STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

SCHOOL BOARD OF PINELLAS )

COUNTY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 90-0230

)

MARY STRATIS, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

On April 5, 1990, a formal administrative hearing was held in this case in Tarpon Springs, Florida, before J. Lawrence Johnston, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: M. Teresa Harris, Esquire

School Board Attorney Pinellas County School Board Post Office Box 4688

Clearwater, Florida 34618-4688

For Respondent: Wm. Newt Hudson, Esquire

Yanchuk, Thompson, Young and Berman, P.A.

415 South Pinellas Avenue

Tarpon Springs, Florida 34688-1137

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The issue for determination is whether the Petitioner, the School Board of Pinellas County, should dismiss the Respondent, Mary Stratis, on charges that, while an attendance aide for the Goals Program of Tarpon Springs High School, she withheld information solicited by a School Resource Officer, a uniformed law enforcement officer assigned to the school, in the performance of his duty, or whether it should reinstate her with back pay and pay her attorney fees and costs. 1/

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On or about December 15, 1989, the Pinellas County School Superintendent notified the Respondent that he was suspending her with pay pending a meeting of the Petitioner, the School Board of Pinellas County, scheduled for January 10, 1990, at which he would recommend to the School Board that it suspend the Respondent without pay pending proceedings to dismiss the Respondent from her employment as an attendance aide for the Goals Program of Tarpon Springs High

School. The Superintendent's notification advised the Respondent that the charges forming the basis of the Superintendent's action were that the Respondent withheld information solicited by a School Resource Officer, a uniformed law enforcement officer assigned to the school, in the performance of his duty, or otherwise interfered with a police operation. The notification also notified the Respondent of her right to request a formal administrative hearing, which she did on or about on or about January 8, 1990. On or about January 9, 1990, the Petitioner referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings for appointment of a Hearing Officer. 2/

At the final hearing, both parties presented the testimony of several witnesses. Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 10 and Respondent's Exhibit 1 were received in evidence. A transcript of the final hearing was prepared, and each party filed a proposed recommended order. Explicit rulings on the proposed findings of fact contained in the parties' proposed recommended orders may be found in the attached Appendix to Recommended Order, Case NO. 90-0230.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On November 21, 1989, Michael Hughes, a Pinellas County Sheriff's Deputy assigned as a School Resource Officer at Tarpon Springs High School, was approached by Barbara Templeton, an officer with the Tarpon Springs Police Department, and was asked to assist her in executing a warrant for the arrest of one of the students at Tarpon Springs High School which the police department had been unable to execute in the community.

   
   

2. Deputy Hughes escorted Officer Templeton on the campus and began looking for the student in question. After looking for the student in other places without success, Deputy Hughes partially opened the door to the office of the Respondent, Nary Stratis, an attendance aide for the Goals Program, a dropout prevention program at the school, and poked his head in the partially opened door. As he did, he saw the rear door to the office, which leads to the back door of an adjoining drama classroom, in the process of closing. He asked the Respondent whether she had seen the student for whom he and Officer Templeton were looking. She answered, "No." He then questioned her: "You haven't seen him in the office today?" She again answered, "No." He questioned her a third time: "You haven't seen him at all today?" She repeated the same negative answer.

   
   

3. In fact, the student in question had just left the Respondent's office a short time before Deputy Hughes arrived there. He left through the back door and through the drama classroom adjoining the Respondent's office. When he exited the front door of the drama classroom leading to the hallway, he stepped on a metal grate, which made a loud metallic clanging sound. Deputy Hughes heard the sound and peered from the hallway where he and Officer Templeton were standing in front of the Respondent's office door, around the adjacent corner and down the hallway where the metal grate was and saw the student for whom they were looking. The student appeared to be attempting to leave the campus undetected by them. Deputy Hughes called to the student and persuaded him to stop.

   
   

4. One or two weeks before, the Respondent had intervened between Deputy Hughes and another student as the two were arguing about a parking ticket Deputy Hughes had written and given to the student. During the conversation between the Respondent and Deputy Hughes that followed that incident, Deputy Hughes warned her not to interfere with his performance of his duties as School

   Resource Officer. He explained that to do so could expose him, her and others to unnecessary risk of harm and liability.

   
   

5. Interference with, or the withholding of pertinent information from, the School Resource Officer in the performance of his duties reflects poor judgment and is potentially dangerous.

   
   

6. Under the School Board's disciplinary guidelines, which are published in writing and distributed to all employees, "misconduct" is grounds for discipline, including suspension and dismissal if serious enough, and "misconduct" is defined as conduct "that is serious enough to impair the employee's effectiveness in the school district."

   
   

7. As a result of the incident on November 21, 1989, and the poor judgment it reflects, the Respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the School Board has been impaired. Her principal and Deputy Hughes no longer trust her judgment, and the Petitioner's Director of Personnel no longer wishes to expose the Respondent to students in the school system.

   
   

8. Contrary to the facts found in this case, the Respondent testified under oath at the hearing that Deputy Hughes' sole question to her when he poked his head in her office door was: "15 [the student he was looking for] in here?" She testified that she answered, "No", but added, "But he was here earlier," but that Deputy Hughes had left before he could hear what she had added to her answer.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

9. The procedures for termination from employment, or any other discipline, found in Section 231.36, Florida Statutes (1989), do not apply to noninstructional employees such as the Respondent.

   
   

10. The School Board is given the responsibility under Section 230.23(5)(f), Florida Statutes (1989), to provide for the discipline of all employees. Under the School Board's written guidelines, misconduct is ground for discipline, including suspension or dismissal in serious cases. Misconduct is defined by the School Board's guidelines as conduct which is serious enough to impair the employee's effectiveness in the school district.

    
    

11. In this case, the Respondent's misconduct-- withholding information solicited by a law enforcement officer in the performance of his duties as School Resource Officer, and then lying under oath about it at the hearing--was serious enough to impair her effectiveness as a School Board employee and is grounds for dismissal.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner, the School Board of Pinellas County, enter a final order immediately dismissing the Respondent, Mary Stratis, from her employment with the School Board.

RECOMMENDED this 8th day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida.

J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of May, 1990.

ENDNOTES

1/ It is not clear from the record in this case whether the School Board has suspended the Respondent without pay pending this proceeding. See the Preliminary Statement and Footnote 2, below. If so, a determination that the School Board should dismiss the Respondent also would uphold the interim suspension without pay.

2/ It is not clear from the record whether the School Board met on January 10, whether it considered the Superintendent's recommendation that the Respondent be suspended without pay, or whether it suspended the Respondent without pay pending the conclusion of the formal administrative proceeding.

APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-0230

To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1989), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact:

Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact.

1. Accepted and incorporated.

2. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary.

3.-4. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary.

1. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary.

2. Accepted and incorporated.

7.-9. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary.

10.-18. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 19.-23. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary.

24. Accepted and incorporated.

25.-28. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary.

29. Rejected as not proven that the Respondent interfered with Deputy Hughes. Accepted and incorporated that Deputy perceived interference and warned the Respondent not to interfere with his performance of his duties.

30.-34. Accepted and incorporated.

Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact.

1.-2. Rejected as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence. Essentially this case reduces to a resolution of the conflicting testimony as to the content of the short conversation between Deputy Hughes and the Respondent in her office on November 21, 1989. (The Respondent did not seriously dispute that, if the Respondent is guilty of alleged withholding of information solicited by Deputy Hughes in furtherance of his assistance to Officer Templeton to execute the arrest warrant, her effectiveness as an employee of the School Board would be impaired, as found.) The conflicts are resolved in favor of Deputy Hughes's version.

Ironically, the Respondent seems to argue that Deputy Hughes only poked his head in the Respondent's office and asked the Respondent whether the fugitive student was there, in accordance with the testimony of the witness, Sandra Smith, but the Respondent's own testimony was that Deputy Hughes asked whether the Respondent had seen the fugitive. On this point, the consistent testimony of both the Respondent and Deputy Hughes makes more sense. It does not seem likely that a law enforcement officer searching for a fugitive from an arrest warrant would peer into a room small enough for him to be able see for himself who was in the room, and then ask whether the fugitive was in the room. It seems far more likely that the question(s) would have been along the lines of those Deputy Hughes says he asked.

Similarly, Deputy Hughes testifies that, when he questioned Kelly Baccus in the hallway, he asked her whether she had seen the fugitive student, not whether he was in the hallway, something he could see for himself. According to his testimony, when Deputy Hughes then walked down the hall to look into Mr. Van Dyke's classroom, he did not say anything but only looked in and saw for himself that the fugitive student was not there. When he looked into the classroom across the hall from the Respondent's office and spoke to the teacher, Mr.

Craven, he asked whether the teacher had seen the fugitive student, not whether the student was in the classroom, something he could have seen for himself.

Neither party focused as much on these three prior inquiries, or apparently accorded them as much importance as the inquiry in the Respondent's office, and Deputy Hughes's testimony about them seemed quite candid and supports his corresponding version of the inquiry he made of the Respondent.

When it comes to the answer the Respondent gave to the Deputy's question, she and the Deputy disagree. The Respondent says she answered, "yes," that the fugitive student had been there, but that he left. She testified that Deputy Hughes then left before she could say anything else. Hughes testified that the Respondent answered, "no," to three quick questions.

On this point, Sandra Smith's testimony supports Deputy Hughes's version. Several hearsay statements also support Deputy Hughes' version. In the final analysis, it does not make much sense that a law enforcement officer looking for a fugitive would listen to an answer like the one the Respondent says she gave and then just leave without asking any follow-up questions, or even bothering to listen to what the Respondent says she was trying to add to the answer, much less later accusing the person of having answered with a simple, "no."

In an effort to impeach Deputy Hughes's testimony on grounds of bias and mistake, the Respondent points primarily to some of the time frames to which some of the witnesses testified. But this attempted impeachment assumes that the testimony on the time frames was truthful and accurate. Meanwhile, the basis

for the School Board's impeachment of the Respondent's testimony is self-evident from the nature of the proceeding.

COPIES FURNISHED:

M. Teresa Harris, Esquire School Board Attorney Pinellas County School Board Post Office Box 4688

Clearwater, Florida 34618-4688

Wm. Newt Hudson, Esquire Yanchuk, Thompson, Young

and Berman, P.A.

415 South Pinellas Avenue

Tarpon Springs, Florida 34688-1137

Scott N. Rose, Ed. D. Superintendent

Pinellas County School System Post Office Box 4688 Clearwater, Florida 34618-4688

Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

Docket for Case No: 90-000230

Orders for Case No: 90-000230