Findings Of Fact During the 1985-86 school year Respondent Gregory Hunter Stephens was a student in the tenth grade at Miami Sunset Senior High School. On April 18, 1986, during the lunch period Respondent drove into the faculty parking lot in his Corvette with the police following closely behind. It was determined that during his lunch break Respondent had been driving his Corvette in a nearby condominium development threatening residents and throwing beer cans on the lawns. The residents had summoned the police. An Assistant Principal held a conference with Respondent's father whose response was that the police should have better things to do than to bother his son for drinking beer and driving around during his lunch break. Respondent was given a three-day suspension. On May 22, 1986, Respondent got into a fight in class, a Group III violation of the Code of Student Conduct. A conference was held with Respondent's father, and Respondent was given a ten-day suspension. Although other informal discussions were held with Respondent's father during that school year, by the end of the third grading period Respondent's grades were one "C," one "D," and 4 "Fs." His absences from his classes during the third grading period alone ranged between 2 and 13. He received only a "3" for his effort in each and every class. During the 1985-86 school year, Respondent was absent 95 days out of the 180-day school year. On March 3, 1987, an Assistant Principal observed Respondent leaving the campus during Respondent's second-period class. He stopped Respondent and gave him a warning. A few minutes later he caught Respondent again attempting to leave. Respondent's mother was contacted, and Respondent was given a "work detail detention." On April 2, 1987, a fight broke out off campus between a group of Latin students and a group of Anglo students. On the following day Respondent admitted to an Assistant Principal that he was one of the participants. All of the students involved (including Respondent) were suspended for three days for that Group III Code violation. On October 19, 1987, Respondent was nearly involved in a collision in the parking lot. Respondent got out of his car and started pushing the other driver. A fight ensued. Respondent's parents were contacted, and he was given a ten-day suspension. By the time of the October 19th incident, Respondent had already been absent 6 days that school year. Further, although the Assistant Principal had two conferences with Respondent's father during the month of October, Respondent was receiving one "C," one "D," and five "Fs" in his classes. A Child Study Team was convened, and a meeting was held on November 3, 1987. Respondent and his parents refused to attend. The Team recommended that Respondent be transferred to Douglas MacArthur Senior High School-South, based upon the October 19, 1987, incident, his failing grades during the most-recent two years, and Respondent's chronic aggressive behavior which constituted a threat to the welfare of the other students. It was determined that Respondent required assistance a normal school could not provide and that a structured environment would be more appropriate since the educators at Miami Sunset Senior High School had unsuccessfully attempted to modify Respondent's behavior by conferences between Respondent and a counselor, meetings between Respondent's parents and assistant principals, indoor suspensions, outdoor suspensions, and work detail suspensions
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered assigning Respondent Gregory Hunter Stephens to the opportunity school program at Douglas MacArthur Senior High School-South until such time as his performance reveals that he can be returned to the regular school program. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 29th day of March, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675, Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of March, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: JOSEPH A. FERNANDEZ, SUPERINTENDENT SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY 1410 NORTHEAST SECOND AVENUE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132 FRANK R. HARDER, ESQUIRE 175 FONTAINEBLEAU BOULEVARD SUITE 2A-3 MIAMI, FLORIDA 33172 LANA STEPHENS 15490 S.W. 85TH LANE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33183 MADELYN P. SCHERE, ESQUIRE ASSISTANT BOARD ATTORNEY DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1410 NORTHEAST SECOND AVENUE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132 PHYLLIS O. DOUGLAS, ESQUIRE ASSISTANT BOARD ATTORNEY DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1410 NORTHEAST SECOND AVENUE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132
Findings Of Fact This case was presented for consideration based upon the Administrative Complaint and subsequent amendment presented by Ralph D. Turlington, as Commissioner of Education, State of Florida, against Michael H. Deis, holder of teaching certificate No. 356436, Rank II, post graduate valid through June 30, 1987. The accusations set forth in the Administrative Complaint and its amendment are as indicated in the Issues statement to this Recommended Order. The remaining facts found result from a formal Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, administrative hearing held upon request of the Respondent. The Respondent was born March 7, 1945, and is married and has three children, ages one and one-half, four, and eight. The Respondent has been married since June 17, 1972. Respondent has a Bachelor of Science degree, a Masters Degree in Business Administration and fifty-five hours' credit toward a Doctorate of Philosophy in Education. The Respondent has been employed with the Collier County School System in the State of Florida since February, 1974. Prior to that time, the Respondent had been employed in management for General Motors Corporation and with General Development Corporation for a period of three years in Miami, Florida. After becoming an employee of the Collier County School System, the Respondent taught math in the sixth through eighth grades at East Naples, Florida, Middle School. The range of ages for those students was twelve to fourteen years old. Beginning in the January term of 1975, the Respondent taught adult education in the Collier County School System. In 1976, Respondent moved to Everglades High School where he coached boys' basketball, varsity basketball and girls' basketball. His academic responsibility at that school included the teaching of basic math and other subjects to boys and girls whose ages ranged from fourteen to twenty. The Respondent then moved to Barron Collier High School in September, 1978, as a daytime adult education instructor. The age range for those students was from sixteen to eighty-three. In the school years 1978-79 and 1979-80, the Respondent coached girls' softball, girls' junior varsity basketball and assisted with the track program for girls. The ages of the girls Respondent coached or assisted were fourteen through eighteen. During the school year 1978-79, the Respondent met one Lori Tomaselli, a member of the girls' basketball team. This initial introduction was followed by correspondence of August 1979, addressed to the Respondent from Lori Tomaselli in which she made comment about her summer vacation and related that she had "missed" the basketball program. At that time Tomaselli was fifteen years old. The letter of August, 1979, was followed by an act on the part of Tomaselli on December 20, 1979, in which she walked up to the Respondent, turned him around and gave him a kiss. Deis' reaction was one of sunrise, followed by a comment to the effect that she was his favorite basketball player. She replied that she had cared for him since the first basketball meeting in October, 1978, when she was fourteen years of age. On December 30, 1979, Tomaselli wrote Deis while she was vacationing in the State of New York. The Respondent did not write in return or contact her. Respondent next saw Tomaselli on January 5, 1980, after she had returned from her vacation and was a participant in a basketball game which the Respondent coached. From the time of this basketball game forward through the basketball season, the Respondent would sit next to Tomaselli on the bus used to transport the basketball team. Approximately two weeks beyond January 5, 1980, the Respondent selected Tomaselli as his classroom assistant or aide. Tomaselli served in this capacity for a period of approximately two months, one hour each day. In the initial part of 1980, the Respondent would also assist Tomaselli with her math and science lessons. Beginning in February 1980, Tomaselli kept the statistics for the girls' softball team which was coached by the Respondent. At the time, Tomaselli was also participating on the girls' track team. The relationship between the Respondent and Tomaselli escalated and on March 7, 1980, Tomaselli kissed the Respondent and gave him a hug. The occasion for this display was that of the Respondent's birthday. Also in the month of March, the Respondent indicated that he began to feel an "interest" in Tomaselli. Prior to the spring school break for 1980, the Respondent paid Tomaselli $50.00 to assist in painting his home. During that same vacation, the Respondent met Tomaselli at a local beach, he coincidence. At one of the track events at which the Respondent was assisting and the young woman Tomaselli was participating, Tomaselli hugged Deis in the presence of her parents. During the time period of the track season, the Respondent drove Tomaselli to her home after school on three occasions and explained his reason for doing so as being one, that a girl friend of Tomaselli's car had broken down; two, that her parents would not pick her up and three, that Tomaselli had asked him for a ride. These rides took place before April 14, 1980. On Sunday, April 13, 1980, the parents of Lori Tomaselli had a discussion with Deis and through this conversation expressed the desire that Deis cease his relationship with their daughter to the extent of not associating with her. Among his responses, the Respondent indicated to the parents that if their daughter were eighteen years old and single, he would ask her out. On that same date, the Principal at Barron Collier High School called the Respondent to inform Deis that the Tomasellis had complained to the Principal. Deis then indicated that he would resign his coaching position effective the next morning. On Monday, April 14, 1980, the Respondent met with the Principal and a Mr. Munz, Assistant Superintendent of the Collier County School System, and as a result of that conference, was given a memorandum which instructed him to have no further contact with Lori Tomaselli. At that meeting, Respondent explained to the school officials that he had a strong emotional attachment for Lori Tomaselli. On the next morning, April 15, 1980, Tomaselli went to Deis' classroom and was shown a copy of the aforementioned memorandum and Deis told her "they would have to cool it." After Tomaselli left his classroom, the Respondent immediately went to see the Principal and told the Principal that he had shown the memorandum prohibiting contact to Tomaselli. As a result of this conversation with the Principal, the Respondent received a second memorandum from Assistant Superintendent Munz which reminded Deis that he was under direct order not to talk to Tomaselli and telling him that the conversation which Deis had had with Tomaselli about the meeting of April 14, 1980, was, by its terms, a violation of the Assistant Superintendent's instructions. The Respondent became angry about the second memorandum in that he thought it was unnecessary. He felt that he was being harassed. As a result of this attitude Respondent began to write to Tomaselli, and she in turn would reply. This letter writing activity continued on a daily basis. In some of these letters, the Respondent instructed Lori Tomaselli, when questioned by the Principal, "to keep cool" and further instructed Tomaselli that when she met with her mental health counselor that she should not indicate that she had been with the Respondent. The letters also indicated to Lori Tomaselli that the Respondent intended to divorce his wife and marry Tomaselli. In addition to the letter writing, Tomaselli began to call the Respondent as much as twice a day, using the cafeteria phone in the school to speak to the Respondent. In May, 1980, the Respondent accidentally saw Tomaselli at a local skating rink while there with his daughter. On May 14, 1980, Deis met with the School Superintendent, Dr. Thomas Richie, and through that conversation agreed to take personal leave. This leave was taken and the Respondent sought psychiatric counseling from Dr. Frank Dennis at the behest of school officials. The leave of absence was from the period May 15, 1980, through May 29, 1980. Dr. Dennis' fees were paid by the Collier County School Board. (During the month of April, 1980, the Respondent had had another meeting with Dr. Richie in which he expressed the opinion to Dr. Richie that he realized his relationship with Tomaselli had become too personal and that he had failed to take steps to correct the situation, and further that he was personally responsible for continuing the development of this relationship.) On May 16, 1980, Tomaselli mailed a letter to the Respondent expressing her affection for him. Around May 18, 1980, Tomaselli ran away from her home and a friend of hers took her to a location where the Respondent, acting as a real estate salesman, was showing a model home. At that time, the Respondent did not want Tomaselli to come into that location and resisted this encounter. The follow-up to the May 18, 1980, meeting was a series of calls from Tomaselli to the Respondent at a residence of a friend of the Respondent's, in view of the fact that Deis had moved from his home. On May 30, 1980, Respondent was called by Tomaselli to ask him to pick her up. The Respondent agreed and after picking up Tomaselli and being afraid of being detected with Tomaselli in his automobile, a circumstance developed in which Tomaselli exited his van and was slightly injured. The Respondent left the area where Tomaselli had jumped from the van and he then removed her property from his automobile. Sometime during the 1979-80 school year, the Respondent had returned Tomaselli's affection by kissing her and expressing his affection for her to the extent of telling Lori Tomaselli that someday she would be Lori Deis, meaning that she would be the Respondent's wife. On July 29, 1980, the Respondent resigned his teaching position in the Collier County School System. After his resignation, there have continued to be letters and telephone communications between tie Respondent and Lori Tomaselli. Those communications were as recent as March 24, 1981, at which time a letter was received by the Respondent from Lori Tomaselli. The relationship between the Respondent and Lori Tomaselli took place at a time when the Respondent was having marital problems and Lori Tomaselli was having difficulty with her parents. Those circumstances continued to exist at the time of the hearing. Nonetheless, the relationship was contrary to the expressed prohibition by the School Administration. The existence of such a relationship was such that it reduced the effectiveness of Deis as a teacher in the Collier County School System and did not provide a proper example for the students, nor allow the Respondent to practice his profession at the highest ethical standards.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should be dismissed from his employment as a school teacher for just cause pursuant to Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner is the duly appointed Superintendent for HCSB. He is responsible for the administration and management of the Hernando County School District. HCSB is the governing body of the Hernando County School District. It is charged with the responsibility to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools in Hernando County, Florida. At all times material here, Respondent was, and continues to be, an employee of the HCSB as a member of the instructional staff pursuant to a "professional service contract." The origin of these proceedings occurred on December 5, 1996, when Respondent was arrested for allegedly engaging in inappropriate sexual conduct with minor students. Apart from the allegations raised in this case, Respondent has been a satisfactory employee. No employee, agent, or representative of the HCSB was aware of any allegations of inappropriate sexual conduct between Respondent and any student until law enforcement officials notified school officials about an investigation a few days before Respondent's arrest. Respondent began working for HCSB in 1989 at Powell Middle School as a science teacher. He eventually became the technology resource coordinator at Powell Middle School. Respondent served as director of an after school program (ASP) at Powell Middle School beginning in January 1995. HCSB and the local YMCA sponsored and funded the ASP until sometime in the spring of 1996. Respondent was in large part responsible for the successful creation, organization, and operation of the ASP. The ASP began immediately after each school day and continued until 5:00 p.m. The program was staffed by Powell Middle School staff and other adults who taught different classes. Some of the after school activities, like swimming lessons, took place on the premises of the YMCA. The ASP participants rode a school bus from the school to activities in remote locations. Respondent directed the ASP initially from his classroom in the science building of Powell Middle School and subsequently from a room used as a computer lab, which was adjacent to his former classroom. A number of school administrators and teachers were constantly walking in and out of the areas where Respondent worked each day because supplies for the ASP were stored there. After school, teachers frequently visited Respondent's work station unannounced. Janitors and work details were on the school premises until 11:00 p.m. Bathrooms and a refrigerator for staff were located near Respondent's work station. Respondent's classroom in the science building had large windows along the outside wall. There were windows between the computer room and Respondent's classroom. There were windows between the computer room and another classroom in the same building. The only area which had any possibility of privacy was a walk-in storage closet in the computer room. The doors to the science classrooms, the computer room and closet were never locked. During the summers, Respondent spent his time working at Camp Sangamon, a camp in Vermont for boys of all ages. He began working at the camp in 1980 as a regular counselor. Later he served as head of the activity trip program. Respondent worked as the camp's assistant director for about eight years. In the summer of 1995, Respondent lived in a cabin with older boys who were counselors-in-training (CITs). However, he spent almost all of his time in the administrative office taking care of paperwork, planning activities, and supervising programs. He never went to the cabin in the middle of the day unless he was specifically looking for a CIT. Respondent's cabin was on a main trail through the camp, in close proximity to other cabins and a basketball court. People were constantly walking by the cabin, especially in the middle of the day during a free activity period. The cabin did not have a lock on its door. It had large windows with no screens, which were usually propped open with a stick. The panels that formed the walls of the cabin were separated by approximately one inch. The spaces between the panels left the interior of the cabin visible during the day. As assistant director, Respondent could arrange for Florida boys to attend the camp at a reduced rate. Over the years, he made these arrangements for several boys. C.B. Respondent met C.B., a seventh grade student at Powell Middle School, in 1995. At that time, C.B. was not one of Respondent's regular students. He was a participant in the ASP. Initially, C.B.'s stepmother called Respondent to check on C.B.'s attendance in the ASP. The stepmother and Respondent discussed C.B.'s problems, including his attempts to run away from home. During subsequent conversations, Respondent offered C.B. a scholarship to attend Camp Sangamon for three weeks in the summer of 1995. C.B.'s family was pleased that he would have an opportunity to go to camp. They accepted Respondent's offer and made final arrangements for C.B. to attend camp for three weeks at a reduced rate. When C.B. arrived at camp in 1995, he announced that he was going to stay at camp all summer. Despite his initial positive attitude, C.B. had trouble adjusting to camp life. He had problems interacting with other campers. However, with help from his counselors, and encouragement from Respondent, C.B. stayed at camp for eight weeks. During the summer of 1995, Respondent assisted C.B. with the completion of a science project. C.B. had to complete the project in order to be promoted to the eighth grade. Respondent's cabin was always open with CITs coming and going. There was no reasonable expectation of privacy in the cabin at any time. C.B.'s testimony that, at Respondent's request, he masturbated Respondent's penis in the cabin during a free activity period just before lunch is not credited. After returning from summer camp, C.B. went boating with Respondent and several other people. The group enjoyed snorkeling and water skiing. However, C.B. and Respondent were never alone on a boat. C.B. was in the eighth grade at Powell Middle School in the fall of 1995. Even though he was not in one of Respondent's classes, C.B. often received passes from his teachers to visit Respondent's classroom during the regular school day. C.B. participated in the ASP. Respondent regularly drove C.B. home following the close of the ASP. Respondent worked one-on-one with C.B. to improve his grades. Two to three times a week, Respondent visited C.B.'s home to tutor C.B. C.B.'s grades improved markedly. Respondent encouraged C.B. to set high school graduation as a goal. C.B. testified that, during the after school hours of the 1995-96 school year, he twice complied with Respondent's request to masturbate Respondent's penis on school grounds, either in the science classroom or the adjoining computer/storage room. This testimony is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. On October 20, 1995, Respondent took C.B. to Disney World as a reward for his academic success during the first grading period. They traveled in Respondent's pick-up truck and shared the expenses of the trip. Respondent and C.B. arrived at the Disney World parking lot before the amusement park opened. They parked in front of the ticket booth around 9:00 or 9:30 a.m. Other cars were also arriving. Parking attendants and people waiting to enter the entertainment area were in close proximity to Respondent's vehicle at all times. Respondent and C.B. paid their entrance fee and entered the theme park as soon as it opened for business. With so many people around, there was no expectation of privacy in Respondent's truck. C.B.'s testimony that he masturbated Respondent's penis in the Disney World parking lot is not credited. During the 1995-96 school year, Respondent arranged for C.B. to attend a counseling session with a guidance counselor at Powell Middle School. Respondent made the appointment because he suspected that C.B. was the victim of abuse at home. On February 5, 1996, C.B. and his father had an argument. The father lost his temper and punched C.B. in the face and ear. C.B. did not go to school the next day. The school resource officer noticed bruises on C.B.'s face the following week at school. He reported his observations to an investigator from the Department of Children and Families. C.B.'s father admitted to the investigator that he hit C.B. in the face. The authorities took no legal action against C.B.'s father. C.B. attended camp at a reduced rate again in the summer of 1996. He went to Vermont early so that he could earn money working at camp before it opened. During the summer, Respondent bought C.B. a portable C.D. player, C.D.'s, and some articles of clothing with the understanding that C.B. would repay Respondent later. Mrs. Peady O'Connor, one of Respondent's friends, also went to camp in the summer of 1996 to work in the kitchen. C.B. stayed at camp all summer, returning home with Respondent and Mrs. O'Connor on August 16, 1996. Immediately upon his return to Florida, Respondent began having trouble with his truck. He took it to the shop on Saturday, August 17, 1996. He spent the rest of the day with a friend, Jackie Agard. Respondent did not go boating that weekend. School started on August 19, 1996 for the 1996-97 school year. Respondent returned to work at Powell Middle School as the technology resource coordinator. C.B. attended ninth grade at Springstead High School. On Tuesday, August 20, 1996, Respondent leased a new sport utility vehicle. It did not have a pre-installed trailer hitch. The next Saturday, August 24, 1996, Respondent spent the day with friends from out-of-town. He did not go boating that weekend. On August 29, 1996, Respondent purchased a trailer hitch. He intended to install the hitch personally. That same day, Respondent and Chuck Wall, a scuba diving instructor, met with C.B. and his parents. The purpose of the visit was to sign C.B. up for scuba diving lessons. Respondent agreed to pay for the lessons, as he had for those of other young people. On Saturday, August 31, 1996, Respondent took some of his friends to dinner and a movie in his new vehicle. He did not go boating that weekend. Respondent's boat was parked at the home of his parents all summer while Respondent was in Vermont. It was still there when Respondent installed the trailer hitch on his new vehicle on Labor Day, September 2, 1996. On September 3, 1996, Respondent took C.B. to his first scuba diving lesson. After the lesson, Respondent, C.B., and Mr. Wall took Respondent's boat to a marina at Crystal River. After launching Respondent's boat, Chuck Wall had difficulty getting the boat to run because it had not been used for such a long time. Respondent left his boat at the marina for the rest of the fall boating season. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that C.B. and Respondent never went boating alone. There was no inappropriate sexual conduct between C.B. and Respondent on Respondent's boat. On Saturday, September 7, 1996, Respondent took a group of students to Disney World. The trip was a reward for the students' involvement with a video yearbook project sponsored by Respondent. C.B. did not participate in the activity. The next Saturday, C.B.'s scuba diving lesson was cancelled. C.B. did not go boating with Respondent that weekend because he was on restrictions at home. On or about September 18, 1996, C.B.'s parents became aware that C.B. was responsible for long distance phone calls to a girl that C.B. met at camp. After a confrontation with his parents, C.B. ran away from home. On September 21, 1996, Respondent went to C.B.'s home. Respondent suggested that C.B.'s parents let C.B. live with the O'Connor family for a short period of time. He also suggested that C.B. receive counseling and agreed to arrange for the therapy. Mr. and Mrs. O'Connor, and their son and daughter, were close friends of Respondent. The son, Sean O'Connor, was away at college. The daughter, Jennifer, still lived at home. C.B.'s parents agreed to let C.B. live with the O'Connors on a trial basis, provided that C.B. remain on restrictions within the O'Connor home for a period of time. The O'Connors did not live within the Springstead High School district. Therefore, Respondent and the O'Connors worked together to provide C.B. with transportation to and from school. Respondent purchased C.B. a beeper to facilitate communication between C.B. and Mrs. O'Connor. After moving in with the O'Connors, C.B. was allowed to attend a football game. He did not meet Mrs. O'Connor after the game as he had been instructed. The police found C.B. and turned him over to C.B.'s stepmother. As soon as he got to the gate of his parent's property, C.B. got out of his stepmother's car and ran away again. The police eventually found C.B. at the home of his step-brother's girlfriend on October 2, 1996. C.B.'s parents told the police to release C.B. to Respondent's custody. Respondent took C.B. back to live with the O'Connors. October 7, 1996 was an early release day at school. Respondent, C.B., and another student left from school to look for a lost anchor. Later that evening, Respondent dropped off C.B. at the O'Connor residence, then proceeded to take the other student home. October 8, 1996, was a hurricane day for the school district. Mrs. O'Connor was at home all day. Respondent and C.B. were never alone in the O'Connor home. There is no persuasive evidence that Respondent ever performed anal intercourse upon C.B. at the O'Connors' home or at Powell Middle School in the storage closet of the computer room. During the time that C.B. lived with the O'Connors, Respondent arranged for C.B. to attend two counseling sessions with a school psychologist. On Thursday, October 24, 1996, C.B.'s father decided that he wanted C.B. to move back home. When the father arrived at the O'Connor's home, C.B. attempted to have a heart-to-heart talk with his father. When the father insisted that C.B. return home, C.B. ran out into the yard of the O'Connor home. The father caught up with C.B. and, during the ensuing struggle, repeatedly punched C.B. in the face. The O'Connors called the police. C.B.'s father was arrested and taken to jail. The next day, C.B.'s stepmother filed a police report alleging that Respondent had sexually abused C.B. After his father was arrested, C.B. spent one night with his stepbrother. His stepmother told him not to attend school the next day. She wanted C.B. to go with her to talk to the authorities and to get C.B.'s father out of jail. Despite these instructions, C.B. rode to school with the O'Connors' daughter. When C.B.'s stepmother discovered that he was at school, she went to pick him up. When she arrived at school, C.B. refused to go home with her. Because he would not go home with his stepmother, C.B. was taken to a youth shelter. He ran away from the shelter that night. C.B. continued to attend school while on run away status. On October 29, 1996 and November 6, 1996, a deputy sheriff interviewed C.B. about the allegations raised by his stepmother. On both occasions, C.B. denied that Respondent had ever engaged in or attempted to engage in inappropriate conduct with him. On November 8, 1996, a sheriff's detective, Detective Baxley, and a worker from the Department of Children and Families each questioned C.B. C.B. again denied ever having any sexual contact with Respondent. In November 1996, C.B. returned to live with his parents. On November 13, 1996, the day that C.B.'s father's made his first court appearance, C.B. told the state attorney, in the presence of both parents, that he did not want to press charges against his father. The charges were subsequently dropped. On November 18, 1996, Detective Baxley and Detective Cameron interrogated C.B. Towards the end of the interview, C.B. accused Respondent of having inappropriate sexual contact with him on two occasions. C.B. alleged that he had masturbated Respondent's penis in Respondent's cabin at camp in the summer of 1996.3 C.B. also alleged that he had masturbated Respondent's penis on Respondent's boat in Crystal River sometime in the early fall of 1996, within weeks of the beginning of school. The detectives had C.B. call Respondent. They taped the conversation without Respondent's knowledge. C.B. told Respondent that the police had given him a polygraph when in fact they had used a computer voice stress analyzer. Respondent told C.B. he had nothing to worry about as long as he told the truth. The police interrogated C.B. again on November 27, 1996. During this interview, C.B. accused Respondent of inappropriate sexual conduct, involving masturbation of Respondent's penis, in Respondent's science classroom or the computer room at Powell Middle School during after school hours of the 1995-96 school year. Respondent was arrested on or about December 5, 1996. In January of 1997, C.B. alleged for the first time that he masturbated Respondent's penis in the parking lot at Disney World on October 20, 1995. On March 27, 1997, C.B. accused Respondent of having anal sex with him at the O'Connor residence during a "hurricane day" in October of 1996. On April 16, 1997, C.B. accused Respondent of having anal sex with him in the walk-in closet of the computer/storage room at Powell Middle School on two occasions in September or October of 1996. A.P. Respondent met A.P., a sixth grade student at Powell Middle School in 1995 as a participant in the ASP. A.P. was a very out-going person, who demanded attention. At times, Respondent, as director of ASP, had to discipline A.P. During his sixth grade year, A.P. would routinely visit Respondent's classroom during the school day even though Respondent was not one of his teachers. A.P. often visited Respondent during ASP. Respondent frequently gave A.P. a ride home after ASP. Respondent offered A.P. a scholarship to attend Camp Sangamon in the summer of 1995. With the consent of his parents, A.P. attended camp at a reduced rate for three weeks that summer. In the fall of 1995, A.P. was in the seventh grade. He was in a science class taught by Respondent. He continued to attend the ASP. Respondent worked on computers during the times that A.P. and other students visited in the computer room. There is no persuasive evidence that pornographic pictures of nude males on the Internet ever appeared on the computer monitors while Respondent was operating a computer in A.P.'s presence. In January of 1996, A.P. continued to visit Respondent in Respondent's classroom or in the computer room after school. Respondent did not at any time ask A.P. to touch Respondent in a sexually inappropriate manner. Respondent never masturbated A.P.'s penis on school property. Respondent developed a plan for A.P. to work and earn money so that he could attend camp during the summer of 1996. A.P. did not follow through with the plan. Consequently, he did not attend camp for the second time. In the fall of 1996, A.P. entered the eighth grade at Powell Middle School. A.P. continued to visit Respondent in the computer room after school up until the police arrested Respondent. Just before Respondent's arrest, Detective Baxley, interviewed several of Respondent's students. One of those students was A.P. Of his own accord, Detective Baxley went to A.P.'s home to interview him. During the interview, A.P. told the detective that Respondent had shown him pornographic pictures from the Internet in the school's computer room. A.P. also claimed that, on one occasion, A.P. declined Respondent's request for A.P. to touch Respondent's penis. On another occasion, Respondent allegedly masturbated A.P.'s penis. According to A.P., the latter two incidents took place in the computer room.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it RECOMMENDED: That the Hernando County School Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent not quilty of improper sexual conduct with C.B. and A.P., and reinstating Respondent to his teaching position, with back pay, less interim earnings, benefits, and no break in seniority of years of continuous service. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of September, 1998.
The Issue The basic issue in this case is whether there exists "just cause" within the meaning of Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes, to terminate the professional services contract between the School Board of Gadsden County, Florida, and John C. Buckley. The School Board seeks such a termination on the basis of allegations that John C. Buckley engaged in various forms of inappropriate conduct during the course of a science fair trip. Briefly summarized, the allegations are that John C. Buckley (a) permitted students to smoke cigarettes, (b) purchased alcoholic beverages in the presence of a student, (c) consumed alcoholic beverages in the presence of students, (d) provided alcoholic beverages to students and permitted them to consume such beverages, and (e) inappropriately touched one or more female students. At the hearing, the parties presented the testimony of several witnesses, including the testimony of Respondent. Following the hearing, a transcript of the proceedings was filed and all parties thereafter filed timely proposed recommended orders. The parties' proposed recommended orders have been carefully considered during the formulation of this recommended order. All findings of fact prepared by the parties are specifically addressed in the appendix which is attached to and incorporated into this recommended order.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence received at the hearing and the admissions of the Respondent, I make the following findings of fact: At all times material, the Respondent, John C. Buckley, was employed as a science teacher at the James A. Shanks High School in Gadsden County, Florida. At all times material, the Respondent was employed under a professional service contract as defined in Section 231.36(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1987). The Respondent accompanied a group of Gadsden County high school students to Jacksonville to attend a science fair on April 13, 1988, through April 16, 1988. There were three other adults present during the trip; Oscar Rogers, a school bus driver employed by the Gadsden County School Board, Cynthia B. Clark, a science teacher from Carter Parramore Middle School, and Betty Williams, a chaperon. On the way to Jacksonville, the following three female students rode with the Respondent in his personal car: Ginger Godwin (10th grade), Twanna Scott (12th grade), and Yvonne Dunson (12th grade). The other students and adults rode in a school bus. During the drive to Jacksonville, two of the students in Respondent's car were smoking cigarettes. The Respondent knew these two students intended to smoke in his car and he did not prohibit either student from smoking in his car. During the evening of April 13, 1988, the Respondent drove in his car to a liquor store in Jacksonville, where he purchased some beer, some bottled wine coolers, and a small bottle of bourbon. Twanna Scott, a student, rode in Respondent's car to and from the liquor store, but she did not get out of the car when the Respondent went into the liquor store. During the evening of April 13, 1988, the Respondent consumed several beers, probably three or four. Some of the Respondent's consumption of beer took place in the presence of some of the students, specifically at a time when the students and the adults on the trip were eating pizza for their evening meal. The Respondent did not, on April 13, 1988, or any other time, provide any alcoholic beverages to any of the students, nor did he permit any of the students to consume alcohol. Later, on the evening of April 13, 1988, the Respondent entered the motel room in which Ginger Godwin, Twanna Scott, Yvonne Dunson, and Precious Anderson were staying. At the time the Respondent entered the room, Godwin, Scott, and Dunson, and several other people were also in the room. During the time the Respondent was in the room a door that connected to the next room was open. The next room was the room in which Cynthia B. Clark, a teacher, was staying with two other female students. While the Respondent was in the room, Twanna Scott complained of a stiff back and the Respondent sat on the edge of the bed and gave Twanna Scott a brief back rub. At the time of the back rub, the only other people in the room were Ginger Godwin and Yvonne Dunson. Following the back rub, the Respondent left the room. The Respondent did not touch any part of Twanna Scott's body other than her back. The Respondent did not touch either of the other female students who were in the room. On the evening of April 14, 1988, while the Respondent was away from the motel with some of the students, Ginger Godwin, Twanna Scott, and Yvonne Dunson told Cynthia B. Clark, one of the teachers, that they wanted to spend some time watching television in the motel room of some insurance salesmen they had recently met at the motel. Mrs. Clark agreed to let them do so, subject to some ground rules which included: the door to the salesmen's motel room had to remain open, the curtains had to remain open, and the girls had to check with Mrs. Clark every 30 minutes or so. At about 9:45 p.m. during the evening of April 14, 1988, Mrs. Clark walked by the salesmen's room and observed Ginger Godwin drinking a beer. Mrs. Clark told Ginger Godwin that she did not approve of such conduct and Ginger Godwin acted indifferent to the disapproval. Mrs. Clark told the girls that they needed to be back in their own rooms by 10:30 p.m. Sometime between 10:30 and 10:45 p.m., Mrs. Clark returned to the salesmen's room and tried to get the three girls to return to their own room. They essentially ignored her and remained in the salesmen's room. The Respondent returned to the motel sometime shortly after 11:00 p.m., at which time Mrs. Clark told him about the three girls in the insurance salesmen's room. Mrs. Clark and the Respondent then went to the salesmen's room and the Respondent told the girls they had to return to their own room. After some argument, the three girls eventually complied. Later in the evening the salesmen were down tapping on the window of the girls' motel room and the girls were talking to the salesmen through an open window. When this was brought to the Respondent's attention, he went to the girls' room, told them they should go to bed and tried to get the salesmen to leave. The three girls and the insurance salesmen all rebuffed the Respondent's efforts, and the Respondent ultimately had to call the motel security guard. At about that time, Ginger Godwin got into a heated argument with the Respondent, during the course of which there was some yelling and shouting back and forth. Apparently there were further heated arguments the next day about the salesmen. At some point in the arguments, Ginger Godwin threatened to retaliate against the Respondent as a result of his interference with the relationship between the three girls and the insurance salesmen. The threats made to the Respondent included statements such as, "I know how to get you," "I'm going to take care of your job Monday," and "I'll get even with you and I'll take care of you Monday when I get back." Upon returning home, Ginger Godwin, Yvonne Dunson, and Twanna Scott reported to school authorities that the Respondent had engaged in improper conduct during the science fair trip. They accused the Respondent of, among other things, improper sexual touching of Dunson and Scott. The allegations of improper sexual touching were false. School rules prohibit the use of tobacco substances at school campuses, activities, or field trips. School rules prohibit the consumption of alcoholic beverages on School Board premises, at school activities, and on school field trips. School rules prohibit the consumption of alcoholic beverages by teachers in the presence of students, during school field trips. When supervising field trips, teachers have 24-hour supervisory responsibility over the students on the field trip. The Respondent had been previously warned to curtail his smoking in front of students by Janey DuPont, an Administrator employed by the Petitioner. Respondent had also been specifically warned by Janey DuPont not to consume alcoholic beverages in the presence of students. The Respondent knew or should have known that he was not supposed to be drinking alcoholic beverages in the presence of students under his supervision.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, I hereby recommend that the administrative charges against the Respondent Buckley be dismissed and that the Respondent be reinstated as a professional service contract teacher with full back pay. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 3rd day of November, 1988. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of November, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following are my specific rulings on all findings of fact proposed by the parties to this case. Findings proposed by Petitioner: Paragraph 1: Accepted Paragraphs 2 and 3: Rejected as unnecessary recitation of procedural details. (Findings have been made incorporating the substance of the conduct admitted by the Respondent.) Paragraphs 4 and 5: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10: Accepted. Paragraph 11: Rejected as irrelevant to the issues in this case. Paragraphs 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17; Accepted. Paragraphs 18 and 19: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 20, 21, 22, and 23: Accepted, with some unnecessary details omitted. Paragraphs 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Covered in preliminary statement. Paragraph 29: Accepted. Paragraphs 30 and 31: Rejected because there is no clear and convincing evidence that any inappropriate touching of female students occurred on this occasion and, absent any inappropriate touching, the proposed details are subordinate and unnecessary. Specifically, there is no persuasive evidence that the Respondent made several attempts to bite Twanna Scott on her ear. Ms. Scott's testimony to that effort is unconvincing. The Respondent's denial is accepted. Paragraphs 32, 33, 34, and 35: Rejected as not supported by credible evidence. I reject as unworthy of belief the testimony that the Respondent provided alcoholic beverages to three students. I accept the Respondent's denial that he provided alcoholic beverages to any student. Paragraph 36: Rejected as irrelevant because the Respondent has not been charged with this conduct and, in any event, there is no evidence that Respondent consumed sufficient alcohol to impair his ability to drive safely. Paragraph 37: First fourteen words rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; I have rejected the testimony that Respondent provided alcoholic beverages to any students. Next seven words rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary because there has been no showing that the Respondent consumed sufficient alcoholic beverages to impair his judgment. The remainder of this paragraph is accepted. Paragraph 38: First sentence rejected as vague and inaccurate; the subject student was wearing a robe and was on the bed watching television. Second sentence accepted in substance with a few clarifying details. Paragraphs 39, 40, and 41: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. In view of all the circumstances, the Respondent's denials and the Respondent's version of what occurred is more believable than the testimony of Yvonne Dunson, Twanna Scott, and Ginger Godwin. Yvonne Dunson, Twanna Scott, and Ginger Godwin are not credible witnesses. Paragraph 42: Rejected as inaccurate; the girls made a report when they returned, but it was a false report. Findings proposed by the Respondent Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 7 and 8: Rejected as constituting summaries of testimony rather than proposed findings of fact. Further, the subject matter of these paragraphs is irrelevant because in the hand holding in the car is not the "inappropriate" touching with which the Respondent has been charged. Paragraph 9: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 10: Accepted. Paragraphs 11, 12, 13, and 14: I have not made any findings on the subject matter addressed by these paragraphs because there is no clear and convincing evidence that any inappropriate touching of female students occurred on this occasion and, absent any inappropriate touching, the proposed details are subordinate and unnecessary. Paragraph 15: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 16: First sentence accepted. Second sentence rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 17 and 18: Rejected as constituting summaries of testimony rather than proposed findings of fact. On this subject, I have found that the greater weight of the evidence is consistent with the Respondent's denial. Paragraph 19: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 20, 21, and 22: Rejected as constituting summaries of testimony rather than proposed findings of fact. (The summarized testimony has not been credited.) Paragraph 23: First sentence accepted. Second sentence rejected as not supported by persuasive evidence; I seriously doubt that Ginger Godwin told the other two girls anything about any "incidents" on Wednesday night. I believe the three girls (Ginger Godwin, Twanna Scott, and Yvonne Dunson) fabricated their stories at a later date. Paragraph 24: Rejected as constituting a summary of testimony rather than proposed findings of fact. I have, however, made findings of fact consistent with the Respondent's version of this incident. Paragraph 25: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 26: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, and 37: Accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED TO: CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON, ESQUIRE RUDEN, BARNETT, MCCLOSKY, SMITH, SCHUSTER & RUSSELL, P.A. 101 NORTH MONROE STREET MONROE-PARK TOWER, SUITE 1010 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 PHILIP J. PADOVANO, ESQUIRE POST OFFICE BOX 873 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32302 ROBERT H. BRYANT SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS SCHOOL BOARD OF GADSDEN COUNTY POST OFFICE BOX 818 QUINCY, FLORIDA 32351
Findings Of Fact Respondent was an employee of the School Board of Dade County, Florida, more particularly a Title One teacher at Miami Carol City Senior High School during the 1981-1982 school year. On May 6, 1982, John Cohn was a student in Respondent's fourth period class. Arnold Coats was a substitute teacher working with Respondent in Respondent's classroom on that day. After Respondent had given the students an assignment, Cohn requested and received permission to leave the classroom to go to the bathroom. While absent from the classroom, Cohn decided he wished to speak with Ronald Golemhieski, another teacher at Miami Carol City Senior High School. Cohn returned to Respondent's classroom to request permission. Coats came to the door and gave Cohn permission to go talk to Golembieski, but Cohn decided he should get permission from Respondent since Respondent was the teacher of the class. Cohn waited in the doorway of Respondent's classroom. When he finally got Respondent's attention, he beckoned with his finger, requesting Respondent to come to the doorway. Respondent went to the doorway, and Cohn requested Respondent's permission to go talk to Golembieski. Respondent grabbed Cohn, pulling him forcefully into the classroom. Commotion broke out in the classroom, and someone yelled for assistance. Golembieski heard the commotion, as did Victoria Bell, the hall monitor. When they arrived at Respondent's classroom, Respondent and Cohn were struggling with each other. They were face to face, and Respondent had his arm around Cohn's neck with his hand on Cohn's throat in a choking manner. Golembieski grabbed Cohn away from Respondent and, after separating them, took Cohn to his classroom to calm him down. Bell and Coats pushed the rest of the students back into their seats and restored order in Respondent's classroom. When the altercation ended, Cohn's shirt was torn and he had scratches on his chest. Just prior to Respondent's outburst, Cohn did nothing to provoke Respondent in any way and was not disrespectful to Respondent. When Cohn got Respondent's attention, Respondent both looked at Cohn and walked to the doorway in a normal manner, thereby giving no warning that he intended to touch Cohn in any way. Respondent interpreted Cohn's beckoning with his finger as an invitation to fight, although Respondent admits that Cohn said nothing to him indicating that he wished to fight.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Notice of Charges, approving Respondent's suspension and dismissing him as an employee of the School Board of Dade County, and denying any claim for back pay. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 31st day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of August, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Esquire 3000 Executive Plaza, Suite 800 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Ellen L. Leesfield, Esquire 2929 SW Third Avenue, Fifth Floor Miami, Florida 33129 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1410 NE Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact The School Board of Dade County, Florida is a duly constituted school board established by Article IX of the Constitution of the State of Florida, and is charged with the duty to operate, control and supervise all free public schools within the Dade County school district pursuant to Article IX and Section 230.03 Florida Statutes. (Prehearing stipulation filed 6/12/86) At all times material, the Respondent, Bobby Anderson, was employed by the School Board of Dade County as a non-instructional employee, a school resource specialist. (Prehearing stipulation filed 6/12/86, and corrected at transcript, "tr.", page 7) Mr. Anderson was continually employed by the school board from 1976 when he was hired as a school monitor at North Miami Junior High. At the time of his suspension in 1986 he was working as a school resource specialist at Carol City High School. (tr-105,106) School resource specialists are non-law enforcement employees of the School Hoard's special investigative unit. They are assigned to a school on a full-time basis and supervise school monitors, patrol the halls, report violations of rules and law, and generally maintain a safe learning environment for students and a safe working environment for the staff. (tr-53, 107) Sometime in November 1985, the Carol City High School Principal and the School Board special investigative unit commenced an investigation of theft of school property and drug usage at the school. (tr-16, 57,75) Daniel McPhaul, the school's audio-visual technician, admitted to the use of cocaine and marijuana at school and the theft of approximately $12,000 to $13,000 of computers, televisions and video equipment from Carol City High School. (tr- 16,18) During the investigation Daniel McPhaul mentioned the names of several teachers and non- instructional staff at the school with whom he claimed to have used drugs. Bobby Anderson was one of the individuals he mentioned. (tr-19) Of the approximately nine individuals investigated, all were either recommended for disciplinary action or voluntarily resigned. (tr-77) Daniel McPhaul claims that he used cocaine on two occasions at Carol City High School with Bobby Anderson: the first occasion was in early 1985, and the second was approximately two months later. On both occasions Mr. Anderson allegedly brought the cocaine unsolicited to the audio-visual room near the library where Daniel McPhaul was working. On both occasions the alleged activity took place behind the locked door of that room, with no other persons present. (tr-20-28,47) Bobby Anderson and Daniel McPhaul were friends only in the sense that they saw each other frequently at school and talked about sports. They never socialized together outside the work environment. (tr-36,37,119,120) Daniel McPhaul admits that he is a frequent cocaine and marijuana user. He was in a drug rehabilitation program prior to employment at Carol City High School and has been back in a program since the investigation exposed his problems. He has been charged with grand theft but no criminal charges are pending as to the drugs. (tr-25, 29,31,33,50) In the approximate ten years of Bobby Anderson's employment with the Dade County School Board, Daniel McPhaul's allegation is the first complaint of any kind the School Board has received regarding this employee. (tr-65) Mr. Anderson unequivocally denies the allegations. He has never been arrested and has not been contacted by the State's attorney's office with regard to any criminal charges. (tr-118,120-121) The School Board, whose entire case rested on Daniel McPhaul's testimony at hearing, never elucidated why Bobby Anderson might risk his livelihood and reputation by sharing cocaine on school premises. No monetary motive was suggested, and the two men were not particularly buddies. Mr. McPhaul thinks, but is not sure, he mentioned to Bobby Anderson that he was a cocaine user. (tr-43) On the other hand, Daniel McPhaul admitted to his motive for getting Bobby Anderson. He erroneously believed that Bobby Anderson reported him to the Assistant Principal for smoking marijuana with a student and that this was the cause of the investigation and Mr. McPhaul's ensuing problems. (tr-46-48) This admission and the failure to explain Mr. Anderson's alleged action fatally eroded his credibility.
The Issue The issue presented for decision in these consolidated cases is whether Respondent’s employment with the Polk County School Board, first as an assistant principal, then as a teacher, should be terminated, as recommended by Glenn Reynolds, Superintendent of Schools, pursuant to Section 231.36(6), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is an African-American male who attended Florida A&M University and Jacksonville State, earning masters degrees in physical education and educational leadership. Respondent served ten years in the military prior to entering the field of education. Respondent has been employed by the School Board since 1988. From 1988 to 1993, he was a teacher. In 1993, Respondent was promoted to the position of Assistant Principal for Discipline at Boone Middle School ("Boone"). He served in that position until July 23, 1997. Eileen Killebrew was the principal at Boone and was Respondent’s direct supervisor throughout his tenure at Boone. Ms. Killebrew testified that Respondent did a "great job" during his first three years at Boone. Respondent testified that he believed he had a good working relationship with Ms. Killebrew until April 25, 1997, when the events that are the subject of this proceeding commenced. Respondent testified that Ms. Killebrew repeatedly told him he was the best assistant principal she had ever seen and expressed a desire to continue working with Respondent throughout her career. Ms. Killebrew testified that Respondent’s job performance began to suffer during the 1996-1997 school year. He seemed preoccupied and less focused than in prior years. He spent more time on personal telephone calls. Parents complained that they felt Respondent was not listening to their children in his role as Assistant Principal for Discipline. Ms. Killebrew stated that she attributed these problems to difficulties Respondent was having in building a new house and that she referred him to a lawyer who handled such matters. No documentation was produced to corroborate Ms. Killebrew’s testimony regarding Respondent’s performance in the 1996-1997 school year. She did not set forth her concerns in any evaluation or other contemporaneous notation. She testified that parents and teachers had come to her with concerns, but she did not name them and Petitioner did not produce any of them as witnesses. None of the other witnesses in this proceeding testified that they had noted any problems with Respondent’s performance during this period, or that Ms. Killebrew had mentioned her concerns to them prior to April 25, 1997. Respondent testified that throughout the 1996-1997 school year, Ms. Killebrew had been confiding in him regarding her ambition to move up to a higher administrative position in the school district. Ms. Killebrew told Respondent that she had applied for two area superintendent positions, and later that she was a finalist for one of those positions. Ms. Killebrew told Respondent on several occasions that she was convinced that if a woman were to get the job, it would be her. Knowing that Respondent was also ambitious of improving his position, Ms. Killebrew assured him that if she got the area superintendent job, she would recommend him for the position as principal of Boone. At some point in April 1997, Ms. Killebrew learned she would not get the area superintendent job. Shortly thereafter, she learned that she was being reassigned from Boone to Crystal Lake Middle School. Respondent testified that on the afternoon of her reassignment, Ms. Killebrew came into his office. She had tears in her eyes and clearly had been weeping. She told Respondent that she was going home, leaving him and Nancy Woods, the other assistant principal at Boone, in charge of the school for the remainder of the afternoon. The following morning, Ms. Killebrew again came to Respondent’s office. Respondent testified that she began telling him about the reassignment and broke down crying. Respondent testified that Ms. Killebrew was upset partially because she believed that Crystal Lake was the worst school in the district, with students from the worst families in the county, "white trash" and "rednecks." She asked Respondent to transfer with her to continue as her Assistant Principal of Discipline. After thinking about it for a day, Respondent declined Ms. Killebrew’s request to join her at Crystal Lake. He told her that he was in the pool for appointment to a principal’s position, and as one of only two African-American males in the pool, he believed his chances were good. Respondent also had been advised that his chances of getting a principal’s job would be enhanced if he obtained administrative experience outside his current area of discipline. Thus, he told Ms. Killebrew that if he were to spend another year as an assistant principal, he would attempt to become Assistant Principal for Curriculum at Boone. Frances Lee, a teacher at Boone for 32 years, testified that Respondent was a very fair, congenial person. She stated that he was also a very religious person and that she often talked about the Bible with him. Bill Podoski, the guidance counselor at Boone, testified that in his experience, Respondent had always behaved professionally. Raymond Dean Hunt, a teacher at Boone during the relevant time period, testified that he was always impressed with the professional conduct of Respondent. He stated that they had disagreements over the years, and "I’m not one to back down or be quiet . . . but I’ve been impressed with Mr. Mickens, the way he handled me, if you will, on these occasions." He testified that on these occasions, Respondent’s manner was assertive but professional. Rae Fields, a parent and daily volunteer at Boone during the relevant period, testified that Respondent was a very even-tempered person. She had never heard him raise his voice, and noted that he had to use a megaphone in the hallways to make himself heard. She testified that the students respected Respondent and that he could break up school yard fights by simply ordering the combatants to stop. She testified that children would come to him with their problems and that often in the morning there would be a line of students waiting outside his door to talk with him. She told her son that if he was ever in trouble, he should go straight to Respondent. Ms. Fields testified that the idea of Respondent yelling or even raising his voice at anyone would be "totally out of character." She added that she had seen parents "all over his desk, yelling in his face, carrying on," while Respondent sat quietly and listened. Irene Roberts, the PTA President at Boone and a daily volunteer at the school, testified that Respondent was always a gentleman, very polite, and very fair. She took her own child to Respondent, "which I would never have done if I had not felt that Mr. Mickens was fair in his dealings with all children, and that he would help my son and deal with him fairly." Ms. Roberts testified that Respondent treated all children alike and with respect. He never screamed or yelled at the students and was never threatening or rude. Ms. Roberts testified that Respondent was equally adept at dealing with parents: I was amazed, very often, to see this man never lose control. I saw parents come in who were so rude and cruel when they thought the punishment that was meted out to their child wasn’t fair, and I heard him called names and everything, and he never ever lost his temper. He always was polite to them and a gentleman. Ms. Fields and Ms. Roberts were less complimentary toward Ms. Killebrew. Ms. Fields testified that she got to know Ms. Killebrew fairly well as a volunteer at Boone, where she worked for several hours every school day. Ms. Fields characterized Ms. Killebrew as a "bully" who "liked to intimidate the parents. She liked to intimidate the students." More diplomatically, Ms. Roberts described Ms. Killebrew as "feisty." "It was her way or no way. She just didn’t . . . give very easily." When asked if Ms. Killebrew was open-minded, Ms. Roberts replied, "That all depended on what she wanted or what the occasion was." During Ms. Killebrew’s tenure at Boone, there was a certain amount of racial tension at the school. Much of the tension focused on the School Resource Officer ("SRO"), Ed Nixon. The SRO is a local police officer or sheriff’s deputy assigned to each middle school and high school in Polk County. Ms. Roberts, who is white, testified about Officer Nixon as follows: There’s no nice way to say this. I think he was a little bit biased, bigoted. He kind of was very heavy handed with Hispanic kids and sometimes the black children. He just . . . seemed to be a little heavier and hotter on them . . . He was kind of, he was rough with kids and he was especially rough with the Hispanics. Ms. Fields, who is African-American, agreed with Ms. Roberts’ assessment. She testified that Officer Nixon was different with different children, and not friendly with minority children. She testified that "If you were doing something, and you were black or Hispanic, you more than likely got drug [sic] into his office or into the main office for some type of action to be taken." She testified that Officer Nixon was more likely to let white children walk away with a scolding, unless the offense was too severe to overlook. Ms. Fields testified that she was also disturbed that Officer Nixon was actively involved in disciplining children for typical school yard infractions, when she understood the SRO’s job to be deterring illegal activity. Ms. Fields testified that she thought the school, not the SRO, was responsible for primary discipline of children, and she brought her concerns to the attention of Ms. Killebrew. Ms. Fields testified that Ms. Killebrew at first tried to mollify her with a recitation of Officer Nixon’s personal and professional virtues. When Ms. Fields persisted, Ms. Killebrew told Ms. Fields that she could take her child out of the school if she was unhappy with Officer Nixon. Ms. Fields testified that this was a typical reaction by Ms. Killebrew to parents’ expressions of concern. Ms. Killebrew testified that she could not recall whether Officer Nixon was contributing to problems on the Boone campus and that nothing to that effect had ever been reported to her. This testimony is not credible. Both Ms. Roberts and Ms. Fields testified that Officer Nixon tended to harass verbally certain students. Ms. Fields noted this to be especially the case with certain Hispanic children whom Officer Nixon characterized as "known gang members." Ms. Fields testified that the cause of much of the aforementioned parental "yelling and screaming" was Officer Nixon. Parents would come in to complain about Officer Nixon’s treatment of their children, and Mr. Mickens would have to deal with the problem. Respondent testified as to Officer Nixon’s treatment of one particular Hispanic student, J.G. Respondent stated that J.G. had a discipline record that included some time in an alternative school, and that Officer Nixon claimed to have information that J.G. was a "bona fide gang member." Respondent testified that Officer Nixon monitored J.G.’s activity constantly, and that he was always confrontational in his dealings with J.G. Respondent added: And I have to say, I got numerous complaints from Hispanic kids, from black kids . . . it was on a regular basis about how he handled them . . . . [J.G.] had complained to me himself about, you know, Officer Nixon, the way he said things, accusations and things, you know. If there may be some writing on the bathroom wall, or there may be a gang sign on a table, he was always . . . one of the individuals that Officer Nixon would automatically allege or assume had performed the misconduct, you know, without really any evidence. [J.G.] always complained that . . . Officer Nixon always came up and would be questioning him and breaking up their groups, you know, this type thing . . . "He’s not making these other people spread out. Why are we supposed to be gang members, and none of the other people are being accused . . ." And there was always comments about some of the kids’ parents being drug dealers or being, you know, gang members. The morning of Friday, April 25, 1997, was somber on the Boone campus. Ms. Rubio, an aide for special education students at Boone, had died suddenly. Ms. Rubio very well-liked by students and teachers and everyone on the campus was saddened at her death. April 25, 1997, was the date of her funeral. The funeral was scheduled for 11 a.m. at a local church. Respondent came to the campus early that morning. Ms. Killebrew was not on the campus that day. She testified that she was absent because she was at another middle school participating in preparations for a presentation to the School Board. However, she later testified that she remembered attending Ms. Rubio’s funeral. It is undisputed that Ms. Killebrew was not on the Boone campus that morning. Because of Ms. Killebrew’s absence, the two assistant principals met and decided that only one of them should attend the funeral. They decided that Respondent would go to the funeral and that Ms. Woods would stay in charge of the campus. In chatting with Officer Nixon, Respondent mentioned that he was going to the funeral. At that, Officer Nixon "just started crying. He told me that Ms. Killebrew told him that he could not go. He said that he had wanted to lead the procession, you know. He asked me to give his condolences, you know, to the family. And he . . . was just crying about it." Respondent went to the funeral, and returned to the Boone campus around noon. He headed for the patio outside the cafeteria to prepare for monitoring the eighth grade lunch hour. As usual, he carried his megaphone and a portable radio with which he communicated with Officer Nixon. Respondent testified that, as he entered the hallway adjacent to the cafeteria, he saw a student who, upon seeing Respondent, turned on his heels and headed in the other direction toward his class. At about the same time, Officer Nixon radioed Respondent. Respondent testified that he thought Officer Nixon’s message related to the student whom Respondent had just seen heading toward class. Respondent replied to Officer Nixon that all was well, the problem was taken care of. Respondent testified that he later found out that he had misunderstood Officer Nixon’s message. "I learned later on that he had called me to come over to the cafeteria, and I didn’t come. But I did not understand that that was the communication." Respondent testified that he was standing on the patio monitoring the eighth graders going into the cafeteria when Officer Nixon approached him from behind. Officer Nixon asked Respondent if he had disciplined J.G. for running in the bus zone a few days earlier. Respondent answered that he had forgotten. Respondent testified that Officer Nixon then said, "I’m going to handcuff him, slam dunk him, and haul him downtown." Respondent testified that this statement "got my attention," and that he told Officer Nixon to write up a referral on J.G. if he did something wrong. Respondent testified that Officer Nixon was upset, and continued to mutter, to no one in particular, "I’m going to haul him downtown. I’m going to haul his butt off campus." Respondent testified that, up to this point, he had an amicable working relationship with Officer Nixon. They had always been able to talk about Respondent’s concerns with Officer Nixon’s performance. "I treated him with the utmost courtesy, and vice versa. He listened to me. Several things he was doing that I had concerns about, he did proper research and he changed from doing. And we were making progress." Respondent testified that his goal was always to avoid "getting physical" with the children. Two years earlier, Respondent had seen a child handcuffed, thrown to the ground and manhandled, and had vowed that he was going to do everything possible to prevent that from happening again. Thus, when he heard Officer Nixon talking about "slam dunking" J.G., Respondent said, "I don’t want you picking on the kid." With that, Officer Nixon stepped away from Respondent, pointed his finger, and said, "You’re not my boss. You can’t tell me what to do." Respondent testified that he did not respond because there were still children in the area filing into the cafeteria. Officer Nixon then walked away toward the main office. Respondent waited for the children to finish filing into the cafeteria, which he estimated took a couple of minutes. He then asked another teacher to take over his monitoring duties and went to the office. Upon reaching the office, Respondent told Officer Nixon that they needed to speak. Officer Nixon shrugged dismissively and walked away from Respondent. Respondent again stated that he needed to speak to Officer Nixon and that if Officer Nixon would not speak to him, then Officer Nixon should leave the campus. Respondent testified that they were standing at the door of the office and that there were no threats of violence or belligerence of any kind. Only three other people were in the office area at this time: Bill Podoski and Raymond Dean Hunt, teachers who were in Mr. Hunt’s adjacent guidance office when Respondent and Officer Nixon entered; and the guidance secretary. Mr. Podoski heard the altercation from Mr. Hunt’s office and testified that he did not hear Respondent raise his voice. Mr. Hunt came out of his office and saw the two men. He testified that Officer Nixon was speaking loudly and belligerently, saying something to the effect that Respondent was not his boss and could not tell him what to do. Mr. Hunt stated that Respondent was speaking assertively but not as loudly as Officer Nixon. He testified that Respondent’s tone of voice was no louder than he had heard it in previous disagreements Mr. Hunt had had with Respondent, "assertive but professional." Respondent and Officer Nixon proceeded out the office door to a walkway outside the building. Respondent again told Officer Nixon that he should leave the campus. Officer Nixon responded that he was not going to argue with Respondent in front of students, then walked away. Respondent testified that there were a few students sitting on a bench along the walkway. He testified that he did not believe the bulk of the students sitting on the patio could hear his conversation with Officer Nixon due to the distance and to the fact that the patio was noisy with typical lunchtime activity. Respondent testified that at this point he was content to let Officer Nixon walk away, as he had duties to resume. He did not see Officer Nixon again that day. Respondent testified that Ms. Woods, the other assistant principal, came into his office some time later that afternoon. Ms. Woods told Respondent that she had spoken with Officer Nixon, who told her he was scared that Respondent was calling his boss about the incident. Ms. Woods executed a sworn statement on Monday, April 28, 1997. Her statement reads, in relevant part: I was at eighth grade lunch and Officer Nixon came over to where I was. He was very upset. He said that Mr. Mickens had yelled at him in front of students and told him to get off campus. I tried to calm him down. He went on out the back door of the cafeteria. I walked over to the door with him, still trying to calm him down. He said it wasn’t right for Mr. Mickens to do that in front of students. I went back inside and Officer Nixon went on down the sidewalk. * * * After lunch duty was over, Mr. Brickel and I were walking back to the office and Officer Nixon was standing out there by the wall. He was crying (not boo-hooing, but tears in his eyes). He was saying that Mr. Mickens was calling his chief. He said that several times. We tried to calm him down, and Mr. Brickel told him to get in his car and go off and have a cigarette to help him calm down. James Brickel, the teacher referenced in Ms. Woods’ statement, also provided a written statement that confirmed the essentials of Ms. Woods’ account, as well as Respondent’s testimony regarding the miscommunication over the radio between Respondent and Officer Nixon. Respondent testified that after the incident, he called the office of Carolyn Baldwin, the assistant superintendent, to let her know what he said to Officer Nixon. Respondent also called Angus Williams, the Director of Discipline for the school district, who served as the school system’s liaison to the SROs. Respondent attempted to call Lt. Raggs, who was the charge officer for SROs, or anyone else in authority at the Haines City Police Department, but could not reach anyone there. He instructed his secretary to call them continuously, but was never able to speak to them. Respondent testified that Ms. Woods told him that she would call Ms. Killebrew. Ms. Killebrew testified that Ms. Woods called her. Ms. Killebrew stated that Ms. Woods was upset and told her there had been a loud argument between Mr. Mickens and the SRO. Ms. Killebrew stated that Ms. Woods was concerned because students had heard the argument and were already talking about it. Ms. Killebrew stated that Ms. Woods asked her to come back to Boone quickly. Ms. Killebrew testified that Ms. Woods also told her that Chief Wheeler of the Haines City Police Department wanted Ms. Killebrew to call him. This fact indicates that the Haines City Police Department was aware of the situation and acting upon it, despite Respondent’s futile attempts to contact the police directly. Ms. Killebrew testified that she called Chief Wheeler from her car, and he was "very angry and upset." It was agreed that Ms. Killebrew would meet him at the police station. Ms. Killebrew testified that Chief Wheeler was so angry and upset that she called Mr. Williams, the SRO liaison, to go with her to the police station to help guide her through the meeting. Ms. Killebrew and Mr. Williams first went to Boone, where they heard Respondent’s account of the incident. Ms. Killebrew testified that Respondent was "very calm" as he described what happened. She stated that the one point of contention was Respondent’s statement that he asked Officer Nixon to leave the campus. Mr. Williams informed Respondent that the SROs were not employed by the school district and that school administrators lacked the authority to order them off campus. Ms. Killebrew testified that Respondent believed he should have such authority but that he expressed his disagreement in a calm manner. Respondent generally agreed with Ms. Killebrew’s version of the meeting. His recollection was that it was Ms. Killebrew, not Mr. Williams, who told him he lacked the authority to order Officer Nixon off campus. Respondent also recalled that Mr. Williams cut off the conversation during this disagreement and stated that "we’re going to let administration take care of" investigating the matter. Mr. Williams instructed Respondent to report to the school board offices on the morning of Monday, April 28, 1997. Ms. Killebrew and Mr. Williams then drove to the police station. She testified that Officer Nixon was there when she arrived at the police station. Chief Wheeler and Lt. Raggs told her that Officer Nixon was in an office writing up his statement of what happened. Officer Nixon’s unsworn statement reads as follows, in full: On Friday, April 25, 1997 I, Officer Nixon, was on duty at Boone Middle School (225 South 22nd Street) when I advised the Assistant Principal Ron Mikens [sic] that I was having a problem with a student, [J.G.], in the cafeteria. Mr. Mikens then refused to come to the cafeteria. 8th grade lunch then started and I went outside to speak to Mr. Mikens about the problem. I told Mr. Mikens that [J.G.] was accused of picking on [B.D.] and I asked him if he had done anything about an incident that occured [sic] earlier in the week when [J.G.] refused to leave the bus zone and Mr. Mikens told me he had not done anything. I then told Mr. Mikens that [J.G.]’s behavior was getting worse and I felt that a student may get injured if some action was not taken. Mr. Mikens then got agitated and raised his voice at me and told me that I was picking on the kids. Mr. Mikens then pointed his finger at me and said, "let me tell you something Officer Nixon." I then told Mr. Mikens that I do not work for him and walked away. I then went into the main office and walked down the hall when Mr. Mikens began yelling at me again and pointing his finger in my face. I told him again that I did not work for him and at that point he told me to leave the campus. I told him I would not leave the campus and I walked out the door to Student Services and he followed me out the door. Mr. Mikens then began yelling at me in the hallway adjacent to the 8th grade patio and he put his finger in my face and told me that I did work for him and I will leave the school. Mr. Mikens created a disturbance in front of several 8th grade students and Mr. Mikens also stated that he wished I did put my hands on him. I walked away from him again and told Assistant Principal Becky Woods of the situation. I then left the school to prevent any further incident. Officer Nixon did not testify at the hearing. Ms. Killebrew testified that Chief Wheeler was threatening to arrest Respondent. Mr. Williams interjected that he would go to the school and that he would handle the situation. On Monday, Respondent reported as instructed and was interviewed by Dale McDonald, the school district’s Personnel Investigator Specialist, along with William Londeree, the Director of Employee Relations and Noninstructional Personnel. Respondent testified that he wrote a statement at their request. Respondent then was sent home for the rest of the day. Besides meeting with Respondent, Mr. McDonald talked to roughly ten students and had each of them make a written statement. He testified that Respondent gave him the names of three or four students who might have observed the incident. Mr. McDonald did not indicate the source of the other names. Ms. Roberts, the PTA President, testified that she was in the office on the day the interviews were conducted. Mr. McDonald was calling students down to the office, and Ms. Roberts noted four or five students who were discussing what they were going to say when Mr. McDonald called them in. She also noted that four of these students were members of the "Explorers," a Boy Scout type organization focusing on police work. Officer Nixon ran the Explorers chapter at Boone. Ms. Roberts testified that she interrupted the students’ conversation and told them to cease discussing the matter. She ordered them to sit quietly, wait to be called in, and tell the truth to the investigator. In a subsequent written statement, Mr. McDonald reported that he asked each student interviewed if he or she was a member of the Explorers, and that they all told him they were not. Ms. Roberts, who was at Boone every day during that school year and logged more than 1,000 volunteer hours, was in a position to know that the students in question were members of the Explorers, regardless of what these students told Mr. McDonald, an outsider to the Boone campus. Mr. McDonald also took statements from four staff persons, including the statements of Ms. Woods and Mr. Brickel referenced above. Mr. McDonald did not take the statement of Mr. Hunt because "Mr. Hunt was apparently a witness to only the tail end of the conversation." Mr. McDonald’s reasoning is curious in light of the fact that several of the statements he deemed worth taking were from students who saw only the episode on the walkway, and who could hear nothing of what the two men were saying. The walkway episode occurred later than the scene witnessed by Mr. Hunt. Leaving aside questions of bias on the part of the student witnesses, their hearsay statements are unreliable on their face as the basis for findings of fact. The students claim to have heard statements and seen actions that neither participant made or took. One student claimed to have seen Respondent raise his fist as if to hit Officer Nixon. Given the self-serving tenor of Officer Nixon’s written statement, it is difficult to believe he would have refrained from mentioning such an action if it occurred. The students also placed statements in the wrong person’s mouth. Even Officer Nixon agreed that it was he who substantially stated, "You’re not my boss." Yet one of the students claims Respondent made that statement. Mr. McDonald took the statement of one student who saw nothing of the incident, but whose friends told her that Respondent and Officer Nixon were "mad at each other." Another student heard someone say, "Don’t put your hand on me," but did not know who said it. Mr. McDonald also apparently found some value in the following student statement, which reads in full: Last Friday I had just come out of the lunchroom and I went to go sit with my friends and [S.W.] was sitting down by me and I was starting to talk to him and he told me to be quiet he wanted to hear what Mr. Mickens, Officer Nixon, and Mr. Brickel was saying, so I turned around to see what they were doing and that is all I saw. I could not understand what they were saying. Mr. Mickens was talking, but he usually talks loud. None of the students testified at the hearing, further eroding the probative value of their cursory written statements. The students’ statements are useful as an impressionistic indication that the conversation was somewhat more heated than Respondent recalled. All of the students agreed that both men appeared angry. The statements are also useful to indicate that Officer Nixon was not merely the passive recipient of abuse as he claimed in his self-serving written statement. Finally, the student statements are of some value in corroborating Respondent’s testimony that the conversation was not conducted in loud tones. Some of the students frankly admitted they could not hear what the two men were saying. Others claim to have heard statements that appear to be their surmises of what the men must have been saying, given that they "looked mad." In summary, Respondent’s version of events is the only one made under oath and subject to cross-examination, and was corroborated in part by Mr. Hunt. Petitioner offered no testimony from any eyewitness to the event. Officer Nixon’s unsworn hearsay statement is patently self-serving, portraying him as the victim of an unprovoked tirade by Respondent. The student statements are unreliable, except as indicated above. Respondent’s version is consistent with the descriptions of his character and demeanor and of Officer Nixon’s character and demeanor offered at the hearing. It is found that Respondent’s version of the incident with Officer Nixon is essentially accurate, though it likely understates somewhat the heat of the conversation between the two men. It is found that the confrontation was entirely verbal, and that neither man ever threatened to escalate the matter to physical violence. Both men were in a labile emotional state due to the funeral of Ms. Rubio, which contributed to turning a minor misunderstanding into a confrontation. Respondent calmed down quickly, but Officer Nixon remained upset and fearful that Respondent would report his actions to his superiors. This caused Officer Nixon to preemptively go to his superiors with his one-sided version of events, which outraged Chief Wheeler and led him to demand retribution against Respondent. Returning to the chronology of events, Respondent was sent home on Monday, April 28, 1997, after his meeting with Messrs. Londeree and McDonald. On Wednesday, April 30, Respondent received a phone call from Ms. Baldwin’s secretary, telling him to come to a meeting at which Ms. Baldwin "was going to work this thing out." He was told nothing further about the substance of this meeting or even who would be present. Ms. Baldwin testified that the meeting was attended by herself, Respondent, Officer Nixon, Ms. Killebrew, Chief Wheeler, Angus Williams, and Tillman Sanders, who worked in the Superintendent’s office. Ms. Killebrew recalled that two or three police lieutenants were present along with Chief Wheeler. Respondent also recalled that at least one other police officer besides Officer Nixon and Chief Wheeler was present. All agreed that Ms. Baldwin chaired the meeting. Ms. Baldwin testified that the meeting was called at the request of Chief Wheeler because he was "very upset about what he perceived to be unprofessional treatment of a police officer on our school campus." Ms. Baldwin testified that her agenda for the meeting was to assure Chief Wheeler that the incident would not be repeated and to allow Chief Wheeler to speak directly to Respondent. She did not testify as to any effort made by her or her staff to inform Respondent of the purpose of the meeting. Ms. Baldwin testified that Respondent spoke at length, giving his version of events. She opined that he seemed "pretty defensive," and became upset with Officer Nixon’s version of events. Ms. Killebrew testified that she was instructed by Ms. Baldwin during the meeting to write a letter of reprimand to be placed in Respondent’s file. She stated that Respondent was upset by this instruction and continued to argue that such a letter was not in order. Ms. Baldwin also testified that she "recommended" to Ms. Killebrew that a letter of reprimand be written for unprofessional behavior in front of staff and students. Ms. Killebrew testified that Ms. Baldwin gave her detailed instructions as to the form and content of the letter. Respondent testified that he was puzzled throughout the meeting. He testified that Ms. Baldwin lectured him that he was not under any circumstances to order a police officer off the campus. He testified that Chief Wheeler was extremely angry at the statement he had written, which contradicted that of Officer Nixon. At some point, it became clear to Respondent that the purpose of the meeting was to give him a letter of reprimand, not to air the facts of the situation. He testified that he had never heard of any school employee receiving such a public reprimand. Respondent testified that Ms. Baldwin stated that she had not read Mr. McDonald’s report and was not interested in reading it. This was essentially confirmed by Ms. Baldwin, who testified that her basic understanding of the facts came by way of conversations with Ms. Killebrew. Ms. Baldwin testified that it was not her role to investigate the facts. As found above, Ms. Killebrew was not a witness to any of the events on the Boone campus. Thus, Ms. Baldwin’s version of the facts was a third hand retelling of Officer Nixon’s story and need not be repeated here. Ms. Baldwin testified that Ms. Killebrew assured her that "numerous" staff members at Boone confirmed her version of the story, essentially an adoption of Officer Nixon’s statement. Neither Ms. Baldwin nor Ms. Killebrew provided the names of these "numerous" staff members. Ms. Baldwin admitted she performed no independent investigation of the facts or of the credibility and emotional state of Officer Nixon. She was not made aware of teachers from Boone who disagreed with Ms. Killebrew’s version of the facts. Based upon all the testimony, it is found that the principal purpose of this meeting was to publicly reprimand Respondent in an effort to mollify Chief Wheeler of the Haines City Police Department. The testimony indicates that every school board employee at the meeting, except Respondent and Angus Williams, was aware beforehand that he or she was present for a public chastisement of Respondent, not for a fair hearing. Both Ms. Baldwin and Ms. Killebrew insisted that the reprimand had nothing to do with whether Respondent was right or wrong in the argument, but was based on his behavior in front of students and staff. Their testimony was that they were not required to choose between the stories of Respondent and Officer Nixon in order to reprimand Respondent. This testimony is belied by the actual text of the letter of reprimand, dated April 30, 1997, which states in relevant part: I regret that I must reprimand you for unprofessional behavior in the performance of your duties as Assistant Principal at Boone Middle School. This comes as a result of the incident that took place with School Resource Officer Ed Nixon on Friday, April 25, 1997. I am also requiring that you get counseling through the Employee Assistance Program in the hope that it may help you understand the situation better. Despite its use of the first person singular, the letter was signed by both Ms. Baldwin and Ms. Killebrew. The first paragraph of the letter is consistent with the testimony that Respondent was reprimanded for having an argument with Officer Nixon in front of students and staff, regardless of the motivation or whose version of the story Ms. Baldwin and Ms. Killebrew believed. However, in the second paragraph of their letter, Ms. Baldwin and Ms. Killebrew order Respondent to enter counseling. This order indicates that Respondent’s version of events was disregarded and that Officer Nixon’s was entirely accepted. If Respondent was confronting Officer Nixon to protect a student from harassment and possibly from physical abuse, counseling would hardly be necessary to help him "understand the situation." Counseling might be called for if Respondent had gone into an unprovoked rage in response to an innocuous question by Officer Nixon. The finding that Respondent’s story was disregarded is supported by the fact that no disciplinary action was taken against Officer Nixon, the other participant in the incident. Respondent was required to stay home for at least three school days while his supervisors contemplated a course of action. Officer Nixon returned to Boone on the Monday following the incident. It is understood that the school district apparently lacked authority to take direct disciplinary action against Officer Nixon. However, nothing in the record of this case indicates that anyone from the school district even suggested disciplinary action to Officer Nixon’s superiors, despite his participation in the incident and despite repeated complaints from parents about Officer Nixon’s methods and actions on the Boone campus generally. This supports the finding that Respondent’s superiors accepted wholesale the facts as stated by Officer Nixon. Ms. Baldwin testified that the words "I am requiring that you get counseling" did not mean that she was requiring Respondent to get counseling. She stated that the words actually meant that she was "requesting" Respondent to obtain an "evaluation" because of "some behaviors . . . which appeared to be unusual to the supervisory people." She admitted that the "supervisory people" she referenced included no one other than Ms. Killebrew, who testified that the counseling requirement was placed in the letter on Ms. Baldwin’s instructions. Ms. Baldwin’s testimony cannot be credited as anything other than an effort to finesse the fact that she ordered Respondent to enter counseling when she lacked the authority to do so. Petitioner offered no evidence that Ms. Baldwin, as East Area Superintendent, was authorized to require Respondent to obtain counseling through the Employee Assistance Program. Ms. Baldwin testified that it was her understanding that her "recommendations" in this regard must be affirmed by the Superintendent and that she could take no disciplinary action against Respondent for refusing to enter counseling. When asked point blank if she believed she had the authority to require Respondent to submit to the Employee Assistance Program, she answered, "I had the authority to say that I thought that was an appropriate recommendation." Dennis Dunn, the Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources Services, testified that area superintendents such as Ms. Baldwin only have authority to recommend participation in the Employee Assistance Program. He stated that it would be gross misconduct for an area superintendent to require an employee to do something she lacks authority to require. When confronted with the actual letter of reprimand, Mr. Dunn decided that he might be wrong about the area superintendent’s authority in these matters. Ms. Killebrew testified that when she gave Respondent the letter of reprimand, she advised him to drop the matter and "let it go," that with good performance the reprimand letter would "go away." She testified that she told Respondent not to discuss the incident at school because she did not want staff and students gossiping and taking sides in the matter. Respondent testified that Ms. Killebrew never instructed him not to discuss the matter with his co-workers or students. Under cross-examination, Ms. Killebrew conceded that she never "ordered" Respondent not to discuss the matter, and that there was no written directive from her on the subject. She stated that, "I asked him not to, in a professional manner." In early May 1997, Respondent returned to his duties at Boone. On May 8, 1997, two incidents occurred involving Respondent. The first involved a conflict over whether Respondent or Officer Nixon should respond to altercations in classrooms. Ms. Killebrew’s version of events, as she stated was relayed to her by her secretary, is that the secretary placed a call sending Officer Nixon to remove disruptive students from a class pursuant to Ms. Killebrew’s general instruction to always send Officer Nixon on such calls. Shortly thereafter, Respondent approached the secretary and told her that from this point forward she was to send Respondent, not Officer Nixon, to address classroom disturbances. Ms. Killebrew’s secretary did not testify at the final hearing. It is also noted that Ms. Killebrew’s written statement describing these events appears not to have been typed by her secretary. The other letters in the record signed by Ms. Killebrew were typed by her secretary. Ms. Roberts, the PTA President, told a different version of this event. She was in the office when the call came in. She testified that Officer Nixon had just come in the front door when Respondent exited to go to the classroom. She stated that Officer Nixon ran out and said, "I’ll take it, I’ll take it," but that Respondent was already gone. She testified that Officer Nixon returned to the office angry, and said, "That’s it, I’m calling Carolyn Baldwin. He’s fighting me every inch of the way." Ms. Roberts testified that she was puzzled as to what Officer Nixon was talking about, because in her view Respondent was just doing his job. The second incident was caused by the first. Ms. Killebrew testified that she went into Respondent’s office to discuss the ongoing friction between Respondent and Officer Nixon, and particularly the incident between Respondent and her secretary. Ms. Killebrew testified that she also wished to discuss an incident relayed to her by "a teacher," in which Respondent allegedly pulled a child out of class to ask him about the incident with Officer Nixon. Again, Ms. Killebrew did not identify this teacher, and Petitioner offered no corroboration for her hearsay testimony. Thus, this portion of Ms. Killebrew’s testimony cannot be credited. Ms. Killebrew’s written statement of the incident, which she verified as accurate at the final hearing, states in relevant part: I told him that the conflict with Officer Nixon has to stop and that we all have to work together until school is out. I also told him that the staff was becoming divided because he was continuing to discuss it. He responded that he was going to the school board because everybody had lied about him. I told him that was fine, but it needed to be kept away from the school. I reminded him that I had asked him not to discuss the incident when I gave him the letter. He said, "That’s a lie. You never told me that." I asked, "You’re calling me a liar?" He responded, "Yes, I am. After all I’ve did for you, you sat up in that meeting and told those lies . . ." At this point, I stopped him and told him that he needed to take the afternoon off. He continued to go on. Several more times I had to try to stop him and repeat myself. Finally, he acknowledged that he had heard me. Respondent’s version of the incident basically coincides with Ms. Killebrew’s, with some differences in the particulars. When she asked if he was calling her a liar, Respondent testified that his answer was, "Ms. Killebrew, if you said you told me that, yes, you are lying." Respondent testified that he did not say that Ms. Killebrew lied at the earlier meeting with the police officers, but he did reproach her for not supporting him at the meeting. Respondent’s testimony is consistent with Ms. Killebrew’s own testimony that she sat silently at that meeting. Respondent testified that, although he was surprised at Ms. Killebrew’s statements, he responded calmly. On the advice of Dr. Neriah Roberts, Executive Director of the Association of School Based Administrators, Respondent requested that Ms. Killebrew put in writing her order that he go home for the remainder of the day. After obtaining direction from William Londeree, the district’s Director of Employee Relations and Non-Instructional Personnel, Ms. Killebrew put her order in writing and Respondent went home. On the afternoon of May 8, 1997, Ms. Killebrew wrote the statement quoted above, in the form of a letter to Superintendent Glenn Reynolds. The letter concludes as follows: Due to Mr. Mickens’ insubordinate, disrespectful behavior to me, I am asking that you suspend him, without pay, from his duties as assistant principal at Boone Middle School. I am also asking that you consider reassigning him to another location. Not only has he compromised his working relationship with me, he has also put his effectiveness here at the school in jeopardy by failing to behave in a professional manner. Ms. Killebrew testified that she wrote this letter according to instructions given her by Ms. Baldwin, as she had the earlier reprimand letter. She testified that Ms. Baldwin instructed her as to the form and content of the letter, including the suspension recommendation. Ms. Killebrew testified that Ms. Baldwin told her that the School Board has progressive discipline. Ms. Baldwin told Ms. Killebrew that "He had been given a letter of reprimand. This would be step two, therefore I should ask for a suspension." As will be discussed more fully in the conclusions of law below, Ms. Baldwin was correct in stating that the Polk County School Board has progressive discipline. However, "step two" in the progression set forth in Section 3.005(II)(A) of the School Board policies is a "written reprimand," not a suspension. "Suspension or demotion" is step three in the progression. In their eagerness to pacify Chief Wheeler, the district administrators passed over step one in the School Board’s progressive discipline scheme, "verbal reprimand." It is found that Respondent was truthful in testifying that he did not understand Ms. Killebrew to have directed him to refrain from discussing these matters at school. Ms. Killebrew herself softened her recollection to testify that she had "asked" Respondent not to discuss the incident. However, it is also found that such an instruction should not have been necessary. Whether or not Ms. Killebrew said anything at all to Respondent, he should have understood that no good to the school could come from hallway discussions of the incident with Officer Nixon. Respondent did not deny talking about the incident upon his return to Boone. Ms. Killebrew’s testimony that she was hearing from staff that Respondent was discussing the matter is credited. Thus, Ms. Killebrew was justified in confronting Respondent about the matter. Whatever his feelings, Respondent was impolitic at best in accusing Ms. Killebrew of lying. Her immediate reaction in sending Respondent home for the rest of the afternoon was also justified. Tempers could cool and the matter could be addressed rationally at a later time. Nonetheless, it cannot be overlooked that Ms. Killebrew appears to have been pursuing a personal agenda against Respondent. Ms. Roberts, the PTA President, testified that she spoke with Respondent on the day he returned to the Boone campus in early May and offered to be a character witness for him. Shortly thereafter, she was approached by Ms. Killebrew: Eileen Killebrew came up to me and advised me not to talk to him and not to ask him questions about it or to be friendly, and she made the statement, I want him off my campus, or something to that effect . . . I said, Mr. Mickens, he’s so nice, he’s a nice man. And she said, oh, you don’t know, you don’t know. I want him out of here. The vehemence of Ms. Killebrew’s statements to Ms. Roberts cannot be explained by Respondent’s set-to with Officer Nixon, or by her vague comments that she had noted some slippage in Respondent’s performance during the 1996-1997 school year, even if those comments could be credited as more than after-the-fact rationalizations for her actions. Respondent noted that Ms. Killebrew’s change in attitude toward him coincided with his rejection of her request that he join her in transferring to Crystal Lake Middle School. The facts also demonstrate that Ms. Killebrew was well aware that parents and Respondent were concerned about the bullying methods of Officer Nixon and that Ms. Killebrew stood squarely behind Officer Nixon. It is found that these factors best explain why Ms. Killebrew would seize upon a brief argument that occurred behind closed doors as a pretext for attempting to have Respondent suspended from his job without pay and reassigned. She did not wait for tempers to cool, did not attempt to have a rational conversation with Respondent, or otherwise seek a less drastic remedy. Ms. Killebrew wanted an excuse to get Respondent "off her campus," and this incident could do the job. The following day, May 9, 1997, Superintendent Glenn Reynolds sent a letter to Respondent advising that he was placing Respondent on paid leave, effective May 12, 1997. The letter also stated that Mr. Reynolds was "requiring you to submit to a complete medical and psychological evaluation," and provided a list of physicians and psychologists from which Respondent could choose. The letter required Respondent to choose one physician and one psychologist and to inform the Employee Relations Office of his choices no later than May 14, 1997. Unlike Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Reynolds freely admitted that the word "requiring" in his letter meant "requiring." However, as with Ms. Baldwin, Petitioner offered no evidence to demonstrate that Mr. Reynolds had the authority to require Respondent to submit to a complete medical and psychological examination. Mr. Reynolds essentially contended that he had the inherent authority as Superintendent to require Respondent to submit to these examinations. The school district’s Contract of Employment for Administrators for the school year 1997-1998 contained a provision stating as follows: The Employee, at his expense, agrees to submit to the Board, if required, prior to the effective date of this contract written evidence of good health as required by Board policy. The Employee, at the expense of the Board, further agrees, upon request of the Board at any time during the school term, to submit to a physical or psychiatric examination by a qualified physician or physicians to be selected by the Employee from a list consisting of not less than three (3) names approved by the Board. The Employee further agrees to allow the report of the physicians to be submitted to the board with a copy being forwarded to the Employee. The quoted provision was not contained in the contracts for prior years, including the 1996-1997 school year that is the relevant time period for this hearing. Mr. Reynolds testified that he could not recall the particulars regarding this change to the employment contract. It is noted that even if the quoted provision had been in effect, the authority to require an employee to submit to a psychiatric examination is vested in the School Board, not the Superintendent. Respondent replied by letter dated May 12, 1997, informing Mr. Reynolds of his selection of a physician and a psychologist. Respondent’s letter also requested a conference with Ms. Killebrew and a reason in writing from Mr. Reynolds for the medical and psychological evaluation. By letter dated May 14, 1997, Mr. Reynolds responded as follows, in relevant part: I have required the evaluations to provide me with an independent, professional opinion as to whether there are stress-related or medical reasons for reported behaviors which had not been evidenced in your previous work experience. The information will help me in making decisions relating to behaviors which have been recently reported and/or investigated. Mr. Reynolds’ letter was silent as to Respondent’s request for a meeting with Ms. Killebrew. Mr. Reynolds use of "recently reported and/or investigated" in the statement quoted above is technically accurate but misleading in its implication that an "investigation" may have occurred. Mr. Reynolds in fact relied on Ms. Killebrew’s version of events as conveyed to him by Ms. Baldwin, along with the uninformative statements collected by Mr. McDonald and the self-serving written statement of Officer Nixon, which Mr. Reynolds inaptly termed a "deposition." Mr. Reynolds neither conducted nor ordered an independent investigation of the events at Boone. Respondent was dissatisfied with the reasons given for subjecting him to a psychological evaluation and met with Mr. Reynolds. Respondent testified that at the meeting, Mr. Reynolds would only say that he wanted an independent opinion regarding Respondent’s mental health and told Respondent that he would likely be terminated if he didn’t do it. Respondent testified that he was a former military officer, and if his superior ordered him to see a psychologist, he would see a psychologist. At the hearing, Mr. Reynolds was unable to recall lucidly the chronology of events. He justified ordering the psychological exam by reference to "threats" Respondent had made. Further inquiry revealed that the referenced "threats" related to events that allegedly occurred three months after Mr. Reynolds ordered the examination. Mr. Reynolds also suggested that he was acting to help Respondent and perhaps prevent a situation such as later occurred at Littleton, Colorado, and Conyers, Georgia. This suggestion was irrational, given that Respondent had been accused only of having a shouting match with a School Resource Officer and an argument with Ms. Killebrew. Mr. Reynolds frankly admitted he was relying on the word of Ms. Killebrew regarding the events at Boone and Respondent’s mental state. It is not surprising that someone relying entirely on Ms. Killbrew’s version of events would come away believing that Respondent was emotionally unstable, and come away knowing none of the details regarding Officer Nixon’s pattern of behavior at the school or Ms. Killebrew’s resentment of Respondent. Mr. Reynolds justified his reliance on Ms. Killebrew’s word by saying, "We have to assume that our administrators are going to be honest, be straightforward." He failed to explain why Respondent, also an administrator, did not enjoy the benefit of the same assumption. It is found that Mr. Reynolds lacked a sufficient factual basis for taking the serious, potentially stigmatizing step of ordering Respondent to submit to a psychological examination, even if it is assumed that Mr. Reynolds had the authority to do so. The only facts before Mr. Reynolds were that Respondent had arguments with Ms. Killebrew and Officer Nixon, plus Ms. Killebrew’s vague impressions that Respondent appeared to be under stress. Mr. Reynolds made no independent investigation of the situation. He expressed no curiosity as to whether there were personal grudges or emotional issues on the part of Officer Nixon and Ms. Killebrew, even after a group of parents and teachers including Ms. Fields, Ms. Roberts, and Mr. Hunt met with him to state their support of Respondent and their concerns about Officer Nixon’s behavior on the Boone campus. Respondent submitted to the psychological exam on June 11, 1997. Respondent testified that the psychologist presented him with release forms and asked Respondent to sign them. Respondent refused his consent to allow any examination report to be turned over to the school district. Discussions ensued between Respondent and Messrs. Dunn and Londeree of the school district over the release of the examination report. Respondent testified that the psychologist refused to go over the results of the examination with him unless he would sign the release forms. Respondent testified that Mr. Dunn later phoned him to say that he had spoken with the psychologist and arranged for Respondent to go back in and sit down with the psychologist to go over the report. Respondent returned to the psychologist, who told him that he had not written a "report" and did not intend to do so. Respondent testified that the psychologist said to him, "Your problem is not with me, it’s with the Superintendent of Schools." Respondent testified that he next received a call from Mr. Londeree, who wanted to make a deal. Mr. Londeree asked Respondent to permit the psychologist to send a copy of the report to the school district at the same time a copy was sent to Respondent. Respondent testified that his answer was, "I don’t make deals." Respondent testified that Mr. Londeree told him that if the school district did not receive a copy of the psychologist’s report, then it would go to "Plan B." Respondent stated that he and Dr. Roberts puzzled over what "Plan B" might be. Respondent testified that, in retrospect, he assumed "Plan B" was to transfer him to McLaughlin Middle School, because the transfer occurred immediately after he confirmed his refusal to release his records. By letter dated July 23, 1997, Mr. Reynolds informed Respondent that he was reassigned to the assistant principal position at McLaughlin Middle School, effective immediately. Mr. Reynolds testified that Respondent’s refusal to release the exam results played no part in his decision to transfer Respondent, though he offered no alternative explanation for the timing of his decision. The same alleged facts were before Mr. Reynolds on May 9, 1997, when he suspended Respondent with pay, yet more than two months lapsed before this reassignment, just after Respondent’s refusal to release the records of a psychological examination he should not have been required to take. Ronald Rizer, the principal of McLaughlin Middle School, testified that he could not remember the date he was told that Respondent would begin work at his school. He remembered that Ms. Baldwin called him and asked if he would be willing to swap his current assistant principal for Respondent. Mr. Rizer testified that he told Ms. Baldwin he would work with her and the Superintendent in any way he could. Mr. Rizer did not testify as to whether Ms. Baldwin or Mr. Reynolds briefed him on the previous spring’s events at Boone or gave him their opinion of Respondent’s mental and emotional state. Respondent took a few days’ personal leave, then reported at McLaughlin on Tuesday, August 5, 1997. Classes had not begun, but the faculty had returned to prepare for the approaching school year. Mr. Rizer testified that he greeted Respondent and told him he would introduce him to the faculty via the intercom. He told Respondent that he had no basic assignments for him that day and that Respondent should spend the day getting acquainted with the faculty. Alan Jostes was the Dean of Students at McLaughlin. He testified that he learned that morning there was a new assistant principal, and went to Respondent’s office to introduce himself. He testified that Mr. Rizer had assigned him to prepare the duty assignment list, and that he began going over the list with Respondent. Mr. Jostes testified that Respondent saw his name on the list for morning bus duty and immediately became "very upset, yelling at me, ‘Why is my name on this? I don’t do any duties.’" Mr. Jostes told Respondent that he had simply plugged Respondent’s name into the spots on the list that had been filled by the previous assistant principal the year before. Mr. Jostes testified that Respondent became very angry with him: "I felt very threatened at that point. Accusing me of, you know, being insubordinate and not doing my job, when I was asked by the building Principal." Respondent testified that he never yelled at anybody. He stated that when he saw Mr. Jostes had assigned him to bus duty five days a week, he told Mr. Jostes, "I’m a rover. I have to do student, teachers, parent conferences in the morning. I have to check the teachers’ duty stations." Respondent told Mr. Jostes to take the morning bus duty until Respondent could evaluate the personnel and assign someone to the duty on a permanent basis. Mr. Jostes testified that things calmed down as he took Respondent for a tour of the various duty stations, but that Respondent again became agitated when he saw his name on the assignment list for eighth grade cafeteria duty. Mr. Jostes testified that Respondent became "very confrontational" and yelled at him. Mr. Jostes stated that at this point the conversation was going nowhere and he asked Respondent if he needed anything else. Respondent asked Mr. Jostes to show him the classrooms. They walked down the sixth and eighth grade hallways, after which Respondent said, "That’s all I need. You may go back to your office." Respondent agreed that Mr. Jostes took him around the campus. He testified that when he saw Mr. Jostes had put him down for one hour’s duty in the cafeteria, he informed Mr. Jostes that "I pull lunch duty all three hours. I said this is my time to be proactive with the students. I explained all this to him. And I said, Mr. Jostes, [you’re] really talking to me in a condescending manner. [You’re] talking to me like you’re the assistant principal. Mr. Jostes just kind of turned his head." Respondent testified that he then asked Mr. Jostes to show him the sixth and eighth grade wings, after which he told Mr. Jostes that was all he needed. Respondent’s version of these events is credited as a more objectively accurate statement, though it is found that Mr. Jostes’ honestly perceived that Respondent was "yelling" at him. In his demeanor while testifying, Mr. Jostes appeared to be a soft-spoken, sensitive, somewhat timorous gentleman. Respondent does not speak in a loud voice, but his voice does carry conviction and assertiveness. Respondent is also sensitive to what he perceives as condescension, and likely took on a stern tone when he felt Mr. Jostes was talking down to him. This in turn intimidated Mr. Jostes, who considered it "yelling." Supporting the finding that Mr. Jostes’ reactions do not provide an accurate measure of Respondent’s "anger" and propensity for "yelling" is the testimony of Gene Carroll, the in-school suspension instructor at McLaughlin. Over the course of two days, Respondent and Mr. Carroll engaged in serious discussions over the direction of the discipline program at McLaughlin. There were times when the two men were at loggerheads over changes that Respondent wished to make in the program. Despite these serious disagreements, Mr. Carroll testified that Respondent "always had a good attitude, I thought. Very pleasant to speak to, and I like him real well as far as [that]. I just didn’t like his program." Mr. Jostes testified that the next afternoon, he went to Respondent’s office at Respondent’s request. Mr. Jostes then stated: When I arrived back about 12:30, I went directly to his office. And I said, "Is now a good time?" And he’s sitting at his desk, and he said, "You need to shut both doors," after I walked into the office. The conversation in his office turned to, "You have an attitude. You’re very insubordinate to me," and it went from nothing to yelling and screaming at me. I mean, it was not a directive voice, it was yelling and screaming. "You’re insubordinate. You’re very . . . you have an attitude. And if you don’t like the way I do things around here, I’m going to find someone else for the job, and I will get you out of here." And he said, "Do you have any questions?" And before I could even answer that, he says, "And if you don’t like what I’m saying, we’ll get Mr. Rizer in here." And at that point, I said, "I think that would be a good idea." Respondent’s recollection of this incident was markedly different: I guess a little bit before 1:00, I called Mr. Jostes into my office, and I want to go over and want to make sure that he was prepared to, you know, take part, you know, in the afternoon [teachers’] meeting. Mr. Jostes [sat] down . . . and my door was here. I asked him, I said would you please close the door. He just [sat] there. And he said, I think we need to see Mr. Rizer. Q. Had you had a conversation? A. No. He said, I think we need to go see Mr. Rizer. So I said, all right, let’s go see Mr. Rizer. Respondent’s version of this encounter is credited. It appears that Mr. Jostes confused statements that Respondent made during the subsequent meeting with Mr. Rizer with statements made in Respondent’s office. It is also more plausible that Mr. Jostes would be the person to suggest taking their dispute to Mr. Rizer, because Mr. Jostes had a long-standing working relationship with Mr. Rizer. Respondent had met Mr. Rizer only the previous day. The two men went to Mr. Rizer’s office. Mr. Rizer testified that they came in because of Respondent’s concerns that Mr. Jostes was being insubordinate and trying to tell him what to do. Mr. Rizer testified that Mr. Jostes had already reported to him the difficulties he was having with Respondent. This supports Respondent’s testimony that it was Mr. Jostes who suggested a meeting with Mr. Rizer. Mr. Rizer testified that he attempted to explain to Respondent that he had assigned Mr. Jostes the duty assignment list, but had difficulty getting a word in edgewise. He testified that Respondent repeatedly interrupted him. Mr. Rizer testified that he became irritated and slammed his hand down on his desk and said, "Wait a minute. I’m the Principal here and I’m the boss. You’re not, and you’re going to do things my way." Mr. Rizer testified that Respondent settled down at that point and listened. Mr. Rizer testified that the latter portion of the meeting was productive. He explained to Respondent that he had carved out a special role for Mr. Jostes to further his career goals, and that role was somewhat different than that of the typical dean of students. Mr. Rizer testified that he felt there was a meeting of minds as to the way he had established things as principal of McLaughlin Middle School. Mr. Jostes and Respondent generally agreed with Mr. Rizer’s testimony regarding their meeting. Mr. Jostes agreed that the meeting ended calmly and positively. He also stated that he and Respondent returned to Respondent’s office after the meeting, and "we actually had a very productive communication." Respondent testified that in the early part of the meeting, he complained about the lack of cooperation from Mr. Jostes and told Mr. Rizer that "I can carry it by myself until we can bring in somebody who wants to cooperate and be my Dean of Students." Respondent did not recall Mr. Rizer's slamming his hand on the desk, but agreed there came a point at which Mr. Rizer asserted control of the meeting and Respondent listened to what he said. Respondent testified that by meeting’s end, all three participants seemed happy. Mr. Jostes agreed that Respondent seemed better to understand the situation on the campus at the end of the meeting. Respondent said to Mr. Jostes, "Let’s get out of here and go to work." They returned to Respondent’s office and prepared for the afternoon meetings, then sat together in those meetings for the rest of the afternoon. Gene Carroll was in charge of the In-School Suspension ("ISS") program at McLaughlin. On the afternoon of August 5, he introduced himself to Respondent and showed him a copy of the written protocols for the ISS program. Mr. Carroll testified that Respondent handed the paper back to him and said that he did not want a concrete program because he preferred flexibility in making disciplinary decisions. This commenced a substantive dispute, the narrow details of which are unnecessary to recite in this Order. In essence, Respondent had been in charge of discipline at Boone and had run it with a measure of personal discretion in meting out punishment. The program at McLaughlin was a more lockstep system of progressive punishment. Mr. Carroll conceded that Respondent’s program worked well at Boone, but testified that he and Mr. Rizer believed the stricter program was needed at McLaughlin because of its larger and more diverse student population. Respondent believed that his methods were in keeping with school district policy, and that McLaughlin was out of step with the district’s disciplinary philosophy. Mr. Carroll believed that Respondent was "coming on a little strong" in light of the facts that he had just been assigned to the school, that he was unfamiliar with the McLaughlin community and problems, and especially that the McLaughlin ISS program had been developed by Mr. Rizer when he was Assistant Principal for Discipline. However, Mr. Carroll stated that his differences with Respondent were philosophical, not personal. The only point of contention was Mr. Carroll’s testimony that at one point in the discussions, Respondent told him that he would do it Mr. Rizer’s way for a while, but then would run the program as he saw fit. Mr. Carroll testified that he told Respondent that he needed to talk to Mr. Rizer and straighten things out. Respondent testified that Mr. Carroll misunderstood his comments. He was trying to convey to Mr. Carroll that as disciplinarian, he believed he had to personalize the program. He testified that he was willing to do things in any way Mr. Rizer saw fit. Respondent stated that he told Mr. Carroll to do exactly what Mr. Rizer told him to do. Mr. Carroll agreed that Respondent accepted the ISS program once he understood it. Mr. Carroll’s written statement of events concluded, "I left with a very good feeling that everything would be fine and we would continue our successful program." On Friday, August 8, 1997, Respondent attended a semi- annual district-wide meeting of assistant principals, school resource officers, and deans of students. The purpose of these meetings is to discuss code of conduct and other disciplinary issues. The meeting was chaired by Robert Bondurant, Director of Discipline and Security for the Polk County School Board. During the meeting, Respondent raised his hand during a question session. Mr. Bondurant recognized him. Respondent asked if the district could provide a written definition of the duties and scope of authority of assistant principals and school resource officers. Mr. Bondurant testified that this was a prudent request and agreed to provide the requested definition. While he had the floor, Respondent also spoke for several minutes about his own dispute with Officer Nixon regarding the scope of the SRO’s authority on the Boone campus, and the response of district administrators to the dispute. Mr. Bondurant characterized this portion of Respondent’s remarks as an unprofessional "lambasting" of district administration for its handling of Respondent’s situation. Mr. Bondurant did not believe that what took place between Respondent and his principal or district administration was a proper subject for this meeting, even though it provided the factual context of Respondent’s request for written definitions of duties. Mr. Bondurant conceded that his was a subjective judgment, and that another witness might have no objection to Respondent’s statements. Mr. Jostes was present at the meeting and agreed with Mr. Bondurant that Respondent’s comments were inappropriate. He opined that Respondent was "airing out a lot of anger and frustrations that should have been done in a one-on-one situation with . . . the powers that be in the county." Mr. Jostes, too, conceded that this was his subjective assessment of Respondent’s statements. Patricia Barnes is an assistant principal at Mulberry High School, and was present at the meeting. She testified that Respondent spoke for a long time, but that he spoke in a professional manner and that his statements were relevant to the audience of assistant principals, deans of students, and school resource officers. Keith Mitchell is a 17-year veteran of the City of Bartow Police Department. He was present at the meeting and testified that Respondent spoke in a professional manner and that his statements were relevant to the subject matter of the meeting. On the afternoon of August 8, 1997, a coordinated letter writing effort began. It is unclear precisely who instigated this effort, but the testimony of Dennis Dunn, the Assistant Superintendent for Human Resource Services, makes it clear that Mr. Rizer was instructed by someone in the Superintendent’s office to write a statement. Mr. Dunn testified that he could not recall the precise date when the instruction was given or whether the instruction came directly from Mr. Reynolds or from an associate superintendent. He conceded that the instruction had to have been given some time between Tuesday, August 5, when Respondent commenced work at McLaughlin, and Friday, August 8, when the letters were written. In any event, on August 8, 1997, Mr. Rizer wrote a three-page memorandum to Glenn Reynolds in which he repeated, as fact, the accusations of Mr. Jostes and Mr. Carroll concerning events which Mr. Rizer did not witness. He also repeated comments made by "a teacher," who allegedly told him that "a lot of other teachers" had "concerns" about Respondent. One of these "other teachers" "wondered how many personalities Mr. Mickens has." Mr. Rizer stated that "he was told" that Respondent "seemed not to have his act together" while speaking at a faculty meeting. Mr. Rizer skipped the faculty meeting to write the memorandum. Most damaging to Respondent was the following statement in Mr. Rizer’s memorandum: I personally have some concerns about Mr. Mickens; one minute he is calm and the next minute he is very angry. This man has a lot of anger and I feel something serious could happen when he is in his angry state. I do not feel comfortable him being here. Mr. Rizer spent a total of two to three hours in the same room as Respondent. He estimated that he spent about a half-hour with Respondent in a one-on-one basis. He claimed to have seen Respondent become angry one time and testified that Respondent calmed down after Mr. Rizer asserted himself and that they went on to have a productive meeting. Mr. Rizer had no factual basis for the opinion quoted above, plainly implying that he believes Respondent is a danger to the school. He witnessed nothing that would lead a rational person to fear that Respondent might do "something serious." His sources of information were the exaggerations of Mr. Jostes and some hallway gossip by unnamed teachers. Even Mr. Carroll testified that there was no problem with Respondent’s behavior. At the hearing, Mr. Rizer denied that his memorandum was an attempt to portray Respondent as an emotionally unstable person. In fact, this appears to have been his precise purpose. In addition to writing his own memorandum, Mr. Rizer secured written statements from Mr. Jostes, Mr. Carroll, and Russell Aaron, a teacher at McLaughlin. Also on August 8, Mr. Bondurant wrote a letter to Mr. Reynolds concerning Respondent’s comments at the assistant principals’ meeting, a further indication that the Superintendent’s office was coordinating this effort. The letters from Mr. Jostes and Mr. Carroll recapitulate their testimony outlined above. Mr. Carroll states that he is writing his letter "at the request of Mr. Rizer." The letter from Mr. Aaron to Mr. Rizer, dated August 8, 1997, states, in full: After your phone call this evening about the situation with Mr. Mickens, I felt I should write this letter about an incident that took place last week. On Friday, August 1, 1997, I was riding by the school and saw Mr. Hardee [the former Assistant Principal at McLaughlin] standing in front of the school. I had already been informed that he was leaving our school so I stopped to tell him goodbye. He was talking to another man and when I walked up he introduced Mr. Mickens to me. I asked Mr. Hardee [why] he was leaving McLaughlin Middle and he said Mrs. Baldwin asked him to. At that Mr. Mickens said "Carolyn Baldwin, that Fat Bitch, I’m suing her, Glenn Reynolds and all those Bitches over there. I got my Due Process, they didn’t give me my Due Process. I’m gonna get all of them." At that point you walked out of the door and he (Mr. Mickens) stopped talking and walked back in the building with you. Mr. Aaron testified at the hearing. Mr. Hardee did not. Despite the statement that he was writing this letter "After your phone call this evening about the situation with Mr. Mickens," Mr. Aaron testified that it was he who called Mr. Rizer, on a Friday evening a week after the alleged incident occurred. When asked why he waited a week before calling Mr. Rizer about this incident, Mr. Aaron stated, "I think maybe we had talked about it at school, and then we talked about me putting it in writing, and I had called him that night or something, about how I was supposed to go about doing that. He knew about it before that week was out." This testimony cannot be credited. The letter itself indicates that Mr. Aaron was solicited by Mr. Rizer on Friday evening, not vice versa. Given the opprobrious hearsay that Mr. Rizer saw fit to include in his own memorandum to Mr. Reynolds, it is implausible to believe he would not have included this incident had he known of it on Friday afternoon. Mr. Aaron testified that he had never met Respondent before this incident. He testified that Respondent made his statements at the mention of Ms. Baldwin’s name. He testified that neither he nor Mr. Hardee used any profanity during this conversation. Mr. Aaron’s testimony is credited to the extent that Respondent made some sort of derogatory comments about Ms. Baldwin and Mr. Reynolds. Given the prior testimony regarding Respondent’s character and manner, it seems unlikely that he would have erupted with such vehement language, particularly in front of a complete stranger and without so much as a nudge from those in his company. Under the circumstances of the conversation, it also seems unlikely that Respondent was the only person present who made derogatory remarks about district administrators. Mr. Aaron’s credibility is compromised by his equivocations about the phone call from Mr. Rizer, and by the fact that he did nothing for a week and apparently required some coaxing to write his letter reporting the incident. These findings are also influenced by the fact that Mr. Hardee did not testify to corroborate Mr. Aaron’s story. It is found that Mr. Rizer’s actions on August 8, 1997, were out of all proportion to the minor incidents that occurred on the McLaughlin campus, which a rational person might attribute to a new assistant principal’s over-eagerness to take control and make a good impression and to the natural resistance he would meet from entrenched employees less than eager to change their established methods of doing business. The testimony of Respondent, Mr. Carroll, Mr. Jostes, and even Mr. Rizer himself, indicated that Respondent was beginning to settle in to a smooth working relationship with his peers at McLaughlin after an admittedly rocky start. Mr. Rizer’s actions are made even more irrational by the fact that, though he was contemplating action that he hoped would remove Respondent from the campus, he never mentioned to Respondent that there was even a problem. Respondent testified that he believed things were going well at McLaughlin. He presided over an open house on the morning of Thursday, August 7, 1997, and over teacher meetings all that afternoon with Mr. Jostes. He testified that these were "great" meetings. Respondent testified that after he returned from the assistant principals’ meeting on Friday, Mr. Carroll approached him and told him "point blank" that he would work with Respondent in every way. Respondent testified that he liked Mr. Carroll very much, and that Mr. Carroll seemed to like him. Mr. Rizer had given him a project to complete by Friday. He intervened in a situation in which a parent had a "heated, profane argument" with a school secretary, and resolved it such that the parent left the school "super happy." He made a short presentation to the teachers on Friday afternoon, then completed a video for a presentation he planned to make on Monday. Counsel for Respondent pressed the theory that the transfer to McLaughlin was a set-up from the outset, that the Superintendent’s office planned from the beginning to move Respondent there for a short period before cooking up some reason to terminate him. Based on the evidence presented, it would be fair to reach this conclusion. However, a more plausible explanation of events is that, at the time Ms. Baldwin asked Mr. Rizer about the trade of assistant principals between Boone and McLaughlin, she or someone else in the Superintendent’s office fully briefed Mr. Rizer about the events at Boone and their aftermath. It makes sense that anyone in Mr. Rizer’s position would ask why Ms. Baldwin wanted to make this switch and that she would respond with a recitation of the Boone events according to Ms. Killebrew. If Mr. Rizer "knew" on August 23 that he was getting an emotionally unstable, insubordinate, over-stressed employee who had been ordered to visit a psychologist and refused to release the results, then his disproportionate response to Respondent’s actions and the fearful tone of his letter become understandable. Nothing in the record directly indicates that Mr. Rizer had been briefed about Respondent before he arrived, but that is a rational explanation for his actions. Respondent had no idea of the machinations going on between Mr. Rizer and the Superintendent’s office until the morning of Saturday, August 9, 1997. Dennis Dunn phoned Respondent and told him not to report to the school on the following Monday. Rather, Respondent was told to report to the district office. Respondent reported to the district office on Monday, August 11, 1997. He was told to turn in his keys and handed a letter from Mr. Reynolds that read, in relevant part: Based upon reports of your misconduct in office and gross insubordination, which are grounds for suspension or termination of your employment as provided in Section 231.36(6)(b), Florida Statutes, please be advised that I am suspending you with pay effective August 11, 1997 pending the completion of an investigation. You will be given an opportunity to give your explanations regarding the accusations and will be notified of the results of the investigation. As with the incidents at Boone, there was no "investigation" of the events at McLaughlin as that term is commonly used, i.e., an independent effort to ascertain the relevant facts. Mr. Reynolds and his subordinates simply took at face value the materials provided by Mr. Rizer and others, then met to decide on a course of discipline for Respondent. This is borne out by Mr. Reynolds’ letter to Respondent of August 14, 1997, stating, "Enclosed are letters and reports of incidents upon which I could impose disciplinary action." In other words, the "investigation" lasted less than three days, and the investigative report consisted of the letters from Messrs. Rizer, Jostes, Carroll, Aaron, and Bondurant. Mr. Reynolds testified that he met with Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Londeree, Mr. Dunn, and his legal counsel, Donald Wilson, Jr., to deliberate action against Respondent. This meeting was not noticed or open to the public. Respondent was given no notice or opportunity to attend. Mr. Reynolds solicited and received the advice and recommendations of those present at the meeting. He received legal advice from Mr. Wilson. Mr. Dunn testified that the group "collectively" participated in the decision-making process. On August 29, 1997, Mr. Wilson wrote a letter to Respondent’s lawyer, which stated in relevant part: I am writing this letter at the direction of the Superintendent. It is the Superintendent’s opinion that Mr. Mickens’ actions constitute misconduct in office as an assistant principal and that generally his ongoing conduct and repeated actions are wholly incompatible with the standard of conduct the Superintendent reasonably requires from school based administrators. Further, Mr. Mickens’ actions at both Boone Middle School and McLaughlin Middle School and his conduct toward and statements to members of the staff at those schools have made it impossible for him to continue to effectively perform the duties of an assistant principal. In summary, the Superintendent has concluded that Mr. Mickens has specifically engaged in misconduct in office as an assistant principal and that his conduct generally is so serious as to constitute just cause for termination of his position as an assistant principal. The Superintendent will be recommending to the School Board at its regular meeting on September 9, 1997 that Mr. Mickens be removed as an assistant principal. He will continue to be suspended with pay until that time. Mr. Mickens holds a professional services contract pursuant to Section 231.36(3), Florida Statutes, and the Superintendent’s recommendation regarding his contract as an assistant principal is not intended to affect his professional services contract. Accordingly, if the School Board should act favorably on the recommendation on September 9th, Mr. Mickens will be asked to report on September 10, 1997 to Assistant Superintendent Denny Dunn to available teaching positions to determine an appropriate position to which Mr. Mickens will be assigned. It is noted that Mr. Reynolds’ suspension letter of August 11 also accused Respondent of "gross insubordination." Mr. Wilson’s letter mentions only "misconduct in office." The reference to "Mr. Mickens’ actions at both Boone Middle School and McLaughlin Middle School and his conduct toward and statements to members of the staff at those schools" is as close to a formal statement of factual allegations as Respondent ever received in this process. No formal charging document enumerating the facts upon which the Superintendent based his recommendation was ever provided to Respondent or this tribunal, even after Judge Cave directed the School Board to provide a statement of factual allegations at the motion hearing of February 25, 1999. No charging document was ever filed setting forth the particular provisions of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession, Rule 6B-1.001, Florida Administrative Code, or the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, Rule 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code, that Respondent was alleged to have violated. In fact, Petitioner’s first mention of those rules in this case occurred in its Proposed Recommended Order. At its meeting of September 9, 1997, the School Board took up the Superintendent’s recommendation. Mr. Reynolds addressed the School Board, reciting that Respondent "has engaged in a series of actions which constitute misconduct in office as an Assistant principal, and that his ongoing conduct and repeated actions are generally and wholly incompatible with the standard of conduct we reasonably require from school based administrators." Mr. Reynolds did not state any factual allegation against Respondent. During the lengthy deliberations that ensued, at least two members of the School Board voiced concerns over being asked to vote on a matter without knowing any of the underlying facts. The School Board’s lawyer was Steven L. Selph. Mr. Selph advised the School Board that it would be "inappropriate" and possibly "prejudicial" for the board to hear the alleged facts of the case because the board would later be required to enter a final order. Mr. Selph advised the board that its only choices were to vote on the Superintendent’s recommendation in a factual vacuum, or to hold a full evidentiary hearing before the board itself. Mr. Selph stated that "the main thing the board has to consider is whether the recommendation is based on just cause for the purpose of approving it subject to the outcome of a hearing." Mr. Selph did not explain to the inquiring board members how they could determine "just cause" when they did not know what Respondent was alleged to have done. Mr. Selph assured the School Board that its adoption of the Superintendent’s recommendation was a mere formality necessary to trigger Respondent’s right to a formal administrative hearing. Comments by School Board members prior to their vote indicate that they accepted Mr. Selph’s opinion that the vote was essentially procedural, a necessary step to secure Respondent’s right to an administrative hearing, and thus the board did not need to know the factual allegations. Mr. Selph did not explain that the School Board’s vote to accept the Superintendent’s recommendation would become final agency action if Respondent did not timely request an administrative hearing. On the basis of the Superintendent’s recommendation that Respondent committed misconduct in office, the School Board voted to terminate Respondent from his assistant principal position and to place Respondent into a teacher’s position during the pendency of any administrative hearing. It is found that the School Board’s action was a perfunctory ratification of a decision made earlier by Mr. Reynolds in consultation with his subordinates and lawyer. While there was a lengthy discussion of procedural matters at the School Board meeting, no discussion of the ultimate facts alleged to constitute misconduct in office, or of any facts at all, was allowed. Thus, the School Board did not and could not assess the merits of Mr. Reynolds’ probable cause determination. The School Board’s vote was simply a vote of confidence in Mr. Reynolds. The undersigned viewed a videotape of the School Board meeting. Respondent addressed the board concerning the denial of due process he believed was about to occur. It is noted that Respondent’s presentation was forceful and articulate, but not disrespectful, loud, angry or abusive. It is also noted that Mr. Reynolds testified that Respondent was "agitated." By letter dated September 10, 1997, Mr. Reynolds formally notified Respondent that his employment as an assistant principal had been terminated and that he would be returned to an appropriate teaching position for the remainder of the 1997-1998 school year. Mr. Reynolds’ letter also made reference to a statement made by Respondent to Mr. Dunn that he could not return to a teaching position at that time and desired to use his accumulated sick leave. The letter informed Respondent that he could use the leave if he provided medical certification from a physician that he was unable to work and the anticipated amount of time he would be away from work. Mr. Dunn, the Assistant Superintendent for Human Resource Services, testified that Respondent was placed in a teaching position because "my hands were tied" by the fact that Respondent had a continuing contract that had to be honored. By letter dated September 14, 1997, Respondent requested an administrative hearing regarding his termination as an assistant principal. The letter also stated that Respondent would provide the requested medical certification. On November 5, 1997, Mr. Wilson wrote on behalf of Superintendent Reynolds to Respondent. Mr. Wilson reminded Respondent of his September 14, 1997, letter promising medical certification to justify his sick leave and of a conversation he had with Respondent on November 3, 1997, during which Respondent indicated he had a doctor’s appointment to obtain the certification on November 17. Mr. Wilson informed Respondent that the physician’s certification must be received by Mr. Londeree on or before November 20, 1997, and that failure timely to file the certification would be deemed an abandonment of Respondent’s employment with the Polk County School Board. Respondent never provided the physician’s certification. Mr. Dunn and Mr. Londeree testified as to a conference call with Respondent, during which Respondent conceded that he was not sick but that he could not come back to work under the circumstances. Respondent confirmed that he did not accept the teaching position because his reputation had been destroyed. He believed that he could not be effective in the classroom because people were afraid of him. By letter dated December 12, 1997, Mr. Reynolds notified Respondent that he had been determined to have abandoned his teacher’s position and that Mr. Reynolds would recommend to the School Board that Respondent’s employment be terminated. At its meeting of January 13, 1998, the School Board voted to terminate Respondent’s employment.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order reinstating Respondent for the remainder of his assistant principal contract for the 1997-1998 school year, and enter into assistant principal contracts with Respondent for the 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 school years. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 2nd day of March, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald H. Wilson, Jr., Esquire Boswell & Dunlap, LLP 245 South Central Avenue Post Office Drawer 30 Bartow, Florida 33831 Timothy G. Schoenwalder, Esquire Hopping Green Sams & Smith, P.A. 123 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Glenn Reynolds, Superintendent School Board of Polk County 1915 South Floral Avenue Bartow, Florida 33831-0391
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the termination of Respondent's employment by Petitioner is justified and consistent with the requirements of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between Petitioner and the Sarasota Classified/Teachers Association (of which Respondent is a member).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the Sarasota County School Board, the entity responsible for operating, monitoring, staffing, and maintaining the public schools of Sarasota County. The School is a public high school established in 2001. It is located at 6400 West Price Boulevard, North Port, Florida. The school had a student body in excess of 2,600 students at the beginning of the current (2008-2009) school year, but that has declined to 2,500 as of the date of the final hearing in this matter. Respondent, Ronald Davenport, was employed at the School as a campus security monitor (also known as a security aide) from 1988 until December 5, 2008. Respondent is an African-American male. Respondent is a "classified" employee under the Classified Bargaining Unit Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Sarasota Classified/Teachers Association and the District (the "Collective Bargaining Agreement"). On December 5, 2008, Respondent was reassigned or transferred from the School to McIntosh. The reasons for the transfer will be more fully discussed below. During Respondent's tenure as a security monitor at the School, he received a number of written disciplinary letters or memoranda. Under the District disciplinary policies, written reprimands are issued only after verbal reprimands have been issued and proven ineffective. Respondent's discipline to-date has included the following: On November 22, 2004, Respondent was given a Record of Verbal Reprimand concerning his failure to responsibly monitor students while on duty. A written reprimand was given to Respondent on January 4, 2005, concerning improper contact with students and work performance. In April 2005, Respondent was suspended without pay for a period of three days. The basis of the suspension was Respondent's insubordination to superiors. In January 2006, Respondent was again suspended without pay, this time for a period of ten working days. This suspension was based on Respondent's failure to perform his work responsibly, use of school computers for personal reasons, and insubordination. A letter of instruction (which is not technically a disciplinary action) was given to Respondent on April 12, 2007, concerning his actions while driving on campus. Respondent received other verbal reprimands and letters (memoranda) of instruction in addition to those set forth above. It is noted that two suspensions for a single employee is very unusual; grounds for a second suspension would normally warrant termination of employment. However, Principal Kenney stated that at the time of the second suspension, he wanted to give Respondent another opportunity, even though dismissal was probably warranted. (Likewise, the aforementioned transfer from the School to McIntosh was another effort by Kenney to sanction Respondent without resorting to termination of employment.) In the Fall of 2008, a student at the School spat water on Respondent. The student received a three-day suspension and a deferred expulsion1 for his actions. A few weeks later, a different student spat water on a Caucasian security monitor. That student received a five-day suspension and a deferred expulsion for the remainder of the year. The student in the second incident, however, had a disciplinary history while the student who spat on Respondent did not. That is the reason for the slight disparity in punishment. Respondent was unhappy about the second student being treated more harshly and surmised that the reason for the difference in punishment was that he (Respondent) was African- American while the other security monitor was Caucasian. That being the case, Respondent contacted Mr. Trevor Harvey, president of the local NAACP chapter, to complain. Harvey contacted Principal Kenney, and the two agreed to meet at Kenney's office on December 5, 2008, to discuss possible racial issues at the School. On December 4, 2008, Respondent was observed handing out a note or flyer to students. The flyer, which was copied from a handwritten original, included the following bullet points: An instruction asking the reader to make a copy and tell a friend about the contents of the flyer. A request to have parents and students call various news agencies (whose telephone numbers were listed at the bottom of the flyer) and request that reporters be sent to the School the following day (December 5) to attend an NAACP meeting at the School. A statement of the writer's belief that the District and the School promote intolerance, bias, and double standards concerning people of color. A statement specifically addressing Respondent's confrontation with a student earlier in the year. Another statement urging the reader to submit their own concerns to administration that day or early on the following day. Respondent denies writing the flyer or having anything to do with its distribution to students. However, he does admit distributing copies of the flyer to other employees at the school, including Jacqueline Pollard, a teacher, and Wesley Johnson, the senior head custodian at the School. Both Pollard and Johnson are African-Americans. Other employees, including Mr. Johnson, saw Respondent handing out a sheet of paper to students on December 4, 2008, which they presumed to be copies of the flyer. The flyer had been discovered by administrative staff at the School on December 4, 2008, after an altercation between some girls on campus. While the girls were being questioned in the administrative offices, one of them provided staff with a copy of the flyer. The student did not know from whom she had received the flyer, but said it was being distributed around campus. At least one teacher told the administrative office that a student in her class received the flyer from Respondent. Respondent was seen distributing an unidentified sheet of white paper to students on the afternoon of December 4, 2008, and the morning of December 5, 2008. Respondent maintains that all he gave students was a handwritten Christmas greeting which said, "Happy Holidays and [peace sign] on Earth. God bless Obama & God bless the U.S.A. Mr. Ron, Security." On the morning of December 5, 2008, Respondent was observed by Assistant Principal Wilks talking to a group of students. Wilks heard Respondent tell the students to go to the Performing Arts Center ("PAC") for the purpose of attending the NAACP meeting. Many of the students then headed toward the PAC. Wilks then redirected the students toward their assigned classrooms. Respondent denies he told students to go to the PAC for a meeting; he says he directed them all to return to class. Based on Wilks' interaction with students shortly thereafter in the area of the PAC, her testimony on this point is more credible. After hearing Respondent talking to the students, Wilks went to the PAC, which is located at the front of the campus. Several groups of students showed up at the PAC and said they wanted to attend the NAACP meeting. They were told that there was no meeting at the PAC that day in which students were authorized to attend. One of the students advised Wilks that her "uncle" had told her to go to the PAC for the meeting. Respondent concedes that the student was referring to him (although she is not actually his niece). Respondent denies telling her to go to the PAC for a meeting. There was in fact a meeting at the School on December 5, 2008, between the principal, Dr. Kenney, and the NAACP representative, Mr. Harvey. However, that meeting was held in the principal's office, not at the PAC. The meeting went well and Mr. Harvey left the campus seemingly in agreement with how the School was handling interactions between racial groups.2 It was determined by the School administration that Respondent's apparent involvement in the effort to disrupt the NAACP meeting made his continued employment at the School impractical. However, rather than seeking to terminate Respondent, it was decided that he could be transferred to McIntosh to serve as a security monitor at that school.3 On the evening of December 5, 2008, after school hours, Respondent was called at home and told that he was being reassigned. On December 6, 2008, Respondent came to the School to empty out his employee locker and retrieve his personal items. He asked that this process be supervised and/or taped, so there were persons observing him as he did so. Respondent then reported to McIntosh for duty. Employees are not allowed to use school copying machines for personal use (without prior approval from administration). Each employee is assigned a code to use when making copies so that the School can monitor the use of copy machines. On the Monday following Respondent's reassignment to McIntosh, a media specialist printed out a "user chart" for one of the school copy machines located in the mailroom. The user chart showed that Respondent had made 465 copies on that machine since the beginning of the 2008-2009 school year. Principal Kenney could not think of any justification for Respondent making that many copies. Respondent does not remember what he copied, but notes that another security monitor made many more copies than Respondent did. Respondent did not deny making the copies, but was unaware of the requirement to get permission first. Just three weeks before the NAACP meeting incident, while Respondent was still working at the School, his supervisor was looking for him on campus. Respondent did not respond to calls over the walkie-talkie (radio) system used for communication purposes. Respondent had not signed out in accordance with the well-known policy to do so, but was observed off-campus at a gas station. The failure to sign out is an actionable violation of Respondent's employment. On December 18, 2008,4 Larry Leon (chief of school police and director of safety and security) and Sam Wilson went to McIntosh to provide Respondent a sealed envelope. The envelope contained a notice concerning an upcoming meeting. After Respondent failed to answer numerous radio calls from Wilson, Wilson asked McIntosh's assistant principal, Hazuda, to make an attempt to call Respondent. Hazuda called Respondent, who showed up at Hazuda's office in a matter of minutes. Upon seeing Wilson in the office, Respondent was visibly upset. He said something to Hazuda about being "set up" and that he was being harassed. Respondent refused to accept the envelope, said he was sick, and left Hazuda's office to go to the school clinic where he signed out for the day. When Wilson tried to talk to him, Respondent simply raised his hands above his head and walked away. Hazuda's efforts to make Respondent remain at the school and go back to work were not successful. Hazuda's testimony on this point is extremely credible. As Respondent was leaving the clinic, Leon called out to him. Respondent ignored Leon and continued to leave the building. Leon followed and called out loudly to Respondent, asking him to stop. Respondent swore at Leon, saying "F**k you" and continued to walk toward his car. At no time did Respondent turn around and engage in face-to-face conversation with Leon.5 On January 5, 2009, Police Chief Leon and Wilson returned to McIntosh with another written notice to be delivered to Respondent. Letters had been sent to Respondent about the upcoming meeting, but no response had been received. (Respondent had signed one copy of a notice, but left it on the counter in the administration offices rather than returning it as asked.) So, Wilson and Leon again tried to hand-deliver a copy of the notice to Respondent. Numerous attempts to contact Respondent via radio on January 5, 2009, were unsuccessful. Finally, someone who had heard the radio calls advised Respondent that he was being summoned to the front office. Respondent surmises that his radio might not have been functioning properly at that time, so he didn't hear the calls. When Respondent got to the office, he decided to check out for the day because he was feeling ill. He left without accepting delivery of the written notice. Subsequently, on January 15, 2009, a Weingarten hearing was conducted on the issues relating to the December 5, 2008, NAACP meeting at the School and the two incidents at McIntosh. Respondent attended the hearing and presented responses to the allegations of misbehavior. Based upon the information gathered at the Weingarten hearing, the District decided that termination of Respondent's employment was warranted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Sarasota County School Board terminating the employment of Respondent effective February 18, 2009. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 26th day of June, 2009.
The Issue The issues in this proceeding involve Petitioners' challenge, pursuant to Section 120.54(4), Florida Statutes, of the proposed adoption by the School Board of school attendance boundaries and attendant policy changes for implementation beginning with the 1981-82 school year. Initially, Petitioners challenged both the proposed zones for high and elementary schools. However, during the pendency of this proceeding, Respondent withdrew the proposed attendance zone changes for elementary schools, thereby rendering issues related thereto moot, and leaving only the high school boundaries for further consideration. In summary, Petitioners claim that the proposed rule amendments, including maps prepared in conjunction therewith, are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority by virtue of the School Board's failure to comply with procedural and substantive requirements of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Petitioners allege that deficiencies exist in procedures utilized by the School Board prior to publication of its notice of intent to adopt the proposed rules, in the advertisements and economic impact statement prepared in conjunction with the proposed rule amendments, and in the allegedly arbitrary and capricious nature of the Proposed changes from current attendance boundaries. Petitioners further claim that the School Board's announced intention to utilize student race as a factor in drawing attendance zones is unconstitutional and beyond the School Board's delegated legislative authority. The Respondent contends that each of the Petitioners is without standing to maintain this rule challenge pursuant to Section 120.54(4), Florida Statutes; that the preadvertisement procedures followed by the School Board are not jurisdictional insofar as this present proceeding is concerned; that any deficiencies in the legal notices or economic impact statement constitute harmless error; and that the proposed rules are a valid exercise of legislative authority delegated to it in Sections 230.23(4) and 230.232, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The School Board of Leon County, Florida, is an "agency" as defined in Section 120.52(1), Florida Statutes, and is charged by law with direction and control of grades Kindergarten through 12 for all public schools in Leon County, Florida. Respondent is required by statute to promulgate rules and regulations establishing attendance zones for grades Kindergarten through 12, and has proposed for adoption certain amendments to its existing rules which will have the effect of changing attendance boundaries for middle and high schools located in Leon County, Florida. On May 5, 1981, the School Board withdrew previously advertised plans to adopt modified attendance boundaries for the 1981-82 school year, but announced its intention to continue its rezoning efforts. The School Board held a workshop meeting to discuss rezoning on May 14, 1981. This meeting was noticed in the legal advertisement section of the Tallahassee Democrat on that same date. Action on rezoning was taken at the meeting, and the meeting was recessed until the evening of May 18, 1981. No formal notice of the recessing of the May 14 meeting or the reconvening of that meeting on May 18 was published in any newspaper. On May 18, the May 14 workshop was reconvened. At this meeting the public addressed questions to the School Board members and staff. The Board announced at this meeting that it would discuss the matter further at its regular meeting the following night, May 19, 1981, and that the general issue of rezoning was already on the agenda for the May 19 meeting. The School Board also directed the Superintendent to "take administrative steps as are necessary to schedule a special meeting of the Board pursuant to provisions of Section 230.16, Florida Statutes." This reconvened meeting held on the evening of May 18, 1981, was the subject of an article in the May 18, 1981, edition of the Tallahassee Democrat, which carried a news article reporting on rezoning under the headline, "The rezoners are feeling the pressure." This newspaper article included a special separated section entitled "Meeting is Monday," which directed the public's attention to the time and location of the workshop meeting that night. Toward the end of the regular School Board meeting on May 19, 1981, the School Board recessed and subsequently reconvened to discuss rezoning. The School Board held an extensive discussion on various topics related to rezoning, and responded to questions from the public. Two subsequent meetings were then scheduled. The first was a workshop meeting on rezoning to be held on May 25, 1981, and the second was a meeting scheduled for May 26, 1981, to direct the Superintendent to advertise the proposed modified school attendance boundaries. On May 20, 1981, in the Special Notice section of the Tallahassee Democrat, an ad appeared noticing a "special meeting" of the School Board at Belle Vue Middle School on May 26, 1981, beginning at 7:00 p.m., to discuss rezoning. On May 21, 1981, in the Legal Advertisement section of the Tallahassee Democrat, an ad appeared noticing a "special emergency meeting" at Bond Elementary School beginning at 5:00 p.m. on May 26, 1981, to deal with rezoning, which notice indicated that the meeting time and place was a rescheduling of the meeting previously set for Belle Vue Middle School. The May 25, 1981, workshop meeting was noticed in a legal advertisement in the Tallahassee Democrat on May 22, 1981. In a news article on rezoning published on Sunday, May 24, 1981, in the Tallahassee Democrat, which article was entitled "Rezoners can't find all the answers," the purpose, times and locations for both the May 25 workshop and the May 26 special emergency meeting were contained in a special section set off from the remainder of the article. The Petitioners challenging the modification of the high school attendance boundaries in this proceeding testified that they were each present at the May 26 meeting. At the School Board meeting on May 26, 1981, there were approximately forty to fifty members of the public in attendance. Members of the public addressed the School Board during the meeting. Several modifications were made to the maps and the language of the proposed rule amendments at this meeting. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Superintendent was directed to initiate in accordance with Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, the adoption of modified school attendance boundaries and associated language changes in as expeditious a fashion as possible. On June 3, 1981, four legal advertisements pertinent to this proceeding, each entitled "Notice of Intent to Adopt a Rule," appeared in the Legal Notices section of the Tallahassee Democrat. These notices were titled 6GX37-3.02(1) High School; 6GX37-3.02(1) Middle School; 6GX37-3.02(1) Elementary School; and 6GX37-3.02 Assignment of Pupils. Under the economic impact portion of the four advertisements is the phrase, ". . . [p]arents of students who elect to be grandfathered are responsible for transportation and the costs associated with that responsibility." The maps containing the proposed high school attendance boundaries are Respondent's Exhibits 8(d) High School City Map, and 8(e) High School County Map. The two high school maps were referenced in the legal advertisement denominated 6GX37-3.02(1) High Schools. By its actions, the School Board proposes to amend Rule 6GX37-3.02(1) to read as follows: The Establishment of Schools. All public schools operated by the School Board of Leon County, Florida, shall be for its residents and for such other students as may be authorized by the Board and shall be fully desegregated. The School Board shall from time to time promulgate atten- dance zones so that each school will serve those students residing in each such zone. The Board shall also establish student capacities for, and grades served by, each school in the county, which may be modified by the Board as required. Maps showing the attendance zones applicable to each school, including grades served by each school, shall be maintained in the Office of Student Services and shall be available for public inspection. The School Board also proposes to amend Rule 6GX37-3.02(2) to add the following provision: Grandfathering. The following standards shall be for grandfathering certain students, provided that their residence remains unchanged, in order to preserve educational continuity. Once a student has indicated his or her choice, in writing, changes may be made through application to the Board Reassignment Subcommittee. The Board shall, upon request, allow students who were enrolled in a high school during the 1980-81 school year to remain at that same high school if the new zones for the 1981-82 school year put them in the attendance zone of a different high school so long as the parents shall be responsible for all necessary transportation. (Emphasis added). The School Board is not presently under any federal or state mandate to rezone the school system in Leon County. The School Board is, therefore, performing a purely discretionary function in undertaking its current rezoning effort. Respondent's express purpose in rezoning Leon County high schools for the 1981-82 school year is . . . to make more effective use of school facilities and to seek greater racial balance among the four high schools." In the preparation of school attendance boundaries the School Board, for statistical purposes, divided Leon County into a large number of small geographical areas called "study areas" or "study zones." The number of students residing in each study area was determined by both race and grade level, and this information was then placed in a computer to establish an accurate baseline of current attendance data for making various enrollment projections. In connection with the proposed zoning changes, the School Board administrative staff attempted to bring current and make as accurate as possible the data used in the rezoing process. Current enrollment figures at the high school level were updated through April 8, 1981. In making the various projections based upon available data, the School Board, through its consultant, used "cohort survival rates," a student projection technique developed by the Florida Department of Education for use throughout the state by school districts considering modification of school attendance boundaries. It is recognized that, although this projection technique is commonly accepted, it is subject to the normal errors inherent in any such predictive technique. On February 3, 1981, the School Board adopted five of eight criteria recommended by the Superintendent to be considered in drawing new attendance boundaries. These criteria, although never formally adopted as "rules," were used by community volunteers, staff, consultants, and ultimately the School Board itself in the development of the maps delineating the proposed new attendance boundaries. These criteria are as follows: * * * That the concept of neighborhood schools be adhered to in the revision of the attendance areas, but that non-contiguous attendance areas be allowed where necessary to achieve the desired racial composition. That natural boundaries be used to define attendance areas insofar as it is possible, avoiding duplicate transportation service on individual roadways. That the minority enrollment in any school be not more than 10 percent above or 10 percent below the percent of minority enrollment in that school level in the county as a whole, excluding Chaires, Concord, Fort Braden and Woodville Elementary Schools. That rising 5th, 8th and 12th grade students, on request, be permitted to continue in attendance if their resi- dence is placed in another school attendance area, with any needed transportation being provided by the parent and not the School Board (an exception to this rule should be made for students whose school of atten- dance was changed by the School Board in August, 1980, and transportation be provided at district expense in the event that the attendance areas affecting them are changed this year and the parents desire to have their children continue to attend the school they are attending in 1980-81). That the transportation needed to accomplish the desired racial compo- sition of each school be provided in as efficient and cost effective manner as possible, consistent with Florida Laws and Regulations, and School Board policy on hazardous areas. (Emphasis added). There are four high schools in Leon County: Leon, Godby, Rickards and Lincoln. Enrollment figures for the four high schools, as of April 8, 1981, are as follows: Leon, 1,690; Godby, 1,430; Lincoln, 1,664; and Rickards, 928. White students attending each of the four high schools comprise the following percentages of the total student body: Leon, 78 percent; Godby, 64 percent; Lincoln, 73 percent; and Rickards, 49 percent. The recommended capacities for the high schools in Leon County, based upon the School Plant Survey of Leon District Schools conducted by the Florida Department of Education, are: Leon, 1,644; Godby, 1,556; Lincoln, 1,704; and Rickards, 1,465. In designing the proposed attendance boundaries for the 1981-82 school year, the School Board's consultant used a recommended enrollment figure supplied to him by the School Board staff. This recommended enrollment figure was not the same as the physical plant capacity figure. These recommended enrollment figures were, however, closely related to plant capacities, any differences between the two figures being reflective of various other program considerations. The most reliable prediction of future enrollments at the various high schools, which takes into account the estimated effect of grandfathering under the proposed amendments, reveals that for the first three years in which the proposed school boundaries are to be in effect, anticipated enrollments will be within the physical plant capacities of the various high schools. In addition, under the proposed zone changes, the racial composition of the student populations at each of the four high schools is projected to be within the 10 percent criteria established by the School Board by March of 1984. Rickards is the only high school in Leon County which does not presently meet the plus-or- minus 10 percent racial composition criteria. However, as indicated above, according to the School Board's projections, Rickards should meet that criteria during the 1983-84 school year. The greater number of students assigned to Rickards under the proposed zoning changes will make use of available and currently unused space, and, because of increased student enrollment, the diversity of course offerings should also increase. This is so because the amount of funds allocated to a given school is directly related to the number of students enrolled. Thus, for an under-enrolled school such as Rickards, fewer funds are generated under the statewide funding formula for that facility, which, in turn, may result in fewer programs being offered to students. There are, in fact, some courses not presently offered at Rickards that are available in other county high schools, due, at least in part, to under-enrollment at Rickards. The record in this proceeding does not establish with absolute certainty the total number of students either eligible for or expected to exercise the grandfathering option for the 1981-82 school year. However, a poll conducted by the School Board indicates that from 90 percent to 100 percent of students eligible for grandfathering will exercise that option, and estimates of potential school enrollments are partially based on that assumption. In fact, all student petitioners in this proceeding eligible for grandfathering testified that they would take advantage of that option. The reasons for this choice generally dealt with current school activities and friendships, and was consistent with the policy expressed by the School Board "to preserve educational continuity." The economic impact of the grandfathering provision on parents required to furnish transportation as a result of electing that option was not addressed quantitatively in the School Board's Economic Impact Statement. With regard to this cost factor, the Economic Impact Statement provided that: Current Board policy provides that bus transportation will be provided by the district if the residence of the parent is more than two miles from the assigned school. None of the proposed rule amendments modify this basic policy; however, the policy changes in 3.02 allow for the "grandfather- ing" of students in certain grade levels subject to the requirement that the parents provide all necessary transportation. To the extent that a parent voluntarily chooses to assume that responsibility, that parent may incur associated costs such as gas and oil. There is no indication in this record that the School Board considered the potential cost and feasibility of providing transportation at School Board expense to those students choosing the grandfather option who live two or more miles from the "grandfathered" school. Testimony at the final hearing estimated transportation costs of $367.20 based upon an average driving distance between a student's home and school of 5.1 miles (based on the length of the average bus route), full attendance for the full 180 student school days, and a 20 cents- per-mile cost, which is the current state reimbursement rate for travel by automobile. Naturally, actual transportation costs would vary substantially, depending upon the type of vehicle driven, the number of students transported, the student's actual attendance pattern, carpooling, travel routes, and other associated factors. The parents' responsibility to assume these transportation costs in the event of electing tee grandfathering option is pointed out both in the rule advertisements and the Economic Impact Statement. The School Board has other existing policies which allow a student to attend a school different from that to which he is assigned based upon the location of his residence. These include the School Board's majority/minority transfer policy and instances in which a student requests to attend a special program at another school which is not available at his assigned school. In all such cases, the School Board requires that the student or his parents provide transportation at their own expense. The Economic Impact Statement prepared by the School Board in conjunction with the rule adoption process was based upon materials developed by the School Board staff on impact costs associated with rezoning in their areas of administrative responsibility. The Economic Impact Statement itself was based ". . . upon the premise that only those incremental, out-of-pocket costs attributable to the policy revision and rezoning process are included." Previously committed, or "sunk," costs such as salaries and related employee benefits were explicitly excluded from the analysis, although such costs were significant since the rezoning process absorbed a great deal of staff time. Similarly, "opportunity" costs, in the form of benefits foregone by directing district resources to rezoning rather than other goals were specifically excluded from consideration in the Economic Impact Statement. These base assumptions were described in the Economic Impact Statement itself. Petitioners, Joseph and Piercie Ehrlich, reside in Leon County, Florida, with their two daughters, Stephanie and Betty, who presently attend Lincoln High School. Under the proposed rezoning plan, the Ehrlichs' daughters would be required to attend Rickards High School, unless they choose the grandfather option in order to remain at Lincoln High School. Lincoln High School is located 1.58 miles from the Ehrlich home, and it is approximately 5 miles to Rickards High School from their residence. In the event that the proposed amendments to the school attendance zones are adopted, both of the Ehrlichs' daughters testified that they will exercise the grandfather option in order to continue to attend Lincoln High School. Petitioners, Robert and Joni McDermott, reside in Leon County, Florida, with their daughter, Dana, who is presently a student at Lincoln High School. The McDermotts' daughter will be required to attend Rickards High School, unless, as she testified, she exercises the grandfather option, should the proposed school attendance zones be adopted. The McDermott residence is located 2 miles from Lincoln High School, and approximately 3.5 to 4 miles from Rickards High School. Curt and Linda McKenzie reside in Leon County, Florida, with their daughter, Kris, who is a student at Lincoln High School. If the proposed rezoning amendments are adopted, Kris will be required to attend Rickards High School, unless she chooses to remain at Lincoln under the grand fathering provision. The McKenzie residence is located 1.6 miles from Lincoln High School, and approximately 4 miles from Rickards. A. P. and Judy Floyd reside in Leon County, Florida, with their child, Tracy, who would be entering the 9th grade at Lincoln High School, absent the proposed amendments to the school attendance zones. However, under the proposed plan, Tracy will be required to attend Rickards High School for the 1981-82 school year. Lincoln High School is located 1.6 miles from the Floyd residence, and Rickards High School is located 4.4 miles from their home. Counsel for both Petitioners and Respondent have submitted proposed findings of fact for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those findings of fact have not been adopted in this Order, they have been rejected as being either irrelevant to the issues in this cause, or as not having been supported by the evidence.
The Issue The issue presented herein concerns the appeal filed by Respondent of the school board's assignment of Respondent to J.R.E. Lee Junior High School, an alternative school placement.
Findings Of Fact Based on the entire record compiled herein, including the testimony of Peter Hoffman, Assistant Principal at Centennial Junior High School, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact. On approximately August 26, 1983, Respondent, Tracy Jean Hidalgo, was assigned to attend Centennial Junior High School. Upon arriving for enrollment at Centennial, within six days of her enrollment, four fires were set in the bathrooms at Centennial Junior High School. Respondent admitted setting the fires when questioned by Assistant Principal Hoffman. Once the fires were set at Centennial Junior High, the regular school program was suspended and the students evacuated the building until the fires were brought under control. As stated hereinabove, Respondent or a representative on her behalf did not appear at the hearing to offer any testimony respecting the charges which prompted Respondent's administrative assignment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended that the Respondent's appeal of the school board's assignment of her to the school system's opportunity school program at J. R. E. Lee Junior High School be DENIED. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of February, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of February, 1984.
