STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD )

COUNTY, FLORIDA )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 77-1042

)

ROBERT C. BEALE, )

)

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 August 18, 1977, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

The following appearances were entered: Stuart Tarlowe, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, for the Petitioner, School Board of Broward County, Florida; and Robert

1. Curtis, of the firm Saunders, Curtis, Ginestra & Gore, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for the Respondent, Robert C. Beale.

   
   

   On or about May 19, 1977, the Petitioner, School Board of Broward County (("School Board" hereafter) filed charges against Robert C. Beale ("Respondent" hereafter). The Respondent has been employed by the School Board as the principal of Piper High School. In the Charges it is alleged that the Respondent committed violations of 231.36(6), Florida Statutes (1975). The Respondent was formally notified of the charges by letter dated May 23, 1977.

   The Respondent requested a public hearing by letter dated May 27, 1977. In accordance with 120.57(1)(b)(3), the School Board requested that a hearing officer from the Division of Administrative Hearings be assigned to conduct the hearing. The final hearing was scheduled by notice dated June 15, 1977.

   
   

   Through an agreement which was received in evidence at the final hearing as Petitioner's Exhibit 1, the parties stipulated to certain facts. The School Board offered the stipulation and several additional exhibits into evidence, and these were received without objection from the Respondent. The School Board offered no additional evidence. The Respondent called the following witnesses: Robert Bidwell, a former teacher who had been employed by the School Board; David Fee, a teacher and football coach who had been employed by the School Board at Piper High School; Michael Tschirret, a teacher who is employed by the School Board at Piper High School; Jim Davidson, a principal employed by the School Board; Carole Lambert, a mother of students who have attended Piper High School; Josefina Harvin, a mother of students who have attended Piper High School; Mel Schiff, a father of students who have attended Piper High School; Marguerite O'Connor, the head of Mathematics Department at Piper High School; Arthur Thompson, a parent of students who have attended Piper High School; Bentley Shellahammer, a teacher and band director at Piper High School; Ted Myers, a principal employed by the School Board; and the Respondent.

   Hearing Officer's Exhibits 1 and 2, Petitioner's Exhibits 1-8, and Respondent's Exhibits 1 and 2 were received into evidence.

   
   

   FINDINGS OF FACT

   
   

   1. The Respondent has been employed by the School Board for 26 years. The Respondent has served in numerous teaching and administrative positions with the School Board. In 1971 the Respondent was named principal of Piper High School, and he continues to serve in that capacity. Piper High School was first opened in 1971, and the Respondent has been its only principal. The task of organizing a new high school, and developing it into an institution with strong traditions is a difficult one. The Respondent has taken a strong lead at Piper High School, and has been the motivating force in developing it into a respected high school with many innovative programs and excellent spirit on the part of the instructional staff and the student body. The Respondent is a strong disciplinarian, and has enforced a rigorous dress and conduct code at Piper High School. The Respondent does not enjoy one hundred percent support from his faculty, but it is apparent that he does have the respect of many members of the faculty. The Respondent is also liked and respected by the student body, and enjoys much support and respect from parents of students at Piper High School. During the entire course of his employment with the School Board, the Respondent has received satisfactory or better evaluations. The Respondent is an outstanding high school principal. Respondent is presently employed with the School Board on a continuing contract basis.

      
      

   2. Instructional personnel within the Broward County school system are given an opportunity to perform supplemental duties for which they receive supplemental pay. Athletic coaches, and athletic trainers received such stipends.

      
      

   3. On September 2, 1976, the Respondent, acting in his capacity as principal of Piper High School, placed William T. Drake on a supplemental payroll for an amount of $500, indicating that Drake would be performing duties as a soccer coach. The Respondent approved payroll forms for each pay period during the 1976-77 school year through March 31, 1977 allowing these supplemental payments to be made to Mr. Drake on a monthly basis. Supplemental payments were in fact paid by the School Board to Drake from September, 1976 through March, 1977, for performance of services as the Piper High School soccer coach pursuant to the request and authorization of the Respondent. The total amount paid to Drake on this basis was $272.67.

      
      

   4. When the Respondent placed Drake on the supplemental payroll as soccer coach, the Respondent knew that Drake was not going to perform any services as soccer coach at Piper High School. When he approved the payroll forms he knew that Drake was not performing duties as soccer coach, and in fact that Piper High School had no soccer team. Piper High School had had a soccer team during the 1975-76 school year, but it was discontinued.

      
      

   5. From the 1971-72 school year, through the 1974-75 school year Piper High School had on its supplemental payroll an athletic trainer and an assistant athletic trainer. Mr. Drake had served as assistant athletic trainer during the 1974-75 school year. After that year the head trainer left the school system, and Drake became the head trainer for the 1975-76 school year. the Respondent was not successful in finding a member of his instructional staff who could have served as assistant trainer, and Mr. Drake therefore served virtual double duty. During the 1975-76 school year Drake worked approximately 810 hours as athletic trainer, and received a supplemental compensation of $1,500. At the beginning

      of the 1976-77 school year the Respondent again looked for a member of his instructional staff who would have qualified to serve as assistant trainer, but found no one. Drake was willing to continue to perform the double duty, and the Respondent wished to adequately compensate him. It is for this reason that the Respondent designated Drake as soccer coach, and authorized the additional supplemental payment. While Drake did not perform the duties of soccer coach during the 1976-77 school year he did perform the duties of both the head trainer and the assistant head trainer. Under the School Board's rules and regulations the respondent could have designated Drake in both capacities. He did not do that because the assistant trainer position would have entitled Drake to a $1,000 supplemental payment, and the Respondent did not want to divert that much of his budget from other areas. Furthermore, the Respondent wished to avoid additional administrative difficulties. The school was already authorized the position of soccer coach, and forms would have needed to be filled out in order to have the position of assistant trainer authorized.

      
      

   6. When the Respondent placed Drake on the supplemental payroll as a soccer coach, and when he approved payroll forms for Drake in that capacity, he violated the School Board's rules and regulations. His motivations for violating the regulations were good ones - to adequately compensate a member of his instructional staff for duties that were being performed above and beyond those assigned. The Respondent did not profit personally from his violation of the regulations. In fact, when his violation of the rules was brought to his attention, the Respondent made full restitution to the School Board for the supplemental payments that had been made to Drake. The Respondent has never disavowed responsibility for his violation of the rules. He has acknowledged his error, made full restitution, and has learned a valuable lesson. Evidence was offered at the hearing showing that the Respondent enjoys an excellent reputation for truth and veracity. He testified that he will not again knowingly violate any of the School Board's rules and his testimony is both believable and compelling.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to this action, and over the subject matter. 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1976 Supp.)

   
   

2. The School Board has the burden of establishing good and sufficient reasons for the termination of employment, demotion, or disciplining of any member of its instructional staff who is employed on a continuing contract basis. 231.36(3)(4), Florida Statutes (1975). The Respondent is charged with violating the provisions of 231.36(6), which provides in pertinent part as follows:

"Any . . . principal, may be suspended or dismissed

. . . based on immorality, misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, drunkenness, or conviction of any crime involving moral turpitude . . .

The Respondent's violations of the School Board's rules and regulations do constitute misconduct in office, and justify an official reprimand. the facts of this case would not justify, either as a matter of discretion or as a matter of law, termination or suspension of the Respondent's employment, or demotion in his position or contract status.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

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

That the School Board of Broward County formally reprimand the Respondent for violating the School Board's rules as set out in the Complaint brought by the School board, and that a copy of the official reprimand be placed in the Respondent's personnel file.

RECOMMENDED this 30th day of August, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida.

G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings

530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675

COPIES FURNISHED:

Stuart Tarlow, Esquire Suite 203

524 South Andrews Avenue

Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33313

Robert M. Curtis, Esquire

P. O. Drawer 4078

Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33338

Edward J. Marko, Esquire MARKO, STEPHANY & LYONS

P. O. Box 4369

Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33338

Docket for Case No: 77-001042

Orders for Case No: 77-001042