STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA



STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE OFFICE OF

ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

COUNTY OF ALAMANCE 01 EDC 0054

CAROLYN H LANCASTER )

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) DECISION

)

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT )

OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION )

Respondent )

This matter was heard on September 10, 2001, at the Lee House in Raleigh, North Carolina before Senior Administrative Law Judge Fred G. Morrison Jr.

Appearances

For the Petitioner: Daniel G. Cahill

Poyner & Spruill, LLP

PO Box 10096

Raleigh NC 27605 0096

For the Respondent: Laura E. Crumpler

Assistant Attorney General

North Carolina Department of Justice

P. O. Box 629

Raleigh, North Carolina 27602

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On June 7, 1999, Petitioner interviewed at East Millbrook Middle School in Raleigh, North Carolina, for a vacant business education position.

2. Her interview was with the then-Assistant Principal, Gloria Jones.

3. During the interview, Ms. Jones explained that she “would have to contact references.” Petitioner replied that she had such a letter with her from her principal at the elementary school (Weatherstone Elementary) where she was currently employed. Petitioner handed Ms. Jones the letter.

4. According to Ms. Jones, Wake County Schools requires that “you make a phone contact, that you speak with the reference in person, by phone.”

5. Accordingly, Ms. Jones called the principal, Robin J. Wahl, and told her she was “calling to follow up on a letter of recommendation . . . .” When she told Ms. Wahl the name of the applicant, Ms. Wahl was “very alarmed” and “taken aback.”

6. Ms. Wahl asked Ms. Jones to fax the letter to her, which was done.

7. Ms. Wahl immediately called Deborah Dixon-Doss in Human Resources at the Central Office of Wake County Schools.

8. Ms. Dixon-Doss contacted Ms. Jones who wrote a memorandum describing the interview discussion with Petitioner.

9. Ms. Wahl also wrote a memorandum to Ms. Dixon-Doss indicating she had “at no time written a letter of recommendation for Carolyn Lancaster . . . .”

10. Ms. Dixon-Doss had Ms. Wahl write her signature several times. Ms. Wahl had already thought she recognized the signature on the letter of reference as being an exact duplicate of her signature on one of the newsletters she, as principal, sends home to parents from time-to-time.

11. Ms. Wahl noted to Ms. Dixon-Doss, and testified at the hearing, that she keeps on file every letter she writes, including reference letters, and that she did not have any record of having written such a letter for Petitioner. Ms. Wahl further described to Ms. Dixon-Doss a number of errors and discrepancies in the questioned letter. Included in those errors and discrepancies were: Ms. Wahl never uses the number abbreviations for the date, as were used in the questioned letter, but always spells it out; unlike the typed “Robin Wahl” she always types her name as “Robin J. Wahl”; she consistently uses correct spelling and grammar, and the letter contained several mistakes in both; and she was not knowledgeable enough in technology to use some of the terms used in the letter.

12. Ms. Carol Jenkins, Director of Human Resources, Policy Entitlements, also compared the questioned letter with other letters of reference written by Ms. Wahl in the past and found numerous differences between the questioned letter and others known to have been written by Wahl. She testified that Ms. Wahl “is very consistent in the way she writes her letters.”

13. Only copies of the questioned letter were available for evidentiary purposes. Although Wake County school officials had searched for the original, it was not found. Petitioner made no attempt to produce an original at trial and did not adequately explain where the original was.

14. Petitioner could not adequately explain how she acquired the letter or who wrote it if Ms. Wahl did not. It is more likely than not that she prepared it.

15. When she told Petitioner that her position at the elementary school would be ending, Ms. Wahl indicated to Petitioner that “she would be free to go out and interview for another position.” Ms. Wahl also said that she would be glad to give a reference by phone, but not by letter.

16. Ms. Wahl always writes her own reference letters and never delegates that responsibility to anyone. Consistent with that practice, she did not authorize anyone in this case to write a reference letter for Petitioner.

17. Haywood Starling was called by Respondent to testify as an expert and testified that no person writes his or her signature exactly the same way twice. He had been given the copies of the questioned letter and also the parent newsletter, known to have been written by Wahl, which appeared to have an identical signature on it.

18. He studied the two signatures and concluded that the “questioned signature was prepared by a computer-generated signature using the model of . . . . the known signature appearing on the letter dated May 25, 1999 (the Parent Newsletter). Using that signature as a model, someone scanned that signature and prepared the computer-generated signature as the Q1 (questioned reference letter) signature.”

19. Starling testified that the chances of a person writing his/her signature exactly the same twice is “like finding a tree out there where every branch and every sub-branch and every leaf [is] identical to the tree next to it or somewhere else.”

20. In this case, the two signatures, when placed on overhead transparencies, coincided at every stroke with one another. Nothing can be used to prepare a signature with that much identity but a computer.

21. Petitioner subsequently applied for employment with the Orange County Schools and was hired.

22. Petitioner intentionally omitted from her Orange County application a reference to prior employment with either Wake County Schools or Guilford County Schools.

23. Additionally, Petitioner failed to list under “Experience” on her resume any prior employment experience with either Wake County Schools or Guilford County Schools.

24. Petitioner failed to give adequate or believable responses as to why she omitted these former employers.

25. Upon learning of these omissions, Orange County Schools suspended Petitioner from employment and began dismissal proceedings.

26. Prior to there being a dismissal hearing, Petitioner was allowed to resign.

27. On November 14, 2000, the Respondent initiated proceedings to revoke Petitioner’s license to teach in North Carolina.

28. Petitioner challenged Respondent’s action by filing a Petition for a Contested Case Hearing, culminating in the hearing before the undersigned held on September 10, 2001.

Based upon the foregoing, the undersigned makes the following:

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. As a matter of law, the Respondent acting as administrator for the State Board of Education has grounds to revoke Petitioner’s teaching license and has not exceeded its authority, acted erroneously, failed to use proper procedure, or acted arbitrarily or capriciously. The State Board has the constitutional power “to supervise and administer the free public school system and the educational funds provided for its support.” N.C. Const. art IX, § 5. This power includes the power to “regulate the grade [and] salary . . . of teachers.” Guthrie v. Taylor, 279 N.C. 703, 709, 185 S.E. 2nd 193, 198 (1971) cert. denied, 406 U.S. 920, 32 L.Ed.2d 119 (1972). In this case, the State Board has the constitutional power to determine the certification or licensure status of a professional in the North Carolina public schools. The State Board has the specific duty “to certify and regulate the grade and salary of teachers and other school employees.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-12(9)a; Guthrie at 711. Certification or licensure is a process that verifies an individual’s qualifications and credentials to perform professional services as a public school employee. The State Board has adopted a rule governing the revocation of licenses that states in part that the Board “may revoke a certificate . . . only for the following reasons:

(8) any illegal, unethical, or lascivious conduct if there is a reasonable and adverse relationship between the underlying conduct and the person’s continuing ability to perform any of the person’s professional functions in an effective manner. 16 N.C.A.C. 6C-0312(a)(8).

2. The undersigned finds and concludes that it is more likely than not that Petitioner scanned the signature of her principal onto a letter purporting to be a letter of reference when in fact Petitioner either created the letter or had someone else create it. Such conduct was unethical and the undersigned finds and concludes that the required adverse relationship does exist here. Petitioner’s conduct has a reasonable and adverse relationship to Petitioner’s ability to continue to perform her professional responsibilities, one important aspect of which is being a good role model for children. Faulkner v. New Bern-Craven Board of Educ., 311 N.C. 42, 316 S.E.2d 281 (1984) (character and conduct of teachers expected to be above those of the average individual; it is not inappropriate to hold teachers to a higher standard of personal conduct.)

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law, and a preponderance of the substantial evidence in the record, the undersigned renders the following:

DECISION

The Respondent properly initiated these proceedings to revoke Petitioner’s license to teach in North Carolina and the undersigned recommends to the State Board of Education that it enter a final decision revoking or suspending Petitioner’s teaching license as it deems merited.

ORDER

It is hereby ordered that the agency serve a copy of the final decision on the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-6714, in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 150B-36(b).

NOTICE

The agency making the final decision in this contested case is required to give each party an opportunity to file exceptions to this recommended decision and to present written arguments to those in the agency who will make the final decision. G.S. 150B-36(a).

The agency is required by G.S. 150B-36(b) to serve a copy of the final decision on all parties and to furnish a copy to the parties’ attorney of record and to the Office of Administrative Hearings.

The agency that will make the final decision in this contested case is the North Carolina State Board of Education.

This the 8th day of November 2001.

_________________________________

Fred G. Morrison Jr.

Senior Administrative Law Judge

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download