STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
JACK TAYLOR, Interim )
Superintendent, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 97-1855
)
CARMEN HERNANDEZ, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Robert E. Meale, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, conducted the final hearing in Fort Myers, Florida, on July 9 and 10, 1997.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: James E. Baker, Staff Attorney
The School District of Lee County 2055 Central Avenue
Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3988
For Respondent: Anthony D. Demma
Meyer and Brooks, P.A. Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
The issue is whether Petitioner may terminate Respondent’s professional service contract as a teacher for unsatisfactory performance or incompetence.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
By Petition for Suspension Without Pay and Benefits Pending Termination of Employment dated February 14, 1997, Petitioner
alleged that Respondent had not improved her performance after being placed in the Intensive Assistance Program and that her employment with Petitioner should be terminated. Respondent timely requested a hearing.
At the hearing, Petitioner called eight witnesses and offered into evidence 15 exhibits. Respondent called six witnesses and offered into evidence four exhibits. All exhibits were admitted.
The court reporter filed the transcript on August 7, 1997.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Petitioner first employed Respondent on August 23, 1977, in a paraprofessional position as a bilingual tutor. While so employed, Respondent attended Nova University working toward a degree in early education. She earned her degree in 1989 and received a teaching certificate in elementary education and English Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL).
Respondent’s first instructional assignment was as an ESOL teacher at the start of the 1989-90 school year. She did not have a classroom, but taught as a pullout teacher. She remained in this position for four years.
Respondent was first assigned to a regular classroom in the 1993-94 school year when her ESOL program was terminated. She taught a combined first and second grade class for the 1993-
school year and then taught a second grade class for the 1994-
school year.
On March 1, 1994, Susan Griesinger became the principal of Tice Elementary School. There was little substantive contact between Dr. Griesinger and Respondent during the 1993-94 school year. During the 1994-95 school year, Dr. Griesinger twice observed and evaluated Respondent’s classroom performance.
The evaluations were satisfactory. The Summative Observation Instrument for an observation of a second-grade mathematics class on November 17, 1994, contains numerous indications that Respondent has adequately organized and presented the instructional material. Student misbehavior was not an issue during the class. Dr. Griesinger concludes the evaluation by writing: “Your enthusiasm is catching! Many concepts in one lesson. Students enjoyed the clocks.”
Dr. Griesinger prepared a second Summative Observation Instrument for an observation of another second-grade mathematics class on February 27, 1995. This evaluation is much the same as the first and concludes: “This was a hard concept. I am glad you gave the children actual shapes.”
On March 6, 1995, Dr. Griesinger prepared Respondent’s year-end Performance Assessment. Respondent received satisfactory grades in all 40 categories. These grades are “Effective level of performance,” which is the only satisfactory grading option on the form.
However, for two categories for which Respondent received satisfactory grades, Dr. Griesinger noted the need for
“Focus for development/feedback.” Falling under “Presentation of Subject Matter,” the two categories were “Teaches a systematic process for developing academic values” and “Demonstrates knowledge of subject matter.”
The Performance Assessment concludes: “Carmen has tried very hard this year to reach all students. She has a positive attitude.”
Between the preparation of the Performance Assessment and the end of the 1994-95 school year, Dr. Griesinger and her assistant principal, Holly Bell, began receiving parent complaints about Respondent. The parents questioned whether Respondent could control her class. When Dr. Griesinger asked Respondent about the complaints, Respondent attributed the problems to a handful of misbehaving students.
The following school year, Dr. Griesinger observed Respondent’s teaching more closely to see if there was a problem. Dr. Griesinger, Ms. Bell, and the guidance counselor conducted several informal observations of Respondent’s classroom.
During the summer, Tice Elementary School had received a grant to hire an outside teaching consultant to train teachers in peer coaching. Dr. Griesinger asked the consultant, Kaye Sutcliff, to observe Respondent and make suggestions.
Ms. Sutcliff observed Respondent and suggested that she find other employment.
On October 24, 1995, Dr. Griesinger sent a memorandum to Respondent confirming a meeting that they had had the prior day. The memorandum memorializes a concern with the “lack of classroom management we see this year” and states that Respondent is not consistent with discipline.
The memorandum also mentions another concern as to how Respondent “present[s] your content to the students.” The memorandum elaborates:
Last year I had a difficult time following your lesson when I came in to do your observation. I talked with you about some things you could have done differently. You need to be very specific when you are introducing new concepts.
The memorandum concludes that Dr. Griesinger will be doing formal and informal observations to assist Respondent. The memorandum restates that Dr. Griesinger has asked Respondent to work closely with her coach and video and audio tape her lessons to see how she can improve and make her content clearer. The memorandum tells Respondent that Dr. Griesinger, Ms. Bell, and Lynn Pottorf will work with Respondent to try to help her.
Ms. Pottorf was the Elementary Generalist Coordinator employed in the District office.
On January 4, 1996, Dr. Griesinger wrote a memorandum to Dr. Madeline Doran, Director of Personnel, asking that she place Respondent in the Intensive Assistance Program as soon as possible due to “extreme difficulty with classroom management, curriculum content and lesson delivery.”
Acting on the advice of Dr. Griesinger and Dr. Doran, Dr. Jerry Baker, Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources, informed Respondent by letter dated January 24, 1996, that he was placing her in the eight-week Intensive Assistance Program. As part of the program, Dr. Doran formed an assistance team consisting of Dr. Griesinger, Ms. Bell, Ronalee Ashby, and Ms. Pottorf. Ms. Ashby is the District Coordinator of Personnel Services. The purpose of the team is to help the teacher as much as possible through observing her classroom teaching and discussing their findings with the teacher at weekly meetings. The team reviews the teacher’s performance and recommends further action to Dr. Doran.
The Intensive Assistance Program informs the teacher that, based on input from the team and Dr. Doran, Petitioner may determine that the teacher’s performance is adequate, extend the Intensive Assistance Program for another eight weeks, recommend reassignment to a more suitable position, withhold recommendation for an annual reappointment, determine that the teacher’s performance is inadequate and recommend dismissal or recommend acceptance of the teacher’s resignation.
On January 30, 1996, Ms. Ashby had a meeting with Respondent during which Ms. Ashby explained the Intensive Assistance Program in detail. Respondent completed an interview form for the Intensive Assistance Program. In the form, Respondent noted no particular problems interfering with her
teaching. She stated that she was “okay with subj[ect],” but had some problems gathering materials. She mentioned two students out of 20 in her class who presented behavioral problems and one student who presented academic problems. She stated that she would like to get the students more involved. She stated that her general health was “good--some headaches,” and she denied having any nonschool problems adversely affecting her teaching.
On March 20, 1996, Jo Ellen Kessler, Coordinator of Curriculum Services, conducted a two-hour observation, concluding that she never saw Respondent provide instruction for the students. Ms. Kessler stated:
Dr. [Griesinger] asked that I spend at least one hour in the classroom. I spent approximately two hours there because I kept waiting for Ms. Hernandez to provide instruction for the students. During the time I was in the classroom, there was no review of any material. There was no introduction, no initial instruction. No clear directions were given for doing the activities on the chalkboard. The students were given no reason for learning. There was no motivation for learning, no personal connections made. There were no instructional materials prepared for them to use during the lesson, other than the things written on the chalkboard--certainly not the best way to engage students. There was no evidence of any materials prepared for students of differing abilities. There was no instruction given to help any of them learn the skills involved. . . . The children who behaved nicely were not really acknowledged for their attention or behavior. No specific praise was given to any student. Most of the well behaved children were not given an opportunity to be involved in the tasks. They sat with nothing to do.
The students were given no clear expectation of what their behaviors should be. They had no limits set, no idea of what was acceptable and what was not.
The students were not engaged in any of the tasks. They hung over their desks, put their heads down and appeared quite bored.
In summary, the students did almost nothing for a two-hour period. The teacher was not teaching and was completely ineffective in managing their behavior. They were not involved in meaningful review or practice. Their behavior would be much improved if they had well-planned instruction and materials and if they were given meaningful learning tasks. The children in the room appeared to be bright and willing to learn, but they were not given the opportunity to do so.
On March 22, 1996, Dr. Baker, Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources, sent a letter to Respondent giving her official notice, pursuant to Section 231.36(3)(e), Florida Statutes, that her performance was “unsatisfactory” and, if the deficiencies were not corrected next year, he would recommend that the School Board terminate her at the close of the 1996-97 school year.
On March 25, 1996, Dr. Griesinger prepared Respondent’s year-end Performance Assessment. In contrast to the preceding year, Respondent received only four satisfactory grades, all in conformance to school and district rules. Nearly all of the other grades were “Unacceptable level of performance observed.” The Performance Assessment concludes: “Carmen needs to improve drastically in all areas.”
On the same day, Ms. Bell had to go to Respondent’s classroom to restore order. Hearing Respondent and students shouting from outside the door, Ms. Bell found seven students out of their seats and the remaining students seated with nothing to do. The prior day a substitute teacher had had no problem with the class.
On or about April 4, 1996, Respondent went on medical leave for the rest of the school year due to anxiety and menstrual problems. At the hearing, Respondent produced little, if any, evidence concerning the onset of her medical problems or their effect on her teaching. The preponderance of the evidence proves that demands that Respondent improve her classroom performance preceded the medical problems, although Respondent’s complaints of anxiety may have been exacerbated by these demands.
Dr. Griesinger hired a substitute teacher for the remainder of the school year. The substitute teacher had no problem teaching Respondent’s class for the next two months.
Respondent returned to work at the start of the 1996-97 school year with clearance from her physician. She was assigned a second grade class.
Separate observations on September 4, 1996, by
Dr. Griesinger and Ms. Bell record a boy barking like a dog in the back row during class without notice from Respondent, a boy sleeping so soundly that Respondent twice could not awaken him and gave up trying with a shrug of her shoulders, and motivated
students losing interest after Respondent never called on them despite having their hands up for long periods of time. In all cases of misbehavior, Respondent imposed no consequences.
During an observation on September 5, 1996, Respondent repeatedly asked the class what mountains look like. While she was doing so, one boy, who had been in and out of his seat for five minutes, managed to get the teacher’s manual off Respondent’s desk, give it to the observer, and tell the observer that this is where Respondent gets all her questions. At the same time, a girl, who was playing while in her seat, made two trips to the bathroom in 30 minutes, spending the second visit playing in the bathroom, turning the fan on and off.
After teaching from August 20 through September 12, 1996, Respondent again went on medical leave. Dr. Griesinger hired a new teacher to take over the class.
On October 3, 1996, Ms. Ashby sent a memorandum to the then-counsel for Petitioner advising him that Respondent’s classroom performance has continued to deteriorate and that he should review the file for proceeding with a predetermination hearing for “incompetency,” noting that Petitioner had given her notification last spring that she had “one year and six weeks to improve.”
On October 21, 1996, Dr. Griesinger sent a letter to Respondent confirming their conversation of October 7 in which Respondent informed Dr. Griesinger that she would be taking the
year off for medical reasons. The letter asks Respondent to call Dr. Griesinger prior to October 25 if this is incorrect.
Respondent did not call Dr. Griesinger in response to the October 21 letter. Instead, a few days before Christmas vacation was to start, Respondent contacted Dr. Griesinger and told her that she would be returning to teach when school started again in January.
Dr. Griesinger justifiably decided not to disturb the second grade class that the replacement teacher was handling quite well. Dr. Griesinger instead formed a new fourth grade class and assigned it to Respondent. Respondent began teaching the class on the first day of school after vacation, which was January 6, 1997.
On January 9, 1997, Ms. Pottorf observed Respondent’s fourth grade social studies class. She found that the students were well-behaved and on-task for only about 10 minutes. The lesson was “disjointed,” and Respondent displayed an obvious unfamiliarity with the subject matter, as evidenced, for instance, by her inability to find a definition for “pioneer” in the text or her incorrect assumption that the Miami Indians were a tribe in Florida, not Ohio. She referred to the two or three students who had read the lesson as “her friends who knew the answers,” excluding the remainder of the class. Respondent failed to guide students’ responses, allowing the same answers
and silly answers to continue. Unaware of the time, Respondent allowed the lesson to end without review or conclusion.
The next class was reading. Respondent immediately lost the attention of the class by engaging in a discussion with a child about the seating arrangements. For no good reason, Respondent required the class to cover material that had been covered earlier in the week. She displayed a poor command of the reading material. For instance, telling the students that “errors” were to be called “challenges,” Respondent proceeded to use the words, “error” or “mistake” throughout the lesson, each time adding that “We are to call them challenges.” Randomly checking workbooks, Respondent failed to note which students had done their work and which had not. After a student was left without a reading partner, Respondent said she would be his partner, but she never returned to be his partner.
When the students became loud and off-task, Respondent required them to call out the reading words in unison with her arm signals. She made them repeat words numerous times, to the obvious irritation of the students. After one child asked her not to do this, and, in response to Respondent’s inquiry, the rest of the class asked to be spared the repetition, Respondent agreed not to continue asking them to repeat the same word. But she continued to do so. At one point, she made them start over because they did not show enough energy, as the task became filler for the period, which ended without review or conclusion.
On the same date, Ms. Bell did an observation of Respondent. She noted that the majority of the students were off-task. Respondent repeatedly tried to restore order by telling the students to look at the rules, but there were no rules posted anywhere in the classroom.
On January 10, 1997, Respondent enlisted the students’ assistance in adopting classroom rules. A list of seven rules was disorganized, with some rules encompassing all of the others. The students became more restless when Respondent asked about consequences. No one answered her questions about consequences as the process became more disordered. Respondent evidently did not understand the point system that she had developed, leaving the whole system confusing and unmanageable. Later, a child privately asked to be Respondent’s helper. Respondent announced this request to the class, but did not otherwise acknowledge it.
Respondent moved into a lesson on pronouns, but could not define a pronoun. Abruptly leaving this lesson after only three minutes, Respondent presented a new lesson on narrative writing, which she explained in one rambling sentence interspersed with frequent allusions to the rules and consequences that they had just worked out. Few students were on-task by this time.
Respondent taught through February 6, 1997. At that time, Petitioner suspended her for her poor classroom performance.
Respondent’s three major problems in the classroom were that she did not know her material, could not teach, and could not control the behavior of her students. She wasted time in transitions, such as to lunch, physical education, or taking attendance. She missed many opportunities to reinforce good behavior and frequently reinforced bad behavior by ignoring visible defiance or even unwittingly rewarding it. She confused students as often as she instructed them and displayed no idea of how she could explain content to her students. She sometimes displayed an uncertain grasp of even elementary materials.
The result of these deficiencies is that Respondent impeded learning by repeatedly failing to communicate with and relate to the students to the point that they were deprived of a minimum educational experience.
There is evidence of effective instances of teaching by Respondent. Undoubtedly, Respondent had some days that were better than others. However, Respondent’s performance as a teacher was so bad so often that she was ineffective and incompetent as a teacher.
Numerous individuals observed her work in the classroom and found it seriously deficient. Ms. Ashby ultimately opined that, after a long career in education, Respondent, whom she described as a “horrible teacher,” was “one of the worst teachers I ever worked with.”
Respondent tried to show at the hearing that her teaching problems were the result of her health problems. As already noted, the evidence shows that her teaching problems preceded the emergence of her health problems.
However, even if the health problems preceded the teaching problems, Respondent, with the approval of her physician, returned to the classroom in January 1997 and performed abysmally. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that her health problems, or other mitigating factors, induced Respondent (and her physician) to decide that she could return to the classroom in January. The impact of her poor performance was dramatic, as the learning of her students slowed and even ended upon her return to the classroom.
Respondent argues that Dr. Griesinger and others in the administration were biased against her for reasons that are unclear from the record. Although Dr. Griesinger decided by no later than January 1997 that Respondent was not going to be able to eliminate her performance deficiencies, this determination was supported by the record and was not indicative of bias.
Dr. Griesinger’s determination did not distort her observations, which were corroborated by several other individuals.
Respondent understandably draws support from
Dr. Griesinger’s initial positive evaluation. This evaluation was more likely due to a combination of her carelessness and optimism, as she converted an evaluative instrument to a device
designed to encourage and promote one of her classroom teachers. Most likely, Respondent was ill-suited to assume the responsibilities of a classroom teacher when she began teaching second grade in the fall of 1993, but may have initially escaped the serious problems that later befell her due to a combination of factors, such as the youth of her students, extraordinary effort of what was effectively a new teacher, and inattentiveness of the school administration.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. (All references to Sections are to Florida Statutes. All references to Rules are to the Florida Administrative Code.)
There are two means by which Petitioner may discontinue the employment of a teacher holding a professional service contract. One is to terminate the contract, at anytime, for “just cause,” which includes “incompetency,” as provided in Section 231.36(1)(a). The other is not to renew the contract, at the end of the school year, for “unsatisfactory performance,” as provided in Section 231.36(3)(e).
To a superintendent, the advantage of terminating for incompetence is that it is immediate and relatively simple procedurally. To a superintendent, the advantage of not renewing a contract for unsatisfactory performance is that unsatisfactory
performance requires less substantive proof than does incompetence.
To a superintendent, the disadvantage of nonrenewal for unsatisfactory performance is that this is a time-consuming process that requires careful observance of numerous statutory requirements. Section 231.36(3)(e) generally requires that the superintendent notify the teacher of the specific deficiencies at least six weeks prior to the end of a school year and then give the teacher the “subsequent year of employment” within which to try to correct these deficiencies. During the curative subsequent year, the superintendent must provide the teacher with assistance and periodic reviews to help her eliminate the performance deficiencies.
The cornerstone of the nonrenewal process is that the teacher has the subsequent year within which to correct the deficiencies. This is not a technical requirement, such as six weeks’ notice, whose disregard may be overlooked in compelling circumstances. If a teacher is in her subsequent year, under the nonrenewal procedure, she is entitled to complete it. There are no circumstances sufficiently compelling to ignore a superintendent’s failure to observe this requirement because the superintendent has other available remedies.
If, during the subsequent year, the teacher is sufficiently bad in the classroom, the remedy is not to ignore the statutory curative period, but to invoke the statutory
alternative of terminating her employment immediately for incompetence. Likewise, if, during the subsequent year, the teacher refuses to attend the review sessions or undertake any of the suggested inservice or observation opportunities, the superintendent might terminate her for another category of just cause--such as, gross insubordination or willful neglect of
duty--but not for unsatisfactory performance.
Petitioner mispleaded the present case as a midyear termination for unsatisfactory performance. When Petitioner terminated Respondent in February 1997, she was still in her subsequent year, during which she was legally entitled to an opportunity to try to correct her performance deficiencies. Petitioner lacked the statutory authority to terminate Respondent for unsatisfactory performance until Respondent had failed to make the required corrections by the end of subsequent year.
At the start of the hearing, the administrative law judge allowed Petitioner to amend its pleadings to charge termination for incompetence. Prior to doing so, the administrative law judge allowed Respondent a chance to explain how such an amendment might prejudice her. The administrative law judge granted leave to amend the pleadings after Respondent failed to make such a showing.
In her proposed recommended order, Respondent appropriately revisits the ruling. However, she fails to persuade that the ruling was erroneous and should be reversed.
Respondent acknowledges that the pendency of the curative subsequent year does not preclude a superintendent from terminating the same employee if, for example, she were guilty of another element of just cause, such as conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Respondent contends, though, that a superintendent may not terminate an employee during the curative subsequent year for the same poor performance that prompted the superintendent to start the nonrenewal process in the first place.
Respondent’s contention is curious. Undeniably, Respondent understood at all times that her job was at stake due to her poor classroom performance. She believed that she had a year to correct the deficiencies, but she had no right to believe that, during the curative subsequent year, she was thereby protected from termination if her performance was so bad as to be incompetent.
Nor did she have any right to believe that Petitioner could not later terminate her for incompetence if he belatedly realized that her performance was so bad, when he started the curative subsequent year, as to constitute incompetence, at least if her performance remained incompetent through the initiation of the incompetency termination proceeding. Respondent contends that there would have to be a showing of deterioration during the subsequent year to allow Petitioner to terminate for incompetence during that year. This contention incorrectly assumes legally
that Petitioner could not have initially brought an incompetency termination case in the first place.
Respondent argues in her proposed recommended order that she “would likely have pursued a different course” if apprised earlier that this was an incompetency termination case rather than an unsatisfactory-performance nonrenewal case. Respondent says that she would have focused her discovery and trial strategy on the incompetency charge. However, Respondent nowhere details what she would have done differently.
Respondent cites Clark v. School Board of Lake County,
596 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). The Clark case involved an allegation against a teacher that she was guilty of immoral conduct. The school board proved, but had not alleged, that the specific act was a private, consensual sexual encounter with the teacher’s former husband.
It is as hard to imagine how the teacher in Clark should have been expected to prepare to deal with such an unalleged charge as it is to imagine how Respondent could be unfairly disadvantaged by having to defend her teaching performance against a charge of incompetence. The basis of the unsatisfactory-performance charge was always Respondent’s poor performance in the classroom; by making an incompetence charge, Petitioner merely uses the same proof to show that Respondent’s deficiencies were such as not merely to render her performance unsatisfactory, but to render her guilty of incompetency.
Rule 6B-4.009 defines “[i]ncompetency . . . as inability or lack of fitness to discharge the required duty as a result of inefficiency or incapacity. . . . ” Rule 6B-4.009(a) defines inefficiency as a repeated failure to perform the duties required by Section 231.09 or the “[r]epeated failure on the part of a teacher to communicate with and relate to children in the classroom, to such an extent that pupils are deprived of minimum educational experience. . . . ” Rule 6B-4.009(b) defines incapacity as a lack of “emotional stability,” “adequate physical ability,” “general educational background,” or “adequate command of his or her area of specialization.”
It would be unfair to allow Petitioner to amend its pleadings at the hearing to require Respondent to defend charges that she did not perform the duties prescribed by Section 231.09. Petitioner never alleged what these duties were and how, if at all, Respondent failed to discharge them.
It would be similarly unfair to allow Petitioner to amend its pleadings at the hearing to require Respondent to defend any charges of incapacity. Although some of these issues appear in the case, the focus of the charges and prehearing preparation was not on Respondent’s emotional stability, physical ability, general educational background, or command of her area of specialization. Any evidence concerning these matters must subordinate them to the sole issue, as stated in the rule, of which Respondent had reasonable notice: her failure to
communicate with and relate to children in the classroom so that the pupils are deprived of minimum educational experience.
Petitioner has proved that Respondent deprived her students of the minimum educational experience due to her failure to communicate with and relate to children in the classroom.
Because this is not an unsatisfactory-performance case, it is a moot point whether Dr. Griesinger acted in good faith to assist Respondent in learning how to overcome her teaching deficiencies, if she could overcome them at all. If
Dr. Griesinger’s intent was to rid her school of Respondent, this intent, which might be fatal to a showing of adequate employee assistance, does not render her observations suspect.
Dr. Griesinger’s intent may well have resulted from her observations.
Too many persons witnessed too many times that Respondent could not teach. Respondent has failed to link her health to her teaching problems, especially after her disastrous return to the classroom in January 1997. Regardless of the competence of Respondent’s evaluations in prior years, those fourth grade students in January 1997 had a regulatory right to a “minimum educational experience” and possibly a statutory right to much more. To subordinate this basic right of the students to the due process rights of Respondent, on these facts, would be to convert a position covered by a professional service contract into a sinecure.
In the alternative, Respondent asks that, if the finding is that she was incompetent in February 1997, the administrative law judge recommend that the Lee County School Board award her back pay because she was deprived her due process right when Petitioner terminated her under the wrong authority in February 1997. As previously noted, Petitioner lacked the authority, at that time, to terminate Respondent for unsatisfactory performance, but he had the right to terminate her for incompetence. There is no reason why the school board should be compelled to award back pay through the end of the curative subsequent year; to so recommend would be like recommending back pay for a teacher terminated in the middle of a curative subsequent year for a conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Respondent is a person of obvious dignity and civility who may well serve the school district well in employment as other than a classroom teacher, or at some future point in time even as a classroom teacher, but she is not entitled to back pay.
DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of September, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
ROBERT E. MEALE
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 26th day of September, 1997.
COPIES FURNISHED:
James E. Baker, Staff Attorney The School District of Lee County 2055 Central Avenue
Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3988
Anthony D. Demma
Meyer and Brooks, P.A. Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Jack Taylor, Interim Superintendent The School District of Lee County 2055 Central Avenue
Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3988
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
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 must be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Jun. 21, 2004 | Final Order filed. |
| Oct. 20, 1997 | Letter to Judge Meale from James Baker (re: request for extension of time to file exceptions) filed. |
| Sep. 26, 1997 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held July 9 and 10, 1997. |
| Aug. 19, 1997 | Petitioner`s Proposed Recommended Order; Cover Letter filed. |
| Aug. 18, 1997 | Letter to Judge Meale from J. Baker Re: Requesting an extension to file proposed recommended order filed. |
| Aug. 18, 1997 | Respondent`s Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Supporting Brief filed. |
| Aug. 14, 1997 | Letter to Judge Meale from J. Baker Re: Extending due date to file requested proposed order (filed via facsimile). |
| Aug. 13, 1997 | Letter to Judge Meale from J. Baker Re: Requesting five additional days to file proposed recommended order (filed via facsimile). |
| Aug. 07, 1997 | Transcript filed. |
| Jul. 09, 1997 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| Jun. 17, 1997 | (Respondent) Amended Notice of Taking Depositions filed. |
| Jun. 06, 1997 | Respondent`s Notice of Service of Interrogatories to Petitioner filed. |
| May 15, 1997 | Order Granting Continuance sent out. (hearing rescheduled for July 9-10, 1997; 9:00am; Ft. Myers) |
| May 14, 1997 | Joint Motion for Continuance of Hearing; Cover Letter (filed via facsimile). |
| May 08, 1997 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 6/11/97; 9:00am; Ft. Myers) |
| Apr. 30, 1997 | Respondent`s First Request for Production of Documents; Respondent`s Notice of Service of Interrogatories to Petitioner; Respondent`s First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner filed. |
| Apr. 28, 1997 | Joint Response to Hearing Officer`s Initial Order (filed via facsimile). |
| Apr. 17, 1997 | Initial Order issued. |
| Apr. 14, 1997 | Agency Referral Letter; Petition for Suspension Without Pay And Benefits Pending Termination Of Employment; Agency Action Letter; Request For Formal Hearing, Letter Form filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Nov. 04, 1997 | Agency Final Order | |
| Sep. 26, 1997 | Recommended Order | Teacher's poor classroom performance constitutes incompetency, so superintendent may terminate her professional service contract during curative subsequent year of employment. |
