasing the building located at 2332 N. Hiawassee Drive , which

is currently owned by Northwestern. Ms. Bishop explained that the property

wou ld provide a great location for the Academy. It is located within her

community and was previously used as a school.

37. Further, while the building the Academy may use is situated across

the street from the former Agape site (2425 N. Hiawassee Drive), Ms . Bishop

proclaimed that, other than being located in close proximity with each other,

there is no connection between the two schools. Further, while setting up in

the 2332 N. Hiawassee Drive location will require her to rent property from

Northwestern, no one associated with Northwestern helped her create the

Academy. Neither does she plan on conferring with or employing anyone who

currently works for Northwestern, or who previously worked for Agape.

38. Ms. Bishop’s testimony describing the relationship between the

Academy and Agape, Northwestern, Ingrid Bishop, and Ms. Cook was

credible and is credited. Ms. Bishop spoke with conviction, and no documents or other witness testimony refute her representation that she was not

involved in the administration o r management of Agape. Neither does the

competent, substantial evidence prove that any individual associated with

Agape or Northwestern will be involved in the administration or

management of the Academy.

39. Ingrid Bishop testified at the final hearing t o support the Academy’s

application. Ingrid Bishop is Ms. Bishop’s mother.

40. Ingrid Bishop and her husband, Richard (Ms. Bishop’s father) , founded

Agape. Ingrid and Richard Bishop also lead the Agape Assembly Baptist Church (“Agape Church”) . Agape Churc h is located at 2425 N. Hiawassee

Drive, which was the same location as the Agape school. Ingrid Bishop

expressed that Agape served as an outreach ministry for the Agape Church.

41. According to Ingrid Bishop, Agape was founded in 2002 as an

independent n on - profit corporation. The school’s initial board members

included Ingrid Bishop, Richard Bishop, and Cassandra Cook. These three

individuals remained Agape’s corporate officers through the school’s

dissolution in 2018, and are subject to the Commissioner’ s 2018 Final Order.

42. Mirroring her daughter ’s intentions for the Academy, Ingrid Bishop

explained that Agape’s goal was to provide a private school option for low -

income children and children with disabilities from the local community .

Ingrid Bishop re layed that 98 percent of the students who matriculated at

Agape were from underprivileged families. Based on that population, Agape’s

ability to operate relied heavily on the funds its students received through

the Scholarship Programs. Ingrid Bishop furth er stated that Agape elected

not to charge tuition to any student. Instead, the school relied on the

scholarship funds as its sole source of revenue. At its peak, Agape averaged

about 300 students on scholarships during a school year.

43. Ingrid Bishop fre ely recounted that Agape ran into trouble with the

Commissioner in 2016 based on a fire inspection report that one of her

employees had allegedly forged. Agape and the Commissioner subsequently

entered into the Settlement Agreement. Ingrid Bishop signed th e Settlement

Agreement on behalf of Agape.

44. Regarding her daughter’s involvement in Agape, Ingrid Bishop

credibly testified that Ms. Bishop never served as an employee,

administrator, agent, or director of Agape. Ms. Bishop’s only interaction with

Agap e was when she attended the school as a student from kindergarten

through high school.

45. Ingrid Bishop further asserted that her daughter had no involvement

in the underlying issues between Agape and the Commissioner. She conveyed

that Ms. Bishop gradua ted from Agape high school in 2014 and was a student

at FAMU in Tallahassee when the Commissioner began its investigation into

Agape. Neither did Ms. Bishop play any part in Agape’s decision to settle

with the Commissioner or negotiating the terms of the S ettlement

Agreement.

46. Ingrid Bishop acknowledged that Agape has not been an active school

since 2018. After the Commissioner revoked Agape’s authority to receive

funds from the Scholarship Programs in 2017, Agape could only effectively

operate for one more year. Agape’s corporate entity was administratively

dissolved in September 2018.

47. Finally, Ingrid Bishop convincingly represented that Ms. Bishop is

acting completely independently in creating the Academy, as well as drafting

the Academy’s applica tion to participate in the Scholarship Programs. Ingrid

Bishop asserted that she has not been included in her daughter’s designs and

plans for the Academy. She denied that she will work for the Academy in any capacity. Neither will she have any financial i nterest in the school.

48. Similarly, Ingrid Bishop commented that the location the Academy

selected to use, 2332 N. Hiawassee Road , is not the same location as Agape.

It is across the street. Ingrid Bishop disclosed that Agape , at one point, leased

this site to use as a separate facility for its high school, but it currently does

not own or use this property.

49. As a final declaration, Ingrid Bishop readily recognized that her

involvement in the Academy’s affairs would jeopardize her daughter’s efforts

to run her own school. Therefore, she has deliberately avoided any

participation in the Academy’s formation. Ingrid Bishop expressed that she

understands that she must keep Agape’s past dispute with the Commissioner

completely separate from her daughter’s application for scholarship funds.

50. Ms. Cook also testified to support Ms. Bishop’s representation that the

Academy is not connected to either Agape or herself. Ms. Cook declared that

she has no involvement or relationship with the Academy. She was not

consulted when Ms. Bishop formed the school. Neither has Ms. Bishop asked

Ms. Cook to work there.

51. Regarding her relationship with Ms. Bishop, Ms. Cook relayed that

she has known Ms. Bishop since she was a student at Agape.

52. Addressing her time wit h Agape, Ms. Cook admitted that she worked

for the school in a number of roles between 2003 and 2018. Her

responsibilit ies included administrator and dean of s tudents. However, she

declared that Ms. Bishop was not involved in the administration or

manageme nt of Agape. Ms. Cook never saw Ms. Bishop in the Agape

administrative offices when she was in school there.

53. Regarding Orlando Christian , Ms. Cook stated that this school was to

be located at 2425B N. Hiawassee Road in a building just next to the Agap e

Church. However, neither Orlando Christian nor the Agape school occupied

the same proposed site as the Academy (2332 N. Hiawassee Road).

54. Finally, Ms. Cook confirmed that Northwestern owns the property

located at 2332 N. Hiawassee Drive, where the Aca demy may be located.

However, Ms. Cook offered that she no longer serves on Northwestern’s board

of directors. She represented that in 2019, she was dismissed from the board

due to lack of participation.

55 . During the final hearing, Ms. Cook’s testimon y came across as self -

serving and lacking in details. However, no evidence or testimony directly

refutes her representation that she is not involved , and will not be involved,

in the Academy’s formation, administration , management , or operation .

Accordingl y, Ms. Cook’s testimony is credited to the extent that it was

corroborated by Ms. Bishop and Ingrid Bishop.

56 . Based on the competent substantial evidence presented at the final

hearing, the greater weight of the facts do not establish that the Academy i s

inappropriately associated with Agape, Ingrid Bishop, Ms. Cook, or

Northwestern, or that the Academy is “operating as a proxy or surrogate for

Agape and/or Cassandra Cook and/or Ingrid Bishop.” Neither do the facts in

the record show that the Academy is attempting to perpetrate a fraud on the

Commissioner in order to qualify for scholarship eligibility by concealing or

misrepresenting its relationship with Agape, Ingrid Bishop, Ms. Cook, or

Northwestern .

57. Consequently, the Academy demonstrated that th e preponderance of

the evidence does not support the Commissioner’s decision to deny the

Academy’s application based on the reasons cit ed in the Commissioner’s

letter, dated May 21, 2020. Accordingly, the Commissioner should continue to

process the Academy ’s application under section 1002.421, and, if

appropriate, grant the Academy eligibility to participate in the Scholarship Programs.

C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW

58 . The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the

parties and subject matter of this proceeding pursuant to sections 120.569,

120.57(1), and 1002.421(3)(c)2.c.

59 . The Academy brings this action challenging the Commissioner’s

decision to deny the Academy’s application to participate in the Scholarship Programs.

60 . Section 1002.421 governs a private school’s eligibility to participate in

the Scholarship Programs. Section 1002.421(3) states that the Commissioner:

(a) Shall deny, suspend, or revoke a private

school’s participation in a scholarship program if it

is determined that the private school has failed to

comply with this section or exhibits a previous

pattern of failure to comply.

* * *

(b) May deny, su spend, or revoke a private

school’s participation in a scholarship program if the commissioner determines that an owner or operator of the private school is operating or has

operated an educational institution in this state or

in another state or jurisdict ion in a manner

contrary to the health, safety, or welfare of the public or if the owner or operator has exhibited a previous pattern of failure to comply with this

section or specific requirements identified within

respective scholarship program laws.

* * *

(c)1. In making such a determination, may

consider factors that include, but are not limited to,

acts or omissions by an owner or operator which led to a previous denial, suspension, or revocation of

participation in a state or federal education

sc holarship program; [or] an owner’s or operator’s

failure to reimburse the department or scholarship - funding organization for scholarship funds improperly received or retained by a school[.]

6 1. The burden of proof in this matter falls on the Academy to p rove that

it is eligible to participate in the Scholarship Programs. See Dep’t of Transp.

v. J.W.C. Co . , 396 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); see also Dep’t of Banking &

Fin., Div. of Sec. & Investor Prot. v. Osborne Stern & Co. , 670 So. 2d 932, 935

(Fla. 1 996)(“The general rule is that a party asserting the affirmative of an

issue has the burden of presenting evidence as to that issue.”). Tailored to the

specific dispute in this matter, the Academy must show that the allegations

set forth in the Commissio ner’s le tter from May 2 1, 2020, do not support the

denial of its application.

6 2. The preponderance of the evidence standard is applicable to this

action. § 120.57(1)(j), Fla. Stat.

6 3. As stated above, the preponderance of the evidence in the record does

not support the reasons articulat ed in the Commissioner’s letter dated

May 21, 2020, to deny the Academy’s application to participate in the

Scholarship Programs. As reviewed in paragraphs 6 through 14 above, the

genesis of the Commissioner’s denial is the Final Order issued on May 11,

2018, which barred Agape, as well as Agape’s officers, directors, principals, or

controlling persons, from any involvement in the Scholarship Programs for a

period of ten years. The denial letter specifically identified Ingri d Bishop and

Ms. Cook as two individuals associated with Agape who are ineligible for

scholarship programs.

64 . As expressed by the Commissioner’s two witnesses at the final

hearing, the Academy’s application raised concerns within the Commissioner’s offi ce that Ms. Cook and Ingrid Bishop were attempting to

circumvent the 2018 Final Order. The Commissioner’s appre hension is based

on two factors: ( 1) the Academy’s officers and directors (Blaire, Braelyn, and

Brooke Bisho p) are related to Ingrid Bishop; and ( 2) the Academy’s proposed

school building is located close to Agape’s former facility, and the lease of this

building may benefit an individual associated with Agape (Ms. Cook). The

Commissioner argues that t hese connections suggest that the Academy is

at tempting to obfuscate its true owners in a manner that would allow

ineligible individuals to wrongfully take advantage of the Scholarship Programs.

65 . However, while links clearly do exist between the Academy and Agape

(Blaire Bishop is undeniably Ingrid Bishop’s daughter, and the Academy may

locate its school on property Agape owned in 2012), the totality of the

evidence adduced at the final hearing does not establish that the people who

intend to run the Academy are, or will be, the same people who ran A gape.

No documentary evidence reveals that the officers, directors, principals, or

controlling persons of Agape will serve in a corporate capacity or ownership

position with the Academy. No testimony discloses that the Academy has, or

will, employ any form er Agape employees. No records demonstrate that

Agape’s officers or employees have a financial interest in or will profit from

the Academy. No facts in the record directly show that Blaire Bishop consulted Agape officers or employees when founding the Acad emy.

66 . More to the point, no substantive evidence produced at the final

hearing indicates that either Ingrid Bishop or Ms. Cook will play any role in

the administration, management, or ownership of the Academy. Although it

might be reasonable to assume that Blaire Bishop has discussed the creation

of the Academy with her mother, no testimony establishes that Ingrid Bishop (or Ms. Cook) has rendered any advice or provided any counsel regarding the

Academy’s future operations or Ms. Bishop’s educational as pirations. In

short, the evidence and testimony in the record does not substantiate the

Commissioner’s suspicions that the Academy is merely a front, proxy,

strawman, or surrogate for Agape, Ingrid Bishop, or Ms. Cook. Neither do the

facts confirm that the Academy, through Blaire Bishop, has knowingly

attempted to conceal its relationship with Agape or its officers, directors,

principals, or controlling persons.

67 . Consequently, the preponderance of the evidence in the record does

not support the reasons specifically relied upon in the Commissioner’s denial

letter as a basis to deny the Academy’s application to participate in the

Scholarship Programs. The evidence does not establish that either the

Academy or the individuals who own and will operate the A cademy (Blaire

Bishop and her two sisters) have failed to comply, or have exhibited a

previous pattern of failing to comply, with section 1002.421. Accordingly,

based on the facts found in this matter, the Academy met its burden of

proving that the Commi ssioner should proceed with its review of the

Academy’s application to participate in the Scholarship Programs. 6

R ECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that the Commissioner withdraw its letter, d ated May 21,

2020, indicating its intent to deny the Academy’s application and continue to

review the Academy’s eligibility to participate in the Scholarship Programs

under chapter 1002.

D ONE A ND E NTERED this 8th day of December , 2020 , in Tallahassee, Leo n

County, Florida.

J. B RUCE C ULPEPPER

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

ww w.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 8th day of December , 2020 .

6 This Recommended Order should not be interpreted to mean that the Commissioner should

automatically approve the Academy’s application. As the Commissioner emphasized in its

Proposed Recommended Order, the Academy mus t still complete several additional steps in

order to gain eligibility to participate in the Scholarship Programs under chapter 1002. The

focus of this administrative proceeding is restricted to the allegations and issues specifically

raised in the Commiss ioner’s letter, dated May 21, 2020, which notified the Academy of the

Commissioner’s intended action to deny the application.

C OPIES F URNISHED :

Robert Leroy Ehrhardt, Esquire

Department of Education

Suite 1544

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

(eServed)

James Sweeting, III, Esquire James Sweeting, III, LLC

Post Office Box 215

Churchville, Maryland 21028

(eServed)

Jason Douglas Borntreger, Esquire Department of Education

Suite 1544

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32310

(eServed)

Chris Emerson, Agency Clerk

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1520

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

(eServed)

Matthew Mears, General Counsel

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1244

325 West Gaines St reet

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

(eServed)

Richard Corcoran

Commissioner of Education

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1514

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

(eServed)

N OTICE OF R IGHT T O S UBMIT E XCEPTIONS

All p arties have the right to submit written exceptions within 1 0 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.