vs. ) CASE NO. 87-0842
BOB M. ECKERT, )
Respondent. )
Consistent with the Order Granting Continuance entered by the undersigned on May 18, 1987, and furnished to the parties, a hearing was held in this case in West Palm Beach, Florida on July 6, 1987, before Arnold H. Pollock, a Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings. The issue for consideration was whether the Respondent should be dismissed from employment with the School Board of Palm Beach County because of the alleged misconduct outlined in the Petition for Dismissal filed herein.
For Petitioner: Abbey G. Hairston, Esquire
For Respondent: Bob M. Eckert, pro se
By letter dated in January, 1987, the School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida indicated its intention to dismiss the Respondent from employment because of misconduct and advised him of his right to request an administrative hearing on the charges. On February 2, 1987, Respondent requested an administrative hearing and on February 16, 1987, the file was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the appointment of a hearing officer.
On February 20, 1987, Petitioner prepared a formal Petition for Dismissal which was signed by the superintendent of schools and filed with the Division on February 24, 1987.
Hearing was originally scheduled in this case for May 26, 1987, but due to a Motion for Continuance filed by the Petitioner, the case was continued until July 6, 1987.
At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of Dr. Thurman R. Hux and Robert P. Hatcher, Assistant Directors for Curriculum and Administration, respectively, at North Technical Education Center, and Mrs. Patricia I. Nugent, Principal of the Center. Petitioner also introduced Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 22. Respondent testified in his own behalf and introduced Respondent's Exhibits B and C.
Subsequent to the hearing, Petitioner submitted a proposed Recommended Order which included proposed Findings of Fact. Except where specifically contradicted by a contrary Finding of Fact they have been accepted and are incorporated into the findings herein.
At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent, Bob M. Eckert, was certified as a teacher in the State of Florida, authorized to teach gas engine repair and diesel mechanics at the vocational level and was employed by the School Board of Palm Beach County, (Board), teaching small engine repair at the Palm Beach County Sheriff's stockade. He has been employed as a teacher with the Board since 1980.
Respondent taught at the Job Skills Center in Palm Beach County during the 1981-1982 school year. When the Center was closed, the Respondent was transferred to the Palm Beach County Sheriff's stockade. Many of the inmates speak a language other than English.
The position at the stockade was originally supervised by the Director of Vocational-Technical Education of the Board. Effective with the 1986-1987 school year, the program was transferred to the supervision of the North Technical Education Center, (NTEC), and the principal of that facility became Respondent's supervisor.
On July 18, 1986, a teacher's meeting of all 226 day contract teachers, of whom Respondent was one, was held at the Board's vocational office in West Palm Beach for the purpose of a briefing on new programs and policies to be implemented by NTEC for the coming school year. A new instructional program system was planned for implementation and this meeting was to orient the teachers to the new system and included the requirement for lesson planning and curricula framework. Respondent attended this meeting at which Dr. Thurman R. Hux, Assistant Director for Curriculum at NTEC spent considerable time going over each item on the agenda so that all teachers at all centers could use the same system. It was shortly after this meeting that the program at the Sheriff's facility was turned over to the supervision of NTEC.
At the time of transfer in September, 1986, Dr. Hux met with instructors on a planning day on or about October 15, 1986. At this meeting, all teachers were given another orientation as to the program changes. The teachers were also given instructions on the preparation of lesson planning forms and a graphic representation of the lesson plan was handed out to them for their information.
Subsequent to this meeting, Dr. Hux received lesson plans submitted by all the instructors, including Respondent. In going over the submittals, he found that Respondent's program, as well as some of the others, did not meet certain state requirements. The deficiencies in the plans were minor and easily correctable. Respondent was given a copy of the requirements omitted and asked
to define which elements thereof he could meet at his locale. Other instructors requested to do the same all complied.
At a subsequent meeting with Respondent, Dr. Hux and Respondent agreed on the hours to be worked by Respondent and a lesson guide and a document dated October 11, 1986, signed by Respondent was prepared to memorialize this change. This proposal was approved by both the Board and Respondent.
Based on the input provided by the teachers, the Board subsequently requested each one to start preparing lesson plans at the rate of 10 per week. Respondent did start doing this and completed a number of them, but there were some problems. They were not done according to the lesson planning guide and Respondent was asked to correct them. Notwithstanding this request for correction and completion of the remaining plans due, no additional plans were submitted by Respondent nor were corrections made.
Thereafter, on November 20, 1986, Mr. Art Dingee, the ICE coordinator at NTEC, visited Respondent at his facility to discuss the need for program performance standards and the requirement for developing lesson guides. At that meeting, Mr. Eckert informed Mr. Dingee:
That he would not adhere to the performance standards as prescribed in the curriculum framework related to gasoline engine mechanics;
That though he had submitted some lesson guides, he did not intend to continue,
That it was not necessary to compile the requested paperwork because it did
not reflect what he was teaching,
That he utilized a textbook and that was all that was needed of paperwork, and
That if the administrator did not agree with this, they could find someone else to replace him.
Mr. Dingee prepared a memo about this and submitted it to Dr. Hux on November 24, 1986. Based on the information contained in that memo, Dr. Hux prepared his own memo to Mr. Eckert in which he thanked him for submittal of the lesson guides previously furnished but pointed out the few corrections which were required and the need to submit the remaining guides. Conciliatory in nature, this memo left little doubt that Respondent was expected to comply with the requirements of NTEC.
Nothing was forthcoming from Respondent as a result of this memo and on December 2, 1986, Dr. Hux wrote a brief second memo to Respondent pointing out that subsequent failure to provide lesson guides would be construed as gross insubordination. By this time, all other instructors within the system had submitted the required lesson guides.
When Respondent failed to comply, Dr. Hux informed Respondent that there would be a formal evaluation conducted of his performance and that additional informal evaluations would also be run.
Consistent with this, on December 15, 1986, Dr. Hux went to the Respondent's classroom at 9:30 am and upon entering, found that Respondent was
conducting a class. Dr. Hux instructed Respondent to continue with his teaching but Respondent refused and stopped the class. He said he wanted to talk.
Respondent took Dr. Hux to his office area which was open to the classroom where in the presence of his students, he stated that he was not going to turn in the "fucking" things, referring to the lesson plans. At that point; Dr. Hux instructed Respondent to come to his, Dr. Hux's, office the following morning in response to which Respondent indicated that he would not do so. In fact, he said, "if you want to see me, come here." Dr. Hux then repeated his direction for Respondent to come to NTEC whereupon Respondent became profane and when cautioned by Dr. Hux not to speak not to speak that way; referred to him, Dr.
Hux, as a "shit head." Dr. Hux subsequently prepared a memorandum outlining the above and at the hearing, when Respondent was asked if he objected to the introduction of the memo as an exhibit, he replied that he was "proud of it."
Upon leaving Respondent, Dr. Hux reported the incident to Mrs. Nugent, the NTEC principal, who requested an interview with Respondent. She set up a meeting at NTEC with Respondent for 8:00 am on December 16, 1986. Respondent did not appear as requested and somewhat later that morning, called in stating that he had to go to the doctor at 1:30 pm. Ms. Nugent replied that there was still time for a meeting and directed that he come in at 11:00 am. When Respondent appeared, Ms. Nugent, in the presence of Dr. Hux and Mr. Hatcher, went over the complaints filed. At first, Respondent had little to say, but subsequently agreed with the substance of Hux's and Hatcher's comments.
When Respondent admitted he had made the comments attributed to him, Ms. Nugent advised him that he must refrain from profanity. In response to this, Respondent indicated he had used profanity because that was all the "jailbirds" understood. In the conversation with Mrs. Nugent Respondent referred to Dr. Hux and Mr. Hatcher as "jerks" and said he could not work with them. He did not like Dr. Hux's comments about his lesson plans and refused to do any further. When Mrs. Nugent asked Respondent to remain at NTEC for the rest of the day, he refused and went home "sick." When she asked him to come in to the center for help and assistance on subsequent days, he refused to do so.
Mrs. Nugent scheduled a formal observation of Respondent by Dr. Hux on January 5, 1987 at 8:00 am. A follow-up conference with Dr. Hux and Mrs. Nugent was also set for January 13, 1987. Between December 17 and 19, 1986, Respondent called in sick daily. On December 19, 1986, Mrs. Nugent sent a registered letter to Respondent informing him to report to NTEC but he failed to do so. Between January 5 and January 9, 1987, Respondent did not report for work but submitted a medical report from his physician dated December 19, 1986, which indicated that on December 16, 1986, he had been treated after a recurrence of "original" problem. He was seen again on December 19, 1986, and it was estimated he would require three to five more treatments. This chiropractic physician's statement did not describe what the condition was nor that it was rendering Respondent incapable of working.
Though furnished with a letter from Mrs. Nugent on December 19, 1986, which required him to report on January 5, 1987, Respondent did not come in. Consequently, Mrs. Nugent submitted a request for guidance to Dr. Monroe, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel for the Board. Thereafter, Dr. Monroe held a meeting with Respondent which was attended by counsel for the Board and at which the situation was reviewed with Respondent who said it was "all absolutely true." Notwithstanding that, Respondent indicated he would not work with Dr. Hux or Mr. Hatcher and as a result, Dr. Monroe referred the matter to the Superintendent of Schools who, by letter dated January 26, 1987, suspended the Respondent from duty without pay.
Dr. Hux was not the only official to work with Respondent in an effort to get him to comply with Board rules. In November, 1986, Mr. Robert Hatcher, Assistant Director for Administration at NTEC, visited the Respondent's instructional area, arriving sometime prior to 8:00 am. Mr. Hatcher had heard that Respondent had had some trouble in getting some of the supplies he had requested and he had heard rumors of Respondent's bad performance. As a result, he was going to take to Respondent some of the materials he needed and was also prepared to go over with him the steps necessary for requisitioning supplies. Mr. Hatcher took Mr. Dingee with him on this visit. When they arrived at the Respondent's room, neither Respondent nor anyone else was present, but shortly thereafter, Respondent came in. The parties briefly talked over innocuous matters and Mr. Hatcher began to ask questions about Respondent's job. He contends he felt sorry for Respondent because his environment was so bad. When Hatcher suggested cleaning up the place as a means of improving it, Respondent took his comments as criticism and suggested they go to his office. There, Respondent began complaining about educators and their methods. He thought educators to be stupid and incompetent, pointing out a book, the cover of which had been affixed upside down.
In an attempt to reduce the obvious stress that Respondent appeared to be suffering, Mr. Hatcher tried to change the subject. In response to Hatcher's questions, Respondent painted a picture of a loosely run operation. For example, when Hatcher looked at Respondent's roll book, it was neat but there were no entries for the previous day showing what matters had been covered and what grades, if any, had been given. In response to that, Respondent indicated that he filled it out the following morning instead of immediately after class. When asked about his lesson plans, Respondent folded them up into a ball and told Hatcher he could, "stick them up your ass."
At this point, Hatcher decided to leave and started to retreat from the area. Respondent appeared to be obviously stressed and Hatcher wanted to calm the situation down by leaving. As he walked out through the work area, in front of an officer and several inmates, Respondent called out that Hatcher was the man who was going to close down the program. This inflammatory comment was not true. When Hatcher spoke to the officer to deny this and to explain what was happening, Respondent interjected himself with profanity to the point where the inmates started coming up to see what was going on. As a result, Mr. Hatcher left, considering this to be the more appropriate course of action. However, upon his return to the office, he discussed the matter with Mrs. Nugent and reduced his report to writing.
As a result of Respondent's conduct, both Dr. Hux and Mr. Hatcher consider it difficult to work with him. Mr. Hatcher would work with him, but Respondent has a negative attitude toward the system and a tendency to verbally abuse his coworkers. In his opinion, it is not likely that Respondent will ever comply with any request unless he agrees with it.
Dr. Hux feels that working with Respondent would be difficult but possible if Respondent would agree to work within the framework of the Board's policies and instructions. However, he does not believe this will happen and considers that Respondent's misconduct has adversely affected his effectiveness within the school system to the point where it would be difficult for anyone who was a member of and supports the Board, to work with Respondent.
Mrs. Nugent considers that Respondent's behavior as described to and observed by her has impaired his effectiveness within the system in that:
His ability to work with Dr. Hux and Mr. Hatcher is nonexistent.
He is unable to communicate with them.
He is unable to work with Mrs. Nugent.
He has refused to obey and his refusal to obey her instructions as well as those of other supervisors is willful.
His reference to Dr. Hux and Mr. Hatcher as "jerks" and his shaking of his fist at them is contra to good order and discipline, and
His refusal to keep lesson plans as required constitutes a neglect of duty.
Respondent contends, and there is no dispute of the fact that his record as a teacher in the classroom has been either excellent or exceptional during the number of years he has worked with the school board. He further states that over 30 percent of his students got jobs when they got out of jail and, even more, were qualified by him for work release programs prior to expiration of their term of confinement. All of this was, however, before the transfer of the program to NTEC. When that agency took over, they imposed a lot of new rules and made it clear that more were to come. These rules required too much paperwork and this paperwork interfered with Respondent's ability to teach.
Respondent urges that he was hired to teach, not to complete paperwork. He admits he does not accept the distractions caused by the paperwork which interfered with his teaching according to his methods at his institution. He would not accept distractions from the Sheriff's Office or the Board. His students were special individuals (inmates) who needed to learn, in a short time, in a special way. Respondent contends he did not have the time to spend on useless paperwork. He was successful in doing what he was paid to do, prepare criminals for release employment.
Respondent submitted several newspaper articles from the local paper which tended to support him and which pointed out that the majority of his student were non-English speaking individuals who had dropped out of school because of their inability or unwillingness to take the type of tests being required by the new rules imposed by NTEC. Respondent contends, and with some merit, that to treat these students as normal vocational students would be of no benefit to them or to the program and would result in a diminishment of their interest and performance within the program. It was because of tests and because of the strict regimen that the majority of them dropped out of school in the first place and they will not respond, according to Respondent, to a program which imposes the same structure and requirements as are found in the normal school environment.
Respondent testified that the Sheriff's Office is not now satisfied with how the school is being run since he left and that the NTEC changes are counterproductive. This evidence is hearsay, however, and, unsupported by other evidence, cannot be considered.
With respect to the lesson plans he did submit, Respondent contends that he submitted them on the basis of how Mr. Dingee told him to do it and they were still returned as incorrect. When NTEC officials indicated they would accept them even though incorrect this proved to him that NTEC would accept any
paperwork. Respondent contends that the Board is more concerned with form than with results and that all the things found wrong with his performance were merely harassment.
Respondent feels he was hired to do a job and did it successfully until NTEC took over. NTEC changes were merely to give bureaucrats a job and had no substance. When he resisted, he was considered obtuse and redundant and an effort was made to drive him out of his job.
Respondent is a qualified and successful teacher in the area of vocational education and he would operate successfully in a free-form environment. However, his demeanor is not well received in the more cloistered environs of academia and school officials take a dim view of being told to shove paperwork up their collective "asses" or to commit other indignities upon their persons. His inability to accept that which is not to his liking, and his explosive responses thereto and unwillingness to compromise, substantially result in a diminishment in his effectiveness as a member of the instructional staff of the school system.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter in this case. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
In the Petition for Dismissals Petitioner has charged Respondent with misconduct in office, gross insubordination, and willful neglect of duty.
Under the provisions of Section 231.36, Florida Statutes, the Board is authorized to provide for the dismissal of instructional staff for just cause which includes the above as well as incompetency and conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Neither of the latter are pertinent here.
The pertinent charges listed in the statute are further defined in Rule 6B-4.09, F.A.C., which, in setting out the offenses supporting dismissal of an instructional employee, defines misconduct in office, as found in (3) as a violation of the Code of Ethics of the Educational Profession and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, as outlined in Rules 6B-1.01 and 6B-1.06 respectively which is so serious as to impair the individual's effectiveness in the school system; and gross insubordination, as found in (4), as a constant or continuing intentional refusal to obey a direct order, reasonable in nature, and given by and with proper authority.
Respondent's continuing refusal to prepare and provide as required lesson plans due in a timely fashion constitutes a continuing willful neglect of duties. Respondent clearly indicated his opinion that they were not necessary to his performance and unequivocally stated his refusal to produce them. His continuing absence from his place of duty from December 16, 1986 to sometime in January, 1987, without providing adequate and appropriate medical verification of his inability to work was also a willful neglect of duty.
These same actions by Respondent also constitute gross insubordination which is amplified and compounded by his repeated profane, discourteous, and improper remarks to his supervisors and administrators.
The name calling and use of profanity as described above also constitutes misconduct in office. Disagreement with supervisors from time to time is to be expected. The use of profanity and vulgarity towards anyone, up
or down the chain, in a public setting is, however, never appropriate and renders the individual ineffective in the educational setting. In fact, when as aggravated as is shown here, it offsets Respondent's otherwise creditable performance as a teacher.
There is little doubt that Respondent understands and communicates well with the special students he teaches and that they relate to him and learn from him better, probably, than they would from anyone else. However, Respondent has interjected into the equation here a factor which far outweighs the good work he does. He obviously has no respect for those under whose supervision he must work and has allowed that lack of respect to manifest itself in a way which totally destroys his effectiveness within the system.
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore:
RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Palm Beach County enter a Final Order upholding the suspension without pay of Respondent and dismissing him from employment the Board.
RECOMMENDED this 21st day of August, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida.
ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of August, 1987.
Thomas J. Mills, Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board 3323 Belvedere Road
Abbey G. Hairston, Esquire
Bob M. Eckert
