STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
HOLMES COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,
vs.
Petitioner,
Case No. 15-2016TTS
SUSAN STEVERSON,
Respondent.
/
RECOMMENDED ORDER
An administrative hearing was held in this case on December 22, 2015, in Bonifay, Florida, before James H. Peterson III, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Rhonda S. Clyatt, Esquire
Law Office of Rhonda Clyatt 621 East 4th Street
Panama City, Florida 32401-2492
For Respondent: Bob L. Harris, Esquire
Summer Denay Brown, Esquire Messer Caparello, P.A.
2618 Centennial Place
Tallahassee, Florida 32308 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
Whether Petitioner established, pursuant to section 1012.33(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2014),1/ that Respondent, Susan
Steverson (Respondent), committed gross insubordination and should have been disciplined therefore.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On or about January 27, 2015, Petitioner, Holmes County School Board (School Board or Petitioner), served Respondent with a Notice of Charges setting forth allegations in support of the School Board's earlier suspension of Respondent without pay for a period of five days from January 12, 2015, to January 16, 2015, imposed by the School Board's Superintendent. The Notice of Charges notified Respondent that the School Board had adopted the Superintendent's recommended discipline and advised that if Respondent desired a hearing on the matter pursuant to section 1012.33(6)(a), Florida Statutes, that she must file a written request within 15 days. Respondent timely requested a hearing, and on April 10, 2015, the School Board referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) for the assignment of an administrative law judge to conduct an administrative hearing. The case was initially assigned to Administrative Law Judge Diane Cleavinger, who scheduled the hearing to be held on May 29, 2015. The original hearing date was twice continued, and the final hearing was ultimately rescheduled for December 22, 2015. Due to Judge Cleavinger's unavailability, shortly before the hearing, the case was
transferred to the undersigned to preside over the final hearing.
The day before the hearing, an Order was entered granting Petitioner’s Emergency Motion to Quash Subpoenas which quashed subpoenas served upon members of the Holmes County School Board. In addition, at the beginning of the final hearing, Respondent’s Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs, filed December 21, 2015, was denied, and rulings on the objections to the offer of evidence referenced in Petitioner’s Motion in Limine filed December 17, 2015, was deferred until the offer of such evidence during the final hearing.
During the final hearing, the School Board offered the testimony of School Board Superintendent Eddie Dixon, Bethlehem School Principal Brent Jones, and Bethlehem School Assistant Principal Rosanne Mitchell. The School Board offered 11 exhibits into evidence, 10 of which were received into evidence as Exhibits P-1, P-2, P-4, P-5, P-8, P-11 through P-14, and
P-18. Although offered and conditionally received as corroborating hearsay, Exhibit P-3, consisting of a purported written statement from a student, was not received or considered because it is hearsay that did not corroborate competent evidence. After the final hearing, an Order granting Petitioner’s Motion to Supplement the Administrative Hearing Record was entered which received into evidence, as part of the
record in this case, Petitioner’s Exhibit P-10, consisting of the minutes of the Holmes County School Board Workshop and Regular Session held on January 20, 2015.
In addition to testifying on her own behalf, Respondent offered the testimony of Donna Mollet, a fourth-grade teacher at Bethlehem School; Lisa Matthews, another teacher at Bethlehem School; and Tamra Kriser, a parent of one of Respondent's former students. Respondent offered two exhibits which were received into evidence as Exhibits R-9 and R-18.
A two-volume Transcript of the proceeding was filed with the DOAH on January 6, 2016. The parties were given 30 days from the filing of the Transcript within which to file their respective proposed recommended orders. The time for submitting proposed recommended orders was extended until February 12, 2016, by Order Granting [Respondent’s request for] Extension of Time entered February 5, 2016. Thereafter, Petitioner timely filed its Proposed Recommended Orders and, on February 15, 2016, Respondent filed her Proposed Recommended Order [entitled “Proposed Report and Recommended Order”], together with a letter dated February 12, 2016, explaining that Respondent’s counsel was having difficulty with filing on the DOAH website. Both parties’ Proposed Recommended Orders were considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The School Board is responsible for the public education of students in grades pre-K through 12 in Holmes County, Florida. The School Board is also responsible for the hiring, firing, and overseeing all employees within the Holmes County School District (District). The District has a total of approximately 3,250 students enrolled and employs just under 475 persons.
Mr. Eddie Dixon is the Superintendent of School for the Holmes County School District. He was elected as Superintendent in 2012. As Superintendent, Mr. Dixon is responsible for the management of district employees and regularly makes recommendations to the School Board regarding the suspension, discipline, or termination of such employees.
The District is comprised of seven traditional schools and one alternative school. One of the traditional schools within the District is Bethlehem School, a Pre-K through 12 school. Approximately 500 students are enrolled at Bethlehem School, which has roughly 55 faculty and staff members. Brent Jones is the current principal of Bethlehem School and was principal during the 2014-15 school year. Rosanne Mitchell is the current assistant principal of Bethlehem School and was assistant principal during the 2014-15 school year.
At all relevant times to these proceedings, Respondent has been employed by the School Board as a classroom teacher. Respondent was employed at Bethlehem School for over 28 years.
Respondent met Superintendent Dixon shortly after he became superintendent. Superintendent Dixon removed Zeb Brown as principal of Bethlehem School in the middle of the 2012-13 school year, around December of 2012. Respondent, along with a number of teachers, disagreed with the decision and voiced her concerns. According to Respondent, Superintendent Dixon was dismissive of those concerns.
Respondent also disagreed with a policy change that took place at Bethlehem school after Principal Brown was removed during the tenure of an interim principal, Principal Thompson. The policy had to do with pre-approved permission forms for student activities. Before the change, teachers could decline to sign the form if a student was not performing or behaving well in class. After the change, teachers no longer had veto power over the forms. They were told that they were to sign the forms, even before the student received it.
During the 2014-2015 school year, while Respondent was employed as a classroom teacher at Bethlehem School, Principal Jones received reports that Respondent was leaving students outside of her locked classroom during instructional time. The standard policy that had been put in place at Bethlehem School at
the time required that after classes began, classroom doors were to be locked from the inside, requiring late-arriving students to knock on the door to gain entrance.
During the fall of 2014, Respondent became "fed up" with the situation, especially during her first period, because late- arriving students interrupted her class. Therefore, she told her students that, after Thanksgiving break, if a student was tardy, they were to knock on the door only once, and that she would open the door when there was a convenient break. According to Respondent, the strategy worked well, and students were never left outside for more than a minute or two.
On December 11, 2014, while taking attendance during her first period, a student knocked on her door, and Respondent called out "Just a minute." In less than a minute, she opened the door but no one was there. Shortly thereafter, there was an intercom announcement that there was a late bus and to please allow students in the classrooms. The announcement was followed by a phone call to Respondent in her classroom from the receptionist who had made the announcement, who asked Respondent to allow students in her classroom. That phone call was followed by another from Principal Jones, who asked Respondent why she was locking students out. While Respondent was explaining, the phone call was interrupted by another knock on the door by a late-arriving student.
The next day, Friday, December 12, 2014, Principal Jones and Assistant Principal Mitchell met with Respondent during her planning period. During the meeting, Principal Jones told Respondent that they were not running a military-styled school and instructed Respondent to stop leaving students locked outside of her classroom. Principal Jones also gave Respondent instructions regarding the handling of student tardies, acceptance of late work, and the accommodations for ESE students.
Regarding leaving students locked outside, Principal Jones told Respondent that she needed to keep her door locked and suggested that she have a student open the door when a late student knocks. Respondent advised Principal Jones that it disrupts educational time, but that she would open the door.
On the issue of tardies, Principal Jones explained that the administration's hands were tied because Holmes County had not adopted an attendance policy. In fact, Bethlehem School did not differentiate between excused or unexcused tardies. Some of the teachers at Bethlehem School, including Respondent, had stopped filling out referrals for tardies because they had been told by the school administration that they were not going to be counted.
Prior to the meeting, Respondent had a policy of not accepting late work in an effort to promote students’ personal
responsibility and fairness to other students. Respondent told Principal Jones that her policy of not accepting late work had been effective. Nevertheless, Principal Jones instructed Respondent to accept late work. He also instructed her to allow students who came unprepared to leave the classroom to get their materials if it was just outside the room in their locker.
Principal Jones also mentioned that Respondent needed to make accommodations for ESE students with Individual Education Plans so that those students could succeed and pass. Respondent advised Principal Jones that if the student does nothing, she would not give them a passing grade.
Respondent became visibly upset during the meeting, which ended abruptly.
The following Monday morning, December 15, 2014, Assistant Principal Mitchell and Principal Jones received reports that Respondent was reading a prepared statement about Principal Jones to her classes. Principal Jones reported the incident to Superintendent Dixon, who asked Principal Jones to obtain a copy of the statement which Respondent had read to the students. Thereafter, Principal Jones went to Respondent’s classroom and asked for a copy of the prepared statement. Respondent stated that she would have to talk to her lawyer. Principal Jones said, "Okay," and walked away. Petitioner did not receive a copy of
the statement until many months later when it was produced as part of this proceeding.
Later that day, Respondent was called down to the Bethlehem School office during her seventh period to meet with Superintendent Dixon. Respondent was accompanied by fellow teacher, Donna Mollet, at Respondent’s request. When they arrived, Superintendent Dixon handed Respondent a memo on Holmes County School Board stationary from the Superintendent to Respondent dated December 15, 2014, which stated:
This is notification that you are suspended with pay from your regularly assigned duties pending the outcome of an investigation concerning gross insubordination of Principal Brent Jones with students at Bethlehem High School. Please be advised that this suspension does not constitute a disciplinary action. We will keep you apprised as the investigation continues; including written notification of the outcome once the investigation is concluded. You are to immediately leave school grounds and not return until further notice.
The Superintendent asked Respondent to sign the letter, which she did. When she asked him what she had done, the Superintendent declined to discuss it further at that time and asked her to leave.
Respondent was then accompanied to her classroom by Assistant Superintendent Goodman and Carmen Bush from the District office, where she gathered her personal belongings and
left. Mr. Goodman and Ms. Bush told Respondent not to return to the school until notified.
Principal Jones and Superintendent Dixon conducted an investigation, which included obtaining statements from students who witnessed her conduct. The witness statements indicated that Respondent had told her students that Principal Jones would not enforce her rules and that students might be better off taking an on-line, virtual class, rather than attending Bethlehem School.
Following the investigation, the Superintendent determined that Respondent had been grossly insubordinate and had violated the School Board policy regarding Employee Communications.
On December 17, 2014, Pam Cameron from the District office called Respondent and asked that she come to the District office the next day. When Respondent arrived at the District office on December 18, 2014, she met with Superintendent Dixon and Principal Jones. Principal Jones handed her a letter of reprimand (Letter of Reprimand) which he had signed, stating:
This correspondence is a formal reprimand of your actions and behavior on Monday, December 15, 2014. Our investigation has found that you were grossly insubordinate.
The gross insubordination includes reading the prepared statement to your classes and your refusal to provide a copy to me when I requested it. You have been found to be
unprofessional and inappropriate in relation to this situation.
Please know and understand by way of this correspondence that you are directed to refrain from such unprofessional actions and behaviors in the future. To violate this directive, any School Board Policy, State Statute, or any other School Board Rule can result in further disciplinary action.
Please plan to attend the professional practices workshop that will be held during preschool next year.
Further, State Board of Education Rule 6B- 1.001, FAC, Section (2) states the educator " . . . will seek to exercise the best professional judgment and integrity." Section (3) states "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."
Respondent did not sign the bottom of Letter of Reprimand in the place for her acknowledgement. She did, however, read a statement to Superintendent Dixon and Principal Jones about her frustrations regarding lack of discipline and the attendance policy at Bethlehem School.
In a letter addressed to Superintendent Dixon dated December 19, 2014, Respondent stated:
This document is my response to my letter of reprimand that you issued on December 18, 2014, in your office.
I refute the accusation of gross insubordination that you and Principal Jones have made against me. You both refused to give me specific examples of the alleged
insubordination other than “reading the prepared statement to your classes and your refusal to provide a copy to me when I requested it.” Never at any time did you or Principal Jones ask me to tell you what I conveyed to my students.
During the brief meeting of December 18, 2014, I explained that I told my students of changes in my classroom rules and that I divulged to students Principal Jones’s statements regarding those changes.
Principal Jones said that I had undermined his authority. I fail to see that telling students exactly what Principal Jones said can be construed as undermining his authority or insubordination.
Furthermore, the method of my suspension was, I firmly believe, meant to humiliate me in front of my students and colleagues. On Monday, December 15, 2014, Principal Jones called me into his office. Superintendent Dixon gave me the paper regarding my suspension from duties, refused to answer my questions regarding the charges, and told me to get my personal belongings and leave the campus immediately. That meant returning to my classroom of sixth graders—including my own child—and gathering my belongings to leave. My son kept asking what was wrong, why we were having to leave, etc. The emotional distress that you caused not only me, but my son in front of his peers, is unconscionable and unforgivable. I was escorted to my classroom by two county office personnel, Jim Goodman and Carmen Bush, and they followed from there to make sure that I left the building and the campus. I was treated as though I were some kind of desperate criminal, which I definitely resent.
I contend that I am innocent of the charges and further contend that your handling of this situation has been conducted purposely to damage my reputation.
Respondent wanted to challenge her suspension, but was told both in the letter of suspension, as well as by the Chairman of the School Board, that a suspension with pay is not “discipline” that can be challenged or for which there is a right to a hearing.
After Respondent was suspended with pay, Principal Jones informed her that she could return to school from her suspension on January 5, 2015, the day that winter break was over.
Shortly after her return, Respondent received a telephone call from a concerned parent because, prior to the winter break, Respondent had deducted points from an essay that the parent’s child had submitted to Respondent.
The incident involving the student and the essay occurred during the week of December 8, 2014. In fact, the incident involving that student appears to have been one of the issues that Principal Jones discussed with Respondent on December 12, 2014. The student in question was one of Respondent’s first-period students. The essay was due Monday, December 8, 2014. The student was not in Respondent’s class that day, but Respondent saw the student at school later that same day. When she saw the student, she asked him if he had his essay to turn in and the student replied that he did not. The same thing happened on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday of that
week. Each of those days, the student was absent from Respondent’s first-period class, but was seen by Respondent later in the day. When asked by Respondent whether he had his essay, he responded that he did not. Then, on Friday,
December 12, 2014, the student arrived very late to Respondent’s first-period class. When he arrived, he put his essay assignment on Respondent’s desk. Respondent told the student that she could not accept the assignment because it was late.
He picked up the essay and sat down. Upon noticing that other students were working from their books, the student asked Respondent for permission to go get his book. Respondent refused. The student then left Respondent’s class without her permission. Later that same period, the student came back to Respondent’s class with a note from Principal Jones directing the student back to Respondent’s class. Respondent accepted the student back into her class as directed. Later, Respondent accepted the student’s late work as directed by Principal Jones, but she deducted points from the essay because it was late.
When Respondent spoke to the parent of the student after winter break, it was agreed that the parent would come in for a parent-teacher conference to be held during Respondent’s seventh-period planning period on Wednesday, January 7, 2015. Respondent informed Assistant Principal Mitchell of the planned parent-teacher conference and asked her to attend. Principal
Jones was also aware that Respondent was going to have the parent-teacher conference.
The parent-teacher conference was held on January 7, 2015, with Respondent, the parent, and Assistant Principal Mitchell present in a conference room at Bethlehem School. At the beginning of the meeting, the parent apologized for his son leaving Respondent’s classroom without permission. The parent, however, wanted an explanation of why points had been deducted from his son’s essay. Respondent explained that the points were deducted because the paper was late. The parent was under the belief that his son had only been absent for three days and had not been tardy during the time period in question. Respondent advised the parent that her records showed that the student had been absent seven days and tardy 24 times within the nine-week period.
The parent wanted to know why he had not been informed that his son had been tardy so many times. Respondent stated to the parent, “We don’t do much about tardies.” Respondent further explained that they had stopped using paper-based referrals after the first nine-week period. Assistant Principal Mitchell advised the parent that phone calls and letters are sent out to parents of students with excessive absences and tardies. Respondent did not disagree with Assistant Principal
Mitchell, nor did Respondent question or criticize the school’s administration during the parent-teacher conference.
At the parent’s request, the student joined the teacher-parent conference. The parent spoke to his son and then advised that there should be no more problems out of his son. Thereafter, the student left the conference.
After the student left, the parent still wanted Respondent to remove the point deduction from his son’s essay. When Respondent advised that she would not do that, the parent suggested that, if she did not remove the deduction, he would just go to the School Board about it. Respondent said, “I guess you will just have to do that.” Assistant Principal Mitchell then suggested that she would like to speak with Principal Jones about the matter prior to the parent going to the School Board. The parent said that would be fine.
Thereafter, Respondent then left the meeting. After Respondent had left, Assistant Principal Mitchell told the parent that she would contact him as soon as the matter had been resolved. The parent thanked Assistant Principal Mitchell and left.
On Friday, January 9, 2015, Respondent met with Principal Jones. Lisa Matthews accompanied Respondent at Respondent’s request. During the meeting, Principal Jones told Respondent that she could not deduct points from the student’s
essay discussed at the January 7, 2015, teacher-parent conference. When Respondent questioned why she should not be able to deduct points under the circumstances, Principal Jones explained that the student had turned in the paper the next time he was in class and that was good enough. Respondent did not refuse to comply with Principal Jones’ request and, in fact, Respondent complied by removing the point deduction from the student’s essay.
Further, after discussing what occurred at the parent- teacher conference with Assistant Principal Mitchell, Principal Jones felt that Respondent’s conduct and statements were designed to undermine the administration of Bethlehem School. Therefore, he reported Respondent’s conduct to Superintendent Dixon, who then determined that there was just cause to suspend Respondent, without pay, for a period of five days.
On January 9, 2015, Superintendent Dixon suspended Respondent, without pay, for a period of five days which commenced on Monday, January 12, 2015, and ended on Friday, January 16, 2015. That same day, January 9, 2015, Superintendent Dixon signed a document prepared on Holmes County School Board letterhead regarding Respondent’s suspension without pay. The document stated:
Friday, January 9, 2015 Susan Steverson
RE: SUSPENSION WITHOUT PAY
Pursuant to School Policy 6.38, and Section 1012.33(6), Florida Statutes, Eddie Dixon, Superintendent of Schools for Holmes County School District, recommends that Mrs. Susan Steverson, be suspended without pay for a period of five (5) days from employment with the School Board.
Mrs. Steverson has engaged in conduct that constitutes grounds for suspension without pay for a period of five (5) days. The grounds for suspension include, but are not limited to being grossly insubordinate of Principal Brent Jones in a parent meeting after having been reprimanded prior to this school year and violating School Board rules to the extent that disciplinary action is required.
The foregoing conduct by Mrs. Steverson constitutes grounds for suspension without pay for a period of five(5) days, in violation of School Board Policy 6.38(III)(B), and (F). Mrs. Steverson’s behavior also violates Department of Education Rules, including but not limited to: Rule 6A-10.080 and Rule 6B-5.056, FAC, and other applicable Florida Law.
Accordingly, Mrs. Steverson will be suspended from employment for a period of five (5) days beginning Monday, January 12, 2015 at 7:30 a.m. and ending Friday, January 16, 2015 at 3:00 p.m. During this suspension, Mrs. Steverson will not be allowed on any School Board property.
Please know and understand that you are directed to refrain from such unprofessional actions and behaviors in the future.
Further, State Board of Education Rule 6B- 1.001, FAC, Section (2) states the educator
“ . . . will seek to exercise the best professional judgment and integrity.” Section (3) states “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.”
Subsequently, Superintendent Dixon presented the suspension to the School Board at its next meeting and recommended that the suspension be upheld. The School Board voted on January 20, 2015, to approve the suspension without
pay.
On January 27, 2015, a Notice of Charges against
Respondent in this case was signed by Superintendent Dixon. The Notice of Charges states:
NOTICE OF CHARGES
Pursuant to Section 1012.33(6), Florida Statutes, Eddie Dixon, Superintendent of Schools for the Holmes County School District, recommended that Mrs. Susan Steverson ("Mrs. Steverson"), be suspended without pay for a period of five (5) days by the School Board.
Mrs. Steverson has engaged in conduct that constitutes "just cause" for her suspension without pay. The grounds for suspension include, but are not limited to, the following: gross insubordination.
Mrs. Steverson has a history of engaging in insubordinate behavior toward administrators, which began under prior superintendents and continued with recent incidents involving comments made to and about the administration of the Bethlehem
School in December 2014 and January 2015. Mrs. Steverson has been repeatedly instructed by persons in authority to correct her behavior, but she has failed to do so.
INCIDENTS INVOLVING MRS. SUSAN STEVERSON
On or about Monday, December 15, 2014, Mrs. Steverson made unprofessional and derogatory statements to her class about what she believed to be a lack of support from her school principal, Mr. Brent Jones. A statement was apparently read to the class strongly criticizing the principal, and advising the class that there were no longer any rules for the class as a result of a lack of support by her school principal. Students reported the statement to administrators out of concern for the class.
Mrs. Steverson was asked for a copy of the written statement by Principal Jones but she refused to provide a copy.
Mrs. Steverson was reprimanded for her conduct and advised not to allow her unprofessional conduct to continue.
Then again, on January 9, 2015, Mrs. Steverson, during a parent teacher conference scheduled by Mrs. Steverson with Vice-Principal Mrs. Roseanne Mitchell present, was grossly insubordinate by criticizing and questioning Principal Brent Jones, in front of a parent. Her obvious intent was to embarrass and humiliate the Principal, and challenge his authority to administer the operations of the school in a manner he deemed appropriate.
Mrs. Steverson was suspended without pay for a period of five (5) days beginning on January 12, 2015 to January 16, 2015, immediately prior to the School Board meeting on January 20, 2015, at which this issue was heard.
CONCLUSION
The foregoing conduct by Mrs. Steverson constitutes "just cause" for her suspension without pay for a period of five (5) days, under Section 1012.33(6), Florida Statutes. Mrs. Steverson has engaged in gross insubordination on more than one occasion, in violation of School Board Policies 6.37 (VIII)(B)(3) and 6.38 (III)(B).
Mrs. Steverson' behavior also violates Department of Education Rules, including but not limited to: Rule 6A-5.056, Rule 6A-
10.080 and 6A-10.081, FAC, and other applicable Florida Law.
The Notice of Charges gave Respondent 15 days from receipt within which to file a written request for a hearing. As previously noted, Respondent timely requested a hearing and this case was ultimately referred to DOAH.
At the final hearing, there was evidence that, in addition to the matters referenced in the Notice of Charges, in recommending suspension without pay, the Superintendent considered a hand-written statement on instructions that Respondent allegedly left for the substitute teacher during Respondent’s suspensions in December 2014 and January 2015. The handwritten statement was in addition to other general instructions typed on a page. The last paragraph of the typed instructions which read--“Please leave me a note concerning my classes, particularly if you have problems with anyone. I will take care of the problems when I return. If a student is unruly and needs immediate discipline, fill out a discipline referral
and send the student to the office at once!”-- was crossed out and replaced with the following handwritten statement:
No one disciplines students here. If they become unruly, just send them to the office. Don’t bother with a referral form. Students will do as they please.
Although, at the final hearing, Respondent admitted that she was the one responsible for crossing out the language on the instruction sheet and adding the handwritten note, she testified that she did not have time to leave the note on December 15, 2014, or January 9, 2015. That testimony is credited and the handwritten note has not been considered as a factor in the alleged gross insubordination. Further, the handwritten note is beyond the scope of the allegations in the Notice of Charges and does not otherwise constitute a refusal to obey a direct order, or misfeasance or malfeasance in the performance of a required duty.
Regarding the prepared statement that Respondent read to her students on December 15, 2014, and the suspension with pay and written reprimand that followed, although recited in the Notice of Charges, that incident is not at issue in these proceedings. As noted in the Superintendent’s memo dated December 15, 2014, informing Respondent of her suspension with pay, “Please be advised that this suspension does not constitute a disciplinary action.”
Moreover, at the time of the suspension with pay, the School Board did not even have the statement that Respondent had read to her class. While “gross insubordination” may not be the best way to describe the actions of Respondent in reading the statement, considering the statement that Petitioner read to her students,2/ after the fact, arguably supports suspension with pay or some type of discipline. But that is not at issue in these proceedings, nor is Respondent’s failure to immediately deliver a copy of the statement that she read to her classes.
Respondent received a five-day suspension with pay for those actions.
And, while the written reprimand that Respondent received on December 18, 2014, for Respondent’s actions on December 15, 2014, contains a directive to “refrain from such unprofessional actions and behavior in the future,” and that “[t]o violate this directive, any School Board Policy, State Statute, or any other School Board Rule can result in further disciplinary action,” the evidence in this case does not support a finding that Respondent subsequently violated that directive.
Respondent’s behavior, statements, and comments at the teacher-parent conference on January 7, 2015, did not constitute a refusal to obey a direct order, or misfeasance or malfeasance in the performance of a required duty. Rather, her statements were factually accurate. And, while at the parent-teacher
conference Respondent was resistant to the parent’s request that Respondent remove the point deduction from the late essay, Respondent ultimately removed the deduction when asked to do so by school administration.
While, undoubtedly, tensions between Respondent, Principal Jones, and Superintendent Dixon played a role in the decision to suspend Respondent without pay from January 12 through 16, 2015, Respondent was not solely responsible for those tensions. Respondent did not display disrespect for Principal Jones or the school’s administration during the January 7, 2015, parent-teacher conference, and Respondent’s conduct during that conference did not amount to insubordination. Respondent should not have been suspended without pay for her statements or actions during the parent- teacher conference held January 7, 2015.
Monetarily, Respondent’s five-day unpaid suspension from January 12 through 16, 2015, constituted a loss of approximately $980.00 in pay to Respondent.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this proceeding pursuant to a contract with the Holmes County School Board. The proceedings are governed by sections 120.57 and 120.569, Florida Statutes.
The burden of proof in this proceeding is on the School Board to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that just cause existed to suspend Respondent without pay. McNeil v.
Pinellas Cnty. Sch. Bd., 678 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Preponderance of the evidence is evidence that more likely than not tends to prove the proposition set forth by a proponent.
Gross v. Lyons, 763 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 2000).
The School Board is the duly-constituted governing body of the school district of Holmes County. § 4, Art. IX, Fla. Const.; §§ 1001.30 and 1001.33, Fla. Stat. The Superintendent of Schools has the authority to recommend to the School Board that an employee be suspended or dismissed from employment.
§ 1012.27(5), Fla. Stat. The School Board has the authority to terminate the employment or suspend teachers without pay and benefits. See §§ 1012.22(1)(f) and 1012.33(6)(a), Fla. Stat. In Holmes County, by the School Board’s delegation of authority, the Superintendent also has the authority to suspend employees, with partial or no pay, for up to five days if the Superintendent finds that the employee has been insubordinate or “[v]iolated School Board rules to the extent that disciplinary action is required, but the violation is not severe enough for dismissal.”
Sections 1012.33(1)(a) and (6) of the Florida Statutes provide in pertinent part that instructional staff may be suspended or terminated during the term of their employment
contract only for "just cause.” See § 1012.33(1)(a), (6), Fla.
Stat. “Just cause” for purposes of discipline is discussed in section 1012.33(1)(a), Florida Statutes:
[J]ust cause includes, but is not limited to, the following instances, as defined by rule of the State Board of Education: immorality, misconduct in office, incompetency . . . gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, or being convicted or found guilty of, or entering a plea of guilty to, regardless of adjudication of guilt, any crime involving moral turpitude.
Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056(4) defines gross insubordination as “the intentional refusal to obey a direct order, reasonable in nature, and given by and with proper authority; misfeasance, or malfeasance as to involve failure in the performance of the required duties.”
The Code of Ethics, under which classroom teachers operate in Florida, includes the following provisions:
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.
Fla. Admin. Code. R. 6A-10.080(2), (3).
Further, the Principles of Professional Conduct found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3), includes an educator’s obligation to the student, which states:
Obligation to the student requires that the individual:
Shall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student’s mental and/or physical health and/or safety.
* * *
Obligation to the public requires that the individual:
Shall take reasonable precautions to distinguish between personal views and those of any educational institution or organization with which the individual is affiliated.
Shall not intentionally distort or misrepresent facts concerning an educational matter in direct or indirect public expression.
* * *
Obligation to the profession of education requires that the individual:
Shall maintain honesty in all professional dealings.
* * *
(e) Shall not make malicious or intentionally false statements about a colleague.
Considering the applicable portions of the Notice of Charges, the definition of gross insubordination, applicable law and rules, and factual findings, as outlined above, it is
concluded that Respondent’s conduct during the parent-student conference held on January 7, 2015, was not gross insubordination.
It is further found that Petitioner failed to meet its burden of proof to show just cause or otherwise establish that it was appropriate to suspend Respondent, without pay, from her position as a classroom teacher for a period of five days in January, 2015.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Holmes County School Board:
Dismissing the charge of gross insubordination against Respondent and setting aside any discipline subsequent to Respondent’s suspension with pay and reprimand received in December 2014;
Dismissing the allegations set forth in the Notice of Charges to the extent they seek to impose or support any discipline subsequent to Respondent’s suspension with pay and reprimand received in December 2014; and
Reimbursing Respondent for the five days of pay that Respondent did not receive during her suspension from
January 12, 2015, through January 16, 2015, plus interest, as appropriate under applicable law.
DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of March, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
S
JAMES H. PETERSON, III
Administrative Law Judge
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060
(850) 488-9675
Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of March, 2016.
ENDNOTES
1/ All references to statutes or rules shall be to those versions in effect at the time of the alleged violation.
2/ The statement, delivered to the School Board during discovery, well after the December 15, 2014, date that it was read by Respondent to her classes, states:
On Friday, December 12, I was informed by the principal that many of my classroom rules can no longer be in effect.
Therefore, some changes are imminent.
First, Mr. Jones told me that it is not reasonable to expect students to be in my class on time. I will still count you tardy. If you come to my class late and turn in work, that work will be accepted but will be considered late, and points will be deducted. In some cases, this will mean you should receive a negative grade, but I don’t think that will be acceptable, so I will assign a zero when that circumstance occurs.
You know that the last student who skipped my class received no discipline. However, if I found out that you skipped my class, you will receive zeroes for work due and work assigned that day in class.
Furthermore, Mr. Jones said that it is not reasonable to expect students to come to my class prepared with textbook, pencil, paper, etc. When students come to my class unprepared, I am to allow them to go immediately to their lockers or wherever their materials are and retrieve them. I was also told that if a student asks to go to the bathroom, even if we have been in class only five minutes, that student must be allowed to go. Since this is now the case, my rule is now defunct about waiting until half the period is over before leaving the room. You may leave the room at any point. I only ask that you tell me where you are going and that only one student be out of the classroom at a time. The last student who walked out of my classroom without permission was not punished. Should you decide to leave without permission, please take all of your belongings with you, go to the office, and don’t return to my class that day.
My remaining rules may be rescinded, so please keep in mind that they are in a state of flux and may be changed at any time.
Because of this state of events, I feel that I may no longer be able to offer you a quality education. think [sic] you should seriously consider taking the second semester of this course online. This is an issue you should talk to your parents about so that you can make a well-informed decision before the beginning of the second semester.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Rhonda S. Clyatt, Esquire Law Office of Rhonda Clyatt 621 East 4th Street
Panama City, Florida 32401-2492 (eServed)
Susan Steverson
1893 North Creek Holmes Road Graceville, Florida 32440
Lucas N. Taylor, Esquire Lucas Taylor, P.A.
Post Office Box 1267 Bonifay, Florida 32425 (eServed)
Bob L. Harris, Esquire Summer Denay Brown, Esquire Messer Caparello, P.A.
2618 Centennial Place
Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed)
Eddie Dixon, Superintendent Holmes County School District 701 East Pennsylvania Avenue Bonifay, Florida 32425
Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244
325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
Pam Stewart
Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514
325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
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 should be filed with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this case.
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Mar. 22, 2016 | Agency Final Order | |
| Mar. 17, 2016 | Recommended Order | Petitioner School Board failed to prove that just cause existed to justify suspending Respondent for five days without pay. |
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, EDUCATION PRACTICES COMMISSION vs. HARVEY R. STECKLER, 15-002016TTS (2015)
DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs BRUCE PESETSKY, 15-002016TTS (2015)
BROWARD COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs LYNN DEERING, 15-002016TTS (2015)
DUVAL COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs MICHAEL GREEN, 15-002016TTS (2015)
LEE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs ALFRED GORTON, 15-002016TTS (2015)
