STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
SCHOOL BOARD OF FRANKLIN COUNTY, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 86-1775
)
JOHN OBRZUT, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, this cause came on for administrative hearing before P. Michael Ruff, duly designated Hearing Officer, on September 26, 1986, in Apalachicola, Florida. The appearances were as follows:
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Van P. Russell, Esquire
WATKINS & RUSSELL
41 Commerce Street Apalachicola, Florida 32320
For Respondent: Edward S. Stafman, Esquire
317 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301
This cause arose upon a notice of termination issued to the Respondent by Petitioner through its Superintendent, Gloria Tucker. Ms. Tucker sent a letter to the Respondent indicating that she would recommend his termination for alleged incompetence and his alleged failure to advise her of requirements of the so- called "TRIM bill," that is, Section 200.065, Florida Statutes, which contains certain mandatory time requirements for local school boards to adhere to in their budget preparation process, upon pain of losing substantial funds appropriated to them and administered by the Department of Education should they fail to meet the time requirements. An additional ground for dismissal of the Respondent concerned his alleged unauthorized absences and failure to submit certain monthly reports to the School Board which are necessary to ensure the continuous flow of funds into the school district's federally funded projects. The Respondent
requested an evidentiary hearing regarding his termination and the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and the undersigned Hearing Officer for formal proceeding.
The cause came on for hearing as noticed. The Petitioner, at the hearing, presented the testimony of John Obrzut, the Respondent; Gloria Tucker, the Superintendent of the Franklin County School District and David R. Johnson, a certified public accountant and accepted expert witness in the field of school finance. The Respondent presented the testimony of Dr. John Obrzut and the Petitioner recalled Mr. Johnson to testify in rebuttal. The Petitioner presented seven exhibits, all of which were admitted into evidence. Respondent's Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 5 and
6 were admitted into evidence. The parties presented as well Joint Exhibits 1 and 2 which were admitted into evidence. Subsequent to hearing the parties availed themselves of the right to file Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, which were timely filed. Those Proposed Findings of Fact are ruled upon in this Recommended Order and are treated once again in the Appendix attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein.
ISSUE
Whether the Respondent, John Obrzut, should be terminated from his employment for reasons of incompetence and his alleged failure to advise the Superintendent of the Franklin County School District time and filing requirements under the above-cited Statute, because of failure to submit required monthly reports to the School Board as well as for unauthorized absences.
FINDINGS OF FACT
On May 6, 1985, the Respondent entered into an employment contract with the Franklin County School Board for employment in the position of Finance Officer and Business Manager. The contract's term continued through June 30, 1986, with a commencing date of July 1, 1985. The contract provided for a probationary status for Respondent. The Respondent was provided with a copy of the job description for the Finance Officer/Business Manager position he accepted and contracted for at the time of his employment. That job description established that the individual directly responsible to the Superintendent and the School Board for all activities concerned with the financial operations of the school system was the Finance Officer/Business Manager, Dr. Obrzut.
Superintendent Gloria Tucker interviewed Dr. Obrzut for this position and was especially concerned that he understand the duties he would have in that office because the School Board was experiencing financial difficulties at that time, primarily
related to the disheveled condition of its records for the past several fiscal years due at least in part to previous mismanagement by those with Dr. Obrzut's responsibilities. The Respondent was informed that it would be necessary for him, as Finance Officer, to reconstruct portions of those records. Dr. Obrzut did not inquire regarding the specific status of the records during the time of his employment interview and once he became employed he found the problem to be considerably worse than he had expected. Ms. Tucker informed the Respondent that his duties would include keeping her advised of the "TRIM Bill" time requirements in order to meet the budget publication date of July 25, 1985, as required by that law. His job description also required him to prepare a monthly financial statement showing receipts, disbursements and the balance of funds available in the district budget. Additionally, on June 24, 1985, after he was hired, the Respondent was given the various task assignments, in writing, from the Superintendent. These involved: (1) gathering necessary data and preparing the budget amendment for the June 27, 1985 School Board meeting; (2) develop with Mr. Johnson's help the baseline data that would establish the "time-line" for reconciliation of the 1982-1983 and 1983-1984 budgets, which was one of the Respondent's two major priorities for June and July of 1985 because, given the disarray of its financial records, the Board had an immediate necessity to know what cash reserves it truly had on hand; (3) set up a time schedule concerning when final reports were due on each federal and State project and when that information would be available to the Superintendent, as well as to give the Superintendent a written report as to how the
"time-line" would operate during July and August of 1985. (4) The
Respondent was required to set up a written time schedule as when Department of Education reports were due so that no reports would be filed late. Assignment number 5 involved reviewing the requirements for budget preparation as stated in the law regarding time requirements (i.e. the "TRIM Bill"). The Respondent was to directly contact the County property appraiser concerning when tax millage information from his office would be ready for the budgeting process.
The Respondent's past employment history involved various clerical, accounting and financial analyst positions for most of the last two decades, as well as substantial periods of time spent obtaining graduate degrees. His longest period of employment was four years with the Department of Transportation, where he supervised a clerical unit with a number of employees reporting to him. Prior to his employment with the Franklin County School Board, he had no experience as the overall supervisor of financial operations of any agency of government or a private enterprise.
He had no experience with school finance procedures established under Chapter 237, Florida Statutes.
On June 24, 1985, the Respondent was given the assignment involving task number 5 mentioned above, whereby he was to review the requirements for budget preparation as stated in the above- cited Statute regarding time requirements. He contacted the property appraiser concerning when the Superintendent and the Board might expect tax millage information from his office required for the budget process. The Respondent was also verbally instructed by the Superintendent at this same time to keep her informed of all specific dates required by the law concerning budget events. In the course of these verbal instructions, the Superintendent advised Dr. Obrzut that she was especially concerned about this because this was her first time to be involved in the budgeting process as a Superintendent of Schools. On June 25, 1985, Dr. Obrzut advised the Superintendent that he had called the Franklin County property appraiser's office and it provided him no information on the requirements for the budget process at that time, in the form of the tax millage information, but he expected advice from them on this subject on June 27, 1985. He also advised the Superintendent at this time that he expected to receive a planning document, with the time requirements for the budgeting process, in the mail from the Department of Education and also expected to receive a copy of it personally at a school financial officer's meeting in Tampa. Dr. Obrzut reviewed Section 200.065, Florida Statutes (the "TRIM Bill"), as requested by the Superintendent, but his testimony establishes that he has no recollection of making any notes or recollection concerning the sequence of events required by the Statute as deadlines in the budget preparation process.
In any event, the Respondent had no further communication with the Superintendent concerning the budget time requirements. He subsequently learned that a copy of the planning document would also be mailed to the Superintendent and therefore simply assumed she would monitor the State's various budget planning event time requirements herself. He took no further steps to advise her of the various critical time deadlines.
In fact, no one in the Franklin County School District administration was monitoring the budget time schedule of events because the Superintendent, whom the financial officer, Dr. Obrzut, directly reported to, was relying on Obrzut to do this. This fact, however, was discovered accidentally by Mr. David Johnson, a contract certified public accountant, who was performing an audit of the internal accounts of the various district schools. Mr. Johnson was meeting with the Superintendent concerning matters about the internal audit on a Wednesday in July 1985, when he inquired of her as to the status of the district's advertising of its forthcoming budget, as required by law. The Superintendent advised him that Dr. Obrzut was monitoring the schedule of events and deadlines concerning the budget preparation
and advertising process. Mr. Johnson thereupon visited Dr. Obrzut at his office and retrieved from him the planning document that Obrzut had received from the Department of Education. Mr. Johnson informed the Superintendent that the budget must be completed and ready for advertising prior to the following Tuesday. This was the first time the Superintendent had learned of the immediately impending deadline for budget advertising as required by the above Statute. The Franklin County School District employees responsible for preparation of the budget then had to work through the entire weekend that ensued in order to timely complete the budget in time for the advertising deadline on Tuesday. The testimony of the Superintendent as well as Mr. Johnson, who has extensive experience in the field of educational finance and was accepted as an expert in that field, established that had that deadline been missed the Franklin County School District would have lost approximately $500,000 in tax revenues needed to fund its $3,000,000 operating budget.
Dr. Obrzut acknowledged that he was responsible for ensuring that the federal cash advance reports were sent to the Department of Education in a timely fashion in order to ensure the continuous flow of funds to the district for the district's federally funded projects. He established that he prepared one of these reports himself and delegated the task of preparing the September 1985 report to one of his subordinate employees, Donna Ward. He admitted he did not monitor her work and ensure that the report was timely filed and did not learn of the fact that it had not been filed until the Superintendent informed him of that fact at the time she informed him she would recommend his dismissal. The report was delinquent at that time and the district had already ceased to receive federal funds because of that delinquency.
David Johnson was accepted as an expert witness in the areas of accounting and Florida school finance. He worked for the Office of the Auditor General for three years and then spent several years in the capacity of a school Finance Officer. He is a certified public accountant and currently operates an accounting firm that renders accounting assistance to four school districts in Florida. Additionally, he serves as chairman of the Walton County School Board.
Mr. Johnson was retained to assist Dr. Obrzut in reconstructing the ledgers and records for the fiscal years 1982-
83 and 1983-84. He was also asked to school Dr. Obrzut in the legal and regulatory requirements and accounting procedures attendant to the peculiarities of Florida school finance. Mr. Johnson established that he had great difficulty explaining to Dr. Obrzut the nuances and peculiarities of the Florida school finance law, reporting requirements and accounting procedures. He spent
more than one full day in attempting to explain these duties of Dr. Obrzut's position to him. Dr. Obrzut would indicate that he understood, but later conversation revealed that he did not in fact understand what had been explained to him. Further, Dr.
Obrzut showed a penchant for discussing tangential or even unrelated matters with great Verbosity during Mr. Johnson's attempts to explain his financial duties to him. This may have frustrated Dr. Obrzut's opportunity to understand the explanation of his financial duties and the requirements of his position and doubtless frustrated Mr. Johnson's efforts to explain them. In any event, Mr. Johnson established that, based upon his association with Dr. Obrzut over a period of several months, that Dr. Obrzut did not possess the knowledge and skills necessary to enable him to serve as a School District Finance Officer, even in view of his educational degrees in the areas of finance. This opinion was unrebutted.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the subject matter of and the parties to this proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1985).
Section 231.36(6)(b) provides that school district administrators or supervisors may be suspended or dismissed at any time during the term of their contract on the basis of incompetency or willful neglect of duty.
Section 230.23(10) requires in pertinent part that school boards perform the following:
"Tax levies - Adopt and spread upon its minutes a resolution fixing the district school tax levy, provided for under section 9, article 7 of the Constitution, necessary to carry on a school program adopted for the district for the next ensuing fiscal year as required by law, and fixing the district bond interest and sinking fund tax levy necessary for districts against which bonds are out- standing; adopt and spread upon its minutes a resolution suggesting a tax levy provided for in section 9, article 7 of the Constitution, found necessary to carry on the school program adopted in the district for the next ensuing fiscal year.
(d) School funds - require that an accurate account is kept of all funds which should be transmitted to the school board for school
purposes at various periods during the year from all sources and, if any funds are not transmitted promptly, take the necessary steps to have such funds made available."
Section 230.33(12), Florida Statutes, requires the Superintendent of Schools to recommend measures to the School Board to assure adequate educational facilities throughout the district, in accordance with the financial procedures authorized in Chapters 236 and 237 and to recommend to the School Board the tax levy necessary to maintain and operate the public schools. Section 237.081 specifically requires School Boards to comply with the advertising and public hearing requirements of Section 200.065, Florida Statutes. Section 237.01 requires that the financial records and accounts of each school board shall be maintained under the direction of the Superintendent and under regulations prescribed by the State board for the "Uniform System of Financial Records and Accounts" for schools of the State and that the Superintendent shall recommend to the board such clerical and professional assistance as is necessary for the proper keeping of the uniform system of financial records and accounts.
In the event that Section 200.065, Florida Statutes (incorporated by reference in Chapter 237), is not followed explicitly, including its time requirements, then Section 237.121, Florida Statutes, provides that school board members and superintendents who violate the provisions of Chapter 237 (including those incorporating the provisions of Section 200.065, Florida Statutes) shall be subject to removal from office by the Governor for malfeasance and misfeasance in office.
Given the great importance of proper financing of the operations of the public schools and the proper accounting and record-keeping necessary for public school finance, the relationship between the School Board, its Superintendent and the Financial Officer it retains to perform these crucial duties, is a fiduciary one. The Board must have complete confidence in the ability and willingness of the Financial Officer to perform the prescribed duties and to guide it through the technical tax levy and budgeting requirements contained in Section 200.065, Florida Statutes, and to timely pursue all available funding sources, including those from federal funds. These duties are crucial in order to ensure that funds are transmitted in a regular, prompt flow to the School Board, with no interruptions, as required by Section 230.23(10)(d), Florida Statutes. Further, Section 230.23(11)(b) provides:
"(b) Reports to the Department - require that the Superintendent prepare all reports to the Department of Education that may be required
by law or regulations of the State Board; see that all such reports are promptly transmitted to the Department; withhold the further payment of salary to the Superin- tendent or employee when notified by the Department that he has failed to file any report within the time and manner prescribed; and continue to withhold the salary until the School Board is notified by the Department that such report has been received and accepted; provided, that when any report has not been received by the date due and after due notice has been given the School Board of that fact, the Department, if it deems necessary, may require the report to be prepared by a member of its staff, and the School Board shall pay all expenses connected therewith. Any member of the School Board who is responsible for the violation of this
provision is subject to suspension and removal.
Given the above Findings of Fact and the evidence of record, the Franklin County School Board has met its burden of proving Dr. Obrzut guilty of incompetence and willful neglect of duty. The Superintendent gave him a written order that he review the requirements for budget preparation as stated in the law regarding time deadlines and even informed him that it was especially important since she had never participated in the budgeting process before. In her written order, she stated that she and Mr. Clark of the School Board's administration would require that budget preparation information for the 1985-86 fiscal year. The Superintendent informed Dr. Obrzut verbally to keep her informed of the dates specific events were required to occur in the millage levying, budgetary process. Dr. Obrzut made one call to the property appraiser and learned that the information was not ready yet and never communicated with the property appraiser again. He learned that a copy of the planning document with the due dates relevant to Section 200.065, Florida Statutes, would be made available to the Superintendent by mail or at a meeting of school administrators in Tampa. He elected to merely assume that the Superintendent received this information and was then monitoring the time requirements herself, in spite of her specific verbal and written directions to him that it was his duty to do so and report to her. His disregard of the Superintendent's specific instructions that she be kept informed of the time requirements was only discovered less than a week before the mandatory advertising date for the school budget, at which time preparation of the budget had not even begun. His failure to keep her informed after verbal and written instructions to do so and after instructions that he was the person charged with keeping informed
of the time and budget preparation requirements embodied in Section 200.065, Florida Statutes, and the other school finance Statutes referenced above, nearly resulted in the Franklin County School District losing $500,000 or approximately 1/6 of its annual budget for that fiscal year.
Dr. Obrzut's failure to properly supervise his subordinate employees and timely file reports resulted in the interruption of federal funds flowing to the Franklin County School District. This interruption occurred because the Federal Cash Advance Report referenced in the above Findings of Fact was not timely filed. Indeed, he was unaware that the report was several weeks late until the day the Superintendent advised him she was going to recommend his dismissal. This failure alone would be grounds under the above authority for withholding the salary of the Superintendent, Dr. Obrzut and the employee Dr. Obrzut putatively supervised in the report's preparation process.
All these factors, together with the opinion of the expert witness, Mr. David Johnson, that Dr. Obrzut simply did not possess the ability and knowledge of school financing duties and procedures for one occupying his position, leads to the inescapable conclusion that he did not possess the abilities to manage the financial affairs of the Franklin County School District. It has clearly been established that he was not competent to occupy and perform the duties of the position for which he had been hired, unbeknownst to the Board and Superintendent at the time he was hired. Further, his failure to file the reports in a timely fashion and to supervise the employee he charged with preparing that report, as well as his failure to advise the Superintendent concerning the mandatory budget preparation time schedule and related requirements, clearly shows willful neglect of duty, inasmuch as he was clearly informed of the parameters of his duties, both verbally and in writing, prior to being required to perform them. In Pile vs. Washington County School Board, 238 So.2d 121 at 123 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970), the Court stated that there are many factors which have a material bearing upon competency. Concerning non-instructional personnel, such as the Respondent, those factors must be those materially related to the duties and tasks or job description attributable to the particular employment position he occupies. Sufficient material factors involving the manner in which the Respondent performed or failed to perform the duties he was required to perform and had adequate notice of the necessity of competently performing, has been established, clearly supporting the conclusion that he performed those duties in an incompetent fashion and indeed totally neglected performance of some of them.
Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore
RECOMMENDED that the Respondent John Obrzut be terminated from his position of employment with the School Board of Franklin County.
DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida.
P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building
2009 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of December, 1986.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-1775
Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact:
Accepted.
Accepted.
Accepted.
Accepted.
Accepted.
Accepted.
Accepted.
Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact:
Accepted.
Accepted.
Accepted.
Accepted.
Accepted, but not for the material import sought to be conveyed.
Rejected as to its overall import as not in accordance
with the greater weight of the testimony and evidence presented.
Accepted to the extent that the Petitioner failed to present evidence of any unauthorized absences, but the remainder of this proposed finding is rejected as not comporting with the greater weight of the material evidence presented.
Rejected as not in accordance with the greater weight of the evidence and testimony presented, except that the record does not reflect that he ever received any written reprimand or warning.
Accepted.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Van P. Russell, Esquire WATKINS & RUSSELL
41 Commerce Street Apalachicola, Florida 32320
Edward S. Stafman, Esquire
317 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Judith Brechner, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Gloria H. Tucker, Superintendent Franklin County School District
155 Avenue E
Apalachicola, Florida 32320
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Dec. 19, 1986 | Recommended Order (hearing held , 2013). CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Jan. 19, 1987 | Agency Final Order | |
| Dec. 19, 1986 | Recommended Order | Crucial that all funding sources pursued and accounts kept. Failure to properly supervise and timely file reports showed incompetence/neglect. |
