THE SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA ROBERT W. RUNCIE, as Superintendent of Schools, Petitioner, v. TORRANCE SMITH, Respondent. —/S ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT Petitioner, Robert W. Runcie, Superintendent of Schools (“Petitioner”), files this Administrative Complaint against, TORRANCE SMITH (“SMITH”). The Petitioner seeks the termination of Respondent’s employment with the School Board of Broward County (“SBBC”), pursuant to Sections 1001.51, 1012.27(5) and 1012.33, Florida Statutes, The Petitioner alleges the following: JURISDICTIONAL BASIS 1. The agency is the School Board of Broward County, Florida, which is located at 600 Southeast Third Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida 33301. 2. Petitioner is the Superintendent of SBBC. 3. Petitioner is statutorily obligated to recommend the placement of school personnel and to require compliance and observance with all laws, rules and regulations. Petitioner is authorized to report and enforce any violation thereof, together with recommending the appropriate disciplinary action against any instructional personnel employed by the SBBC, 4. Respondent, was employed, at all times material herein, as a elementary school teacher at Larkdale Elementary School, pursuant to a Professional Services Contract, issued in accordance with Section 1012.33(3)(a), Florida Statutes. MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS 5. Prior to September 2011, SMITH was under investigation regarding misconduct allegations in two (2) separate matters. As result, and during the investigations, SMITH was administratively reassigned to the Material Logistics Department on August 15, 2011 and reported to the manager. 6. On August 15, 2011, SMITH executed the Material Logistics Guidelines (“Guidelines”), which required SMITH to report and clock in when arriving for work, clock out/in for lunch period and clock out at the end of his work schedule. The Guidelines prohibited SMITH from leaving the work site after clocking in without prior approval from the manager or his designee. 7. On November 17, 2011 at 11:20 a.m., the foreman received documents for SMITH to sign. SMITH, despite paging and a search of the premises was unable to be located. The foreman asked another individual Ventrell Battle (“Battle”), about SMITH’s whereabouts. Battle informed the foreman that SMITH left the work site for a meeting with his representative. SMITH was called and stated he did not clock out because he did not want to lose the pay. SMITH was reminded of the Guideline’s requirement to clock in/out and the use of personal leave for such purposes. 8. The foreman subsequently checked SMITH’s and Battle’s time card and noted their clock-in times were identical. The video footage of the worksite was reviewed by the foreman. SMITH was not on the worksite premises at any time that morning. Instead, the video footage showed only Battle at the clock and at the time indicated on SMITH’s time card. 9. SMITH, when asked the following day, what time he left the building, falsely claimed 10:30 a.m. The foreman then noted that time on SMITH’s time card, and had SMITH confirm his statement by initialing the time card. SMITH subsequently submitted a personal leave form for the time from 10:30 a.m., thereby attesting he was at work prior to 10:30 a.m. 10. On November 28, 2011, the episode repeated itself, SMITH could not be located on the premises. Battle, when asked, stated SMITH clocked in and was on the premises. SMITH called the clerk and stated he heard the foreman was looking for him. SMITH then claimed that he had left his credit card at a gas station that morning. Then called to notify him, requiring him to leave and retrieve the card. Video footage depicts that SMITH clocked in at 7:48 a.m. His earlier clock-in at 7:02 a.m. was done by Battle. 11, Areview of video footage depicted seven (7) occasions from November 7 through November 16th, 2011 where Battle clocked-in for SMITH. A review of SMITH and Battle’s time cards show eleven (11) occasions in September and October where they had identical clock-in times. On four (4) other occasions SMITH and Battle clocked-in within a minute of each other. 12, SMITH refused to appear for and provide an administrative statement claiming a Fifth Amendment privilege. His action constitutes gross insubordination or a willful neglect of his duties as a school board employee. ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES 13. Just cause exists for the tequested relief, pursuant to Fla. Stat, §§ 1012.33(1)(a). Respondent's employment contract and School Board rules and regulations, including but not limited to the following: COUNT 1: IMMORALITY i4, Respondent has violated Fla. Stat. § 1012.33, and Rule 6B-4.009(2) of the Florida Administrative Code, Respondent's acts constitute acts of immorality, that is, conduct inconsistent with the standards of public conscience and good morals. Respondent’s conduct is sufficiently notorious to bring Respondent and/or the educational profession into public disgrace or disrespect, and impair Respondent’s service in the community. OUNT 2 MISCO CT FF) 15. Respondent has violated Fla. Stat. 1012.33 and Rule 6B-4,009(3) of the Florida Administrative Code. Respondent’s acts are defined as a violation of the Code of Ethics of the Educational Profession as adopted in Rule 6B-1.001 F.A.C. and of Principles of Professional Conduct for the Educational Provisions in Florida, as adopted by Rule 6B-1.006, F.A.C., which are SO Serious so as to impair the individual's effectiveness in the school system, which includes the following: (4) Obligation to the public requires that the individual: (b) shall not intentionally distort or misrepresent facts concerning an educational matter in direct or indirect public expression. (c) _ shall not use institutional privileges for personal gain or advantage. (5) Obligation to the profession of education requires that the individual: (a) _ shall maintain honesty in all professional dealings. (h) shall not submit fraudulent information on any document in connection with professional activities, T 3: RAL TURPITUD. 16. Respondent has violated Fla. Stat. § 1012.33 and Rule 6B-4,009(6) of the Florida Administrative Code. Respondent's acts constitute acts of moral turpitude, that is, acts of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties, which, according to the accepted standards of the time, a person owes to his fellow human or to society in general, and the doing of the act itself and not its prohibition by statute fixes the moral turpitude. T.4: S. ORDINATION OR WILLFUL NEGLECT OF DUTIE: 17. Respondent has violated Fla, Stat. § 1012.33 and Rule 6B-4,009(4) of the Florida Administrative Code, Respondent’s acts constitutes acts of gross insubordination or willful neglect of duties as defined as a constant or continuing intentional refusal to obey a direct order, reasonable in nature, and given by and with proper authority. DEMAND FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, based upon the foregoing, Petitioner, Robert W. Runcie, Superintendent of Schools, recommends the dismissal of the Respondent, TORRANCE SMITH, from his employment with the School Board of Broward County, based upon the foregoing facts and legal authority. Petitioner further, recommends the immediate suspension of Respondent without further pay or benefits in the event the Respondent should challenge the school board’s recommendation of the termination of his employment. EXECUTED this 2S day of July, 201 OBERT W. RUNCIE, Superintendent of Schools, Broward County Attn: Charles T. Whitelock, Esq. Cadre Attorney

Docket for Case No: 12-002860TTS