STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
PALM BEACH COUNTY SCHOOL ) BOARD, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 01-4533
)
EDWARD R. OPPEL, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Robert E. Meale, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, conducted the final hearing in West Palm Beach, Florida, on March 4-7, 2002.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Elaine Johnson James
Nason Yeager
1645 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Suite 1200
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
For Respondent: Matthew Haynes
Chamblee, Johnson & Haynes, P.A. The Barristers Building
1615 Forum Place, Suite 500 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Thomas L. Johnson
Chamblee, Johnson & Haynes, P.A.
215 West Verne Street, Suite D Tampa, Florida 33606
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
The issue is whether Petitioner may terminate the employment of Respondent for misconduct in office.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
By Administrative Complaint dated November 7, 2001, Petitioner alleged that Respondent committed misconduct, misused and disclosed confidential information, conducted personal business on District time, conducted personal business and political activity on District property, improperly requested subordinates to backdate documents, falsified documents, gave false information during a sworn official statement, and impeded a District investigation, in violation of Rules 6B-1.001,
6B-1.006, and 6B-4.009, Florida Administrative Code; School Board Policies 6Gx50 1.013, 2.041, 2.32, 2.59, and 3.27;
Administrative Directive 3.27; and Sections 112.313, 839.25, and
839.26, Florida Statutes.
The Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent was the Chief of Facilities Management for the District. As such, Respondent was allegedly responsible for dealing with vendors. One vendor, Buy the Square Yard, Inc., was a flooring company. Since at least the fall of 2000, the District had allegedly been conducting a confidential audit into possible overbilling by flooring vendors, including Buy the Square Yard, Inc. The Administrative Complaint alleges that, during the relevant time,
the audit report was not a public record and that the District had rejected numerous requests by Mr. Harper, the principal of Buy the Square Yard, Inc., for a copy of the audit report and the underlying documentation.
The Administrative Complaint alleges that in early November 2000 a law clerk in the District's legal department gave the District Interim Chief Counsel Harris a confidential draft memorandum of law addressing possible causes of action for overbilling that the District might have against Buy the Square Yard, Inc. The memorandum allegedly bears on its cover page the warnings: "Unfinished Preliminary and Tentative Draft for Initial Discussion Purposes Only" and "FYI please review and return only 25% finished." Respondent allegedly received a copy of the memorandum on November 10, 2000.
The Administrative Complaint alleges that on July 2, 2001, Respondent officially filed as a candidate for the office of Port Commissioner of Palm Beach County, Group 4. The Administrative Complaint alleges that Mr. Harper learned of Respondent's candidacy. Allegedly having had unsatisfactory business dealings with Respondent when he had earlier served as Executive Director of the Port of Palm Beach, Mr. Harper began telling people, including Respondent's supporters, that Respondent had unfairly treated Mr. Harper and his company. The Administrative Complaint alleges that, after learning of these
accusations, Respondent sought a meeting with Mr. Harper to discuss his problems with Respondent.
The Administrative Complaint alleges that, on August 1, the parties arranged a meeting for August 3. On August 2, Mr. Chiu, a District auditor, obtained from Mr. Mets, the District Director of Maintenance and Plant Operations, a response to a draft audit report on the alleged overbilling by flooring vendors. Respondent allegedly received a copy of the response of Mr. Mets, who told Respondent that the School Board had not yet received the audit report because it had not yet been finalized.
The Administrative Complaint alleges that on August 3, 2001, Respondent and Mr. Harper met at a hotel with
Mr. Robinson, a West Palm Beach City Commissioner. During the meeting, Respondent and Mr. Harper allegedly discussed
Mr. Harper's problems with Respondent and the District. Respondent allegedly gave Mr. Harper copies of the draft audit reports prepared by the District's auditor and dated October 25, 2000; a one-page memorandum from former Chief Financial Officer McClary to Mr. Mets dated October 27, 2000; a memorandum from Mr. Mets to Mr. Chiu dated August 2, 2001; and the memorandum of law that Respondent received on November 10, 2000.
The Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent never, prior to August 3, 2001, informed or requested his immediate
supervisor, Chief Operations Officer Malone, or Superintendent Johnson, for permission to provide the above-described documents to Mr. Harper. The Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent also did not obtain the advice of Mr. Harris concerning whether the above-described memorandum of law was still confidential or whether the District intended to claim that it was privileged as work product or an attorney-client communication.
The Administrative Complaint alleges that on August 15, 2001, Respondent met with Mr. Malone and District personnel attorney Aronson. During the meeting, Respondent allegedly admitted giving Mr. Harper some, but not all, of the above- described documents. Respondent allegedly admitted showing, but not giving, Mr. Harper a copy of the legal memorandum, but could not explain how a document with Respondent's original date stamp came into Respondent's possession.
The Administrative Complaint alleges that, on or about August 20, 2001, after he had been told that the matter would be investigated, Respondent contacted three of his subordinate employees and asked them to sign a backdated letter concerning his candidacy for Port Commissioner.
The Administrative Complaint alleges that on August 21, 2001, Respondent approached Mr. Harris and asked for a copy of
the memorandum of law. Respondent allegedly told Mr. Harris that the documents had been stolen.
The District criminal investigation began on or about August 24, 2001. On August 30, 2001, Respondent gave a taped sworn statement. Respondent admitted giving Mr. Harper copies of the preliminary audit reports and showing him a copy of the cover sheet of the memorandum of law, but denied giving him the document itself and a copy of the McClary memorandum. The Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent also denied several times asking his subordinate employees to backdate and sign documents. However, after the interview concluded, Respondent allegedly corrected these denials.
The Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent therefore violated School Board Policy 1.013, which requires that District employees comply with applicable law; Administrative Directive 3.27(3)(j)(3), which authorizes disciplinary action against any employee who creates an intimidating, hostile, of offensive environment, falsifies District records, conducts personal business during duty hours, or fails to carry out or comply with School Board policy; Rule 6B-1.001(3), Florida Administrative Code, which requires that an educator be aware of the importance of maintaining the respect and confidence of his colleagues and other members of the community; Rule 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code, which
requires that an educator shall maintain honesty in all professional dealings, shall not submit fraudulent information on any document in correction with professional activities, and shall not make any fraudulent statement or fail to disclose a material fact in one's application for a professional position; Rule 6B-4.009, Florida Administrative Code, which defines misconduct as a violation of the Code of Ethics in the Education Profession, as adopted in Rule 6B-1.001, Florida Administrative Code, and the Principles for Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida as adopted in Rule 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code, which is so serious as to impair the individual's effectiveness in the school system; School Board Policies 2.32, 2.59, and 3.27; and Sections 112.313,
, and 839.26, Florida Statutes.
At the hearing, Petitioner called 11 witnesses and offered into evidence 35 exhibits: Petitioner Exhibits 2-6, 13-16,
18-20, 22-23, 26-27, 29, 32-35, 39-40, 44-50, and 52-56.
Respondent called 11 witnesses and offered into evidence 11 exhibits: Respondent Exhibits 10, 20-22, 25, 32, 40, 43, 93-94, and 99. All exhibits were admitted except Petitioner Exhibits 18-19 and 35, which were proffered.
The court reporter filed the transcript on April 15, 2002. The parties filed their proposed recommended orders by April 30, 2002.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Respondent graduated in 1963 with a degree in accounting. He earned his juris doctor degree in 1967. He has practiced public accounting and also been employed by W. R. Grace & Company and Getty Oil Company.
For most of the 1970s, Respondent was employed as head of construction for the City of Baltimore. In this capacity, he assumed significant responsibilities in the construction of a major convention center and aquarium, as well as over 50 schools. For most of the 1980s, Respondent ran a construction management company. From 1988-92, Respondent developed residential homes. From 1992-96, Respondent was the executive director of the Port of Bridgeport.
From March 1996 to January 2000, Respondent was employed as the executive director of the Port of Palm Beach. While so employed, Respondent directed a $100 million redevelopment project for the Port. Following the conclusion of his employment with the Port of Palm Beach, Respondent was employed for a short period in Tampa.
Wanting to return to West Palm Beach, Respondent applied for the position of Respondent's Chief Operating Officer. Then-Superintendent Ben Marlin hired Respondent in July 2000. Superintendent Marlin was implementing a School Board plan that divided the District into academic and business
sections. As Chief Operating Officer, Respondent headed the business section.
As Chief Academic Officer, Dr. Arthur Johnson headed the academic section during the last six months of Superintendent Marlin's tenure, which ended in February 2001. Dr. Johnson succeeded Dr. Marlin as the new superintendent and was a member of the School Board when it adopted the plan dividing the District into academic and business sections.
The creation of a separate business section within the District facilitated the implementation of efficient business and management practices. The School Board designed the new organizational plan to obtain greater productivity from the business side of the District and to maximize the academic benefit from available revenues.
Currently the 14th largest school district in the United States, the Palm Beach County School District administers a $2 billion annual budget in the service of 157,000 students in
150 schools. Half of this $2 billion outlay is devoted to operational expenses; most of the remainder is devoted to capital expenditures and debt service. The District operates the largest food service and bus company in Palm Beach County. At the time of the hearing, the District was constructing three high schools, three middle schools, and ten elementary schools-- with a total construction value of over $250 million. Striving
to meet the needs of a large, but still fast-growing community, the District will open twelve schools in August 2002. Just over half of the District's 17,000 employees are noninstructional.
Hired shortly before Respondent, on June 1, 2000, William Malone became Chief of Facilities Management Services. Mr. Malone graduated with a degree in civil engineering in 1971. His prior experience consisted of 21 years with the United States Army Corps of Engineers and 13 years with the South Florida Water Management District. For the last five and one- half years with the South Florida Water Management District, Mr. Malone oversaw the district's construction projects. He left the district shortly after trying unsuccessfully in 1999 to be appointed as the executive director of the South Florida Water Management District.
Upon assuming the duties of the Chief Operating Officer, Respondent analyzed all of the divisions reporting to him. An immediate problem was maintenance. The District had just fired Service Master, and the maintenance department was leaderless and in some disarray. Respondent decided to split off maintenance from Mr. Malone's responsibilities.
Respondent contacted three Port employees who had worked under him when he was Executive Director of the Port of Palm Beach: Martin Mets, Michael Scheiner, and Lauriann Basel. On July 17, 2000, Respondent hired Mr. Mets as the Director of
Maintenance and Plant Operations. At about the same time, Respondent hired Mr. Scheiner as a business manager and
Ms. Basel as the liaison between the maintenance department and the schools.
As evidenced in part from the fact that he continues to serve as Director of Maintenance and Plant Operations,
Mr. Mets has done a good job for the District. He previously handled similar duties for 19 years at the Port of Palm Beach. Among Mr. Met's responsibilities as Director of Maintenance and Plant Operations is the duty of approving all invoices to be paid by the District.
Mr. Scheiner continues to serve as a business manager for the District, although, at the time of the hearing, he testified that his contract might not be renewed. After serving as capital projects coordinator with the Port of Palm Beach, Mr. Scheiner, who has a degree in accounting, implemented the orders of Mr. Mets and Respondent to document all maintenance invoices before submitting them to accounting for payment. To perform this task, Mr. Scheiner had to design and implement internal controls to ensure, among other things, that vendors were doing the work in a satisfactory manner for which they were to be paid.
One of Mr. Scheiner's first discoveries were that the District did not maintain the records he needed to ensure that
the District had received the goods and services for which it was being invoiced. Prominent among the missing information were purchase orders showing that the District ordered goods or services and identifying the specific goods and services. Also prominent among the missing information was documentation showing that someone from Maintenance and Plant Operations physically visited the site that had purportedly received the goods and services to confirm that the goods and services were supplied and they were satisfactory.
At the same time that Mr. Scheiner was undertaking the substantial task of designing and implementing much-needed internal controls to cover future operations, he also had to address the deficiencies that had arisen during past operations. Noticing a number of invoices for the installation of vinyl flooring in which the vendor had agreed to reductions in the amount due, Mr. Scheiner suggested to Mr. Mets that he ask Lung Chiu, the District Internal Auditor, to conduct an audit of these vendors. In August 2000, Mr. Mets submitted a request to Mr. Chiu that he conduct an audit of the District's two vinyl flooring installers.
Mr. Chiu has served as the District Internal Auditor for eight years. He has a master's degree in accounting, and he is a certified public accountant and a certified internal auditor. Typically, Mr. Chiu reports to the School Board
through the Audit Committee. His method of reporting is through the presentation of a final audit to the Audit Committee.
Pursuant to Mr. Mets' request, Mr. Chiu conducted an audit of the two vinyl flooring installers from August to October 2000. Having completed his field work, in October 2000, Mr. Chiu prepared a draft audit report and submitted it for comment to Mr. Mets, as head of the maintenance department, and his counterpart in charge of the purchasing department. The draft audit report is dated November 17, 2000, and addressed to the School Board, Superintendent Marlin, and the Audit Committee because, if finalized in time, Mr. Chiu intended to present the final report to the Audit Committee at its next meeting, which was November 17, 2000.
On November 6, 2000, Mr. Chiu reported by memorandum to Mr. Mets that he had found an error in the earlier version of the draft audit report dated November 17, 2000. After the correction, the draft audit report, as revised through
November 1, 2000, found vendor overbillings (and, presumably, District overpayments) by the two vinyl flooring installers. According to the draft audit report, Buy the Square Yard, Inc. (Square Yard), overbilled the District $2.29 million, and Padron Brothers overbilled the District $2000. The earlier draft audit report had found that Square Yard had overbilled the District by
$2.932 million.
The tentative findings in the draft audit report caused District administrators to ask District legal counsel to consider various legal questions concerning the possible recovery of these apparent overpayments. In a nine-page legal memorandum dated November 10, 2000, to Interim Chief Counsel Bruce Harris marked "UNFINISHED PRELIMINARY AND TENTATIVE DRAFT FOR INITIAL DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY," Randall Burks discussed without resolution several legal issues concerning such a potential claim.
At this point, Mr. Chiu referred the matter to the District police department for the purpose of a criminal investigation into the overbillings. In the spring of 2001, the District police department concluded that insufficient evidence existed to pursue criminal charges.
In the meantime, in December 2000, Mr. Chiu considered the accounting error that had necessitated the amendment of the draft audit report. After more work, he concluded that his audit conclusion for 1995-99 was "questionable" due to incomplete billing and accounting records. This conclusion had a major impact on his earlier audit conclusions concerning Square Yard, which had tentatively found overbillings of $1.719 million in 1995-99.
In May 2001, after the police investigation had concluded, Mr. Chiu resumed the audit work. He reduced the
overbillings by Square Yard by removing the 1995-99 data and making another, much less important change. In May 2001,
Mr. Chiu finalized the draft. As revised through June 8, 2001, the draft audit report found overbillings by Square Yard of about $387,000.
According to a memorandum dated November 5, 2001, from Mr. Chiu to the Audit Committee, in May and June 2001, he "briefed" the committee members about ongoing projects, including the audit of the vinyl flooring vendors. District policy requires Mr. Chiu to update the Audit Committee about his audits, but Mr. Chiu ordinarily does not share with the committee any of the details of any audits, unless he has already submitted to the Audit Committee a finalized draft report.
The District Internal Audit Charter outlines the responsibilities of the Audit Committee and District Auditor, although the charter, as contained in this record, does not address confidentiality. However, the premature release of a draft audit would impair the ability of the District Auditor to conduct effective audits. Given his background and service as a member of the Audit Committee, Respondent clearly understood the importance of confidentiality to the integrity of an ongoing audit.
In early July 2001, Mr. Chiu shared his updated findings with the maintenance department and purchasing department, again for the purpose of obtaining their responses to the proposed audit findings and possibly incorporating these responses into the draft audit report. On August 2, 2001,
Mr. Chiu received the responses of the maintenance department, by way of Mr. Mets' memorandum of the same date. This memorandum largely restates his response several months earlier to an earlier draft of the audit report. Mr. Mets' counterpart in charge of the purchasing department submitted her response in September 2001, and Mr. Chiu submitted the final draft of the audit report to the Audit Committee in November 2001.
On August 3, 2001, Respondent attended a breakfast meeting at a motel restaurant with Henry Harper, Sr., the principal of Square Yard, and Isaac Robinson, the President of the City Commission of West Palm Beach. Commissioner Robinson had arranged the meeting so Respondent and Mr. Harper could try to resolve the problems that Mr. Harper felt that he was having with Respondent.
Respondent's relationship with Superintendent Johnson was not as good as Respondent's relationship had been with Superintendent Marlin, who had announced his resignation in January 2001. In April 2001, Dr. Johnson switched Respondent and Mr. Malone's jobs. Superintendent Johnson claims to have
been concerned about Respondent's interpersonal skills, but evidence of shortcomings in this area are anecdotal and unpersuasive. Superintendent Johnson also claims to have been concerned about Respondent's performance when he failed to produce a requested $50 million reduction from the business side. However, the record fails to establish sufficient details concerning this matter, which Superintendent Johnson did not pursue with Respondent at the time.
Mr. Malone had unsuccessfully applied for the Chief Operating Officer position when Superintendent Marlin had selected Respondent. It appears that Respondent and Mr. Malone enjoyed different sources of support, and the replacement of Superintendent Marlin with Superintendent Johnson was an adverse development for Respondent and a favorable development for
Mr. Malone.
Also, at this time, a member of the School Board, who had strongly supported Mr. Malone's application for the Chief Operating Officer position, had been exploring the possibility of obtaining a position as the administrative assistant to the Chief Operating Officer and preferred to work under Mr. Malone, rather than Respondent. At some point, this factor was mooted when the School Board member secured a position as the director of a newly formed education commission in West Palm Beach.
When switching the jobs of the two men, Superintendent Johnson also transferred to Mr. Malone's new position the responsibility for construction that he had previously borne as Chief of Facilities Management Services. At minimum, Superintendent Johnson preferred that this important responsibility remain in a person with whom he was more comfortable. However, Superintendent Johnson was not trying to rid the District of Respondent, as evidenced by his renewal of Respondent's one-year employment contract on June 30, 2001.
Sometime after switching jobs with Mr. Malone, Respondent decided to run for the Commission of the Port of Palm Beach. The election is in November 2002, and, although most of the vote campaigning takes place within two weeks of the election, candidates often file early so that they can open campaign accounts and line up support. Campaign expenditures for each seat, which are all at-large, typically range from
$30,000 to $40,000. On July 3, 2001, Respondent filed the paperwork to become a candidate for a seat on the Port Commission and advised Mr. Malone of his candidacy for public office. A few days later, Respondent briefly met with Mr. Mets, Mr. Scheiner, and Ms. Basel and informed them of his filing and warned them that they were not to involve themselves with his candidacy while on District time.
Shortly after these conversations, Respondent went on a two-week vacation, from which he returned on July 24. Within a few days after returning to work, Respondent presented to
Mr. Mets, Mr. Scheiner, and Ms. Basel three identical letters, all dated July 5, 2001. These letters reiterated Respondent's direction not to conduct any campaign business on District time. Each letter had a place for each of the three employees to sign and add the date. As instructed by Respondent, each employee signed his or her name and wrote in the date of July 5, 2001.
The evidence does not establish that, in backdating the letters, any of these employees felt intimidated or coerced by Respondent or felt that they were doing anything wrong. None complained about the request at the time. In an abundance of caution, not inconsistent with feelings of blamelessness,
Mr. Mets and Ms. Basel later memorialized the backdating of their letters.
More likely than not Respondent had these employees backdate the "July 5" letters in late July. Although there is a conflict in the evidence whether the date on which Mr. Mets and Ms. Basel signed their letters was in late July or late August, it appears more likely that Respondent, in acceding to his wife's wishes to get these letters signed, did not delay in performing this task. It also appears less likely, for reasons discussed below, that Ms. Basel would have backdated such a
letter in late August after Respondent's difficulties had surfaced.
Mr. Scheiner did not testify to any discomfort in backdating the letter, but Mr. Mets and Ms. Basel testified that they felt discomfort at signing their letters. The most obvious objective distinction between Mr. Scheiner, on the one hand, and Mr. Mets and Ms. Basel, on the other hand, is that Mr. Scheiner believes that his continued employment with the District is already in doubt. This distinction is important in evaluating the testimony of Mr. Mets on this point and Ms. Basel on this and other points. Respondent had been the sponsor of all three of these employees, and they may reasonably have felt that their future with the District was tied to Respondent.
Mr. Mets is near retirement. He is also understandably irritated at Respondent because Mr. Mets left his former, higher-paying job at the Port in reliance upon Respondent's unfulfilled promise to raise his pay with the District within a reasonable time after the commencement of his employment. Although Mr. Mets proved a credible witness in many regards, his testimony concerning discomfort at backdating the letter was unpersuasive.
Ms. Basel suffers obvious anxiety concerning her continued employment with the District. She eagerly treated her obligation to testify as an opportunity to display her fealty to
the District, which had already conducted an unsuccessful investigation against her for improperly requesting leave. Ms. Basel never harmonized her decision to join Respondent at the District with her portrayal of him as an easily angered supervisor. It is impossible to credit her proffered
justification that Respondent had told her that he had changed; it is unlikely that she would ever work again with the overbearing man whom she describes. Ms. Basel's claims that Respondent intimidated her at work is also impossible to harmonize with her close relationship with Respondent and his wife and Ms. Basel's frequent expressions of loyalty toward Respondent--prior, of course, to his current difficulties with the District.
Ms. Basel's lack of credibility undermines her testimony of intimidation, as well as her unsupported testimony concerning a couple of occasions on which Respondent, in her opinion, asked her to do campaign tasks on District time and property. One of her two recollections of conducting political business on District time and property involved her playing back a message from a District telephone answering machine and finding that someone had called Respondent to confirm a meeting and that a check--presumably a campaign contribution--was in the mail. Petitioner did not offer any evidence that Respondent conducted political business in connection with the call--only
that someone, presumably a campaign supporter, had called Respondent at work. From the lack of evidence concerning other such recorded messages, this would appear to have been an isolated incident over which Respondent had no control. In any event, Ms. Basel's testimony on this matter does not suggest that Respondent conducted political business on District time or property.
The other incident lacks detail. Ms. Basel testified that Respondent directed Ms. Basel to call a union president to get the union's support and 20 minutes later asked her if she had done so. Ms. Basel's evident desire to assist Petitioner's case inspires no confidence in the existence or details of the brief statements from Respondent or the duration of the interval between the two statements, so as to preclude the possibility of an intervening break, during which Ms. Basel would not be on District time.
However, the Administrative Law Judge credits
Ms. Basel's emphatic denial that she ever did any political work for Respondent on District time or property. But her testimony fails to establish that Respondent conducted political business on District time or property. To the contrary, given
Ms. Basel's obvious motivation to protect her job and her close proximity to Respondent, the absence of testimony from Ms. Basel concerning any substantiated incidents or even more
unsubstantiated incidents suggest that Respondent did not conduct political business on District time or property.
Respondent's purpose in attending the August 3 breakfast meeting is difficult to characterize, but the meeting did not take place on District time or property. Respondent claims that he viewed Mr. Harper merely as a disgruntled vendor, but this claim accounts for only a small part of Respondent's motivation in meeting with Mr. Harper.
Respondent testified that he knew that Mr. Harper was trying to prevent other persons from supporting Respondent's bid for a seat on the Port Commission, so the possibility of a political purpose exists.
However, Respondent also testified that he returned from vacation to find that Mr. Malone had settled the District's disputes with Square Yard at a meeting in July during which the District agreed to pay Square Yard about $43,000 on unpaid invoices and to try to give half of all future vinyl flooring work to Square Yard. As noted below, the omission of any mention of the $387,000 in overpayments is probably due to the fact that the District had already decided, or was in the process of deciding, not to pursue any overpayments. In fact, as Mr. Malone testified, he had negotiated this settlement at the direction of Superintendent Johnson, who misrecalled that Superintendent Marlin had decided to pay Square Yard $43,000 (a
decision that, if Superintendent Johnson's recollection were accurate, would have inexplicably gone unimplemented until five months into Superintendent Johnson's tenure). Given these circumstances, Respondent, in an abundance of caution, might want to appease a person who had such apparent influence with Mr. Malone and Superintendent Johnson, just in case Respondent were not successful in his Port Commission election.
Commissioner Robinson facilitated the August 3 breakfast meeting. He asked Mr. Harper to state his concerns. Mr. Harper blamed Respondent for certain problems of Square Yard with the Port of Palm Beach and the District. Respondent explained what he was doing at the Port and that, while with the District, he was merely following orders. Clearly addressing District business, Respondent also emphasized the internal controls that the District had recently implemented and underscored the importance of vendor compliance with these controls. None of the three men discussed Respondent's political campaign.
While dealing with Mr. Harper's concerns about the District, Respondent showed him copies of a draft audit, as revised through October 25, 2000, and June 8, 2001, with
Mr. Mets' response dated August 2, 2001. Commissioner Robinson asked Respondent if this was public record, and Respondent replied that it was because it had been brought to the attention
of the District. Mr. Harper asked for a copy of these documents, and Respondent gave him one.
Respondent did not give Mr. Harper copies of other documents, such as the November 10, 2000, unfinished legal memorandum. Mr. Harper likely obtained a copy of this document at the breakfast meeting from Respondent's files, perhaps due to the inadvertent shuffling of papers in the large stack that Respondent had brought with him to the meeting.
The key question in this case is whether Respondent improperly supplied Mr. Harper with copies of the draft audits. Respondent testified that he believed that the audit had been completed because Mr. Malone had settled all pending disputes while Respondent had been on vacation. Respondent testified that he knew that the formal audit had been delayed from last fall, but Respondent testified that he thought that the delay was occasioned by the District's investigation during the first half of 2001 of Mr. Chiu for the possible conducting of a lichee nut business for his brother while on District time.
Mr. Mets testified that Mr. Chiu told him on August 2, 2001, that Mr. Chiu had discussed the June 8 draft audit with some, but not all, members of the School Board. Evidently based on this discussion, the School Board had decided, according to Mr. Mets' testimony of his conversation with Mr. Chiu, not to pursue the overpayments to Square Yard. This testimony is
largely credited. If the School Board could agree not to pursue the overpayments, the discussion with Mr. Chiu must have been more detailed than a mere briefing or updating.
On the same day, after his conversation with Mr. Chiu, Mr. Mets told Respondent that Mr. Chiu had explained that the District was not able to pursue any 1995-99 overpayments because of the District's failures in documentation and internal controls and that Mr. Chiu wanted to close the matter promptly. Mr. Mets also told Respondent that Mr. Chiu had told Mr. Mets that Mr. Chiu had discussed the audit in detail with four members of the School Board and intended to discuss the audit in detail with the other three members by the end of the week.
Mr. Mets added that the four members had agreed the District could not pursue any overpayments.
Two District attorneys have consistently opined that otherwise-confidential audit materials lose their confidential status when distributed to members of the School Board or Audit Committee. One of the attorneys had concluded on June 19, 2001, not to pursue any overpayments for the reasons stated above and had instructed Mr. Chiu to bring the matter to a conclusion.
Immediately after obtaining the documents from Respondent, Mr. Harper gave them to his attorney, who promptly returned them to Mr. Harris due to his concern that the release of the documents had been improper. In his cover letter,
Mr. Harper's attorney strongly suggested that Respondent's delivery of the materials to Mr. Harper was improper and if the current administration (apparently of Superintendent Johnson) intended to correct the mistakes of the preceding administration, it had better do so quickly, or else its successor would correct those mistakes.
On August 15, 2001, Mr. Malone summoned Respondent, falsely telling him that they needed to discuss a school maintenance matter. Mr. Malone prepared the ruse so that Respondent could not prepare untrue responses to the questions that Mr. Malone intended to ask Respondent. At the meeting, when shown some of the documents that Mr. Harper's attorney had sent to the District, Respondent told Mr. Malone that he had met with Mr. Harper, but the meeting had not been political in nature, and that he had given Mr. Harper some of the documents, but not all of them. A later disagreement arose between
Mr. Harper and Respondent concerning what Respondent said at the August 15 meeting, but the discrepancies are not material.
One week after the meeting, Mr. Malone recommended that the District Department of Professional Standards investigate the entire matter. Mr. Malone suggested that the investigators take testimony under oath because some of the apparent violations were criminal.
The Director of the District Department of Professional Standards referred the entire matter to the District police department for investigation. Two District police department detectives interviewed witnesses, including Respondent on August 30, 2001. During his interview, despite being under oath, Respondent three times denied that he had asked Mr. Mets, Mr. Scheiner, and Ms. Basel to backdate their "July 5" letters.
Immediately after the conclusion of the interview, Respondent told his attorney, who had accompanied him at the interview, of the misstatements and that he wanted to correct the record immediately. A short delay ensued because Respondent and his attorney had been instructed to go elsewhere immediately after the interview and did so. However, within 20 minutes after the conclusion of the interview, Respondent and his attorney caused the detectives to reconvene the interview, so that Respondent could correct his misstatement about backdating the "July 5" letters. At the reconvened interview, Respondent admitted to asking the three employees to backdate their letters. No evidence suggests that Respondent's 20-minute delay in admitting to the backdating request materially delayed Petitioner's investigation.
After examining the facts of the case, the School Board voted on November 20, 2001, to terminate Respondent's
contract, effective 15 days later, rather than not renew it when it expired on June 30, 2002.
The charges that engendered this case are that Respondent disclosed confidential materials to Mr. Harper and that he did so for personal gain. Respondent gave Mr. Harper copies of two draft audit reports, but they were no longer confidential because Mr. Chiu had already discussed in detail the findings of his audit with a majority of the members of the School Board. The evidence suggests that Mr. Chiu did so to obtain the approval of the School Board to resolve its long- pending overpayment issue with Square Yard.
The evidence fails to establish that Respondent gave Mr. Harper a copy of the other materials. As for the November 10, 2000, unfinished legal memorandum, this document was no longer confidential because, in June or no later than July 2001, the District had decided not to pursue possible overpayments to Square Yard.
If the materials were no longer confidential, the motivation of Respondent in delivering them, during a breakfast meeting not on District time or property, loses its importance. Undoubtedly, Respondent was dealing with a disgruntled vendor, as Respondent claims. Undoubtedly, Respondent's underlying motivation was a mixture of concern for his political campaign
and for his present job situation; mollifying Mr. Harper could help Respondent in both regards.
Nor has Petitioner proved misconduct impairing Respondent's effectiveness in his handling of the three "July 5" letters. The record does not sustain the allegation that Respondent coerced or intimidated any of the three employees into backdating these letters.
The letters themselves are not legally required documents, nor are they even significant documents. These letters are self-, or, if Respondent's testimony were credited, ally-serving documents whose effectiveness is undermined by their transparency. They have the force and effect of birthday cards.
Backdating these ineffective documents inspires little confidence in Respondent's mental acuity or at least in his assessment of the mental acuity of those around him. At best, undisclosed backdating is a precarious practice, and Respondent's claim that backdating is prevalent in the District is beside the point. However, the insubstantiality of the letters themselves reduces their backdating to a meaningless self-indulgence.
The closest issue in the case is Respondent's dishonest denial, under oath, that he had the three employees backdate the "July 5" letters. The insubstantiality of the
letters themselves is irrelevant to this issue, which raises the question of Respondent's honesty. Respondent knew that he had asked the employees to backdate these letters, and he denied under oath doing so. The proper characterization of this incident does not permit consideration of Respondent's intention to protect his employees or Petitioner's failure to advise Respondent that he was under criminal investigation; these factors are entirely irrelevant.
However, the proper characterization of this incident requires consideration of Respondent's near-immediate correction of his misstatement. The 20-minute delay arose due to logistics, not any delay on Respondent's part after the conclusion of the interview. Respondent had not expected questions concerning the "July 5" letters, nor, in retrospect, should he reasonably have expected such questions. When asked about the letters, Respondent panicked and denied three times that he had asked the employees to backdate them. The fairer characterization of this incident is that Respondent immediately corrected his admittedly intentional misstatements, rather than made the misstatements and later recanted. Not Respondent's most shining moment, his lapse from honesty, which obviously never impaired Petitioner's investigation, was short-lived to the point of being momentary, was not so serious as to impair Respondent's effectiveness in the school system, and factually
did not rise to the level of misconduct constituting just cause for his termination.
These findings do not imply acceptance of Respondent's assertion, in his proposed recommended order, that the "only plausible explanation" for Respondent's termination was Superintendent Johnson's desire to remove Respondent. This is a oversimplification and distortion of the facts of this case.
Superintendent Johnson renewed Respondent's contract hardly one month prior to the August 3 breakfast meeting. Although Superintendent Johnson clearly wanted Respondent out of the position of Chief Operating Officer, he displayed no desire to terminate Respondent's employment with the District.
From Superintendent Johnson's perspective, Respondent's August 3 meeting with Mr. Harper was ill-timed. The District had just worked out the long-pending dispute between it and Square Yard by paying $43,000 to the company and promising it more business. Superintendent Johnson's misrecollection--corrected by Mr. Malone--that Superintendent Marlin had decided on the $43,000 payment suggests the sensitivity of this matter.
For nearly nine months, many persons within the District, and probably a number of persons outside of the District, had credited Mr. Chiu's preliminary findings that Square Yard owed the District over $2 million in overpayments--
an attractive receivable in times of tight revenues. This dramatic preliminary finding left a more lasting impression than the more thorough findings that the overpayments were less than
$400,000, poor District recordkeeping during the earlier period in question precluded reliable findings of any additional overpayments, and poor District recordkeeping concerning even the $400,000 in claimed overpayments probably precluded their proof in a civil action for damages.
The letter from Mr. Harper's attorney exacerbated the situation for Superintendent Johnson, who testified that the matter was serious because the attorney took it seriously and, if the District took no action after receiving such notification from an officer of the court, the District would leave itself vulnerable to later recriminations. The subsequent discovery of Respondent's requests for his employees to backdate the "July 5" letters and, worse, his momentary lying under oath, even though concerning tangential matters, made it much more difficult for Superintendent Johnson to coordinate public perceptions with the reality of the Square Yard matter. On this record, the reality of the Square Yard matter is that poor District recordkeeping and internal controls--since corrected--meant that the Square Yard might have been entitled to $43,000 on past-due invoices and future District business, rather than that the District was
owed hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars in overpayments.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. (All references to Sections are to Florida Statutes. All references to Rules are to the Florida Administrative Code.)
Petitioner has the burden of proving the material allegations by a preponderance of the evidence. Dileo v. School
Board of Dade County, 569 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).
Section 231.36(6)(b) provides:
Any member of the district administrative or supervisory staff, including any principal but excluding an employee specified in subsection (4), may be suspended or dismissed at any time during the term of the contract; however, the charges against him or her must be based on immorality, misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, drunkenness, or conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, as these terms are defined by rule of the State Board of Education. Whenever such charges are made against any such employee of the district school board, the district school board may suspend the employee without pay; but, if the charges are not sustained, he or she shall be immediately reinstated, and his or her back salary shall be paid. In cases of suspension by the district school board or by the superintendent of schools, the district school board shall determine upon the evidence submitted whether the charges
have been sustained and, if the charges are sustained, shall determine either to dismiss the employee or fix the terms under which he or she may be reinstated. If such charges are sustained by a majority vote of the full membership of the district school board and such employee is discharged, his or her contract of employment shall be thereby canceled. Any such decision adverse to the employee may be appealed by him or her pursuant to s. 120.68, provided such appeal is filed within 30 days after the decision of the district school board.
Petitioner's Policy 6Gx50-1.013(2) requires administrative staff to "insur[e] that the appropriate district policies, state board of education rules, state laws, and federal laws and rules are adhered to."
Petitioner's Policy 6Gx50-2.041 governs the distribution of public records, but governs persons requesting such records, not District employees from whom "requesters" seek such records.
Petitioner's Policy 6Gx50-2.32 provides: "No employee of the School Board may conduct personal business on school time except for emergencies . . .. School Board equipment or supplies shall not be used to conduct personal business or any other activity not connected with the school system."
Petitioner's Policy 6Gx50-2.59 prohibits all School Board employees from "[p]articipating in any political activity while on duty" or "[a]ttempting, either directly or indirectly,
to coerce political activity or support from any other School Board employee."
Petitioner's Policy 6Gx50-3.27 describes the procedure governing the termination of employees.
Administrative Directive 3.27, which seems to be another of Petitioner's policies, although not part of the policy described in the preceding paragraph, provides substantive grounds for disciplining instructional and noninstructional staff. In the Administrative Complaint, Petitioner mistakenly relied on Administrative Directive 3.27(3)(j)(3) in asserting that Respondent's alleged intimidation of his employees constituted grounds for termination, but examination of the language of subsubsection
(j) reveals that this provision is limited to intimidation that is part of harassment or discrimination based on race, sex, national origin, color, age, religion, or handicap.
However, Administrative Directive 3.27(3)(g) authorizes discipline for:
Misconduct, which is defined as conduct that is serious enough to impair the individual's effectiveness in the school system; for instructional personnel this definition also includes failure to comply with the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida as specified in Rule 6B-1.06, Florida Administrative Code.
Section 893.25 provides:
"Official misconduct" means the commission of the following act by a public servant, with corrupt intent to obtain a benefit for himself or herself or another or to cause unlawful harm to another: knowingly falsifying, or causing another to falsify, any official record or official document.
"Corrupt" means done with knowledge that act is wrongful and with improper motives.
Official misconduct under this section is a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
Section 893.26 provides:
Any public servant who, in contemplation of official action by herself or himself or by a governmental unit with which the public servant is associated, or in reliance on information to which she or he has access in her or his official capacity and which has not been made public, commits any of the following acts:
Acquisition of a pecuniary interest in any property, transaction, or enterprise or gaining of any pecuniary or other benefit which may be affected by such information or official action;
Speculation or wagering on the basis of such information or action; or
Aiding another to do any of the foregoing,
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
Rule 6B-4.009(3) defines "misconduct in office" as: a violation of the Code of Ethics of
the Education Profession as adopted in Rule
6B-1.001, FAC., and the Principles of
Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida as adopted in Rule 6B-1.006, FAC., which is so serious as to
impair the individual's effectiveness in the school system.
Rule 6B-1.001 provides:
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.
Rule 6B-1.006 provides:
The following disciplinary rule shall constitute the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida.
Violation of any of these principles shall subject the individual to revocation or suspension of the individual educator's certificate, or the other penalties as provided by law.
* * *
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.
Shall not use institutional privileges for personal gain or advantage.
Shall accept no gratuity, gift, or favor that might influence professional judgment.
Shall offer no gratuity, gift, or favor to obtain special advantages.
Obligation to the profession of education requires that the individual:
Shall maintain honesty in all professional dealings.
Shall not on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, national or ethnic origin, political beliefs, marital status, handicapping condition if otherwise qualified, or social and family background deny to a colleague professional benefits or advantages or participation in any professional organization.
Shall not interfere with a colleague's exercise of political or civil rights and responsibilities.
Shall not engage in harassment or discriminatory conduct which unreasonably interferes with an individual's performance of professional or work responsibilities or with the orderly processes of education or which creates a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment; and, further, shall make reasonable effort to assure that each individual is protected from such harassment or discrimination.
Shall not make malicious or intentionally false statements about a colleague.
Shall not use coercive means or promise special treatment to influence professional judgments of colleagues.
Shall not misrepresent one's own professional qualifications.
Shall not submit fraudulent information on any document in connection with professional activities.
Shall not make any fraudulent statement or fail to disclose a material fact in one's own or another's application for a professional position.
Shall not withhold information regarding a position from an applicant or misrepresent an assignment or conditions of employment.
Shall provide upon the request of the certificated individual a written statement of specific reason for recommendations that lead to the denial of increments, significant changes in employment, or termination of employment.
Shall not assist entry into or continuance in the profession of any person known to be unqualified in accordance with these Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida and other applicable Florida Statutes and State Board of Education Rules.
Shall self-report within forty-eight
(48) hours to appropriate authorities (as determined by district) any arrests/charges involving the abuse of a child or the sale and/or possession of a controlled substance. Such notice shall not be considered an admission of guilt nor shall such notice be admissible for any purpose in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory. In addition, shall self- report any conviction, finding of guilt, withholding of adjudication, commitment to a pretrial diversion program, or entering of a plea of guilty or Nolo Contendere for any criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation within forty-eight (48) hours after the final judgment. When handling sealed and expunged records disclosed under this rule, school districts shall comply with the confidentiality provisions of Sections 943.0585(4)(c) and 943.059(4)(c), Florida Statutes.
Shall report to appropriate authorities any known allegation of a violation of the Florida School Code or State Board of Education Rules as defined in Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes.
Shall seek no reprisal against any individual who has reported any allegation of a violation of the Florida School Code or State Board of Education Rules as defined in Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes.
Shall comply with the conditions of an order of the Education Practices Commission imposing probation, imposing a fine, or restricting the authorized scope of practice.
Shall, as the supervising administrator, cooperate with the Education Practices Commission in monitoring the probation of a subordinate.
Section 119.07(3)(y) provides:
The audit report of an internal auditor prepared for or on behalf of a unit of local government becomes a public record when the audit becomes final. As used in this paragraph, "unit of local government" means a county, municipality, special district, local agency, authority, consolidated city- county government, or any other local governmental body or public body corporate or politic authorized or created by general or special law. An audit becomes final when the audit report is presented to the unit of local government. Audit workpapers and notes related to such audit report are confidential and exempt from the provisions of subsection (1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution until the audit is completed and the audit report becomes final.
As provided in Section 119.07(3)(y), an audit "becomes" a public record when it becomes final. The obvious implication is that, prior to becoming final, an audit report is
not a public record. An audit becomes final when presented to the unit of local government. As held in Nicolai v. Baldwin, 715 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), presentation to a county administrator, during an "exit conference" that could lead to further revisions to the draft prior to its presentation, does not cause the draft audit report to become a public record.
In this case, the draft audit would have remained confidential except that Mr. Chiu had effectively presented it to members of the School Board. He did not merely brief or update them; he gave the details of the findings. He did not merely provide these details to a member or two; he supplied these details to four of the seven members of the School Board for their approval of a settlement of District disputes with Square Yard.
Arguing for the confidentiality of the draft audit report on August 3, Petitioner relies on the presumably typical scenario in which Mr. Chiu completes his audit report and presents it to the Audit Committee before the District and School Board take action based upon the findings of the finished report. In this case, the cart rolled ahead of the horse when the District, with the approval of a majority of School Board members, settled matters with Square Yard and later Mr. Chiu presented his long-awaited audit report to the audit committee. Reality compels the recognition that the draft audit report
became a public record when its detailed findings became available to a majority of the School Board to inform their approval of the settlement.
Respondent was therefore free to give copies of the draft audit reports to Mr. Harper on August 3. Although he did not do so, Respondent was also free to give Mr. Harper a copy of the unfinished legal memorandum, as the District had one to two months earlier decided not to pursue any claims against Square Yard. The public nature of the documents precludes any violation of Section 823.26. The evidence does not establish that Respondent's motive was improper in giving these documents to Mr. Harper, although that issue is mooted by their status as public records.
Nor does the evidence establish that Respondent conducted political activities or sought to induce others to conduct political activities on his behalf while on District time or property. If the purpose of the August 3 breakfast meeting were political, which is unclear from the record, it was not on District time or property. The other source of evidence concerning this issue is Ms. Basel's testimony, and this order has already discussed amply her credibility problems.
The backdating of the "July 5" letters hardly involves "official documents," so Respondent did not violate Section
893.25. Section 231.36(6)(b) and Petitioner's Administrative
Directive 3.27(3)(g) incorporate into the definition of "misconduct in office" the relevant portions of the cited rules. Rule 6B-1.001(2) and (3) are clearly exhortatory in nature, as they encourage the administrator to "strive" for the "highest" and "best." Important as these provisions are for setting behavioral and professional goals, they do not serve well as provisions describing the minimum standards that, if breached, may result in termination.
Rule 1.006 requires Respondent to maintain honesty in all professional dealings, not coerce colleagues to influence their judgment, and not submit fraudulent information on any document in connection with his professional activities. As already noted, Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent coerced any of the three employees into backdating the "July 5" letter or intimidated them in any other respect.
The backdating of the letters is not honest, but the immateriality of the letters themselves undermines any finding of the minimal materiality that must be present for the practical enforcement of this requirement. In any event, the backdating of these letters, given their insignificance, is not serious enough to impair Respondent's effectiveness in the school system, which is a requirement of misconduct in office by state rule and local policy.
The three untrue denials during the sworn interrogation constitute dishonesty. However, Respondent's near-immediate correction of the record reduces the effect of this momentary departure from the obligation of honesty in professional dealings so as not to impair Respondent's effectiveness in the school system.
Failing to have proved any ground for termination of Respondent, Petitioner is liable, under Section 231.36(6)(b), for back pay from the date of Respondent's suspension without pay through June 30, 2002, when his current contract would have expired. The little time remaining between the date of this order and the date that Petitioner can enter a final order precludes any possibility of reinstatement during the pending contract term.
It is
RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Palm Beach County enter a final order dismissing all charges against Respondent and awarding him back pay for the period from the date on which he was suspended without pay through the end of the term of his present contract.
DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of June, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
____ ROBERT E. MEALE
Administrative Law Judge
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060
(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675
Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of June, 2002.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Dr. Arthur C. Johnson, Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board
3340 Forest Hill Boulevard, C316 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869
Honorable Charlie Crist Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education
The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Alan M. Aronson, Esquire
Palm Beach County School Board
3318 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-302 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406
Elaine Johnson James, Esquire Edwards & Angell, LLP
1 North Clematis Street, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, Florida 31301
Thomas L. Johnson, Esquire Chamblee, Johnson & Haynes, P.A.
215 West Verne Street, Suite D Tampa, Florida 33606
Scott N. Richardson, Esquire
Atterbury, Goldberger & Richardson, P.A.
250 Australian Avenue, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within
15 days from the date of this recommended order. Any exceptions to this recommended order must be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Jun. 05, 2002 | Recommended Order | Petitioner failed to prove misconduct in office because Respondent`s momentary lie while giving a statement under oath--which he corrected 20 minutes after interview ended--did not impair his effectiveness in the school system. |
