The School Board's letter identifies five charges, some extremely broad, which occurred in the spring of 2018 and form the bases for the proposed termination of Respondent:
On February 9, 2018, Ms. Griffin met with you to discuss the expectation that your lesson plans would be complete by the Sunday of each week and that you were to follow your daily schedule to ensure that you were in the classrooms to service your assigned students. During this conference, it was also brought to your attention that you had been observed on your cell phone during the day and that
cell phone use was only permitted during your lunch break or in the case of emergency, of which Administration would be made aware.
On March 1, 2018, a conference was held with you and Ms. Griffin brought to your attention that you had again been observed on your cell phone and were not following your daily schedule.
It was reported to Ms. Griffin on
March 7, 2018, by her secretary and a service technician at the school that they had entered the inclusion teacher office area to find you asleep. They indicated that after a short period of time an alarm that had been set on your cell phone went off and awakened you. Another staff member had also reported to Ms. Griffin on another occasion that you were witnessed in the office area, with the lights off and on your cell phone, when you were scheduled to be in the classroom servicing students.
On March 22, 2018, you were again found sleeping in your office by another staff member.
On April 3, 2018, Ms. Griffin met with you after she learned that you had allowed a visitor into your office area, at the time another staff member was present, without requiring the visitor to be cleared through the front office. Ms. Griffin reminded you of the importance of school safety and that your actions could have caused a risk to the school, staff, and students.
Sch. Bd. Ex. 8. The charges are based mainly on observations made by other teachers, Mr. Huntley, and the school staff. Even though many of the underlying observations which support the charges in items (a) and (b) do not have a specific date and time, all occurred in January, February, or March 2018.
The termination letter also notes that while teaching at Auburndale Central in school year 2016-2017 and the first half of school year 2017-2018, Respondent received three progressive steps of disciplinary action. On May 25, 2017, she received a Verbal Warning (Step I) for failing to enter grades and not completing her Individualized Education Plans in a timely manner; on October 11, 2017, she received a Written Reprimand (Step II) for failing to post grades in a timely manner and not completing weekly lesson plans; and on December 18, 2017,1/ she was issued a three-day suspension without pay (Step III) for failure to post grades in a timely manner and not completing weekly lesson plans.
Respondent did not contest or grieve any disciplinary actions taken at Auburndale Central. Therefore, when she began teaching at Oscar J. Pope in January 2018, Respondent already had been subject to Steps I, II, and III of progressive discipline, and she was on notice that further disciplinary action could lead to her termination.
Although she did not contest the progressive discipline steps, Ms. Seckinger described a series of personal problems in her life while teaching at Auburndale Central in school years 2016-2017 and the first half of 2017-2018, which she contends played a role in her being disciplined. Her 25-year marriage had just ended in a divorce, she was caring for her father who had dementia and Parkinson's Disease, and she began a relationship
with a man who she says physically and mentally abused her on a daily basis. She also was jailed for 18 days in late
December 2017 for domestic violence charges made by the man who was abusing her. The charges were later dismissed. After the charges were dropped, Respondent was transferred to Oscar J. Pope on January 17, 2018, to get a fresh start.
Meeting on February 9, 2018
In early February 2018, Ms. Griffin became concerned that Respondent was not in the classroom when scheduled, her lesson plans were not being completed on a timely basis, and she was using her cell phone in violation of school policy. On February 9, 2018, Ms. Griffin, Mr. Huntley, and Respondent met to discuss these concerns. Mr. Huntley prepared a comprehensive written summary of the meeting. Sch. Bd. Ex. 10.
At the meeting, Respondent was told by Ms. Griffin that her lesson plans must be completed by Sunday of each week and that she must follow the daily schedule to ensure that she was in the classrooms to service the assigned students. Ms. Griffin emphasized that she wanted Respondent in the classroom, not in her office. Respondent was told to notify the principal if she was not in the classroom per her schedule. Finally, Respondent was directed to "stay off phones unless [she] has an emergency and have cleared it with [the principal] and/or Huntley." There is no evidence that during the meeting, Ms. Seckinger requested
specific instructions on when and how she could use her cell phone, and she did not offer a satisfactory explanation regarding the concern that she was not in her classroom when scheduled.
At hearing, Respondent pointed out that during her first week at Oscar J. Pope, she was supposed to "shadow"
Ms. King to see what Ms. King did and to familiarize herself with the students. Unfortunately, Ms. King was on sick leave all that week, so Respondent's daily schedule with Ms. King was delayed.
A regular schedule for splitting duties with Ms. King was established on January 29, 2018, and remained in effect until February 23, 2018.
While not specifically asserting that Ms. Griffin's criticisms were unfounded, at hearing Respondent pointed out that at the time of the conference, a fixed schedule had only been in place for a week, she had to rotate through three classrooms in two different buildings throughout the day, and she was never told prior to the conference that classroom attendance was a concern. Respondent informed the administrators that she would meet with Ms. King to formulate better scheduling plans.
March 1, 2018, Conference
Because of continued concerns that Respondent was not in the classroom when scheduled and she was continuing to use her cell phone in violation of school policy, Ms. Griffin conducted a second conference with Respondent on March 1, 2018. Mr. Huntley
also attended the conference and prepared contemporaneous notes of the meeting. Sch. Bd. Ex. 11.
Respondent again was told to be in the classroom when scheduled, be on time, remain in the classroom the entire schedule, and "stay off your phone, and do what's expected." Ms. Griffin warned her, "We can't have this conversation again." Although improper cell phone usage was a major concern, there is no evidence that Respondent asked Ms. Griffin or Mr. Huntley if her understanding of the cell phone policy was correct, or whether her usage complied with the policy. Similarly, even though her classroom attendance was a major concern, Respondent
did not offer any reasonable explanation as to why she was not in the classroom when scheduled or assert that Ms. Griffin's concerns were unfounded. Except when she was on sick leave, there is no evidence that Respondent ever contacted Ms. Griffin to advise that she would not be in her classroom when scheduled.
Without giving specific dates or times, Ms. King testified that "there would be times [Respondent] would still be in her office during the time she should have been in a classroom," and "times" when she did not know where Respondent was. During school hours, Ms. King also observed Respondent on her cell phone in the office either conversing with someone she knew or texting. According to Ms. King, some of this cell phone usage occurred when she knew that Respondent should have been in
the classroom. However, students were never present in Respondent's office when this occurred.
Without giving specific dates or times, Ms. Bailie, who occupied an adjacent office, heard Respondent engaging in "cell phone conversations with people." "There were times when they were with gentlemen and it was obvious that they were getting to know each other, making dates and arranging to see each other to meet, that kind of thing." Ms. Bailie added that she knew when Respondent was not in the classroom when she was supposed to be because she could hear music and phone conversations coming from Respondent's office.
Once, while administering a writing test, Ms. Bailie had to go to Respondent's office to remind her to keep her voice down while on a cell phone call because it was disturbing her students.
Not surprisingly, Ms. King and Ms. Bailie were unable to provide specific dates and times when they observed Respondent on her cell phone or when she was not in the classroom. This is because there is no requirement that instructional staff keep a written log of every time they observe a colleague doing something that they believe may be a violation of school policy. The testimony of Ms. King and Ms. Bailie is persuasive and has been credited.
On March 15, 2018, Respondent administered a mock test to her class, which was intended to replicate the atmosphere of the actual test. She was assisted by a paraprofessional,
Ms. Thompson. Instead of assisting the students during the test, Respondent sat next to a single student with her cell phone out and looking at it the entire period. The incident was reported by Ms. Thompson to the school administration.
According to Respondent, she understood that she could use her cell phone when she was in her office with no student contact. She considered lunchtime and planning time as "her time," and she could use "her time" to "take care of my personal business." Other usage was "strictly for the alarms to move between the classes and work e-mails," as she had to change classrooms up to 11 times per day.
Ms. Bailie had a somewhat similar understanding of when cell phones could be used. She testified that teachers can use their cell phones if they are in their offices without students. On the other hand, Ms. King testified that teachers were "only supposed to use [cell phones] during maybe our lunch [hour] or before and after school, not during school hours."
During a formal observation by Mr. Huntley in late March, Respondent kept her cell phone on the table while instructing the students. The alarm function (timer) on the cell phone was used as an aid to let her know when to end the class.
Mr. Huntley said nothing at the time, but he raised the issue during the conference on April 3, 2018.
Mr. Huntley testified that starting on February 1, 2018, and continuing into March, he taught writing to Respondent's fourth grade class. He noted that Respondent was supposed to be in the classroom, but "more than once" she was late, or she would leave the classroom early. He acknowledged, however, that he never spoke with Respondent about her attendance, and he admitted he did not know if she was working in another classroom during part of the time he was teaching her class. In any event, his concerns about her classroom attendance were expressed to Ms. Griffin and discussed at the conference.
March 7, 2018, Incident
The School Board alleges that on March 7, 2018, the principal's secretary, Ms. Tributino, and a service technician entered Respondent's office and found her asleep. This charge includes a second allegation that "another staff member had also reported to Ms. Griffin on another occasion that you were witnessed in the office area, with the lights off and on your cell phone, when you were scheduled to be in the classroom servicing students."
Respondent arrived in her classroom on March 7, 2018, around 8:00 a.m. and says she was not feeling good. After the class ended around 8:45 a.m., she began feeling "worse," so at
8:55 a.m., she sent Ms. Griffin an email stating, "I'm feeling really bad may I please go home?" Resp. Ex. 1. Later that morning, the request was approved.
Between 9:45 a.m. and 10:00 a.m., Ms. Tributino and a service technician entered Respondent's office to repair a printer. The lights were turned off and Respondent was at her desk with her head down and asleep. Not wanting to embarrass Respondent, Ms. Tributino kicked the door "pretty hard" before entering the room but Respondent did not stir. After a short period of time, they observed an alarm on Respondent's cell phone go off, which awakened her.
Respondent says she heard the two enter her office and knew they were not there to see her, so she stayed at her desk with her head down. Although she denied that she was sleeping, this assertion has been rejected. Both Ms. Griffin and
Ms. Tributino testified that Respondent submitted the email requesting permission to go home after she was caught sleeping in order to justify her conduct. Both were mistaken, however, as Respondent's Exhibit 1 shows clearly that the email was sent to Ms. Griffin an hour before the incident.
Ms. Bailie testified that there were "several times" when she walked through Respondent's office during the day to get to her classroom and she found the lights off, the door closed, and Respondent at her desk with her head down and asleep.
Sleeping in Office on March 22, 2018
On March 22, 2018, the School Board alleges Respondent was observed sleeping in her office by "another staff member." According to Ms. King, she returned to her office during lunch hour and observed the lights off and Respondent asleep at her desk. After about ten minutes, Respondent woke up.
March 22 was "field day," when students participate in various athletic events, and teachers assist the coaches who supervise the events. Respondent was assigned to help a coach in the 50-yard dash, while Ms. King worked the water station.
Except for lunch hour, both teachers were not in their office. Because no classes were being taught that day, Respondent's "extended" lunch hour was at least "an hour," and she was not scheduled to return to field day activities until around
1:45 p.m. Respondent decided to order a pizza from a local restaurant, which was to be delivered around 12:55 p.m. at the school's front entrance. At 12:42 p.m., Respondent sent an email to the principal's secretary requesting that she be contacted when her pizza was delivered. Resp. Ex. 2.
Respondent denies that Ms. King observed her in her office sleeping that day, because it would have been during lunch hour, and she "never put [her] head down on the desk or was sleeping or anything in there." This assertion is directly at odds with the testimony of Ms. Tributino, Ms. Bailie, and
Ms. King and has been rejected. Even though she was sleeping for a few minutes, Respondent returned to her field day assignment at 1:45 p.m.
Unauthorized Visitor in Office on April 3, 2018
The School Board alleges that on April 3, 2018, Respondent allowed a visitor into her office area without requiring the visitor to be cleared through the front office and given a visitor badge to wear.
On April 3, 2018, Ms. Bailie observed Respondent bring "a gentleman through [the outside door]," show him her classroom, show him Ms. Buretti's classroom, and introduce him to the other teachers. Contrary to school policy, the male did not have a visitor's badge. By then, teachers had been told "numerous times" that anyone entering the school should have a visitor's badge. No students were present at the time.
Ms. King also confirmed this incident. She related that while sitting at her desk eating lunch, the door to the parking lot opened and two persons entered the room. One was Respondent, while the other was a male. He did not have a visitor's badge. Respondent introduced the man to Ms. King, and he then left the building a few minutes later.
Ms. Griffin learned about the incident the same day and met with Respondent that afternoon. When Ms. Griffin asked Respondent about the incident, Respondent initially denied that a
visitor was in her office. After Ms. Griffin said she would produce witnesses to the incident, Respondent admitted that a visitor had entered the building through the side door.
Respondent told Ms. Griffin she was not aware of the policy, apologized, and promised that it would not occur again.
At hearing, Respondent said her friend, Michael, had brought her lunch. After the two ate lunch on benches outside her office in the parking lot, he asked to see her office, so the two entered the building through the side door. According to Respondent, he went into the classroom, but not her office, and then departed after "two minutes at the most." She denied lying to the principal about the incident, saying she was accused of taking Michael into the classroom and office, but, parsing words, says she was denying only that he had entered her office.
Despite widespread dissemination of the security protocol, Respondent assumed it was okay for Michael to enter the building without a visitor badge when there were no students present.
This assertion is not credible.
Ms. Bailie described another occasion (before the April 3 incident) when Respondent's son came to pick her up at school, and, while there, he came through the side door to use the restroom. However, this charge is not in the termination letter and has not been considered.
