STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

BARBARA CARROLL, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 81-2190

) HOLMES COUNTY DISTRICT SCHOOL ) BOARD, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, WILLIAM B. THOMAS, held a formal hearing in this case on December 10, 1981, in Bonifay, Florida. The parties reserved the right to submit proposed findings and conclusions, and were accorded 14 days within which to file the same. These proposed findings have been considered, but to the extent that they have not been adopted or otherwise incorporated herein, they have been rejected as irrelevant or not consistent with the weight of the credible evidence. By stipulation, the time requirement for issuance of this Recommended Order, as set forth in Section 28-5.402, Florida Administrative Code, has been extended to January 23, 1982.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Philip J. Padovano, Esquire

Post Office Box 873 Tallahassee, Florida 32302

For Respondent: Bonnie K. Roberts, Esquire

Post Office Box 667 Bonifay, Florida 32425

This matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings upon the Petitioner's request for a formal hearing when her nomination by the superintendent of schools as lunchroom manager at Prosperity Elementary School in Holmes County, Florida, was rejected by the school board. The issue is whether or not this nomination was rejected for good cause within the meaning of Section 230.23(5)(a), Florida Statutes.

The Petitioner testified in her own behalf, and presented as witnesses the superintendent of Holmes County schools, the present principal of Prosperity Elementary School, two former principals who supervised the Petitioner in prior years, and a teacher who worked at the school until this year. The Respondent presented the principal at Prosperity School during three of the years the Petitioner worked there and whose complaints precipitated this controversy, in support of the action taken by the school board. Two exhibits were offered and received in evidence.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Petitioner, Barbara Carroll, has been employed by the Holmes County District School Board as lunchroom manager at Prosperity Elementary School for more than six years. On June 15, 1981, the superintendent of the Holmes County School District formally recommended to the school board that the Petitioner be re-employed for the 1981-82 school year in the same position. On July 20, 1981, the school board rejected the superintendent's nomination on the basis of advice from the then principal of Prosperity Elementary School that the Petitioner was frequently tardy or absent, left work early, spent time away from her work area, was insubordinate and openly defiant to the school principal, and because of threats made by the Petitioner's husband when the principal reprimanded her near the end of the 1981 school year. By letter dated July 29, 1981, the Petitioner was notified of the school board's rejection of the superintendent's nomination and the rationale.

   
   

2. Prior to his nomination, the superintendent visited the school where the Petitioner managed the lunchroom, and ate there in the lunchroom. He recommended her because his review of the school records and personnel file, together with his knowledge of the Petitioner and her reputation, for four years, convinced him that she is qualified to perform the duties required of the position. He was aware of the complaints that had been made about the Petitioner, but after he investigated, he still judged her to be the best person for the job. The Petitioner's character is good and she has done a fine job in the position over the years.

   
   

3. The Petitioner's qualifications to manage the lunchroom were further supported by the present school principal, and two former principals while the Petitioner worked there. These witnesses corroborated the testimony of the superintendent. The Petitioner was a good manager, and she operated the lunchroom in a satisfactory manner throughout the time she was employed. She was never defiant or disobedient, and she was always punctual.

   
   

4. The Petitioner testified in her own behalf and explained that she never intended to be insubordinate or defiant of the principal's authority. She did question his policies relating to lunchroom reports and attendance records, and although she disagreed with the principal, she always followed his instructions. The Petitioner notified the principal when she was going to be absent except on one occasion when a family member died. Even then she arranged for a substitute to operate the lunchroom. Another time the Petitioner left school early to drive a teacher to the hospital, without advising the principal, but this situation arose suddenly and happened after lunch time. The operation of the lunchroom was never interrupted.

   
   

5. When the complaining principal came to Prosperity School, he found the Petitioner to be doing a good job managing the lunchroom. Throughout the years he remained principal the Petitioner never performed her job improperly. The lunchroom was always in operation, and the Petitioner had the lunchroom covered when she was not there. With remarkable candor, the principal described the Petitioner as a good employee, and added that perhaps she could work better with another principal. This person is not now principal of Prosperity School,

   
   

6. There was a personality conflict between the Petitioner and the principal, especially during the 1980-81 school year. The principal had a right to expect that employees under his supervision comply with his instructions and implement his policies without complaints or grumbling, and particularly without insubordination. However, there was not sufficient evidence presented on behalf

   of the school board to support a finding that the actions of the Petitioner amounted to defiance of the principal's authority, or insubordination, or were more than fair comment by the Petitioner. The weight of the credible evidence supports a finding that the school board's rejection of the superintendent's nomination of the Petitioner as lunchroom manager at Prosperity School was without just cause.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

7. Pursuant to Section 230.33(7), Florida Statutes, the superintendent of schools has both the right and the duty to recommend to the school board qualified persons to serve in the various positions within the local school system. The school board is permitted by Section 230.23(5)(a), Florida Statutes, to reject an employee so nominated only for good cause. Thus, the function of a school board is not to select employees, but only to exercise its limited power of rejection to exclude nominees who fail to meet the statutory requirements established for the various positions within the school system. Von Stevens v. School Board of Sarasota County, 338 So.2d 890 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1976).

   
   

8. The limitation upon the school board's power to reject nominees of the superintendent is the statutory requirement that such rejection be for good cause. The Von Stevens case, Id., interpreted the term good cause to mean failure of the superintendent's nominee to meet the criteria set forth in Chapter 231, Florida Statutes. The sole statutory requirement for the position of lunchroom manager is the good moral character standard which applies to all school employees under Section 231.02, Florida Statutes. No evidence was presented to suggest that the Holmes County School Board had adopted any further job qualifications for the position of lunchroom manager. Neither was any evidence presented to support a finding that the Petitioner is not of good moral character. On the contrary, the evidence establishes that the Petitioner is qualified to fill the position of lunchroom manager for which the superintendent nominated her.

   
   

9. The good cause requirement of Section 230.23(5)(a) Florida Statutes, is applicable to all personnel of the school system, not only to instructional employees. Sinclair v. School Board of Baker County, 354 So.2d 916 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) , held that the good cause requirement is applicable to a superintendent's nomination of a person to fill the position of administrative assistant in charge of finance. Moreover, in situations where statutes and regulations are not explicitly applicable to noninstructional personnel, they are useful analogues to the resolution of comparable issues. Smith v. School Board of Leon County, 405 So.2d 183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) at p. 184.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, Barbara Carroll, be reinstated as

lunchroom manager at Prosperity Elementary School in Holmes County, Florida,

effective the beginning of the midterm of school year 1981-82. An it is further

RECOMMENDED that the Holmes County District School Board compensate the Petitioner, Barbara Carroll, for the period from the beginning of the 1981-82 school year to the date of her reinstatement.

THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 11th day of January, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida.

WILLIAM B. THOMAS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of January, 1982.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Philip J. Padovano, Esquire Post Office Box 873 Tallahassee, Florida 32302

Bonnie K. Roberts, Esquire Post Office Box 667 Bonifay, Florida 32425

Docket for Case No: 81-002190

Orders for Case No: 81-002190