STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
SCHOOL BOARD OF GLADES COUNTY, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 84-2357
)
DASIE M. MELTON, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, William J. Kendrick, held a public hearing in the above-styled case on October 11, 1984, at Moore Haven, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Owen L. Luckey, Jr., Esquire
461 Highway 29 South Post Office Box 865 LaBelle, Florida 33935
For Respondent: Thomas W. Young, III, Esquire
General Counsel, FEA/United
208 West Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On May 16, 1984, the Superintendent of the Glades County School District suspended Respondent, Dasie M. Melton, from her duties as a classroom teacher at Moore Haven Elementary School for alleged gross insubordination and willful neglect of duty. By an order filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings July 5, 1984, Petitioner, School Board of Glades County, referred this case to the Division of Administrative Hearings and requested the assignment of a Hearing Officer to conduct the formal hearing.
At the final hearing Petitioner called Mazie T. Ford, George Hunter Steele, Patricia Ann Ringstaff, Gary Lee Clark, Leonard Crowell, Frank L. Gill, and Linda R. Taylor, as witnesses. Petitioner offered Exhibits 1 through 11, and they were received into evidence. Respondent testified on her own behalf and called Lilla Mae Ford, Julia Melton, and Lester Newton Mensch, as witnesses.
Respondent offered Exhibit 1, and it was received into evidence.
Petitioner and Respondent have submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The proposed findings and conclusions submitted by the parties, unless expressly set out in the findings of fact which follow, are specifically rejected as not supported by the evidence, irrelevant or immaterial to the issues presented for determination, or legally erroneous.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Respondent, Dasie M. Melton, at all times material hereto, was employed as a teacher under a written contract of continuing employment with Petitioner, School Board of Glades County.
For the 1982-83 school year Ms. Melton was assigned to Moore Haven Junior-Senior High School (High School) where she taught physical education. Her evaluations for that school year were quite satisfactory.
For the 1983-54 school year Ms. Melton was assigned to Moore Haven Elementary School (Elementary School) where she was assigned to teach trainable mentally retarded (TMR) students. Although Ms. Melton had not requested the assignment and was not certified in the area, she accepted this new and difficult task and proved to be an effective and loving teacher with her special students.
Ms. Melton was respected by her peers at the Elementary School. Her principal, Gary L. Clark, testified at final hearing that he would have no reservations about Ms. Melton rejoining his staff.
One of Ms. Melton's TMR students for the 1983-84 school year was Lisa Fournier. Lisa had a pleasant disposition but tired easily and often became nauseous and sick to her stomach. Although capable of communicating, Lisa did not grasp instruction quickly, and instructions had to be simply stated and repeated several times.
During the 1983-84 school year, Lisa was to reach her twenty-first birthday. Consequently, pursuant to law, she would be required to leave the public school system at the conclusion of that term.
Ms. Melton, recognizing that Lisa would be leaving the school system that year, thought it appropriate and beneficial for Lisa to participate in the ceremonies and functions attended by graduating students at the High School since no functions or ceremonies were otherwise contemplated for students such as Lisa. Accordingly, she discussed the matter with Lisa's legal guardian, as well as Lisa's natural mother. Both were enthusiastic and supportive of Lisa's participation.
Having secured the support of Lisa's legal guardian and natural mother, Ms. Melton approached the administration for approval. With the exception of George H. Steele, the principal of the High School, the remainder of the administration, including the superintendent, approved of the concept. Consequently, for the first time in the history of the Glades County school system, a TMR student was to be afforded the opportunity to receive the benefits and recognition afforded other students who had applied themselves during their public school career.
In addition to her normal duties, Ms. Melton assumed the responsibility of guiding Lisa through the various events for graduating seniors at the High School. Her efforts were met with a lack of cooperation or open resistance by the administration and staff of the High School.
Although directed by Superintendent Lester M. Mensch to cooperate with Ms. Melton and to accord Lisa the privileges of a graduating senior, the High School administration and staff continuously failed to keep Ms. Melton advised of upcoming events and otherwise continued to resist implementation of the concept.
Friction quickly developed between Ms. Melton on one side and Mazie Ford, assistant principal of the High School, and Patricia Ringstaff, senior class sponsor, on the other side. This friction came to a head during preparation for and during Grad Nite, an annual activity hosted by Walt Disney World for graduating seniors.
In order to assure Lisa's participation at Grad Nite, Ms. Melton had to agree to accompany Lisa to Disney World. Notwithstanding Ms. Melton's commitment to chaperone Lisa, Ms. Ringstaff listed Ms. Melton as a guest. Ms. Melton felt her classification as a guest, rather than as a chaperone, to be a personal affront. She was further insulted by the fact that while she was required to serve as Lisa's exclusive chaperone, she was required to pay $22 for her own admission to Disney World. No other chaperone was required to pay for their ticket.
The day before Grad Nite, Ms. Melton and Ms. Ford were involved in a heated discussion. The discussion involved the question of whether Ms. Melton was a guest or a chaperone and whether or not Ms. Melton would, under the circumstances, accompany Lisa on Grad Nite. Both parties became increasingly angry during this conversation, which was concluded by Ms. Ford hanging up the receiver.
Subsequent to that phone call, Mr. Steele spent nearly an hour with its. Melton and her principal, Mr. Clark, trying to straighten out the confusion and alleviate the tension created by the confrontations Ms. Melton had with Ms. Ford and Ms. Ringstaff.
In an effort to assure tranquility during Grad Nite, Mr. Steele clearly delineated the responsibilities of Ms. Melton and Ms. Ringstaff so, hopefully, there would be no cause for further tension. He designated Ms. Melton as the exclusive chaperone for Lisa and made Lisa her complete and sole responsibility. He designated Ms. Ringstaff, who was the senior class sponsor, in charge of all other chaperones and students. Ms. Ringstaff and Ms. Melton were directed by Mr. Steele, in the presence of Ms. Ford, to have as little to do with each other as possible.
On Saturday, May 12, 1984, while the Grad Nite Participants were boarding their buses for the trip to Disney World, Ms. Melton and Mr. Clark discussed the advisability of Ms. Melton and Lisa riding to Disney World in the school station wagon that would accompany the buses. At that time Ms. Melton told Mr. Clark that they did not want any special favors and would prefer being treated like everyone else. Before departing Mr. Clark cautioned Ms. Melton to call him collect if any problem arose.
After Ms. Melton and Lisa had boarded the bus, Mr. Clark had a conversation with Superintendent Mensch regarding the circumstances under which the station wagon would be used. Since the station wagon was to provide alternative transportation should the need arise, Mr. Clark left that conversation with a clear understanding that, if necessary, it would be permissible for Ms. Melton and Lisa to use the station wagon for transportation.
The nonstop trip to Disney World was hot and difficult for Lisa. By the time they arrived at Disney World, she was uncomfortable, nauseated, and her complexion had paled. Consequently, at eight o'clock that evening Jets. Melton called Mr. Clark and advised him of the effect the bus ridehad on Lisa and that "nine times out of ten we'll be riding the station wagon back." Mr. Clark advised Ms. Melton that he had spoken with Mr. Mensch and he had said it was "okay."
Thereafter, Ms. Melton and Lisa spent the evening and early morning hours together at Disney World. At approximately 4:00 a.m. Lisa became tired, so Ms. Melton returned with her to the parking lot before the arrival of the other students.
Relying on her conversation with Mr. Clark, Ms. Melton advised Frank
L. Gill, the transportation director, that, with the permission of Mr. Clark and Mr. Mensch, she and Lisa would be returning to Moore Haven in the station wagon. Thereupon, she put Lisa in the back seat of the station wagon, went to the bus for pillows, and returned to rest beside Lisa, who was already asleep.
By this time, Ms. Melton had been awake for almost 24 hours, had constantly cared for and assisted Lisa, and, not surprisingly, was exhausted and suffering a severe headache.
At approximately 4:45 a.m., while Ms. Melton and Lisa were resting in the station wagon and awaiting the return of the rest of the party, Ms. Ringstaff returned to the area. The events which subsequently transpired, and which form the basis of the charges leveled against Ms. Melton, incredibly enough stem from Ms. Melton's decision to have Lisa return in the station wagon.
When Ms. Ringstaff returned to the parking lot, Mr. Gill advised her that Ms. Melton and Lisa were in the station wagon and that there would be no insurance coverage if Wayne Reese (who had driven the station wagon to Disney World) drove them back, because he only had an operator's permit as opposed to a chauffeur's license. Mr. Gill apparently did not consider the simple alternative of driving the station wagon himself, although he concedes then there would have been no problem as he had the necessary license.
Following Mr. Gill's "revelation," Ms. Ringstaff seized command and called Superintendent Mensch without even inquiring of Ms. Melton as to why she and Lisa desired to return to Moore Haven in the station wagon.
Neither Ms. Ringstaff nor Mr. Mensch agree to the substance of their early morning telephone conversation. Ms. Ringstaff insists the conversation centered around the insurance question. Mr. Mensch does not recall insurance being mentioned and testified at final hearing that there would have been no insurance problem under the circumstances. Mr. Mensch testified that Ms. Ringstaff simply told him that she was having trouble with Ms. Melton because she would not do as she requested and he advised Ms. Ringstaff that "she was senior sponsor of the program and that if she was having any difficulty, to get with Ms. Ford" and work it out. Mr. Mensch does not recall having advised Ms. Ringstaff that Ms. Melton could not return in the station wagon. The Hearing Officer finds Mr. Mensch's recollection the more credible.
Ms. Ringstaff, armed with Mr. Mensch's direction to "work it out" went directly to the station wagon and advised Ms. Melton that the superintendent wanted her to return on the bus. Ms. Melton, embraced her prior directive, which delineated the parties' respective responsibilities, and declined to
discuss the matter with Ms. Ringstaff. At no time during this conversation did Ms. Ringstaff inquire as to why Ms. Melton wished to return in the station wagon. Ms. Ringstaff then left the station wagon to consult with Ms. Ford.
There is substantial confusion regarding Ms. Ford's status during Grad Nite. Although Ms. Ford was assistant principal of the High School and was, thereby, the senior administrator on the trip, it is uncertain whether she was actually acting in such capacity. It is Ms. Ford's position that she went to Disney World "merely as an assistant chaperone to assist the other chaperones, and that Ms. Ringstaff, as senior class sponsor, was in charge of the group.
The Hearing Officer adopts Ms. Ford's description of her function during Grad Nite since she of all people should be knowledgeable of her capacity, and since her characterization comports with Mr. Steele's prior delineation of responsibility.
At Ms. Ringstaff's direction, Ms. Ford went to the station wagon to discuss the matter with Ms. Melton. Although Ms. Ford never asked why Ms. Melton wished to return with Lisa in the station wagon, Ms. Melton did affirmatively advise her that she was sick, that she had a headache, and that her nerves were shot.
Since Ms. Melton refused to leave the station wagon, Ms. Ford, Mr. Gill, and Ms. Ringstaff cloistered to work out this "problem." They resolved the issue by removing Lisa from Ms. Melton's custody and placing her in the custody of Ms. Ringstaff who was certified in learning disabilities and mental retardation. While Lisa rode back on the bus, Mr. Gill, who could have driven Ms. Melton and Lisa back in the first place, then drove Ms. Melton back to Moore Haven.
At no time was Ms. Melton contemptuous, hostile, or abusive toward Ms. Ford, Ms. Ringstaff, or any other person on Grad Nite.
Lisa had an uneventful trip back to Moore Haven.
Mr. Clark, at Ms. Melton's request, met the returning party in Moore Haven. While strictly not necessary to the resolution of this case, the events which subsequently transpired lend credence to Ms. Melton's testimony and cast serious doubts on the motivations of her accusers.
Upon returning to Moore Haven that morning, Ms. Melton, in the presence of Mr. Clark, asked Superintendent Mensch if he wanted to see her. Mr. Mensch advised her to get a good night's rest and that they would talk on Monday.
On Monday Mr. Mensch avoided Ms. Melton until she cornered him late in the afternoon. At that time Mr. Mensch said he did not remember saying he would speak with her that day, and advised Ms. Melton he would see her the next day.
In fact, Ms. Melton was never to have an opportunity to speak with Superintendent Mensch prior to her suspension. On Tuesday she was interviewed by Leonard Crowell, assistant superintendent, who had been appointed by the superintendent to act as an investigator and to gather statements.
On Wednesday morning, May 16, 1984, Ms. Melton finally saw Mr. Mensch. At that time he advised her of his decision to suspend her and recommend her
dismissal. At no time during this meeting did Superintendent Mensch ever ask Ms. Melton for her version of the incident. He also does not recall whether he listened to the taped statement Ms. Melton gave Mr. Crowell on Tuesday, before making his decision to suspend her.
By letter dated May 16, 1984, Ms. Melton was formally suspended by the superintendent, with pay, from her duties as a classroom teacher at Moore Haven Elementary School for alleged gross insubordination and willful neglect of duty. On June 28, 1984, the Glades Count School Board changed her status to suspension without pay.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, these proceedings.
The allegations in this case are that the Respondent, Dasie M. Melton, violated 231.36(4), Fla.Stat.(1983), for gross insubordination and willful neglect of duty, because she disobeyed a directive of Ms. Ford to board the bus and because she abandoned Lisa to a person who could not adequately supervise and control her. [Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, pp. 8 and 9.]
Section 231.36(4) (c), Fla.Stat., provides in pertinent part: Any member of the district adminis-
trative or supervisory staff and any member of the instructional staff, including any principal) who is under continuing contract may be suspended or dismissed at any time during the school year; however, the charges
against him must be based on immorality, misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of
duty, drunkenness, or conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. When- ever such charges are made against
such employee of the school board, the school board may suspend such person without pay; but, if the char- ges are not sustained, he shall be immediately reinstated, and his back salary shall be paid.
Rule 6B-4.09(4), F.A.C., defines gross insubordination or willful neglect of duty as:
a constant or continuing inten-
tional refusal to obey a direct order, reasonable in nature, and given by
and with proper authority.
In dealing with a penal statute the Hearing Officer must be ever mindful of the stringent requirements established by Bowling v. Department of Insurance, 394 So.2d 165 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). In Bowling the Court stated:
Id. at 171
Id. at 172
In a proceeding under a penal statute for suspension or revocation of a valuable business or professional license, the term "substantial com- petent evidence" takes on vigorous implications that are not so clearly present on other occasions for agency action under Chapter 120. Although all questions of fact as distinguish- able from policy are determinable through the Administrative Procedure Act by substantial competent evidence
. . . we differentiate between evi- dence which "substantially" supports conventional forms of regulatory action and evidence which is required to support "substantially" a retrospec- tive characterization of conduct requiring suspension or revocation of the actor's license. Evidence which
is "substantial" for one purpose may be less so on another, graver occasion
. . . [T]he violation of a penal statute is not to be found on loose interpre- tations and problematic evidence, but the violation must in all its implica- tions be shown by evidence which weighs as "substantially" on a scale suitable for evidence as the penalty does on the scale of penalties. In other words, in a world ensnarled by false assumptions
and hasty judgments, let the prosecutor's proof be as serious minded as the intended penalty is serious.
There is no substantial competent evidence from which it could be reasonably concluded that Respondent's conduct on May 13, 1954, was in violation of 231.36(4) (c), Fla.Stat. (1983).
The clear division of authority established by Mr. Steele to avoid any conflicts was overstepped by Ms. Ringstaff. Ms. Ford, at all times, acted as an assistant chaperone under Ms. Ringstaff's supervision and control, and at no time purported to act in her capacity as an administrator.
Ms. Melton's decision to return with Lisa to Moore Haven in the station wagon, with the consent of her principal, was in keeping with the direct orders of her principal and the High School principal that Lisa was her sole responsibility and that decisions made with regard to Lisa and her well-being were hers alone.
Ms. Melton did not "abandon" Lisa Fournier nor render her into the hands of a person who could not adequately supervise or control her. Lisa was taken from Ms. Melton and placed in the hands of one fully qualified to care for her.
Ms. Melton's ultimate decision not to leave the station wagon and join Lisa on the school bus, after all the conflict, because she thought her emotional state might alarm Lisa, as well as subject herself to the ridicule of the students, was certainly reasonable.
There is no evidence that Ms. Melton was insolent, disrespectful, abusive, or in any way insubordinate. Ms. Melton followed her instructions to the letter--she kept the responsibility of Lisa to herself; she telephoned her principal when a problem arose and it appeared necessary to use the station wagon to return to Moore Haven; and she fully and competently discharged her duties until she was rendered unable to do so by actions of others over whom she had no control.
The record in this cause is devoid of any evidence to support the action taken against Ms. Melton.
Accordingly, based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is
RECOMMENDED that:
The charges against Respondent, Dasie M. Melton, be dismissed with prejudice.
The Respondent, Dasie M. Melton, be immediately reinstated with full back pay, and all other benefits to which she is rightfully entitled.
DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of November, 1984, at Tallahassee, Florida.
WILLIAM J. KENDRICK
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building
2009 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9675
FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 1984.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Owen L. Luckey, Jr., Esq.
461 Highway 29 South Post Office Box 865 LaBelle, Florida 33935
Thomas W. Young, III, Esq. General Counsel
FEA/United
208 West Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Linda R. Taylor, Superintendent Glades County School District Post Office Box 459
Moore Haven, Florida 33471
=================================================================
AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
BEFORE THE SCHOOL BOARD OF GLADES COUNTY, FLORIDA
LESTER N. MENSCH, as
Superintendent of Schools, Complainant,
vs. Formal Hearing Case No. 84-1 (DOAH Case No. 84-2357)
DASIE M. MELTON,
Respondent.
/
FINAL ORDER
On October 11, 1984, a formal hearing was conducted by WILLIAM J. KENDRICK, Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings, State of Florida. The hearing was conducted in Moore Haven, Florida, with the following appearances:
For Complainant: OWEN L. LUCKEY, JR., Esq.
P. O. Box 865 LaBelle, FL 33935
For Respondent: THOMAS W. YOUNG, III, Esq.
General Counsel FEA/United
208 W. Pensacola Street Tallahassee, FL 32301
A recommended order was rendered by the hearing officer on November 30, 1984. After consideration of the pleadings, exhibits, hearing transcript and recommended order, said order is adopted by the School Board of Glades County except as hereinafter set forth.
The findings of fact are amended/supplemented/rejected as follows:
Finding of fact #9 is amended to delete the second sentence as being
(a) contrary to the evidence and (b) without bearing on the issues presented. In addition, High School Principal STEELE was the only one involved who was concerned about the propriety of LISA's participation in "graduation" events (Hearing Transcript pages 63-64, 801 since she was not a member of the high school senior class and had never even been a student at that school (Tr. pp. 73, 120). LISA was a student at Moore Haven Elementary (Tr. pp. 73, 118). Although MS. MELTON was not fully informed during the months preceding the actual "flurry" of graduation events, this apparently was due to (a) MS. MELTON not being located at the high school, (b) notices, etc., posted at the high school and (c) nobody being used to a non-high school student being involved, since that had never been done before (Tr. p. 236).
Finding of fact #10 is rejected for the same reasons.
Finding of fact #11 is amended to add that the friction was caused by MS. MELTON's considerable anger at (a) the senior class voting to allow LISA to participate in the senior class activities (Tr. pp. 237-238) and (b) MS. MELTON's being listed as a "guest" of LISA, rather than as a "chaperone" (CLARK: Tr. p. 128; STEELE: Tr. pp. 68-69; RINGSTAFF: Tr. p. 95; MELTON: Tr. pp. 242- 245).
Fact found #11 is also amended to add the following sub-paragraphs:
DISNEY WORLD allows only one "chaperone" per each ten students (Tr. pp. 78 and 97).
MS. MELTON could not be a "chaperone" per DISNEY because she could not accompany LISA as required and also take duty as required by DISNEY at the chaperone's station, where no student is allowed (Tr. pp. 69, 77-79, 87 and 88).
The "guest" ticket cost either $20.00 or $22.00, but was not paid for by the senior class since LISA was not actually a member of the senior class. GARY CLARK actually paid for MS. MELTON's ticket, but MS. MELTON reimbursed him, so he did not reimburse himself from the elementary school's internal account funds (Tr. p. 126).
Fact found #17 is amended to show that MR. CLARK's understanding was that MS. MELTON's and LISA's use of the station wagon "had been cleared with the people that were on the trip" (Tr. p. 123), which was not the case.
Fact found #24 is amended to delete the words "seized command and" since MRS. RINGSTAFF was always in charge of the trip subject to being countermanded by MAZIE FORD, the high school assistant principal who was clearly the only administrator on the trip and thereby the "final authority" during the trip (STEELE: Tr. pp. 65, 66, 75, 79; CLARK: Tr. p. 142; RINGSTAFF: Tr. pp. 84 and 90; F0RD: Tr. p. 25; MENSCH, Tr. pp. 213, 222 and 223).
Fact found #27 is rejected as being totally without any reasonable basis in the record. See paragraph number 5, above. In addition, it should be noted that both common sense 1/ and Chapters 230 et seq., Florida Statutes (i.e., the Florida School Code), and the Florida Department of Education Regulations, dictate that a school administrator who is present at a school function is still an administrator even if he or she assists in chaperoning, selling tickets, directing pedestrian or vehicular traffic at a school function,
assisting with clean-up after a school event, etc. In the vernacular the point is often expressed in many ways, one being "A rose by any other name is still a rose". Under the school code and applicable state regulations all school functions are subject to a chain of command and everyone, a teacher in particular, is presumed to know this and follow lawful orders, regardless of whether such orders are wise decisions or not.
MS. MELTON had no authority to be the sole person to decide if LISA would ride back to Moore Haven in the station wagon.
MS. MELTON had no unilateral authority whatsoever to declare herself an "emergency" which would justify her refusal to vacate the station wagon she entered without proper authority.
MS. MELTON was grossly insubordinate in that she refused the instructions to vacate given to her separately by three persons in authority over her:
1st: MR. GILL two or three times (Tr. p. 161).
2nd: MRS. RINGSTAFF twice (RINGSTAFF, Tr. 90;
MELTON herself, Tr. 258).
3rd: MS. FORD twice (FORD, Tr. 22, 23, 46 and 56;
MELTON herself, Tr. 245 and 260, particularly 245).
MS. MELTON was extremely upset over being required to attend (Tr. p. 244), over being shown on the travel list as a "guest" rather than as the "special chaperone" for LISA that she was (see paragraph 2 on p. 2). She concluded before leaving on the trip that she would be fired (Tr. p. 261), which "belief" should have encouraged her to follow the directives of the three superiors and process a formal or informal grievance later.
MS. MELTON was upset with anyone who disagreed with her that night or in any way questioned her sharply (MELTON regarding two telephone operators: Tr.
p. 270). She has a bad and extremely quick temper by her own admission (Tr. pp. 265-266) and was so upset she couldn't remember her own telephone number (Tr. p.
253) and pounded on the back of the station wagon seat (GILL: Tr. p. 163). She was confused as to where the bus traveled, referring several times to LAKE CITY", which is several hundred miles north of the bus' route (Tr. pp. 248 and 268); and referring also to passing through "ARCADIA" (Tr. p. 268), a town more than thirty miles westof U.S. 27, the highway traveled. A number of other examples of confusion or mistake by Ms. MELTON appeared throughout her testimony (i.e., LISA has a "size 1-1/2 foot" on Tr. p. 248; and "we was in the last station wagon" on Tr. p. 269; etc.).
MS. MELTON apparently is easily excited and had to be admonished by her counsel to slow down her speech during the hearing itself (Tr. p. 271).
MS. MELTON's failure to get out of the station wagon and board the bus, even after LISA had been removed and placed on the bus, indicated (a) a lack of concern by MS. MELTON over LISA, or (b) that MS. MELTON knew that LISA was clearly in no physical difficulty requiring her continued attention and (c) that MS. MELTON wanted the special comfort of the station wagon (which all other adults and students alike would obviously have preferred) and/or she was intent on proving herself "right" by refusing the multiple directives given her by the
director of transportation, the senior class sponsor and the administrator in attendance. MS. MELTON's feeling that she was "right", and all three of the persons in authority were "wrong", transcended the true maxim of "work now, grieve later" requirement which is so clearly known in both public and private sector employment covered by collective bargaining.
It probably was a mistake to allow LISA to participate in the "Grad Nite" trip in view of (a) her condition, (b) the temperature at that time of year, (c) the length of the bus ride (especially since there was no rest stop whatsoever on the trip up) of about 2 hours and 20 minutes, and (d) the length of the entire round trip itself (well-over 12 hours).
Having allowed LISA to participate in "Grad Nite" it was probably a mistake to not provide her with a separate vehicle to begin with, even though MS. MELTON didn't want special treatment for LISA.
MS. MELTON should not have been "required" to go on the trip. If no other qualified person was available to chaperone LISA as a volunteer then LISA would, unfortunately, not have been allowed to participate.
The conclusions of law are amended/supplemented/ rejected as follows:
Conclusion of Law #6 is erroneous. MS. MELTON's conduct, as clearly shown by her own testimony and that of witnesses against her, violated Fla. Statute 231.36(4) (c) in that she was guilty of gross insubordination in the constant and continuing refusal, as charged, to obey the directives of MS. FORD, the assistant principal and administrator in charge if MRS. RINGSTAFF, the senior class sponsor and nominal trip leader, needed assistance or if the latter's orders needed to be countermanded. (MS. MELTON was also grossly insubordinate to the director of transportation, who was in charge of the vehicles and to the aforesaid senior class sponsor, but those insubordinations were not per se in the charge against MS. MELTON.)
Conclusion #7 is clearly erroneous and also is deleted. MR. STEELE's instructions to both MS. MELTON and MRS. RINGSTAFF were "to have as little to do with each as possible", to use the words of one witness. This did not, as shown by MR. STEELE, abrogate MS. MELTON's obligation to follow MRS. RINGSTAFF's clear requests, directives and orders when MRS. RINGSTAFF felt such necessary. Furthermore, as was clearly shown by MR. MENSCH as well as others, MRS. FORD was clearly in overall charge if any problem arose. MS. MELTON's refusal to follow MR. GILL's two or three instructions to vacate the station wagon was such a "problem", as was MS. MELTON's ignoring, by silence, the two instructions by MRS. RINGSTAFF. Thus, MS. MELTON's several verbal refusals to obey MRS. FORD's directives clearly was a breach by MS. MELTON of her duty to obey proper authority.
The elements of "gross insubordination" as defined in Rule 6B-4.09(4), Fla. Admin. Code, are broken down, and MS. MELTON's violation thereof shown, as follows:
Rule Element Finding
A constant or continuing (1) MELTON refused FORD at refusal least twice (which is
more evident by the multiple prior refusals of directives by GILL and then RINGSTAFF)
which was intentional (2) obviously intentional
due to a total of three different persons telling her clearly to vacate a total of at least six times.
of a direct order (3) see above (i.e., three persons, at least six clear orders)
which was reasonable in (4) LISA was not in need of nature special treatment and
neither was MELTON
and given by and with proper (5) GILL, RINGSTAFF and FORD authority all had authority over
MELTON.
Conclusion #8 is also clearly erroneous and thus deleted. Although LISA was MS. MELTON's sole obligation on the trip (i.e., no chaperone station duty and no responsibility to oversee the conduct and welfare of multiple students), the record is devoid of reasonable basis for MS. MELTON to feel that she, and she alone, could decide all questions about LISA. Furthermore, by no means could MS. MELTON reasonably decide that she had sole authority to"assign" herself to the station wagon, and continue that assignment, particularly after LISA was removed to the bus by directive of MS. FORD.
Conclusion #10 is erroneous and therefore rejected. A person cannot use his or her own admittedly bad temper and indicated propensity to physically fight and "perform a show" (using MS. MELTON's own words: Tr. p. 266) as a basis for making a refusal to obey "reasonable".
Conclusions #11 and #12 are also erroneous and rejected in that the record, including MS. MELTON's own testimony, shows that MS. MELTON was insubordinate. However, MS. MELTON did not abandon LISA so she is not guilty of willful neglect of duty.
The School Board of Glades County does not elect to impose any penalty upon MS. MELTON for her clear insubordination. It is hoped that she will now realize that reason and authority both mandated that she should have obeyed the directives and boarded the bus with LISA and then sought "vindication", if need be, through proper channels under the School Code and collective bargaining agreement. Likewise, it is assumed that in the future any such functions will
be conducted under a clear (and perhaps written) chain of authority whereby no person., not even someone with preconceived notions of being abused, etc., can begin to feel that he or she is not subject to the authority and control of the transportation director or trip leader, much less a chief administrator present on the trip. It is hoped that any future trips involving possible participation by handicapped children will be more carefully evaluated and, if such attendance is considered appropriate, that more thorough planning and supervision can be effectuated.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that DASIE M. MELTON be reinstated with full back pay and benefits to which she is rightfully entitled.
DATED this 17th day of January, 1985, (nunc pro tunc to Board meeting held December 13, 1984).
SCHOOL BOARD OF GLADES COUNTY
By MIKE PRESSLEY, as Chairman
ATTEST:
LINDA R. TAYLOR, as Superintendent and ex oficio Secretary to the Board
FILED WITH THE CLERK OF THE
BOARD THIS 17th DAY OF JANUARY, 1985
ANNIE P. ESPINOSA, Clerk
ENDNOTE
1/ For example, a police officer is on duty 24 hours per day and can make a valid arrest even if he is in his swimsuit mowing his front lawn during his "off duty" hours; and an Army colonel who is second in charge of an army post can still "pull rank", so to speak, and countermand an order given by a base platoon leader to his platoon.
Copies furnished as follows this 17th day of January, 1985: OWEN L. LUCKEY, JR., Esq. THOMAS W. YOUNG, III, Esq.
P. O. Box 865 208 W. Pensacola Street
LaBelle, Florida 33935 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
WILLIAM J. KENDRICK, Esq.
Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building
2009 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32301 by mail.
ANNIE P. ESPINOSA, Clerk
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Oct. 23, 1989 | Final Order filed. |
| Nov. 30, 1984 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Jan. 17, 1985 | Agency Final Order | |
| Nov. 30, 1984 | Recommended Order | Teacher was not guilty of insubordination. |
CLAUDIO SENAN vs. SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, 84-002357 (1984)
BROWARD COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs DIANE GRANATELLI, 84-002357 (1984)
SCHOOL BOARD OF MADISON COUNTY vs. GLOVER E. JONES, 84-002357 (1984)
JIM HORNE, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs JOSEPHINE J. KNIGHT, 84-002357 (1984)
EDUCATION PRACTICES COMMISSION vs. ROBERT J. BROWNE, 84-002357 (1984)
