BEFORE THE SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA ROBERT W. RUNCIE, Superintendent, Petitioner, vs. KAREN SOUTHERLAND, Respondent. / ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT COMES NOW, the Petitioner, THE SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, through its Superintendent, ROBERT W. RUNCIE, and files this Administrative Complaint and states the following: I. JURISDICTIONAL BASIS 1. The Agency is The School Board of Broward County, Florida located at 600 Southeast Third Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida 33301. 2. The Petitioner is Robert W. Runcie, who is the Superintendent of Schools of Broward County, Florida. His address is 600 Southeast Third Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida 33301. 3. The Petitioner is statutorily obligated to recommend the placement of School Board personnel, and require compliance and observance by all personnel with all laws, rules and regulations. See §1012.27, Fla. Stat. 4. The employee against whom discipline is recommended, Respondent, Karen Southerland, has been employed by The School Board of Broward County, Florida, since July 1, 2004. She is currently employed as a teacher at Attucks Middle School. 5. The legal basis for the Respondent's discipline is: a. Incompetency; b. Misconduct in Office; and c. Insubordination or Willful Neglect of Duty. See §1012.33(4)(c), Fla. Stat. See also Fla. Admin. Code r. 6B-1.001, 6B-1.006, 6B-4.009. ll. ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES The Petitioner, Robert W. Runcie, alleges as follows: 6. The charges arise out of the Respondent's conduct over the past two school years. 7. Historically, the Respondent has been advised of the need for her adherence to attendance procedures and work hours. 8. In January 2011, after learning that the Respondent had missed a faculty meeting, Assistant Principal William T. Gillespie met with the Respondent to address the importance of adhering to deadlines, attending meetings, and being on time for those meetings. The Respondent was advised that she should attend all staff meetings and professional development sessions. 2 9. Also in January, 2011, the Respondent met with Assistant Principal Terry Tait and Assistant Principal Gillespie to discuss her failure to adhere to ' deadlines (with particular reference to NCLB correspondence), and her tardiness to work. 10. During that meeting, the Respondent was unprofessional with her supervisors. 11. She was reminded that: - Teachers should read their email twice daily. - It is important to meet deadlines. - She was expected to treat all staff members with respect and - ie WY. oriant to attend all staff meetings and development activities. 12. In March, 2011, a pre-disciplinary meeting was held to again discuss the Respondent’s excessive tardiness. She was issued a verbal reprimand and specifically advised to adhere to all policies and procedures and the collective bargaining agreement regarding tardiness. 13. In September, 2011, Assistant Principal Tait held a post-observation conference with the Respondent, and addressed a number of general classroom and behavioral concerns. 14. During that conference, the Respondent was advised of problems with, among other things: - An absence of continuity during her classroom lessons; - Her lack of clear, concise directions to students; - Her disjointed lessons and inappropriate sequencing; - An absence of procedures in place for new students, and raising hands; ~ Her need to review materials before trying to teach the lessons; - Her need to meet with a coach to gain a clear understanding between a goal and an activity; - Her violation of security policies by requiring students to place backpacks on a cart instead of maintaining possession of their own backpacks; - Her failure to come to work on time and her absence from (and tardiness to) several staff meetings. 15. The Respondent was offered assistance from several teachers. 416. In September and October 2011, after excessive absences from work, several pre-disciplinary meetings were held to address the Respondent's attendance and her ongoing excessive tardiness. The Respondent was reminded of the importance of being at work, for the benefit of her students. 17. At the end of October, 2011, the Respondent was, again, given a formal verbal reprimand and reminded that progressive disciplinary action would be taken if she continued to be late to work. 18. In December, 2011, it was again noted, during a classroom observation, that the Respondent was engaging in unprofessional behavior. She was once again advised about serious concerns in the classroom and she was expressly told to: - Give clear and concise directions; - Address behavioral concerns without interrupting the lesson; - Identify objectives and share them with the students; - Give an overview of the lesson; - Encourage students to raise their hands to avoid unison responses; - Enact procedures for tardy students; and - Post essential questions for students. 19. During this meeting with Assistant Principals Tait and Williams, the Respondent became hostile, and called her administrators liars. She was notified that her behavior was considered unprofessional and disrespectful. 20. The Respondent was again offered the assistance of a number of , other teachers and support personnel. 21. In February, 2012, a formal written reprimand was issued regarding the Respondent’s abuse of sick time and her excessive tardiness to work, which was still an ongoing problem. 22. The Respondent was expressly advised that progressive disciplinary action would be taken if she continued to be late to work and absent without leave. 23. Onor about March 1, 2012, the Respondent took a personal phone call on her cell phone and left the students in her classroom unsupervised. While unsupervised, two students (a male and a female) got in a fight and the female student was struck in the eye and suffered a blood clot. 24. Numerous student statements indicated that the teacher was not in the classroom at the time of the altercation. 25. Further, before the altercation, when the Respondent was in the classroom, students were throwing water bottles and bananas across the classroom and the Respondent did not intervene to take control of her students. 26. Although security was called after the altercation was over, the Respondent did not report the student’s injury or that medical assistance was needed. 27. The Principal, Teresa Hall, requested an SIU investigation but was advised that the matter should be handled on site. 28. In March and April 2012, pre-disciplinary meetings were held to address the Respondent's actions in leaving her students unattended during an evacuation drill, safety and security, and record keeping. 29. In April, 2012, the Respondent was placed on a 90-day probationary period and a formal Performance Development Plan. She refused to attend any meetings for the purpose of writing and addressing that PDP. 30. Finally, Principal Teresa Hall, recommended the Respondent's termination for: - Her failure to meet the performance standards required in her position as a teacher; Her abuse of attendance policies; Her excessive absences and tardiness to work; Her failure to provide a safe learning environment for students; and Her falsification of student records and grades. 31. Principal Hall found that the Respondent’s actions were contrary to the efficient and effective operation of Attucks Middie School. 32. Even after the recommendation for termination was submitted to the Superintendent, the Respondent again failed to follow procedures during FCAT testing and failed to follow procedures during a classroom evacuation drill. 33. The legal basis for the recommended termination is: a. Misconduct in office as evidenced by the Respondent's violation of the Code of Ethics and her violation of the Principles of Professional Conduct; Misconduct in office as evidenced by the Respondent's behavior that has disrupted the students’ learning environment, including leaving her students unattended and fabricating school records and student grades; Incompetency as evidenced by the Respondent's excessive absences and tardiness; Incompetency as evidenced by the Respondent's failure to perform the duties described by law and her failure to communicate with and relate to the students; The Respondent's continued insubordination, in that she has failed to comply with her Assistant Principals’ and Principal’s direct orders. 34. Upon review of the Respondent's conduct, and the other progressive discipline that has been imposed during the 2010-2012 school years, [| agree that termination from employment is warranted. 35. In accordance with Florida law and the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement, this recommendation must be reviewed, and approved by The School Board of Broward County, Florida. 36. If the ultimate decision is adverse to her, the Respondent may challenge the decision by seeking an administrative hearing pursuant to Chapter 120 of the Florida Statutes. EXECUTED this 20 _ day of August, 2012 ROBERT W. RUNCIE Superintendent of Schools Cadre Attorney: Debra Potter Klauber, Esq. Haliczer Pettis & Schwamm, P.A.

Docket for Case No: 12-003225TTS