STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DUVAL COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 99-3262
)
BOBBY G. PALMORE, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
A hearing was held pursuant to notice, on January 26, 2000, by Stephen F. Dean, assigned Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, in Jacksonville, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Lashanda R. Johnson, Esquire
City of Jacksonville
117 West Duval Street, Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
For Respondent: No appearance was made
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
The issue in this cause is whether the Petitioner Duval County School Board should dismiss the Respondent for professional incompetence pursuant to the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act, Laws of Florida, Chapter 21197 (1941) as amended.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The Petitioner seeks to discharge Respondent from the Duval County School System based upon a charge of professional incompetency. The District maintains that the Respondent has been given notice regarding the claim of incompetency. The claim of incompetency is supported by two consecutive unsatisfactory evaluations. Petitioner presented oral testimony of Martha Johnson, Assistant Principal of North Shore Elementary School; Christine Arab, General Director of Human Resources; and Carol Daniels, Principal of J.E.B. Stuart Middle School.
Petitioner presented Exhibit Nos. 1-75 which were admitted into evidence. Respondent did not appear at the proceeding and presented no evidence.
The Transcript was filed on February 8, 2000. The Petitioner filed proposed findings of fact that were read and considered. The Respondent did not file proposed findings of fact. He did file pleadings that were not proposed findings and which were not read and considered.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Petitioner is the Duval County School Board.
The Respondent, Bobby Palmore, has been an employee of the Petitioner since the 1992-93 school year. The Respondent is a tenured teacher assigned as a guidance counselor.
During the 1997-98 school year, the Respondent was a guidance counselor at North Shore Elementary School. The Principal at the school in 1997-98 was Larry Davis.
Concerns regarding the Respondent’s work performance at North Shore were raised early in the school year regarding his participation with Intervention Teams. An Intervention Team is formed to assist a guidance counselor with a particular student. The team meets when requested by the guidance counselor.
Notwithstanding that the Intervention Team convened at the Respondent’s request, he missed the meeting scheduled for September 29, 1997.
His erratic attendance at other Intervention Team meetings was of concern to the Assistant Principal, Martha Johnson, and the Principal. Ms. Johnson spoke with the Respondent about this, and Mr. Davis wrote the Respondent about his attendance at these meetings. Respondent’s attendance did not improve.
The Respondent’s erratic attendance at Intervention Team Meetings was unsatisfactory performance of his duties and showed a lack of understanding of the subject matter.
The Respondent repeatedly interrupted classroom teachers with unannounced and unscheduled calls and visits to their classrooms. This disrupted their classes, and they complained to administrators about Respondent’s conduct.
These interruptions were frequently to obtain information regarding students who were being staffed for one reason or another, an activity coordinated by the guidance counselor.
The Respondent was officially counseled about these interruptions by Ms. Johnson, but continued to interrupt classes and cause disruptions. This was unsatisfactory job performance and showed the Respondent’s failure to follow directions, plan his activities effectively, and manage his time well. These are considerations in Competency 2 of the Evaluation criteria.
The Respondent was asked by Ms. Johnson to make a sign to direct parents and others to a December 12, 1997, Child Study Team (CST) meeting. He did not do so. This also showed the Respondent’s inability to follow direction.
On January 13, 1998, the Respondent told Deborah Nurse, an employee of the school, in a rude and loud voice, that she was not to use the copying machine that was outside his office. Mr. Davis counseled the Respondent in writing regarding his behavior on January 16, 1998.
On January 14, 1998, at a CST meeting, Ms. Slaughter asked the Respondent for a cumulative folder on a student. The Respondent had been asked to the meeting because of his lack of cooperation regarding the folder. The Respondent accused
Ms. Slaughter of not respecting him in the meeting, and insisted
that she ask him again for the folder. The Respondent’s actions were embarrassing to the professionals present at the meeting and showed a lack of professionalism on the part of the Respondent. He was counseled in writing by Ms. Johnson about his conduct.
On January 15, 1998, a meeting was held to discuss a student between Ms. Johnson, Mrs. Shabazz, and the Respondent. Mrs. Shabazz indicated that a pertinent document was missing from the student’s folder that could effect his educational program and result in a loss of funding for the school. It was Respondent’s responsibility to maintain the student’s records in the guidance office. Ms. Johnson counseled the Respondent about his responsibilities in maintaining records and their importance to the school. She offered to assist the Respondent in reviewing the cumulative folders prior to their processing.
The Respondent was responsible for preparation of materials for and participation in CST meetings on students. The Respondent placed students on the CST agenda without completing the data in their folder. This failure interfered with the proper and timely placement of students, and evidenced an unsatisfactory performance of a basic part of the Respondent’s job.
As a result of the complaints about the Respondent’s work and conduct, a Success Plan was developed. This plan
outlined areas in which the Respondent was not performing satisfactorily, identified objectives for improving his performance, and strategies to meet the objectives. A team was created to assist the Respondent including Mr. Davis,
Ms. Johnson, the Respondent’s supervisor in guidance services, and the professional development facilitator.
The Intervention Team had decided that team members should receive a response from the Respondent within three days. This time limit was incorporated in the Respondent’s Success Plan; however, the Respondent did not submit the CST packets within the time limits. In addition, the Respondent’s tone in speaking with the teachers was such that they complained to
Ms. Johnson about the Respondent.
Ms. Johnson counseled the Respondent about the lateness of his submittals and his interactions which the teachers. The Respondent did not improve his conduct that directly resulted in student’s needs not being met.
The Respondent continued to be late to or to miss meetings and scheduled classroom visits. On February 4, 1998, he was late to a classroom visit. He cancelled a classroom visit he had scheduled. He did not follow the weekly calendar of guidance activities as required in his Success Plan.
On February 4, 1998, Mr. Davis met with the Respondent to discuss the proper procedures for conducting a CST meeting as a means of assisting the Respondent.
On February 6, 1998, Mr. Davis counseled the Respondent about his continued interruption of classes, and the Respondent forgot about a scheduled guidance session and did not attend, until reminded by Ms. Dennis.
On February 6, 1998, Ms. Anderson met with the Respondent to discuss the guidance program and to offer assistance to him. She suggested that he use a weekly, hour-by- hour calendar to plan his time and activities. She also counseled with him about using a lesson plan for a small group session to provide a clearly defined objective for the session. Ms. Anderson directed the Respondent to follow-up with her in a week. The Respondent did not follow-up with Ms. Anderson or follow any of her advice.
On February 9, 1998, Mr. Davis observed the Respondent conduct a meeting with staff regarding the Florida Writes Test. The Respondent’s conduct of the meeting was unsatisfactory. Issues were left unresolved and staff members were confused about the presentation. Some of the material presented was inconsistent with the information in the manual. Mr. Davis wrote the Respondent about these matters, and referred the Respondent to his Success Plan.
On February 9, 1998, the Respondent failed to provide proper parental notification of a CST meeting pursuant to district guidelines.
On February 9, 1998, the Respondent failed to provide proper parental notification of a CST meeting pursuant to district guidelines.
On February 9, 1998, the Respondent failed to make to two-scheduled classroom visitations.
On February 10, 1998, the Respondent missed a scheduled classroom visitation.
The Respondent was not following a weekly calendar of activities, and his performance was unsatisfactory and contrary to the Success Plan.
On February 10, 1998, the Respondent attempted to counsel the wrong child about the death of the child’s mother, and was prevented from doing so by the teacher. This reflected poorly on the Respondent’s attention to his duties, and his professionalism.
On February 10, 1998, the Respondent was provided a list of counselors at other schools who had agreed to let the Respondent attend classroom guidance or CST meetings at their schools. The Respondent was late and showed a lack of interest while attending a classroom guidance session at Lake Forrest.
On February 11, 1998, Mr. Davis observed a CST meeting at North Shore. It was evident that the parents had not received the required seven days' notice of the meeting. The Respondent had not conducted the pre-conferences, and had not coordinated the scheduling with the teachers. The Respondent did not have the proper forms in the cumulative folders, and had not conducted any classroom observations in preparation for the CST meeting. In sum, the Respondent’s performance showed a complete lack of competence and knowledge of his duties as a guidance counselor.
On February 11, 1998, the Respondent missed his scheduled classroom guidance visit. On February 12, 1998, the Respondent missed his scheduled classroom guidance visit because he was late in arriving.
On February 12, 1998, The Respondent discovered a coding error on the Florida Writes Test. He reported the error to Mr. Davis and accused the teacher of coding the test incorrectly. Davis directed the Respondent to correct the mistake and notify the testing department regarding the possible problem. The Respondent did not correct the test as directed, but placed a note on the box and resealed it to be mailed. The Respondent’s actions violated the testing procedures, and he did not do as he had been directed.
On February 17, 1998, Ms. Johnson counseled with the Respondent concerning his failure to respond to student and staff needs. She advised him he was not meeting his Success Plan goals, and students were not receiving services they needed.
The Respondent refused to counsel with a developmentally disabled student who had been sent to guidance by his teacher. The proper paper work had been completed for the student to participate in the group counseling session; however, the Respondent refused to allow the student to participate, chasing the student around the room telling him to "get out." The student was confused and embarrassed.
Ms. Johnson, who was observing the session, and took charge of the student by having him sit with her, resolved the situation. The Respondent's actions demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the role of a guidance counselor, sensitivity for students, and ability to conduct a class or counseling session.
On March 9, 1998, Mr. Davis completed the Respondent’s Annual Performance Evaluation. The evaluation consisted of eight competency areas. The Respondent received an unsatisfactory rating in three of the competency areas, which constituted an overall unsatisfactory evaluation.
The facts as presented at hearing confirm the evaluation, and show that the Respondent was clearly incapable of performing his job duties. He lacked knowledge of his duties or how to perform them. He was insensitive to the students' needs and did not meet them. He did not follow the direction of his Principal and did not maintain a professional relationship with his coworkers and superiors.
After receiving this evaluation, the Respondent continued in the same pattern of behaviors. He did not prepare and use a calendar of activities. He continued to provide materials late. He refused to assist a parent obtain the proper papers to enable the parent’s child to enroll in another school. He continued to disturb classes. He failed to notify staff of CST meetings at which they needed to attend. He took seven months to complete the paper work to have one child tested. In fact, there were several students who were awaiting CST processing at the end of the year.
The Respondent was treated fairly and provided assistance by the school’s administration.
Based upon his unsatisfactory evaluation in 1997-98, the Respondent was administratively transferred to J.E.B. Stuart Middle School the following year for an additional year of observation of in-service training.
Carol Daniels is the Principal of Stuart Middle School. She met with the Respondent and advised him that he was starting with a clean slate at her school. School Board Policy required that Ms. Daniels confer privately with the Respondent and develop a Success Plan. She met with the Respondent on August 24, 1998.
The Success Plan outlined goals and objectives to improve the Respondent’s performance as a guidance counselor. A support team was created to assist him.
Soon after the school year began, Ms. Daniels counseled the Respondent about the proper method to request student records. She arranged for him to attend New Counselor Training on or about August 31, 1998. The Respondent was negative and adversarial about being requested to attend the training. He officially complained about the request, but upon review the Regional Superintendent determined that Ms. Daniels’ request was not arbitrary and was appropriate.
The Respondent was counseled by Mr. Gilmore, the Vice Principal, on the need to process gifted students under the ESE program. He had failed to process several of these students, and he was given a deadline for processing these students.
On September 8, 1998, the Respondent did not exit the building during a fire drill. Ms. Daniels counseled him in
writing about the need for everyone to evacuate the building during drills.
Mr. Gilmore counseled in writing the Respondent about the lack of lead-time in requesting information about students, and his abruptness and tone in making requests.
On October 26, 1998, Linda Bailey requested an ESE/CST Agenda from the Respondent. The Respondent replied he was too busy to provide the information. On October 28, 1998, Ms. Bailey again asked for the information in writing. The Respondent did not provide the information.
On October 26, 1998, Ms. Bailey also requested progress reports for the ESE students who would be reevaluated on November 9, 1998. These reports had been used at Stuart Middle School for many years as a best practice strategy. The Respondent advised that he had no intent of providing the progress reports and refused to do so.
On October 26, 1998, the Respondent accused the District ESN Admissions Representative of taking ESE forms from his office. His tone and manner were threatening and confrontational.
On October 27, 1998, Ms. Daniels notified the Respondent that he would have an evaluation and conference on October 30, 1998, pursuant to district guidelines.
On October 28, 1998, Charlotte Robbins, ESE Interventionist, met with the Respondent to discuss three students. It was the Respondent’s responsibility to provide information to Ms. Robbins in a timely manner. The Respondent did not provide Ms. Robbins the necessary information prior to the meeting. The Respondent also invited parents to the meeting without advising Ms. Robbins.
On November 2, 1998, Norma Peters, a speech therapist, advised Ms. Daniels that she had requested the Respondent to provide her a list of students to be evaluated two to three weeks before CST meetings. The Respondent told Ms. Peters he would not be able to provide the information as requested, although previous guidance counselors had provided Ms. Peters the names three to four weeks in advance of meetings.
Although Ms. Daniels spoke with the Respondent about Ms. Peter’s concern, the Respondent did not provide the information as requested.
On November 5, 1998, the two eighth grade counselors met with the Respondent to discuss the need for him to be a team member. They raised the fact that he did not answer the phone, assist parents, or help the guidance clerk when necessary. They also advised him to improve his communication with the ESE teachers, CST members, speech pathologist, and interventionist.
A CST meeting was held on November 9, 1998, and only half the parents had been noticed and invited to come to the meeting. The Respondent had been responsible for contacting the parents in compliance with district policies. This failure prevented the CST team from addressing the needs of students. Not only did it potentially deny students services, it frustrated teachers, staff, and parents.
On November 24, 1998, the Respondent interrupted class instruction by bringing a parent into the class who had missed an earlier appointment with the teacher.
On November 25, 1998, Kathee Cook telephoned the Respondent regarding contacting children for the December 9, 1998, CST meeting. The Respondent refused to contact the parents of the students because ESE procedures required that Ms. Cook contact him seven days prior to the designated date. Ms. Cook reported this to Ms. Daniels, who discussed it with the Respondent, explaining that the requirement was for at least seven days notice. Ms. Daniels advised him that he was responsible for notifying parents for CST meetings, and his position potentially jeopardized notice to the parents as required by district policy.
Ms. Daniels directed the Respondent to give the Vice Principal all of the parental notices by December 2, 1998. On December 2, 1998, the Respondent gave Mr. Gilmore ten notice
letters; however, he did not provide notices to eleven other parents. The Respondent excused his failure by asserting his interpretation of the seven-day rule.
On November 25, 1998, Ms. Daniels advised the Respondent that he had made little improvement in his performance. She discussed with him performance of his duties; and being courteous and respectful to faculty, staff, and parents. The Respondent did not accept the evaluation and was confrontational and adversarial with Ms. Daniels. He refused Ms. Daniels' offer of assistance.
On or about January 5, 1999, the Respondent placed seven notice letters to parents in Mr. Gilmore’s box for the January 11, 1999, CST meeting. Not only were the letters late, if intended for the January 11th meeting, but they were addressed to the parents of children being staffed in the January 22, 1999, meeting.
The Respondent failed to discontinue ESE services to a student contrary to the parent’s request on three separate occasions, to include at least one request in writing. The Respondent’s failure resulted in the matter being re-assigned to the chair of the guidance department to discontinue the services in accordance with the parent’s wishes.
The Respondent left the campus without following the procedures for leaving early. These requirements had been
explained during orientation and were in the teachers’ handbook. Ms. Daniels had to notify the Respondent in writing of his oversight.
On January 25, 1999, Ms. Daniels notified the Respondent pursuant to the collective bargaining that his work performance was unsatisfactory. He was advised that his performance in Competencies 1, 2, 4, 8 and 9 needed improvement by March 15, 1999. On February 2, 1999, the Respondent was notified that this memorandum would be placed in his personnel file.
The Respondent met with parents who were not enrolled in Stuart Middle School during the middle of the school day. Ms. Daniels advised him in writing on February 11, 1999, that this was inappropriate, and he should limit meeting to parents or students enrolled or engaged in enrolling at Stuart.
On March 10, 1999, the Respondent made a presentation to an ESE class. His Success Plan required him to schedule presentations during Advisor/Advisee time period. The Respondent’s presentation was arbitrary and he did not seek assistance from his support team.
On March 11, 1999, Ms. Daniels completed the Respondent’s annual evaluation. The evaluation addressed nine competency areas. Th Respondent received an unsatisfactory in five of the nine areas, which constituted an overall
unsatisfactory evaluation. The Respondent’s performance in Competency 1 (ability to plan and deliver instruction), Competency 2 (demonstrates knowledge of subject matter), Competency 4 (shows sensitivity to student needs by maintaining a positive school climate), Competency 8 (demonstrates a commitment to professional growth), and Competency 9 (shows evidence of professional characteristics) was unsatisfactory.
Not only was his performance unsatisfactory, he continued to be unwilling to accept support and assistance. He failed to comply with many areas of his Success Plan and failed to perform his duties.
On March 17, 1999, the Respondent interrupted
Mrs. Bascombe’s class. Ms. Daniels counseled the Respondent in writing about class interruptions, and how to handle situations by checking the master schedule and placing notices in teacher mailboxes.
On March 23, 1999, Ms. Daniels relieved the Respondent of his responsibilities for ESE students because of his poor performance and its impact on the students' welfare. He had failed to timely notify parents. He had failed to communicate with parents, the staff, faculty and the district. His failures had adversely affected the operations of the ESE program.
The Respondent was assigned to handle seventh grade non-exceptional education students. Ms. Daniels had to direct
the Respondent in writing to relinquish the ESE forms to his successor.
On April 20, 1999, after being relieved of his ESE duties, he met with the mother of an ESE student who was then receiving services from his successor.
The Respondent was treated fairly at Stuart Middle School. All of the personnel were ready and willing to provide him assistance. He was negative, and refused to co-operate or perform his duties as directed.
On May 19, 1999, the Respondent was notified by the Superintendent that he was charged with professional incompetence. He was advised that he would be discharged from the Duval County School System if the charge was sustained by the School Board. He was advised of his right to request a hearing within two days of receipt of the letter dated May 19, 1999.
On June 15, 1999, Ms. Daniels provided John Heavner, Director of Professional Standards, written notice that the Respondent had not completed the requirements of his Success Plan.
The Respondent requested a formal hearing by letter on July 10, 1999. Notwithstanding that this was late, he was afforded a hearing.
On August 5, 1999, the Respondent was notified that he would be suspended without pay effective August 12, 1999. The Respondent was advised that the suspension would be considered at the September 7, 1999, regular meeting of the School Board. The Respondent is charged with incompetence.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter in this case. Section 120.57, Florida Statutes.
The Respondent received notice of his performance deficiencies at least six weeks prior to the end of the 1997- 1998 post-school conference period. He was notified that his deficiencies might result in the loss of his job, if his performance did not improve the following year. The Respondent was transferred to another school with a different supervising administrator the following year. This was done in compliance with Section 231.36(3)(f)2., Florida Statutes.
While he had been assigned to Stuart Middle School, the Respondent was provided assistance and in-service training opportunities to correct his deficiencies. He was evaluated periodically and advised of his performance.
The Superintendent notified the School Board and the Respondent in writing that he would not be issued a new
professional service contract. This was pursuant to Section 231.36(3)(f)4., Florida Statutes.
The Respondent was properly notified of his right to a hearing pursuant to the procedural requirements of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes; however, he did not timely request an administrative hearing. Notwithstanding his failure to timely request a hearing, the Board referred the matter to formal hearing.
Notice of the formal hearing in this cause was provided to the Respondent in accordance with the rules and statutes; however, after waiting for 30 minutes, he did not appear.
The formal hearing was conducted in his absence, and the Respondent was afforded his procedural due process rights under his continuing contract and pursuant to Chapters 120 and 231, Florida Statutes.
The standard of proof required in a teacher dismissal case is preponderance of the evidence. McNeill v. Pinellas County School Board, 687 So. 2d 476, (Fla. 2nd DCA 1996); and
Dileo v. School Board of Dade County, 569 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1990).
Incompetence is defined as the inability or lack of fitness to discharge the required duty as a result of inefficiency or incapacity. See Rule 6-4.009(1), Florida
Administrative Code. Incapacity may be shown by a lack of adequate command of the teacher’s area of specialization. Clark v. School Board of Lake County, Florida, 596 So. 2d 735, (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). Sufficient evidence was presented to support a finding that the Petitioner was incompetent in the performance of his duties. Termination of employment under a continuing contract was justified based upon the evidence presented.
The assessment of the Respondent’s performance was based upon valid and legally unobjectional criteria. He was evaluated by two different groups of administrators after working with two different groups of co-workers and in two different environments, and he failed to perform his duties, with which he was familiar, under the clearly defined and reasonable performance criteria. His evaluations were appropriate and proper, and correctly assessed his lack of performance.
The Petitioner is a creation of the State and has the right to investigate the competency and fitness of those it employs. See Gay v. Wheeler, 363 F. Supp. 764, 779 (S.D. Tex, 1973)(citing Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 81 S.Ct. 247,
5 L.Ed.2d 2313 (1961)).
The Respondent was treated fairly and provided an opportunity to perform satisfactorily. The Respondent did not
adequately execute his duties as a school guidance counselor during the school years 1997-98 and 1998-99. His failure deprived those students who most needed special educational services of the services they needed.
The Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent was not competent to perform his assigned duties, and is not entitled to be issued a new professional service contract.
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is
RECOMMENDED that:
A final order be entered denying the Respondent’s disciplinary appeal and demands set forth in his pleadings, and dismissing the Respondent for incompetence.
DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of March, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
STEPHEN F. DEAN
Administrative Law Judge
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060
(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675
Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of March, 2000.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Lashanda R. Johnson, Esquire City of Jacksonville
117 West Duval Street, Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Bobby G. Palmore
863 Poydras Lane, West Jacksonville, Florida 32218
John C. Fryer, Jr., Superintendent Duval County School Board
1701 Prudential Drive
Jacksonville, Florida 32207-8182
Honorable Tom Gallagher Commissioner of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08
Tallahassee, Florida 321399-0400
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 should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| May 01, 2000 | (B.Palmore) Federal Register Part II Department of Education filed. |
| Apr. 28, 2000 | Final Order filed. |
| Apr. 17, 2000 | (Respondent) Federal Register Part II Department of Education w/note to Judge Smith filed. |
| Apr. 04, 2000 | Memorandum to Judge Smith from B. Palmore Re: Exceptions to "Unfair" Hearing by Judge Dean: America,a Country of Laws" or Men filed. |
| Mar. 27, 2000 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 01/26/2000. |
| Mar. 16, 2000 | Memorandum to Judge Smith from B. Palmore Re: "Unfair" Hearing by Judge Dean: America, A.Country of "LAWS" or Men filed. |
| Mar. 07, 2000 | Memorandum to SLS from B. Palmore Re: "Unfair" Hearing by Judge Stephen F. Dean: America, a Country of "Laws" or Men; Memorandum to SLS from B. Palmore Re: "Unfair" Hearinb by Judge Stephen F. Dean filed. |
| Feb. 11, 2000 | Memorandum to Judge Smith from B. Palmore Re: "Unfair" Hearing by Judge Stephen F. Dean filed. |
| Feb. 11, 2000 | Petitioner`s Proposed Final Order (for Judge Signature); Disk filed. |
| Feb. 08, 2000 | Transcript w/exhibits filed. |
| Jan. 28, 2000 | Memo to Judge Smith from B. Palmore re: unfair hearing filed. |
| Jan. 26, 2000 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| Jan. 21, 2000 | Order Designating Hearing Room Location sent out. |
| Jan. 19, 2000 | Memorandum to Judge Smith & Judge Dean from B.palmore Re: Cancellation of Hearing (Third Request): filed. |
| Jan. 10, 2000 | Memorandum to Judge Smith & Judge Dean from B. Palmore Re: School District`s Continued Contempt of State Order filed. |
| Jan. 06, 2000 | Petitioner`s Witness List; Petitioner`s Exhibit List (filed via facsimile). |
| Dec. 29, 1999 | Memorandum to Judge Smith & Judge Dean from B. Palmore Re: Cancellation of Hearing (Second Request) School District`s Contempt of State Order filed. |
| Nov. 23, 1999 | Order Rescheduling Hearing and Setting Discovery Deadlines sent out. (11/30/99 hearing cancelled & reset for Jan. 26-27, 2000; 10:00am; Jacksonville) |
| Nov. 18, 1999 | Memorandum to Judge Smith & Judge Dean from B. Palmore Re: Cancellation of Hearing filed. |
| Sep. 29, 1999 | (L. Johnson) Notice of Appearance filed. |
| Sep. 09, 1999 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for November 30, 1999; 10:00 a.m.; Jacksonville, Florida) |
| Sep. 01, 1999 | Duval County School Board`s Response to Initial Order filed. |
| Aug. 27, 1999 | Memorandum to Judge Smith & Judge Dean from B. Palmore Re: No District Cooperation for fair administrative hearing; Memorandum to R. Riley, E. Baker, G. Walker, J. Dixon from B. Palmore Re: No District cooperation for ESE/OCR interviews filed. |
| Aug. 06, 1999 | Initial Order issued. |
| Aug. 02, 1999 | Agency Referral Letter; Agency Action Letter; Request for Fair, Honest and Impartial Hearing (letter); Request for Official Hearing (letter) filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Apr. 18, 2000 | Agency Final Order | |
| Mar. 27, 2000 | Recommended Order | The School Board showed that Respondent was incompetent and that it had provided Respondent with opportunities to improve and due process. |
