STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
HUBERT E, RIDAUGHT, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 77-1661
)
SAM B. COMMANDER, as )
Superintendent of the School ) District of Lake County, Florida ) and The School Board of Lake ) County, Florida, a body )
corporate, )
)
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 January 9, 1978, in Tavares, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Hubert E, Ridaught
For Respondent: Bernard H. Dempsey, Jr., and
Harrison T. Slaughter, Jr. Dempsey and Slaughter Orlando, Florida
On or about September 14, 1977, Hubert E. Ridaught ("Petitioner" hereafter) filed a petition requesting a hearing with the School Board of Lake County, Florida ("School Board" hereafter). In accordance with the provisions of 120.57(1)(b)(3), Florida Statutes (1976 Supp.), the School Board forwarded the petition to the office of the Division of Administrative Hearings, and requested that a hearing officer be assigned. The petition was received in evidence at the hearing as Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1. The School Board filed an Answer to the petition which was received in evidence as Hearing Officer's Exhibit 2. The final hearing was scheduled by notice dated October 20, 1977. A copy of the Notice of Hearing was received in evidence as Hearing Officer's Exhibit 3.
Petitioner avers that he is an employee of the School Board, and that the School Board has issued a continuing contract of employment to him as an assistant principal or an administrator. Petitioner alleges that the School Board has removed him from his position as an administrator and has placed him in a classroom teaching position contrary to his continuing contract.
Petitioner is seeking reinstatement to an administrative position, and compensation for the salary that he has lost. The School Board contends that it did issue a continuing contract to the Petitioner, but as a "teacher" not as an administrator or assistant principal.
At the final hearing the Petitioner testified as a witness on his own behalf, and called Bernard J. McCabe, an employee of the School Board who was superintendent of the School Board from December, 1972 through December, 1976. The Respondent called the following witnesses: J. Leon Hamilton, the School Board's Supervisor of Secondary Schools, who was formerly the principal of Eustis High School within the Lake County school system; George E. Molnar, currently the principal at Eustis High School; David Treadway, the principal of Triangle Elementary School within the Lake County school system, and formerly the School Board's personnel director from 1973 until June, 1977; Henrietta R. Achor, a retired employee of the School Board, who served as a personnel assistant; Erma Karsh, the School Board's payroll manager; and Bernard J. McCabe. Hearing Officer's Exhibits 1-3, Petitioner's Exhibits 1-10, and Respondents' Exhibits 2-7 were offered into evidence at the hearing, and were received. Respondents' Exhibit 1 was marked for identification at the hearing, but was neither offered nor received.
Subsequent to the hearing the Respondents filed a Motion to Supplement the Record by making a deposition of the Petitioner that had been taken prior to the hearing a part of the record. The motion has been denied by separate order.
The parties have submitted Post-Hearing Memoranda of Law.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Petitioner has served in the field of education in the State of Florida for approximately twenty-seven years. He has worked as a teacher, a dean, an assistant principal, and a principal. From 1959 until June, 1972, he worked in the Broward County, Florida school system in various capacities. Prior to the 1972-73 academic year, the Petitioner moved to Lake County where he was hired as an assistant principal at Eustis High School. He served as the assistant principal at Eustis High School during the 1972-73 and 1973-74 academic years. During those two academic years there were two assistant principals employed at Eustis High School. The school was not large enough to justify two assistant principalships; however, racial tensions at the school had placed a strain upon administrative personnel, and two assistant principals were assigned to the school for that reason. During the spring of the 1973-74 school year, it became apparent that only one of the two assistant principals would be rehired for the next academic year. The principal at Eustis High School decided to retain the other assistant principal rather than the Petitioner. This was not because of any deficiency on the Petitioner's part, but rather because the other assistant principal was black man, and the principal felt it important to maintain a black person in a high administrative capacity at the school in view of the recent tensions.
During the 1972-73 and 1973-74 school years, the Petitioner was employed with the School Board on an "annual contract" basis. He was eligible for a "continuing contract" for the 1974-75 school year. The principal at Eustis High School wished to recommend the Petitioner for continued employment as an administrator; however, he did not have a position available, and he recommended that the Petitioner be hired on a continuing contract basis as a teacher. The School Board voted to place the Petitioner on continuing contract status as a teacher. During the summer of 1974 additional funds became available, and the School Board elected to keep a second assistant principal at the Eustis High School. The Petitioner was offered that position. In the meantime, however, the Petitioner had applied for a vacancy as an assistant principal at the Mount Dora Middle School, within the Lake County school system. The Petitioner was hired for that latter position. During the 1974-75 school
year the principal at the Mount Dora High School was removed, and the Petitioner was assigned as the principal. He served in that capacity for the remainder of that school year, and for the 1975-76 and 1976-77 school years. For each of those two latter years, he was given an annual contract as a principal.
During February, 1977, the Superintendent of the School Board advised the Petitioner at a conference that the Petitioner would not be recommended for an administrative position within the school system for the 1977-78 school year, but that the Petitioner's continuing contract status as a teacher would be honored, and that he would be recommended for a teaching position. This oral notification was followed by letters dated March 7, 1977 and March 29, 1977 advising the Petitioner of the action. Petitioner is now employed on a continuing contract basis, as a teacher at the Eustis Middle School within the Lake County school system.
At all times relevant to this action, the School Board has distributed contracts to its personnel in the following manner: During the spring or early summer of each academic year, two copies of proposed contracts are mailed to personnel who the Board has decided to rehire. If the employee agrees with the contract he signs both copies and returns them to the School Board, where the facsimile signatures of the Superintendent and Chairman of the School Board are affixed. One of the copies is then returned to the employee. Prior to the 1974-75 school year, a continuing contract of employment was forwarded to the Petitioner in this manner. The contract provided in pertinent part:
WHEREAS, Section 231.36, et. seq., Florida Statutes, provides for continuing contracts with each School Board for members of the instructional staff in each district school system, who are qualified by the terms of said law, and
WHEREAS, the School Board has appointed and employed the Teacher for continuing employment as teacher in the Mount Dora Middle School of the district.
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual agreements, covenants, terms, and conditions herein contained, it is expressly stipulated, understood, agreed, and covenanted by and between the parties hereto as follows:
The School Board enters into this contract of continuing employment with the Teacher pursuant to the laws of Florida and to Section 231.36, et. seq., Florida Statutes, and the action of the School Board heretofore taken, whereby the Teacher was appointed and employed . . .
The words "(Asst. Prin.)" had been placed after the words "whereas the School Board has appointed and employed the teacher for continuing employment as teacher". The words "(Asst. Prin.)" were also crossed out. It appears that these words were inserted in the contract after Mr. Ridaught had signed it and before the proper facsimile signatures of the Chairman of the School Board and the Superintendent of Schools were affixed to the contract. The Superintendent crossed out the words before the contract was signed by the School Board personnel. When the contract was returned to the Petitioner the words "(Asst.
Prin.)" were placed on the contract and were crossed out. It does not appear that the words "(Asst. Prin.)" as above have any bearing on this case, or that they were intended to be a part of the contract by either of the parties. It appears that they were inserted by clerical error and were crossed out in order to obviate the error.
The School Board has, in the past, offered continuing contract status to teachers, principals, and supervisors. The School Board has not, in the past, offered continuing contract status to assistant principals, or any administrators below the level of principal. It does not appear that the School Board has ever offered a continuing contract to an administrator other than a principal. As a result of a change in the pertinent statutes the School Board now gives tenure or continuing contract status only to teachers. Neither supervisors nor principals are granted continuing contract status.
Assistant principals are classified for the School Board's purposes as teachers. Their paygrade is determined from the same scale that is used for teachers. Assistant principals are given an increment in their salary for the additional duties that they perform, in the same manner that coaches, librarians, and guidance counsellors are given an increment. There is no separate salary scale for assistant principals as there is for administrators and supervisors.
Although the School Board classified the Petitioner as a teacher in the continuing contract that was granted to the Petitioner in 1974, the Petitioner had not, prior to that time, ever served within the Lake County school system as a teacher. All of his service prior to then was as an assistant principal. His duties as an assistant principal included administrative duties assigned by the principal of the school. At no time did he serve as a classroom teacher. Subsequent to 1974, the Petitioner continued to serve as an administrator within the school system, and not until the present school year did he ever serve as a classroom teacher.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to this action, and over the subject matter. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1976 Supp.)
The Petitioner's status as an employee with the School Board is a matter of contract. To the extent that the Petitioner has continuing contract rights with the School Board, those rights stem from the continuing contract which was issued to the Petitioner prior to the opening of the 1974-75 school year. Copies of that contract were received into evidence at the final hearing as Petitioner's Exhibit 4, and as Respondents' Exhibit 2. Under this contract Petitioner is clearly granted continuing contract status as a teacher. Nothing in the contract indicates that he is to receive continuing contract rights as an administrator, an assistant principal, or a principal. The language of the contract is clear and unambiguous. Where the language of a contract is clear, the intention of the parties to the contract is determined from the language itself. Hamilton Construction Company v. Board of Public Instruction of Dade County, 65 So.2d 729 (Fla. 1953); Azalea Park Utilities, Inc. v. Knox, Florida Development Corp., 127 So.2d 121 (2 DCA Fla. 1961). Since the contract is clear, it is inappropriate to look beyond it to determine its meaning. Thus the Petitioner's testimony that he felt he was receiving continuing contract status as an administrator or assistant principal is not properly admissible, and should be disregarded. The clear language of the contract in this case
demonstrates that the Petitioner was granted continuing contract status as a teacher, and he is entitled to continuing contract status only as a teacher.
The Petitioner contends that he is entitled to continuing contract status as an administrator or assistant principal by operation of law. He contends that since he served in administrative capacities when he was issued a continuing contract, that the continuing contract was necessarily as an administrator. This contention is without merit. The statutes in effect at the time the time the Petitioner was granted continuing contract status defined an assistant principal as an administrator. The Petitioner was not, however, recommended for continuing contract status as an administrator. It appeared at the time the School Board made a decision as to his status that there was no position available for him as an administrator, and furthermore, the Board had made a practice of not granting continuing contract status to administrators other than principals. Indeed, this latter practice has now been superseded and the School Board does not grant continuing contract status to any administrators.
Petitioner urges that it would have been incongruous for the School Board to grant the Petitioner continuing contract status as a teacher since he had not served within the system as a teacher. While this argument has polemic appeal, it does not withstand analysis. In order to have reached administrative capacities prior to the time that he came to Lake County, the Petitioner had to have demonstrated substantial abilities as a teacher. Furthermore, the Petitioner was well known to the principal who recommended him for continuing contract status, and the principal testified that he believed that the Petitioner had all of the personal attributes that would render him a successful teacher. Thus, although the School Board had no direct experience from which it could conclude that the Petitioner was entitled to continuing contract status as a teacher, it did have ample evidence from which it could make such a conclusion.
The Petitioner's prayer that the School Board should be required to treat the Petitioner as if he had continuing contract status as an administrator, or as an assistant principal, and the Petitioner's prayer for loss of wages should be denied, and the petition herein should be dismissed.
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED:
That a final order be entered denying the Petitioner's prayer that the School Board be required to consider him as having continuing contract status as an administrator or assistant principal; and denying the Petitioner's prayer for loss of wages; and dismissing the petition herein.
RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of March, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida.
G. STEVEN PFEIFFER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
(904) 488-9675
COPIES FURNISHED:
Robert J. Vossler, Esquire Harrison T. Slaughter, Jr., Esquire
110 North Magnolia Drive Suite 610, Eola Office Center Suite 224 605 Robinson Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Orlando, Florida 32801
================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
HUBERT E. RIDAUGHT,
Petitioner,
vs. CASE NO. 77-1661
SAM B. COMMANDER, as
Superintendent of the School District of Lake County, Florida, and The School Board of Lake County, Florida, a body corporate,
Defendants.
/
FINAL ORDER
The School Board of Lake County, Florida, adopts the following Statement of the Case, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law made by Hearing Officer G. Steven Pfeiffer on March 2, 1978:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On or about September 14, 1977, Hubert E. Ridaught ("Petitioner" hereafter) filed a petition requesting a hearing with the School Board of Lake County, Florida ("School Board" hereafter). In accordance with the provisions of Section 120.57(1)(b)(3), Florida Statutes, (1976 Supp.), the School Board forwarded the petition to the office of the Division of Administrative Hearings, and requested that a hearing officer be assigned. The Petition was received in evidence at the hearing as Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1. The School Board filed an Answer to the petition which was received in evidence as Hearing Officer's Exhibit 2. The final hearing was scheduled by notice dated October 20, 1977. A copy of the Notice of Hearing was received in evidence as Hearing Officer's Exhibit 3.
Petitioner avers that he is an employee of the School Board, and that the School Board has issued a continuing contract of employment to him as an assistant principal or an administrator. Petitioner alleges that the School Board has removed him from his position as an administrator and has placed him in a classroom teaching position contrary to his continuing contract.
Petitioner is seeking reinstatement to an administrative position, and compensation for the salary that he has lost. The School Board contends that it did issue a continuing contract to the Petitioner, but as a "teacher," not as an administrator or assistant principal.
At the final hearing the Petitioner testified as a witness on his own behalf, and called Bernard J. McCabe, an employee of the School Board who was superintendent of the School Board from December 1972 through December 1976. The Respondent called the following witnesses: J. Leon Hamilton, The School Board's Supervisor of Secondary Schools, who was formerly the principal of Eustis High School within the Lake County school system; George E. Molnar, currently the principal at Eustis High School; David Treadway, the principal of
Triangle Elementary School within the Lake County school system and formerly the School Board's personnel director from 1973 until June 1977; Henrietta R. Achor, a retired employee of the School Board, who served as a personnel assistant; Erma Karsh, the School Board's payroll manager; and Bernard J. McCabe. Hearing Officer's Exhibits 1-3, Petitioner's Exhibits 1-10, and Respondents Exhibits 2-7 were offered into evidence at the hearing, and were received. Respondent's Exhibit 1 was marked for identification at the hearing, but was neither offered nor received.
Subsequent to the hearing the Respondents filed a Motion to Supplement the Record by making a deposition of the Petitioner that had been taken prior to the hearing a part of the record. The motion has been denied by separate order.
The parties have submitted Post-Hearing memoranda of Law.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Petitioner has served in the filed of education in the State of Florida for approximately twenty-seven years. He has worked as a teacher, a dean, an assistant principal, and a principal. From 1959 until June 1972 he worked in the Broward County, Florida, school system in various capacities. Prior to the 1972-73 academic year, the Petitioner moved to Lake County where he was hired as an assistant principal at Eustis High School. He served as the assistant principal at Eustis during the 1972-73 and 9173-74 academic years. During these two academic years there were two assistant principals employed at Eustis High School. The school was not large enough to justify two assistant principalships; however, racial tensions at the school had placed a strain upon the administrative personnel and two assistant principals were assigned to the school for that reason. During the spring of the 1973-74 school year, it became apparent that only one of the two assistant principals would be rehired for the next academic year. The principal at Eustis High School decided to retain the other assistant principal rather than the Petitioner. This was not because of any deficiency on the Petitioner's part, but rather because the other assistant principal was a black man, and the principal felt it important to maintain a black person in a high administrative capacity at the school in view of the recent tensions.
During the 1973-73 and 1973-74 school years, the Petitioner was employed with the School Board on an "annual contract" basis. He was eligible for a "continuing contract" for the 1974-75 school year. The principal at Eustis High School wished to recommend Petitioner for continued employment as an
administrator; however, he did not have a position available, and he recommended that the Petitioner be hired on a continuing contract status as a teacher. The School Board voted to place the Petitioner on a continuing contract status as a teacher. During the summer of 1974 additional funds became available, and the School Board elected to keep a second assistant principal at the Eustis High School. The Petitioner was offered that position. In the meantime, however, the Petitioner had applied for a vacancy as an assistant principal at the Mount Dora Middle School, with the Lake County school system. The Petitioner was hired for that latter position. During the 1974-75 school year the principal at the Mount Dora High School was removed, and the Petitioner was assigned as the principal. He served in that capacity for the remainder of that school year, and for the 1975-76 and 1976-77 school years. For each of these two latter years, he was given an annual contract as a principal.
During February 1977, the Superintendent of the School Board advised the Petitioner at a conference that the Petitioner would not be recommended for an administrative position within the school system for the 1977-78 school year, but the Petitioner's continuing contract status as a teacher would be honored, and that he would be recommended for a teaching position. This oral notification was followed by letters dated March 7, 1977, and March 29, 1977, advising the Petitioner of the action. Petitioner is now employed on a continuing contract basis, as a teacher at the Eustis Middle School within the Lake County school system.
At all times relevant to this action, the School Board has distributed contracts to its personnel in the following manner: During the spring or early summer of each academic year, two copies of proposed contracts are mailed to personnel who the Board has decided to rehire. If the employee agrees with the contract he signs both copies and returns them to the School Board, where the facsimile signatures of the Superintendent and the Chairman of the School Board are affixed. One of the copies is then returned to the employee. Prior to the 1974-75 school year, a continuing contract of employment was forwarded to the Petitioner in this manner. The contract provided in pertinent part:
WHEREAS, Section 231.36, et. seq., Florida Statutes, provides for continuing contracts with each School Board for members of the instructional staff in each district school system, who are qualified by the terms of said law, and
WHEREAS, the School Board has appointed and employed the Teacher for continuing employment as teacher in the Mount Dora Middle School of the district.
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual agreements, convenants, terms, and conditions herein contained, it is expressly stipulated, understood, agreed, and convenanted by and between the parties hereto as follows:
The School Board enters into this contract of continuing employment with the Teacher pursuant to the laws of Florida and to Section 231.36, et seq., Florida Statutes, and the action of the School Board heretofore
taken, whereby the Teacher was appointed and employed. . . .
The words "(Asst. Prin.)" had been placed after the words "whereas the School Board has appointed and employed the teacher for continuing employment as teacher." The words "(Asst. Prin.)" were also crossed out. It appears that these words were inserted in the contract after Mr. Ridaght had signed it and before the proper facsimile signatures of the Chairman of the School Board and the Superintendent of Schools were affixed to the contract. The Superintendent crossed out the words before the contract was signed by the School Board personnel. When the contract was returned to the Petitioner, the words "(Asst. Prin.)" were placed on the contract and were crossed out. It does not appear that the words "(Asst. Prin.)" as above have any bearing on this case, or that they were intended to be a part of the contract by either of the parties. It appears that they were inserted by clerical error and were crossed out in order to obviate the error.
The School Board has, in the past, offered continuing contract status to teacher, principals, and supervisors. The School Board has not, in the past, offered continuing contract status to assistant principals, or any administrators below the level of principal. It does not appear that the School Board has ever offered a continuing contract to an administrator other than a principal. As a result of a change in the pertinent statutes, the School Board now gives tenure or continuing contract status only to teachers. Neither supervisors nor principals are granted continuing contract status.
Assistant principals are classified for the School Board's purposes as teachers. Their paygrade is determined from the same scale that is used for teachers. Assistant principals are given an increment in their salary for the additional duties that they perform, in the same manner that coaches, librarians, and guidance counsellors are given an increment. There is no separate salary scale for assistant principals as there is for administrators and supervisors.
Although the School Board classified the Petitioner as a teacher in the continuing contract that was granted to the Petitioner in 1974, the Petitioner had not, prior to that time, ever served within the Lake County School system as a teacher. All of his service prior to then was as an assistant principal. His duties as an assistant principal included administrative duties assigned by the principal of the school. At no time did he serve as a classroom teacher. Subsequent to 1974, the Petitioner continued to serve as an administrator within the school system, and not until the present school year did he ever serve as a classroom teacher.
Petitioner has filed with this School Board Exceptions to the Findings of Fact by Hearing Officer Pfeiffer. He notes that in the document of recommendation, Respondent's Exhibit "3," there is no mention of or reference to a continuing contract as a teacher. Respondent alleges that this document states that the recommendation is based upon the "strong capabilities of this person as set forth in the annual evaluations." The Respondent further notes that because the Findings of Fact by the Hearing Officer clearly states that the Petitioner has only served in the capacity of an assistant principal, the basis of the recommendation would necessarily be based on annual evaluations of the Petitioner as an assistant principal and not that of a teacher.
Notwithstanding Petitioner's Exceptions to the Findings of Fact by Hearing Officer Pfeiffer, the School Board expressly adopts Hearing Officer's Pfeiffer's
conclusion that Petitioner was recommended to be hired on a continuing contract as a teacher.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to this action, and over the subject matter. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1976 Supp.)
The Petitioner's status as an employee with the School Board is a matter of contract. To the extent that the Petitioner has continuing contract rights with the School Board, those rights stem from the continuing contract which was issued to the Petitioner prior to the opening of the 1974-75 school year. Copies of that contract were received into evidence at the final hearing as Petitioner's Exhibit 4, and as Respondents' Exhibit 2. Under this contract, Petitioner is clearly granted continuing contract status as a teacher. Nothing in the contract indicates that he is to receive continuing contract rights as an administrator, an assistant principal, or a principal. Where the language of the contract is clear and unambiguous, the intention of the parties is determined from the language itself. Hamilton Construction Company v. Board of Public Instruction of Dade County, 65 So.2d 729 (Fla. 1953); Azalea Park Utilities, Inc. v. Knox, Florida Development Corp., 127 So.2d 121 (2 DCA Fla. 1961). Since the contract is clear, it is inappropriate to look beyond it to determine its meaning. Thus the Petitioner's testimony that he felt he was receiving continuing contract status as an administrator or assistant principal is not properly admissible, and should be disregarded. The clear language of the contract in this case demonstrates that the Petitioner was granted continuing status as a teacher, and he is entitled to continuing contract status only as a teacher.
The Petitioner contends that he is entitled to continuing contract status as an administrator or assistant principal by operation of law. He contends that since he served in administrative capacities when he was issued a continuing contract, that the continuing contract was necessarily as an administrator. This contention is without merit. The status in effect at the time the Petitioner was granted continuing contract status define assistant principal as an administrator. It appeared at the time the School Board had made a practice of not granting continuing contract status to administrators other than principals. Indeed, this latter practice has not been superseded and the School Board does not grant continuing contract status to any administrators.
Petitioner urges that it would have been incongruous for the School Board to grant the Petitioner continuing contract status as a teacher since he had not served with the system as a teacher. While this argument has polemic appeal, it does not withstand analysis. In order to have reached administrative capacities prior to the time that he came to Lake County, the Petitioner had to have demonstrated substantial abilities as a teacher. Furthermore, the Petitioner was well known to the principal who recommended him for continuing contract status, and the principal testified that he believed that the Petitioner had all of the personal attributes that would render him a successful teacher. Thus, although the School Board had no direct experience from which it could conclude that the Petitioner was entitled to continuing contract status as a teacher, it did have ample evidence from which it could make such a conclusion.
In his Exceptions to the Recommended Order, Petitioner notes that the Hearing Officer found that the contract was clear and unambiguous and that the
intention of the parties to the contract is determined from the language itself. Petitioner notes that paragraph 4 of the contract states that "the School Board may, upon recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools, transfer and assign a teacher to a similar position in any other school of the district, provided that the duties shall be similar to the duties originally assigned and the salary be as heretofore set forth." Petitioner notes that he was assigned to the duties of an assistant principal at Mount Dora Middle School on the effective date of the contract. Petitioner also notes that he was never assigned to be a teacher in the Lake County School system. Petitioner concludes that he has not been transferred to similar duties, but to the duties of a classroom teacher. By this logic, the Petitioner implies that it was the intention of the parties at the time of entering into the contract that the Petitioner was to have a continuing contract as an assistant principal within the school district, rather than as a teacher.
The School Board expressly rejects Petitioner's argument as to this interpretation of the contract. The contract expressly states that the agreement between Petitioner and the Lake County School Board was one of employment of the Petitioner as a teacher, not as an assistant principal.
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law expressly adopted from Hearing Officer G. Steven Pfeiffer's Recommended Order, and while noting Respondent's exceptions to those Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is
ADJUDGED that:
Petitioner's prayer that the School Board be required to consider him as having a continuing contract status as an administrator or assistant principal is denied.
Petitioner's prayer for loss of wages is denied.
The petition of the Petitioner is dismissed.
ORDERED this 24th day of April 1978, in Lake County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN
LAKE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD
SAM B. CAMMANDER SUPERINTENDENT
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| May 01, 1978 | Final Order filed. |
| Mar. 02, 1978 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Apr. 24, 1978 | Agency Final Order | |
| Mar. 02, 1978 | Recommended Order | Petitioner failed to show he had a continuing contract as an administrator; in fact, the contract specifically said he was to be a teacher. |
