STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

SCHOOL BOARD OF SARASOTA COUNTY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 76-866

)

OWEN WOODYARD, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, G. Steven Pfeiffer, held a public hearing in this case on September 7, 8, 16, 17, 27, and 28, 1976 in Sarasota, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Philip S. Mortensen and Roger Benson

Jackson, Lewis, Schnitzler & Krupman Sarasota, Florida

For Respondent: Peter W. Martin

Stinnett, Surfus and Martin Sarasota, Florida

By letter dated May 5, 1976, the School Board of Sarasota County ("School Board" hereafter) requested that a hearing officer from the Division of Administrative Hearings be appointed to conduct a hearing in this case. The School Board was seeking to dismiss the Respondent, Owen Woodyard ("Respondent" hereafter) from his position as a principal in the Sarasota County School system. A copy of the specification of charges filed by the School Board against the Respondent, and the School Board's letter of May 5, 1976, were received in evidence at the hearing as Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1. By motion filed on June 15, 1976, the Respondent moved to dismiss the specification of charges. The motion was denied by order entered July 2, 1976. A copy of the Motion to Dismiss, and the Order were received in evidence at the hearing respectively as Hearing Officer's Exhibits 2 and 3. The final hearing in this case was scheduled by notice dated July 15, 1976 (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 4). Due to the time required for the hearing, the schedules of counsel and of the undersigned, the hearing was conducted on the dates indicated above.

The School Board called the following witnesses: Dr. Gene M. Pillot, the School Board's Superintendent of Schools; Janice Larman, a secretary employed by the School Board; Ed James, a resident of Sarasota County; Cheryl Evonne Williams, a resident of Sarasota County; Roland W. Rogers, the School Board's Coordinator of Community Relations; Dr. Fenwick English, formerly the School Board's Assistant Superintendent for Personnel and Programs; Jean Matheson, the School Board's Director of Elementary Education; Ezana Marken, a secretary employed by the School Board; Millie Warren, a secretary employed by the School

Board; Lois Wragg, a secretary employed by the School Board; Mary M. Jackson, a resident of Sarasota County who was formerly employed by the School Board as an instructional aid; Mary Virginia Park, an elementary counsellor employed by the School Board; John Ferber, the Supervisor of the School Board's Electronics Department; Roland S. Kowalski, a Crisis Intervention Counsellor who has been periodically employed by the School Board; Gloria Thornton, a secretary employed by the School Board; Oneeta Getman, a librarian employed by the School Board; Carol Loiry, a language, speech and hearing clinician employed by the School Board; Arlene Lund, a teacher employed by the School Board; Robert B. Davis, a head custodian employed by the School Board; Elizabeth Stanton, a teacher employed by the School Board; Clyde Brackett, a former employee of the School Board's Electronics Department; Verna Ingham, a teacher employed by the School Board; Jean Crayton, a teacher employed by the School Board; Marilou Harris, a teacher employed by the School Board; Ruby Jane Skillin, a teacher who was formerly employed by the School Board; Patricia Agnew, a teacher employed by the School Board; Mary Kay Kausey, a teacher employed by the School Board; Leah Byrd Roberts, a teacher formerly employed by the School Board; Ann Agee, a teacher employed by the School Board; Shirley Crew, a teacher employed by the School Board; and Carmen J. Patrilla, the School Board's Assistant Coordinator of Employee Relations.

The Petitioner called the following witnesses: Max Bayard, Jr., the School Board's former Director of Facilities; Linda Anderson, a former volunteer worker with the School Board; Lucy Anderson, a resident of Sarasota County; Barbara Walker, a teacher employed by the School Board; Helen Heynes, a teacher employed by the School Board; Minnetta Claunch, a teacher employed by the School Board; Stan Putnam, a teacher formerly employed by the School Board; Crystall Corbett Putnam, a teacher employed by the School Board; Phyllis Turner, a substitute teacher employed by the School Board; Rick Nations, the School Board's Coordinator of Evaluation Services; Joy Churchill, a teacher employed by the School Board; Phyllis Ruth, a teacher employed by the School Board; Dorothy Allen, a teacher employed by the School Board; Robert West, a health field worker with the Sarasota County Health Department; Donald Campbell, a resident of Sarasota County; Major Robert E. Rogers, the School Board's Director of Data Processing; Jerome DuPree, a teacher employed by the School Board; Margariete Hankins, a teacher employed by the School Board; and the Petitioner.

Hearing Officer's Exhibits 1-4; Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 4, 6-23, and 26- 30; and Respondent's Exhibits 1 and 2 were offered into evidence and were received at the hearing. Petitioner's Exhibits 2, 3, and 5 were offered into evidence but were rejected. Petitioner's Exhibits 24 and 25 were marked for identification, but were neither offered nor received in evidence. The parties have submitted Post-Hearing Memoranda of Law, and Proposed Recommended Orders.

The issue to be determined in this case is whether the Respondent should be dismissed from his position with the School Board for incompetence, misconduct in office and willful neglect of duty, or reinstated to his position with complete restoration of all wages due and owing him. The School Board contends that the Respondent has displayed an inability to cope with people under normal administrative pressures, that this inability renders the Respondent incompetent to perform the duties of a principal, that the School Board has attempted by all means at its disposal to improve the Respondent's performance as a principal, but that the Respondent's performance has not improved. The Respondent contends that he does not react inappropriately to administrative pressures, that he has not been incompetent as a principal, nor willfully neglected any of the duties of a principal, that problems at the school where the Respondent was a principal resulted from conditions outside of the Respondent's power to correct, and that

incidents which occurred prior to the 1975-76 school year are not relevant to this case.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. In January, 1966, the Respondent was hired by the School Board to serve as Dean of Students at Sarasota Junior High School. At the beginning of the 1967-68 school year he was transferred to the McIntosh Junior High School, where he served in the same capacity. In February and March, 1968, many instructional personnel in the Sarasota County school system participated in a state-wide teacher "walk out" or strike. The principal at Fruitville Elementary School in Sarasota County participated in the walk out. The Respondent was assigned to Fruitville Elementary School in February, 1968, to replace the striking principal. The School Board did not rehire the striking principal when the strike terminated, and the Respondent was appointed principal at Fruitville on a permanent basis. The Respondent served in that capacity until February 20, 1976, when the School Board took action to involuntarily transfer him to the school system's central office pending resolution of the charges underlying this case. The Respondent has been unemployed since June, 1976.

   
   

2. At the time that he was removed from his position as principal at Fruitville Elementary School, the Respondent was employed on a continuing contract basis in accordance with Florida Statutes, s231.36(3).

   
   

3. On March 2, 1972, 19 teachers from the Fruitville Elementary School met with Dr. Gene M. Pillot, the School Board's Superintendent of schools. The teachers sought the meeting in order to complain about working conditions at Fruitville Elementary, and to lodge complaints against the Respondent. The complaints against the Respondent were basically that he was not accessible to instructional personnel, and that he would frequently raise his voice inappropriately, or overreact in his dealings with the staff. Dr. Pillot followed a system known as the "NEAT system" in dealing with personnel difficulties of the sort which confronted him in March, 1972. "NEAT" is a pseudonym for "notice, explanation, assistance, and time". Dr. Pillot's objective was to give the Respondent notice and explanation of the problems, and assistance and time to overcome them. In following this approach Dr. Pillot assigned Dr. Fenwick English to look into the situation at Fruitville Elementary, and to take steps to correct any problems. Dr. English conducted a thorough study which included interviews with the Respondent, and instructional and noninstructional staff; distribution of questionnaires at various intervals; and personal observation of the situation. Dr. English conducted his study at Fruitville from April, 1972, through April, 1973. In May and June, 1973, Mr. Ronald Kowalski was employed as a consultant at Fruitville to examine the situation, and to conduct interviews and workshops in an effort to overcome difficulties.

   
   

4. The Respondent does not lack the cognative skills required of an elementary school principal. The Respondent has outstanding intellectual and academic capacities. The studies conducted in 1972 and 1973 revealed that the Respondent lacked the human relations skills required of a principal. The Respondent would characteristically react to a crisis situation by raising his voice inappropriately at the first available staff member. As stress increased, the Respondent would become rude, tactless, and abrupt. The Respondent would typically respond to administrative pressures by abruptly entering into a situation, speaking in a rapid high pitched voice, then rapidly retreating to his office. This pattern of conduct was in large part responsible for very low morale among the instructional and non instructional staffs at Fruitville

   Elementary during 1972 and 1973. The pattern of conduct inhibited the Respondent's ability to perform effectively as a principal. In addition to the inevitable loss of morale, administrative pressures would cause the Respondent to ineffectively or unevenly perform his duties, including the discipline of students,

   
   

5. The Respondent was given ample notice of this difficulty, and considerable assistance in correcting it. He was also given sufficient time to permit him to alleviate his shortcomings. He was not able to do that. During the spring and fall of 1975, numerous incidents occurred at Fruitville Elementary which demonstrated that the Respondent continued to react to normal administrative pressure with the same abrupt, tactless and rude behavior that he displayed in 1972 and 1973.

   
   

6. From August through October, 1975 Ezana Marken was employed by the School Board as the Respondent's secretary. On numerous occasions during the few months she served as his secretary, the Respondent inappropriately and abusively raised his voice at Mrs. Marken. On one occasion the Respondent asked Mrs. Marken to get some information for him, and when she took it to him he yelled at her. On another occasion he asked her to immediately bring him some reports, and not to leave them on her desk. She placed them on his desk while he was talking on the telephone, and he threw the papers on the floor. On another occasion Mrs. Marken needed to make some corrections on requisitions. The Respondent was not available to provide her with the information so she called the county purchasing office. When she told the Respondent about this he yelled at her. Later during this same week the county finance office called about an erroneous designation on an invoice. Mrs. Marken took the call, and while she was talking to the finance office the Respondent yelled at her for calling them. When she explained that she did not call the finance office he raised his voice about the functionings of the finance office.

   
   

7. On one occasion a parent who the Respondent had been trying to reach called the office shortly before a faculty meeting. Mrs. Marken went to tell the Respondent. When she did so he yelled at her in front of many faculty members. On another occasion she asked the Respondent if a student who had been referred to the office for disciplinary reasons could go to lunch since the Respondent was not immediately able to see the student. The Respondent shouted at her that that is what he had a secretary for. She then told the boy to go to lunch. The Respondent then shouted at her that the boy was not to eat with his class. Mrs. Marken went to the lunchroom to advise the student of this. When she returned to the office the Respondent yelled at her that the student was not to eat with any student. She again went to the lunchroom, told the student, and they returned to the office together. When they returned the Respondent told the boy to go to lunch.

   
   

8. Mrs. Marken was not the only noninstructional employee who was treated abusively and rudely by the Respondent. The Respondent frequently shouted at other secretaries including Mrs. Warren and Mrs. Thornton. Late one afternoon during December, 1975 or January, 1976, Mrs. Thornton took a phone call which turned out to be a bomb threat. There were few people left at the school. A

   P.T.A. meeting was scheduled for that night. Mrs. Thornton notified the police, and another secretary advised the Respondent. When the policeman arrived, the Respondent entered into the conversation briefly. He left the building before the deputy completed his duties, without giving any instructions to anyone.

9. During the 1975-76 school year, Carol Loiry, a first grade teacher had just begun a class. Mrs. Thornton, an office secretary called her over the school intercom system and inquired as to how many students Mrs. Loiry had in her classes. Mrs. Loiry asked if she could bring the information to the office after the class was over. The Respondent then came onto the intercom system and asked for the same information. Mrs. Loiry asked to bring the information later. The Respondent shouted at her over the intercom to "bring it now". She told him that she would need to dismiss her class, and he said to do that. She then counted up the names on her schedule and took the information to the office. When she arrived at the office it was apparent that the Respondent had no urgent need for the information.

   
   

10. During the 1975-76 school year Mrs. Ingham, a sixth grade teacher, was conducting a class. The Respondent came to the class and called her out of the classroom. He was very irritated at her for not requiring a pass for children who were late from a physical education class. The children who did not have passes were not Mrs. Ingham's students, and the Respondent's irritation was misplaced. The conversation, including the Respondent's loud dressing down of Mrs. Ingham, took place within the hearing of several of Mrs. Ingham's students.

    
    

11. In September, 1975, Clude Brackett, from the School Board's Electronics Department, went to Fruitville Elementary to discuss an intrusion alarm system with the Respondent. During the course of the discussion the Respondent and Mr. Brackett were interrupted by the Respondent's secretary who said that a student had a pencil stuck in his eye. The Respondent told his secretary that he was too busy to deal with that situation. He continued the discussion about the alarm system with Mr. Brackett.

    
    

12. The incidents described in the foregoing paragraphs are illustrative and typical of many similar incidents. The same pattern of conduct was repeated very frequently, often numerous times during the course of a single school day. None of the incidents about which there was testimony would, standing alone, constitute good grounds for dismissing a principal from his position. The pattern of conduct which the incidents evidence, however, rendered the Respondent unable to perform effectively as a principal, and justify his removal. The Respondent's rude, tactless and abrupt manner of dealing with his staff contributed to very poor morale at Fruitville Elementary School. The Respondent, by his own manner of operation, was not accessible to teachers, noninstructional staff, parents, and students. The Respondent's manner of dealing with instructional and noninstructional staff made it unlikely that they would seek his council and increased his inaccessibility to them. Deteriorated morale, and inaccessibility resulted in an adverse impact upon the teaching environment at Fruitville Elementary. The Respondent's inability to deal appropriately with administrative pressure frequently resulted in his misdirecting priorities to the detriment of the educational program at Fruitville Elementary.

    
    

13. The Respondent failed to properly assume administrative responsibility and instructional leadership at Fruitville Elementary School.

    
    

14. In order to adequately perform the duties required of a school principal, both intellectual and human relations skills are required. As has been stated the Respondent is intellectually capable of performing those duties. He is clearly an intelligent man whose motivations are of the worthiest sort. The Respondent, however, lacks the human relations skills that are required.

    The Respondent's pattern of being unable to handle administrative pressure, and his frequent verbal abuse of his staff establishes good and sufficient reason

    for terminating him from his position as principal at Fruitville Elementary School.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

15. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to this action, and over the subject matter. Florida Statutes, s120.57(1).

    
    

16. The School Board has the burden of establishing good and sufficient reasons for the termination of employment of any member of its instructional staff who is employed on a continuing contract basis. Florida Statutes, s231.35(3)(4).

    
    

17. A principal is charged by statute with the responsibility to "assume administrative responsibility and instructional leadership ... for the planning, management, operation, and evaluation of the educational program of the school to which he is assigned". Florida Statutes, s231.085(1).

    
    

18. The Respondent's inability to deal with administrative pressure, abusive conduct toward his staff, and lack of essential human relations skills rendered him unable to properly assume his administrative responsibilities, and constitute good grounds for terminating his employment as a principal.

    
    

19. The Respondent should be dismissed from his position as a principal in the school system of Sarasota County.

RECOMMENDATION

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

RECOMMENDED:

That the School Board of Sarasota County dismiss the Respondent, Owen W. Woodyard, from his position as a principal in the Sarasota County School System.

RECOMMENDED this 4th day of January, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida.

G. STEVEN PFEIFFER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304

(904) 488-9675

COPIES FURNISHED:

Richard W. Cooney, Esquire COONEY, PALMER & BERGS

10 South Adams Drive St. Armands Key

Sarasota, Florida 33478

Peter W. Martin, Esquire STINNETT, SURFUS & MARTIN

P.O. Drawer 1599 Sarasota, Florida 33478

Docket for Case No: 76-000866

Orders for Case No: 76-000866