The Issue Whether the actions taken by the superintendent and staff of the Duval County School Board prior to December 1, 1974, were sufficient to achieve comparability pursuant to the provisions of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended.
Findings Of Fact Congress amended the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 by Public Law 91-230 instituting a project referred to as the Title I Program. The Respondent, Department of Education, has the responsibility of administering the Title I Program and dispensing federal funds to the various school districts throughout the State of Florida. Petitioner, Duval County School Board, is a large urban school district of some 112,000 students and 10,000 employees. There are 134 schools in the district of which 28 are designated as E.S.E.A. Title I Project Schools. The statute under consideration is 20 U.S.C.A. Sec. 241(e): "(a) A Local educational agency may receive a grant under this sub-chapter for any fiscal year only upon application therefore approved by the appropriate State educational agency, upon its determination (consistent with such basic criteria as the Commissioner may establish) . . . (3) That . . .(c) state and local funds be used in the District of such agencies to provide services in project areas which, taken as a whole, are at least comparable to services being provided in areas in such districts which are not receiving funds under this sub-chapter: . . . provided further, That each local educational agency receiving funds under this sub-chapter shall report on or before July 1, 1971 and on or before July 1 of each year thereafter with respect to its compliance with this clause; . . ." The regulation under consideration which was promulgated to implement the statute is Regulation Sec. 116.26, a part of which reads: "(a) A state educational agency shall not approve an application of a local educational agency for a grant under section 141(a) of the Act, or make payments of Title I funds under a previously approved application of such agency, unless that local educational agency has demonstrated, in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section, that services provided with State and local funds in title I project areas are at least comparable to the services being provided with State and local funds in school serving attendance areas not designated as Title I project areas. Such approval shall not be given unless the local educational agency also provides the assurances and the additional information required' by paragraph (e) of this section with respect to the maintenance of comparability. For the purpose of this section, State and local funds include those funds used in the determination of fiscal effort in accordance with Section 116.45." 116.26(c) "If any school serving a Title I Project Area is determined not to be comparable under this paragraph, no further payments of Title I funds shall be made to the local educational agency until that agency has taken the action required by paragraph (k)(1) of this section to overcome such lack of comparability." Regulation Sec. 116.26(k)(1) in part reads: "that such local educational agency has allocated or reallocated sufficient additional resources to Title I Project Areas so as to come into compliance with such requirements and has filed a revised comparability report reflecting such compliance." Petitioner, Duval County School Board, has been the recipient of Title I funds on a year to year basis since 1965, but was deemed by the Respondent to be in violation of the federal requirements from December 1, 1974 through January 2, 1975 for the reason that Petitioner had not "achieved comparability" for that period of time. Funds withheld from Petitioner, in excess of $325,000 are involved in this hearing. The following sequence of events are pertinent: On or about July 1, 1974, the Duval County application for Fiscal Year 1974 was filed and approved based on the assurance that comparability existed in Duval County and would be maintained throughout the 1974-75 school year. On or about September 27, 1974, the Respondent advised local school districts that October 1, 1974 was the date for collecting the data on which the comparability report for Fiscal Year 1975 would be based. On October 7 and 8, 1974, and again on November 7 and 8, 1974, conferences and meetings were held with representatives of various school boards, including those of the Petitioner. The purpose of these meetings and conferences was to inform these school boards concerning the requirements of achieving and maintaining comparability. On November 20, 1974, in a memorandum from Woodrow J. Darden marked "URGENT" the Respondent advised all Superintendents, the Finance Officers and Title I Coordinators that the comparability reports were due on or before December 1, 1974. A part of said memorandum stated: "If the comparability report submitted by your district did not meet the measures to determine comparability as outlined in the Federal Regulations, administrative or Board action for the purpose of reallocating resources should be taken on or before December 1, 1974, to bring the schools into compliance." The date of December 1, 1974 is established by Regulation 116.26(b)(7). On November 26 and 27, 1974, the Superintendent authorized a reallocation of instructional staff and authorized budgetary transfers to bring Petitioner up to the required level of comparability. On December 1, 1974, Petitioner filed its report. On December 17, 1974, the Director, Special Projects, received a copy from Department of Education of a MAILGRAM from Robert R. Wheeler, Acting Deputy Commissioner for School Systems, United States Office of Education to Honorable Ralph Turlington, stating: "this is to remind you that your agency is required under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act not to make any further payments as of December 1 to any local educational agency that has not as of that date complied with the comparability requirements in 45 CFR 116.26 and to notify each such agency not to obligate any Title I funds after that date. Compliance with this requirement is subject to Federal Audit. Your continued cooperation is appreciated." By a letter dated December 18, 1974, the Respondent notified Petitioner funds were being withheld for the period of December 1 through December 16, 1974. An audit was conducted by Petitioner following the withholding of funds of December 18, 1974, and this audit revealed that comparability had still not been achieved. A revised report dated December 27, 1974 indicated that additional personnel still were needed to meet comparability requirements. Pursuant thereto additional personnel reported to work on or about January 2, 1975. By a letter dated January 16, 1975, the Respondent rescinded the prior authorization that had permitted the resumption of the use of Title I funds as of December 16, 1974 and extended the period of withholding of Title I funds through January 1, 1975. Following the notification to Petitioner that the funds were being withheld, the Petitioner requested a hearing in order to appeal the withholding of the Title I funds for the period of December 1, 1974 through December 16, 1974. This request for a hearing was later amended to include the period of time from December 15, 1975 through January 1, 1975. Petitioner contends: That it complied with the requirements of the subject statute and regulation when it unconditionally committed itself on November 26, 1974 to the employment of necessary personnel by the establishment and budgeting of all necessary positions and direction that such positions be filled. Petitioner further contends that good faith on its part and substantial compliance is all that the statute and regulation require. Respondent contends: That the subject statute and regulation require that compliance with the comparability requirements is a continuing state of being and must be maintained throughout the year. Respondent further contends that the Federal statute and regulation require not only that the positions be budgeted and directions be given to employ but that the positions be actually filled and the personnel on the job on or before the filing of the report required by Regulation 116.26(b)(7). The Hearing Officer further finds: That both Petitioner and Respondent have demonstrated a dedication and concern for the schools within their respective jurisdictions; That both Petitioner and Respondent have been diligent in trying to act within the provisions of the subject statute and regulations; That the personnel of both the Petitioner and Respondent are familiar with the requirements of the statute and regulation but the federal requirements are subject to different interpretations by reasonable persons. There was no meeting of the minds of the parties from the federal, state and local governmental units as to the required method of compliance with the laws.
The Issue Whether just cause exists to terminate Respondent from employment with the Brevard County School Board.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Brevard County, Florida. This includes the power to discipline employees, such as teachers. § 4, Article IX, Fla. Const.; §§ 1001.42(5), 1012.22(1)(f), and 1012.33, Fla. Stat.1 Respondent is a classroom teacher, and as such, the terms and conditions of her employment are governed by the collective agreement between the School Board and The Brevard Federation of Teachers, Local 2098. Respondent has a Bachelor’s degree in exceptional education. On or about November 9, 2006, Respondent, pursuant to an annual contract, was hired by the School Board to provide services as a classroom teacher. Beginning in the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent continued her employment with the School Board pursuant to a professional services contract. During all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent taught at Hoover Middle School, which is under the jurisdiction of the School Board. At the commencement of the 2014-2015 school year, Respondent taught exceptional education (ESE) students in a self-contained, supported-level class. At approximately the midway point of the 2014-2015 school year, Respondent began teaching a resource math class which was comprised entirely of ESE students. Beginning in the 2017-2018 school year, and continuing through the 2018-2019 school year, Respondent taught one resource math class for a single class-period of the day, and she co-taught, or “pushed-in,” for the other five instructional class periods. In both settings, Respondent taught math to ESE students. By correspondence dated March 26, 2019, Superintendent Mullins advised Respondent of the following: Pursuant to Florida Statute 1012.34, you are being recommended for termination of your Professional Services Contract due to unsatisfactory 1 All subsequent references to Florida Statutes will be to the 2018 codification, unless otherwise indicated. Performance …. The actions leading to this recommendation are as follows: On October 29, 2018, you were provided a 90-day notice advising of performance-related concerns based upon three years of unsatisfactory annual evaluations. Several performance review meetings were held with you, your union representative, and your school Principal to discuss your progress. A review of your past evaluations indicates several attempts at corrective activities through the use of District Peer Mentors and Resource Teachers. After the completion of the 90-day plan, adequate progress was not obtained and is grounds to sever the Professional Services Contract. The School Board uses an “Instructional Personnel Performance Appraisal System” (IPPAS) as a guide when evaluating a teacher’s performance. According to the IPPAS manual, classroom teachers are evaluated on a rubric which consists of five dimensions. The first dimension focuses on “instructional design and lesson planning.” The second dimension focuses on the “learning environment” created and fostered by the teacher. The third dimension focuses on “instructional delivery and facilitation.” The fourth dimension focuses on “assessment,” and the fifth dimension focuses on a teacher’s “professional responsibility and ethical conduct.” IPPAS is approved annually by the Florida Department of Education (FLDOE), and the School Board meets regularly with The Brevard Federation of Teachers, Local 2098, to address any issues concerning the evaluation process. Teachers and evaluators receive yearly training, which covers the various components of the evaluation process. Pursuant to IPPAS, and related statutory provisions, classroom teachers are evaluated annually. The overall score given to a teacher on the annual evaluation is determined by how a teacher scores in the areas of “Professional Practices Based on Florida’s Educator Accomplished Practices (Professional Practices),” and “Individual Accountability for Student Academic Performance Based on Identified Assessments (Student Performance).” The Professional Practices category accounts for 67 percent, and Student Performance accounts for the remaining 33 percent of a teacher’s annual evaluation score. For purposes of quantifying a teacher’s annual evaluation, IPPAS identifies the Professional Practices category as “Part 1 of the Summative Evaluation,” and the Student Performance category as “Part 2 of the Summative Evaluation.” Part 1 of the Summative Evaluation is completed in the spring of each school year and consists of the supervising principal’s annual evaluation of the teacher, the teacher’s self-assessment, and the collaboration and mutual accountability score. The evaluative components of Part 1 of the Summative Evaluation are comprised of the previously referenced “five dimensions.” Part 2 of the Summative Evaluation is determined based on student academic performance data (VAM score) as calculated by the FLDOE. VAM scores are released by FLDOE in the fall, and these scores reflect student performance for the preceding school year. Consequently, a teacher will not receive an overall annual evaluation score for the immediate preceding school year until the fall semester during which VAM scores are available. As a practical matter, this explains, in part, why the recommendation for termination letter sent to Respondent by Superintendent Mullins was issued on March 26, 2019.2 2015-2016 SCHOOL YEAR Respondent, on or about April 25, 2016, received Part 1 of her Summative Evaluation for the 2015-2016 school year. Respondent received a score of 27.71 out of a maximum available score of 67 points. Respondent’s Part 1 Summative score placed her in the category of “Needs Improvement.” On or about November 2, 2016, Respondent received Part 2 of her Summative Evaluation for the 2015-2016 school year. Respondent received a VAM score of 56.71 out of a maximum available score of 100 points. Respondent’s VAM score placed her in the “Needs Improvement” category. The combined Part 1 and Part 2 scores resulted in Respondent receiving an overall annual evaluation rating of “Needs Improvement.” 2016-2017 SCHOOL YEAR Respondent, on or about April 5, 2017, received Part 1 of her Summative Evaluation for the 2016-2017 school year. Respondent received a score of 20.42 out of a maximum available score of 67 points. Respondent’s Part 1 Summative score placed her in the “Needs Improvement” category. On or about November 13, 2017, Respondent received Part 2 of her Summative Evaluation for the 2016-2017 school year. Respondent received a VAM score of 50.42 out of a maximum available score of 100 points. Respondent’s VAM score placed her in the “Needs Improvement” category. The combined Part 1 and Part 2 scores resulted in Respondent receiving an overall annual evaluation rating of “Needs Improvement.” 2 VAM scores for the 2017-2018 school year were released on or about October 19, 2018. As discussed elsewhere herein, Respondent was placed on 90 days probation following the release of her VAM score. The timing of the release of the VAM score, coupled with the 90-day probationary period and related matters, account for the March 2019 date of Superintendent Mullin’s letter to Respondent. 2017-2018 SCHOOL YEAR Respondent, on or about May 3, 2018, received Part 1 of her Summative Evaluation for the 2017-2018 school year. Respondent received a score of 34.58 out of a maximum available score of 67 points. Respondent’s Part 1 Summative score placed her in the “Needs Improvement” category. On or about October 19, 2018, Respondent received Part 2 of her Summative Evaluation for the 2017-18 school year. Respondent received a VAM score of 64.58 out of a maximum available score of 100 points. Respondent’s VAM score placed her in the “Needs Improvement” category. The combined Part 1 and Part 2 scores resulted in Respondent receiving an overall annual evaluation rating of “Needs Improvement.” A PLAN FOR ADDRESSING PROFESSIONAL DEFICIENCIES The School Board, in order to address Respondent’s professional deficiencies as identified during the relevant evaluation periods, provided support to Respondent through the utilization of Professional Development Assistance Plans (PDAPs). PDAPs are designed to provide a teacher with opportunities for professional development, which includes access to online resources, training activities and courses, and opportunities to work with School Board resource and peer mentor teachers. The School Board, acting through Respondent’s supervising administrators, agreed in the PDAPs to support Respondent’s professional growth and development as follows: By providing access to the “District Peer Mentor Teacher for collaboration on dimension 3.” By conducting “informal observations documented in ProGOE with feedback for improvement.” By providing “resources on utilizing formative assessment to check for understanding.” By providing “resources regarding implementing differentiated instruction.” By providing “resources on the utilization of Webb’s Depth of Knowledge.” By providing “exemplary sample lesson plans as a model … to follow.” By providing “pacing guide if needed.” By meeting every two weeks to review weekly lesson plans. By providing Respondent with “an exemplary teacher to observe, as well as a substitute [teacher] for class coverage during observation.” By providing a list of Professional Development courses on classroom management, as well as a substitute teacher to cover Respondent’s class while she attends the course. By providing “assistance and specific feedback from school based coaches.” By completing “informal observations on a bi- monthly basis, and provid[ing] feedback.” The evidence establishes that the School Board honored its commitment to Respondent as outlined in the respective PDAPs. 90 DAYS OF PROBATION, AND RECOMMENDATION FOR TERMINATION By correspondence dated October 29, 2018, the School Board advised Respondent of the following: In accordance with section 1012.34(4), F.S., this shall serve as the District’s notification of unsatisfactory performance. Please be advised that your Professional Service Contract for the 2018-19 academic year is on a probationary status for ninety (90) days. Your contract is being placed on probation due to your receiving an overall “Needs Improvement” rating on your last three (3) consecutive annual performance evaluations. See also section 1012.22, F.S. During the next ninety (90) days, you will be evaluated periodically. You will be apprised of any progress achieved in writing. You will work with the administration of your school to assist you in obtaining opportunities to help correct any noted deficiencies. After February 25, 2019, the ninetieth (90th) day, administration has fourteen (14) days to assess your progress. If no improvement is shown, administration will notify the Superintendent if you do not rate an overall Effective on the Summative Part 1 of your evaluation. Sincerely, Burt Clark, Principal Hoover Middle School Respondent, during her 90-day probationary period, continued to receive professional development services from the School Board, which included working with a peer mentor teacher, participating in CHAMPs training, receiving assistance from a math content specialist, and observing an exemplary math teacher. Burt Clark was the principal at the school where Respondent worked when she was placed on probation. As the principal, Mr. Clark served as Respondent’s supervisor and was responsible for evaluating her performance. During Respondent’s probationary period, Mr. Clark regularly met with Respondent and her union representative to discuss Respondent’s progress and offer assistance. In addition to meeting with Respondent, Mr. Clark also conducted one interim evaluation, four informal observation, and two formal observations of Respondent’s performance. Mr. Clark also conducted a number of “walk-throughs,” which provided additional insight into the status of Respondent’s professional development. While it is true that Mr. Clark’s observations of Respondent mainly occurred in the classroom where Respondent was the teacher of record, as opposed to Respondent’s work as a “push-in” teacher, Mr. Clark credibly testified that he had sufficient data to assess Respondent’s performance. Mr. Clark, at the end of the probationary period, determined that Respondent’s professional deficiencies remained, and on March 6, 2019, he made the following recommendation to Superintendent Mullins: Ms. Lisa Lemieux had an overall unsatisfactory performance appraisal. We have worked with her to try to improve her instructional strategies; but, it has not been successful in changing the behavior to better serve the students assigned to her. As defined in [section] 1012.34(4), [Florida Statutes], February 25, 2019, was the 90th day since the notification of her 90-day probation for this contract year and after demonstrating no improvement on the Summative Part 1, I have assessed that the performance deficiencies have not been corrected. I would recommend the termination of her employment with Brevard Public Schools. Burt Clark, Principal Hoover Middle School After receiving Mr. Clark’s recommendation to terminate Respondent’s employment, Superintendent Mullins reviewed Respondent’s last three years of evaluations, considered the extensive support and training provided to Respondent by the School Board, and concluded that termination of Respondent’s employment was warranted and justified.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Brevard County enter a final order terminating Respondent’s employment as a teacher. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of March, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN 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 16th day of March, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Amy D. Envall, General Counsel Brevard County Public Schools 2700 Judge Fran Jamieson Way Viera, Florida 32940 (eServed) Mark S. Levine, Esquire Levine & Stivers, LLC 245 East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Wayne L. Helsby, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 1477 West Fairbanks Avenue, Suite 100 Winter Park, Florida 32789 (eServed) Shannon L. Kelly, Esquire Allen, Norton and Blue, P.A. 1477 West Fairbanks Avenue, Suite 100 Winter Park, Florida 32789 (eServed) Howard Michael Waldman Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 1477 West Fairbanks Avenue, Suite 100 Winter Park, Florida 32789 (eServed) Ronald G. Stowers, Esquire Levine & Stivers, LLC 245 East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Dr. Mark Mullins, Superintendent School Board of Brevard County 2700 Judge Fran Jamieson Way Viera, Florida 32940-6601 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 1244 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Richard Corcoran, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 1514 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in the conduct alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges, as amended. If so, what action should be taken against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board is responsible for the operation, control, and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Among these schools are Miami Central Senior High School (Central) and American Senior High School (American). Alberto Rodriguez is now, and has been for the past six years, the principal at American. As American's principal, Mr. Rodriguez has supervisory authority over the School Board employees assigned to work at the school. These employees are expected to conduct themselves in accordance with School Board Rules, including School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21, 6Gx13-5D-1.07, and 6Gx13-6A-1.331 At all times material to the instant case, School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 provided, in pertinent part, as follows: Permanent Personnel RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES Employee Conduct All persons employed by The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves, both in their employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. Unseemly conduct or the use of abusive and/or profane language in the presence of students is expressly prohibited. . . . At all times material to the instant case, School Board Rule 6Gx13-5D-1.07 provided as follows: CORPORAL PUNISHMENT- PROHIBITED The administration of corporal punishment in Miami-Dade County Public Schools is strictly prohibited. Miami-Dade County Public Schools has implemented comprehensive programs for the alternative control of discipline. These programs include, but are not limited to, counseling, timeout rooms, in-school suspension centers, student, mediation and conflict resolution, parental involvement, alternative education programs, and other forms of positive reinforcement. In addition, suspensions and/or expulsions are available as administrative disciplinary actions depending of the severity of the misconduct. Procedures are in place for students to make up any work missed while on suspension, or to participate in an alternative program if recommended for expulsion.[2] Respondent has been employed as a teacher by the School Board since 1994. He has a professional service contract of employment with School Board. From 1994 through 2000, Respondent was assigned to Central, where he taught emotionally disturbed and severely emotionally disturbed students. He had an unblemished disciplinary and performance record at Central. Respondent was reassigned from Central to American, where he remained until August of 2001, when he was "placed in an alternative work assignment at Region I" pending the disposition of charges against him. At American, Respondent taught emotionally handicapped (EH) students. Among the students in his classes were O. A., V. S., C. H., T. S., R. D., and A. D. At all times material to the instant case, Nanci Clayton also taught EH students at American.3 She had some of the same students in her classes that Respondent had in his. At the beginning of the 2000-2001 school year, Ms. Clayton and Respondent had paraprofessionals in their classrooms. The paraprofessionals, however, were removed from their classrooms after the first grading period. Ms. Clayton's and Respondent's classrooms were located in one "very large [room] divided in half [by a makeshift partial partition4] to make two classrooms."5 This partial partition consisted of bookcases, a blackboard, filing cabinets, and, at times, a table. To enter and exit Respondent's classroom, it was necessary to pass through Ms. Clayton's classroom, where the door to the hallway was located. There was no direct access to the hallway from Respondent's classroom. Ms. Clayton's desk was located immediately to the left of the door as one walked into her classroom from the hallway. Students leaving Respondent's classroom had to pass by Ms. Clayton's desk to get to the hallway. The "divided room" that Ms. Clayton and Respondent shared had a "phone line," but no School Board-supplied telephone. Ms. Clayton and Respondent had to supply their own telephone. "Sometimes [the telephone] would work, sometimes it wouldn't work." There was no "emergency" or "call" button in the room. There were occasions when Ms. Clayton and Respondent "conduct[ed] [their] lessons simultaneously in this divided room."6 Things said in one of the classrooms could, at times, be heard in the other classroom. It is not uncommon for EH students to have mood swings, to become easily frustrated and angered, to be verbally and physically aggressive, to engage in off-task behavior, and to defy authority. Controlling the behavior of these students in the classroom presents a special challenge. As EH teachers at American, Ms. Clayton and Respondent were faced with this challenge. It was their responsibility to deal with the behavioral problems exhibited by their students during the course of the school day while the students were under their supervision. American had a Behavior Management Teacher, David Kucharsky, to assist the school's EH teachers in dealing with serious or chronic behavioral problems. There were far fewer instances of disruptive student behavior in Ms. Clayton's classroom than in Respondent's. While in Respondent's class, some students would do such things as throw books and turn the lights off. Ms. Clayton, however, would not "have the same kind of problems" with these students when she was teaching them. Ms. Clayton "made recommendations" to Respondent to help him better control the behavior of students in his classes. As a teacher at American, Respondent was a member of a collective bargaining unit represented by the United Teachers of Dade (UTD) and covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and UTD, effective July 1, 1999, through June 20, 2002 (UTD Contract). Article V of the UTD Contract addressed the subject of "employer rights." Section 1 of Article V provided, in part, that the School Board had the exclusive right to suspend, dismiss or terminate employees "for just cause." Article XXI of the UTD Contract addressed the subject of "employee rights and due process." Section 2 of Article XXI provided, in part, that "[d]ismissals and suspensions shall be effected in accordance with applicable Florida statutes, including the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) " Article VIII of the UTD Contract addressed the subject of a "safe learning environment." "Student discipline" was discussed in Section 1 of Article VIII, which provided, in part, as follows: Section 1. Student Discipline A safe and orderly learning environment is a major priority of the parties. Such an environment requires that disruptive behavior be dealt with safely, fairly, consistently, and in a manner which incorporates progressive disciplinary measures specified in the Code of Student Conduct. Rules governing discipline are set forth in the Code of Student Conduct, School Board Rules, and Procedures for Promoting and Maintaining a Safe Learning Environment and, by reference, are made a part of this Contract. * * * D. The parties recognize the potential for difficult circumstances and problems related to the use of corporal punishment. Accordingly, the parties agree that such punishment shall be prohibited as a disciplinary option, and further agree to act affirmatively in continuing to identify and implement more effective alternatives for dealing with student behavior. The involvement of school-site personnel in developing such alternatives is critical to their potential for success. The teacher shall have the authority to remove a seriously disruptive student from the classroom. In such cases, the principal or designee shall be notified immediately and the teacher shall be entitled to receive prior to or upon the student's return to the classroom, a copy of the Student Case Management Form (SCAM) describing corrective action(s) taken. . . . "Physical restraint" and its use, in certain circumstances, on students receiving exceptional student education services was discussed in Section 3 of Article VIII, which provided as follows: Section 3. Physical Restraint There are instances where exceptional students exhibit behaviors that are disruptive to the learning environment and pose a threat to the safety of persons or property. Some exceptional students because of the nature of their disability, may, on occasion, experience impaired impulse control of such severity that the use of physical restraint is necessary to prevent such students from inflicting harm to self and/others, or from causing damage to property. The purpose of physical restraint is to prevent injury to persons or destruction of property. It is not to be used to "teach the child a lesson" or as punishment. For students who exhibit such behaviors, the use of physical restraint procedures shall be discussed as part of the Individualized Education Program (IEP) development and review process. A recommendation for the use of Board-approved physical restraint procedures must be made by the Multi-Disciplinary Team (M-Team) and shall be documented on the student's IEP form before the use of such procedures may be authorized. When parents or surrogates are not present at the IEP meeting, written notification to them regarding the use of physical restraint will be provided. Strategies for the prevention of aggressive behavior shall be utilized on an ongoing basis. However, when an explosive event occurs without warning and is of such degree that there is imminent risk to persons or property, the use of physical restraint technique is authorized for such circumstances. Subject to available funding, the Board shall provide for the training of instructional and support staff in physical restraint techniques, as well as strategies for prevention of aggressive behavior. Training manuals developed for this purpose are, by reference, incorporated and made a part of this Agreement. Physical restraint techniques provided in training programs approved by the Board are authorized and, when utilized in accordance with the training provided and these guidelines, shall not constitute grounds for disciplinary action. If a teacher is not trained in the use of approved physical restraint procedures and is faced with an emergency, the teacher is authorized to employ the moderate use of physical force or physical contact as may be necessary to maintain discipline or to enforce Board Rules 6Gx13-5D-1.07 and 1.08.[7] The appropriate use of these procedures shall not constitute a violation of the corporal punishment policy (Board Rule 6Gx13-5D-1.07). Physical restraint refers to the use of physical intervention techniques designed to restrict the movement of a student in an effort to de-escalate aggressive behavior. In order to promote a safe learning environment, the district has authorized the implementation of specific physical restraint procedures to be used in Exceptional Student Education programs when a student's IEP documents the potential need for their use. These procedures include, but are not limited to, holding and escape techniques which, when implemented, prevent injury to students and staff or prevent serious damage to property. Specific physical restraint procedures may also be approved for use with other specific student populations, upon mutual agreement of the parties and would be reviewed on an annual basis. The use of physical restraint must be documented as part of the SCM system. Instructional or support staff who utilize physical restraint techniques shall complete the SCM Student Services Form to record student case information regarding each incident. Directions shall be provided to instructional and support staff to assist them in completing the appropriate form. At all times material to the instant case, the Individualized Education Program for each of the students in Respondent's classes "document[ed] the potential need for the[] use" of the School Board-approved "physical restraint techniques" referenced in Section 3 of Article VIII of the UTD Contract. Respondent received training in 1994 in the use of these techniques. At another in-service training session that he attended when he was teaching at Central, the head of the school's program for emotionally disturbed and severely emotionally disturbed students spoke about the "preventative strategies" of "planned ignoring" and "proximity control" and gave to the attendees, including Respondent, a handout, which stated the following about these "preventative strategies": Planned Ignoring Inappropriate behavior is ignored and not reinforced by staff by not reacting or responding to specific disruptive activity of a student in anticipation that the inappropriate behavior will extinguish or subside without further [sic]. The second part of this intervention is to reinforce positively acceptable behavior in anticipation that this behavior will occur more frequently. Proximity Control This intervention takes advantage of the positive effect of using a nonverbal communication such as gestures, looks, or body postures to decrease inappropriate classroom behavior. As an additional measure, physical contact in the form of a hand on the student's shoulder or a squeeze of an arm, can be very supportive to the student, yet convey the message that certain behaviors will not be tolerated. Respondent employed these "preventative strategies" at Central and was never disciplined for doing so. At American, Respondent was involved in several incidents in which he used physical force against students. On February 28, 2001, Respondent was at his desk teaching a class when one of the students in the class, V. S., got out of his seat and started "knocking on the T.V." that was in the classroom. V. S. was a "very large student" who, on a previous occasion, had "threatened to take [Respondent's] head and push it through a plate-glass window" and, on other occasions, had told Respondent: We are going to get you white man. We are going to make you quit. We are going to get you fired.[8] Respondent told V. S. to take his seat. V. S. refused. Instead, he sat down on Respondent's desk and "leaned over toward [Respondent]," positioning his face "about a foot" from Respondent's. V. S. was "glaring down at [Respondent]" and had a "tight-lipped grin" on his face. This made Respondent feel "a little edgy." After directing V. S. to "get off [the] desk" and receiving "no response," Respondent (rather than getting up from his seat and walking away from V. S.) "reached out and gave [V. S.'s] arm a shake" in order "to get [V. S.'s] attention."9 Respondent obtained the result he desired. V. S. got off the desk; but he did not do so quietly. V. S. yelled profanities at Respondent and threatened to "kill" Respondent if Respondent ever touched him again. Prior to Respondent shaking his arm, V. S. had not made, during the incident, any verbal threats against Respondent. The incident was reported to the administration and the matter was investigated. Respondent, V. S., and another student, C. H., who witnessed the incident, gave written statements that Mr. Rodriguez reviewed. On March 15, 2001, after reviewing the statements, Mr. Rodriguez held a Conference-for-the-Record with Respondent. Mr. Rodriguez subsequently prepared (on March 21, 2001) and furnished to Respondent (on that same date) a memorandum, in which he summarized what had transpired at the conference. The memorandum read as follows: The following is a summary of the conference-for-the-record on Thursday, March 15, 2001, at 2:00 p.m. in this administrator's office. Present at the conference were Mark Soffian, assistant principal; Karen Robinson, assistant principal; Jimmy Jones, UTD Representative; yourself and this administrator. The purpose of the conference was to address the following: -Miami-Dade County School Board Police Case #F-09343. -Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida. -School Board Rule 6Gx13-5D-1.07 (Corporal Punishment-Prohibited). -School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 (Employee Conduct). -Review of the record. -Future employment with Miami-Dade County Public Schools. This administrator began the conference by reviewing Case #F-09343. This administrator read your statement and the statements of the students alleging battery on a student. This administrator asked you if you had any comments in reference to the incident. You stated that you had to write up everyone in class, because students were turning off the lights and throwing books in the dark despite repeated warnings. You characterized this student behavior as "organized disruption." You further stated that another student was tormenting a classmate who shrieked out in pain, ran out of class and then was dragged back in by the same student. You described that another student was banging on the television and you had to write him up. You said you did not push [V. S.] (victim-I.D. #427561) but rather he leaped off the desk, shouted a tirade of curses at you and then left class. You indicated that you did not push because you were unable to move an 18 year old who is 260 pounds.[10] This administrator asked if you ever left your class unsupervised. You stated, "Yes, from time to time." This administrator cautioned you that one of your professional responsibilities is never to leave your students unsupervised. Additionally, the fact that you described the numerous classroom discipline problems, it is of the utmost importance that your students remain supervised at all times. This administrator reviewed with you the Code of Ethics and Principles of . . . Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida. This administrator specified certain areas of the Code of Ethics in which you were in violation. This administrator asked you to respond and you nodded your head in the affirmative. This administrator reviewed with you Miami- Dade County School Board Rule 6Gx13-5D-1.07 (Corporal Punishment-Prohibited). You were asked if you understood and you responded "Yes." This administrator reviewed with you Miami- Dade County School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 (Employee Conduct). This administrator reminded you that you are expected to conduct yourself, both in your employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon yourself and the school system. You were asked to respond and you stated "I understand." This administrator conducted a review of the record. There was another incident involving the use of improper force and disciplinary means against a student that was cited on November 11, 2000. The case (F-03631) was never pursued; however, this administrator cautioned you that these past episodes demonstrate use of poor judgment on your part. This administrator informed you that repeated offenses would result in further disciplinary actions that will negatively impact your future employment with Miami- Dade County Public Schools. This administrator then asked if you had any further comments or statements for the record. You requested that a handout on "preventative strategies" and Florida Statute Chapter 232.27[11] be included as part of the written summary. You further stated that you didn't claim to be perfect and there was room for improvement. You stated that teaching six periods made it difficult to do the job effectively. This administrator asked if you wanted to give up the sixth period supplement since if was your choice to take on that added teaching responsibility for remuneration. You stated that you did not want to give up the money. This administrator advised that you cannot use the sixth period day as an excuse, and if it is a hardship where you are unable to perform your prescribed duties th[e]n you need to let this administrator know. Additionally, this administrator informed you that writing referrals to exclude seven or eight students in your Exceptional Education class was unacceptable. This administrator recommended for you to acquire additional training in dealing with Emotional Handicapped students. Seeking alternative means of discipline in lieu of suspension and exclusion from class will be necessary. This administrator provided you with Miami-Dade County School Board Manual of Procedures for Special Programs to assist you in managing your classroom and providing appropriate strategies in handling Exceptional Education students.[12] This administrator issued you the following directives: -Refrain from using any physical means to enforce student discipline. -Adhere to Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida. -Adhere to School Board Rule 6Gx13-5D-1.07 (Corporal Punishment-Prohibited). -Adhere to School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 (Employee Conduct). -Refrain from leaving students in the classroom unsupervised. In closing, this administrator informed you that failure to comply with these directives and recurrences of this type will result in further disciplinary action which will adversely affect your future employment status. This administrator stated that he would be available to provide[] you any assistance that you may require. In conclusion, you are apprised of your right to append, clarify, or explain any information recorded in this conference by this summary. Attached to the memorandum were copies of the Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida (which are found in Rules 6B-1.001 and 6B- 1.006, Florida Administrative Code), School Board Rule 6Gx13-5D- 1.07, School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, the handout on "preventative strategies" that Respondent had received at Central, and the cover page, as well as pages 119 and 121, of the Miami-Dade County School Board Manual of Procedures for Special Programs referenced in the memorandum. Page 121 of the Miami-Dade County School Board Manual of Procedures for Special Programs manual read as follows: Some exceptional students because of the nature of the disability, may on occasion experience impaired impulse control of such severity that the use of physical restraint is necessary to prevent such students from inflicting harm to self and/or others, or from causing damage to property. The purpose of physical restraint is to prevent injury to persons or destruction of property. It is not to be used to "teach the child a lesson" or as punishment. For students who exhibit such behaviors, the use of physical restraint procedures shall be discussed as part of the IEP development and review process. A recommendation for the use of Board-approved physical restraint procedures must be made by the Multidisciplinary Team (M-Team) and shall be documented on the student's IEP form before the use of such procedures may be authorized. When parents or surrogates are not present at the IEP meeting, written notification to them regarding the use of physical restraint will be provided. Strategies for the prevention of aggressive behavior shall be utilized on an ongoing basis. However, when an explosive event occurs without warning and is of such degree that there is imminent risk of persons or property, the use of physical restraint techniques is authorized for such circumstances. The School Board shall provide for the training of the appropriate instructional and support staff in physical restraint techniques, as well as strategies for the prevention of aggressive behavior. Training manuals developed for this purpose are available at school sites. Physical restraint techniques provided in training programs approved by the Board are authorized and, when utilized in accordance with the training provided, these guidelines shall not constitute grounds for disciplinary action. If a teacher is not trained in the use of approved physical restraint procedures and is faced with an emergency, the teacher is authorized to employ the moderate use of physical force or physical contact as may be necessary to maintain discipline or to enforce School Board Rules 6Gx13-5D-1.07 and 1.08. The appropriate use of these procedures[13] On May 2, 2001, Respondent again used non-approved "physical means to enforce student discipline," notwithstanding the reasonable directive that he had been given by Mr. Rodriguez at the March 15, 2001, Conference-for-the-Record that he "refrain" from engaging in such conduct. That day, students in Respondent's third period class, including T. S., R. D., and O. A., were scheduled to take the Scholastic Reading Inventory Test (SRI). The SRI is a standardized test designed to measure students' reading skills. The results of the test are "used to guide classroom instruction, so it is considered [to be a] low- stakes" test. Respondent had received in-service training, prior to May 2, 2001, on how to administer the SRI. It was emphasized during the training that, for the SRI "to be an effective test, [it had to] be protected from [pre-test administration] dissemination" and that it was important for teachers administering the test to make sure their students returned all test materials "at the end of the test period" and did not leave the test site with these materials. At the training, Respondent was given a document which contained standards for "test administration and test security." These standards provided, in part, as follows: STANDARD: PROFESSIONAL OBLIGATIONS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TESTING PROGRAM AT THE SCHOOL LEVEL . . . . The test administrator is responsible for directing and conducting the testing session(s) as specified in the administration manual or program guide, strictly adhering to test directions, monitoring students during testing, and maintaining the security of test materials assigned to him/her. . . . STANDARD: TEST SECURITY PROCEDURES FOR THE DISTRIBUTION AND RETURN OF TEST MATERIALS Each principal or designee is responsible for the receipt, inventory, secure storage, distribution, collection, and return of all test booklets and test-related material assigned to that school, according to the directions and instructions specified in the administration manuals or program guides. The principal or designee must notify the Division of Student Assessment and Educational Testing immediately if any discrepancies are noted in the counts, or if any materials are missing. The principal or designee must advise all teachers of the rules relating to test security and of the importance of complete adherence to them. Adherence to these test security procedures for the distribution and return of test materials, before, during, and after testing will ensure that: students do not have access to any of the material prior to the actual exam time or following it; professional staff have access to the test booklets, test folders, questions, and/or reading passages only at the time necessary for administration purposes; test booklets and test materials are returned to the test chairperson at the end of each testing session; and nothing has occurred in the school to allow unauthorized access to any of the test materials at any time. . . . STANDARD: MAINTAINING STANDARDIZATION AND TEST SECURITY DURING TEST ADMINISTRATION . . . . Students must have access to test booklets, test folders (i.e., test questions) ONLY during the actual administration of the test. Test materials must be secured at all times. Materials must be handed directly to and collected from each student one at a time. If a student needs to leave the test room, his/her materials must be collected and held upon the student's return[;] the test administrator must ensure that the student receives only his/her own test materials. Test administrators and proctors must actively monitor students during the entire testing period by walking around the room, to ensure compliance with test directions and to prevent cheating. Any irregularities or problems with the test administration must be promptly reported to the test chairperson, the school-site administrator, and district staff. . . . Test administrators, proctors, and any other school or district staff involved in test administration are required to adhere to guidelines laid out in the Florida Test Security Statute, Section 228.301[14] and the FDOE State Board of Education Administration Rule 6A-10.042, Maintenance of Test Security,[15] as well as district policy and board rule regarding test security. Violations of test security provisions shall be subject to penalties as provided in statute and FDOE State Board of Education Administrative Rules. . . . After Respondent handed out the test materials to the students in his third period class on May 2, 2001, and provided them with instructions regarding the test, T. S., who was seated in the back row of the classroom, asked Respondent several questions about the test. Dissatisfied with Respondent's responses, T. S. got out of his seat and, with the test booklet and answer sheet in hand, headed towards Ms. Clayton's classroom to see if she could provide him with the information that he was seeking about the test. On a regular basis, T. S. would leave Respondent's classroom, without permission, before the end of the period and go into the hallway. Concerned that T. S. would go out into hallway with the test materials, Respondent followed T. S. T. S. was near the partial partition dividing Respondent's and Ms. Clayton's classrooms, facing Ms. Clayton, when Respondent caught up to T. S. T. S. started to ask Ms. Clayton a question, when he was interrupted by Respondent, who instructed T. S. to give him the test materials. Respondent had positioned himself so that he was in front of T. S. and "close enough to touch" him. T. S. did not hand over the test materials to Respondent; instead, he asked Respondent "to give him some space." Respondent, however, held his ground and again "asked for the test materials back." T. S. refused to return the test materials to Respondent, telling Respondent he was "just asking a question." Respondent then started to reach for the test materials in an effort to grab them out of T. S.'s hand. T. S. reacted by moving the hand in which he was holding the test materials away from Respondent so that Respondent would not be able to take the materials from him. During the scuffle, Respondent grabbed ahold of T. S.'s shirt and "pulled" it. He also bumped into T. S. as he was reaching for the test materials in T. S's hand. Upset that Respondent was "over [him], touching [him]," T. S. ripped up the test materials and threw the pieces at Respondent. He was going to hit Respondent, but was subdued by a classmate, R. D. He then walked out the door and into the hallway. Respondent returned to his classroom and went back to his desk. He was followed by R. D., who told Respondent that he "need[ed] to chill out." While talking to Respondent, R. D. put his hands on Respondent's desk. Respondent told R. D., "get your hands off my desk." Using his hand, Respondent then forcibly moved R. D.'s hands off the desk. What occurred during Respondent's third period class on May 2, 2001, was reported to the administration and the matter was investigated. Written statements from Respondent, Ms. Clayton, and T. S., as well as other students, were collected and reviewed as part of the investigation. Mr. Rodriguez scheduled a Conference-for-the-Record with Respondent for June 11, 2001. Before the conference was held, Respondent was involved in yet another incident in which he used physical force against a student in his class. The student on this occasion was A. D., and the incident occurred on June 7, 2001, at around 9:30 a.m. or 9:45 a. m., near the end of the first (two hour) class period of the school day. A. D. had engaged in disruptive behavior in Respondent's classroom before walking out of the classroom and into the hallway towards the end of the period. As A. D. was leaving, Respondent told him, "If you leave before the bell rings, I am not letting you back in this time." (This was not the first time that A. D. had walked out of Respondent's class before the period was over.) Deanna Lipschutz, a clerical employee assigned to American's exceptional student education department, saw A. D. in the hallway. A. D. was "walking around in circles," but he was not "out of control." Ms. Lipschutz approached A. D. and, after engaging in a brief conversation with him, escorted him back to Respondent's classroom. The door to the classroom was closed. Ms. Lipschutz knocked on the door. When Respondent opened the door, Ms. Lipschutz told him that A. D. "would like to come back in class." Respondent indicated that he would not let R. D. return. Respondent then took his hands, placed them on A. D.'s shoulders, and gave A. D. a "little push." A. D. stumbled backwards. There was a wall behind A. D. that A. D. nearly made contact with as he was stumbling backwards. After pushing A. D. away from the doorway, Respondent went back inside the classroom and closed the door. Respondent's use of physical force against A. D. on June 7, 2001, was reported to the administration and an investigation of the matter was commenced. This was the last of the incidents (specified in the School Board's Notice of Specific Charges, as amended) involving Respondent's use of physical force against a student. Respondent's use of physical force in each of these incidents (the February 28, 2001, incident with V. S.; the May 2, 2001, incidents with T. S. and R. D.; and the June 7, 2001, incident with A. D.) was contrary to School Board policy and unauthorized and, moreover, evinced poor judgment and a lack of adequate concern for the physical well-being of the EH student involved in the incident. In none of these incidents was the physical force Respondent used reasonably necessary to prevent physical harm to himself, the student involved in the incident, or anyone else, or to prevent the destruction or serious damage of property. Respondent did not use School Board-approved "physical restraint techniques" (which are referenced in Section 3 of Article VIII of the UTD Contract) in any of these incidents. Rather, he used physical methods that were more likely to provoke, than deter, aggressive student behavior and, in so doing, created conditions harmful to the exceptional education students in his charge. Furthermore, Respondent's use of these methods in the incidents involving T. S., R. D., and A. D. was in defiance of directives he had been given by Mr. Rodriguez during the March 15, 2001, Conference-for-the-Record. It is true that Respondent did not have an easy teaching assignment. He had students in his class who, because of their disability, made teaching quite difficult. As a certified EH teacher, however, Respondent should have been equipped to deal with these students' disruptive behavior without resorting to the use of unauthorized physical force. Respondent's repeated use of such force was so serious as to impair his effectiveness as an EH teacher. The Conference-for-the-Record with Respondent that Mr. Rodriguez had scheduled for June 11, 2001, was held as scheduled on that date. Mr. Rodriguez subsequently prepared (on June 13, 2001) and furnished to Respondent (on that same date) a memorandum in which he summarized what had transpired at the conference. The memorandum read as follows: The following is a summary of the conference-for-the-record on Monday, June 11, 2001, at 8:00 a.m. in this administrator's office. Present at the conference were: Karen Robinson, assistant principal; Mark Soffian, assistant principal; Jimmy Jones, UTD Representative; Sherri Greenberg, UTD Bargaining Agent Representative, yourself and this administrator. The purpose of the conference was to address the following: -Miami-Dade County School Board Police Case #F13868 (Substantiated) -Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida -School Board Rule 6Gx13-5D-1.07 (Corporal Punishment-Prohibited) -School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 (Employee Conduct) -Review of the record -Future employment with Miami-Dade County Public Schools This administrator began the conference by reviewing written statements from several students, a teacher and yourself in the School Board Case #F13868. This administrator informed you that your actions were in violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-5D-1.07 of using corporal punishment and inappropriate physical restraint as a means of disciplining your students. This administrator asked if you had a response to these statements. You stated that you had seven years of university training and a master's in SED and you had a perfect record of no incidents at Miami Central High School. You requested to read a letter from Clifford Golden, School Psychologist, that you wished to be included in the record's summary. Additionally, you stated that "I had no problems until I came to American and it has been a difficult situation. When I first got here, you told me at a staff meeting about an ongoing LED conspiracy." This administrator corrected you about the contents of my statement as saying that "there was never a mention of a conspiracy; however, I was concerned with the quality of instructional delivery in the Exceptional Education department." You continued stating that your colleagues were less than helpful, and that no one came to your class, and that Mr. Kucharsky, Behavior Management Teacher, did not show consistent discipline. This administrator informed you that when he visited you classroom during second period, he observed on several occasions that on one side of the room with another teacher there were students learning; however, on your side there was bedlam. Dr. Soffian indicated when he visited your class on three occasions, he observed your room to be in disarray, with books on the floor, desks overturned and students not engaged in any productive activity. Mr. Jones also indicated upon his visitation, he observed that your kids were "out of control." You responded that "I have frequent misbehavior from that class but no one provided any consequences when I wrote them up." This administrator then reviewed with you the State Board of Education Rule, Code of Ethics (6B-1.001, 6B-1.006). This administrator read to you that your obligation to the student requires that "you shall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning, to the student's mental and/or physical health and/or safety." This administrator reminded that this is the second time he is issuing you this material and as a professional teacher you are obligated to comply with this code. You responded by saying you disagreed with the statement of using corporal punishment and that due to the classroom not having ventilation and being an old chorus room exacerbates the problem. This administrator reviewed your record, citing a pattern of putting your hands on students. This administrator reviewed with you two other incidents of unnecessary physical contact of your students (Miami- Dade County Police Cases #F03631 & F09343). This administrator read to you Part III, page 121, from the handout of Special Programs and Procedures for Exceptional Students (6Gx13-6A-1.331): "Some exceptional students because of the nature of the disability, may on occasion experience impaired impulse control of such severity that the use of physical restrain[t] is necessary to prevent such students from inflicting harm to self and/or others, or from causing damage to property." This administrator stated that your actions were not justified because the student was not doing any of the above. You responded that you disagreed with the findings. You felt that the student leaving with the test booklet caused you to physically intervene and you interpreted this action as preventing property damage. You further commented that you were a seasoned professional and that you have never hurt a student in your entire professional career. In the other cases, you stated that you were the victim and sometimes it is necessary to intervene to protect their health and safety. This administrator referred you to the District's Support Agency Program. This administrator informed you that this supervisory referral is strictly voluntary and that you will be contacted by that office. You stated that you certainly would pursue this. This administrator reviewed with you your Annual Evaluation for the 2000-2001 school year. This administrator explained that Categories I-VI were acceptable; however, Category VII, Professional Responsibilities, was unacceptable.[16] This administrator issued you and explained the prescription and the unacceptable Annual Evaluation. This administrator also explained to you that this prescriptive status would freeze your salary, revoke your transfer request, and exclude you from summer employment. You asked if your salary would be retroactive and if you would be able to transfer after the prescription date. This administrator informed you that after you have met your prescription requirement then you would be free to transfer and your salary will be reinstated and retroactive to the beginning of the 2001-2002 school year. This administrator asked if anyone had any other questions. Ms. Sherrie Greenberg, UTD representative, suggested that you receive training in physical restraint the next time it is offered. This administrator agreed with that suggestion as soon as a class opens. Ms. Greenberg also suggested to you that the District's Emotionally Handicapped supervisor visit your classroom at the beginning of the school year and provide assistance as needed. This administrator agreed with this suggestion of any additional support to improve classroom management. This administrator reminded you that per your request, your six period schedule during this second period class was changed to a five-period day. This administrator issued you the following directives: -Refrain from using any physical means to enforce student discipline, particularly if the student(s)' or your safety [is] not endangered and/or damage of property is not imminent -Adhere to Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida -Adhere to School Board Rule 6Gx13-5D-1.07 (Corporal Punishment-Prohibited) -Adhere to School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 (Employee Conduct) In closing, this administrator informed you that this is the second time a conference- for-the-record has been held with you concerning the same issues. Due to your failures to comply with the previous directives, this administrator deemed this behavior as insubordination. This administrator indicated that continued failure to comply with these directives and recurrences of this type would result in further disciplinary action which will adversely affect your future employment status. This administrator stated that he would be available to provide you any assistance that you may require. In conclusion, you are apprised of your right to append, clarify, or explain any information recorded in this conference by this summary. The "prescription" that Mr. Rodriguez issued for Respondent indicated that Respondent would be in "prescriptive status" from August 27, 2001, through November 1, 2001. Respondent, however, did not return to the classroom during the 2001-2002 school year. Shortly before the beginning of the 2001-2002 school year, Dr. Thomasina O'Donnell, a director in the School Board's Office of Professional Standards, conducted a Conference-for- the-Record with Respondent, at which she discussed Respondent's use of physical force against students at American, including the June 7, 2001, incident with A. D., and his future employment with the School Board. Dr. O'Donnell subsequently prepared (on August 27, 2001) and mailed to Respondent (on August 28, 2001) a memorandum in which she summarized what had transpired at the conference. In those portions of the memorandum addressing the "action taken" and the "action to be taken," Dr. O'Donnell wrote the following: Action Taken In consideration of this incident and conference data, you were placed in an alternate work assignment at Region I until disposition of the charges are determined . You were advised of the availability of services from the District's referral agency. You were also provided the option to resign your position with Miami-Dade County Public Schools which you declined at this time. Pending further review of this case and formal notification of the recommended action or disciplinary measures to be taken, these directives are reiterated upon your return to the worksite to prevent adverse impact to the operation of the work unit and to the services provided to students. Noncompliance with these directives will necessitate review by the Office of Professional Standards. Refrain from using physical means to effect discipline. Adhere to all School Board Rules and the Code of Ethics. Supervise assigned students at all times. During the conference, you were provided with a copy of School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A- 1.21, Responsibilities and Duties; 6Gx13-5D- 1.07 Corporal Punishment-Prohibited; and Chapter 6B-1.0[0]1(3), Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida. You were advised of the high esteem in which teachers are held and of the District's concern for any behavior which adversely [a]ffects this level of professionalism. You were reminded of the prime directive to maintain a safe learning environment for all students and that your actions violated this directive. You were advised to keep the information presented in this conference confidential and not discuss this with students or staff. Action To Be Taken You were advised that the information presented at this conference, as well as subsequent documentation, would be reviewed with the Assistant Superintendent in the Office of Professional Standards, the Superintendent of Region I, and the Principal of American Senior High School. All investigative data will be transmitted to Professional Practices Services (PPS), Florida Department of Education, for review and possible licensure action by the Education Practices Commission (EPC). Upon completion of the conference summary, a legal review by the School Board attorneys would be requested. Receipt of legal review with the endorsement by the Region Superintendent will compel formal notification of the recommended action or disciplinary measures to include suspension or dismissal. A determination was made that Respondent "be recommended for dismissal for the following charges: Just cause, including but not limited to: misconduct in office, gross insubordination, and violation of School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties, and 6Gx13-5D-1.07 Corporal Punishment-Prohibited." On September 25, 2001, Dr. O'Donnell held a Conference-for-the-Record with Respondent to discuss this recommendation. At its October 24, 2001, meeting, the School Board took action to "suspend [Respondent] and initiate dismissal proceedings against [him] from all employment by the Miami-Dade County Public Schools, effective the close of the workday, October 24, 2001, for just cause, including but not limited to: misconduct in office, gross insubordination, and violation of School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties, and 6Gx13-5D-1.07, Corporal Punishment-Prohibited."17
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a final order sustaining Respondent's suspension and terminating his employment as a professional service contract teacher with the School Board for the reasons set forth in the Notice of Specific Charges, as amended. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of August, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of August, 2002.
The Issue Whether the award of a contract for Request for Proposal 031-MDW-1121 Fiber WAN Lakeland E-rate by Respondent, the School Board of Polk County, is contrary to its governing statutes, rules, or the solicitation specifications.
Findings Of Fact The School Board operates the public school system established for the School District of Polk County, Florida. See § 1001.30, Fla. Stat. The School Board is an authorized governmental entity allowed to contract for commodities or services using a competitive solicitation process. See §§ 1001.41(4), 1001.32(2), and 1010.04(2), Fla. Stat., and Fla. Admin. Code R. 6A-1.012(1)(e). The solicitation at the center of this protest is 031-MDW-1121, Fiber WAN Lakeland E-rate (the "RFP"). The Department published the RFP on December 2, 2020.4 The School Board initiated this competitive procurement seeking a contract for leased fiber to deliver wide area network ("WAN") communication services throughout the School District (the "WAN Services Contract"). The winning vendor's network design will directly connect the School District's main office building to approximately 65 school locations in and around Lakeland, Florida. Background Information: A WAN network provides dedicated broadband connectivity for computer networks that are geographically dispersed. For the RFP, the School Board contemplates a WAN network that delivers network resources, connectivity, and services to the various School Board facilities. WAN networks are designed using "highways" of crystal fiber optic cable. The fiber optic cables, which consist of strands smaller than a human 3 By requesting a deadline for filing a post-hearing submission beyond ten days after the filing of the hearing transcript, the 30-day time period for filing the Recommended Order is waived. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 28-106.216(2). 4 No vendor challenged the specifications in the RFP within 72 hours after the posting of the solicitation. hair, are fitted within a sheath. Sheaths are encapsulated by buffer tubes. Typically, 12 strands of fiber cable run through a buffer tube. The RFP: RFP Section 3.1 informed vendors that the School Board was seeking one of three options for its network infrastructure. These options included: 1) leased "lit" fiber, 2) leased "dark" fiber, or 3) leased "dark" fiber (IRU).5 Although the School Board intended to select only one "solution" for the WAN Services Contract, the RFP invited interested vendors to "propose one, two, or all three options" for the School Board's consideration. The School Board purposefully provided vendors the flexibility to design and engineer a product the vendors believed was the best fit for the School District. As stated in RFP Section 3.1, "[t]he District is not advocating or mandating any preconceived network design or construction route and leaves this decision up to the proposer to present their best solution while recognizing the cited termination locations." The School Board presented Denise Whitaker to discuss the RFP, as well as the process and procedures the School Board followed to evaluate the proposals. Ms. Whitaker served as the School Board's Purchasing Agent responsible for the RFP. In her role, Ms. Whitaker, together with a team, developed, drafted, and prepared the RFP documents and forms. Commenting on RFP Section 3.1, Ms. Whitaker relayed that the School Board was open to any of three scenarios for the WAN services. Ms. Whitaker (and later Rob Oyler) explained that: "Lit" fiber, as referenced in RFP Section 4.1, is a fiber network that is ready-made to transmit computer signals. To send data, an optical transceiver module is attached to an end point of the fiber cable, which shoots a laser through one or more of the crystal fiber strands. When activated, this 5 IRU is an acronym for Indefeasible Right of Use, which means an exclusive lease to use a telecommunications network. laser "lights" the fiber, and the fiber strand is immediately ready to send data and information. "Dark" fiber, as referenced in RFP Section 4.2, like "lit" fiber, is a WAN network that is ready to transmit data. However, once the network is constructed, the fiber is left dormant. In other words, the vendor will not activate the laser at the end point of the fiber cable. Instead, the customer (the School Board) will light the fiber using its own transceiver module. Leased Dark fiber (IRU), as referenced in RFP Section 4.3, is essentially a communications network built, owned, and operated by the vendor. To lease a dark fiber IRU, the customer (the School Board) would purchase the right to use a certain amount of network capacity for a specified number of years. Ms. Whitaker testified that the leased "lit" fiber option (the proposal the School Board eventually selected) required vendors to propose a price quote for an initial 60-month contract period, as well as five additional 60- month renewal terms, for a total of 360 months (30 years). As stated in RFP Section 4.1: Price quotes are requested for services provided on a month-to-month basis, as well as 60 month term of service with up to five additional 60 month renewal options. Ms. Whitaker explained that during the initial 60-month contract, the winning vendor was expected to construct, install, and then maintain a "lit" fiber network for the School Board's exclusive use. The School Board would then lease the "lit" fiber network from the vendor for the length of the contract. Thereafter, per RFP Sections 4.1 and 8.2, the School Board and the winning vendor could agree to renew the WAN Services Contract for up to five additional 60-month periods. Ms. Whitaker further stated that each vendor had to agree not to increase its pricing during the 360-month (30-year) total contract length. In other words, the Monthly Recurring Costs that each vendor quoted for the initial contract term would remain the same through each and every contract renewal period.6 Ms. Whitaker further stated that the School Board intended to apply for federal funding through the Federal Communication Commission's ("FCC") E-rate program to cover up to 90 percent of the cost of the fiber network.7 See RFP Sections 1.1 and 3.1 and Appendices G and H. RFP Section 4 specifically stated that "[t]he District will follow the purchasing policies of the School Board of Polk County, Florida and requirements and procedures of the FCC's E-rate program as administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company to be eligible for all available funding." Therefore, the School Board intended to use information contained within the winning proposal to apply for E-rate funding and obtain an E-rate funding commitment through the Universal Service Administrative Company ("USAC"). Obtaining E-rate funds would mean that the School Board would not have to bear the full price of the WAN Services Contract. Five vendors timely responded to the RFP. Zayo presented a proposal for the leased "lit" fiber option. WANRack submitted proposals for both leased "lit" fiber and leased "dark" fiber. The School Board also received proposals from Southern Light (leased "dark" fiber and dark fiber (IRU)); 6 Ms. Whitaker testified that the School Board landed on a 30-year procurement term for all three options as a way to establish an equal standard by which to compare and score the three different network designs ("lit," "dark," or dark IRU). This 30-year "apples-to-apples" comparison created a fairer analysis of the best network solution among the proposals. For the leased "lit" fiber option, as stated above, vendors were to submit a Financial Proposal Worksheet listing prices for a 360-month length of service. For the leased "dark" fiber option, vendors were to offer a price for an initial 120-month/10-year term of service with up to ten additional 24-month renewal options. For the leased dark fiber (IRU) option, vendors were to quote a 20-year indefeasible right of use price with up to five additional 24-month renewal options. 7 The FCC E-rate program provides funding through federal subsidies to schools for computer networks, internet access, and telecommunications systems. As explained by Mr. Oyler, the FCC created the E-rate program to provide financial support for public services. Mr. Oyler detailed that the E-rate program is funded by a universal tax on telecommunication devices. Summit (leased "lit" fiber (three options), leased "dark" fiber (three options), and hybrid "dark" fiber (three options)); and Frontier Communications (leased "lit" fiber). To score the proposals, the School Board selected three individuals to serve on an evaluation committee. The evaluation committee consisted of School Board employees Joseph "Sid" Lee, Curtis Hodnett, and Michael Chiavuzzi (collectively referred to as the "Evaluators"). Once the Evaluators were selected, Ms. Whitaker became their "facilitator." Ms. Whitaker explained that she was responsible for guiding the Evaluators through the scoring process. She was also charged with ensuring that the Evaluators followed all applicable procurement policies and procedures. Prior to scoring the proposals, Ms. Whitaker provided each Evaluator with the School Board's Request For Proposal (RFP) Evaluator's Guide (the "Evaluator's Guide"). The Evaluator's Guide explained that, "the evaluation committee members are responsible for reading and evaluating all responses for their completeness and quality of content. … Committee members meet together to discuss the proposals and determine if they missed anything during their initial review." The Evaluator's Guide further instructed each Evaluator to "exercise [their] independent judgment" and to not be "dependent on anyone else's judgment, wishes, or demands." Each Evaluator was to be free from "any influences from within the committee." Each Evaluator also signed a Conflict of Interest and Non-Disclosure Statement in which they certified that "no other relationship with or bias towards any offeror exists which will prevent me from evaluating any proposal solely on its merits." After Ms. Whitaker received the vendors' proposals, she read through them to ensure that the proposals were complete and adequately responded to the RFP. She then distributed them to the Evaluators for their individual review and scoring. RFP Section 6.2 established the RFP's evaluation criteria. The Evaluators were to score and rank vendors' proposals on a scale of 100 points. The specific award criteria and corresponding point values were set out as follows: Evaluation Criteria Maximum Possible Points Experience, Qualifications, and References ("Experience") 15 Methodology 20 E-rate eligible recurring and one-time Cost of Services ("E-rate Eligible Cost")8 25 E-rate ineligible recurring and one- time Cost of Services9 15 Demonstrated scalability of technology through pricing for higher tiered bandwidths ("Scalability") 10 Overall ability to meet the district needs ("Overall Ability") 15 Total Points 100 Under RFP Section 6.3, the Evaluators awarded points by placing a vendor's response to a specific criterion into a certain category. Based on the category assigned, a multiplier was applied to calculate the score. The categories which an Evaluator could assign were: Excellent (with a score multiplier of 1.0); Very Good (with a score multiplier of 0.8); Good (with a score multiplier of 0.6); Fair (with a score multiplier of 0.4); 8 RFP Section 6.2 emphasized that the E-rate Eligible Cost was the highest weighted factor. 9 No points were awarded to any vendor for the E-rate ineligible cost of services category because no vendor identified an E-rate ineligible cost in its proposal. Poor (with a score multiplier of 0.2); Unacceptable (with a score multiplier of 0.0). For example, if an Evaluator deemed a vendor's Methodology to be "Excellent," the Evaluator applied a score multiplier of 1.0 to the total points available for that subsection (20 points) to calculate the total points the vendor would receive for that evaluation criterion, i.e., 1.0 x 20 equals 20 total points. If an Evaluator determined that a vendor's Methodology was "Very Good," then the Evaluator applied a score multiplier of 0.8 to the total points available to reach the score awarded, i.e., 0.8 x 20 equals 16 total points. After the Evaluators completed their reviews, each Evaluator's score was added together to produce a final score for each proposal. The proposal receiving the highest point total would be designated the highest ranked proposal. After the Evaluators received the proposals, they met for two public meetings during which they reviewed, discussed, and scored all proposals. The first meeting took place on January 13, 2021. Initially, Ms. Whitaker instructed the Evaluators on the RFP's evaluation criteria and process. She also handed each Evaluator an Evaluation Criteria Sheet, which they were instructed to reference and use when scoring the proposals. Over the course of the first meeting, the Evaluators and Ms. Whitaker reviewed each proposal to determine whether the vendors properly responded to the RFP's requirements. They also discussed the merits of the different proposals. After several hours of discourse, however, the Evaluators realized that they could not complete their scoring in a single session. Therefore, the Evaluators agreed to schedule another meeting. The Evaluators reconvened for the second public meeting on January 20, 2021. During this meeting, the Evaluators determined that Zayo, WANRack, and Summit all submitted responsive proposals. The proposals from Southern Light and Frontier Communications, on the other hand, were nonresponsive. The Evaluators found that Southern Light failed to list a third customer reference per RFP Section 5.3, and Frontier Communications only provided a proposal for the first five years of service. Thereafter, the Evaluators finished their reviews, awarded their points (electronically), and turned their completed Evaluation Criteria Sheets into Ms. Whitaker. The Evaluators scored the proposals of Zayo and WANRack as follows: Mr. Lee: Experience (15 points): Zayo: 15 points WANRack: 15 points Methodology (20 points): Zayo: 16 points WANRack: 20 points E-Rate Eligible Cost (25 points): Zayo: 25 points WANRack: 21 points Scalability (10 points): Zayo: 8 points WANRack: 10 points Overall Ability (15 points): Zayo: 12 points WANRack: 15 points Total Points Awarded by Mr. Lee: Zayo: 76 points WANRack: 81 points Mr. Chiavuzzi: Experience (15 points): Zayo: 15 points WANRack: 15 points Methodology (20 points): Zayo: 16 points WANRack: 20 points E-Rate Eligible Cost (25 points): Zayo: 25 points WANRack: 21 points Scalability (10 points): Zayo: 8 points WANRack: 10 points Overall Ability (15 points): Zayo: 12 points WANRack: 15 points Total Points Awarded by Mr. Chiavuzzi: Zayo: 76 points WANRack: 81 points Mr. Hodnett: Experience (15 points): Zayo: 15 points WANRack: 15 points Methodology (20 points): Zayo: 16 points WANRack: 20 points E-Rate Eligible Cost (25 points): Zayo: 25 points WANRack: 21 points Scalability (10 points): Zayo: 8 points WANRack: 10 points Overall Ability (15 points): Zayo: 12 points WANRack: 15 points Total Points Awarded by Mr. Hodnett: Zayo: 76 points WANRack: 81 points At the final hearing, each Evaluator testified how they approached the review process and awarded points, as follows: Joseph "Sid" Lee: Mr. Lee works for the School Board as a Senior Manager in charge of electronic equipment repair and support. In his job, Mr. Lee manages all computer repairs and telecommunication support for the School Board. Mr. Lee commented that, in addition to serving as an Evaluator on the RFP, he also participated on the team that helped develop the RFP's specifications with Ms. Whitaker. Mr. Lee represented that the three Evaluation team members were School Board employees with computer networking responsibilities and were the most experienced employees in the RFP's subject matter. Mr. Lee testified that after he was selected as an Evaluator, Ms. Whitaker gave him a copy of the Evaluator's Guide, which he "skimmed" through. He also recalled that Ms. Whitaker provided him approximately seven proposals, which he read. In formulating his scores, Mr. Lee described the evaluation as the combination of a joint and individual effort amongst the Evaluators. First, the three Evaluators walked through each proposal and discussed the merits and deficiencies of the various sections. They then, individually, awarded points as appropriate. When awarding points, Mr. Lee testified that he applied the point values and procedures laid out in RFP Sections 6.2 and 6.3. Mr. Lee asserted that he used the same analysis and evaluation process for each proposal. He further stated that all his rankings and scores were based solely on his evaluations of the various proposals during the two January meetings. He asserted that he had no discussions outside of the two public meetings with any person regarding his review. Regarding his score for E-Rate Eligible Cost, Mr. Lee explained that the School Board's Purchasing Department (Ms. Whitaker) actually calculated the E-rate Eligible Cost score, not the Evaluation Team. Mr. Lee understood that Ms. Whitaker determined that Zayo's proposal should receive the top description of "Excellent" for the maximum 25 points. Mr. Lee relayed that Ms. Whitaker found that WANRack's proposal should be assigned the score of "Very Good," which equaled 21 points. Mr. Lee testified that Ms. Whitaker provided him the scores (25/21 points), which he then inserted into his score sheet. Mr. Lee further conveyed that he is familiar with and has worked on School Board E-rate projects. Mr. Lee was aware that E-rate funds are granted by the FCC to help schools pay for computer services, including the fiber network the School Board seeks through this RFP. Mr. Lee testified that the School Board hopes that the E-rate program will cover 90 percent of the WAN Services Contract cost. Mr. Lee also recalled a discussion during the January 20, 2021, meeting when the Evaluators debated the possibility that the E-rate program might have an issue awarding funds for Zayo's proposed network. Mr. Lee understood that Zayo's network design might contain "redundancies," the cost of which would not be covered by E-rate. (Mr. Lee testified that WANRack's proposed methodology did not raise this concern.) Consequently, Zayo's proposed network configuration might not qualify for E-rate funding. For the Methodology criterion, Mr. Lee awarded WANRack with an "Excellent" (the maximum 20 points) based on its proposed network design. He gave Zayo's network a "Very Good" for 16 points. Mr. Lee explained that he had no concerns with the efficacy of WANRack's proposed "point-to-point" or "hub and spoke" network. Based on his discussion with the other Evaluators during their January meetings, he believed that WANRack's solution would mesh well with the School Board's existing network and equipment. The School Board would not be required to change or modify anything to accommodate WANRack's network design. On the other hand, Mr. Lee described what he believed to be a flaw in Zayo's "Ring Topology" design. Mr. Lee believed that Zayo's network was susceptible to multiple points of failure. Mr. Lee explained that a "ring" network is devised to connect sites in an aggregated ring before funneling into the School District central office. Therefore, a single failure along a fiber cable line could affect multiple locations. WANRack, on the other hand, proposed a central hub to be installed at the School District's office building. WANRack would then build a point-to-point connection directly from the hub to each of the 65 separate school sites. Mr. Lee stated that the advantage of WANRack's network solution is that a point-to-point design only exposes the network to a single point failure along the fiber cable between two points. In other words, one failure within the network would only affect one school destination as opposed to multiple sites. In addition, Mr. Lee believed that Zayo's "ring" topology would lead to additional costs for the School Board. Mr. Lee noted his concern on his Evaluation Criteria Sheet where he wrote, "Zayo would require additional equipment for the installation which would cause the district a large overall increase in cost." Mr. Lee explained that he wrote this comment during the January 20, 2021, meeting after a discussion with the other Evaluators regarding the possibility that the School Board might have to purchase extra equipment to accommodate Zayo's design. Mr. Lee understood that this supplemental equipment could include additional rack space or power sources. Mr. Lee testified that the possibility that Zayo's proposal would cause the School Board additional costs led to his decision to categorize Zayo's Methodology as "Very Good," instead of "Excellent." For Scalability, Mr. Lee awarded WANRack's proposal with an "Excellent" (the maximum 10 points), and Zayo's proposal with a "Very Good" for 8 points. Mr. Lee explained that RFP Section 4.1 required each leased "lit" fiber proposal to be scalable to 100Gbps (gigabits per second), without limitation, at the same cost as 1GB/sec. The Scalability category contemplated the School Board's need to increase bandwidth and internet speed in the future. Mr. Lee testified that he based his score for Scalability on his overall discussion with other Evaluators. He understood that WANRack's proposed network design provided fiber dedicated to the School Board's use with no additional cost to the School Board. For Overall Ability, Mr. Lee awarded WANRack with an "Excellent" (the maximum 15 points), and Zayo with a "Very Good" for 12 points. Mr. Lee testified that in scoring this criterion, he contemplated that WANRack's proposed network would not require the School Board to make any infrastructure changes. As a final point, during his testimony, Zayo sharply examined Mr. Lee regarding one specific comment WANRack included in its proposal. The RFP Section 5.3 required each vendor to "provide three (3) references from current or recent customers (preferably Florida K-20) with projects equivalent to the size of The District or larger." WANRack, in its response, identified four referral projects. One of these projects was a current contract with "Polk County-FL." For the point of contact for this project, WANRack identified Mr. Lee, followed by his phone number and email address (sid.lee@polk- fl.net). Upon questioning, Mr. Lee disclosed that he is familiar with WANRack based on his past working relationship with the company on the "Polk County-FL" WAN contract. Mr. Lee explained that in 2020, he served as an evaluator for the School Board's RFP 032-MDW-0220, entitled Ethernet Service Bartow Sites E-rate (the "Bartow Contract"). WANRack won that RFP and currently provides the requested services to the School Board. Mr. Lee testified that, from September 2020 through May 2021, he regularly received biweekly status updates from WANRack's contract manager regarding WANRack's progress on the Bartow Contract. Despite this regular interaction, however, Mr. Lee urged that none of his communications with WANRack representatives involved the WAN Services Contract. He further testified that he never spoke to WANRack during the RFP scoring process. Neither did WANRack ever attempt to exert any influence or pressure on him regarding his evaluation of its proposal for the WAN Services Contact. Finally, Mr. Lee declared that WANRack never consulted him about using his name as the point of contact for the Bartow Contract. He had no knowledge of WANRack's decision to reference him in its proposal for the WAN Services Contract, nor did he approve it. Michael Chiavuzzi: Mr. Chiavuzzi currently works for the School Board as a Senior Manager of Network Operations. In this role, he oversees all network operations between the School District and the different school locations including connectivity, data storage, and security issues. Similar to Mr. Lee, Mr. Chiavuzzi served on the team that helped develop the RFP with Ms. Whitaker. After Mr. Chiavuzzi was selected as an Evaluator, Ms. Whitaker provided him with a copy of the Evaluator's Guide, as well as access to electronic versions of all proposals. Prior to scoring, Mr. Chiavuzzi read through the Evaluator's Guide and all of the proposals. As with Mr. Lee, Mr. Chiavuzzi recounted meeting with the other Evaluators and Ms. Whitaker for two public meetings. During the first meeting on January 13, 2021, Mr. Chiavuzzi testified that the Evaluation Team reviewed all the proposals to ensure that they contained the required forms and information. During the second meeting on January 20, 2021, the Evaluators awarded their scores. Echoing Mr. Lee, Mr. Chiavuzzi expressed that during the meetings, the Evaluators walked through each proposal and jointly examined how the different vendors met the evaluation criteria. They also discussed any concerns they had with any of the proposals. Mr. Chiavuzzi recalled that the Evaluators specifically addressed whether a proposal imposed additional costs upon the School Board for equipment that might be needed to support a particular network design. Mr. Chiavuzzi further relayed that the Evaluators explicitly compared and contrasted the benefits of WANRack's point-to-point network as opposed to Zayo's "ring" topology. The Evaluation Team also weighed the advantages and disadvantages of WANRack's aerial network design versus Zayo's intent to construct an entirely underground network. When scoring the proposals, Mr. Chiavuzzi testified that he applied the scoring matrix and procedures laid out in RFP Sections 6.2 and 6.3. He further voiced that he looked at the information in each proposal, as well as that vendor's references and prior projects. Regarding WANRack and Zayo, Mr. Chiavuzzi commented that both vendors were very experienced, and presented good references and qualifications. As to the Methodology category, Mr. Chiavuzzi awarded WANRack with an "Excellent" (20 points) and Zayo with a "Very Good" (16 points). To reach this score, Mr. Chiavuzzi explained that he looked at the proposed network solution each vendor offered the School Board. Mr. Chiavuzzi testified that he believed that WANRack's point-to-point network was superior to Zayo's "ring" network. He concluded that WANRack's design, which would run through aerial cables, was easier to maintain, modify, and repair, as well as presented fewer points of failure. Conversely, Mr. Chiavuzzi determined that Zayo's methodology contained more potential points of failure. Mr. Chiavuzzi repeated Mr. Lee's comment that the Purchasing Department (Ms. Whitaker) scored the E-rate Eligible Cost criterion. Mr. Chiavuzzi was under the impression that Ms. Whitaker calculated the scores based on a formula included in the RFP. However, he was not aware of the actual computations. For Scalability, Mr. Chiavuzzi awarded WANRack's proposal with an "Excellent" (the maximum 10 points), and Zayo's proposal with a "Very Good" (8 points). Mr. Chiavuzzi based his score on the fact that WANRack proposed extra fiber cables and optic modules for the School Board's future use. On the other hand, Mr. Chiavuzzi determined that Zayo's network might not accommodate future build-out. This limitation would force the School Board to expend additional costs to support Zayo's efforts to increase the bandwidth of its system. For Overall Ability, Mr. Chiavuzzi awarded WANRack with "Excellent" (the maximum 15 points), and Zayo with "Very Good" (12 points). Mr. Chiavuzzi's score was a cumulation of the various factors he previously identified including his conclusion that WANRack's point-to-point network design offered a more attainable and reasonable solution to the WAN Services Contract with less potential points of failure, as well as the fact that WANRack's design included multiple strands of fiber and extra modules for the School Board's future needs. Zayo's proposed network, in contrast, did not dedicate as much fiber for the School Board's use and contained multiple points of failure. Finally, Mr. Chiavuzzi asserted that his rankings and scores were based solely on his personal evaluation and independent judgment. Mr. Chiavuzzi expressed that he considered all relevant criteria and factors described in the RFP, and was not influenced by any vendor. Finally, Mr. Chiavuzzi stated that, when scoring, he looked for the best vendor for the School Board, and he formulated his scores in good faith. Curtis Hodnett: Mr. Hodnett currently works for the School Board as a Senior Wide Area Network Engineer. In this job, Mr. Hodnett manages the network connections between the School District's main offices and the different school sites. As with Mr. Lee and Mr. Chiavuzzi, Mr. Hodnett served on the team that helped develop the RFP with Ms. Whitaker. Mr. Chiavuzzi is his supervisor. After Mr. Hodnett was selected as an Evaluator, Ms. Whitaker provided him with a copy of the Evaluator's Guide, as well as an electronic version of all the proposals (which he downloaded). Mr. Hodnett testified that he read through the Evaluator's Guide and all of the proposals prior to scoring. Mr. Hodnett also confirmed that the Evaluators met for two public meetings during which they reviewed and scored the proposals. Mr. Hodnett recalled that when the first meeting on January 13, 2021, ran late, the Evaluators decided to schedule a second meeting to complete their review. When scoring the proposals, Mr. Hodnett testified that he applied the scoring procedures established in RFP Sections 6.2 and 6.3. For Methodology, Mr. Hodnett awarded WANRack with an "Excellent" (20 points) and Zayo with a "Very Good" (16 points). Explaining his specific scores, Mr. Hodnett testified that he believed that WANRack's "super simple" network configuration would enable data traffic to be more easily routed across the network. He also found that WANRack's proposal provided all essential support equipment, including an additional power source, if necessary. Conversely, Mr. Hodnett believed that the School Board would need to provide additional equipment and power to support Zayo's network design, which would result in added costs to the School District over the life of the contract. Mr. Hodnett also found WANRack's point-to-point/hub-and-spoke design superior to Zayo's "ring" topology. Mr. Hodnett explained that, as electronic data is transmitted through the different sites located along a "ring" network, the system's bandwidth can be diluted. A point-to-point network, however, avoids this problem. Mr. Hodnett also appreciated the fact that WANRack's design not only provided two "lit" fiber strands for the School Board's immediate use, but also included 10 additional strands of fiber for future "build-out" purposes (12 total fiber strands). Zayo, however, only offered two fiber strands as part of its proposal. Regarding the School Board's desire to use E-rate funding, Mr. Hodnett was aware that the School Board intended to fund up to 90 percent of the WAN Services Contract with E-rate funds. Mr. Hodnett further relayed that, to be eligible for E-rate funds, he understood that the project's construction must be completed within one year from the request for E-rate support. For Scalability, in awarding WANRack's proposal an "Excellent" (10 points), and Zayo's proposal a "Very Good" (8 points), Mr. Hodnett explained that the ability of Zayo's proposed solution to scale up to higher bandwidths was limited by the shared network design, which included only two strands of fiber cable. WANRack's design, on the other hand, would enable more data and information traffic to be routed through District offices. Mr. Hodnett again referred to the fact that WANRack's design included two "lit" fiber strands, as well as ten additional strands for future use. For Overall Ability, Mr. Hodnett awarded WANRack an "Excellent" (15 points), and Zayo a "Very Good" (12 points). Mr. Hodnett explained that the Methodology and Scalability of WANRack's proposal offered a "better fit" for the School Board. Mr. Hodnett also believed that WANRack's proposed network would allow the School Board to more easily control the WAN network. Conversely, Mr. Hodnett reduced Zayo's "overall" score due to lingering questions regarding the amount of data that Zayo's network could route to the District sites through the "ring" design. In addition, Mr. Hodnett wondered whether the redundancies in Zayo's design would negatively impact the School Board's request for E-rate funding. Finally, Mr. Hodnett was concerned that the School Board would have to provide additional costs, manpower, and resources to ensure that Zayo's network got up and running. With their proposals, per RFP Section 5, each vendor submitted a "Financial Proposal Worksheet." (A blank Financial Proposal Worksheet was included with the RFP at Attachment 2.) The Financial Proposal Worksheet required the vendors to complete a cost spreadsheet for the initial 60-month contract term, together with a separate cost spreadsheet for each of the five 60-month options. To score the E-rate Eligible Cost criterion, Ms. Whitaker prepared a Cost Summary of the E-rate Eligible Cost for each proposal. Ms. Whitaker used the price evaluation procedure set forth in RFP Section 6.3, Calculation of the cost, which stated: Points for the cost shall be determined by summing the total cost at 100GB for all sites in the proposal for all options. Distribution of points for evaluation of cost will be calculated using the following formula: lowest proposed cost/proposer's cost x total point value = proposer's points. Using this formula, the vendor with the lowest total cost would receive 100 percent of the possible points. Ms. Whitaker's Cost Summary revealed that Zayo's proposed price for leased "lit" fiber ($10,239,494.99) was the lowest price submitted of all bidders.10 Therefore, based on the price formula, Zayo's proposal received the maximum 25 points. WANRack's price ($12,467,196.36) was the second lowest price for leased "lit" fiber. Accordingly, WANRack's proposal received the second highest score (21 points). After all Evaluators completed their scoring, Ms. Whitaker tabulated the total scores for each proposal to determine the vendors' final scores. WANRack's proposal for its leased "lit" fiber option received the highest ranking with a score of 81. Zayo's leased "lit" fiber proposal received the second highest ranking with a score of 76. On January 27, 2021, Ms. Whitaker posted a Notice of Recommended Award (the "Notice of Award"). The Notice of Award reported that, at a School Board meeting to be held on February 23, 2021, a recommended bid award would be made to "WANRack Holdings, LLC," for WANRack's Leased Lit Fiber Services Option. On February 23, 2021, the School Board unanimously voted to approve the recommendation to award the WAN Services Contract to WANRack. 10 Zayo, in its proposal, quoted a total price of $10,239,494.99. It appears that throughout this matter, the parties rounded this figure up to $10,239,495.00. Both numbers were used interchangeably at the final hearing, as well as in this Recommended Order. On March 10, 2021, Ms. Whitaker wrote a letter to WANRack stating: The School Board of Polk County, Florida, in regular session, on Tuesday, February 23, 2021 approved RFP 031-MDW-1121 Fiber WAN Lakeland E-rate recommended bid award to WANRack, LLC. The contract between the parties consists of RFP 031-MDW-1121 and all requirements, attachments, worksheets, appendices, addenda and WANRack's proposal signed December 29, 2020 and submitted. This constitutes the complete agreement between the proposer and the District. An additional agreement is not required. The initial contract period will begin on or about July 1, 2021. On March 11, 2021, the School Board initiated its request for E-rate funding for the WAN Services Contract. The School Board prepared and submitted two FCC Form 471 applications to USAC regarding its contract with WANRack. Zayo's Protest: In its protest, Zayo contends that the manner in which the Evaluators reviewed, then scored, the proposals was arbitrary or capricious, clearly erroneous, or contrary to the RFP specifications. Zayo further argues that the evaluation committee members awarded WANRack's proposal points to which it was not entitled. In addition, Zayo maintains that WANRack's proposal violates E-rate requirements and is therefore nonresponsive. As a result, WANRack improperly received the highest point total and was undeservedly awarded the WAN Services Contract. To support its allegations, Zayo presented the testimony of Matt Mulcahy. Mr. Mulcahy is the Solutions Engineering Director for Zayo. In this role, Mr. Mulcahy supervises Zayo's sales engineers, who support Zayo's sales teams. He also designs Zayo's WAN networks, including Zayo's proposed "ring" topology design for this RFP. Regarding the Methodology behind Zayo's proposal, Mr. Mulcahy explained that the network that Zayo designed for the School Board would consist of 100 percent underground cable. Mr. Mulcahy stated that, conversely, WANRack intends to route 75 percent its network fiber through aerial installation. Mr. Mulcahy asserted that, in Florida, Zayo's design provides a far better protected and reliable WAN infrastructure because buried cables are substantially more resistant to hurricanes and tropical storms. Mr. Mulcahy conceded, however, that aerial installations are less expensive to maintain and repair because of the ease of access. Mr. Mulcahy also commented that Zayo's network solution offers superior "fault tolerance." Mr. Mulcahy explained that WANRack's proposal includes many more miles of fiber than Zayo's design. Mr. Mulcahy declared that the larger amount of fiber cable increases the risk of failure along the network. And, any point of failure would cause a loss of service to a network's end point. Mr. Mulcahy surmised that the Evaluators may not have understood the significance of fault points. As to the points awarded to Zayo for Scalability, Mr. Mulcahy confirmed that Zayo's network design only dedicated two fiber strands to transmit data throughout the School District. However, Mr. Mulcahy advanced that the RFP did not require vendors to offer a certain number of fibers for the School Board's use. Instead, the RFP charged vendors to present a solution that offered an initial bandwidth of 10Gbps that could be "scaled" up to 100Gbps. Mr. Mulcahy explained that, in essence, the RFP sought network designs that included the capability of increased bandwidth, which would accommodate the School Board's "future business ventures." Based on this directive, Mr. Mulcahy asserted that Zayo's proposal roundly meets the RFP's Scalability criterion because it is fully scalable to a bandwidth of 100Gbps using only two fibers. Therefore, he firmly disagreed with any Evaluator's comments or scores critical of the number of fiber strands Zayo built into its proposed network infrastructure. Further, Mr. Mulcahy testified that, in practice, Zayo's network designs routinely pull 12 strands into a building as is the industry practice. Regarding the Evaluators' concerns with additional costs necessary to support Zayo's proposal, Mr. Mulcahy conceded that Zayo's network design would require the School Board to purchase supporting equipment. Mr. Mulcahy contemplated that Zayo's proposed network would cost the School Board approximately $6,000 to $12,000 to install laser optics/pluggable modules at the 65 school sites within the District. On the other hand, Mr. Mulcahy rejected the supposition that the School Board would need to purchase a supplemental power source to augment Zayo's design. Plus, the RFP represented that the School Board would provide any necessary power to support the WAN network. See RFP Addendum 2, Question 6. Mr. Mulcahy added that he believed that WANRack's network will also require the School Board to purchase pluggable modules and switches. He surmised that the School Board would spend $5,000 to $10,000 to purchase equipment to accommodate WANRack's point-to-point design, as well as install a pluggable port and a more sophisticated switch at the District's hub site. WANRack introduced Rob Oyler to discuss the details of its proposal for the WAN Services Contract. Mr. Oyler founded WANRack and currently serves as the company's Chief Executive Officer. In this role, Mr. Oyler oversees all aspects of WANRack's business operations. Mr. Oyler stated that he started WANRack with a focus on school systems similar to the School Board. He relayed that all schools need internet access and technological services. WANRack provides this support through the construction of private fiber networks. Mr. Oyler testified that WANRack proposed a point-to-point network solution for the School Board. Mr. Oyler explained that this type of design contemplates an exclusive, "private highway" of fiber cable and equipment. WANRack would establish a central hub site at the District's headquarters. Network cables would then run directly from the hub to the separate District buildings. Mr. Oyler asserted that WANRack offered the School Board a "turnkey" solution. In other words, WANRack would "light" the fiber cable so that the network would be ready for the immediate flow of data as soon as the School Board accessed it. Mr. Oyler added that WANRack would be prepared to modify or supplement its design should the School Board elect to increase the available bandwidth or add more technology. However, WANRack will not charge the School Board any additional cost for this future work. Mr. Oyler confirmed that WANRack intends to route the majority of the School Board's network via aerial installation. Mr. Oyler anticipated that WANRack would construct approximately 111 miles of fiber cable to connect the 65 school locations. Mr. Oyler acknowledged that this aerial network will be more exposed to points of failure due to tropical storms and hurricanes than underground cables. However, Mr. Oyler countered that in the event of a failure or outage, aerial cable is much more accessible for repairs or replacement. With the above background information and testimony, Zayo presented a number of arguments asserting that the School Board's recommended award to WANRack must be rejected. Each specific challenge, along with the School Board's response, is analyzed as follows. The Evaluation Committee Failed to Follow the Mandatory Requirements of the RFP and School Board Policy in Scoring the Proposals: Zayo asserts that the Evaluators' comments on their Evaluation Criteria Sheets, as well as the consensus nature of the scoring, show that the Evaluators failed to follow the RFP requirements. Specifically, Zayo argues that the Evaluators incorrectly determined that Zayo's bid would result in a large overall increased cost to the School Board. Zayo argues that the Evaluators misunderstood both the proposal specifications, as well as how to appropriately apply the evaluation criteria to the proposals. As a result, the Evaluators improperly deducted points from Zayo's proposal. Consequently, the evaluation, scoring, and ranking were based on factual inaccuracies and were conducted unreasonably. To support its claim, Zayo points to the comment Mr. Lee wrote on his Evaluation Criteria Sheet that "Zayo would require additional equipment for the installation which would cause the district a large overall increase in cost." Zayo asserts that Mr. Mulcahy established that this statement is demonstrably not true. Instead, the information in Zayo's proposal made it clear that all equipment and infrastructure necessary to support its network solution would not require the School Board to purchase any additional equipment. Neither would it result in additional costs above Zayo's quoted price. As a result, Zayo argues that no rational basis exists for the Evaluators to have deducted Zayo's scores for the categories of Experience, Methodology, Scalability, and Overall Ability based on the assumption that the School Board would incur additional costs if it selected Zayo's proposed network. Consequently, the Evaluators' scores were arbitrarily or capriciously derived, which provided WANRack's proposal an unfair competitive advantage. School Board Position: The School Board asserts that the testimony shows that the Evaluators carefully and completely considered all the criteria enumerated in RFP Section 6.2 when formulating their scores. Thereafter, in the Evaluators' neutral and objective judgment, WANRack's proposed network design was superior to Zayo's design. Accordingly, the Evaluators concluded WANRack's proposal best served the interests of the School Board. Finding: The evidence supports the School Board's argument that the Evaluators' concerns regarding the possibility that Zayo's proposal would result in additional costs to the School Board was not arbitrarily or irrationally derived or gave WANRack an unfair advantage. At the final hearing, all three Evaluators credibly testified that they fairly and reasonably reviewed and considered each proposal. The Evaluators voiced logical and rational explanations as to how they analyzed, and then scored, each proposal. They further provided good faith and factually based reasons why they believed that WANRack offered the most cost-effective service and presented the most advantageous network solution for the School Board. (Furthermore, Mr. Mulcahy openly confirmed that Zayo's network design would cost the School Board an additional $6,000 to $12,000 in supporting equipment.) Finally, the Evaluators persuasively testified that they measured each vendor's proposal against the same criteria and held every proposal to the same scoring standard. Accordingly, Zayo's argument on this point is rejected. The Evaluators Erred Because WANRack's Proposal is not Demonstratively Better than Zayo's Proposal: Zayo asserted that WANRack's proposed network was not demonstrably better than its own proposal. Presented through the testimony of Mr. Mulcahy, Zayo contended that the Evaluators' scores for Zayo's proposal were "misguided." Mr. Mulcahy commented that the Evaluators did not appear sufficiently knowledgeable in WAN network designs to adequately grade and rank the different network designs. He did not believe that the Evaluators gave Zayo's proposal proper consideration. While Mr. Mulcahy conceded that he was not aware of any evidence that the Evaluators acted dishonestly, illegally, or unethically, he maintained that the scores they awarded to Zayo's proposal were simply "wrong." Zayo presented examples of error based on Mr. Mulcahy's testimony: Methodology: Zayo asserts that the evidence does not support the Evaluator's collective characterization of WANRack's Methodology as Excellent, while labelling Zayo's proposal Very Good. Zayo claims that its Methodology is superior to WANRack's network design because, in Mr. Mulcahy's opinion, buried fiber cables are substantially more resilient to storms. In addition, the fact that Zayo presented the lowest bid "maximizes the cost-effectiveness" of its proposal. Consequently, the Evaluators' scores to the contrary are flawed. Scalability: Similar to Methodology, Zayo asserts that the fact that each Evaluator awarded WANRack an Excellent for Scalability while awarding Zayo a score of Very Good was unjustified. Zayo asserts that both its proposal and WANRack's proposal provided for maximum scalability without any additional costs to the School Board. Therefore, no justification existed to score Zayo's proposal lower than WANRack's proposal for an identical response to this criterion. School Board Position: The School Board highlighted that the RFP expressed no preference for a specific type of methodology. To the contrary, RFP Section 3.1 stated that the School Board would consider "traditional network designs (such as hub and spoke) or alternative proposals." Therefore, the fact that Zayo's underground cables might provide more protection from environmental hazards than aerial cables does not automatically mean that Zayo's proposal was "demonstrably" superior to WANRack's design. How the vendors proposed to construct their network cable "highway" was only one factor in the Evaluators' analysis of which proposal presented the best solution for the School Board. The School Board further contends that the evidence presented at the final hearing does not show that the Evaluators' conclusions regarding additional cost to the School Board were erroneous. Mr. Mulcahy plainly testified that the School Board would need to purchase additional equipment to support Zayo's network design. Finally, the School Board again asserts that the evidence establishes that the Evaluators neutrally and objectively determined that WANRack's proposed network design was superior to Zayo's design. The Evaluators' testimony at the final hearing shows that they considered all the criteria set forth in RFP Section 6.2 when formulating their scores. Thereafter, they individually concluded that WANRack's proposal best served the interests of the School Board. Finding: The School Board's position has merit. The evidence at the final hearing demonstrates that the Evaluators awarded points based on an honest exercise of their discretion. The Evaluators credibly testified that they fairly and in good faith considered the information presented in each proposal. During the final hearing, each Evaluator evinced a broad and comprehensive knowledge of the details of both Zayo and WANRack's proposed network designs, as well as the subject matter of the RFP. The Evaluators further provided logical and rational reasons why they believed that WANRack's proposal was superior to the other proposals, particularly Zayo's proposal. The evidence did not prove that the Evaluators' scores were based on unfair or irrational prejudice. Accordingly, Zayo's argument on this point is rejected. The Evaluators Failed to Exercise their Independent Judgment When Scoring the Proposals: Zayo charges that the Evaluators, when scoring the proposals, acted "in a concerted way" to reach a consensus score in favor of one particular proposal (WANRack's), instead of applying their independent judgment as required by the Evaluator's Guide. Consequently, the Evaluators acted arbitrarily or capriciously in awarding a winning score to WANRack. To support this allegation, Zayo points to the fact that the Evaluators' scores for the Zayo and WANRack proposals were identical in every evaluation criteria. Zayo was further troubled as to why Mr. Chiavuzzi's scoresheet was devoid of any written commentary or notes that would explain how or why he scored as he did. School Board Position: The School Board maintains that the Evaluators' testimony clearly established that they independently formulated their scores based on their individual assessment of the proposals. Further, while the Evaluator's Guide advised that the Evaluators "should record brief comments that lend insight as to why they awarded or failed to award points based on the established RFP evaluation criteria for a particular item," neither the Evaluator's Guide nor any other provision of the RFP mandated that the Evaluators must document their exact thoughts or analysis on their Evaluation Criteria Sheets. Finally, regarding "concerted" collaboration between the Evaluators, the Evaluator's Guide specifically advised: It's normal and acceptable for there to be debate, even passionate debate, within the evaluation committee about how well a proposal meets the established evaluation criteria. As an independent evaluator you may be swayed by the debate in making you judgment about how many points you wish to award, and that is okay. Therefore, the RFP scoring process explicitly contemplated a collaborative process amongst the Evaluators in formulating the points to award to each proposal, as long as the ultimate score was based on each Evaluators' independent assessment. Finding: The evidence and testimony at the final hearing supports the School Board's position. While the Evaluator's Guide stressed that the Evaluators should exercise their "independent judgment," the Evaluator's Guide also clearly indicated that the Evaluators could collectively develop their scores. The Evaluator's Guide prompted the Evaluators to ask questions to understand pertinent information, as well as engage in "passionate debate" regarding the merits of each proposal. Such was the case in this RFP. During their two public meetings, the Evaluators freely and openly discussed the details of the vendors' proposals. However, each Evaluator credibly testified that when the time came to score the proposals, they applied their honest and independent opinions to the information presented by each vendor, and awarded scores as appropriate. Accordingly, Zayo's argument on this point is rejected. WANRack's Proposal Creates the Appearance of Impropriety with One of the Evaluators: Zayo alleges that a relationship between one of the Evaluators and WANRack creates an appearance of impropriety in violation of the Evaluator's Guide. The Evaluator's Guide specifically directed that Evaluators: will not have contact with any of the proposers during the evaluation process except during interviews; and, conversely, [Evaluators] are not to be contracted by any of the proposers during or following the evaluation process prior to contract award. … It is always best to err on the side of avoiding even the appearance of impropriety in the evaluation process. Zayo points to WANRack's listing of Mr. Lee's name as a point of contact for one of its references in its proposal. School Board Position: The School Board argues that no evidence indicates that WANRack ever contacted or spoke to Mr. Lee regarding the WAN Services Contract. On the contrary, Mr. Lee provided credible testimony that he and WANRack never discussed the terms, conditions, or scoring of the proposals for this RFP. For her part, Ms. Whitaker was not alarmed at finding Mr. Lee's name listed as a project contact in WANRack's proposal. Ms. Whitaker did not believe that this single reference in WANRack's proposal caused a potential impropriety. She commented that nothing in WANRack's proposal indicated that Mr. Lee was anything more than a reference regarding another contract between WANRack and the School Board. Ms. Whitaker expressed that WANRack's proposal did not contain any information that Mr. Lee was involved in WANRack's current contract with the School Board in any direct or material capacity. On the contrary, the fact that WANRack disclosed its specific point of contact on the Bartow Contract showed that WANRack openly revealed its existing working relationship with the School Board. For his part, Mr. Lee steadfastly asserted that he never spoke to WANRack during the RFP process, and WANRack never attempted to exert any influence over him regarding his evaluation of the WAN Services Contact. Mr. Lee further maintained that he was unaware that WANRack listed his name as a reference, nor did he approve the same. Mr. Lee testified that he fairly and objectively evaluated every proposal, and he formulated his scores consistent with his understanding of the RFP specifications and based on the best interests of the School Board. Finding: The School Board (and Mr. Lee) presents the most effective argument on this point. At first blush, the fact that WANRack inserted Mr. Lee as its point of contact on a prior School Board project does raise questions as to the working relationship between Mr. Lee and WANRack. And, the School Board certainly desired to prevent any inappropriate communication or influence between the vendors and the Evaluators. However, the questions were all answered. There was no evidence of any inappropriate communication or influence. No evidence or testimony establishes that WANRack received any competitive advantage or favoritism based on Mr. Lee's previous dealings with WANRack on the Bartow Contract. Neither does any evidence demonstrate that WANRack was awarded the WAN Services Contract based on its prior relationship with Mr. Lee. Mr. Lee persuasively testified that the scores he gave to WANRack and Zayo were based solely on the information contained within the proposals, and not from any other source or from his prior interactions with WANRack. Accordingly, Zayo did not prove that the fact that WANRack listed Mr. Lee as a point of contact on another contract with the School Board actually gave WANRack's proposal an unfair competitive advantage or led to the School Board's selection of WANRack for the WAN Services Contract. Therefore, an insufficient basis in fact exists to overturn the School Board's intended award to WANRack on this issue. WANRack's Proposal is Nonresponsive in that it Violates the FCC's E-rate Program Rules: Zayo contends that WANRack's proposal is ineligible for award under the RFP because it included terms that violated E-rate funding rules. Therefore, awarding the WAN Services Contract to WANRack will jeopardize the School Board's ability to use federal funds to pay for the network services. Specifically, Zayo represents that, to be eligible for E-rate funding, the E-rate program requires all special construction charges for a network to be completed and the fiber "lit" (i.e., ready to provide service) within the same 12-month fiscal year as the funding request. Zayo contends that WANRack's proposal, however, includes a timeline that stretches beyond the required, 12-month E-rate funding year. To support this argument, Zayo points to an illustration within WANRack's proposal that portrays a construction timeline that starts on July 1, 2021, and ends on October 13, 2022. (Pet. Ex. 25, pg. 61) This graphic representation indicates that WANRack will need 15 months to completely construct its network before it is able to provide WAN services to the School Board. Zayo argues that because WANRack's proposal contemplates an upfront construction time of greater than one funding year, it violates the requirements of the E-rate program. Consequently, the School Board must reject WANRack's proposal as nonresponsive because WANRack's solution is ineligible for E-Rate support and cannot meet the RFP service requirements. School Board Position: Ms. Whitaker agreed with Zayo's point that the scoring of the vendors' Methodology included evaluating how the vendors' network solutions comply with the E-rate guidance. However, in responding to this specific assertion, the School Board and WANRack argue that the illustration included in WANRack's proposal is only an "example of a construction timeline." Mr. Oyler (as supported by the School Board) testified that WANRack fully intends to construct its network within E-rate time requirements and that its network design for the WAN Services Contract will qualify for E-rate funding. At the final hearing, Mr. Oyler insisted that the October 13, 2022, date on the sample timeline is merely a conservative point of reference. He urged that, at the time WANRack submitted its proposal, the exact date that E-rate would approve funding for the WAN Services Contract was unknown. Consequently, the dates WANRack included on its illustration are simply projections for planning purposes. Further, the School Board and WANRack witnesses represented that E-rate special construction rules allow construction of the fiber network to begin up to six months prior to the start of the funding year (July 1). In light of this provision, Mr. Oyler conveyed that WANRack fully intends to begin construction of its network several months prior to the start of the pertinent E-rate funding year. Finding: Based on the testimony adduced at the final hearing, the School Board (and WANRack) persuasively counter Zayo's argument that the School Board should have deemed WANRack's proposal nonresponsive based on the inclusion of a construction completion date of October 13, 2022. WANRack credibly explained how its proposed network design can be constructed to sufficiently qualify for E-rate funding. Accordingly, Zayo did not present sufficient evidence to prove that WANRack's proposal must be disqualified as noncompliant with E-rate rules or the RFP specifications. WANRack's Score for Methodology Must be Reduced Due to the Fact that WANRack Failed to Provide a NID Switch: Zayo asserts that WANRack's Methodology did not deserve the top award of Excellent (20 points) because WANRack's proposed network failed to incorporate a Network Interface Device ("NID") switch. To support this argument, Zayo points to several provisions in the RFP that indicate that the vendors' network designs must include a NID switch. These sections include RFP Addendum 2, Question 1, which describes the School Board's expectation that vendors will use an "endpoint NID (i.e. switch, router)" that is "scalable up to 100Gbps which will connect to the district/site routers." Mr. Mulcahy also highlighted the RFP's requirement that vendors must "provide prioritization of voice traffic dependent upon the District's Voice- over-IP ["VOIP"] specifications," which, according to him, would implicitly require a switch or router. See RFP Section 4.4. Mr. Mulcahy testified that without the proper switch, the lasers that transmit data over the network will not "light" the fiber optic cable. Zayo asserts that WANRack, however, indicated that it will use a GBIC/SFP (Gigabit Interface Converter/Small Form-factor Pluggable) module in its design, rather than a NID switch. (A GBIC/SFP device is a small fiber optic transceiver, about the size of a pack of gum, that interfaces with the network to convert optical and electrical signals.) Mr. Mulcahy asserted that WANRack's decision to use a GBIC/SFP module instead of a NID switch gives WANRack's proposal a competitive advantage because the NID switch component is an expense that either the vendor or the School Board will have to bear. School Board Position: Mr. Chiavuzzi, during his testimony, directly rejected Zayo's argument that the RFP mandated all proposed networks include a NID switch. On the contrary, Mr. Chiavuzzi declared that the School Board intentionally did not require the vendors to meet a specific routing configuration in their proposals. Instead, the School Board gave vendors the flexibility to offer a broad range of network solutions to meet the School Board's needs, whether those designs included a NID switch or not. See RFP Section 3.1. Similarly, Mr. Hodnett saw no reason to reduce his score for WANRack's Methodology due to the fact that it did not provide a NID switch. Mr. Hodnett further represented that he could perform any necessary VOIP prioritization himself without the assistance of the network provider. WANRack (through Mr. Oyler) confirmed that WANRack's proposed network design does not include a NID switch. However, Mr. Oyler asserted that the corresponding equipment WANRack intends to use (GBIC/SFP devices) is scalable up to 100Gbps, and, therefore, will adequately support the network services the RFP specifies, as well as any VOIP requirements. Finding: The evidence and testimony adduced at the final hearing does not support Zayo's argument that WANRack was required to present a network solution that included a NID switch. Therefore, Zayo did not meet its burden of proving that the Evaluators acted arbitrarily or irrationally by awarding WANRack's proposal an Excellent score for Methodology, or that WANRack received an unfair competitive advantage or benefit. The Notice of Recommended Bid Award is Void and Cannot Be Enforced: Zayo asserts that the Notice of Award is void and cannot serve as the basis for an award to WANRack. Specifically, Zayo argues that the Notice of Award recommended that the WAN Services Contract be awarded to the wrong corporate entity. To support this argument, Zayo denotes that "WANRack, LLC" submitted the proposal in response to the RFP. The Notice of Award, however, recommended the School Board award the bid to "WANRack Holdings, LLC." Zayo charges that the discrepancy in the name of the intended contract winner on the Notice of Award invalidates the award to WANRack, LLC. School Board Position: Initially, the School Board asserts that Ms. Whitaker's reference to "WANRack Holdings, LLC" instead of "WANRack, LLC" was a simple scrivener's error that did not affect the integrity or propriety of the procurement process. During her testimony, Ms. Whitaker explained that she fully intended to write WANRack's appropriate corporate name on the Notice of Award. She represented that insertion of the word "Holdings" after WANRack's name was her mistake. She offered that she was not aware of the legal significance between the two companies. Ms. Whitaker urged that none of the Evaluators or School Board staff was confused over which entity was being recommended for the WAN Services Contract – WANRack was clearly the top ranked vendor. The School Board also introduced a Memorandum from the School Board Superintendent, Jacqueline Byrd, dated February 8, 2021, which recorded that the contract "for procurement of Fiber WAN Services to 65 sites in the Lakeland area" was awarded to "WANRack, LLC." In addition, the School Board argues that, at most, Ms. Whitaker's inclusion of the extraneous word "Holdings" was a harmless error that should not affect the outcome of the award. To support this argument, the School Board points to RFP Section 7.21, which states that, "The District reserves the right to waive irregularities in the proposals." The School Board insists that Ms. Whitaker's mistake should be treated as a waivable irregularity. The School Board further asserts that the terms of the WAN Services Contract will be governed by the RFP together with all requirements, attachments, worksheets, addenda, as well as WANRack's proposal. The School Board contends that these documents clearly establish that the vendor selected for this project is "WANRack, LLC."11 The School Board maintains that no vendor (including Zayo) was prejudicially affected by the incorrect reference to "WANRack Holdings, LLC" on the Notice of Award. For his part, Mr. Oyler offered that WANRack Holdings, Inc., is the holding company for WANRack, LLC. Mr. Oyler, who serves as Chief Executive Officer of both corporations, explained that WANRack, LLC, submitted the proposal in response to the RFP, and WANRack, LLC, will be the company that enters the WAN Services Contract to provide the leased "lit" fiber services to the School Board. Finding: The School Board persuasively rebuts Zayo's argument that the School Board's incorrect recommendation to award the WAN Services Contract to "WANRack Holdings, LLC" should invalidate the results of this procurement. Ms. Whitaker's mistake on the Notice of Award was not material to the award of the WAN Services Contract to WANRack. Neither did the error provide WANRack a competitive advantage or benefit under the terms of the RFP. To summarize the findings in this matter, based on the evidence in the record, Zayo did not demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the School Board's intended award of the WAN Services Contract to WANRack was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious, or that it was contrary to the School Board's governing statutes, policies, rules, or the solicitation specifications. Each Evaluator credibly 11 For example, Ms. Whitaker's letter to WANRack, dated March 10, 2021, states: The School Board of Polk County, Florida, in regular session, on Tuesday, February 23, 2021 approved RFP 031-MDW-1121 Fiber WAN Lakeland E-rate recommended bid award to WANRack, LLC. In addition, Ms. Whitaker's "memo to file" letter, also dated March 10, 2021, states: The School Board of Polk County, Florida (PCSB) and WANRack, LLC agree the contract between the parties consists of the RFP (including addenda), and the successful proposal. testified that they fairly and objectively evaluated the information contained in WANRack's and Zayo's proposals. Further, the evidence demonstrates that WANRack's proposal complied with the RFP specifications, and WANRack is fully capable of providing the "lit" fiber services the School Board seeks through the WAN Services Contract. Finally, the evidence does not show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Zayo was placed at a competitive disadvantage in this solicitation. Neither is there evidence that the School Board conducted this procurement in a manner that was contrary to its governing statutes, rules, or policies, or the provisions of the RFP. Accordingly, Zayo failed to meet its burden of proving that the School Board's intent to award this procurement to WANRack must be rejected.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Robert A. Shimberg, Esquire Trae S. Weingardt, Esquire Hill, Ward and Henderson, P.A., 101 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 3700 Tampa, Florida 33601 1 Unless otherwise stated, all citations to the Florida Statutes are to the 2021 version. For Respondent: Jonathan Stidham, Esquire Jeffrey Sullivan, Esquire Stidham & Stidham Post Office Box 510 Bartow, Florida 33831 Warren Andrew Crawford, Esquire Boswell & Dunlap, LLP 245 South Central Avenue Post Office Box 30 Bartow, Florida 33830 For Intervenors: Stephen R. Senn, Esquire Matthew J. Vaughn, Esquire Peterson & Myers, P.A. 225 East Lemon Street, Suite 300 Lakeland, Florida 33802
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Polk County enter a final order dismissing the protest of Zayo. It is further recommended that the School Board of Polk County award Request for Proposal 031-MDW-1121, Fiber WAN Lakeland E-rate to WANRack as set forth in the Notice of Award. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of September, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of September, 2021. Charles Wesley Bridges, General Counsel The School Board of Polk County, Florida Post Office Box 391 Bartow, Florida 33831 Trae S. Weingardt, Esquire Hill Ward Henderson 101 East Kennedy Boulevard Suite 3700 Tampa, Florida 33602 Robert A. Shimberg, Esquire Hill, Ward & Henderson, P.A. 101 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602 Warren Andrew Crawford, Esquire Boswell and Dunlap, LLP 245 South Central Avenue Post Office Drawer 30 Bartow, Florida 33830 Jeffrey Sullivan, Esquire Stidham & Stidham Post Office Box 510 Bartow, Florida 33831 Stephen R. Senn, Esquire Peterson & Myers, P.A. Suite 300 225 East Lemon Street Lakeland, Florida 33802 Anastasios Kamoutsas, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jillian T. Spangler, Esquire Boswell & Dunlap, LLP 245 South Central Avenue Bartow, Florida 33830 Frederick Heid, Superintendent Polk County School Board 1915 South Floral Avenue Post Office Box 391 Bartow, Florida 33831
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Lake County School Board, had just cause to terminate Respondents for the reasons specified in the agency action letters dated April 17, 2018.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Lake County School Board, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Lake County. See Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const.; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Petitioner is authorized to discipline instructional staff and other school employees. See § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Mr. Rosier has been employed at Groveland Elementary School (Groveland) in Lake County, Florida, for three years. During the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years, Mr. Rosier was the Instructional Dean. One of Mr. Rosier’s duties was to assist teachers with students who have behavioral problems and liaison with parents of these students. Mr. Rosier also conducted in- school suspension of students. Mr. Rosier also had a contract supplement to assist with students who were on campus after school hours because they either missed the bus or were not picked up by their parent or guardian on time. Mr. Rosier assisted by keeping the student safe and contacting the emergency contact on file for the student to find a way to get the student home. Ms. Lassen has taught at Groveland for four years. She taught first grade during the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years. Petitioner Lassen is an “inclusion teacher,” meaning her classroom is a combination of students receiving Exceptional Student Education (ESE) services and students with no need for services. Ms. Lassen has no special training in ESE services for children with behavioral challenges. ESE students in her classroom are “push in, pull out,” meaning an exceptional education teacher comes in to work with some of the students in the classroom, and other students are pulled out of the classroom to work with an exceptional education teacher. Ms. Lassen was not happy at Groveland. She enjoyed teaching and was passionate about her students achieving their learning potential. However, she was frustrated by what she saw as a lack of needed services for her ESE students. Ms. Lassen applied for a transfer during the 2016 school year, but the transfer was denied. During the 2017-2018 school year, Ms. Lassen had eleven ESE students in her classroom, four of whom had severe behavioral issues. Some of her students were violent, even trying to harm themselves. She found it stressful to corral children who were throwing things in the classroom, especially at other children, while trying to teach the required lessons. She often found herself dealing with parents who were upset about their ESE child being disciplined for their behaviors, or who were upset about the treatment of their child by an ESE student. To address these concerns, Ms. Lassen frequently met with Mr. Rosier. Toward the end of the 2017-2018 school year--in March 2018 particularly--they met roughly twice a week. The two met once in Mr. Rosier’s office and sometimes in the portable where Mr. Rosier conducted in-school suspension; however, they met most frequently in Ms. Lassen’s classroom. The meetings usually occurred around 4:00 p.m., after students were dismissed at 3:30 p.m. and Mr. Rosier’s after- school responsibilities ended. Ms. Lassen usually left the school between 4:15 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. to pick up her own children from school and daycare and take them to after-school activities. During the meetings, Ms. Lassen discussed with Mr. Rosier the behavioral challenges she faced with students in her classroom, as well as the issues with parents. Mr. Rosier had the responsibility to deal with parents, often conducting parent conferences to address issues arising in the classroom. Ms. Lassen and Mr. Rosier became friends, and occasionally discussed personal matters, in addition to classroom and parent issues. Sometimes Ms. Lassen would become emotional. Mr. Rosier assured her he would work to get the help the students needed. Kimberly Sneed was the Groveland Principal during the 2017-2018 school year. On April 2, 2018, Mr. Sneed entered Ms. Lassen’s classroom shortly after 4:00 p.m. Assistant Principal Joseph Mabry had suggested to Ms. Sneed that she should look into why Mr. Rosier was in Ms. Lassen’s classroom at that time. When Ms. Sneed arrived, she observed that the lights were turned off and the classroom was empty. She walked to the classroom supply closet, inserted her key, and opened the door, which opens inward. Just as she was pushing the door open, Ms. Lassen pulled the door open to exit the closet with her purse and supply bag in hand. Ms. Sneed did not try the closet door handle first to determine whether the closet was locked. She simply inserted the key in the lock and pushed open the door. She testified that she was not certain the closet door was actually locked. The closet light was off when Ms. Lassen opened the closet. Ms. Lassen testified that she had just switched the light off before opening the door to exit the closet. Ms. Sneed turned the light switch on as she entered the closet. Ms. Lassen was surprised to see Ms. Sneed and asked if she could help her find something. Ms. Sneed asked Ms. Lassen why she had been in a dark closet. How Ms. Lassen replied to Ms. Sneed’s question was a disputed issue. Ms. Lassen maintains she said, “Ms. Sneed, you don’t understand, all it was, it was just a kiss, a kiss on the cheek, nothing more.” Ms. Sneed maintains Ms. Lassen said, “We were only kissing, we weren’t doing anything, no sex or nothing.” Ms. Lassen promptly left to pick up her children. Ms. Sneed entered the closet and observed Mr. Rosier standing at the back of the L-shaped closet, with his back to the door. Mr. Rosier was fully clothed, but his shirt was untucked and his glasses were off. Ms. Sneed did not question Mr. Rosier. Instead she quipped sarcastically, “Really, Mr. Rosier? Really?” Mr. Rosier did not turn toward Ms. Sneed or otherwise respond to her immediately. As Ms. Sneed exited the closet and proceeded to leave the classroom, Mr. Rosier called after her and asked if he could talk with her in her office. What else Mr. Rosier said to Ms. Sneed at that time was also a disputed issue. Ms. Sneed testified that Mr. Rosier stated, “I’ll admit we were kissing, and it turned into touching, but nothing else.” Mr. Rosier was not certain what exactly he said, but admitted that he did use the word “kiss.” He testified that everything happened quickly. He was embarrassed and Ms. Sneed was angry. The following day, Ms. Sneed reported the incident to the School Board Employee Relations Supervisor Katherine Falcon. That same day, both Ms. Lassen and Mr. Rosier were interviewed separately by Ms. Falcon. Ms. Falcon drafted an interview questionnaire based solely on her telephone conversation with Ms. Sneed that morning. The questionnaire contained the following seven questions: For the record state your name. What is your current position? How long have you been in your current position? Yesterday, Ms. Sneed found you and another teacher in a locked dark closet. Can you explain? Is this the first time you have engaged in this activity on campus? Did you share any information about this incident with anyone else? Is there anything else you would like to say? Ms. Falcon asked the questions, and David Meyers, Employee Relations Manager, typed Respondents’ answers. Ms. Falcon printed the interview record on site and presented it to each respective Respondent to review and sign. The report states Ms. Lassen’s response to Question 4 as follows: The closet was unlocked. It is always unlocked. I just kissed him. It didn’t go any further. There was no touching or clothing off. Nothing exposed. Nothing like that has ever happened before. Yesterday was more, like a kiss goodbye. I was getting ready to leave and getting my stuff. He was standing by the door. He was standing by my filing cabinet. Nobody ever comes in there during the day. Sneed wanted to know what we were doing in there. We told her we were fooling around a little bit, kissing. Ms. Lassen signed her interview report without asking for clarifications or changes. Ms. Lassen testified that she did not review the interview report before signing, did not understand it to be any form of discipline, and was anxious to return to her classroom because her ESE students do not do well in her absence. At the final hearing, Ms. Lassen denied stating anything about “fooling around a little” with Mr. Rosier. In response to the same question, Mr. Rosier’s report states the following: The closet wasn’t locked. This teacher, Katie Lassen and I have become good friends. Yesterday we caught ourselves being too close, kissing, hugging . . . . We were first in the main classroom. When we began to kiss we went in the closet. There was a knock on the door. It was Ms. Sneed. My clothes were kind of wrangled. Mr. Rosier also signed his interview report without asking for clarifications or changes. At the final hearing, Mr. Rosier denied stating that he and Ms. Lassen were “kissing and hugging” or that “when we began to kiss we went into the closet.” As to his statement that “we caught ourselves becoming too close,” he testified that he meant they had begun discussing personal issues in addition to Ms. Lassen’s concerns with her ESE students. Ms. Lassen and Mr. Rosier testified as follows: they were discussing her concerns about a particular ESE student who was very disruptive and threatened to harm himself. Ms. Lassen was emotional. Ms. Lassen proceeded into the closet to get her things so she could leave to pick up her children and get them to after-school activities. Just inside the closet, Ms. Lassen broke down crying again. Mr. Rosier entered the closet, closing the door behind him (allegedly to keep anyone from seeing Ms. Lassen cry), put his hands on her shoulders and told her to get herself together and not let anyone see her crying when she left the school. She collected herself, thanked him, gave him a hug and they exchanged kisses on the cheek. Respondents’ stories at final hearing were nearly identical, a little too well-rehearsed, and differed too much from the spontaneous statements made at the time of the incident, to be credible. Based on the totality of the evidence, and inferences drawn therefrom, the undersigned finds as follows: Mr. Rosier was consoling Ms. Lassen and the two adults became caught up in the moment, giving in to an attraction born from an initial respectful working relationship. The encounter was brief and there is no credible evidence that Respondents did anything other than kiss each other. Both Respondents regret it and had no intention to continue anything other than a professional relationship. This incident occurred after school hours, sometime between 4:00 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. on April 2, 2018. The only students on campus were at an after-school care program in a different building across campus. No one witnessed Respondents kissing or entering the closet together. Only Ms. Sneed witnessed Respondents emerging from the closet. Both Respondents were terminated effective April 23, 2018. Administrative Charges The school board’s administrative complaints suffer from a lack of specificity. Both employees are charged with “engaging in sexual misconduct on the school campus with another school board employee which is considered Misconduct in Office,” in violation of the Principles of Professional Conduct for Educators (Principles). The administrative complaints do not charge Respondents with any specific date, time, or place of particular conduct which constitutes “sexual misconduct.”2/ Moreover, the School Board introduced no definition of sexual misconduct. The School Board inquired about some specific conduct during the Employee Relations interviews with Respondents. Ms. Falcon asked Respondents about being found together in a “locked dark closet.” The School Board failed to prove that the closet was either locked or dark while Respondents were in the closet. It appears the School Board bases its charge of Misconduct in Office, in part, on an allegation that the Respondents had “engaged in this activity on campus” on dates other than April 2, 2018. When Ms. Sneed went to Ms. Lassen’s room on April 2, 2018, she was acting upon a report that Mr. Rosier went to Ms. Lassen’s room every day at 4:00 p.m. There is no reliable evidence in the record to support a finding to that effect. The report that Mr. Rosier “went to Ms. Lassen’s classroom every day at 4:00,” was hearsay to the 4th degree,3/ without any non-hearsay corroborating evidence. Petitioner did not prove Respondents were ever together in a closet, much less a dark closet, on campus any date other than April 2, 2018. Finally, it appears the School Board bases its charges, in part, on an allegation that Mr. Rosier was not fulfilling his after-school duties because he was spending too much time with Ms. Lassen. To that point, Petitioner introduced testimony that on the Friday after spring break in March, Mr. Rosier was not to be found when the administration had to deal with a student who had either missed the bus or was not picked up on time. Ms. Sneed testified that Mr. Rosier came through the front office, observed the student there with herself and Mr. Mabry, and left through the front office. Ms. Sneed assumed Mr. Rosier had left for the day, but that when she left the school she saw his car in the parking lot. Mr. Rosier recalled that particular day, and testified that, as two administrators were attending to the student, he did not see the need for a third. He chose instead to keep his appointment with Ms. Lassen to discuss her difficult students. Petitioner did not prove that Mr. Rosier neglected either his after-school or any other duties.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Lake County School Board enter a final order dismissing the charges against Respondents Katie Lassen and Alan Rosier, and award back pay and benefits retroactive to April 23, 2018. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 3rd day of August, 2018.
