vs. ) Case No. 85-4118
Respondent. )
6 and 7, 1986, and also April 14, 1986, before Donald D. Conn, a duly designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings. The parties were represented as follows:
Petitioner: Frank C. Kruppenbacher, Esquire Post Office Box 640
Respondent: Grafton B. Wilson, II, Esquire
The issue in this case is whether the School Board of Alachua County, Petitioner, has established grounds for the dismissal of Geoffrey Pyne, Respondent, who was a mathematics teacher in the Alachua County school system. At the hearing, Petitioner introduced thirty-eight (38) exhibits, including the depositions of Respondent and Elsie Marie Allen, and called eight (8) witnesses Respondent introduced eight (8) exhibits, including the deposition of Thomas F. Tomlinson, and called eight (8) witnesses: and nineteen (19) joint exhibits were also introduced, including various depositions.
During the hearing on March 7, 1986, counsel for Respondent was allowed to conduct a proffered examination of Mrs. Elsie Marie Allen. Having reviewed all of the evidence in this case and after considering Petitioner's objection to those portions
of Mrs. Allen's testimony which have been proffered (Transcript, Day II, pages 151-161), Petitioner's objection is hereby sustained and proffered testimony is hereby stricken as irrelevant and has not been considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order.
The parties were allowed to submit posthearing proposed findings of fact by June 30, 1986 pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and a ruling on timely filed proposed findings is included in the Appendix to this Recommended Order. The last volume of the transcript was filed on May 6,
1986.
Geoffrey Pyne, Respondent, was employed by the Alachua County School System on August 19, 1976 as a mathematics teacher. From August, 1976 to January, 1985, Respondent taught mathematics at Mebane Middle School, and served as chairman of the math department at Mebane from August, 1979 to May, 1984. At all times material hereto Respondent was under continuing contract with Petitioner. As reflected in his personnel file,
Respondent, is certified in middle school mathematics, and has a masters degree in middle school education which he earned in 1979 from the University of Florida.
Terry Steckmiller became principal at Mebane in 1983 and has served in that capacity for the 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86 school years. He informed Respondent in May, 1984 that Respondent would not be continuing as chairman of the math department for the 1984-85 school year, but that his employment would continue as a member of the math department.
On January 9, 1985, Respondent was suspended, with pay, by letter from Superintendent D. P. Magann which stated, in pertinent part:
This action is taken because of your continuing exhibition of unacceptable behavior in the performance of your responsibilities as a professional employee of the Board. In reaching this decision, I have reviewed with staff the numerous instances of erratic behavior and emotional outbursts directed toward the administrative staff and your peers.
Respondent remained suspended, with pay, until May 22, 1985 when he was terminated from the payroll.
By letter dated March 4, 1985, Superintendent Magann recommended that Petitioner dismiss Respondent, and notified Respondent as follows:
. . . I am charging you with gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, and violation of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida. . . .
(because) you intentionally refused, on more than one occasion, to follow clearly defined instructions, reasonable in nature, and given by proper authority, in the manner in which you implemented the pre-algebra curriculum at Mebane Middle School, which manner constituted willful neglect of duty.
Further, evidence will be presented that you engaged in unethical behavior in that you harassed and threatened other teachers and administrators in a verbal and near physical manner even after having been given direct orders by the principal to cease such behavior, thereby resulting in gross insubordination. Testimony and documentation will show that this has been a pattern of your behavior over time.
In response to a request by counsel for Respondent for a more definite statement of charges, Petitioner provided the following supplement, through counsel, on July 28, 1985:
Mr. Pyne is alleged to be guilty of 'gross insubordination,' 'willful neglect of duty' and 'misconduct in office' as defined by Rule 6B, Florida Administrative Code. More specifically, Mr. Pyne, over a continuing period of time, consistently and continually intentionally refused to obey the direct orders, reasonable in nature, given by the Superintendent as well as the Principal and Assistant Principal of Melbane Middle School as follows:
Mr. Pyne failed to teach the math curriculum during the 1984-85 school year in accordance with the directives of the Principal; and
Mr. Pyne failed to complete the Principal's and Assistant Principal's assignment for properly administering a test during the 1984-85 school year; and
Mr. Pyne failed to remain in his assigned classroom during testing as directed by the Principal and Assistant Principal during the 1983-84 school year; and
Mr. Pyne failed to avoid involvement in a matter by and between the Principal and Mrs. Choate, a teacher of Melbane, despite the directives of the Principal to remain uninvolved; and
Mr. Pyne failed to follow the Principal's directive to support the school's math program and remain uninvolved in a meeting with the 8th grade parents of students at Melbane.
The matters set forth in Findings of Fact 3,
4 and 5, above, constitute the complete charges brought by Petitioner against Respondent upon which disciplinary action is sought.
The initial allegation of misconduct involved Respondent's failure to remain in his assigned classroom while testing was conducted during the 1983-84 school year.
Respondent admits that he left his classroom on two occasions on October 5, 1983 while his students were taking the State Student Assessment Test. On each occasion he asked another teacher to watch his class, but the other teacher did not enter Respondent's classroom and instead attempted to watch over the class from the classroom next door. Respondent indicates he was gone for ten minutes to counsel students on the first occasion, and while returning to his classroom he met Dr. Charles Hall, Assistant Principal at Mebane, who specifically ordered him not to leave his classroom again while his students were taking the test. Nevertheless, Respondent again left his class a short
time later and went to see Dr. Hall because he was displeased at the way Dr. Hall had spoken to him. A verbal confrontation and argument between Dr. Hall and Respondent then took place in Dr. Hall's office. This resulted in Respondent receiving a written reprimand from Terry Steckmiller, Principal, on October 27, 1983 (later revised February 9, 1984) which stated, in pertinent part:
Your behavior toward Dr. Charles Hall, Assistant Principal, on October 5 is considered insubordinate and will not be tolerated. Deliberately leaving your class during test administration in direct contradiction to Dr. Hall's reasonable request. and continuing to object to Dr.
Hall's directions to the point of a physical confrontation, is unacceptable behavior.
At the conclusion of the State Student Assessment Test on October 5, 1983, teachers collected the tests and turned them in to Fred Shortsleeve, guidance counselor, who found that one test was missing from Respondent's classroom. However, after a thorough search, the missing test was located in a desk in Respondent's classroom.
Respondent contends it was common practice at Mebane for teachers to leave their classroom while students were in class and to ask other teachers to watch over their class. He admits he did this many times. His contention is contradicted by the testimony of Steckmiller, Hall and Shortsleeve, all of whom testified that the standard procedure at Mebane was that teachers were never to leave their classrooms unattended, and were instead to use the intercom system in every classroom to request assistance from the front office when necessary. Further, they testified that his procedure was explained to teachers by Dr. Hall and there was a specific reiteration of this procedure prior to the State Student Assessment Test on October 5, 1983.
On December 2, 1983, Respondent received a second written reprimand, which was supported by the evidence, stating:
You have consistently failed to comply with the school's policy regarding the normal workday. You have failed to report to work by the designated 8:00 A.M. beginning time.
On or about January 3, 1984, Steckmiller called a meeting of teachers and staff at Mebane involved with the math program, as well as Totsye Conner, Math Supervisor for the Alachua County School System. Respondent attended as chairman of the math department. The purpose of this meeting was to review the math curriculum, to discuss Steckmiller's concerns about state assessment scores in math at Mebane, as well as his concern that Mebane was not following district guidelines for the placement of students in advanced math courses. Since becoming principal at the beginning of that school year, Steckmiller had become increasingly concerned that math scores at Mebane had only increased one percent in the previous three or four years, had not risen above 80% in any year, and were consistently among the lowest math scores in the district.
Although there was only a general discussion concerning the math program and no decisions were made during this meeting, the next day Respondent told his Algebra I class that the administration had cancelled the class, and he collected the course textbooks from the students. When Steckmiller learned of Respondent's action, he ordered him to redistribute the books and teach the course as designed. Respondent complied on the following day, January 5, 1984.
Respondent sought to explain his action through testimony that he was concerned about the possible incorrect placement of students as a result of the meeting on January 3, and he did not want to be held responsible for any breach of county policy concerning student placement. Nevertheless, he made a unilateral decision to tell the students on January 4 that their class had been cancelled by the administration and to collect their text books.
Another meeting about the math program at Mebane was called by Steckmiller in May, 1984, which was attended by Respondent, others in the math department, as well as staff. At this meeting Respondent was advised by Steckmiller that there would be no Algebra I course the following school year (1984-85) due to poor student performance on a placement test given in April, and that he would be replaced by Erma Dean Edmond as math department chairman for the next school year. Because of Respondent's concern about the elimination of Algebra I, Steckmiller agreed in August to allow Respondent to prepare a limited number of students for a placement retest to be developed by Totsye Conner to determine if, in fact, they were qualified for Algebra I. This was to be in addition to Respondent's duties as teacher of pre-algebra and advanced pre-
algebra in 1984-85. The students eligible for this retest were only those in the advanced pre-algebra class, and new students with teacher approval who had moved into the school's district since the original placement test was given. A total of approximately seventeen students were eligible for this retest.
Nevertheless, Respondent disobeyed express instructions and orders regarding the retest and informed all students in his classes that they would be eligible for the retest, and thereupon began to prepare over one hundred students for the retest. According to Respondent, this was a matter of professional ethics involving the issue of equal access to education for all students. He disagreed with the decision to retest only a limited number of students and proceeded in a manner which he felt was best for all students.
On or about September 21, 1984, which was approximately one month after school started, it came to Steckmiller's attention that Respondent was preparing all students for the retest, and he ordered Respondent to stop this preparation. Respondent threatened to go to the School Board over the matter, but the following week complied with Steckmiller's order by discontinuing the preparation and informing all students that only seventeen would be able to take the retest. This resulted in confusion and disappointment for the remaining students who would not be retested.
Because of this confusion and disappointment, Steckmiller called a conference on October 1, 1984 for the parents of eighth grade math students to explain the changes that had been made in the math curriculum and to clarify any
mis-understandings. On or about September 26, 1984, Steckmiller ordered Respondent not to attend the conference and not to become involved with the conference. Ms. Edmond attended as chairperson of the math department. While Respondent did not attend the conference, he did call two parents, Mrs. Cynthia Bevington and Mrs. Pat Maravich, to discuss his concerns about the effect on their children of changes in the math curriculum, the parents' conference, and the fact he had been ordered not to attend. He also asked Mrs. Bevington to ask Steckmiller at the conference why he had been ordered not to attend. This involvement with parents concerning the parents' conference was contrary to Steckmiller's order that Respondent not become involved with the conference.
On October 2, 1984, the day after the parents' conference, Respondent began teaching the pre-algebra and
advanced pre-algebra courses he was supposed to be teaching. However, instead of teaching these courses as full year courses and using the selected text books for the remainder of the school year, Respondent completed one course and its text book in eight to ten weeks, whereupon he issued a new text and planned to teach Algebra I beginning in January, 1985. This was again directly contrary to Steckmiller's orders and was a unilateral action which Respondent took to alter and accelerate the established curriculum. On or about December 19, 1984, Respondent was ordered to go back to the beginning of the pre algebra course and text and to teach the course according to the established curriculum for the remainder of the school year.
During the morning of December 20, 1984, Respondent had a confrontation with a teacher, Debra Choate, concerning her having made a negative report about another teacher, Ed Haley, to Steckmiller. Choate felt threatened and harassed at the way Respondent approached her, and she reported the incident to Steckmiller at noon. Steckmiller then met with Respondent and ordered him not to threaten Choate and to stay away from her. Yet, that afternoon Respondent again confronted Choate and threatened to sue her over her alleged "proselytizing and reading scripture in the classroom." Respondent's action was directly contrary to Steckmiller's express order.
A Christmas program was held in the school auditorium on December 21, 1984, which had as its theme and title, "Winter Smorgasbord". When Dr. Hall announced over the intercom that it was time for students to move to the auditorium for the "Christmas program," Respondent proceeded to the auditorium where he met Steckmiller and expressed his displeasure at the reference to a "Christmas program." Steckmiller told Respondent to go into the auditorium and sit with his class. Inside the auditorium before the program began, Respondent hollered at Dr. Hall that he should not have referred to the program as a "Christmas program." Respondent screamed at Dr. Hall in the presence of students and other teachers, forcing Steckmiller to break up the resulting verbal altercation. During the program, Respondent refused to stand with the rest of the teachers and student body when the song "O Holy Night" was sung. After the program, Respondent confronted Steckmiller about these incidents and threatened to go to the School Board about the events of the day. In fact, he did approach two School Board members who were in attendance at the program that day, and asked them to investigate the incidents.
The math curriculum changes made by Steckmiller, principal at Mebane Middle School, for the 1984-85 school year were reviewed and approved by the District Math Supervisor, Totsye Conner, who also recommended one of the text books to be used in the pre-algebra classes. The pre-algebra course and text were designed to be taught throughout the entire school year, and in Conner's opinion, they could not have been properly taught in eight to ten weeks, as Respondent did between October and December, 1984.
Respondent was a dedicated, highly motivated math teacher at Mebane Middle School with a great deal of parental and student support for his teaching methods and commitment, but whose actions as described above constitute gross insubordination and misconduct in office.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter in this case. Sections 120.57(1), and 230.23(5)(f), Florida Statutes.
Section 231.36(1)(a) Florida Statutes, authorizes district school boards to dismiss members of the instructional staff only for "just cause" which is specified to include, but not be limited to, misconduct in office, incompetence, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty or conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. See also Section 231.36(4)(c). In determining whether grounds for disciplinary action exist, the principal of each school has the primary responsibility to recommend to the superintendent that such action be taken by the school board. Specifically, Section 231.085, Florida Statutes, states that school principals "shall supervise the operation and management of the schools," and shall perform duties relating to "administrative responsibility, instructional leadership of the educational program of the school to which the principal is assigned, (and) submission of personnel recommendations to the superintendent . . ." Further, the Legislature has recognized that the principal is the administrative and instructional leader of a public school. Section 231.0861, Florida Statutes.
The disciplinary grounds provided in Section 231.36, as set forth above, which are applicable to this case are "misconduct in office," and "gross insubordination". These terms are defined in Rule 6B-4.09, Florida Administrative Code, as follows:
Misconduct in office is defined as a violation of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession as adopted in Rule 6B- 1.01, F.A.C., and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida as adopted in Rule 6B- 1.06, F.A.C., which is so serious as to impair the individual's effectiveness in the school system.
Gross insubordination or willful neglect of duties is defined as a constant or continuing intentional refusal to obey a direct order, reasonable in nature, and given by and with proper authority. (Emphasis Supplied.)
Rules 6B-1.01 and 6B-1.06, referenced in the definition of "misconduct in office," provide in relevant part:
6B-1.01 Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida.
The educator values the worth and dignity of every person, the pursuit of truth, devotion to excellence, acquisition of knowledge, and the nurture of democratic citizenship. Essential to the achievement of these standards are the freedom to learn and to teach and the guarantee of equal opportunity for all.
The educator's primary professional concern will always be for the student and for the development of the student's potential. The educator will therefore strive for professional growth and will seek to exercise the best professional judgment and integrity.
Aware of the importance of maintaining the respect and confidence of one's colleagues, of students, of parents, and of other members of the community, the educator strives to achieve and sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct. (Emphasis Supplied.)
6B-1.06 Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida.
* * *
Obligation to the student requires that the individual:
Shall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning or to health or safety. . . .
(d) Shall not intentionally suppress or distort subject matter relevant to a student's academic program. . . .
(h) Shall not exploit a professional relationship with a student for personal gain or advantage.
Obligation to the public requires that the individual:
Shall take reasonable precautions to distinguish between personal views and those of any educational institution or organization with which the individual is affiliated.
Shall not intentionally distort or misrepresent facts concerning an educational matter in direct or indirect public expression.
* * *
Obligation to the profession of education requires that the individual:
(d) Shall not intentionally make false or malicious statements about a colleague.
The School Board of Alachua County, Petitioner, has shown that Respondent was continuously insubordinate in his failure to follow directives of his principal. He failed to follow the curriculum prescribed by the principal, left his
classroom unattended while it was filled with students taking the student assessment test, and was vocally belligerent toward his principal and assistant principal in front of other teachers, school staff and students. Respondent emotionally shouted at Dr. Hall on several occasions in front of others.
Respondent mislead his students and misrepresented decisions that had been made regarding the retesting of students for Algebra I, thereby unfairly raising student expectations.
He also unilaterally altered the math curriculum, and thereby deprived his students of the opportunity to have the education program designed for them presented as directed by the school principal.
It has also been established that Respondent threatened, and intimidated another faculty member, and attempted to interfere with her exercise of her professional responsibilities.
Although a dedicated teacher, Respondent's primary concern in the events set forth above was not for his students, but rather for his own interests and motives which were to have his policies and beliefs regarding the math curriculum supercede decisions made by his superiors. His actions resulted in his failing to maintain the respect and confidence of administrators and fellow faculty members at Mebane.
In Smith v. School Board of Leon County, 405 So.2d 183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), the First District recited the definition for misconduct in office and gross insubordination as those terms are defined in Rule 6B-4.09, Florida Administrative Code, and found that the action of an employee did not meet the definition of gross insubordination because her conduct amounted to a single isolated outburst and could not be deemed constant or continuing. See also, Rutan v. Paseo County School Board, 435 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).
Respondent's conduct does not involve a sole incident or merely a few incidents but rather, reflects a continuous pattern of gross insubordination by his constant and intentional refusal to obey direct orders, misconduct in office, and willful neglect of duty as defined by Rule 6B-4.09, Florida Administrative Code. His behavior adversely affected his relationship with the public and was so serious as to impair his effectiveness in the school system. The evidence clearly supports the charges against him which properly constitute grounds for dismissal and termination of his contract.
Further, although Respondent suggests that the charges stem from his exercise of free speech, this is not the case. Rather, the charges stem primarily from his constant and continuing intentional refusal to obey direct orders and his violations of the provisions of Rule 6B-1.01 and Rule 6B-1.06, Florida Administrative Code, which were so serious that they impaired his effectiveness in the school system. The First Amendment does not require a school board to refrain from disciplining a teacher who is insubordinate and disruptive to the school. Adamian v. Lombardi, 608 F.2d 1224 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. denied 446 U.S. 938 (1979); Russ v. White, 541 F.Supp. 888 (D.C. Ark. 1981), affirmed 680 F.2d 47 (8th Cir. 1986). The behavior displayed by Respondent does not rise to the level of protected speech.
Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the School Board of Alachua County dismiss Geoffrey Pyne, effective May 22, 1985.
DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of August, 1986 at Tallahassee, Florida.
DONALD D. CONN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of August, 1986.
Douglas P. Magann, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools 620 East University Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32601
Frank C. Kruppenbacher, Esquire
Grafton B. Wilson, II, Esquire Post Office Box 1292 Gainesville; Florida 32602
Thomas L. Wittmer, Esquire 620 East University Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32601
Marguerite H. Davis, Esquire
Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1,2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1.
3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 4.
4-8. Adopted in Findings of Fact 7, 8, 9.
9-16. Rejected since these proposed findings were not supported
by competent substantial evidence.
32,33. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary.
34-37. Adopted substantially in Findings of Fact 12, 13, as occurring in 1984.
38-48. Rejected as irrelevant and cumulative. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact:
1-4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1.
5. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3.
6,7. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 22, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary to a determination of genuine issues of material fact involved in this case.
8-13. Rejected based on contrary findings made in Findings of Fact 7, 8 and 9.
14-16. Rejected as a summation of testimony rather than a finding of fact, irrelevant and not based on competent substantial evidence.
19-20. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary.
23-26. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary to a determination
of genuine issues of material fact involved in this case and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence.
