STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 96-5516
)
JAMES THOMAS, )
)
Respondent. )
) DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 96-5766
)
HUMBERTO CANTILLO, )
)
Respondent. )
) DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 96-5767
)
JEFFREY BASKIN, )
)
Respondent. )
)
Pursuant to notice, a final hearing was held in these three consolidated cases on February 14, 1997, in Miami, Florida, before Michael M. Parrish, an Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
For Petitioner: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire
Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue Suite 400
Miami, Florida 33132
For Respondent: Gary Anderson
Dade County School Maintenance Employee Committee (DCSMEC)
7910 Northwest 25th Street, Suite 206
Miami, Florida 33122
The central issue in each of these three consolidated cases is whether each of the Respondents should be demoted from their respective positions of employment with the Respondent School Board by reason of the failure of each of the Respondents to meet the requirements of their respective Training Agreements and Training Standards, in that each Respondent has failed to obtain a valid journeyperson's license (certificate of competency) in his respective trade.
Each of these three cases began on November 6, 1996, when the School Board of Dade County took action to demote each of the three Respondents. Thereafter, each of the Respondents filed a request for hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, and the pertinent labor contract.
The School Board referred all three cases to the Division of Administrative Hearings1 for assignment of an Administrative Law Judge and shortly thereafter2 the School Board filed a Notice of
Specific Charges in each case. Upon uncontested motion of the School Board, all three cases were consolidated for final hearing.
The thrust of the charges in each of these cases is that each Respondent has failed to obtain a valid journeyperson's certificate of competency (license) in his respective trade, thereby failing to meet his contractual requirements in his Training Agreement and Training Standards. It is further alleged that such failure constitutes conduct that does not reflect credit upon each Respondent and the school system, in violation of the School Board's Employee Conduct Rule.
At the hearing, the School Board presented the testimony of the following witnesses: Dildra Martin-Ogburn, Norman Lindeblad, Steven Buday, and Robert Brown. Each of the Respondents testified on his own behalf and the Respondents also presented additional testimony by Robert Brown. The Petitioner offered thirty exhibits, all of which were received. The Respondents offered four exhibits, all of which were received.3
At the conclusion of the hearing the parties agreed on April 1, 1997, as the deadline for the filing of their respective proposed recommended orders. On March 10, 1997, the transcript of the hearing was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings. Thereafter, timely proposed recommended orders were filed on behalf of all parties.4
Findings relevant to all three Respondents
At all times material to these cases, the Petitioner has been a 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.
At all times material, each of the Respondents was employed by the School Board. Respondents James Thomas and Jeffrey Baskin were each employed as an Electrician I. Respondent Humberto Cantillo was employed as an ARC Mechanic I. Each of the Respondents is a member of the Dade County School Maintenance Employee Committee (DCSMEC) bargaining unit.
The Trainee Career Development Plant (Plan) has been collectively bargained and is applicable to each of the Respondents.
The Plan is an orderly, well-defined career development plan for trainees in the construction and maintenance trades. It includes formal classroom training and related on-the-job training. It provides trainees with periodic reviews and appropriate step (salary) increases as they advance through the Plan, preparing for increased responsibilities in their trade as they advance to a journeyperson's position.
A journeyperson is a skilled worker who has completed a formal apprenticeship program and has obtained a certificate of competency (license) in the trade in which he works, if the trade
is licensed. He is responsible for supervising the trainees in their trade skills. He works independently and is held responsible for the job.
A trainee (apprentice) is an employee in the Plan who is bound by an agreement with the Trades Helper/Trainee Career Development Board (Trainee Board) for a specified period of time. A trainee works under the supervision of a journeyperson to obtain on-the-job training in his trades skills. He also attends formal classroom instruction. He does not work independently and is not held responsible for the job.
The Trainee Board oversees the advancement of the trainees. It meets quarterly with each trainee to assess his progress in the Plan, to give counseling, and to make recommendations regarding his continuation in the program. A decision is made whether to advance the trainee to the next step.
Trainees are required to complete the Plan within the stated time frame, which in these cases, is a four year training period; however, trainees are given five years to complete the four year Plan.
The Plan puts trainees on notice that the goal of the Plan is to make sure that trainees are "fully trained and licensed" [emphasis in original] and that trainees must obtain a license to advance to the fifth and final step in the Plan.
The Plan advises trainees that they cannot remain permanent trainees. They are further advised that if they are
not successful in the Plan, they will be subject to administrative action, including reclassification to a trades helper position, i.e., demotion.
Out of two hundred six trainees, one hundred thirty have become journeypersons. Nine have been demoted to trades helpers at a reduced salary. The Plan is being phased out. The School Board is no longer staffing trainee positions.
A trades helper is a laborer. He also assists the journeyperson. There are no employment positions between the trades helper position and the trainee position.
Trades helpers are eligible for the Special Opportunities Program for Advancement. Therefore, none of the Respondents is foreclosed from becoming a journeyperson for the Dade County Public Schools.
The School Board has no control over the licensing process. The licensing tests are administered by Block and Associates. Block and Associates will, upon request, make special accommodations for persons who require such accommodations.
School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, the Employee Conduct rule, provides in pertinent part:
RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES
Employee Conduct
All persons employed by the School Board of Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves in a
manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. [Emphasis added.]
The DCSMEC contract provides, in pertinent part, at Article IX, Section 12:
Section 12. Trainees
Trainees shall work under the supervision of a journeyperson.
* * *
. . . All trainees will be in the Trainee Career Development Plan. The Trainee Career Development Plan will be governed by the Trades Helper/Trainee Career Development Board.
* * *
The advancement of trainees through the Trainee Career Development Plan will be governed by a Trades Helper/Trainee Career Development Board whose membership shall consist of four voting members. These voting members will be the Supervisor of Adult Trade and Industrial and Apprenticeship Training in the Office of Vocational, Adult, Career, and Community Education; the Executive Directors
(2) of the Office of Facilities Operations; the Manager of the Office of Facilities Operations. Additionally, a DCSMEC representative and a representative from the Office of Personnel Management and Services may attend Trades Helper/Trainee Career Development Board meetings as observers.
The Trades Helper/Trainee Career Development Board shall meet four times a year for the purpose of reviewing trainee requests for advancement in the Trainee Career Development Plan. . . .
. . . The Trades Helper/Trainee Career Development Board will use the approved Division of Facilities Operations Administrative Procedures for the operation of the Trainee Career Development Plan. . . .
The Trades Helper/Trainee Career Development Board is responsible for:
Monitoring, recommending, and approving training programs for each trainee.
Determining the appropriate step placement of each trainee in the Trainee Career Development Plan. Advancement to the appropriate step in the Trainee Career Development Plan required by the approved Office of Facilities Operations Administrative Procedures.
Requiring each trainee to complete the Trainee Career Development Plan within the timeframes specified in approved Office of Facilities Operations Administrative Procedures.
Trainees who successfully complete the Trainee Career Development Plan and hold a valid Certificate of Competency from Dade, Monroe, Broward, Palm Beach, or Collier County . . . are eligible for consideration for priority advancement to an open journeyperson position in their respective trade upon the recommendation of the Trades Helper/Trainee Career Development Board. . . .
Any trainee who fails to complete the Trainee Career Development Plan within the allotted timeframe will be subject to administrative action, including reclassification to trades helper position upon the recommendation of the Trades Helper/Trainee Career Development Board. Current employees who have exceeded the timeframes in their job position will meet with the Trades Helper/Trainee Career Development Board to be evaluated and to determine the appropriate training requirements and the timeframe that will be permitted to complete the Trainee Career Development Plan. Current employees who cannot or will not complete the Trainee Career Development Plan will be subject to administrative action. [Emphasis added.]
The DCSMEC contract further provides, in pertinent part, at Article XI:
Section 1. Notification
Whenever an employee violates any rule, regulation, or policy, that employee shall be notified by his/her supervisor, as soon as possible, with the employee being informed of the rule, regulation, or policy violated. Every effort shall be made to have an informal discussion with the employee, prior to the issuance of any disciplinary action.
Any employee summoned for a Conference- for-the-Record (CFR) shall be given no less than two working days' notice, except in cases deemed to be an emergency. The notification shall contain a statement of the reason(s) for the CFR.
An employee notified of a CFR which may lead to disciplinary action shall have the right to request Union representation and shall be so informed of this right.
* * *
Section 2. Dismissals, Suspensions, Reductions-in grade
Employees dismissed, suspended, or reduced in grade shall be entitled to appeal such action to an impartial Hearing Officer. who
shall set the date and place mutually agreeable to the employee and the Board for the hearing of the appeal. . . .
Findings regarding Respondent James Thomas
Respondent James Thomas was hired by Petitioner in March 1987. Because of prior schooling, Mr. Thomas was advanced to Step 4 of the Plan on June 17, 1987. At Step 4, he began receiving 75 percent of a journeyperson's salary.
Mr. Thomas signed his formal Training Agreement and Training Standards for the electrical trainee Plan on July 15, 1988. He acknowledged that a failure to complete the Plan would result in his becoming a trades helper.
The only remaining requirement for Mr. Thomas to reach Step 5 of the Plan was to pass the licensing examination. The examination could be taken in Dade, Broward, Monroe, Collier, or Palm Beach County. Examinations are given frequently enough that Mr. Thomas could have undergone one per month.
Mr. Thomas' original four year Plan expired on July 17, 1992, and his automatic fifth year expired one year later.
In spite of being eligible to take the licensing examination as of June 17, 1987, Mr. Thomas did not begin taking the examination until August 21, 1993, after his original extended Plan expired.
Trainee reviews were held with Mr. Thomas on numerous occasions, including February 10, 1994, June 21, 1994, October 3, 1994, December 20, 1994, April 13, 1995, June 22, 1965, October 6, 1995, January 23, 1996, and May 2, 1996. At each review meeting, the requirement to pass a licensing exam was stressed
and extensions were given to Mr. Thomas. At each review, Mr. Thomas was put on notice that he would be demoted to trades helper if he did not obtain a certificate of competency. The reduction in salary was also addressed each time. Mr. Thomas was given additional written notice on February 18, 1994, August 3, 1994, January 11, 1995, August 7, 1995, and April 2, 1996.
On August 13, 1996, pursuant to Article IX, Section 12.E.5, of the DCSMEC contract and Mr. Thomas' Training Agreement, the Trainee Board recommended that Mr. Thomas be demoted to a trades helper position for failure to comply with his Training Agreement and Training Standards. At that point, Mr. Thomas had had approximately nine years to reach Step 5 of the Plan by passing his licensing examination. This should not have taken more than one year.
A Conference-for-the-Record was held with Mr. Thomas on September 25, 1996. At the conference, Mr. Thomas did not produce proof of licensure so the recommendation for demotion continued to be processed. Mr. Thomas was further notified that if he could produce official documentation of passing scores on the licensing examination, the recommendation would be rescinded up until the time the School Board was to take action.
The School Board demoted Mr. Thomas to the position of trades helper on November 6, 1996, and he was given a new job description.
Mr. Thomas, as a trades helper, receives approximately
$1,000 less pay per month.
Mr. Thomas has been enrolled since 1993 in an Electrical Journeyperson class to prepare for the licensing exam. He has failed the licensing examination on numerous occasions. Findings regarding Respondent Humberto Cantillo
Respondent Humberto Cantillo was hired by Petitioner on July 20, 1987. Because of prior schooling, he was advanced to Step 4 of the Plan on September 4, 1987. At Step 4, he began receiving 75 percent of a journeyperson's salary.
Mr. Cantillo signed his formal Training Agreement and Training Standards for the ACR trainee Plan on September 9, 1988. He acknowledged that a failure to complete the Plan would result in his becoming a trades helper.
The only remaining requirement for Mr. Cantillo to reach Step 5 of the Plan was to pass the licensing examination. The examination could be taken in Dade, Broward, Monroe, Collier, or Palm Beach County. Examinations are given frequently enough that Mr. Cantillo could have undergone one per month.
Mr. Cantillo's original four year Plan expired on September 4, 1992, and his automatic fifth year expired one year later.
In spite of being eligible to take the licensing examination as of September 4, 1987, Mr. Cantillo did not begin
taking the examination until February 2, 1994, after his original extended Plan expired.
Trainee reviews were held with Mr. Thomas on numerous occasions, including February 10, 1994, June 29, 1994, September 30, 1994, December 20, 1994, March 29, 1995, June 22, 1995, October 6, 1995, January 23, 1996, and May 2. 1996.5 At each review meeting, extensions were given to Mr. Cantillo. At each review, the requirement to pass a licensing exam was stressed, and Mr. Cantillo, if present, was put on notice that he would be demoted to trades helper if he did not obtain a certificate of competency. The reduction in salary was also addressed each time. Mr. Cantillo was given additional written notice on February 22, 1994, August 3, 1994, January 10, 1995, August 7, 1995, and April 2, 1996.
On August 13, 1996, pursuant to Article IX, Section 12.E.5, of the DCSMEC contract and Mr. Cantillo's Training Agreement, the Trainee Board recommended that he be demoted to a trades helper position for failure to comply with his Training Agreement and Training Standards. At that point, Mr. Cantillo had had approximately eight years to reach Step 5 of the Plan by passing his licensing examination. This should not have taken more than one year.
A Conference-for-the-Record was held with Mr. Cantillo on September 18, 1996. At the conference, Mr. Cantillo did not produce proof of licensure so the recommendation for demotion
continued to be processed. Mr. Cantillo was further notified that if he could produce official documentation of passing scores on the licensing examination, the recommendation would be rescinded up until the time the School Board was to take action.
The School Board demoted Mr. Cantillo to the position of trades helper on November 6, 1996, and he was given a new job description.
Mr. Cantillo, as a trades helper, receives approximately $500 less pay per month.
Mr. Cantillo asserted at the hearing that he believes he has had difficulty passing the licensing examination because of test anxiety. Prior to the hearing, Mr. Cantillo had never advised his employer that he had trouble taking the examination because of any disability. Mr. Cantillo did not seek help for his test taking problems until September 19, 1996, the day after his Conference-for-the-Record.
Findings regarding Respondent Jeffrey Baskin
Respondent Jeffrey Baskin was hired by Petitioner on July 22, 1987. He reached Step 1 of the Plan on March 18, 1988. He signed his formal Training Agreement and Training Standards for the electrical trainee Plan on July 21, 1988. As part of his Training Agreement and Training standards, Mr. Baskin acknowledged that a failure to complete the Plan would result in his becoming a trades helper.
Mr. Baskin reached Step 4 of the Plan on June 14, 1991. At Step 4, he began receiving 75 percent of a journeyperson's salary.
The only remaining requirement for Mr. Baskin to reach Step 5 of the Plan was to pass the licensing examination. The examination could be taken in Dade, Broward, Monroe, Collier, or Palm Beach County. Examinations are given frequently enough that Mr. Baskin could have undergone one per month.
Mr. Baskin's original four year Plan expired on July 21, 1992, and his automatic fifth year expired in July 1993.
In spite of being eligible to take the licensing examination as of June 14, 1991, Mr. Baskin did not begin taking the examination until August 21, 1993, after his original extended Plan expired.
Trainee reviews were held with Mr. Baskin on numerous occasions, including June 29, 1994, October 3, 1994, December 20, 1994, April 13, 1995, June 22, 1995, October 6, 1995, January 23, 1996, and May 2. 1996. At each review meeting, the requirement to pass a licensing exam was stressed and extensions were given to Mr. Baskin. At each review, Mr. Baskin was put on notice that he would be demoted to trades helper if he did not obtain a certificate of competency. The reduction in salary was also addressed each time. Mr. Baskin was given additional written notice on March 5, 1993, August 3, 1994, January 11, 1995, August 7, 1995, and April 2, 1996.
On August 13, 1996, pursuant to Article IX, Section 12.E.5, of the DCSMEC contract and Mr. Baskin's Training Agreement, the Trainee Board recommended that he be demoted to a trades helper position for failure to comply with his Training Agreement and Training Standards. At that point, Mr. Baskin had had approximately eight years to complete the four year, and five of which to pass the licensing examination. The examination requirement should not have taken more than one year.
A Conference-for-the-Record was held with Mr. Baskin on September 18, 1996. At the conference, Mr. Baskin did not produce proof of licensure so the recommendation for demotion continued to be processed. Mr. Baskin was further notified that if he could produce official documentation of passing scores on the licensing examination, the recommendation would be rescinded up until the time the School Board was to take action.
The School Board demoted Mr. Baskin to the position of trades helper on November 6, 1996, and he was given a new job description.
Mr. Baskin, as a trades helper, receives approximately
$1,000 less pay per month.
Mr. Baskin asserted at the hearing that he had difficulty passing the licensing examination because he has a "slight" learning disability that "may" impede him from completing the examination. Prior to the hearing, Mr. Baskin had never advised his employee that he had trouble taking the
examination because of any disability. Mr. Baskin did not undergo a psychological evaluation until after his demotion.
Mr. Baskin has been enrolled since 1993 in an Electrical Journeyperson class to prepare for the licensing exam. He has failed the licensing examination on numerous occasions.
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of these three consolidated cases.6
Each of the Respondents failed to obtain a valid journeyperson's certificate of competency in his respective trade within the period specified in his Training Agreement and Training Standards. Each of the Respondents was aware of the terms and conditions of employment in a trainee position and each was reminded of those terms from time to time. Where, as here, each Respondent has failed to timely fulfill those terms and conditions, even after generous extensions of time, demotion pursuant to Article IX, Section 12.E.5, of the DCSMEC contract is appropriate.
Two of the Respondents, Mr. Cantillo and Mr. Baskin, argue in favor of a different result on the basis of assertions that their failure to obtain certificates of competency was due to disabilities which made it difficult for them to take examinations. These arguments are an insufficient basis for a different result for several reasons. First, the record does not
contain persuasive evidence sufficient to establish that either Mr. Cantillo or Mr. Baskin actually suffers from a disability of sufficient magnitude to impair their test-taking ability.7 Second, neither Mr. Cantillo nor Mr. Baskin ever advised their employer prior to the instant demotions that they suffered from any disability. Similarly, neither requested any accommodation from their employer. As a final matter, it is important to note that the School Board does not administer the licensing examinations the Respondents failed to pass. Any issues regarding accommodation during the test-taking process are issues that should be addressed to Block and Associates, which administers the licensing examinations, rather than the School Board.
All three of the Respondents argue that they should not be demoted because of the financial burden that results from the demotion. This argument is unpersuasive for several reasons. First, each of the Respondents was advised at the beginning of his training program, and reminded thereafter, that the trainee position was a temporary position; a position in which he could remain only so long as he was in compliance with the terms and conditions of his Training Agreement and Training Standards. Second, the financial impact of the subject demotions is mitigated by the fact that the School Board could have, and pursuant to the terms of the Training Agreements and Training
Standards arguably should have, demoted each of these Respondents upon the expiration of the original training deadline almost four years ago.
The School Board argues that each of the Respondents should also be demoted for violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13- 4A-1.21, the Employee Conduct rule, which provides, in pertinent part, that School Board employees "are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system." The conduct of the Respondents in this case does not appear to be the type of conduct that runs afoul of the quoted portion of the Employee Conduct rule. None of these Respondents have engaged in any misconduct; they have simply failed to succeed in accomplishing an essential requirement of the terms and conditions under which they were employed. Such failure warrants demotion pursuant to Article IX, Section 12.E.5, of the DCSMEC contract, but it does not also constitute a violation of the standard imposed by School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A- 1.21.
Based on all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED:
That the School Board enter a Final Order in each of these three cases demoting each of the Respondents to the position of Trades Helper, pursuant to Article IX, Section 12.E.5, of the DCSMEC contract.
DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of June, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida.
MICHAEL M. PARRISH
Administrative Law Judge
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060
(904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675
Fax Filing (904) 921-6847
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of June, 1997.
1/ Mr. Thomas' case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings on November 14, 1996. The other two cases were referred on December 3, 1996.
2/ The Notice of Specific Charges in Mr. Thomas' case was served on December 17, 1996. The other two notices were served on December 18, 1996.
3/ An additional exhibit was marked for identification by the Respondents, but then withdrawn.
4/ Mr. Gary Anderson, the union business representative who represented all three Respondents at the final hearing, filed a proposed recommended order on behalf of all three Respondents. That document has been treated as the proposed recommended order on behalf of all three Respondents. In addition, the Respondent Humberto Cantillo submitted a handwritten letter and thirty-four pages of miscellaneous documents. The post-hearing documents filed by Mr. Cantillo are the subject of a motion to strike filed by the School Board on March 31, 1997. By separate order the motion to strike has been granted and the post-hearing documents submitted by Mr. Cantillo have not been considered during the preparation of this Recommended Order.
5/ Mr. Cantillo failed to attend a few of these meetings.
6/ The jurisdiction of the Division of Administrative Hearings over cases of this nature is discussed at length at paragraphs 125 through 135 of the Recommended Order in The School Board of Dade County v. Carmen Ivette Arroyo, DOAH Case No. 96-2939 (Recommended Order issued February 19, 1997).
7/ Much of the evidence offered on this issue consisted of hearsay evidence that was not admissible over objection in a civil action; evidence which, pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1996 Supp.), "shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding." The non-hearsay evidence on these issues was somewhat vague and imprecise.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Dade County School Board
1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Suite 400
Miami, Florida 33132
Mr. Gary Anderson DCSMEC
7910 Northwest 25th Street, Suite 206
Miami, Florida 33122
Mr. James Thomas
3760 Northwest 171st Terrace Carol City, Florida 33055
Mr. Humberto Cantillo
11431 Southwest 191st Street Miami, Florida 33157
Mr. Jeffrey Baskin
1361 Northwest 50 Street
Miami, Florida 33142
Roger C. Cuevas, Superintendent Dade County School Board
1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Suite 912
Miami, Florida 33132
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15 days from the date of this recommended order. Any exceptions to this recommended order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Jul. 28, 1997 | Final Order of the School Board of Dade County Florida received. |
| Jun. 11, 1997 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 02/14/97. |
| May 29, 1997 | Order Granting Motion to Strike sent out. |
| Apr. 02, 1997 | Letter to MMP from Humberto Cantillo (RE: advising judge that he has mailed copies of file to parties) (filed via facsimile) received. |
| Apr. 01, 1997 | Respondent`s Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law received. |
| Mar. 31, 1997 | Petitioner`s School Board`s Motion to Strike Respondent`s Post Hearing Filing (filed via facsimile) received. |
| Mar. 31, 1997 | Petitioner School Board`s Proposed Recommended Order received. |
| Mar. 21, 1997 | Letter to Humberto Cantillo from MMP sent out. (RE: advising that he need to furnish copy of letter to legal counsel for school board) |
| Mar. 17, 1997 | Letter to MMP from Humbeato Cantillo Re: Allegations; 34 Items of Record (CONFIDENTIAL) received. |
| Mar. 10, 1997 | (Respondent) Notice of Filing; Transcript received. |
| Feb. 21, 1997 | Order sent out. |
| Feb. 14, 1997 | Hearing Held; applicable time frames have been entered into the CTS calendaring system. |
| Jan. 14, 1997 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 2/14/97; 9:00am; Miami) |
| Jan. 14, 1997 | Order Granting Motion to Consolidate sent out. (Consolidated cases are: 96-5516, 96-5766 & 96-5767) |
| Dec. 30, 1996 | Notice of Motion Hearing VIA Telephone Conference sent out. (set for 1/8/97; 10:00am) |
| Dec. 30, 1996 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 2/14/97; 9:00am; Miami) |
| Dec. 19, 1996 | Letter to CA from M. Schere Re: Mailing correspondence received. |
| Dec. 18, 1996 | (Petitioner) Motion to Consolidate (Cases to be consolidated: 96-5516, 96-5766, 96-5767) received. |
| Dec. 17, 1996 | (Petitioner) Notice of Specific Charges (filed via facsimile) received. |
| Dec. 04, 1996 | Letter to CA from Madelyn Shere (RE: Request for Subpoenas) (filed via facsimile) received. |
| Dec. 02, 1996 | Petitioner`s Unilateral Response to Initial Order (filed via facsimile) received. |
| Nov. 22, 1996 | Initial Order issued. |
| Nov. 18, 1996 | Agency referral letter; Request for a Hearing, letter form; Agency Action letter received. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Jul. 24, 1997 | Agency Final Order | |
| Jun. 11, 1997 | Recommended Order | School Board's demotion of trainers was appropriate where trainers failed to comply with terms of training program. |
