EDWARD D. DONNELLY, )
vs. ) CASE NO. 83-1564
Respondent. )
This matter came on for hearing on August 15 and 16, 1983, in Lakeland, Florida, before the Division of Administrative Hearings and its duly appointed Hearing Officer, R. T. Carpenter. The parties were represented by:
For Petitioner: Ronald G. Meyer, Esquire
For Respondent: Clarence A. Boswell, Jr., Esquire
This matter arose on Respondent's failure to renew Petitioner's contract as principal of the Central Polk Vocational School (CPVS) for the 1982-83 school year. The parties submitted proposed findings of fact. Those findings not incorporated herein are found to be either subordinate, cumulative, immaterial, unnecessary or not supported by the evidence.
Petitioner held an annual contract with Respondent to serve as principal of CPVS for the 1982-83 school year. He had held this position since 1976. The 1982-83 contract provided no right of renewal.
The Superintendent of Schools for Polk County did not nominate Petitioner for retention as principal of CPVS. Respondent appointed the Superintendent's nominee for this position.
Petitioner holds a continuing contract with Respondent as a classroom teacher. He is serving in this capacity pending outcome of these proceedings.
Section 231.29, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1982) requires superintendents to develop assessment procedures pertaining to principals. The Superintendent had developed such procedures which were adopted by Respondent in 1980, and revised on July 1, 1982.
Petitioner's supervisor for the 1982-83 school year was Mrs. Cathy Wooley, Director of Exceptional Student Education. She met with Petitioner on
August 26, 1982, to discuss his performance objectives for the coming school year. These objectives included development of a slide/tape presentation and preparation of a brochure on CPVS programs, visits to feeder schools, forming of an advisory committee and development of an integrated curriculum.
On January 6, 1983, Mrs. Wooley met with Petitioner to review progress toward achieving performance objectives. Petitioner presented no evidence at that meeting that he was proceeding toward the outlined objectives. Petitioner was instructed to bring the materials he was working on to Mrs. Wooley by January 10, 1983. Petitioner did not comply with this instruction.
By letter dated January 6, 1983 (Exhibit 22), Mrs. Wooley specified four areas where Petitioner was required to improve as an administrator. These areas concerned improved communication with parents, involvement in the classroom, leadership at school functions and definition of staff roles. Early in the year, Mrs. Wooley also discussed with Petitioner his failure to maintain discipline in the school and need for improvement.
At various times during the year, Mrs. Wooley discussed with Petitioner problems pertaining to school cleanliness, late and missing reports on exceptional students, failure to ensure that teachers were aware of exceptional students' individual educational plans, and Petitioner's failure to perform required teacher evaluations.
On January 21, 1983, Mrs. Wooley met with Petitioner to conduct a second interim review of performance objectives and to discuss his functions as principal.
On February 15, 1983, a Program Evaluation Report on CPVS was issued. This report was based on a study of exceptional student education at CPVS, and covered the period between December 9, 1982, and February 15, 1983. Over twenty members of the Polk County School System participated in this study, which assessed current programs, recommended corrective measures needed and forecast future needs. Petitioner thus had further information available to him on areas where improvements were needed.
On February 15, 1983, Mrs. Wooley met with Petitioner to discuss his performance as principal. This meeting was followed by a letter (Exhibit 13), dated March 1, 1983, which stated problems discussed at the February 15, 1983, meeting. Petitioner continued to have poor communications with parents, who had complained to both Mrs. Wooley and the Superintendent regarding Petitioner's conduct at a P.T.A. meeting. Allegations that Petitioner was intoxicated at the
P.T.A. meeting were not proven in this proceeding. However, Petitioner's effectiveness as a principal was shown to have been diminished in the area of community relations as indicated by these complaints.
On March 4, 1983, a third interim review of program objectives was conducted by Mrs. Wooley with Petitioner.
On March 14, 1983 (prior to issuing Petitioner's final evaluation), Mrs. Wooley recommended to the Superintendent that Petitioner not be reappointed. The Superintendent relied on this recommendation in his decision not to reappoint Petitioner, and did not conduct an independent review of Petitioner's performance.
Petitioner's annual evaluations for his prior years as a principal carried satisfactory or higher ratings in all areas with exception of
"community/public relations." His 1980-81 and 1981-82 evaluations in this category were rated "needs improvement."
On March 28, 1983, Respondent received his annual evaluation. His performance was rated "below expected standard" in administration, public relations and curriculum/instruction. He had not yet completed the program objectives regarding the brochure and curriculum manual which were originally scheduled for completion at prior dates. However, these projects were finished in April, 1983. Program objectives regarding the slide presentation, feeder school visits and formation of an advisory committee had been completed.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Section 230.33, Florida Statutes (1981), provides in part:
The Superintendent shall exercise all powers and perform all duties listed below and else- where in the law; provided that in so doing
he shall advise and counsel with the school board. . .
(7)(a) Recommend to the school board . . . positions which need to be filled . . . and nominate . . . persons to fill such positions.
Section 230.23, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1982), provides in part:
The school board, acting as a board, shall exercise all powers and perform all duties listed below:
(5)(a) Act upon . . . nominations of persons to fill . . . positions. The school board
may reject for good cause any employee nominated. . .
Under these provisions, the Superintendent of Polk County Public Schools holds authority to select the individual to fill the position at issue here. The Respondent School Board is required to accept the Superintendent's nomination unless it has "good cause" to reject it.
There was no evidence whatsoever that the Superintendent's nominee for the position of CPVS principal was not qualified. Thus, rejection for cause of the Superintendent's nomination would necessarily rest on a perceived duty to retain Petitioner unless his performance was not satisfactory. Although no specific support for this contention was identified, Petitioner argues that recently enacted assessment procedures imply a requirement that he be given a year to correct deficiencies.
Section ,231.29, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1982), provides in part:
For the purpose of improving the quality of instructional, administrative, and supervisory services in the public schools of the state, the superintendent shall establish procedures for assessing
the performance of duties and responsibilities of all instructional, administrative, and supervisory personnel employed in his district.
The school board shall provide training pro- grams which are based upon guidelines pro- vided by the Florida Council on Educational Management to ensure that all individuals with evaluation responsibilities understand the proper use of the assessment criteria and procedures. Such training programs may be provided under s.231.087.
The assessment procedure shall comply with, but shall not be limited to, the fol- lowing requirements:
An assessment for each employee shall be made at least once a year.
All personnel shall be fully informed of the criteria and procedures associated
with the assessment process before the assess- ment takes place.
A written report of each assessment shall be made and a copy thereof shall be given to the employee no later than 10 days after the assess- ment takes place. The written report of assess- ment shall be discussed with the employee by the person responsible for preparing the report.
The employee shall have the right to initiate a written response to the assessment, and the response shall become a permanent attachment to his personnel file.
In the event that an employee is not performing his duties in a satisfactory manner, the evaluator shall notify the employee in writing of such determination and describe such unsatisfactory performance. The evaluator shall thereafter confer with the employee, make recommendations with respect to specific areas of unsatisfactory performance, and provide
assistance in helping to correct such deficiencies within a reasonable, prescribed period of time.
A complete statement of the assessment criteria shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following:
Ability to maintain appropriate discipline.
Educational qualifications.
Knowledge of subject matter, provided the current instructional assignment is in a field for which certification is held.
Efficiency.
Student progress toward instructional goals, based on student ability.
Satisfactory use of assessment criteria and procedures by the individual having assess- ment responsibilities.
The individual responsible for the super- vision of the employee shall make the assessment of the employee and forward such assessment to
the superintendent for the purpose of reviewing the employee's contract.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to grant a probationary employee a right to con- tinue employment beyond the term of his contract.
The evidence established that the Superintendent of Polk County Schools substantially complied with the above assessment and evaluation procedures as they apply to Petitioner. Although the decision not to renominate Petitioner was reached prior to his final evaluation, there was sufficient time and opportunity to rescind this decision had the evaluation been favorable.
The above provisions were enacted "for the purpose of improving the quality of instructional, administrative and supervisory services . . ." and are not job security provisions as Petitioner contends. Where it is stated that the employee is to be given a "reasonable, prescribed period of time" to correct deficiencies, contract renewal to achieve this goal is not provided or implied. Here, Petitioner's difficulties in public relations were specified in the annual evaluation and various interim evaluations. Other deficiencies were also called to his attention on occasions well in advance of the March 14 decision not to renominate him.
The Superintendent, having complied with these provisions, was not required by law to renominate petitioner. Therefore, Respondent had no "good cause" to reject the Superintendent's nominee for this position.
RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order denying the petition.
DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida.
R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of September, 1983.
Ronald G. Meyer, Esquire Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Clarence A. Boswell, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 1578
Jesse C. Barber, Esquire
R. Clem Churchill, Superintendent Polk County Public Schools
