vs. ) CASE NO. 85-0565
JANNA J. GOSS, )
Respondent. )
Consistent with the Notice of Hearing furnished to the parties on March 13, 1985 by the undersigned, a hearing was held in this case before Arnold H. Pollock, a Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings in Pt. St. Joe, Florida, on April 12, 1985. The issue for consideration was whether Respondent wilfully neglected her duties as a teacher by failing to turn in grades by January 11, 1985.
For the Petitioner: Cecil G. Costin, Jr. Esquire
Port St. Joe, Florida 32456
For the Respondent: Phil J. Padovano, Esquire
On January 14, 1985, the School Board of Gulf County, Florida, suspended the Respondent for five days, of which four and one half days was without pay, because of her failure to complete and turn in her grades due in the administrative office at Pt. St. Joe High School on January 11, 1985. Thereafter, on January 22, 1985, Mr. Bert
Wagnon, Executive Director of Miracle Strip Uniserv, the teacher's union servicing the Respondent, notified the Superintendent of Schools that Respondent requested a formal hearing on the suspension. Thereafter, the file was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the appointment of a Hearing Officer.
At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of Byron W. Wilder, Superintendent of Schools for Gulf County; Edwin G. Williams, Principal of Pt. St. Joe High School; and Lena C. Ramsey, Assistant Principal Designee of that school; and introduced Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 3.
Respondent testified in her own behalf and presented the testimony of Virginia M. Swatts Harrison and Hugh Smith, both teachers at Pt. St. Joe High School.
The parties have submitted posthearing proposed findings of fact pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)4, Florida Statutes. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact has been made either directly or indirectly in this Recommended Order, except where such proposed findings of fact have been rejected as subordinate, cumulative, immaterial, or unnecessary.
At all times pertinent to the issues involved herein, the Respondent, Janna J. Goss, was employed by the Petitioner, School Board of Gulf County, Florida, as a first year biology teacher at Pt. St. Joe High School, Pt. St. Joe, Florida.
The 1984-1985 school year is divided into six grading periods. Three are in the first semester and three are in the second semester. The grades for the third grading period in the first semester were due on January 10, 1985. This deadline was set out in the faculty handbook issued to all teachers, including Respondent, at the beginning of the school year, was contained in a bulletin published on January 7, 1985 and furnished to all teachers, and was announced over the school's loudspeaker system the same day, well in advance of the deadline date.
Under the system employed by Pt. St. Joe High School, each individual teacher is responsible for grading each student's performance and recording the student's grade for the grading period on duplicate report cards in
the school office on the deadline date so that the homeroom teachers can secure these grades and post them on the student's copy of the report card for issue on report card day. Since this was the end of the semester, semester grades were due as well.
Mr. Williams, the school principal, took ill and went on sick leave on December 17, 1984 and did not return to duty until after the Christmas Holidays. However, on December 21, 1984, the Friday that school let out for the holidays, Mr. Williams came to school, attended a meeting with some teachers, heard a grievance complaint, and attended a faculty party in the teachers' lounge prior to dismissing them. At some time during this day, Mr. Williams made a comment regarding the requirement to turn in grades which was construed by several teachers, including the Respondent, as extending the time in which grades were to be turned in. Not only Respondent but two other teachers, Mrs. Harrison and Mr. Smith, indicated that they heard Mr. Williams state on that day, in response to a question about report cards by another teacher, that the teachers had worked hard up to that point, should have a good rest over the holidays, and not worry about school.
He said words to the effect that they had ample time, said by some to have been "several weeks," after the holidays to get their grades in. Not only Respondent but also the other two teachers considered this to be an extension of the January 10th deadline as had been done at both previous grading periods this school year. This comment, which undoubtedly was not meant by Mr. Williams to extend the deadline for submitting grades, was nonetheless construed by Respondent and others as doing just that.
Respondent failed to get her grades in on time and was, in fact, the only teacher to do so. As of January 10, 1985, there were some teachers other than Respondent who had not submitted all grades for all students, but every teacher, with the exception of the Respondent, had submitted some and did submit all grades required by the end of the school day on January 10. Respondent failed to submit any grades by January 10 or, for that matter, by the close of school on January 11.
The failure of a teacher to get grades in on time to support a timely issue of report cards impacts on the school in several ways. The first is the response by parents who are concerned as to the reason for their
children failing to get a particular grade. The second is that the students' grades determine their eligibility to participate in extracurricular activities and the absence of one grade can and does have a substantial impact on the students' averages. A third impact is the effect that the failure to submit has on other teachers who get their grades in on time. In this instant case, according to Mr. Williams, there was one additional impact that might not have transpired at another time. This was that the Honor Roll for Pt. St. Joe High School students for this semester was the only one from all district high schools that did not appear in the paper at the end of the semester. This was caused exclusively by Respondent not getting her grades in. As a result, the Pt. St. Joe High School Honor Roll was published approximately two weeks later.
The requirement to get the grades in by January 10, as was stated above, was reiterated to the teachers by publication in the school bulletin and announcement over the school loudspeaker system on January 7, 1985. At no time between that date and January 9, 1985, did Respondent come to the office and indicate she could not get her grades in on time. On January 10, 1985, Respondent came into Ms. Ramsey's office to explain that her grades would not be ready on time because her activities with the girls' basketball team, which she coached, took up so much time, she was not able to get them done. According to Ms. Ramsey, Respondent made no mention at this time about her misunderstanding of the due date. Ms. Ramsey reported this to Mr. Williams who instructed her to advise Respondent that her grades must be in by close of school on January 11 or she would be suspended. Ms. Ramsey contacted Respondent early on January 11 and advised her that she had spoken with the principal who told her to advise Respondent as stated. At this point, Respondent again started explaining about her extra work involving the basketball team to which Ms. Ramsey responded that only Mr. Williams could excuse her failure.
When this information was communicated to the Respondent, she became upset and left Ramsey's office advising the school secretary at the time to get a substitute teacher to come in because she, Respondent, was leaving. At this point, Ramsey, who had followed Respondent out of the office, told her to wait and do it right. As it was, a substitute teacher was called in and Respondent spent the time working on the grades. Later in
the day Respondent again met with Ms. Ramsey. At this point, Respondent had two union representatives with her. At this meeting, Ms. Ramsey told the Respondent that if the grades were not in by the end of the day, the Principal would recommend a suspension. In response to this, Respondent indicated that as soon as that meeting was over, she was leaving. Ms. Ramsey asked Respondent to come to the school office at the end of the day to see the Superintendent. Respondent complied with this request and the two ladies went to his office that afternoon.
During the meeting with Mr. Wilder, he asked Respondent if she had been informed of the need to get her grades in on time and the implications of her failure to do so. Respondent said she had been. Her explanation that she had too much to do with her extracurricular activities which interfered with getting her grades in on time was not persuasive to Mr. Wilder since other teachers in the system also were involved with extracurricular activities and, nonetheless, were able to comply with the grade deadline. He was, therefore, convinced that her excuse did not justify any extension. While Mr. Wilder does not feel that the Respondent would intentionally miss the deadline, the fact is that she missed it and no one else did and he is convinced that notwithstanding her extracurricular activities, she had plenty of time to complete the task.
As a result, on January 11, 1985, Mr. Wilder advised Respondent by letter that she was suspended from all duties at the high school for five days from January 14 through January 18, 1985 inclusive. The letter indicated that his action was based on her willful neglect of duty and indicated, also, his intention to recommend to the school board that the suspension he imposed be without pay. Thereafter, on January 14, 1985, the school board, at a special meeting, approved the suspension imposed by Mr. Wilder and confirmed that four and one half of the five days suspension would be without pay.
Respondent indicated that during the first two grading periods of the 1984 - 1985 school year, her grades were in on time and she has never been reprimanded for any reason while employed by the school system.
Respondent contends that she was misled by the comments she and others heard the principal make in the library on the morning of December 21, 1984. She took her
grade books and school work home with her for the holidays but due to what she interpreted Mr. Williams' comments to mean, she did not take them with her when she left town for a trip during the holiday.
Among the work she took home were the student workbooks, projects, and semester tests. The six weeks exams had already been graded. However, because of the volume of the work, she was unable to get them completely done during the time prior to and subsequent to her trip. When she returned, the basketball team had several games in a row, some of which were away, as well as practices.
Respondent has 150 students. She used all her planning periods and the hours after each school day from the time school began after the holidays until January 11 to work on the grades. In addition, she took the Wednesday of that week off as a personal leave day work on them. However, she did not work on grades during the ball games or during team practice times. When she heard of the "change" which, to her thinking, took place when she was advised the grades were due on January 10, she was surprised but nonetheless continued to lecture instead of assigning study work during the class period so that she could work on the grades. She knew other teachers who were behind who got help with their grading but she did not request help because, at least as to the science projects and workbooks, these items were the sort of thing that nobody else could grade for her.
She admits that when on the morning of January 10 she told Ms. Ramsey she still had 50 projects to grade and would not get her grades in on time, she was given until the close of the school day on January 11 to get them in. Nonetheless, she failed to do so.
Ms. Goss contends she did not intentionally fail to get the grades in. She would have gotten them in on time but for her belief that Mr. Williams had given an extra period of time to accomplish them. Had she had that extra week, her grades would have been on time. When she discussed with Mr. Williams on January 11, at the suggestion of Ms. Ramsey, that she would not get them in on time, she cited to him his comment as the primary reason for them being late. At this point, Mr. Williams denied making the statement and persisted in his denial at the hearing. No doubt Mr. Williams did not make a definitive
statement extending the time as he had done on both previous grading periods. However, it is clear from Respondent's testimony, supported by that of Mrs. Harrison and Mr. Smith, that he did make some pleasant comment regarding the work schedule which was subject to and actually was misconstrued as authorizing an extension.
To Ms. Goss, the extracurricular activities were subordinate to her academic endeavors which always come first with her. She admits she made a mistake by not discussing what she perceived as the error in times with Mr. Williams or Ms. Ramsey until January 10. In any event, she thought she could get all the grades done in time but just did not realize how long it would take her to grade her projects. Also in retrospect, she recognizes now that someone else could have coached the basketball games that she attended and coached in lieu of getting her grades done during the last week before the deadline. It was more an error in judgment, she claims, than a willful or intentional failure to conform to a school directive.
She contends at this point that when she was asked by Mr. Wilder on January 11 if she had been warned or not, she misunderstood his question. When she answered in the affirmative, she meant she had not been singled out for warning but was one of the group of all teachers who were advised by the administration that the grades were due and that they had to be in on time.
Both Ms. Harrison and Mr. Smith recall situations when, several years in the past, some teachers were late in getting their grades in. In recent years, however, there has been an emphasis placed on getting grades in on time and when it appears that grades are going to be late, the teachers are sent notes to remind them of the due date.
It is clear, then, that Ms. Goss was late in getting her grades in and that she was the only teacher to fail to get them in by the close of the school day on January 11, 1985. It is equally clear, however, that her failure was occasioned at least in part by her misunderstanding, shared by other teachers, that the principal had extended the time when grades were due. This would not have been an unusual occurrence because he had done that on the two prior grading periods this school year.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of these proceedings.
Petitioner has imposed a suspension without pay on the Respondent for her alleged violation of Section 231.36(4)(c), Florida Statutes. This provision states in part:
. . . any member of the instructional staff who is under continuing contract, may be suspended or dismissed at any time during
the school year; however, the charges against him must be based on immorality, misconduct
in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, drunkenness, or con- viction of a crime involving moral turpitude.
The ground cited by the school board here is willful neglect of duty and the situation allegedly supporting this is Respondent's failure to submit grades on her students to the office by the date set out in the faculty handbook and reiterated by other means thereafter.
Before going further, it should be noted that the charge here was made under Section 231.36(4)(c) which applies to staff members who are under continuing contract. Respondent is not under a continuing contract and action against an individual in her position is authorized under Section 231.36(6)(a), Florida Statutes. Regardless, willful neglect of duty is a basis for action under either section and it is obvious that the error was administrative rather than substantive.
There is no doubt that Respondent failed to get her grades in on time and that she was the only teacher in the entire school in that category. There is question, however, as to whether her failure was a "willful" failure or whether it was, at least in part, the result of a misinterpretation of comments made by the principal at the meeting on December 21, 1985.
There is also no doubt that Ms. Goss failed to do all she could to get her grades in on time. She did not take her work with her when she went on her trip during the
holidays. She did not secure a substitute for the basketball games during the period after her return and before the grades were due. Both of these actions, if accomplished, would most probably have allowed her to get her grades in on time and her failure to do them is clearly negligence.
It is also clear, however, that Ms. Goss was led to believe, albeit due to her own misunderstanding, by the comments of Mr. Williams at the meeting in the library on December 21, 1984 that the grades were not due in on January 11, 1985. It is clear that Mr. Williams did not specifically extend the time. However, it is also most likely that in a spirit of conviviality and good will, and in an effort to insure that the teachers did have a restful holiday, he made a comment that was misinterpreted not only by the Respondent but by several other teachers as well and this misunderstanding was as much a cause of the Respondent's failure as her failure to do what she could have done as described above. While it is impossible to assess what percentage of fault lies in each category, it is clear that Ms. Goss did not willfully neglect her duty. It is also clear that she had never been late before and has no disciplinary record. This is her first year in the system and on both of the prior grading periods, the deadline had been extended.
However, she was negligent and she did fail to get her grades in on time. Her failure had several serious, adverse impacts on the school and the students and for this reason disciplinary action in some form is appropriate.
In assessing the nature of this disciplinary action, it is appropriate to consider those factors described by Mr. Wilder and Mr. Williams as impacts on the school caused by Ms. Goss' failure to perform properly. On the other hand, her previously clean record should be considered as well.
RECOMMENDED THAT the suspension without pay imposed on the Respondent for the period January 14 through January
18, 1985 be set aside but that the Respondent be given a Letter of Reprimand for her negligence in failing to insure that her grades were submitted on time and that the Letter of Reprimand be placed in her permanent record.
RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 9th day of May, 1985.
ARNOLD H. POLLOCK
this 9th day of May, 1985.
Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol
Cecil G. Costin, Jr., Esquire Gulf County School Board
P.O. Box 969
Port St. Joe, Florida 32456
Phil J. Padovano, Esquire
P.O. Box 873
