STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
PALM BEACH COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,
Petitioner,
vs.
KIM GRIFFIN,
Respondent.
/
Case No. 20-1599
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon proper notice, a final hearing in this matter was held on June 1 and 2, 2020, by Zoom videoconference, before Robert S. Cohen, a duly designated Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) of the Division of Administrative Hearings (“DOAH”).
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Sean Fahey, Esquire
Jean Marie Middleton, Esquire School District of Palm Beach County Office of the General Counsel
3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-331 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406
For Respondent: Dedrick D. Straghn, Esquire
Dedrick D. Straghn, Attorney & Counselor at Law
26 Southwest 5th Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
The issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent’s employment with Petitioner as a school treasurer II should be terminated.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On October 17, 2011, William F. Malone, Petitioner’s superintendent, issued a Notice of Suspension and Recommendation for Termination from Employment to Respondent, Kim Griffin (“Griffin” or “Respondent”). The letter informed Griffin that at Petitioner’s, Palm Beach County School Board’s (“School Board” or “Petitioner”), November 2, 2011, meeting the superintendent would recommend her suspension without pay and termination of her employment. The stated basis for the superintendent’s action was that just cause existed to warrant Griffin’s termination for:
(1) Misuse of District Time, Property, and/or Resources; (2) Failure to Act in Accordance with Sound Business Practices; (3) Professional Misconduct; and
Failure to Follow Policy/Rule or Directive. The letter further informed Griffin that she could appeal by submitting a request for a hearing before DOAH. On November 2, 2011, the School Board adopted the superintendent’s recommendations to suspend Griffin without pay and to terminate her employment.
Griffin timely requested a formal administrative hearing pursuant to section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, to contest Petitioner's intended action. Shortly thereafter, Petitioner forwarded the matter to DOAH, which opened a file on December 1, 2011, Palm Beach County School Board v. Kim Griffin, DOAH Case No. 11-6140TTS. At the time of Griffin’s initial DOAH proceedings, she was engaged in criminal proceedings for the alleged misappropriation of Palm Beach School District (“District”) funds, stemming from her employment with the School Board. After nine separate continuances in the DOAH matter, as Griffin awaited the outcome of her criminal trial, the parties agreed to voluntarily dismiss the DOAH action, without prejudice, and refile it after the conclusion of Ms. Griffin’s criminal trial. The parties subsequently filed a “Joint-Stipulation [sic] of Voluntary Dismissal without Prejudice.” The DOAH file was closed, without prejudice,
and jurisdiction was relinquished back to the School Board on December 20, 2013.
On March 28, 2014, Griffin was acquitted of all criminal charges by a jury. On July 8, 2014, Griffin informed the School Board that she was still desirous of proceeding with a DOAH hearing, but the School Board refused to refile the DOAH action. After an unsuccessful attempt to file her own DOAH petition, Griffin filed suit on October 28, 2015, against the School Board in Palm Beach County Circuit Court to force the School Board to refile the DOAH petition (Case No. 50 2015-CA-012132 XXXXMB). On October 8, 2019, the Honorable Jaime Goodman ordered the School Board “to refile the DOAH petition so that Plaintiff can be afforded a formal hearing before the DOAH ALJ to determine whether there was just cause for the suspension and termination of [Griffin]’s employment … .” In accordance with Judge Goodman’s Order, the School Board refiled the DOAH petition on March 30, 2020.
On June 1 and 2, 2020, the final hearing was held. Petitioner presented the testimony of Respondent, Susy Kay, Deborah Puig, Toni Waterman, and Carolyn Seal, and offered Petitioner’s Exhibits 1 and 3 through 10, which were admitted into evidence--Exhibits 1 and 3 through 5 over objection and Exhibits 6 through 10 without objection. Respondent testified on her own behalf and did not call any other witnesses, nor did she present any exhibits. A three-volume Transcript was filed with DOAH on June 17, 2020. The parties’ proposed recommended orders were timely filed on July 6, 2020, and Petitioner also submitted a Supplemental Memorandum on that date. These post-hearing submittals have been duly considered in this Recommended Order. All references to Florida Statutes are to the version in effect at the time of the matters relevant to these proceedings.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Stipulated Findings of Fact
The parties stipulated to the following Findings of Fact in their Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation filed on May 27, 2020:
Respondent was hired by the School Board on July 22, 2003.
At all times relevant to this Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as a school treasurer II at Diamond View Elementary School (“Diamond View”).
The job description for school treasurer II provided the following performance responsibilities, among others:
maintaining school internal account fiscal records;
receiving all funds for school internal accounts; issuing receipts; making deposits and verifying and reconciling bank statements;
maintaining budget accounts; verifying and monitoring availability of funds; encumbering accounts and adjusting account balances on receipt of actual charges;
preparing, typing and verifying a variety of forms, financial and statistical reports, vouchers, departmental reports and related correspondence; and
preparing reports for annual internal account audits.
By statute, the School Board “shall be responsible for the administration and control of all local school funds derived by any public school from all activities or sources, and shall prescribe the principles and procedures to be followed in administering these funds consistent with regulations adopted by the State Board of Education.” § 1011.07(1), Fla. Stat. (2009).
Further, “[t]he State Board of Education shall adopt rules governing the procedures for the recording of the receipts, expenditures, deposits, and disbursements of internal funds.” Id. at § 1011.07(2).
During the relevant time period, Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-1.085(1) provided as follows:
Monies collected and expended within a school … are the responsibility of the school board and it shall be the duty of the school board to see that they are properly accounted for through use of generally recognized accounting procedures and effectively administered through adherence to internal funds policies of the school board, applicable Florida Statutes and provisions of “Financial and Program Cost Accounting and Reporting for Florida Schools” as incorporated by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A–
1.001. Funds collected in connection with summer program activities, funds derived from school athletic events, gifts, and contributions made by band or athletic booster clubs, civic organizations, parent-teacher organizations, and commercial agencies, and all other similar monies, properties, or benefits may be included in internal funds of the school based upon policies adopted by school districts or as provided in “Financial and Program Cost Accounting and Reporting for Florida Schools.”
The Florida Department of Education’s “Financial and Program Cost Accounting and Reporting for Florida Schools,” also known as the Redbook 2001, Chapter 7, School Internal Funds, Section III – Standards Practices and Procedures, Subsection 1.4 Cash Collections and Deposits, provided, in pertinent part:
All money collected by the school must be substantiated by pre-numbered receipts, consecutively numbered class receipt records, reports of monies collected, pre-numbered tickets, reports of tickets issued and sold or other auditable records;
All money collected must be deposited intact to a depository as frequently as feasible and as dictated by sound business practices. IN ANY EVENT, FUNDS COLLECTED MUST BE DEPOSITED WITHIN FIVE WORKING DAYS AFTER RECEIPT; and
All deposits must equal the total amount of money taken in and recorded on receipts for the period covered by the deposit. Deposit slips shall be made in the number of copies necessary to meet the approved accounting procedures. All checks received shall be deposited with a restrictive endorsement of for deposit only and specifying the account title and number.
Diamond View had a drop safe, which was a secured containment device.
The drop safe at Diamond View could only be opened by the principal, assistant principal, principal’s confidential secretary, and Respondent.
The principal was the only person who had the full six-digit combination to the safe and could open it alone.
Otherwise, the process for opening the safe at the school required two staff members, each of whom had three digits of a six-digit code.
Once the safe was opened, Respondent would take the money to her office to process the dropped funds and record them for deposit.
The deposits were placed in sealed bags, prepared by Respondent for the courier.
The District, including Diamond View, used a Drop-Safe Log, which is a method for independent confirmation of dollar amounts that are dropped into a school’s drop safe by staff.
Monies collected by school staff were to be recorded on Monies Collected Reports (“MCRs”).
The MCR contains two parts, a white and yellow copy.
The white copy of the MCR is turned in with the drop-off into the safe, and the yellow copy is retained by the individual who dropped the money into the drop safe.
Monies accompanying MCRs were to be dropped into the drop safe daily.
When dropping money and MCRs into the safe, staff were to enter the record into the Drop-Safe Log for the dollar amount dropped into the safe.
During the 2009 Audit of Internal Funds for Diamond View, District auditors identified certain irregularities and money missing from the school.
On January 21, 2010, District Auditor Toni Waterman (“Waterman”) reported to Diamond View to perform an exit interview regarding the Audit and an “unannounced cash count” at the school.
District auditors also reported to Diamond View again the next day, January 22, 2010.
District auditors conducted a review of the school’s financial records from July 1, 2009, through January 21, 2010.
The District auditor general referred its findings to employee relations and to school police for investigation.
Employee relations commenced an investigation that was assigned case number 09/10-063.
Case number 09/10-063 was reviewed by the District’s Employee Investigation Committee (“EIC”) on October 4, 2011.
The EIC found that allegations of Misuse of District Time, Property, and/or Resources; Failure to Act in Accordance with Sound Business Practices; Professional Misconduct; and Failure to Follow Policy/Rule or Directive were substantiated.
The EIC’s recommendation was that Respondent’s employment be terminated.
The EIC concluded that there were grounds for skipping steps of the progressive-discipline provision of the Collective Bargaining Agreement
between the District and the Association of Educational Secretaries and Office Professionals (“AESOP CBA”) because Respondent’s conduct presented a real and immediate danger to the District or other flagrant violation.
The school police filed an affidavit charging Respondent with Grand Theft, Organized Scheme to Defraud, and Official Misconduct on April 14, 2010. The state attorney filed criminal charges against Respondent on January 18, 2011. After a jury trial, Respondent was acquitted of the criminal charges on March 28, 2014.
Additional Findings of Fact
Griffin’s last day working at Diamond View was January 22, 2010.
During the pertinent time period, school treasurers were also referred to as “bookkeepers.”
Internal funds are funds collected at the school level.
School staff who collected funds at the school could also be referred to as “sponsors.”
The MCR should contain the source of the money collected, the amount collected, and should be dated with the date of collection and signed by the sponsor.
Deborah Puig (“Puig”) was an internal accounts technician during the 2009-2010 school year, and her responsibilities included training incoming treasurers and supporting treasurers in place. It was never brought to Puig’s attention that she was training treasurers incorrectly. Puig also performed the duties of a school treasurer, and it was not brought to her attention that she was performing the duties of a treasurer incorrectly.
Puig explained the full process that should be followed for a school treasurer from the time of removing drops from the safe until finalizing them for deposit:
[The school treasurer] would retrieve the contents of the safe, which would include individual Monies Collected Reports, along with any cash, checks or coins associated with the Monies Collected Report.
The Drop Safe Log would be pulled and the treasurer would take the contents of the safe, along with the Drop Safe Log, to her office to verify, to count the cash, coin, checks. [The school treasurer would] enter the cash, coin and checks into the school cash accounting system. [The school treasurer would] issue an official receipt from SchoolCash, which she would then combine at the end of verifying, entering each Monies Collected form individually and verifying the amounts individually.
She would then compile the bank deposits. Prepare a series of reports that would then be kept at the school level.
She would initial each Monies Collected Report at the bottom of the form. Initialing, dating and the Monies Collected Reports require a deposit number form number, that would be filled in at the bottom by the treasurer.
The deposit would then be prepared by issuing a bank Deposit Ticket.
Completing -- at the time we had Dunbar, so completing a Dunbar pick-up bag and dropping in the contents of the deposit into the bag.
There would be a ticket on the bag that would then be pulled off, a bag number, to verify that the bag was processed at the school and then delivered to the bank.
There was a Dunbar logbook that that bag was recorded into.
And then the deposit in its entirety would have been dropped back into the safe until which time the Dunbar carrier came to retrieve it.
The reports would then be filed in the bookkeeper’s office numerically, until which time there was an audit.
… The paperwork was filed as part of their school audit, to show that the items dropped were processed, verified and intact and sent to the bank to show the audit trail.
Griffin was aware of all the standards to which Puig testified, because she attended monthly training meetings for school treasurers.
Griffin confirmed that she attended monthly meetings during her time as a school treasurer II, including all the monthly meetings from the period of August 2009 through January 2010.
The standards were also reflected in a document entitled “NEW BOOKKEEPER TRAINING – SchoolCash.NET,” which was admitted into evidence.
The school treasurer was required to maintain the paperwork associated with each deposit for five years.
The accounting software used at the school was SchoolCash.net, which had been introduced into the District during the 2008-2009 school year and was fully integrated into all the District schools by the beginning of the 2009-2010 school year.
As the sole treasurer at the school, Griffin was the only person responsible for preparing deposits.
Griffin testified that, when she accessed the safe, she would take out everything that had been dropped into the safe.
District policy and procedure were that when a bookkeeper took money out of the drop safe, the Drop-Safe Log needed to be initialed and dated. This requirement was discussed at bookkeeper trainings and meetings.
It was important for there to be an indication on the Drop-Safe Log, among other reasons, as another measure of accountability for school funds.
There was a section on the Drop-Safe Log that read, “Date Removed from Safe by Bookkeeper.”
The column immediately next to the column labeled “Date Removed from Safe by Bookkeeper,” read “Bookkeeper’s Initials.”
Whether the Drop-Safe Log was initialed and dated was something that District auditors looked for during this time period.
Griffin testified that she did not understand how to use the Drop-Safe Log, including whether it was her responsibility to fill out the section “Date Removed from Safe by Bookkeeper.”
According to Griffin, she sometimes initialed the Drop-Safe Log when she removed drops, while at other times she would wait until she had receipted and verified the amounts of the drops.
Griffin testified that she did not know the purpose the Drop-Safe Log served during the 2009-2010 school year.
District policy was that deposits should be recorded at the bank within five days of collection. In other words, from the time a school staff member filled out an MCR and dropped it into the safe, the corresponding deposit should have been recorded with the bank within five days. This was five business or working days.
Puig testified that it was suggested to school treasurers that they prepare deposits more frequently, at least twice a week, since there were two pickups per week by the Dunbar armored car, so that they would always fall within the five-day rule. Puig would advise treasurers to process their deposits the day before the armored car pickup since the time of day the armored car would arrive was not known in advance. The New Bookkeeper Training similarly provided that “[t]he bank deposit will be prepared by the bookkeeper in time to meet the school’s established armored car pickup schedule.”
Griffin testified that she did not know how long she had from when sponsors dropped funds to have them ready to be deposited.
Griffin also testified that the only time of the school year that she would describe herself as being caught up was summertime or close to it, i.e., the end of the school year.
Griffin testified that there were times when she would not be able to access the safe when the armored car arrived and a deposit was otherwise ready to be picked up. She offered her inability to access the safe as a reason a deposit might take longer than five business days to be picked up from the school. However, she did not identify specific occasions when this occurred. Further, this statement by Griffin was inconsistent with her earlier testimony that she did not know how long she had from when sponsors dropped funds to have them in the courier bag ready to be deposited. She also never complained to Principal Carolyn Seal about not being able to access the safe when the armored car arrived to pick up deposits. To the contrary, on many occasions during this time period, she would not be on campus when the armored car arrived to pick up deposits, so she would let school administrators, such as Principal Seal, know whether the deposit was ready. Finally, during the 2009-2010 school year, there were times when Griffin would inform Principal Seal that the deposit for the armored car was not ready to be picked up.
Attending the monthly meetings was highly suggested for school treasurers, but not mandatory. Griffin perceived attending them to be mandatory, if her principal approved her attendance. She earned points toward a monetary award for attending these monthly meetings.
During the 2009-2010 school year, Griffin also acted as a mentor to other treasurers/bookkeepers. Mentoring other bookkeepers was not a mandatory part of her job. Other bookkeepers would call and email her during the workday, and she would make time during the workday to communicate with them. Principal Seal would observe Griffin on the phone, and she would tell Principal Seal that she was mentoring other bookkeepers.
During the 2009-2010 school year, Principal Seal assigned Griffin two duties in addition to her school treasurer duties: assisting in the front office for 30 minutes during lunch; and then, assisting during dismissal time with any bus issues.
Griffin testified that she also had to cover for school secretaries for an additional 30 minutes after they left for the day at 3:30 p.m., since she was scheduled to work until 4:00 p.m., and whenever they were absent.
The duty relating to buses at dismissal time consisted of Griffin having a walkie talkie, in her office, and being responsible for contacting the bus compound by phone if she was told that a bus did not arrive.
Griffin did not have responsibilities relating to the school clinic in the 2009-2010 school year because she had informed the school administration that she was not CPR trained, which is required to serve as backup for the clinic.
Griffin testified that she had responsibilities relating to fire drills that would require her to leave her office. However, there was no testimony or other evidence about how frequent fire drills were.
Griffin never complained to Principal Seal that she was unable to get her work done because of other responsibilities that she had been assigned.
District Auditor Waterman was a certified public accountant who was responsible for auditing the internal funds at schools during the
2009-2010 school year.
Waterman’s audits concluded with an exit conference with the bookkeeper, the Student Age Child Care (“SACC”) director, and then the principal, as well as a cash count.
A cash count entailed having the bookkeeper open the drop safe and take the money out that was in the safe; counting the money with the bookkeeper and tracing it to the Drop-Safe Log to make sure that the Drop- Safe Log was completed; ensuring that teachers were properly completing
their portion of the documents; and confirming that the bookkeeper was doing what she was supposed to be doing.
The audit that Waterman was concluding when she came to Diamond View on January 21, 2010, was for the two prior fiscal years, 2007-2008 and 2008-2009, and it had begun in November 2009.
The cash count, on the other hand, would cover the time period for whatever monies collected by sponsors had been dropped into the safe when the count was conducted.
For the cash count, Waterman and Griffin removed the money from the drop safe once it was opened, copied the Drop-Safe Log, and went to Griffin’s office. Waterman and Griffin had to wait between 30 and 45 minutes to get access to the drop safe.
While Waterman and Griffin were counting the money from the safe, Waterman observed that there were more drops on the Drop-Safe Log than money she had pulled from the safe.
When Waterman pointed this out to Griffin, she pulled bags out of her desk and stated that she had been in the middle of a deposit, and she also produced a bag of coins. She similarly testified that she had removed contents from the drop safe earlier that day and was in the process of compiling a deposit when Waterman arrived, and that she took money out in her office to give to Waterman.
The bags that Griffin produced were not initialed on the Drop-Safe Log; in other words, there was no indication on the Drop-Safe Log that the money had been removed from the drop safe.
Additionally, for one of the bags Griffin produced, there were no MCRs with the money in the bag. Waterman mentioned the missing MCRs to Griffin, and she answered that she had them, looked around on her desk, found three MCRs, and handed them to Waterman. The three MCRs were not all of the MCRs that were missing for that bag, however, and Waterman did not find all of the MCRs that should have been in that bag.
Waterman and Griffin were together continuously from the time they took the money out of the safe, took it to her office, and counted it, and Waterman would not count money without the bookkeeper or other school staff being present. Waterman and Griffin also went to the copier to make copies of MCRs and checks. Finally, Waterman and Griffin went back to the drop safe and put the money back into the safe. Waterman did not go back into the drop safe on January 21, 2010.
Waterman checked the copy room to make sure she had not left anything there. She further testified that both she and Griffin would have checked to make sure there was no money or MCRs left in the copy room.
After she went home on January 21, 2010, Waterman realized that there was a drop in the amount of approximately $866 from the SACC director according to the Drop-Safe Log that she had not found when she was doing her cash count, and that there was also a portion of the Drop-Safe Log possibly missing.
Waterman decided to report to Diamond View early the next day, January 22, 2010, and to have another District auditor come assist her.
When Griffin arrived at Diamond View on January 22, 2010, Waterman asked her for her January deposit records, which did not reflect the SACC drop of approximately $866.
Waterman asked Griffin if she could look through her inbox and the drawer in her office from where the bank bags had been produced the day before, and Griffin allowed her to do so.
When looking through files in the drawer, Waterman found six white envelopes containing approximately $9,500 worth of drops, including the SACC drop for which she had been looking. According to her work papers from the time, the amount in the envelopes was $9,478.93.
There was no indication on the Drop-Safe Log that the SACC drop had been removed from the drop safe.
Griffin was in the office with Waterman when Waterman found the envelopes and counted their contents.
Even after finding the envelopes, Waterman still did not find MCRs that she had identified as being missing the previous day.
From there, Waterman’s coworker arrived at the school, and they gathered all of the money, MCRs, Drop-Safe Log, and deposit records and tried to determine what had been deposited to the bank and what they could account for with the paperwork they had.
For the drops in January 2010, there were 20 entries on the Drop-Safe Log for which the auditors could not find an MCR or the money associated with it and also could not find the drops as part of a previously prepared deposit.
For entries on the January Drop-Safe Log dated January 15, 2010, or later, there was no indication on the log that they had been removed from the safe by the bookkeeper. Some of those items were subsequently found that day in Griffin’s office, but three were not.
For the other January entries before January 15, 2010, there was a note of “1/14” in the column “Date Removed from Safe by Bookkeeper,” for an entry dated January 5, 2010, and a line drawn through all of the boxes for entries up through January 14, 2010. Seven entries on January 13 and 14, 2010, were also initialed “KG.”
For the period from January 5 through 14, 2010, 17 drops could not be located by the auditors. Two of the drops that were not located by the auditors were initialed “KG.” The other 15 drops that could not be located, had the date or line drawn through the boxes under “Date Removed from Safe by Bookkeeper.”
Four of the entries that had been noted as removed on “1/14” had been noted as being dropped on January 5, 2010, meaning that more than five working days had passed without the January 5, 2010, drops being deposited.
Additionally, some of the drops that had been removed on January 14, 2010, had been found in Griffin’s office on January 21, 2010.
Waterman also observed that, for the deposit to the bank that had been made in January, some of the MCRs were dated in December. Her work papers reflect that multiple drops identified on the Drop-Safe Log as having been made on December 8, 2009, were not deposited to the bank until January 14, 2010.
Waterman’s coworker was Susy Kay (then Susy Miller) (“Kay”), who was a senior auditor for the School Board at the time. At the time, Kay held a bachelor’s degree in accounting and was also a certified internal auditor.
Kay ultimately conducted a review of the school’s financial records from July 1, 2009, through January 21, 2010. Her role was to perform financial analysis of the collection records to determine if there were missing records or missing documentation.
Principal Seal was asked by the auditors to collect yellow copies of MCRs from school staff. Principal Seal provided everything she collected to the auditors. Some staff had not retained their yellow MCRs.
Pages of the Drop-Safe Log before November 2009 were also missing, as in not available for review. Accordingly, only the period beginning in November 2009 was reviewed in detail.
Kay’s process was to conduct a two-way analysis of the available records. First, she would work from the yellow MCR, to the Drop-Safe Log, to the deposit packet including the corresponding white MCR. Second, she would work from the bank statement to the deposit packets, to the Drop-Safe Log, to the yellow copy of the MCR.
In her review, Kay was unable to confirm that the drops for certain MCRs associated with certain line items on the Drop-Safe Log were part of completed deposits. She was also unable to find a white MCR for every yellow MCR she collected. For some yellow MCRs, Kay was able to find an entry on the Drop-Safe Log, but not the white MCR.
If there was an inconsistency between the amount on the MCR and the amount in the drop, Kay testified that, in most situations, the bookkeeper would make a notation on the MCR and have the staff member initial it to show the correction. Kay would look for this correction on the white copy in her analysis as an auditor, and possibly attach a copy of an email to the MCR as well.
For November and December 2009, there were 26 drops from the Drop-Safe Log pages available that Kay could not trace to a deposit. Fourteen of these drops had the initials “KG” on the Drop-Safe Log. Ten of the drops had a line drawn through the box for initials under “KG.”
Twelve school employees also provided sworn statements that they had, in fact, dropped funds into the drop safe as shown by MCRs they completed and, where available, their entries on the Drop-Safe Log. These sworn statements confirmed that the following drops were made as shown on the Drop-Safe Log that were found to be missing by District auditors:
Elizabeth Sheppard for $27 ($15 and $12) on 1/19/10, Pet. Ex. 3, SB000025; Pet. Ex. 5, SB000160;
Veronica Carner for $300 on 1/19/10, Pet. Ex. 3, SB000067; Pet. Ex. 5, SB000160;
Elizabeth Sheppard for $16 on 1/5/10, Pet. Ex. 3, SB000023; Pet. Ex. 5, SB000161;
Elizabeth Sheppard for $20 ($7.50 and $12.50) on 1/6/10, Pet. Ex. 3, SB000023; Pet. Ex. 5, SB000161;
Elizabeth Sheppard for $18 ($14 and $4) on 1/7/10, Pet. Ex. 3, SB000023; Pet. Ex. 5, SB000161;
Elizabeth Sheppard for $32 ($13 and $4 and
$15) on 1/8/10, Pet. Ex. 3, SB000023; Pet. Ex. 5, SB000161;
Teresa Muller for $10 on 1/11/10, Pet. Ex. 3, SB000065; Pet. Ex. 5, SB000161;
Elizabeth Sheppard for $20 ($4 and $16) on 1/12/10, Pet. Ex. 3, SB000025; Pet. Ex. 5, SB000161;
Veronica Carner for $195 on 1/13/10, Pet. Ex. 3, SB000067; Pet. Ex. 5, SB000161;
Kaitlyn Byrne for $42 on 12/08/09, Pet. Ex. 3, SB000059; Pet. Ex. 5, SB000162;
Erica Lucarelli for $6 on 12/9/09, Pet. Ex. 3, SB000057; Pet. Ex. 5, SB000162;
Ellen Moore for $6 on 12/3/09, Pet. Ex. 3, SB000049; Pet. Ex. 5, SB000163;
Ashley James for $5 on 11/24/09, Pet. Ex. 3, SB000018; Pet. Ex. 5, SB000164;
Ellen Moore for $6 on 11/30/09, Pet. Ex. 3, SB000049; Pet. Ex. 5, SB000164;
Ellen Moore for $12 on 11/19/09, Pet. Ex. 3, SB000049; Pet. Ex. 5, SB000165;
Lynn Klopfer for $14.50 on 11/19/09, Pet. Ex. 3, SB000061; Pet. Ex. 5, SB000165;
April Kirton for $229.25 ($177 and $52.25) on 11/20/09, Pet. Ex. 3, SB000016; Pet. Ex. 5, SB000165;
Emilee Roche for $6 on 11/17/09, Pet. Ex. 3,
SB000054; Pet. Ex. 5, SB000166; and
(19) Tara Alm for $40.50 on 11/17/09, Pet. Ex. 3, SB000063; Pet. Ex. 5, SB000166.
There were also two drops that included cash and checks. Kay was able to determine through review of bank records that the checks from these
drops had been endorsed and deposited, showing that Griffin had handled the drop at some point. Griffin testified that she was responsible for preparing checks to be deposited with the bank. For those drops, however, Kay could not find the corresponding white copy of the MCR.
The drops that were determined to be missing did not include the money that was found in Griffin’s office during Waterman’s cash count; that money was deposited and not included in the special review.
Of the total number of drops that District auditors concluded could not be located, Kay went back after the operative events and determined that her conclusion with respect to four of the drops was in error, and they had in fact been deposited. Notably, for one of the drops, the issue had been that there was a difference of $0.25 between what was on the MCR and what Griffin recorded in SchoolCash.
Griffin testified that she conducted her own review of Kay’s findings and found “about seven” errors. She did not substantiate this conclusory testimony by identifying what those errors were. Even if she had, District auditors identified 42 drops, just from the available pages of the Drop-Safe Log, that could not be traced to a bank deposit or otherwise located, excluding the four that Kay testified were in error. Griffin’s having found seven errors, even if distinct from those errors already identified by Kay, fails to excuse the District auditors’ findings about the other 35 drops.
Griffin did not recall any collection of money ever missing from her office, nor she did recall reporting a collection missing from her office or reporting a collection missing that she believed should have been in the drop safe.
Prior Related Discipline of Ms. Griffin
Griffin received a written reprimand dated September 5, 2007, for failure to follow procedures set forth in the School District’s accounting guidelines. Specifically, for a period in 2006, there were five checks that were
not entered in the school’s accounting system, but had been deposited into the school’s bank account.
Respondent’s Defense to School Board Findings
Griffin testified that school personnel were not trained on how to use/complete the Drop-Safe Log and personnel would often times fail to properly complete the Drop-Safe Log after making deposits into the safe.
Griffin testified that use of the Drop-Safe Log was not discussed at any of the trainings she attended. While Puig testified that the Drop-Safe Log was discussed during training sessions, she was unable to confirm whether Griffin attended any specific training where the Drop-Safe Log was discussed.
School Board Exhibit 4 was the “New Bookkeeper Training” packet, which was provided to school treasurers at a training session, but Puig could not unequivocally confirm that Griffin had received a copy of the packet. The greater weight of the evidence, however, supports that Griffin was a regular attendee at school treasurer trainings and most likely received all the relevant materials. This is especially true when considering, as she testified, that she helped train other school treasurers and served as a mentor to some. In any event, while the training packet mentions the Drop-Safe Log, it fails to provide specific guidance on the procedures for filing out the log by either school personnel or school treasurers.
Griffin testified that she had not been trained by District staff on how to complete the Drop-Safe Log.
At the time of Waterman’s arrival to perform the audit at Diamond View on January 21, 2010, Griffin was in the middle of performing a count that she was preparing for a bank deposit.
Correcting teachers’ counts was something Griffin frequently had to do, as it was common for school personnel to make mistakes on their MCR forms and/or the Drop-Safe Log.
While Waterman completed Griffin’s count, Griffin went about her daily activities, at times leaving Waterman alone in her office with the money for the count.
The School Board alleges that pages were missing from the Drop-Safe Log, but were unable to ascertain or establish whether the missing pages were the result of Griffin’s negligence as opposed to the negligence of other school staff/personnel since the log was kept in an open area accessible to all, or the result of the negligence of Waterman who testified to having moved the documents on several occasions between Griffin’s office and the school’s copy room. Griffin did not dispute that some pages may have been missing from the Drop-Safe Log. The greater weight of the evidence supports Griffin’s mishandling of the Drop-Safe Log and any missing pages rather than shifting the responsibility for the missing pages to other District or Diamond View staff.
Waterman testified that she could not definitively state that she had not misplaced or lost any of the money she was counting or any of the documents she was copying.
Griffin testified that she left Waterman at the school on both January 21 and 22, 2010, when she left the school each day. The implication from this testimony was that Waterman could have misplaced or misappropriated funds. As mentioned above, such implication is not credible since Griffin did not testify that she knew the Drop-Safe Log was intact prior to Waterman’s audit.
Kay’s audit contained numerous mistakes that she made in both her initial audit and several subsequent reviews.
Kay acknowledged making several accounting mistakes which were brought out during Griffin’s criminal trial. Unexplained was the fact that Kay, one of the School Board’s main auditors, failed to catch her mistakes during the three years between her audit and her testimony at Griffin’s trial. Kay testified that she had reviewed her findings each time prior to being
deposed and prior to testifying in Griffin’s criminal trial, yet she never realized her mistakes until Griffin’s criminal attorney brought them to her attention on cross-examination. While this behavior is evidence of sloppiness on her part, it fails to negate the substantial evidence provided by both Waterman and Kay that significant errors were made by Griffin in her accounting for funds left in her care.
Additionally, Kay made several obvious mistakes in her notations on the Drop-Safe Log by consistently noting the wrong dates on the log during her audit.
The evidence was clear that the School Board, namely Kay, made many obvious mistakes in performing the audit. Griffin was suspended without pay and terminated, at least in part, based on the audit containing these errors.
Even after acknowledging the accounting mistakes, Kay testified that she did not amend her findings or submit a corrected audit addressing the miscalculations.
As a result, the School Board knowingly retained an audit containing inaccuracies as part of its official records.
There is credible evidence through the testimony of Kay that School Board officials/personnel made recording or clerical mistakes in the handling and documentation of Griffin’s investigation, which ultimately, led to her suspension without pay and termination. However, that evidence does not negate the majority of the errors and the failure to follow District procedures committed by Griffin.
Griffin was suspended without pay effective November 3, 2011.
Griffin’s termination from the School Board became effective November 18, 2011.
Since that time, she has lost her pay, health insurance, and other benefits as a result of the suspension and termination.
Griffin has experienced difficulty in securing full-time employment to replace all her lost earnings since the time of her termination by the School Board.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
DOAH has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of these proceedings pursuant to sections 120.569 and 120.57(1).
The School Board is responsible for the operation, control, and supervision of all free public schools within the District. Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const.; §§ 1001.30, .32, Fla. Stat. The School Board’s powers and duties include providing for the suspension and dismissal of employees.
§ 1012.22(1)(a), (f), Fla. Stat. (2009).
The superintendent of schools has the statutory responsibility and obligation to recommend the placement of school personnel and to require compliance and observance by all personnel of all laws, policies, and directives of the School Board, the State of Florida, and the federal government. Pursuant to section 1012.27(5), Florida Statutes, the superintendent has the authority to recommend to the School Board, that school district employees be suspended and dismissed from employment.
Section 1012.40(2)(b), which governs educational support employees such as Griffin, provides, in pertinent part:
[T]the employee’s status shall continue from year to year unless the district school superintendent terminates the employee for reasons stated in the collective bargaining agreement.
Pursuant to the AESOP CBA, Article 3, Section C, Progressive Discipline, subsection 1:
Disciplinary action may not be taken against an employee except for just cause and this must be substantiated by sufficient evidence by the Superintendent or Designee which supports the recommended disciplinary action.
The AESOP CBA, Article 3, Section C, Progressive Discipline, subsection 8, reads as follows:
Where just cause warrants such action(s), an employee may be demoted, suspended, or dismissed upon recommendation to the Superintendent. Except in cases that constitute a real immediate danger to the District or other flagrant violation, progressive discipline shall be administered as follows:
Verbal Warning (Written notification) (Not filed in Personnel File)
Written Reprimand (Filed in Personnel File)
Suspension without pay with Board Approval
Dismissal with Board approval.
The educational support employee's guilt or innocence “is a factual question to be decided in the context of [each] alleged violation.” McKinney v. Castor, 667 So. 2d 387, 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Langston v. Jamerson,
653 So. 2d 489, 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).
A district school board employee against whom a disciplinary proceeding has been initiated must be given written notice of the specific charges prior to the hearing. Although the allegations "need not be set forth with the technical nicety or formal exactness required of pleadings in court," Jacker v. School Board of Dade County, 426 So. 2d 1149, 1150 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), the charging document should "specify the rule the agency alleges has been violated and the conduct which occasioned the violation of the rule." Id. at 1151 (Jorgenson, J. concurring).
Once the school board, in its notice of specific charges, has delineated the offenses alleged to justify suspension or termination, those are the only grounds upon which such action may be taken. See Lusskin v. Ag. for Health Care Admin., 731 So. 2d 67, 69 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Cottrill v. Dep't of Ins.,
685 So. 2d 1371, 1372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Klein v. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Reg., 625 So. 2d 1237, 1238-39 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Delk v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 595 So. 2d 966, 967 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); and Willner v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., Bd. of Med., 563 So. 2d 805, 806 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), rev. denied, 576
So. 2d 295 (Fla. 1991).
Petitioner bears the burden of proving each element of the charged offenses against Respondent by a preponderance of the evidence.
§ 120.57(1)(j), Fla. Stat.; McNeill v. Pinellas Cty. Sch. Bd., 678 So. 2d 476, 477 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Sublett v. Sumter Cty. Sch. Bd., 664 So. 2d 1178, 1179 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Allen v. Sch. Bd. of Dade Cty., 571 So. 2d 568, 569
(Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (citing Dileo v. Sch. Bd. of Dade Cty., 569 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)). The preponderance of the evidence standard requires proof by “the greater weight of the evidence” or evidence that “more likely than not” tends to prove a certain proposition. See Gross v. Lyons, 763 So. 2d 276, 280 n.1 (Fla. 2000) (citations omitted); see also Williams v. Eau Claire Pub. Sch., 397 F.3d 441, 446 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding the trial court properly defined the preponderance of the evidence standard as “such evidence as, when considered and compared with that opposed to it, has more convincing
force and produces ... [a] belief that what is sought to be proved is more likely true than not true”). No presumption of correctness is given to the preliminary determination of Petitioner to terminate Griffin’s employment.
Fla. Dept. of Transp. v. J.W.C. Co., Inc., 396 So. 2d 778, 785 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). This proceeding is considered to be de novo. § 120.57(1)(k), Fla. Stat.
Section 1012.33(6)(b) provides that instructional or support personnel may be suspended or dismissed at any time during the term of their contract on charges based on:
Immorality, misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, drunkenness, or being found guilty of, or entering a plea of guilty, regardless of adjudication of guilt, any crime involving moral turpitude, as these
terms are defined by rule by the State Board of Education.
In addition to the following discussion of the charges against Griffin falling under School Board policy and state financial accounting mandates, her actions here violated the above statute in that they showed incompetency or willful neglect of duty on her part. Despite the fact Griffin was acquitted of criminal charges, under the highest standard of proof in Florida law, namely, proof of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, the preponderance of the evidence standard, a far lesser standard of proof discussed above, applies here. While a court of competent jurisdiction has found Griffin not guilty of criminal charges, the undersigned finds, as set forth more fully below, that she was derelict in her duties as school treasurer and, accordingly, was appropriately disciplined by the School Board.
The record in this case establishes that Griffin committed the first charged violation, Misuse of District Time, Property, and/or Resources in violation of School Board Policy 6.11 and the Florida Department of Education’s “Financial and Program Cost Accounting and Reporting for Florida Schools,” also known as the Redbook 2001, Chapter 7, School Internal Funds, Section III – Standards Practices and Procedures, Subsection 1.4 Cash Collections and Deposits, paragraph (d).
School Board Policy 6.11, Money Left in Schools After Hours, provides, in pertinent part, that “[a]ny employee who fails to turn in funds each day shall be held personally liable for any loss” and “[t]he maximum sum of money permitted to be kept in school overnight shall not exceed $300, excluding the cafeteria change fund, and shall be properly secured therein.”
The record in this case establishes that Griffin violated School Board Policy 6.11 by having drops in her office exceeding $300 overnight rather than returning them to the drop safe. Specifically, the record establishes that the envelopes discovered by Waterman on January 22, 2010, containing a
total of $9,478.93 had been in Griffin’s office at least overnight, since Waterman had arrived at the school before Griffin on January 22, 2010.
The pertinent section of the Redbook 2001 provides that “[a]ll deposits must equal the total amount of money taken in and recorded on receipts for the period covered by the deposit.”
The record establishes that Griffin violated this provision because she failed to ensure that all money collected at the school during the period from November 2009 through January 2010 that was analyzed by the District auditors was actually deposited. This was demonstrated by the evidence regarding the cash count by Waterman on January 21, 2010, and then the ensuing special review by District auditors of the period from November 2009 through January 2010. Even accepting Kay’s testimony that she found four errors in her work and Griffin’s testimony that she found seven errors in Kay’s work papers, that leaves at least 35 drops that District auditors could not find or otherwise confirm were deposited.
The record in this case also establishes that Griffin committed the second charged violation, Professional Misconduct, which represents her failure to fulfill essential responsibilities of her job according to her job description.
Griffin violated the requirements of “[m]aintaining school internal account fiscal records” and “[p]reparing, typing and verifying a variety of forms, financial and statistical reports, vouchers, departmental reports and related correspondence.” These job responsibilities and the record in this case confirm that, as a school treasurer, Griffin was a bookkeeper. At the very least, the District auditors’ analysis revealed significant bookkeeping failures. District auditors were not only unable to find bank records confirming that funds made it to the bank, they were unable to find the documentation at the school that Griffin had verified the drops and finalized them for deposit. Even if something happened to a drop after she finalized it for deposit, there should still have been paperwork retained by her showing
that she had finalized it for deposit. This included white MCRs that corresponded with each drop made by school staff and that should have reflected any errors that Griffin discovered when she verified the amount of the drop with the paperwork completed by school staff.
For the reasons discussed above regarding Misuse of District Time, Property, and/or Resources, Griffin also violated the requirement of a school treasurer “[r]eceiving all funds for school internal accounts; issuing receipts; making deposits and verifying and reconciling bank statements.”
The record in this case also establishes that Griffin committed the third charged violation, Failure to Act in Accordance with Sound Business Practices, in violation of the provision of the Redbook 2001 that “[a]ll money collected must be deposited intact to a depository as frequently as feasible and as dictated by sound business practices. IN ANY EVENT, FUNDS COLLECTED MUST BE DEPOSITED WITHIN FIVE WORKING DAYS AFTER RECEIPT.”
The record established that the five-day rule was also District policy, and that school treasurers were even advised to have deposits ready more frequently than that, in time for every armored car pickup. Griffin testified that she did not know how long she had from when funds were dropped to have them ready for deposit, but that claim is either simply untrue or is inexcusable in light of the Redbook 2001, her attendance at monthly training meetings, and her mentoring of other school treasurers.
Griffin attempted to blame any delay in deposits on her inability to access the safe when the armored car pickup service was at the school, but she did not tie that to the specific delayed deposits identified by the District auditors in their testimony. Additionally, on one occasion, funds were dropped in the safe on January 5, 2010, and not removed by Griffin until January 14, 2010. Inability to access the safe while the armored car was there would not excuse her failure to remove the funds from the safe in the first place to prepare them for deposit.
Griffin also attempted to blame any delay in deposits on having too many other responsibilities. The record as a whole does not support that she was unable to prepare deposits in a timely fashion because of any additional responsibilities assigned to her by Principal Seal. She managed to have time to perform, for instance, mentoring during the workday, which was not even a required job duty for her.
The record in this case further establishes that Griffin committed the fourth and final charged violation, Failure to Follow Policy/Rule or Directive, by violating School Board Policies 3.10 and 1.013.
School Board Policy 3.10, Conditions of Employment, paragraph 6, provides as follows:
The District requires its employees to carry out their responsibilities in accordance to School Board Policy 1.013 (as may be amended), their job descriptions and reasonable directives from their supervisors that do not pose an immediate serious hazard to health and safety or clearly violate established law or policy.
School Board Policy 1.013, Responsibilities of School District Personnel and Staff, paragraph 1, provides as follows:
It shall be the responsibility of the personnel employed by the district school board to carry out their assigned duties in accordance with federal laws, rules, state statutes, state board of education rules, school board policy, superintendent’s administrative directives and local school and area rules.
By statute, the School Board “shall be responsible for the administration and control of all local school funds derived by any public school from all activities or sources, and shall prescribe the principles and procedures to be followed in administering these funds consistent with regulations adopted by the State Board of Education.” § 1011.07(1), Fla. Stat. (2009). Further, “[t]he State Board of Education shall adopt rules governing
the procedures for the recording of the receipts, expenditures, deposits, and disbursements of internal funds.” Id. at § 1011.07(2).
During the relevant time period, rule 6A-1.085(1) provided as follows:
Monies collected and expended within a school … are the responsibility of the school board and it shall be the duty of the school board to see that they are properly accounted for through use of generally recognized accounting procedures and effectively administered through adherence to internal funds policies of the school board, applicable Florida Statutes and provisions of “Financial and Program Cost Accounting and Reporting for Florida Schools” as incorporated by reference in Rule 6A–1.001, F.A.C. Funds collected in connection with summer program activities, funds derived from school athletic events, gifts, and contributions made by band or athletic booster clubs, civic organizations, parent-teacher organizations, and commercial agencies, and all other similar monies, properties, or benefits may be included in internal funds of the school based upon policies adopted by school districts or as provided in “Financial and Program Cost Accounting and Reporting for Florida Schools.”
In short, the Redbook 2001 governed the handling of internal funds at schools during the pertinent time period for this matter pursuant to the Florida Statutes and State Board of Education rules. For the reasons discussed above regarding Misuse of District Time, Property, and/or Resources; Professional Misconduct; and Failure to Act in Accordance with Sound Business Practices, Griffin failed to carry out her assigned duties in accordance with the Redbook 2001 regarding depositing all money taken in at the school. For the reasons discussed above regarding Misuse of District Time, Property, and/or Resources and Professional Misconduct, Griffin also failed to fulfill multiple responsibilities outlined in her job description.
Additionally, Griffin violated the District’s policies and procedures regarding the Drop-Safe Log. The record establishes that a school treasurer
should have initialed and dated the Drop-Safe Log when removing drops from the drop safe, which Griffin consistently failed to do. Alternatively, there was testimony from Puig that a school treasurer could pull the Drop-Safe Log along with the drops while preparing a deposit. But Griffin did not testify that she did that either, nor did the evidence show that, when she had a number of drops in her office on January 21, 2010, she had also removed the Drop-Safe Log.
Whether the Drop-Safe Log was a School Board-approved form is not dispositive of whether it was a requirement that the school treasurer here use it, which the record establishes was the case. The undersigned does not find Griffin’s testimony credible that she did not know or was not told how to use the Drop-Safe Log, as an excuse for her failure to use it properly. First, the document contained unambiguous text above columns reading “Date Removed from Safe by Bookkeeper” and “Bookkeeper’s Initials.” Second, there was testimony supporting the common sense conclusion that a bookkeeper identifying when she had removed funds from the safe was an important accountability measure. Moreover, the evidence proved that Griffin used the Drop-Safe Log at some time while not at other times. Finally, Griffin was a regular attendee at trainings, an experienced school treasurer, and even served as a mentor to other school treasurers.
In sum, the record in this case establishes that Griffin committed the charged violations, and there is just cause both for suspension without pay and termination of her employment.
Further, sufficient grounds exist here for proceeding directly to termination under the progressive discipline provision of the AESOP CBA. Article 3, section C of the AESOP CBA, allows for a deviation from progressive discipline in two narrow exceptions: (1) in cases which clearly constitute a real and immediate danger to the District; or (2) flagrant violations.
Given Griffin’s prior disciplinary history of a written reprimand, the next step would have been suspension without pay. The School Board established that Griffin’s actions constituted flagrant violations due to the number and frequency of her not following the clearly established practices for a school treasurer to handle money. Her lax practices concerning others’ access to the Drop-Safe Log; her failure to account for all funds received on the Drop-Safe Log; her failure to properly secure funds collected on multiple occasions; and her inability to recall how money ended up in her desk drawer rather than in the drop safe at the close of the school day all indicate a serious disregard for the required safeguards imposed for money collected for school activities and fees and constitute frequent and flagrant violations of the charged rules and policies of the District. While Griffin’s counsel argued that the New Bookkeeper Training Manual was not specified as part of the violations charged in the Administrative Complaint, clearly this was a document that school treasurers were expected to both learn about in training and follow in the regular course of performing their duties. The fact that significant amounts of money were not properly logged or kept in the drop safe, in and of itself, created both a real and immediate danger to the District.
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Palm Beach County School Board, enter a final order suspending Respondent, Kim Griffin, without pay and terminating her employment.
DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of October, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
S
ROBERT S. COHEN
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 9th day of October, 2020.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Dedrick D. Straghn, Esquire Dedrick D. Straghn, Attorney & Counselor at Law
26 Southwest 5th Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 (eServed)
Sean Fahey, Esquire
Jean Marie Middleton, Esquire School District of Palm Beach County Office of the General Counsel
3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-331 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 (eServed)
Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
Donald E. Fennoy II, Ed.D., Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board
3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, C-316 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Jan. 13, 2021 | Agency Final Order | |
| Oct. 09, 2020 | Recommended Order | A preponderance of the evidence proved that Respondent committed the charged violations and sufficient evidence supports proceeding directly to suspension without pay and termination of her employment under progressive discipline from a prior reprimand. |
PALM BEACH COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs PAUL LOUD, 20-001599 (2020)
PALM BEACH COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs. WALTER PRESSLEY, 20-001599 (2020)
PALM BEACH COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs RUTHA SCOTT, 20-001599 (2020)
PALM BEACH COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs PAUL LOUD, 20-001599 (2020)
COCOA BEACH WOMAN'S CLUB FOUNDATION, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, 20-001599 (2020)
