The issue presented is whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges, and,', if so, whether Respondent should be dismissed from employment with Petitioner. On April 26, 1989, Petitioner took action to suspend and initiated proceedings to terminate Respondent for just cause. On June 22, 1989, Petitioner served upon Respondent a Notice of Specific Charges specifying the factual allegations and legal grounds on which Petitioner's action is based. The Specific Notice of Charges alleges that Respondent's actions constitute willful absence without leave, misconduct in office, moral turpitude and immorality. The matter was set for hearing and subsequently continued several times, resulting in the selection the hearing date noted above. On May 21, 1990, the case was transferred to the undersigned from the previous Hearing Officer, William R. Dorsey, Jr. At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of seven witnesses and offered seven exhibits which were received into evidence. Respondent testified on her own behalf and offered six exhibits which were also received into evidence. Respondent also objected to the qualification of Petitioner's witness who was tendered as an expert. Respondent's counsel represented that recent case law would support her argument. However, Respondent's counsel could not produce a citation to the case law at the hearing. Counsel requested leave to file a post-hearing memorandum in support of her objection. Ruling on the objection was reserved pending receipt of the memorandum. Consideration has been given to Respondent's memorandum and the testimony supporting the qualification of Petitioner's witness. Respondent's objection is overruled.Respondent reinstated with back pay. Petitioner failed to prove bad checks, fraud, neglect of duty and flight from police was misconduct.

Whether Respondent's employment with Petitioner should be terminated for incompetency and gross insubordination?Failure of proof that teacher guilty of gross insubordination where directives given were unreasonable as were classroom conditions

Whether Respondent's annual contract should be terminated by Petitioner and, if not, the relief, if any, to which Respondent is entitled.Immorality of teacher not established by his arrest for loudly arguing with his girlfriend at a shopping mall

Teacher discharged where she was willfully absent from duty without leave.

Teacher dismissed for repeated absences and tardiness without following procedures therefore and for refusal to follow written and verbal directives

Consumption of alcohol, sleeping and disobeying instructions while on duty grounds for terminating teacher