STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 88-5637
)
ROOSEVELT MARTIN, )
)
Respondent. )
) SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 88-5639
)
HUMBERTO CANTU, )
)
Respondent. )
) SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 88-5832
)
LUIS BARCENA, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, a final hearing in the above-styled matter was held on March 20-22, 1989, in Miami, Florida, before Joyous D. Parrish, a duly designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings. The parties were represented at the hearing as follows:
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Mrs. Madelyn P. Schere
Assistant School Board Attorney School Board of Dade County Board Administration Building
1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Suite 301
Miami, Florida 33132
For Respondent George F. Knox
Martin: 4770 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1460
Miami, Florida 33137
For Respondent William DuFresne Cantu: DuFRESNE AND BRADLEY
2929 Southwest Third Avenue, Suite One Miami, Florida 33129
For Respondent Albert L. Carricarte Barcena: ALBERT L. CARRICARTE, P.A.
2491 Northwest 7th Street Miami, Florida 33125
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
The central issue in this case is whether the Respondents are guilty of the violations alleged in the Specific Notice of Charges filed against each Respondent; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
These cases were consolidated for formal hearing on December 14, 1988. In each case the Specific Notice of Charges was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on December 12, 1988. In case No. 88-5637, the School Board of Dade County (School Board) alleged the Respondent, Roosevelt Martin (Martin), had violated Section 231.36(6)(a), Florida Statutes, by failing to abide by School Board procedures pertaining to field trips. The School Board sought Martin's dismissal for just cause due to his alleged failure to follow procedures, incompetency by reason of inefficiency, willful neglect of duty, gross insubordination, and misconduct in office.
The Specific Notice of Charges in case No. 88-5639 alleged Respondent, Humberto Cantu (Cantu), had violated Section 231.36(6)(a), Florida Statutes, by reason of his failure to follow School Board procedures, poor or lack of judgment, misconduct in office, and action outside the scope of his authority. Similarly, the School Board sought Cantu's dismissal from employment for just cause.
In case No. 88-5832, the School Board alleged Respondent, Luis Barcena (Barcena), had violated Section 231.36(6)(a), Florida Statutes, due to his poor judgment, lack of judgment, lack of effective leadership, failure to follow School Board rules, and incompetency by reason of inefficiency. As a result, the School Board sought the dismissal of Barcena.
At the outset of the hearing, Respondent Barcena filed a Motion for Continuance or Severance which was denied. The School Board then presented the testimony of the following witnesses: Roosevelt Martin, Luis Barcena, Humberto Cantu, Jacques Lagas, Jimmie McCrary, James Edward Monroe, Freddie Woodson, and Patrick Gray. Respondent Martin testified in his own behalf. The following witnesses testified on behalf on Respondent Cantu: Roy Terrence Griffin, Eddie Lee Hall, Jr., Lisandro Moronta, Roberto Reyes, Celestino Collazo, Julio Rodriguez, and Humberto Cantu. Luis C. Barcena testified in his own behalf.
The School Board offered the following exhibits which were admitted into evidence: Exhibits numbered 1 through 36, 38, 41, 42, 43, and 44. Respondent Martin's exhibit numbered 1 was also admitted into evidence.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the School Board moved, ore tenus, to amend the specific charges in these cases to conform to the evidence presented. The parties were granted leave to file written argument in connection with that
request. That motion is addressed in an order issued concurrent with this recommended order.
The parties waived the provisions of Rule 28-5.402, Florida Administrative Code, and, in accordance with Rule 221-6.031, Florida Administrative Code, agreed to file their proposed recommended orders within 21 days of the filing of the transcript. The transcript of the proceedings was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 5, 1989. Thereafter, the parties filed their proposed recommended orders which have been considered in the preparation of this order. Specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact are included in the attached appendix.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact:
At all times material to these cases, the School Board was the duly constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Article IX, Florida Constitution, and Section 230.03, Florida Statutes.
Respondents, Martin, Cantu, and Barcena, are U.S. Army retirees.
At all times material to this matter, Martin held a Florida temporary teaching certificate, No. 582838, and was certified by the U.S. Army to teach the Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (JROTC) program.
At all times material to this matter, Cantu held a Florida temporary teaching certificate, No. 620107, and was certified by the U.S. Army to teach JROTC.
At all times material to this matter, Barcena held a Florida temporary teaching certificate, No. 569030, and was certified by the U.S. Army to teach JROTC.
At all times material to the allegations set forth in the Notices of Specific Charges, Respondents were employed as annual contract teachers for the JROTC program at Miami Jackson Senior High School (Miami Jackson), a Dade County public school. Barcena was employed as the Senior Army Instructor (SAI).
Martin and Cantu were employed as Assistant Army Instructors.
At all times material to these cases, the Faculty Handbook for Miami Jackson contained, in pertinent part, the following provisions related to school field trips:
All personnel involved with submitting or approving field trip requests must follow the rules, regulations, and procedures listed below. The listed procedures will indicate the responsibilities of the sponsor, the principal, and the area superintendent.
* * *
The following procedures for all out-of state, and out-of-county field trips are categorized as sponsor, principal, and area
superintendent responsibilities. Sponsor's Responsibilities
Request permission from the principal to conduct a field trip before initiating the planning stages.
* * *
3. Present periodic progress reports to the principal, or designee, during the procedural process.
* * *
FIELD TRIPS
Trips for students are permitted which have value in meeting educational objectives and are directly related to the curriculum or are necessary to the fulfillment of obligations to the interscholastic athletic and activity programs.
* * *
Provisions must be made for the proper supervision of students by school employees. Parents are permitted to assist in such supervision.
Permission for students to participate in all events listed on the Florida High School Activities Association calendar and in all regularly scheduled interscholastic events within the State may be granted by the principal.
Requests for student groups other than indicated above to leave the county for events with-in the state shall be directed to the area superintendent for approval or disapproval.
* * *
It is important that all school requirements be met when field trips are to be made. If you plan a field trip please follow these procedures:
Determine if the field trip is the most efficient type of learning experience.
Discuss tentative plans with department head or sponsor and Assistant Principal for Curriculum.
Secure three forms from the Activities Director's office
* * *
Complete FT-1 "Field Trip Information" and have approved by the Assistant Principal for Curriculum.
* * *
The teacher makes a memo (listing students alphabetically, giving grade and section) and gives it to the Activities Director three days before the trip.
* * *
10. When private cars are used to transport students, the driver must be an adult.
On February 26, 1986, Martin executed a Disposition Form (DF) which was addressed to the Commander, HHB, 227th Field Arty. Bde. The purpose of this document was to request, on behalf of the Miami Jackson JROTC, permission to use the Snake Creek Launch area (Snake Creek) for adventure training during the weekend of April 4-6, 1986. Martin specified that the type of training would be "Lecture/Patroling" and that he was the "Authorized Officials incharge."
Snake Creek is a military training area controlled by the Florida National Guard and located in Broward County, Florida.
Prior to submitting the DF described in paragraph 8, Martin had not complied with the provisions set forth in paragraph 7. Since this proposed trip was a school field trip, the documentation and procedures related to field trips should have been followed.
On September 18, 1986, Martin executed a DF which requested the use of Snake Creek for the Miami Jackson JROTC for the dates October 24-26, 1986.
Prior to submitting this DF, Martin did not comply with the provisions set forth in paragraph 7. Since this proposed trip was a school field trip, the documentation and procedures related to field trips should have been followed.
On February 19, 1987, Martin executed a DF which requested the use of Snake Creek for the Miami Jackson JROTC for the dates February 27-March 1, 1987. Prior to submitting this DF, Martin did not comply with the provisions set forth in paragraph 7. Since this proposed trip was a school field trip, the documentation and procedures related to field trips should have been followed.
On May 4, 1987, Martin executed a DF which requested the use of Snake Creek for the Miami Jackson JROTC for the dates May 15-17, 1987. Prior to submitting this DF, Martin did not comply with the provisions set forth in paragraph 7. Since this proposed trip was a school field trip, the documentation and procedures related to field trips should have been followed.
On May 6, 1987, Martin executed a DF which requested the use of Snake Creek for the Miami Jackson JROTC for the dates May 29-June 1, 1987. Prior to submitting this DF, Martin did not comply with the provisions set forth in paragraph 7. Since this proposed trip was a school field trip, the documentation and procedures related to field trips should have been followed.
On September 22, 1987, Martin executed a DF which requested the use of Snake Creek for the Miami Jackson JROTC for the dates October 15-18, 1987. This request also specified that the intended use of the facility was for "adventure training" and the type of training would be "Lecture/Patroling." Since this proposed trip was a school field trip, the documentation and procedures related to field trips should have been followed.
On December 3, 1987, Martin executed a DF which requested the use of Snake Creek for the Miami Jackson JROTC for the dates December 18-23, 1987. Again, this request specified that "adventure training" was the intended use. Since this proposed trip was a school field trip, the documentation and procedures related to field trips should have been followed.
On each occasion that Martin executed a DF, it was intended that students enrolled in the Miami Jackson JROTC program would go to the Snake Creek facility, camp together, and engage in military training. Not all of the campouts were taken. With the exception of the campout of December 1987, Martin
attended, at least for part of the time, all of the campouts which were taken. On all of the campouts, some of the students wore fatigue uniforms which had been issued from the Miami Jackson JROTC.
During the campout of December 1987, one of the Miami Jackson JROTC students was injured slightly as a result of a BB gun shooting. Thereafter, Barcena (who was aware of the field trips) decided that there should be no more Snake Creek trips. This decision was not effectively communicated to the assistant instructors nor were the student leaders who planned the outings told the trips would not be sanctioned.
For each of the Snake Creek trips taken, student leaders of the Miami Jackson JROTC planned the activity, typed the DF request forms, collected monies from the students for groceries and supplies, and arranged private transportation for the students who required rides to the facility. Monies were collected on school grounds and planning conferences regarding the trips were conducted during school hours in the JROTC rooms. A rake and a broom belonging to Miami Jackson JROTC were taken on the trips.
Martin attended several of the Snake Creek trips. On each trip he attended, Martin was the only adult/teacher/parent who attended. Martin did not remain with the students the entire time but would leave for brief periods (one to two hours) to go home, shower, and change clothes. During these absences, no adult/teacher/parent was in attendance.
Cantu's employment with the Miami Jackson JROTC began in October 1987. Cantu attended the December 1987, Snake Creek trip for approximately four hours on Saturday. Martin did not attend this trip. Barcena attended the December 1987, trip for approximately one hour on Sunday.
All teachers are required to attend a preschool conference during which the teacher handbook is discussed. Cantu was not present during the 1987/88 preschool conference (he had not been hired) but was required to attend the preschool conference for the 1988/89 school year. Martin and Barcena were required to attend the preschool conferences for all years material to the allegations of the Specific Notices of Charges. Barcena, as department head for the JROTC unit, had a copy of the teacher handbook and other regulations in the JROTC office. As department head, Barcena had knowledge of and had utilized the field trips provisions.
On September 8, 1988, Cantu executed a DF which requested use of Snake Creek for the Miami Jackson JROTC for the period September 9-12, 1988. While this form indicated Martin would be the "Authorized Official Incharge," Cantu knew that Martin was not going to attend the trip. In fact, none of the Miami Jackson JROTC instructors were to attend this particular trip. Cantu did not have Martin's permission to sign the form for him.
Unfortunately, during the September 1988 Snake Creek outing one of the students drowned. This drowning precipitated the investigation into the trips to Snake Creek and the subsequent disciplinary action against the Respondents.
Effective October 19, 1988, the School Board took action to suspend and initiate dismissal proceedings against Martin and Cantu.
Effective November 2, 1988, the School Board took action to suspend and initiate dismissal proceedings against Barcena.
On or about March 31, 1989, the U.S. Army withdrew the instructor certifications issued to Respondents. Effective that date they were to "disassociate" from the JROTC program. Consequently, effective that date they were no longer eligible for employment at Miami Jackson as JROTC instructors.
The employment agreement between JROTC instructors and the School Board provided, in pertinent part:
4. RELATIONSHIPS
* * *
e. Professional standards which apply
to other instructional personnel also apply to ROTC Instructors. These include but are not limited to:
-preparation of lesson plans
-maintenance of daily attendance
records
-maintenance of grading records and
student work files
-attendance at faculty meetings
-attendance at parent conferences when applicable
-compliance with State, District, and school administrations rules, regulations, policies and procedures
* * *
JOB DESCRIPTION A ROTC Instructor is responsible for:
* * *
-planning, conducting, and supervising field trips and similar cocurricular activities.
Prior to his employment, Cantu was not trained to teach either grade or high school.
Prior to the September 1988, trip to Snake Creek, Cantu had not reviewed the faculty handbook for Miami Jackson.
The procedure for obtaining the Snake Creek facility was established before Cantu became employed at Miami Jackson. Barcena was aware the students were using Snake Creek for weekend field trips.
Cantu signed the DF for the September 1988, trip because he believed the students would go to the Everglades camping if Snake Creek were not provided. Cantu considered Snake Creek a safer alternative. Cantu did not discuss the DF with either Martin (who had refused to sign the form for the students) or Barcena. Cantu believed the trip did not require further authorization.
Martin refused to sign the DF for the September 1988, trip because he was not able to attend and supervise the trip.
On August 26, 1988, Barcena received a Letter of Reprimand for conduct unbecoming an employee.
For a trip conducted on October 30, 1987, Barcena, as department head, executed a "Request for Trip Away" form in connection with a JROTC trip during school periods 6 and 7.
For a trip conducted on December 16, 1987, Barcena, as department head, executed a "Request for Trip Away" form in connection with a field trip to the Port of Miami. The JROTC class missed school periods 2 through 6.
Although aware of field trip procedures, Barcena did not advise either Cantu or Martin that they were required to follow the faculty handbook regarding field trips for the Snake Creek outings.
As a result of his failure to follow school rules and failure to make a reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to their health, Respondent Martin's effectiveness in the school system has been seriously impaired.
As a result of his failure to follow school rules and failure to make a reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to their health, Respondent Cantu's effectiveness in the school system has been seriously impaired.
As a result of his failure to follow school rules, failure to assure those subordinate to him followed rules, and failure to make a reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to their health, Respondent Barcena's effectiveness in the school system has been seriously impaired.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of these proceedings.
Section 231.36(6)(a), Florida Statutes, provides, in pertinent part: Any member of the instructional staff,
excluding an employee specified in subsection (4), may be suspended or dismissed at any time during the term of the contract; however, the charges against him must be based on just cause as provided in paragraph (1)(a).
Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes, provides, in pertinent part: Just cause includes, but is not limited to,
misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, or conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude.
Rule 6B-4.009, Florida Administrative Code, defines misconduct in office as a violation of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession as adopted in Rule 6B-1.001, Florida Administrative Code, and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida as adopted in Rule 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code, which is so serious as to impair the individual's effectiveness in the school system.
Pertinent to this case, Rule 6B-4.009, Florida Administrative Code, defines incompetency as:
inability or lack of fitness to discharge the required duty as a result of inefficiency or incapacity. Since incompetency is a relative term, an authoritative decision in an individual case may be made on the basis of testimony by members of a panel of expert witnesses appropriately appointed from the teaching profession by the Commissioner of Education. Such judgment shall be based on a preponderance of evidence showing the existence of one (1) or more of the following:
Inefficiency: (1) repeated failure
to perform duties prescribed by law (Section 231.09, Florida Statutes)
Rule 6B-4.009, Florida Administrative Code, defines gross insubordination or willful neglect of duties as a constant or continuing intentional refusal to obey a direct order, reasonable in nature, and given by and with proper authority.
Section 231.09, Florida Statutes, provides:
Members of the instructional staff of the public schools shall perform duties prescribed by rules of the school board. Such rules shall include, but not be limited to, rules relating to teaching efficiently and faithfully, using prescribed materials and methods; recordkeeping; and fulfilling the terms of any contract, unless released from the contract by the school board.
Rule 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code, provides, in pertinent part:
(3) Obligation to the student requires that the individual:
(a) Shall make reasonable effort to
protect the student from conditions harmful to learning or to health or safety.
Martin was charged with incompetency by reason of inefficiency, willful neglect of duty, gross insubordination, and misconduct in office. In this case, Martin did not intentionally violate the School Board procedures. While it is clear that Martin did not follow the field trip guidelines, he failed to do so more out of ignorance than willful disregard of the policies. Barcena did little or nothing to assure that the instructors within his department followed the School Board rules. Apparently, neither Martin or Cantu were aware of the field trip guidelines. Clearly, Barcena knew the procedures because he had requested permission for trips taken during the school day. Martin should have been aware of the field trip procedures, however, having attended the preschool faculty meetings. More important, Martin had an obligation to protect students from potentially harmful situations. This he
failed to do. Martin was present when Cantu signed the DF form and knew the students would be going to Snake Creek unsupervised. Further, he was aware of the past incident with the BB gun which had resulted in a student injury and which had occurred when the students were inadequately supervised.
Consequently, Martin is guilty of misconduct in office.
Similarly, Cantu had an obligation to protect the students from a potentially harmful situation. Had Cantu refused to sign the DF form, the students would not have been entitled to use Snake Creek. Cantu did not follow School Board procedures for the field trip to Snake Creek because he was unaware of the requirements. Cantu admitted he had not reviewed the faculty handbook. However, both by contract and law, Cantu was required to become aware of school policies. Ignorance is not a defense. Consequently, Cantu is guilty of misconduct in office.
Barcena, as the SAI, was responsible for the supervision of the JROTC department. The specific charges against Barcena alleged he should be dismissed for just cause. While he was aware of the field trips to Snake Creek, Barcena did not require that Martin comply with the School Board procedures. This failure is inexcusable. Only after the BB gun incident did Barcena take any step to prohibit the students from using Snake Creek. The action taken was ineffective since Cantu later signed the DF for the September 1988, trip. Barcena was under an obligation to assure the safety of the JROTC students. His failure to properly supervise the instructors within his department, his failure to require that the School Board field trip policies be met, and his lack of candor during his testimony evidence an indifference toward school rules which proved catastrophic. Barcena is guilty of misconduct in office and incompetency.
Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED:
That the School Board of Dade County enter a final order in case No. 88- 5637 finding Respondent Martin guilty of misconduct and suspending him from employment through March 31, 1989.
That the School Board of Dade County enter a final order in case No. 88- 5639 finding Respondent Cantu guilty of misconduct and suspending him from employment through March 31, 1989.
That the School Board of Dade County enter a final order in case No. 88- 5832 finding Respondent Barcena guilty of misconduct and incompetency and dismissing him from employment for just cause.
DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of September, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
JOYOUS D. PARRISH
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904)488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of September, 1989.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NOS. 88-5637, 88-5639, AND 88-5832
RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE SCHOOL BOARD:
Paragraphs 1 through 4 are accepted.
Paragraphs 5-7 are accepted to the extent specified in the findings of fact regarding Respondents' knowledge of the faculty handbook; otherwise they are rejected as unnecessary.
Paragraphs 8 through 10 are accepted.
Paragraph 11 is accepted as supported by the record but is irrelevant, immaterial or unnecessary to the conclusions reached in these cases.
Paragraphs 12 and 13 are accepted.
To the extent paragraph 14 set forth Barcena's obligation as SAI, it is accepted; otherwise rejected as the paragraph is unnecessary or irrelevant.
Paragraphs 15 through 18 are accepted.
To the extent that Cantu was told of the handbook's location within the JROTC office paragraph 19 is accepted. Otherwise, the paragraph is rejected. Barcena should have, but did not, make Cantu aware of the handbook requirements.
Paragraphs 20 through 24 are accepted.
Paragraph 25 is rejected as multiple facts which may, in part, be accurate but which as set forth are not. See findings in paragraphs 8, 17, 18, 19, 20 for those facts which are relevant to these proceedings.
The second, sixth, and eighth sentences of paragraph 26 are rejected as irrelevant, or as contrary to the weight of credible evidence.
Paragraph 27 is accepted.
Paragraph 28 is accepted.
Paragraph 29 is accepted.
Except as provided in findings of fact paragraphs 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, paragraph 30 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence or irrelevant.
Paragraph 31 is accepted.
Paragraph 32 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence, argument or irrelevant and immaterial to the specific charges filed in Martin's case.
Paragraph 33 is accepted to the extent that Barcena knew of the December trip and that no forms were properly completed; otherwise rejected as argument.
Paragraph 34 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. That both Barcena and Cantu took time to attend the field trip (albeit on an all too limited basis) indicates that they were aware that the students required some supervision from them and, that Martin would not be there.
Paragraph 35 is rejected to the extent that it is a recitation of testimony. See comment to paragraph 34.
Paragraph 36 is accepted.
Paragraphs 37 and 38 are rejected as unnecessary or irrelevant.
Paragraph 39 is rejected as comment on testimony. See findings of fact paragraph 18.
Paragraphs 40-42 are accepted.
With the clarification that the distances between the principals is not clear from the record (but that all were present), paragraph 43 is accepted. It should be noted that Barcena's testimony regarding his whereabouts during this time has not been deemed credible.
Paragraphs 44 and 45 are accepted.
Paragraph 46 is rejected as comment or argument. See comment to paragraph 43.
Paragraph 47 is accepted.
Paragraph 48 is rejected as comment, argument, or irrelevant.
With regard to paragraph 49, to the extent that the National Guard believed the request was from the Miami Jackson JROTC, it is accepted; as stated in the recommended order since Martin and Cantu did not wilfully intend to violate the rules they did not purposefully mislead the National Guard. Their acts and omissions were out of ignorance and indifference. In these instances, they should have acted differently.
Paragraph 50 is accepted to the extent that the instructor filling out the form should have supervised the trip; otherwise is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence.
With regard to paragraph 51, see findings of fact paragraphs 38,39,40; otherwise, rejected as argument, or comment.
Paragraph 52 is rejected as irrelevant.
Paragraph 53 is rejected as irrelevant.
Paragraph 54 is rejected as irrelevant.
Paragraph 55 is rejected as irrelevant.
Paragraph 56 is rejected as argument, irrelevant, or comment.
Paragraph 57, the first and last sentences are accepted; the balance is rejected as argument.
Paragraph 58 is accepted to the extent that Martin violated policies by not following the field trip procedures but Martin did not continuously refuse to follow the rules because he did not know they applied. Martin's error in judgment was not seeking assistance from others and ignoring the dangerous potential to the students (both of which he should have recognized). Otherwise, paragraph 58 is rejected as not supported by the weight of credible evidence.
Paragraph 59 is accepted.
To the extent that paragraph 60 recites the reprimand it is accepted. The comments otherwise are reject as argument, irrelevant or unnecessary to these proceedings.
Paragraph 61 is accepted.
Paragraphs 62 and 63 are accepted.
To the extent that it states the U.S. Army decertified these instructors effective March 31, 1989, paragraph 64 is accepted; otherwise rejected as irrelevant or unsupported by the record.
Paragraph 65 is accepted.
RULINGS ON RESPONDENT MARTIN'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT:
Paragraphs 1 through 3 are accepted.
Paragraph 4 is accepted to the extent that the trips always occurred on the weekends; otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence.
With regard to paragraph 5, Martin should have been aware of the contents of the handbook, therefore knowledge of it is expected.
Paragraph 6 is accepted to the extent that it includes language from the handbook.
Paragraph 7 is accepted but is irrelevant to these proceedings.
Paragraph 8 is rejected as unsupported by the weight of credible evidence.
Paragraph 9 is accepted; Barcena, as department head, should have assisted Martin and instructed him to follow the guidelines or should have sought approval for not following the guidelines.
The first phrase of paragraph 10 is accepted; otherwise, rejected as irrelevant, argument, or comment.
Paragraph 11 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence.
Paragraph 12 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence.
Paragraph 13 is accepted. As stated, Martin acted out of ignorance of the regulations, but should, as a competent instructor, been aware of the requirements, or should have personally inquired regarding the requirements, or should have taken reasonable steps to assure the proper supervision and safety of the students who, but for the acts of instructors at Miami Jackson JROTC, could not have gone to Snake Creek to practice/train.
Paragraph 14 is accepted; however, Martin's action do warrant a suspension as recommended.
RULINGS ON RESPONDENT CANTU'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT:
Paragraphs 1 through 4 are accepted.
Paragraph 5 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence.
Paragraph 6 is accepted.
Paragraph 7 is accepted.
Paragraph 8 is accepted. It is not, however, conceded that the procedure which had been used was correct, or that Cantu did not have an obligation to inquire further before signing the DF for the September, 1988, trip.
Paragraphs 9 and 10 are accepted.
Paragraph 11 is rejected as irrelevant.
Paragraph 12 is accepted but is irrelevant.
Paragraph 13 is accepted.
Paragraphs 14 through 16 are accepted but do not excuse Cantu's lack of judgment or violation of the school policies.
Paragraph 17 is rejected to the extent that Cantu did not complete teaching training and did not receive a personal copy of the handbook, however, he was present during preschool conference, did have access to a handbook, and should have sought guidance before signing the DF.
The first sentence of paragraph 18 is accepted otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence.
Paragraph 19 is rejected as irrelevant.
RULINGS ON THE RESPONDENT BARCENA'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT:
Paragraph 1 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence; Barcena's role at the Miami Jackson JROTC was as SAI not as an Army Lieutenant Colonel.
Paragraph 2 is accepted.
Paragraph 3 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence.
Paragraph 4 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence and argument.
Paragraph 5 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence.
Paragraph 6 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence.
COPIES FURNISHED:
William DuFresne DuFRESNE AND BRADLEY
2929 S.W. Third Avenue, Suite One Miami, Florida 33129
Albert L. Carricarte 2491 N.W. 7th Street
Miami, Florida 33125 George Knox 4770 Biscayne Boulevard
Suite 1460
Miami, Florida 33137
Mrs. Madelyn P. Schere Assistant School Board Attorney School Board of Dade County
Board Administration Building, Suite 301 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue
Miami, Florida 33132
Dr. Joseph A. Fernandez Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Sep. 06, 1989 | Recommended Order (hearing held , 2013). CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Oct. 04, 1989 | Agency Final Order | |
| Sep. 06, 1989 | Recommended Order | Respondent guilty of misconduct as he fa8iled to follow school policy which resulted in inadequate supervision for students. |
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs RAIMUNDO MODIA, 88-005637 (1988)
MANATEE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs TAMMY M. JOHNSON, 88-005637 (1988)
BROWARD COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs JAMES WRIGHT, 88-005637 (1988)
LEE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs CHRISTOPHER RASMUSSEN, 88-005637 (1988)
DUVAL COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs KELLY L. BRADLEY, 88-005637 (1988)
