STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to Notice, a formal hearing was held before Diane Cleavinger, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH), on November 6 and 7, 2008, in Leesburg, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioners: Martha Harrell Chumbler, Esquire

Daniel Hernandez, Esquire Carlton Fields, P.A.

Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302

For Respondent: Stephen Johnson, Esquire

McLin & Burnsed, P.A. 1000 West Main Street Leesburg, Florida 34749

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue in this case is whether Respondent had good cause to reject the then Lake County Schools’ Superintendent’s nomination of Petitioner, Dennis Teasley, to be Assistant Principal I of Eustis High School for the 2008-2009 School year.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On June 30, 2008, the School Board of Lake County (Respondent or Board) voted to reject the recommendation of the Superintendent to appoint Petitioner, Dennis Teasley, to the position of Assistant Principal 1 (AP-1) at Eustis High School for the 2008-2009 school year. On August 5, 2008, Petitioners challenged the Board’s decision and a Petition for Formal Hearing was filed. The Petition was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for purposes of hearing.

At the hearing, the parties offered 11 joint exhibits into evidence. Additionally, Petitioners presented the testimony of Dennis Teasley, Anna P. Cowin, Lynn Jones, and Pat Nave, as well as offered Petitioners’ Exhibits 1 through 27 into evidence.

Similarly, the Board presented the testimony of Scott Strong, Karen Sultzer, Jule Hand, Rhonda Lynn, David E. Cunningham, and Kyleen Fischer. The Board also offered Respondent’s Exhibits 1 through 7 into evidence.

After the hearing, Anna P. Cowin’s term as Superintendent ended on November 17, 2008. The new Superintendent filed a

Notice, on December 5, 2008, that the office no longer wished to oppose the action of the Board regarding Mr. Teasley and that the law firm hired by the former Superintendent no longer represented it in this matter. Thereafter, Petitioner Teasley filed a Proposed Recommended Order on December 8, 2008. The Board filed its Proposed Recommended Order on December 9, 2008. All references are to the 2008 edition of the Florida Statutes unless otherwise indicated.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. From 1987 until 2006, Dennis Teasley was employed by the Broward County School System. During those years, he served the school system in a number of capacities, including: dropout prevention teacher from 1987-1988; middle school science teacher from 1988-1999; Assistant Principal of Pines Lakes Elementary from 1999-2004; Intern Principal from 2002-2004; and Principal of Pines Lakes Elementary from 2004-2006.

2. The Intern Principal title was used by Broward County School System to designate an assistant principal as a “principle-in-training.” The designation provided an assistant principal with additional opportunities to become involved on a larger scale with the administrative responsibilities of the school.

3. Mr. Teasley’s performance appraisals from Broward County consistently rated him as “Effective” or “Highly

   Effective” in all the criteria assessed. Additionally,

   
   

   Mr. Teasley received or was nominated for numerous awards based on his performance or the performance of the schools under his charge.

4. For the school year 2003-2004, when Mr. Teasley served as assistant and intern principal, Pines Lakes Elementary earned an “A” rating. For the school years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006, when Mr. Teasley was principal of Pines Lakes Elementary in Broward County, the school earned grades of “B” and “A,” respectively, and achieved AYP each year. “AYP” refers to Adequate Yearly Progress under the No Child Left Behind Act. To achieve AYP, a certain percentage of students from each population demographic represented at the school must achieve a Level 3 or higher in reading and mathematics, as measured by Florida’s “A-Plus” program.

5. Sometime during the summer of 2006, Mr. Teasley either relocated or intended to relocate to the Lake County area. He applied for a position with the Lake County school system. Eventually, he was hired as a principal by Lake County Schools sometime in July, 2006, just prior to the beginning of the 2006- 2007 school year. Mr. Teasley was assigned to Beverly Shores Elementary School.

6. Beverly Shores has a large population of students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, as well as a large population

   of students requiring Exceptional Student Education (ESE). The ESE population includes students designated as Emotionally Handicapped (EH), and Educable Mentally Handicapped (EMH).

   Indeed, 68 percent of the students at Beverly Shores in 2006- 2007 came from economically disadvantaged homes and 11 percent of the students were classified as ESE. The environment of the school was described by most of the witnesses as being a tough environment with a variety of discipline problems.

7. Prior to Mr. Teasley’s appointment as principal, 447 students were suspended from Beverly Shores during the 2005-2006 school year, with 422 students suspended out-of-school (OSS) and

   25 students given in-school suspensions (ISS). Eighty of the students given OSS were kindergartners. The principal for that year was described by the Superintendent as being burned-out and needing a respite from such a tough environment.

8. Mr. Teasley entered this environment with insufficient time to familiarize himself with staff and/or review procedures and policies that were in place. He had one Assistant Principal (AP) to support him. Mr. Teasley’s two goals for the 2006-2007 school year were: 1) improving the academic standing of the school, by raising FCAT scores in mathematics and in the lowest performing quartile of students, all without a reduction in the scores for reading and writing; and 2) reducing the rate of serious discipline incidents by 50 percent. Mr. Teasley wanted

   to redraft the prior year’s disciplinary policy. There was some lack of communication on the status of the redrafted policy between teachers and Mr. Teasley and lack of activity by the committee responsible for the redraft. Eventually, some teachers felt that Mr. Teasley did not support them when it came to disciplinary matters and that Mr. Teasley allowed the students to get out of control.

9. In September or October of 2006, a first-grade student brought a cellophane baggie containing a white powder to school. The police were called to confirm that the substance was cocaine. After confirmation, the child was removed from the custody of his mother, and immediately suspended from school. There was no evidence to suggest that the discipline imposed for this incident was inappropriate.

10. In early September, Mr. Teasley placed an ESE/EH student in a non-ESE class. The student in question had been “retained” (or “held-back”) twice. As a consequence, the student was a seventh-grade-age student in a classroom of third- grade-age children. Mr. Teasley thought that the student’s development would be better met in middle school with similarly aged peers. He, therefore, hoped to have the student reassigned to middle school. While waiting to hear if the reassignment would happen, Mr. Teasley placed him/her in a non-ESE fifth- grade class under the supervision of a teacher with whom he had

    a good rapport. The decision to place the student in the non- ESE classroom was predicated on a number of factors, including Mr. Teasley’s desire to put the child in an environment where he/she could be successful, as well as, safety concerns regarding significantly younger ESE students being in the same class as the ESE student. Unfortunately, the student was not reassigned to the middle school and Mr. Teasley transferred him back to his original class.

11. After the ESE/EH student was returned to his/her original class, the student “jumped” another student after school was dismissed, breaking the other student’s wrist. The ESE student was immediately given an out-of-school suspension (OSS). However, because the child was an EH student, he/she could only be suspended for a cumulative maximum of ten days, without convening a special ESE disciplinary staffing. Since the student had already been suspended for five days earlier in the year, his/her suspension was limited to five days. After this incident, the student’s parent consented to placement in an alternative school and the student was transferred to the Lifestream school. Again, there was no evidence that

    Mr. Teasley’s method of handling this student’s behavior problems was inappropriate given the fact that this student was a special education student and special disciplinary procedures applied to such students.

12. Additionally, during the first semester, there was an on-going concern with a second-grade EH student who was “stalking” a female student. Mr. Teasley attempted to have the EH student assigned to the alternative school. However, the student’s mother was “dead-set” against the assignment and the student remained at Beverly Shores. At the same time,

    Mr. Teasley immediately informed the mother of the child being stalked of what was going on, as well as the steps that were being taken for the girl’s safety. Mr. Teasley assigned an adult to escort the EH student everywhere he/she went on campus. He also rearranged the lunch schedule for the student’s entire class to ensure that the student was not in the cafeteria at the same time as the girl. Again, there was no evidence that demonstrated the steps taken by Mr. Teasley in regard to this EH student were inappropriate given the fact that the student’s mother refused alternative placement and the student was an EH student.

13. Ms. Jule Hand, a kindergarten teacher at Beverly Shores, provided the only direct testimony regarding

    Mr. Teasley’s perceived lack of support for the faculty. Specifically, she recounted incidents in which she personally sent referrals to the administration and was disappointed when a referral was not addressed on the same day it was written, or

    when the consequences were not, in her opinion, suitable for the incident.

14. Ms. Hand testified regarding one incident where a student, with a history of significant disciplinary problems and multiple suspensions, pushed two students in her classroom and then threw down all the chairs around the classroom. In the process of throwing chairs, the child hit her and was physically and verbally abusive to her senior volunteer. Ms. Hand called the office for assistance in removing the child from the classroom. The child was removed and received a verbal reprimand with a warning to discontinue the behavior or harsher consequences would follow. To Ms. Hand’s dismay, the student was returned to the classroom.

15. Ms. Hand went on to detail further incidents of misbehavior by this particular child, such as hitting the physical education teacher, spitting in another child’s face, throwing food, grabbing a child from behind, verbal defiance, swinging a metal pipe, and hitting another student with his/her shoulder hard enough to almost knock her over.

16. During this time, the student’s parent was contacted on numerous occasions by both faculty and administrative personnel. Additionally, the student had been suspended twice during the course of these incidents. However, even with these

    suspensions, the student continued to have disciplinary problems.

17. Mr. Teasley did not want to expel the student and recommended that Ms. Hand contact a social worker and counselor so that the student could be referred to ITOS, a behavioral- intervention study. Eventually, the student left Beverly Shores to attend the study. However, the year following Mr. Teasley’s term as principal, the student returned to Beverly Shores and continued to have behavioral problems. Again, the evidence did not demonstrate that Mr. Teasley’s handling of this matter was inappropriate, given Mr. Teasley’s desire not to expel the student.

18. Ms. Karen Seltzer also testified at hearing about her impressions of the discipline problems at Beverly Shores under Mr. Teasley. Some of her testimony involved the EH student referenced above who again began stalking during the second half of the school year. Ms. Seltzer’s testimony was quite confusing and based on hearsay she had gathered from discussions with other teachers who did not testify at hearing. Furthermore, she also testified that she was unaware of the actions taken by

    Mr. Teasley in response to the incidents she related.

    
    

19. The Assistant Superintendent, Mr. Cunningham, observed the students and environment of Beverly Shores during his visits in the first semester of the school year. The visits were

    prompted by complaints he or the Superintendent had received about the lack of discipline at Beverly Shores.

20. During his visits to Beverly Shores, Mr. Cunningham observed behaviors that he reported to Mr. Teasley as situations that should be addressed from a discipline and control standpoint. He witnessed students traveling about the campus unsupervised by adults, as well as various unsafe behaviors such as running and jumping. There was some testimony from staff that indicated Mr. Cunningham’s observations regarding unsupervised students were not isolated incidents.

    Mr. Cunningham also saw classrooms that were cut-off from casual observation (e.g., the blinds were drawn). He also testified that at the beginning and the end of the day, when the entire student body was on the move, he observed that teachers were not “on duty” supervising the movement of students. He instructed Mr. Teasley that during those times it was especially important that teachers be in “supervisory mode.” Mr. Cunningham did not return to Beverly Shores until just before the end of the school year.

21. At some point around March 2007, a parent named Ms. Burry contacted Mr. Teasley about obtaining a Sheriff’s

    Resource Officer (SRO) for Beverly Shores. Ms. Burry thought a uniformed officer on campus would help with student discipline. Even though a SRO is not involved with student discipline,

    Mr. Teasley felt that a uniformed officer on campus would serve as a positive role model at Beverly Shores. In support of

    Ms. Burry, Mr. Teasley attended a March 12, 2007, Leesburg City Commission meeting in which parents and teachers sought funding for an SRO at Beverly Shores. He spoke in favor of the idea.

    The City Commission referred the request back to the Board. At that point, Mr. Teasley felt that the SRO issue was “out of his hands.” Ms. Burry began to contact the Board and Superintendent about her desire for an SRO on campus and the need for greater discipline in the school.

22. Around March or April 2007, Mr. Cunningham was again contacted by parents who were concerned about safety at Beverly Shores. At about the same time, a representative from the teacher’s union had come to him with concerns about the administration at Beverly Shores and “suggested pretty strongly that they might file a grievance” regarding Mr. Teasley’s performance. Mr. Cunningham did not identify which or how many parents voiced concerns to him. Likewise, he did not identify which or how many teacher complaints created the impetus for the union to consider filing a grievance. None of the parents testified at the hearing.

23. On April 30, 2007, Mr. Teasley sent a letter to Assistant Superintendent Cunningham requesting that an additional assistant principal be assigned to Beverly Shores.

    As indicated earlier, Beverly Shores operated with one AP in 2006-2007. The letter, in part recognized there was a significant disciplinary problem at Beverly Shores and that the school did not have adequate administrative staff to handle the number of disciplinary referrals. Mr. Teasley made the request based on the approximately 1,200 disciplinary referrals the administration had processed through April 19th of the school year and the amount of time spent on processing those referrals. Mr. Teasley stated that the time spent processing those referrals reduced the time administrators were able to spend in classrooms or on campus. The number of disciplinary referrals was due, in part, to Mr. Teasley’s philosophy of using OSS as a disciplinary tool of last resort. In his view, a child cannot be educated if they are not in school.

24. At some point, the Superintendent became aware of the complaints and problems at Beverly Shores and decided to meet with the staff and faculty to assess the situation at the school.

25. In May of 2007, the Superintendent held two meetings with some teachers and staff of Beverly Shores. Ms. Rhonda Lynn attended those meetings. Her interpretation of the tone of the first meeting was that some members of the faculty and staff were frustrated and searching for leadership and that such leadership should have been provided by the principal and his

    administration. Some teachers and staff in attendance voiced complaints about Mr. Teasley’s lack of discipline and control of the student population. The Superintendent indicated such complaints would remain confidential. At the second meeting with the Superintendent, Mr. Teasley was present and either various complaints were mentioned by the Superintendent in

    Mr. Teasley’s presence or he was clearly aware of the complaints that had been made in the first meeting. Ms. Lynn’s interpretation of the tone of the second meeting was that the Superintendent had breached the confidentiality promised the staff in the first meeting regarding complaints about

    Mr. Teasley and that the staff was very upset over that breach. Ms. Lynn admitted that she could not speak for how every teacher at Beverly Shores felt about Mr. Teasley.

26. Ms. Lynn stated that she never had any discussions with Mr. Teasley regarding an explicit philosophy for dealing with students who had received multiple referrals. She also testified that she had no responsibilities for the processing of disciplinary referrals.

27. Throughout the time period outlined above, Mr. Teasley was formally evaluated by the School District. Originally,

    Mr. Cunningham would have been assigned to perform Mr. Teasley’s evaluation. However, at the time he would have performed the evaluation, Mr. Cunningham was assigned other duties within the

    District. Therefore, Ms. Pat Nave, Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, K-12, completed Mr. Teasley’s evaluation.

28. In the course of performing her evaluation of

    
    

    Mr. Teasley, Ms. Nave made four separate visits to the Beverly Shores’ campus. During those visits, Ms. Nave and Mr. Teasley would discuss a number of different topics regarding the operation of the school.

29. Specifically, Ms. Nave and Mr. Teasley discussed his policies for monitoring faculty and student conduct. One such tool for monitoring the campus was a structured system for scheduling the weekly classroom walk-through assignments by members of the school’s leadership team. Based on the reports Mr. Teasley would receive as a result of these walkthroughs, Mr. Teasley would follow up with individual teachers regarding their performance.

30. Additionally, during the evaluation visits, Ms. Nave and Mr. Teasley would discuss the goals that Mr. Teasley had established at the beginning of the year to gauge the school’s progress in the areas he had identified as needing improvement. As noted earlier, those goals were: 1) improving the academic standing of the school, by raising FCAT scores in mathematics and in the lowest performing quartile of students, all without a

    reduction in the scores for reading and writing; and 2) reducing the rate of serious discipline incidents by 50 percent.

31. Ms. Nave concluded that all of the strategies that had been outlined for reaching those two goals had been, or were being, implemented. With regards to discipline, she specifically noted that referrals had decreased. Indeed, the evidence demonstrated that out-of-school suspensions decreased from 422 the previous year to 221 for the current year and that on-going concerns were being addressed through the safety and discipline committee Mr. Teasley had established, even though the evidence at the hearing showed that this committee was not very active. Additionally, there was some suggestion at the hearing that disciplinary referrals may have been down because Mr. Teasley was not processing such referrals. There was no competent evidence to support such a conclusion. Evidence did demonstrate that Mr. Teasley preferred ISS to OSS. Toward that end, the ISS procedure was altered from the way it had been operated in the years prior to his tenure at Beverly Shores. During the course of the 2006-2007 school year, Mr. Teasley hired a teacher to monitor the ISS room and provide instruction when necessary, eliminated the practice of sending children to the ISS room as a “time-out” by requiring administrator approval, and required teachers to supply the child’s lessons

    for the periods that the child was in ISS so that the student could keep up with his or her classes.

32. Finally, Ms. Nave discussed the School Advisory Council’s (SAC) performance rating of Mr. Teasley. SAC had given Mr. Teasley a mixed satisfaction rating at one of its meetings. At that meeting, eight members of SAC were present. Four of those members voted that Mr. Teasley was doing a satisfactory job. Four voted that Mr. Teasley was doing an unsatisfactory job. Ms. Nave and Mr. Teasley, nonetheless, discussed the issue of the need to foster a productive working relationship with SAC. After the discussion, Ms. Nave was satisfied that Mr. Teasley was taking appropriate actions to continue working with SAC members to implement changes at Beverly Shores.

33. As a result of this performance review, Mr. Teasley received the maximum amount of points on his evaluation and met the performance criteria of that evaluation.

34. After the evaluation and three weeks before the end of the school year, a fifth-grade student at Beverly Shores wrapped the leather portion of his belt around his hand and began to swing the belt, striking students and adults with the metal buckle. Mr. Teasley and AP Jeff Williams were called to the classroom to assist with restraining and removing the student. Once they got the student to the office, Mr. Teasley immediately

    notified the police that a battery had occurred, suspended the student for the ten-day maximum suspension period, and began the expulsion process. The student did not return to school that year. No suggestion was made that Mr. Teasley’s response to this event was inappropriate.

35. The belt incident garnered media attention. Shortly after the incident, the Superintendent went to the Beverly Shores campus, but could not locate Mr. Teasley in his office or on campus. She, therefore, sent Mr. Cunningham to the school. Eventually, she assigned Mr. Cunningham, along with Messrs. Mitchell and Habring, to Beverly Shores for the remainder of the school year. The Board also authorized the placement of an SRO at Beverly Shores. Mr. Cunningham testified that within a few days of the assignment of the extra personnel, the discipline situation began to improve and the school began to operate in an orderly way.

36. Mr. Cunningham stated that he started to do the things that he had told Mr. Teasley needed to be done earlier in the year. The actions of Mr. Cunningham included administrative staff becoming more visible on campus while students were in transit from one place to another and dealing with each and every referral on the day in which it was written. Importantly, these actions were accomplished with a significant increase in administrative personnel.

37. From an academic standpoint, there can be no question that Beverly Shores made significant improvements under

    Mr. Teasley’s direction. Evidence admitted at hearing showed that the school grades from the Department of Education (DOE) based on the students’ FCAT performance for Beverly Shores for the six school years prior to Mr. Teasley’s tenure (i.e., 2000- 2001 through 2005-2006) were “C”, “B”, “B”, “B”, “C” and “C”,

    respectively.

    
    

38. During Mr. Teasley’s time as principal, Beverly Shores earned a grade of “A.” Beverly Shores also achieved AYP. Additionally, Beverly Shores had increases in the percentage of students meeting high standards in mathematics, as well as an increase in the percentage of students in the lower-quartile who made learning gains. The school’s grades did not decrease in the areas of reading and writing. These improvements show that the school was successful in achieving the academic goals that Mr. Teasley had identified at the beginning of the year. It should also be noted that such improvements were also due to the efforts of teachers and other staff at the school.

39. Due to this achievement, Mr. Teasley was one of only

    
    

    92 principals in the state to receive recognition as a “Turn- Around” Principal in 2006-2007. The “Turn-Around” award recognizes the principal of a school which improves by at least two letter-grades in one academic year.

40. In 2007-2008, the year after Mr. Teasley’s tenure, Beverly Shores’ grade fell back to a “C” and the school failed to make AYP.

41. The evidence did not demonstrate that Mr. Teasley had more discipline problems at his school than in prior years. There was some evidence to demonstrate that there may have been some student control problems related to monitoring the passageways of the school. Those problems were in part due to a lack of sufficient administrative staff to patrol the school. There was also some evidence to demonstrate that Mr. Teasley had lost the support of some of the faculty because he would return students to the teacher’s classroom or not assess a harsher penalty for misbehavior. However, there was only one teacher who testified to support that conclusion. Other staff testimony regarding lack of support and lack of discipline was based on hearsay. Just as Beverly Shore’s grade was not dependent on one person, Beverly Shores alleged discipline and student control problems cannot be attributed to one person. One teacher’s testimony coupled with hearsay and vague testimony is insufficient evidence to conclude that Mr. Teasley was no longer professionally qualified to perform in some capacity within the School District.

42. At a May 21, 2007 Board meeting, Mr. Cunningham gave a report of the actions that had been taken at Beverly Shores to

    deal with discipline during the time he was assigned there. He also made suggestions for improving the discipline situation at the school going forward. Some of the suggestions involved actions previously sought by Mr. Teasley.

43. At about the same time, the 2006-2007 school year came to a close. The Superintendent began to finalize the academic teams she would recommend to the Board for the 2007-2008 school year. In fact, for the next year, 2007-2008, the Superintendent and the Board recognized the need for additional supervisory staff at Beverly Shores and appointed two APs and a behavioral specialist to the school.

44. The Superintendent was mindful of the events at Beverly Shores and the fact that some of the faculty and staff had lost confidence in Mr. Teasley’s ability to lead the school as principal. She decided not to recommend Mr. Teasley for principal at Beverly Shores. However, she did not want to lose Mr. Teasley’s skills as an administrator and recommended him for a district level administrative position for the 2007-2008 school year. The Superintendent’s recommendation was accepted by the Board and Mr. Teasley fulfilled the duties of that position during the 2007-2008 school year.

45. At the close of the 2007-2008 school year, the Superintendent again created staffing recommendations for the 2008-2009 school year. Toward that end, the Superintendent

    created staffing recommendations to the Board that considered many factors. The most important factor was the creation of administrative teams for each school that would serve as that school’s “instructional leaders.” Similarly, it was very important that at least one member of an administrative team be well-versed in making learning-gains, raising student achievement and school grades. Mr. Teasley was clearly well- versed and well-qualified in such areas.

46. The Superintendent recognized that since the 1998-1999 school year, Eustis High School had earned a grade of “C”, except for the year 2006-2007, when the school’s grade was “D.” Because of the high school’s performance, the Superintendent intended to make changes at Eustis High School to attempt to address the academic problems and raise the school’s academic performance. Additionally, the school was not known for having any extraordinary disciplinary issues.

47. Mr. Larry was the principal of Eustis High School. He had been appointed the principal of the school because of his success in implementing advanced programs as a principal at the middle-school level. Mr. Larry was also very strong on discipline, had 4 other APs and did not require additional help in the area of discipline. Therefore, the Superintendent was not worried about discipline-related issues at Eustis High School.

48. In putting together an educational team for the school, the Superintendent wanted to place a person who had demonstrated their ability to raise a school’s academic achievement and performance. As indicated, the Superintendent did not want to place Mr. Teasley back at Beverly Shores because that educational team had not been successful. However,

    Mr. Teasley had skills in school improvement that were very useful to the District.

49. She recommended Mr. Teasley for appointment as one of Eustis High School’s five APs. Her recommendation was based on Mr. Teasley’s proven ability in achieving AYP, his ability to analyze the raw performance data for AYP and to work with teachers to raise the test scores which form the basis of a school’s grade. Indeed, the Superintendent felt that

    Mr. Teasley was one of the strongest individuals she could recommend to Eustis High School to work with the current administration and to help improve the school’s academic performance.

50. Mr. Larry indicated to the Superintendent that he could work with Mr. Teasley. There was no direct testimony given at the hearing of how Mr. Larry wanted to use Mr. Teasley at Eustis High School, although there was some hearsay testimony that Mr. Teasley would be placed at the Curtright Center, a

    separate ninth grade center that is approximately 1.5 miles from the main high school campus.

51. The Superintendent recommended Mr. Teasley for the position of AP-1 at Eustis High School. Ultimately, the Board rejected the Superintendent’s recommendation.

52. The testimony at hearing and the evidence admitted shows that the primary reason that the Board rejected the Superintendent’s nomination was because of the Board’s lack of confidence in Mr. Teasley’s ability to maintain discipline and control at Eustis High School.

53. Mr. Cunningham, Assistant Superintendent for Administration and Safety, testified that he did not believe that Mr. Teasley was qualified to serve as an AP-1 at Eustis High School. He based that opinion on his observations at Beverly Shores during the 2006-2007 school year and his opinion that if one loses his administrative authority at an elementary school, that person has “no business” as an administrator of a high school. Mr. Cunningham did not offer an opinion on the academic-improvement functions the Superintendent intended

    Mr. Teasley perform in the academic team to which she assigned

    
    

    him.

    
    

54. In addition, the individual members of the Board

    
    

    testified regarding their reasons for rejecting the Superintendent’s recommendation.

55. Mr. Strong testified that his basis for rejecting the Superintendent’s recommendation related to the situation at Beverly Shores during the 2006-2007 school year; particularly, the perceived lack of administrative discipline that created a disorderly educational environment, and the Board’s decision in May of 2007 to place an SRO at the school. He also stated that his vote was influenced by the public input of Ms. Pam Burtnett, president of the Lake County Education Association (“LCEA”), received by the Board at the June 23, 2008 meeting, and by his conversations in the spring of 2007 with one parent and one teacher from Beverly Shores, Ms. Denise Burry and

    Ms. Bordenkircher, respectively. Ms. Burtnett was not a teacher at Beverly Shores. Neither Ms. Burry nor Ms. Bordenkircher testified at hearing.

56. However, Mr. Strong also testified that prior to the School Board meeting on May 7, 2007, no one had previously raised the issue of discipline at Beverly Shores at any previous Board meeting, and that he never personally witnessed any discipline problems at Beverly Shores.

57. Ms. Kyleen Fischer testified that she had visited the Beverly Shores campus while it was under the direction of

    Mr. Teasley. Specifically, she testified that she observed that Beverly Shores’ students were not under control and that they were disrespectful. Based on her observations, she felt that

    the appointment of Mr. Teasley to Eustis High School would create a safety issue.

58. Ms. Cindy Barrow testified that she did not believe Mr. Teasley possessed the necessary knowledge, skills and abilities to serve as a high school AP-1. She based her belief on information gathered from many different sources, including reports such as the 2006-2007 climate survey, conversations with Mr. Cunningham and Ms. Burry, reports given orally to the Board at the May 21, 2007 and June 23, 2008, Board meetings, and the fact that 22 teachers and one guidance counselor left the school during or after the 2006-2007 school year. However, she did not speak to any of the departing personnel regarding their reasons for leaving, nor did she testify as to any of the specifics regarding the above.

59. Ms. Barrow’s belief was that Mr. Teasley had not been able to maintain order or deal with behavioral problems at Beverly Shores and, therefore, he would not be successful at dealing with behavioral problems at Eustis High School. However, Ms. Barrow admitted that she had never been to Beverly Shores. She believes that a primary duty of any high school

    AP-1 is to handle disciplinary issues. However, she also testified that she had no specific conversations with Mr. Larry or the Superintendent about how either planned to use

    Mr. Teasley as AP-1 at Eustis High School.

60. Mr. Metz, who testified that he had never visited Beverly Shores during its hours of operation prior to May of 2007, stated that his decision to vote against the Superintendent’s recommendation was based on the situation at Beverly Shores in the Spring of 2007, his written and verbal communications with concerned parties, and Ms. Burtnett’s presentation to the Board in June of 2008.

61. The Board re-reviewed the issues the Superintendent had already considered in creating her educational teams at the various schools and in making her recommendations to the Board. The Board concluded that Mr. Teasley was not qualified to serve as an AP-1 at Eustis High School based on very broad generalizations about appropriate discipline. The Board’s action was not based on any knowledge regarding the role

    Mr. Teasley would play in the Eustis administration. As indicated, the Superintendent, as is her authority, considered all of the issues surrounding Mr. Teasley’s tenure at Beverly Shores. She also recognized the successes in academic improvement achieved during Mr. Teasley’s tenure and that those skills were needed at Eustis High School. The Superintendent assembled an administrative team after discussing the team members with the principal of the High School and assuring as much as possible that Mr. Teasley could function within that team. The evidence did not demonstrate that the Board’s

    assessment should trump the Superintendent’s recommendation regarding Mr. Teasley, especially given the fact that

    Mr. Teasley had many years of good performance evaluations as an AP in Broward County and a good performance evaluation in Lake County. As a consequence, the Board has failed to carry its burden of showing “good cause” to reject the Superintendent’s recommendation and the Superintendent’s recommendation should be accepted.

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

62. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and the parties to this proceeding. § 120.57(1), Fla. Stat.

63. Section 1012.22(1)(a), Florida Statutes, states as follows, in pertinent part:

    
    

    1012.22. Public School personnel; powers and duties of the district school board.

    
    

    The district school board shall:

    
    

    1. Designate positions to be filled, prescribe qualifications for those positions, and provide for the appointment, compensation, promotion, suspension, and dismissal of employees as follows, subject to the requirements of this chapter:

       
       

       1. Positions, qualifications, and appointments.--

          
          

          1. The district school board shall act upon written recommendations submitted by the

             district school superintendent for positions to be filled, for minimum qualifications for personnel for the various positions, and for the persons nominated to fill such positions.

             
             

          2. The district school board may reject for good cause any employee nominated.

          (Emphasis supplied.)

          
          

          * * *

          
          

          4. The district school board’s decision to reject a person’s nomination does not give that person a right of action to sue over the rejection and may not be used as a cause of action by the nominated employee.

          
          

64. 0n the other hand, Section 1012.27, Florida Statutes, states in part:

    The district school superintendent is responsible for directing the work of the personnel, subject to the requirements of this chapter, and in addition the district school superintendent shall perform the following:

    
    

    1. Positions, qualifications, and nominations.—

       
       

       1. Recommend to the district school board duties and responsibilities which need to be performed and positions which need to be filled to make possible the development of an adequate school program in the district.

          
          

       2. Recommend minimum qualifications of personnel for these various positions, and nominate in writing persons to fill such positions.

          
          

          * * *

          
          

          (7) Direct work of employees and supervise instruction.--Direct or arrange for the

          proper direction and improvement, under rules of the district school board, of the work of all members of the instructional staff and other employees of the district school system, supervise or arrange under rules of the district school board for the supervision of instruction in the district, and take such steps as are necessary to bring about continuous improvement.

          
          

65. The courts have construed these statutes to divide the responsibilities of contracting with district employees. The Superintendent’s duty is to select and nominate personnel, while it is the School Board’s duty to appoint and contract with employees nominated by the Superintendent. The Board has no authority to select such personnel. Von Stephens v. Sch. Bd. of Sarasota County, 338 So. 2d 890, 893 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). See

    also McCalister v. School Board of Bay County, et al., 971 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Buckner v. School Board of Glades County, 718 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1998); and Pitman v.

    Barker, 118 Fla. 380, 160 So. 362 (Fla. 1935). The only authority a board has to reject a Superintendent’s nomination is upon a finding of good cause. Greene, as Superintendent of Schools of Hamilton County v. Sch. Bd. of Hamilton County, 444 So. 2d 500, 501 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). It is not good cause for a school board to simply disagree with the Superintendent’s assessment of a nominee’s qualifications. Such assessment is clearly within the Superintendent’s authority. See McCalister, supra, and Bruckner, supra.

66. The School Board must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it has good cause to reject the Superintendent’s recommendation. Von Stephens v. Sch. Bd. of Sarasota County,

    338 So. 2d 890, 893 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Dileo v. Sch. Bd. of

    
    

    Dade County, 569 So. 2d 883, 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Jones v. Escambia County Sch. Bd., Case No. 97-3763, 1998 Fla. Div.

    Admin. Hear. LEXIS 5569 (Recommended Order Oct. 15, 1998).

    
    

67. In determining whether good cause exists to reject a nomination, a school board may consider the published principles governing Florida’s education profession as set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1. Spurlin v. School Board of Sarasota County, 520 So. 2d 294, 297 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1988). Additionally, the term “good cause” includes any conduct for which a member of a district’s administrative or supervisory staff may be suspended or dismissed, including but not limited to, misconduct in office. §§ 231.36 (1)(a) and 231.36 (4)(c), Fla. Stat.

68. On the other hand, “good cause” is not limited to specific statutory or rule offenses, which would result in a suspension or dismissal from employment or a license disciplinary proceeding. Spurlin, 520 So. 2d at 296-297. A school board may reject a nominee for reasons associated with his or her past performance of duties and his or her conduct as related to the role and personnel such employee must work with.

    Spurlin, 520 So. 2d 294, 296-97 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)(finding that, when considering a Superintendent’s recommendation for appointment of personnel, the Board is permitted to consider whether the person recommended is either morally or professionally qualified for the position). See also State ex rel. Lawson v. Cherry, 47 So. 2d 768, 769 (Fla. 1950) (finding that, absent some moral or professional disqualification, the Superintendent’s recommendation for principal could not be rejected); Foreman v. Columbia County Sch. Bd., 429 So. 2d 383,

    384 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (School Board members’ statements regarding their positions and belief that good cause existed found insufficient to support rejection of Superintendent’s nomination). Compare Bruckner, 718 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 1998) (finding that while not establishing an absolute rule, it is contrary to statutory assessment procedures to find good cause for rejecting a nominee unless extraordinary matters arise outside the scope of those assessment procedures).

69. In this case, the preponderance of the evidence indicates that the Respondent did not have good cause to question the qualifications and ability of Mr. Teasley to be the Assistant Principal I at Eustis High School. At best, the evidence demonstrated that additional personnel was needed at Beverly Shores to adequately discipline and provide for the safety and welfare of the children at Beverly Shores Elementary

School. The issues at Beverly Shores did not reflect on

Mr. Teasley’s ability to perform as an Assistant Principal at Eustis High School. Mr. Teasley has a long history of successfully performing the duties of both a principal and an assistant principal in Broward County. He did not leave his abilities or training at the county line when he moved to Lake County. The selection of teams that can work together is a function of the Superintendent’s office. In this case, the Superintendent placed Mr. Teasley on an educational team that she felt would work better than the educational team at Beverly Shores. There was no evidence, short of speculation, that indicated that the Superintendent’s judgment regarding

Mr. Teasley was incorrect. Therefore, the Superintendent’s nomination of Mr. Teasley should have been accepted by the School Board.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is

RECOMMENDED: that the Board enter a Final Order reversing its earlier decision and accepting the nomination of the Superintendent.

DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of March, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

DIANE CLEAVINGER

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 6th day of March, 2009.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Susan E. Moxley, Ed.D. Superintendent

School District of Lake County, Florida

201 West Burleigh Boulevard Tavares, Florida 32778

Stephen W. Johnson, Esquire McLin & Burnsed

Post Office Box 491357 Leesburg, Florida 34749-1357

Martha Harrell Chumbler, Esquire Carlton Fields, P.A.

215 South Monroe Street, Suite 500 Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0190

Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1244

325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1514

325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

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.

Docket for Case No: 08-004192

Orders for Case No: 08-004192