Findings Of Fact Prior to May 18, 1977, the Respondent was employed by the School Board as a driver education teacher and head football coach at Miami South Ridge High School. At approximately 3:00 A.M. on May 15, 1977, the Respondent left his home in Miami, Florida, and drove to the back of a business located at 7211 S. W. 40th Street in Miami, Florida. John F. Allen operates a boat, motor, and trailer sales, service, and repair business at that location. In the back of the building there is a work area that is surrounded by a chain link fence. Customers' boats and motors are stored in this area while work is done on them in the shop. The Respondent walked down an alleyway along the fenced area, and climbed over the fence. He removed an outboard motor from a boat, and pulled it away from the boat toward the fence. The Respondent did not work in the boat yard, and he was not authorized to be there after regular business hours. There was no direct evidence as to the Respondent's intentions. The circumstance of his being in the fenced in portion of the boat yard at between 3:00 A.M. and 4:00 A.M. and the circumstance of his removing an outboard motor from a boat, and carrying it toward the fence, lead inescapably to the conclusion that the Respondent was seeking to steal the engine. The Respondent did not remove the engine from the boat yard. For unknown reasons, he abandoned his effort to steal the engine and left the boat yard. The Respondent was not armed with any weapon, and no other person was in the boat yard while he was there. The outboard engine which the Respondent was attempting to steal was a 40 horsepower Johnson outboard engine. The weight of the engine is approximately 140 pounds. The engine has a wholesale value of approximately $250. Even if the engine were in the worst possible operating condition, it would still be worth approximately $150. While the Respondent was in the boat yard, two police officers employed by the Dade County Public Safety Department were undertaking a routine patrol of the area in an unmarked car. They observed the Respondent's automobile parked adjacent to the boat yard. One of the officers walked along the chain link fence in back of the boat yard and observed the Respondent inside the yard holding an engine. There was heavy vegetation along the fence, but the police officer was able to see through it at one point. The officer went back to his car, and told his partner what he had witnessed. Shortly thereafter the Respondent came out of the alley, got into his car, and drove away. The police officers turned on a flashing light in their car, pulled up behind the Respondent's car, and stopped him. The Respondent was placed under arrest. The police officer read the Respondent his rights from a "Miranda card". During interrogation after the arrest the Respondent pointed out the motor that he had removed from the boat, and told the officers were he had gotten it. The Respondent was then taken to a police station where he was fingerprinted, and later released on bail. A criminal action is now pending against the Respondent in the courts in Dade County. Tools of a sort which could have been used in perpetration of a burglary were found in the Respondent's pockets and on the floor of the Respondent's automobile by the police after they stopped him. There was no evidence presented that these tools were used by the Respondent in breaking into the boat yard or in removing the outboard engine from the boat. There was no evidence that the Respondent intended to use the tools for these purposes. There was evidence presented that the tools were put in the automobile by a friend of the Respondent's wife. There is insufficient evidence from which it could be concluded that the Respondent intended to use the tools to commit any trespass or burglary. The School Board acted promptly to suspend the Respondent from his position at South Ridge High School. The instant proceeding ensued.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether just and good cause exists to terminate Respondent from his employment as an educational support employee with Miami-Dade County Public Schools.
Findings Of Fact The Parties At all times material to this proceeding, Petitioner was a duly- constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise free public schools within Miami-Dade County, pursuant to article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution, and section 1001.32, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by the District as an electrician at Maintenance Service Center 4 (hereafter, "MSC4") in Miami-Dade County, Florida. As such, Respondent was subject to applicable Florida Statutes, applicable State Board of Education rules, Petitioner's policies and procedures, and the Dade County Schools Maintenance Employees Committee ("DCSMEC") Contract.2 Charges in the Amended Administrative Complaint The Amended Administrative Complaint alleges that between May and July 2019, Respondent misrepresented his working time on daily status forms and forged the signatures of worksite administrators on daily status forms. The Amended Administrative Complaint charges Respondent with having violated Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-5.056(2) and 6A- 10.081 and School Board Policies 4210, 4210.01, and 8700. The Amended Administrative Complaint alleges that the conduct in which Respondent is alleged to have engaged, and the violations with which he has been charged, constitutes just cause to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate him from his employment position with the District. 2 The version of the DCSMEC Contract in effect between July 1, 2018, and June 30, 2021, was in effect at the time of the alleged conduct giving rise to this proceeding, and, therefore, applies to this proceeding. Evidence Adduced at the Final Hearing Background Respondent was hired by the District as an electrician in February 2007. He worked at Maintenance Service Center 3 until September 2008, when he was reassigned to MSC4. MSC4 is one of four District maintenance service centers that the District operates. MSC4 is several acres in area and contains trucks, storage facilities, a fueling station, and dumpsters. The geographic service area for which MSC4 is responsible stretches from Southwest 168th Street, in Miami, southward to the Miami-Dade County/Monroe County line. District employees assigned to MSC4 perform work at District facilities within the MSC4 service area. Respondent's work hours at MSC4 were from 6:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. He worked at MSC4 from September 2008 until December 2020, when he was suspended without pay and Petitioner took agency action to terminate his employment with the District. Respondent's home is located approximately 21 miles north of the northern boundary, and over 30 miles north of the southern boundary, of the MSC4 service area. During his employment at MSC4, Respondent engaged in the typical tasks performed by electricians who work for the District. Specifically, he handled work orders sent to MSC4 from District school facilities, entailing a wide range of electrical issues that arose, including loss of power, lighting issues, air conditioning, kitchen equipment, electrical wiring, damaged motors, and other tasks. Electricians are—and, at the time of Respondent's alleged conduct giving rise to this proceeding, were—assigned work by a foreman at MSC4. Work orders for specific jobs at specific facilities would be given by the foreman to the electrician, who would travel to the facility and perform the requested work. An electrician could be given several work orders on a given day, and if the work assigned through a work order was not completed that day, the electrician would return the following day to complete the work. If the electrician finished all of the work assigned through a work order, he or she was to contact the foreman, who would dispatch the electrician to another location to complete another work order. Electricians kept track of their work each day on a Daily Status Form ("DSF"), which (as the name indicates) was required to be completed by the electrician and submitted to the foreman on a daily basis. On each DSF, the electrician would provide a brief description of the work performed; enter the amount of time spent on a particular job; state whether the job was completed; and obtain the signature of the principal or authorized representative, who, by signing the DSF, verified that the work described on the DSF for that facility was, in fact, performed. At the time of the alleged conduct giving rise to this proceeding, Respondent's supervisors were Michael Thomas and a person referred to in the record as "Mr. Hetzer."3 At that time, and at the time of the final hearing in this proceeding, Timothy Jones was the director of MSC4, so was the supervisor for Thomas, Hetzer, and Respondent. At the time of Respondent's alleged conduct giving rise to this proceeding, he was assigned a District work vehicle having Vehicle Number 202209. Telogis Vehicle Tracking Software Installed in District Vehicles In 2016, the District purchased new Ford trucks for MSC4. The vehicles came equipped with global positioning system ("GPS") hardware and Telogis software, a Verizon Connect software product. Via cellular signal, the Telogis software tracks, among other things, the location and speed of 3 The record does not refer to Mr. Hetzer's first name. Hetzer died in January 2020, so was unavailable to testify at the final hearing. equipped District vehicles. The software enables the District to efficiently manage its fleet of vehicles. Respondent, along with the other MSC4 employees and the members of the DCSMEC union, was informed by Jones that the District vehicles used by employees at MSC4 were equipped with the Telogis software. The work vehicle assigned to Respondent, Vehicle Number 202209, was equipped with the Telogis software. The evidence establishes that Respondent knew his vehicle was equipped with the Telogis software. The data for each District vehicle is gathered by the Telogis software and electronically stored by Verizon Connect in a records storage and maintenance platform called Fleet. Verizon Connect customers have access to the data stored in the Fleet platform for purposes of monitoring the location and performance of their vehicles, and they can print out reports of their vehicle data that is stored in the Fleet platform. The competent, substantial, and persuasive evidence establishes that the Telogis software functions accurately in recording the vehicle location, speed, and other monitored features. No competent or persuasive evidence was provided showing that the Telogis software was generally unreliable or that it had a significant error rate.4 Respondent's Alleged Conduct Giving Rise to this Proceeding On or about July 12, 2019, Hetzer, who was Respondent's immediate supervisor at the time, and Jones found Respondent sleeping in his work vehicle. This incident caused Jones to investigate Respondent's work-related records for the preceding few months, because, as Jones put it, "I just wanted to see what Mr. Fleites had been up to." Jones testified, credibly, that had he found other employees sleeping on duty, he also would have accessed the Telogis software reports for their vehicles. 4 See paragraph 66, below. As part of the investigation, Jones or Hetzer accessed, and printed out, the Telogis software reports for Respondent's work vehicle for the period from May 1 to July 12, 2019.5,6 Also as part of the investigation, Jones reviewed Respondent's DSFs for the period from May 1 to July 12, 2019. Jones compared the Telogis software reports for Respondent's vehicle with the DSFs that Respondent had completed for the period from May 1 to July 12, 2019. Based on the information provided by the Telogis software for Respondent's District vehicle, Jones determined that on numerous days during the period between May 1 and July 12, 2019, Respondent either was not at the specific location he had recorded on the DSF for that day, or he was not present at a specific location for the amount of time he had stated for that day. Specifically, on May 1, 2019, Respondent's DSF stated that he was at Redondo Elementary School ("Redondo") for eight full hours; however, the Telogis report indicated that he was not at Redondo at all that day. Rather, the Telogis report showed that he drove to his home, as indicated by "JF" in 5 Jones testified that either he or Hetzer printed out the Telogis software reports for Respondent's work vehicle. He could not specifically recall whether he personally printed out the reports, but he testified, credibly, that he was trained in how to read and analyze the vehicle data in the reports, and he was authorized to print such reports. 6 The Telogis reports admitted into the record fall within the business records exception to hearsay rule codified in section 90.803(6), Florida Statutes. Petitioner presented the testimony of Avram Polinsky, a records custodian employed by Verizon Connect, who is directly involved in the preparation and storage of the Telogis records and in making them available in report-form for customer use. Polinsky authenticated the Telogis records and his testimony established that the records were made at or near the time the data comprising the records was compiled by the Telogis software system; that these records were kept in the ordinary course of Verizon Connect's business; and that it was a regular practice of Verizon Connect to keep such records and make them available for use by customers. Accordingly, the Telogis records constitute business records pursuant to section 90.803(6). See Jackson v. State, 877 So. 2d 816, 817 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)(computer printouts generated at the request of a party in connection with litigation fall within the business records exception). Moreover, the Telogis reports are directly relevant to the charges against Respondent, and, therefore, are admissible in this de novo proceeding. the report, which, as found above, was approximately 21 miles north of the northern boundary of the MSC4 service area, and spent close to an hour there. He also drove to unidentified locations in Miami-Dade County, to the District's Redland vehicle fueling station, to the MSC4 facility, and then back to the fueling station. Respondent's DSF for May 2, 2019, stated that he worked eight hours at the South Dade Skills Center ("SDSC"). However, the Telogis report shows that he was only at SDSC for approximately 17 minutes. Had Respondent completed the work ordered at SDSC in that amount of time, as discussed above, he was supposed to contact his foreman to receive another work assignment for that day—which he did not do. The Telogis report also shows that Respondent drove to his home, to unidentified locations in Miami-Dade County, to the Redland fueling station, and to the MSC4 facility. Respondent's DSF for May 3, 2019, stated that he spent eight hours at Miami Heights Elementary School. However, according to the Telogis report for that day, he did not go to the school, but instead, went home and also drove to the Redland fueling station and the MSC4 facility. Respondent's DSF for May 7, 2019, stated that he was at the Air Base K-8 Center for eight hours; however, the Telogis report for that day shows that he was not at that facility at any time on that date. The Telogis report shows that he went home, went to various unknown locations in Miami-Dade County, went to the Redland fueling station multiple times, and went to the MSC4 facility. Respondent's DSF for May 8, 2019, stated that he was at the Peskoe K-8 Elementary School for eight hours; however, the Telogis report for that day shows that he was not at that facility at any time on that date, but, instead, went home, went to unknown locations in Miami-Dade County, went to the Redland fueling station multiple times, and went to the MSC4 facility. Respondent's DSF for May 9, 2019, states that he worked eight hours at the MSC4 facility. However, the Telogis report for that day showed that, in addition to being present at the MSC4 facility for two short periods of time, he drove 68 miles that day, to several unknown locations in Miami-Dade County, and to the Redland fueling station five times. Respondent's DSF for May 13, 2019, states that he worked eight hours at Redland Elementary School; however, the Telogis report for that day shows that he was only present at that location for slightly over seven minutes. The Telogis report shows that he made several stops at the Redland fueling station, three stops at the MSC4 facility, and three stops at unknown locations in Miami-Dade County. Respondent's DSF for June 3, 2019, states that he worked eight hours at Miami Heights Elementary School. However, the Telogis report for that day shows that he did not go to that school at all on that date, but, instead, went home, drove to the Redlands fueling station several times, and drove to unknown locations in Miami-Dade County. Respondent's DSF for June 4, 2019, states that he worked eight hours at Redondo. However, the Telogis report for that day indicates that he did not go to the school at all on that date, and that instead, he drove home, made four stops at the Redland fueling station, and made two stops at unknown locations in Miami-Dade County. Respondent's DSF for June 5, 2019, states that he worked eight hours at South Miami Heights Elementary School. The Telogis report for that day shows that Respondent did not go to this school at all on this date, but instead went to Redondo, drove home, made four stops at the Redland fueling station, and made two stops at the MSC4 facility. Respondent's DSF for June 6, 2019, states that he worked eight hours at Gulfstream Elementary School; however, the Telogis report for that day shows that he did not go to that school at all on that date, but instead drove home; went to various locations in Miami-Dade County, including a busway station; made five stops at the Redland fueling station; and made multiple stops at the MSC4 facility. Respondent's DSF for June 10, 2019, states that he worked eight hours at South Dade Middle School. However, the Telogis report for that day shows that he did not go to that school, but instead made two very brief stops at two other schools, and made stops at the Redland fueling station and the MSC4 facility. Respondent's DSF for June 11, 2019, states that he worked eight hours at South Dade Middle School. However, the Telogis report for that day shows that he was only present at that school for slightly over 41 minutes. The Telogis report shows that he went to three unknown locations in Miami- Dade County, made five stops at the Redland fueling station, and multiple stops at the MSC4 facility. Respondent's DSF for June 13, 2019, states that he worked eight hours at Laura Saunders Elementary School. However, the Telogis report for that day shows that he was at the school for slightly over 42 minutes, and that he made stops at unknown locations in Miami-Dade County, at the Redland fueling station, and at the MSC4 facility. Respondent's DSF for June 17, 2019, states that Respondent worked eight hours at Homestead Elementary School. However, the Telogis report for that day shows that he did not go to that school on that date, and instead stopped at McArthur South High School—for which no work had been requested—for slightly over 26 minutes. He also made stops at an unknown location in Miami-Dade County and two stops at the Redland fueling station. Respondent's DSF for June 18, 2019, states that Respondent worked eight hours at Redondo. However, the Telogis report for that day shows that he did not go to that school on that date, and instead briefly stopped at South Miami Heights Elementary and Herbert A. Ammons Middle School, although no work had been requested for either school. He also drove home, made five stops at the Redland fueling station, and made two stops at the MSC4 facility. Respondent's DSF for June 19, 2019, states that Respondent worked eight hours at Miami Heights Elementary School. However, the Telogis report for that day shows that he did not go to that school, or to any other school, on that date. He made three stops at unknown locations in Miami- Dade County and two stops at the Redland fueling station. Respondent's DSF for June 24, 2019, states that he worked eight hours at the Medical Academy for Science and Technology. However, the Telogis report for that day shows that he was on site at this school for slightly over 21 minutes. The Telogis report also shows that he made a brief stop at Redland Elementary School, despite no work order being issued for that school that day; and that he made stops at three unknown locations in Miami-Dade County, three stops at the Redland fueling station, and stops at the MSC4 facility. Respondent's DSF for June 25, 2019, states that he worked eight hours at Whigham Elementary School; however, the Telogis report for that day shows that he did not go to that school on that date. The Telogis report shows that Respondent stopped at Redland Elementary School for slightly over 28 minutes, notwithstanding that no work had been requested for that school on that day. The Telogis reports also shows that he made five stops at the Redland fueling station and two stops at unknown locations in Miami- Dade County. Respondent's DSF for June 26, 2019, states that he worked eight hours at Air Base Elementary School; however, the Telogis report for that day shows that he did not go to that school on that date. The Telogis report also shows that he made two stops at unknown locations in Miami-Dade County. Respondent's DSF for June 28, 2019, states that he worked eight hours at Air Base Elementary School; however, the Telogis report for that day shows that he only was present on site at that location for approximately 53 minutes. The Telogis report shows that Respondent drove home, stopped at three unknown locations in Miami-Dade County, and made four stops at the Redland fueling station. Respondent's DSF for July 8, 2019, states that he worked 6.5 hours at Caribbean K-8 Center; however, the Telogis report for that day shows that he did not go to that school on that date. The Telogis report shows that Respondent drove home, made three stops at unknown locations in Miami- Dade County, and three stops at the Redland fueling station. Respondent's DSF for July 9, 2019, states that he worked eight hours at R.R. Morton Elementary School; however, the Telogis report for that day shows that he was at that location for slightly over one hour and 36 minutes, and that he briefly stopped at Redland Elementary School, notwithstanding that no work had been requested for that school on that day. The Telogis report also shows that he made four stops at the Redland fueling station and four stops at unknown locations in Miami-Dade County. Respondent's DSF for July 10, 2019, states that he worked eight hours at Campbell K-8 Center; however, the Telogis report for that day shows that he was at this location for slightly over 39 minutes. The Telogis report shows that Respondent drove home, made three stops at the Redland fueling station and two stops at unknown locations in Miami-Dade County. Respondent's DSF for July 11, 2019, states that he worked eight hours at Caribbean K-8 Center. However, the Telogis report for that day shows that he was only present at that location for one hour and 36 minutes. The Telogis report shows that Respondent made two brief stops at Miami Heights Elementary School, notwithstanding that no work had been requested for that school on that day, and that Respondent made two stops at unknown locations in Miami-Dade County. Respondent's DSF for July 12, 2019, states that he worked eight hours at Redland Elementary School; however, the Telogis report for that day shows that he was present at that location for a total of three hours and 21 minutes. The Telogis report shows that Respondent stopped at the Caribbean K-8 Center, notwithstanding that no work had been requested for that school on that day. The Telogis report also shows that he made four stops at the Redland fueling station, three stops at unknown locations in Miami-Dade County, and one stop at the MSC4 facility. As discussed above, when maintenance work is performed at a District facility, the employee must fill out the DSF, describing the work and stating the number of hours of work performed at the facility, and the employee must obtain the signature of the school's principal or authorized designee. The purpose of obtaining that signature was to verify that the work addressed on the DSF was performed. Here, the persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent falsified or forged signatures on some of the DSFs he submitted. Specifically, Respondent's DSF for May 8, 2019, contains the employee number of James Tuning, a foreman at MSC4, and a signature purported to be Tuning's. Tuning testified, credibly, that the employee number on the form was his, but was not written in his handwriting, and the signature on the DSF was not his. He further testified that, under any circumstances, he would not have been authorized to sign DSFs for work performed at the facilities serviced by employees at MSC4. Respondent's DSFs for June 17, 26, and 28, 2019, contain the employee number of Melissa Vincenti, the principal's secretary at Air Base Elementary School, and a signature purported to be Vincenti's. Vincenti testified, credibly, that the DSFs did contain her employee number, but that the number was not written in her handwriting, and the signature on the DSFs was not hers. The evidence establishes that she did not give permission for Respondent, or anyone else, to sign the DSF for her. Respondent's DSF for July 8, 2019, contains the employee number of Darryl Lyles, the head custodian at Caribbean K-8 Center, and a signature purported to be Lyles's. Lyles testified, credibly, that the employee number on the DSF was his, but the signature was not his. The evidence establishes that he did not give permission for Respondent, or anyone else, to sign the DSF for him. Respondent's Prior Disciplinary History Respondent previously has been disciplined by Petitioner. Specifically, in 2010, Respondent was suspended from his employment with the District for eight days without pay for having left work early, which constituted payroll fraud. In addition to being suspended without pay, Respondent entered into a settlement agreement with Petitioner under which he agreed to reimburse the District for 20 work hours. Respondent's Defenses Michael Thomas, a retired supervisor who worked at MSC4 in 2019, testified that when the Telogis software was installed in District vehicles, he repeatedly assured the District employees at MSC4 who were using the Telogis-equipped vehicles that the data generated by the software system would "never be used against them in a derogatory or disciplinary manner." Thomas testified that he was authorized by his supervisor, Timothy Jones, to tell the employees that the data gathered by Telogis for their vehicles would not be used for disciplinary purposes. However, Jones directly contradicted Thomas's testimony on this point. Jones testified that he did not direct anyone, including Thomas, to tell employees that the Telogis data would not be used for disciplinary purposes. Rather, he told his foremen that he was not using the data for disciplinary purposes at that time. On questioning, Thomas acknowledged that he never had given written assurances to employees that the Telogis data would not be used to support disciplinary action. Furthermore, in any event, there is nothing in the DCSME Contract— which establishes the terms and conditions of employment for those to whom the contract applies, including Respondent—that provides that the Telogis data would not be used as a basis of, or to support, disciplinary action against District employees who violate School Board policies.7 Thomas also testified that the Telogis system had a 20 percent inaccuracy rate. However, on questioning, Thomas acknowledged that this assertion was "anecdotal," and that he did not have any data to support this assertion. He also acknowledged that he was aware of only one vehicle, out of the 21 vehicles dispatched from MSC4, that ever had any Telogis software accuracy issues. He further testified that that particular vehicle was not assigned to Respondent, and that to his knowledge, the Telogis software installed on Respondent's vehicle did not have any accuracy issues. Respondent testified that on July 12, 2019, the day that Jones and Hetzer found Respondent in his vehicle at the MSC4 facility, he was not sleeping, but was instead waiting for rain to pass so he could pick up materials and return to the school to complete the work. However, as found above, this testimony was directly contradicted by Jones, who testified that on that day, he, along with Hetzer, found Respondent sleeping in his vehicle. Thus, Respondent's testimony on this point was not credible. Respondent also testified that Tuning, Vincente, and Lyles gave him their employee numbers and gave him permission to sign the DSFs on their behalf. Respondent's testimony was directly contradicted by the testimony of Tuning, Vincenti, and Lyles, all of whom testified that they had not given Respondent their employee numbers; had not signed the DSFs; and had not authorized Respondent to do so on their behalf. Thus, Respondent's testimony on this point was not credible. Respondent also testified that on the days he had driven home during the work day, he had done so in order to take medication for pain he 7 To that point, any verbal representations made to employees regarding the use of the Telogis software would not, and did not, supersede the DCSME Contract. experienced due to medical issues.8 He testified that he had been given permission to do so by a former supervisor, William Barroso, and that he did not know if his subsequent supervisors were aware that Barroso had given him such permission. In any event, Jones testified that permission to return home for personal reasons, such as to take medication, during work hours could only have been granted by a current supervisor. During the operative time period of May 1 through July 12, 2019, Barroso was not Respondent's supervisor. Therefore, in order for Respondent to have been excused from his job duties during his work hours, he would have needed to obtain permission from his supervisor at the time. There was no evidence presented showing that Respondent had obtained such permission, and the most plausible inference from Respondent's own testimony is that he did not obtain such permission. Respondent also asserts that in using the Telogis records for his District vehicle in support of its proposed disciplinary action at issue in this proceeding, Petitioner has singled out Respondent and treated him disparately as compared to other employees, who have not been subjected to discipline on the basis of Telogis records for their District vehicles. However, this assertion is undercut by the credible testimony of Carlos Diaz, Director of Professional Standards for the District, who stated that Telogis records have, in fact, been used to impose discipline on other District employees. IV. Findings of Ultimate Fact As noted above, Petitioner has charged Respondent with misconduct in office under rule 6A-5.056(2) for having violated specified provisions of rule 6A-10.081, Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession; School Board Policy 4210, Standards of Ethical Conduct; School 8 Respondent testified that he kept his pain medication at home, rather than with him at work, so that he would not be tempted to take more than the prescribed amount. Board Policy 4210.01, Code of Ethics; and School Board Policy 8700, Anti- Fraud.9 Whether an offense constitutes a violation of applicable statutes, rules, and policies is a question of ultimate fact to be determined by the trier of fact in the context of each violation. McKinney v. Castor, 667 So. 2d 387, 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)(whether particular conduct violates a statute, rule, or policy is a factual question); Langston v. Jamerson, 653 So. 2d 489, 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)(whether the conduct, as found, constitutes a violation of statutes, rules, or policies is a question of ultimate fact); Holmes v. Turlington, 480 So. 2d 150, 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)(whether there was a deviation from a standard of conduct is not a conclusion of law, but is instead an ultimate fact). The competent, substantial, credible, and persuasive evidence presented in this proceeding establishes that on multiple occasions, Respondent submitted, to his supervisors, DSFs on which he had intentionally misrepresented the description of the work that he ostensibly had performed and the number of hours he had worked. As further discussed below, Respondent's conduct in this regard violated School Board Policies 4210, 4210.01, and 8700. The competent, substantial, credible, and persuasive evidence also establishes that on several occasions, Respondent falsified or forged signatures of persons, without their permission, on DSFs that he submitted to his supervisors for the purpose of representing that he had performed the work described on the DSF and/or had worked the number of hours represented on the DSF. 9 As further discussed below, it is determined that rules 6A-5.056 and 6A-10.081 do not apply to Respondent, who is not a Florida educator and has no interaction with students in the District. As further discussed below, Respondent's conduct in this regard violated School Board policies 4210, 4210.01, and 8700.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Christopher J. La Piano, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132 For Respondent: Teri Guttman Valdes, Esquire 1501 Venera Avenue, Suite 300 Miami, Florida 33146 1 All references to chapter 120 are to the 2021 version. All other statutory references are to the 2019 and 2020 versions of Florida Statutes, which were in effect at the time of the alleged conduct giving rise to this proceeding. As a practical matter, none of the substantive statutory provisions applicable to this proceeding were amended in the 2020 legislative session, so the 2019 and 2020 versions are the same.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Miami-Dade County School Board, enter a Final Order suspending Respondent without pay and terminating his employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of November, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of November, 2021. Anastasios Kamoutsas, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132 Teri Guttman Valdes, Esquire Teri Guttman Valdes LLC 1501 Venera Avenue, Suite 300 Miami, Florida 33146 Christopher J. La Piano, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained in the Notice of Charges, Williams was employed by the School Board in a variety of capacities. With the exception of paragraph 22, which, to preserve continuity, will be consolidated with paragraph 2 of the Notice of Charges, the allegations shall be considered seriatum. That during the 1965-1966 school year, the Respondent did receive an overall unsatisfactory rating. That the Respondent in the 1965 and 1966 school years received a poor rat- ing in the following area: "Relation- ship with others," and "Is healthy and emotionally stable;" and further received an unsatisfactory rating in the category of "works well with others," end "demon- strates professional attitude and imple- menting school policy." The evidence indicates that for the school year 1965-1966, Williams received an average score of 3.3 on his Dade County evaluation form. According to the form an average rating below 3.5 indicates unsatisfactory work in Dade County schools. On that same evaluation form Williams received a 3.0 rating for the category "Works well with others." There was no rating for "Is healthy and emotionally stable." Williams received a 2.8 rating for the category "Understands and supports school policies aid demonstrates a professional attitude in implementing them." From the 1965-1966 school year until the present Williams has consistently received satisfactory overall ratings for his work in the Dade County schools. That on or about January 16, 1968, the Respondent, while a visiting teacher with the School Board of Dade County, and more particularly assigned to Gladeview Ele- mentary School, the Respondent, did without reason or authority demanded [sic] of the principal, Mr. Leonard Wollman, his reason for having a child stand outside and perform a task signed by the principal. Said demand made by the Respondent was made in a loud, rude and unprofessional manner, and was over- heard by numerous persons located within the confines of the school. On or about January 16, 1968, Mr. Leonard Wollman was principal of Gladeview Elementary School and at that time observed a student throw an apple out a school window. When the student refused to pick up the apple, Mr. Wollman made the student pick it up along with other trash. At that time, Williams criticized the handling of the incident by Wollman and claimed that the child was being mistreated. There was a lack of competent substantial evidence to establish that Williams' inquiries as to the handling of the incident were made in a loud, rude and unprofessional manner. There was a complete absence of evidence to establish that Williams' comments were overheard by numerous persons located within the confines of the school. That during the 1969-1970 school year, the Respondent, Charles Williams, did receive an unsatisfactory evaluation in the area of personal characteristics and leadership, notwithstanding an overall average of 4.2. The Dade County evaluation form for school year 1969-1970 reflects that Williams received a score of 3.0 in each of two categories of personal characteristics and leadership. The remarks section indicates "Needs improvement in human relations and group processes, which hopefully he will develop within the year. Otherwise, performance this year has been outstanding." That during the year 1970, more particularly, during the month of October, 1970, the Respondent was required by the Director of the North Central District to submit to the district office a plan for gifted children to participate in a program as outlined by the District Office. Further, as a result of the Respondent's failure to comply with the directive of the District Office two deserving children from the Respondent's school were left out of the program. There is no evidence in the record to establish that Williams was required to submit a plan for gifted children. There was evidence to establish that Williams was required to submit the names of students in his school who qualified for the gifted child program by October 30, 1970, and that such names were submitted late. Notwithstanding the late submission, the names were still considered for the gifted child program. Furthermore, there is an absence of competent substantial evidence to establish that at deserving children were left out of the program because of the actions of Williams. In the final analysis, Williams is charged with failing to submit a plan when the evidence shows that he was not required to submit a plan. Accordingly, the charge is not supported by the evidence. That on or about November 23, 1970, the Respondent did berate and make sarcastic and provocative remarks to Mrs. Carol Kleinfeld because said teacher had sought a transfer from the school where the Respondent served as principal. On Motion of Williams at the hearing, the undersigned ruled that there was a complete absence of evidence to support this charge. That on or about March 1, 1971, the Respondent did berate Mrs. Carol Kleinfeld who [was a] teacher at the school where the Respondent is principal and further did scream and shout at [her] in a violent and threatening manner further threatening that he would fire all parties concerned. During the 1970-1971 school year, Carol Kleinfeld worked for Williams at Primary C Elementary School. From time to time, Williams and Mrs. Kleinfeld engaged in discussions concerning Mrs. Kleinfeld's performance of her duties. The evidence establishes that Williams was displeased with the performance and gave Mrs. Kleinfeld the lowest possible performance rating. The evidence also establishes that Williams pointed his finger at Ms. Kleinfeld on one or more occasions. However, there is an absence of competent substantial evidence to establish that Williams berated Ms. Kleinfeld or that he screamed and shouted at her in a violent and threatening manner. That during the 1970-1971 school year, the Respondent acted in such an unprofes- sional fashion towards teachers assigned to his school, that numerous teachers requested transfers to other schools as a result of the humiliating and threaten- ing attitudes of the Respondent. There was no competent substantial evidence to establish that Williams acted in an unprofessional manner toward his teachers or that numerous teachers requested transfers because of Williams' conduct. That on or about April 4, 1975, the Respondent did, in front of children and custodians, harass, threaten and berate one Franklin Clark, Coordinator of Primary C Elementary School, con- cerning an event which did not happen. On April 4, 1975, Franklin Clark was Community School Coordinator for Primary C Elementary School. Clark's working hours were from 2:00 to 10:00 P.M. On several occasions, prior to that date, Clark had taken extended supper without informing Williams. When Williams discovered this practice, he had occasion to correct Clark and reiterate the requirement that Clark be present at the School for the appropriate period of time. On the day in question, Williams confronted Clark with an accusation that Clark had not been present during his proper working hours the night before. Clark denied the accusation. While Williams was angry during that conversation, there was no evidence to establish that he harassed, threatened or berated Clark during the encounter. That during the year 1975, the Respondent did fail to cooperate with other school principals, more particularly Ms. Della A. Zaher, principal at Edison Park Elementary School, in that he failed to cooperate with a fellow school principal in establishing and coordinating the articulation plans for the second and third grade students. While the evidence shows that Williams did not in fact work with Ms. Zaher in establishing articulation plans for second and third grade students, the record is devoid of any evidence which would establish that Williams was required to do so. In fact, inter school cooperation was necessary only as desired by participating principals. The evidence does establish that Williams followed prescribed procedure for articulation plans and that there would have been no real benefit in deeling with Ms. Zeher as she had requested. That on or about November 19, 1976, the Respondent did leave a meeting early without authorization which meeting was for the purpose of the area superintendent to explain the alternative plans for attendance. The evidence establishes that on November 19, 1976, Williams attended a meeting of principals, directors, and area office personnel, called by the area superintendent. Williams left the meeting early. However, the evidence affirmatively establishes that no permission was required for any of the participants of the meeting to leave early. That during the month of November, 1976, the Respondent did fail to observe and follow the purposes outlined by Robert Little Supervisor of the attendance office, in his memorandum entitled, "Pro- cedures and Calendar for the Development of the 1977-78 Attendant Zone Changes," dated November 4, 1976. That by failing to follow the plan as outlined by the memorandum, the Respondent's actions created the potential for negative parent/community reaction. That the Respondent did not provide a written plan to the area office for con- sideration until February 8, 1977, and said report was scheduled to be rendered to the area office and the area superintendent on November 19, 1976. All other principals met this deadline. The evidence affirmatively establishes that the memorandum in question did not require Williams to do anything. The alternatives available in the memorandum were optional on the part of principals. On Motion of Williams, the Hearing Officer declared that there was insufficient evidence to establish the allegations of the foregoing charges. That on or about July 11, 1977, the respondent failed to be a witness for the School Board of Dade County which involved the suspension of an employee who was under the direction and control of the Respondent while he was principal at the Primary C Elementary School [sic]. That his refusal to be a witness was without foundation and further, was his duty and responsibility as an employee of the School Board of Dade County. On July 11, 1977, Williams was called to a conference regarding a hearing that was to be held that afternoon, involving another employee of the School Board. Williams went to the conference and became upset because he believed certain questions propounded to him were improper. Williams, however, was neither requested nor directed to be a witness at the hearing to be held later that day. No subpoena was issued to compel Williams' attendance at that hearing. That during the 1978-1979 school year, numerous teachers at the Primary C Elementary School, where the Respondent was assigned as principal, have sought reassignment because of the open criticism and un- warranted harassment by the Respondent. This charge is not substantiated by competent substantial evidence. While the evidence does indicate that Williams had a small number of disagreements with one or two teachers during that school year, the evidence further establishes that the overwhelming majority of the teachers at that school during that school year hold Williams in high regard. There is am absence of evidence to establish that numerous teachers sought reassignment. That on or about November 8, 1978, a principal's meeting was held for the purpose of assisting administrator's review procedures used to remediate professional personnel where performance is deficient and at said meeting, the Respondent acted in a negative and disruptive manner, so as to make the meeting ineffective for all persons concerned. This charge is unsupported by the evidence. The evidence does establish that at the meeting in question, Williams fully participated and asked pertinent, incisive questions of those conducting the meeting. That on or about January 9, 1979, the area superintendant [sic] attempted to have a conference with the Respondent con- cerning specific recommendations for improvement, and at said conference the Respondent was insubordinate, disruptive, hostile and negative toward the area superintendant [sic], in such a manner as to make the meeting an ineffective one, and thus the meeting had to be terminated because of the behavior of the Respondent. At the hearing in this cause, there was made available a complete transcript of the conference held on January 9, 1979, with Williams and the area superintendent. The document, received as Respondent's Exhibit "Y", demonstrates that Williams was neither insubordinate, disruptive, hostile or negative. In fact, the area superintendant terminated the meeting after ascertaining that Williams had no further questions regarding the recommendations for improvement which were given to Williams at the meeting. That in the school year 1969-1970 it was further noted that the Respondent needed improvement in "Human relations" and "Group processes." (As amended at the hearing in this cause.) The Dade County evaluation form for school year 1969-1970 reflects that Williams received an overall score of 4.2 for that school year. This constitutes a satisfactory rating in the Dade County School System. The remarks section says "Needs improvement in human relations and group processes which hopefully he will develop within the year. Otherwise his performance this year has been outstanding." 25. Evaluations for school years 1970-1971, 1971-1972, 1972-1973, 1973- 1974, 1974-1975, 1975-1976, 1976-1977 and 1977-1978, all show satisfactory performance ratings in the areas in question. Furthermore, these ratings reflect that while Williams is not a perfect individual, he is an outstanding educator who has made continued significant contributions to the Dade County School System and to the students under his care.
The Issue Validity of Respondent's placement decision concerning Petitioner, as set forth in letter of Wylamerle G. Marshall, dated March 28, 1978. This cases arises from Petitioner's request for a hearing to review a decision of the Director, Exceptional Child Education, Dade County Public Schools, that placement of the Petitioner in a learning disabilities program was an appropriate placement in the Dade County School System. The decision was effected by letter of March 28, 1978 from Wylamerle G. Marshall to Mrs. Constance Garrett, the mother of petitioner Thomas Garrett. She-thereafter requested review on behalf of her son by letter from legal counsel dated April 6, 1978. The case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for appointment of Hearing Officer on April 12, 1978. Although the hearing in this matter was originally set for May 11, 1978, the Hearing Officer granted Petitioner's request for a continuance and the case was heard on June 14, 1978.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Thomas Garrett, a seven year old boy, who is the son of Constance Garrett, Miami, Florida, was enrolled in the first grade at Orchard Villa Elementary School, Miami, Florida, in September, 1977. Several days after school began, Thomas brought home classroom papers indicating that he had failed on certain tests. Mrs. Garrett spoke to his teacher who informed her that Thomas was hyperactive, disruptive and not able to do classroom work properly. She then went to the principal who told her that letter grades should not have been given in the first grade classes and suggested that the child be placed again in kindergarten. Mrs. Garrett asked that Thomas be tested to determine if he had any learning deficiencies and the principal agreed to initiate administrative processing in that respect. (Testimony of C. Garrett) The normal procedure followed in the Dade County Public School System for placement of a child in a learning disabilities program is for the student's teacher to bring the matter to the attention of the local school authorities who refer the case to a school "team." The team assists the teacher in dealing with any problems arising in the classroom. If the team recommends that the child needs evaluation, the school sends a visiting teacher to the home to obtain the social history of the child to prepare for possible psychological testing and evaluation of the particular case. This information, together with routine school hearing and visual tests, and evaluation of the student's teacher are provided to a psychologist in the school system who performs psychological testing at the school to determine the need for special education. The results of testing are thereafter reviewed by a committee of the county area concerned and final approval of any placement is made by the area staff director of student services for special education. Normally, the local schools are reluctant to test a small child early in the year until school personnel have worked with the child for a reasonable period of time. (Testimony of Shkoler) On September 15, 1977, a visiting teacher was sent to the Garrett home where he obtained necessary data as to the child's background and procured the parent's consent for psychological testing. He turned this material over to school authorities on the same day. At the time of his visit, Mrs. Garrett informed him that she intended to have a private psychologist test her son, and also utilize the services of a public school psychologist, after which she would compare the results. (Testimony of Walton) In the middle of September, a school psychologist was assigned to test Thomas but did not actually perform the testing because Mrs. Garrett obtained the services of a private psychologist who tested her son on September 20. It was therefore necessary for him to postpone any testing until he could see what testing had been done by the private psychologist. In the meantime, however, Mrs. Garrett had been urging the area director of student services, Mrs. Betty Shkoler to hasten psychological testing, but had not made her aware of the fact that private testing had been accomplished. It was not until the latter part of October, however, that Mrs. Garrett took the report of the private psychologist to Mrs. Shkoler, although she had shown it to the Orchard Villa principal. The report stated that Thomas had a need for a fully clinical school with emphasis on motor and perceptual skills and academic learning experiences presented with manipulative-associative techniques. The director of student services had the report reviewed by an area psychologist and it was determined that Thomas should be placed in a learning disabilities program. Mrs. Garrett was contacted and agreed to placement at Westview Elementary School after personal visitation there. Thomas was thereafter placed in the first grade class of Martha L. Chinn at that school. The authorization for placement, dated October 27, 1977, stated that the child's primary educational needs were activities to remediate visual motor deficits, visual closure activities, visual association, and visual sequential memory activities, and a program for gross motor development. Mrs. Garrett signed a consent form to the placement on November 4, 1977. (Testimony of Armour, Shkoler, C. Garrett, Exhibits 1, 3 - 4) Normal transportation arrangements were made by area school authorities whereby the parent is responsible for taking the child to the home school -- in this case Orchard Villa -- where school bus transportation would be provided to the new school, Westview Elementary. However, since Mrs. Garrett had specifically asked that Thomas be picked up by bus at his home for delivery to Orchard Villa, a special request was made to the school transportation office for this type of transportation. Pending receipt of information concerning such transportation, Mrs. Garrett personally transported Thomas to and from Westview Elementary on his first two days of class, October 31 and November 1, 1977. Although she anticipated having him picked up by bus on the following school day, November 3, as a result of Information provided in a note sent to her by the school teacher, this was not done because the school bus transportation office had not received a formal written request for such special treatment. Accordingly, Mrs. Garrett took Thomas to school on that day and was thereafter assured by school bus personnel that he would be picked up that afternoon from school. Conflicting testimony was presented at the hearing as to whether or not Mrs. Garrett was informed that the teacher would be notified as to the fact that Thomas would be picked up by bus that afternoon. In any event, Mrs. Chinn was not so informed and Thomas proceeded to wait for his mother outside the school after class. He was observed by his teacher waiting for his parent at the customary place, and she reassured him after some lapse of time that his mother would be there. She had assumed that Mrs. Garrett would pick him up since she had brought him to school that morning. Thomas later wandered off the school grounds and Mrs. Garrett, who had been waiting to meet the bus, became apprehensive when it did not arrive. She was later informed by the school secretary that Thomas had been found by a man some 24 blocks away from the school and returned there. Mrs. Garrett proceeded to school to pick him up and Thomas would not tell her what had happened, but was like a frightened animal." The next day Mrs. Garrett took him back to school, although he had had nightmares and did not want to return. She talked to a new assistant Principal at the school concerning the incident and was upset by what she perceived to be a callous attitude. On the following Monday, November 7, she took Thomas to the Orchard Villa School for bus pickup, but he was frightened and remained on the floor of the car. She thereafter did not let him return to Westview. Several days later, she was informed that bus pickup could be provided at home; however, she enrolled Thomas in Vanguard School, a private school in Coconut Grove in late November. (Testimony of C. Garrett, Chinn, Shkoler, Hart) The class at Westview Elementary School where Thomas attended for several days is a full-time class for students with learning disabilities. It is taught by a teacher certified in that specialized area who is assisted by an aide certified in elementary education. By the end of the 1977-78 school year, there were 19 children in the class. However, individual attention is given by the teacher to each student to deal with their "deficits" and prepare "prescriptions" to assist in improving weak areas. It was found by Mrs. Chinn that Thomas was weakest in the "motor" area and consequently she prepared materials to deal with this problem. Although he had no particular problem in understanding instructions, he possessed a visual motor perceptive defect which causes difficulty for him to process and retain visual and auditory information. His condition results in inconsistent actions in response to auditory commands whereby in some instances he is capable of carrying out instructions but sometimes cannot do so. Although ideally he should be in a class with a low teacher/child ratio of ten or less children, this ratio may be higher in situations where an aide is present to assist the teacher. Thomas's teacher at Westview found that he seemed no different than any other child in her class and when he returned to school on November 4 after the unfortunate bus incident, he did not appear to be upset or pose any difficulty. (Testimony of Chinn, Armour, Cullen, Exhibit 2) The learning disabilities program in the Dade County Public Schools is adequate for most children and Respondent refers children to private schools only in extreme cases involving children who cannot be properly handled in the public school system for unusual reasons. Although Thomas initially could have received a negative image of public schools from his receipt of failing grades at Orchard Villa, this would not necessarily predispose him against public schools. Although the bus incident undoubtedly produced a temporary stress and fear reaction, there is no evidence that it resulted in a phobia or any other permanent adverse result, although Thomas has never told his mother the details of the incident. (Testimony of Cullen, C. Garrett) Mrs. Garrett paid tuition of approximately $350 a month at the Vanguard School, including transportation by van to and from school. (Testimony of C. Garrett)
Recommendation That Petitioner's request for relief be denied by the Dade County School Board. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of July, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire Dade County School Board Lindsey Hopkins Building 1410 N.E. 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Harold Long, Jr., Esquire Suite 2382 - One Biscayne Tower Two South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations treated herein, Respondent, William Wyche, held a Florida Teaching Certificate number 106113, issued on October 29, 1980, covering the area of industrial arts. Respondent applied for a Florida teaching certificate by submitting the required application form and documentation on or about October 20, 1980. At the time of submission, Respondent replied "no" to the question in Section V of the form which asks: "Have you ever been convicted or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation. . .?" This answer was false in that: On September 20, 1979, respondent was found guilty of driving while his license was suspended, and fined $50.00; On March 20, 1980, Respondent was found guilty of obtaining property by worthless check and fined $25.00; On March 20, 1980, Respondent was found guilty of driving with a suspended license and fined $100.00; On April 2, 1980, Respondent was found guilty of obtaining property by worthless check and was fined $25.00; and, On April 25, 1980, Respondent was found guilty of obtaining property by worthless check and was fined $25.00. On that same date, in a separate case involving an identical charge, adjudication was withheld but Respondent was placed on probation for sixty days. Respondent explains the check charges on the basis that at the time they took place, all within a few weeks of each other, his bank account had been garnished and because of that garnishment, though he had ample funds in his account to honor these checks, the bank did not honor them. There were quite a few checks dishonored for this reason-so many, in fact, that he lost track of some of them and though he redeemed most, he failed to redeem these. As to the convictions for driving with a suspended license, he thought these were minor traffic offenses that did not have to be listed. Respondent was employed as an industrial arts (IA) teacher at Kirby Smith Junior High School (KSJHS) in Jacksonville, Florida during the 1981-82 school year, teaching in the metal shop. During this period, he was evaluated on a regular basis, based on observations and evaluations by other school officials carried on at various times throughout the school year. During these evaluations, such things as classroom conditions, the instructor's presentations, the preparation of lesson plans, and the use of lesson plans as guidelines for in-class instruction were considered. Lonnie W. Davenport was assistant principal for curriculum at KSJHS during this period and had to insure that teaching was taking place properly in both form and substance. To do this, he contacted his teachers daily and also relied on observations such as described above, and reports submitted to him. These reports were regarding such things as student class size, grade reports by teachers, black/white student count in the homerooms, and teachers' lesson plans which were required from each teacher weekly. While he has no formal IA training, he has a lot of experience in the area. Mr. Davenport first took serious note of the Respondent in mid- December, 1981 when he noted that Respondent had not submitted complete lesson plans. There were holes in those submitted relating to time and quality. In addition, the principal had asked him to look into reported irregularities in Respondent's classroom. His examination of Respondent's lesson plans showed that they were inadequate because they: did not conform to the form required; did not cover the subject matter sufficiently; did not follow a time sequence properly; and, were not sufficiently specific. They should have broken down the instruction into segments for skill development on a step-by-step, day-by-day basis. In short, Respondent's plans did not adequately tell what he was intending to do in his classroom. As to Respondent's teaching, Davenport's observation showed that Respondent: had no plans to show what was expected of his students; maintained the shop in a depressing state. (Here, however, it was admitted that this school was old and the shop dingy, and Respondent could not control all of that. However, Respondent's teaching aids, such as posters, which were old, faded, and torn, added to the dinginess.) allowed shop metal to lay around the shop without being placed in stock storage, creating a safety hazard; failed to safeguard and neglected one student's artwork project, and other students' projects were left out and not placed in storage for the next class period; stored a large stack of sheet metal under a work bench with cutting corners end edges protruding (also a safety hazard) allowed equipment which should have been stored to remain out; failed to have safety lines placed on the floor around individual pieces of equipment; failed to insure that soldering forges were properly shielded or securely fastened down; and, failed to post safety rules prominently in the classroom. Respondent contends that he submitted purchase orders requesting corrections be made of these deficiencies. However, with the exception of several orders for paint, some of which may have been used for the safety lines and to brighten up the area, the remainder of the purchase orders he introduced into evidence (Respondent's Composite Exhibit E), were for metal stock and other pieces of new or replacement equipment. There was no evidence of work orders for correction of any of the cited defects. Mr. Davenport's observations as to Respondent's teaching ability were that: He sat at his desk in the classroom while his students were working in the shop behind his back. As a result, students with problems had to come out of the shop to him for help rather than him being available in the shop to help; students were not required to wear safety goggles while operating power equipment nor did Respondent use them while operating the equipment; The student projects assigned or approved by Respondent were too simple and provided no challenge; The quality of the finished product turned out by Respondent's students was poor; Grading of student projects was accomplished on the basis of negotiation with the student and not on accomplishment or work quality; Once the student had completed the basic project, Respondent had no follow-up projects for them to do to use up the remainder of the school year. He, allowing them to occupy themselves with "busy work," showed to Davenport a lack of commitment to planning; Respondent was observed and overheard by Davenport to chastise a student by threatening to destroy the student's project, resulting in failure. This observation, which Respondent admitted to Davenport, is contrary to a school policy which prevents discipline from affecting an academic grade; and, In one particular class observed, Respondent came to class late. He had allowed a student to take roll, a function required of the teacher, and evidence available to Davenport, led him to believe this was a repeated- occurrence; Respondent's absence allowed students to engage in horseplay and rowdy behavior and, even when Respondent came into class, he chastised the wrong student. As to the type of instruction Respondent was observed to give, when a student would bring a project to him and ask a question, he would answer. For the most part, however, he stayed at his desk while the students worked unsupervised in the shop. He showed no initiative and did not even require students to draw plans or prepare material lists before starting work on a project. On one occasion, a student was injured in the shop. Respondent merely washed the injury, wrapped it, and sent the student back to work. Davenport, who observed this incident, told Respondent on the spot that the student should go to the office for first aid and that Respondent should file an accident report on the incident. The report was not filed by Respondent and the student went to the office at the direction of Davenport, not Respondent. This showed a complete lack of concern, according to Davenport. Davenport counseled the Respondent on the above deficiencies but observed no immediate response. He went back to Respondent's class 5-7 times subsequently for follow-up visits of from 20 minutes to an hour in duration and found little change for the better. He repeatedly offered Respondent assistance in any area to correct the shortcomings and got no response until in March, 1982, when Respondent found out he was going to get an unsatisfactory rating. He had been notified in writing, on January 8 end again on February 5, 1982, by his principal Mr. Shanklin, in addition to others, including an evaluation on January 13, 1982 by Mr. Lowell T. Hudson, supervisor of industrial arts for the school board, that his performance was deficient. These warnings could have left little doubt as to the fact his performance was below standard. Finally, on March 15, 1982, Mr. Shanklin rendered an evaluation on Respondent which showed an overall rating of unsatisfactory. Of the six areas rated in classroom management, two were satisfactory and four were unsatisfactory. Of the twenty- one areas rated in teaching effectiveness, one was satisfactory, nine were rated as needing improvement, and eleven were rated unsatisfactory. Seven of the nine areas of professional/personal characteristics were rated satisfactory, one needed improvement, and one was unsatisfactory. Even after this unsatisfactory report, the school administrative staff still tried to help Respondent. They offered him direct help themselves and, in addition, the services of county in service resource personnel to help with planning. Respondent was receptive to this verbally, but never took any steps to use them. As a result, there was no improvement in Respondent's performance but merely a maintenance of the status quo. There were some minor improvements in the condition of the shop but these were merely cosmetic and did not, in any way, relate to the quality of instruction. In Davenport's opinion, Respondent does not meet the minimum standards of competency for teachers nor can he be trained to meet these standards. He is convinced, and it is so found that Respondent's race played no part in the evaluation process. The principal at KSJHS during this period, Mr. Jack H. Shanklin, agreed with and amplified on Davenport's analysis of Respondent. His first difficulty with Respondent came in October, 1981 when the Dean of Girls wrote him a memorandum stating that Respondent had struck a student with a dowel rod. This was not the first instance of Respondent's striking students. Since Respondent was not designated as one to administer corporal punishment, she had previously warned him to send all disciplinary problems to the office. When Shanklin discussed this with Respondent, he said he did it to control the class. Shanklin did not personally evaluate Respondent until early January, 1982, after Davenport's evaluation. Prior to going to the class, he reviewed Respondent's lesson plans and found them to be sketchy. In his opinion, a substitute teacher could not have taught from them and they were "totally unacceptable." When he went into the classroom, he found the Respondent lecturing end he could not understand what Respondent was trying to get across. Respondent mumbled, was hard to understand, and used few, if any, visual aids. It was obvious to him that the students were bored, confused, and were getting nothing from the presentation. In addition, he observed the shop and found it to be dingy, dirty, and a safety hazard. Mr. Shanklin discussed these deficiencies with Respondent a few days later when he gave him the letter regarding the observation. He went into these deficiencies, and recommendations to correct them, quite thoroughly. He made suggestions as to resource people available to help and pointed out specific references to the teachers' manual. In each case, Respondent always indicated he understood and would try to comply. However, in the succeeding month leading up to the February letter, there were no signs of improvement at all nor was there any indication he had utilized the resource people. Follow-up visits to the classroom showed no change and no indication Respondent was getting anything across to the students. After the February letter was given to Respondent by Mr. Shanklin personally, they had a conference in which Shanklin discussed Respondent's deficiencies and he was told what he had to change to get a favorable evaluation. The most critical areas for improvement identified were: lesson plans safety conditions, and classroom appearance, as well as Respondent's personal untidy and nonprofessional appearance. After this discussion, Shanklin made several visits to Respondent's classroom prior to the March evaluation and did note some improvements in classroom appearance and safety, but not in lesson planning or teaching. Even after the March evaluation, up to the end of the school term, he noted no improvement. On March 29, 1982, he gave Respondent a third letter outlining areas for improvement. Respondent finished out the 1981-82 school year but because of the unsatisfactory evaluation he received, requested a transfer to a different school for the 1982-83 school year. In Shanklin's opinion, Respondent did not meet minimum standards of competency nor could he achieve them because of a lack of effort to improve. Shanklin feels Respondent does not care about the education of children and would make only superficial efforts to be trained. Race is not a factor in this evaluation. At least 50 percent of Shanklin's staff is black. He has 85 teachers on his staff and in the last three years, he has rated 13 teachers unsatisfactory. Of these, 8 or 9 were black. Therefore, of the 255 teacher evaluations he has rendered in three years, 8 or 9 unsatisfactory's were given to black teachers. Dalton D. Epting, Director of Certified Personnel for the school board, talked with Respondent about his evaluation on several occasions when Respondent was at Wolfson High School. If a teacher is on tenure status and received an unsatisfactory evaluation, he may request a transfer to a different school for a second year during which efforts are made through counseling, training, and other assistance, to help him become satisfactory. When Respondent, due to his unsatisfactory evaluation at KSJHS requested a transfer, he was assigned for the second year, to Wolfson High where, for reasons cited below, he was rated unsatisfactory for the second year in a row. Respondent was sent to Wolfson for his second year because there was no vacancy for IA teachers in the system. Even though Wolfson was also full, rather than send Respondent back to KSJHS, they sent him to Wolfson, with all its teachers, so he could have the benefit of other good teachers. Race was not a factor in this decision. It is not automatic that a teacher who receives a second consecutive unsatisfactory rating is discharged. The system looks to see if the teacher was given every assistance to improve; to ensure that everything reasonable was done by way of counseling, resource help, training, and the like, to help him. If it was and the teacher did not improve, he is discharged. Here, school officials looked at all evaluations for both years, considered the discussions held with Respondent, and the input from cadre and resource personnel, and decided that Respondent was incompetent. The decision was made, therefore, to discharge the Respondent and this action was taken. During the 1982-83 school year, after his first unsatisfactory evaluation, Respondent worked for David E. White, principal at Wolfson High School. Immediately White sat down with Respondent, along with the IA supervisor to let him know what was expected of him and what help was available to him. He observed Respondent in the classroom on several occasions and, based on these and other factors in accordance with school board rules, in an effort to let the teacher know how he or she is doing, rendered an unsatisfactory rating on Respondent on October 30, 1982. Among the examples of Respondent's incompetence which led up to this evaluation were progress reports, discipline referrals, notes, and tests prepared by Respondent, some of which went home to parents, that contained obvious spelling, grammatical, and syntax errors. At first, White became aware of concern by students and their parents about Respondent's performance. When these complaints first began, White called in the IA supervisor for the school district, Mr. Hudson, to evaluate Respondent. He began evaluating Respondent himself when the complaints continued. These complaints were to the effect, basically, that the students could not understand Respondent. (It is noted here that Respondent suffers from a slight speech impediment). He would merely read from the textbook with no teacher-student interaction. There was little lab work - mostly lecture or reading. This was not appropriate in the Graphic Arts area which consists of such skills as printing, photography, silk-screening, and the like. Consistent with the notes, reports, end referral slips prepared by Respondent, White noted a lack of grammatical correctness in his oral presentations as well. In addition, White observed that the Respondent's students were not being motivated by him and spent little time on their classroom tasks, and he also observed that Respondent's presentation was lacking in technological detail. For example, on one occasion, Respondent was discussing a box camera and failed to detail the advantages and disadvantages of this type of camera, the type of films available for it, and the merits of each. When the class period was over, White discussed the above with Respondent, suggesting how the lecture could be improved. The following day White came back to class to see how Respondent carried the discussion forward and it was as if White had not said anything. Respondent continued to omit from his lecture the substantive technological information White, as principal, felt should be taught. White concluded that Respondent was not at all familiar with the subject matter he was teaching. 1/ Respondent was also considered to be deficient in his administrative skills. He lost (or had stolen) his grade book as well as his computer worksheets twice during one 9 week period. This created seven extra hours work for the curriculum office, with 3 additional hours by Respondent, to reconstruct, his grades. The fact that Respondent had to help in this project meant someone had to cover his classes for him. It also created a lot of inquiry by parents who, on learning of the lost grade book, questioned the validity of grades given their children. In addition, Respondent's attendance registers were not turned in on time notwithstanding frequent reminders in advance of due dates. At the end of the first semester, White had a conference with Respondent about the above. Respondent began being absent due to sickness in January, 1983 and went on sick leave on 9 February, 1983 which extended through the remainder of the school year. It is important to note that Respondent's absence at this time was valid and there is no inference or insinuation to the contrary. While he was absent, on March 8, 1983, Respondent was given a notice of intent to render an unsatisfactory evaluation report which was, in fact, issued on April 15, 1983. Here it must be noted that there could have been no improvement in performance between the notice and the evaluation as Respondent was not present for duty but was on sick leave. In any event, White contends that as a result of Respondent's teaching, the school's IA program has been seriously damaged, but that has not been shown. While Respondent's classes did net prepare his students for the second year curriculum in those areas, there is no evidence that the school's program has been seriously damaged. Nonetheless, it was shown be that, as white contends, Respondent did not meet minimum county standards and could not be improved to meet them. Consequently, on August 15, 1983, the superintendent of the Duval County public schools, by certified letter, notified Respondent that because of the two years of unsatisfactory evaluations, indicating professional incompetence, he was recommending the School Board discharge Respondent from employment. Thereafter, on January 16, 1984, the Duval County School Board, by Final Order, sustained the charge of professional incompetence, and discharged Respondent as a teacher. Race was definitely not an issue in White's evaluation. In his school, at which the student body comes from the upper level socioeconomic group, and which has rated first in Area Scholastic Aptitude Test scores for the past five ears, White has no black administrators or department chairmen on his staff. One black former department chairman was promoted to vice-principal at another school. His choices for personnel are based on qualifications, not race. At the present time, 12 percent of the teachers on staff are black and over the six years White has been principal at Wolfson High, only 3 black teachers have transferred out. While at both KSJHS and Wolfson High, Respondent was encouraged to consult with Everett T. Hudson, IA supervisor for the school board, and was, in fact, evaluated by him in both settings. He evaluated Respondent first on January 14, 1982, at the request of the Principal at KSJHS end observed Respondent during his 8-9 a.m. first period class. His conclusions were: classroom and shop cleanliness were poor; it appeared that activities were winding down shop organization was poor (no clean-up schedule was posted and metal stock was laying everywhere; the students' projects were not meaningful or of a quality nature; respondent spent too much time lecturing and did not allow for sufficient shop time, and, respondent's lesson plans were not available. When seen, it was obvious Respondent had not used the curriculum guide to draft the few plans he had. When Respondent transferred to Wolfson High, the Principal there also asked Hudson to come out and evaluate Respondent on a more frequent basis. Consequently, because of this request and because of the fact that due to Respondent's previous unsatisfactory rating he was on probation, Hudson evaluated Respondent ten times, at least once in each month, between September 8, 1982 and January 5, 1983. As a result of these evaluations, it appeared to Hudson that Respondent did not know how to: plan a project; lay out equipment; identify woods and where they came from; use certain equipment. It further appeared to Hudson that Respondent's lectures were poor in that he mumbled and he didn't seem to know what he was talking about. Further, his lesson plans were poor, and he failed to keep up with an appropriate time schedule for class. As a result, Hudson ended up, himself, helping the students rather than evaluating. When these observations were made, Mr. Hudson would go over them with Respondent and give Respondent a copy. Notwithstanding he pointed out these deficiencies repeatedly, there appeared to be no improvement at all. The school system here has a remedial program for teachers to use to improve their performance. There are resource teachers to provide assistance and there are also "in service" programs for teachers. Mr. Hudson suggested Respondent take some, one of which he was teaching right at Respondent's school. As he recalls, Respondent came twice out of 15 sessions. As a result of the above, Hudson does not believe that Respondent meets minimum competency standards and could not meet them. In his opinion, Respondent: suffers from a lack of organizational ability; has lackadaisical attitude toward improving the program; would not spend the necessary time to upgrade his skills, and has a weak knowledge of the subject matter. Here again, race was not an issue in these evaluations. Hudson supervises 95 IA teachers in the Duval County school system and is the only administrator. Of these teachers, approximately 25 are black. Over 13 years, he has been called in to evaluate, like this, 5 or 6 teachers, only one of whom was black, and of this number, only 2 have been discharged. Respondent has a Bachelor of Science decree in Education and a Masters degree in Industrial Education, both from Florida A & M University. In addition, he has attended a leadership development course at Michigan State University, military classes in the same while in the army at Ft. Dix, New Jersey, and numerous workshops in Florida at his own expense. It was his hope, when he started working in Duval County, to develop some feel for the IA field in that school system As a result of his experience there, he is of the opinion that the entire IA program is underfunded. Students have to pay for the wood and metal materials they use to build a prefect. He urges that without materials and equipment, a teacher cannot teach, a point concerned by Mr. Davenport, and that was the reason he submitted the purchase orders he did at KSJHS. In that regard, it would appear that about the time Respondent was teaching at KSJHS in 1981, a report by an Inspector (Jenkins) from the school district offices, reflected that materials and equipment in Respondent's class area did not meet minimum state requirements. In addition, there was some problem regarding the excessive size of the class. This problem was immediately corrected end certification in this area was restored. He also contends that a teacher's teaching style may differ from that of his principal's and still be correct. With regard to the April 15, 1953 unsatisfactory evaluation, Respondent contends, in an attempt to contest his rating, that since he was out sick much of the month of January, 1983, and all of the time from February 9, 1983 to the end of the school year, a rating dated in mid April would cover as large a period of time when he was not there as when he was. The Teacher Tenure Act under which this system operates provides for a second full year of evaluation before discharge. Since he was sick for half the second year, he contends, his discharge was not valid. He wants to fulfill his probationary period to prove he is a worthy teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, William Wyche's teacher certificate issued by the State of Florida be revoked for a period of three years, with provision for reinstatement as provided for by statute. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 16th day of August, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk with the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of August, 1984.
The Issue Whether the School Board of Dade County has cause to terminate Respondent's employment on the grounds that Respondent was "willfully absent from duty without leave," within the meaning of Section 231.44, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges filed in the instant case? If not, what relief should Respondent be afforded?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the Hearing Officer makes the following Findings of Fact: Respondent was employed as a teacher by the Dade County School Board during the 1988-89 school year on an annual contract basis. His employment commenced on August 31,1988. At all times he was assigned to the ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) program at Carver Middle School. The principal of Carver Middle School, and Respondent's immediate supervisor, was Samuel Gay. Simine Heise was one of Gay's assistant principals. In Gay's absence, Heise served as acting principal. At around 12:00 p.m. on Monday, January 30, 1989, following a meeting with Gay, Respondent became physically ill at school. He left school for the day after notifying Gay and securing his authorization. Respondent was placed on sick leave for the remainder of the school day. At no time thereafter did Respondent report back to work. Various substitute teachers covered Respondent's classes during the period of his absence. Effective April 20, 1989, he was suspended by the School Board and it initiated action to terminate his employment on the ground that he had been willfully absent without authorization. During the period of his absence, Respondent was under the care of a psychiatrist, Dr. Adolfo M. Vilasuso. He was suffering from depression, insomnia, stress, anxiety and stress- induced gastrointestinal distress. He was treated by Dr. Vilasuso with psychotherapy and medication. Respondent's condition was primarily the result of personal problems involving his son and former wife. He was obsessed by these matters. He paid very little attention to anything else, including his teaching responsibilities. Although he was physically able to report to work, he was so distracted and preoccupied by his personal problems that he could not effectively discharge his teaching duties. The School Board requires that, in order to continue to obtain sick leave, a teacher absent because of illness must contact his immediate supervisor or the supervisor's designee by 2:00 p.m. of each day of absence and give notice that he will be out sick the following day. Teachers are advised of this "2:00 p.m. notification" requirement in the teacher handbook, a copy of which Respondent had received prior to his absence. Throughout the period of his absence, Respondent was capable of understanding and complying with this requirement. A teacher who complies with the "2:00 p.m. notification" requirement, but has exhausted all of his accrued sick leave credits, will automatically be placed on authorized leave without pay for illness for a maximum of 30 days, without the necessity of formal School Board approval. The leave will be extended beyond 30 days only if the teacher submits an appropriate application for an extension, accompanied by a "statement from [the teacher's] physician explaining why such [extended] leave is necessary." After leaving school on January 30, 1989, Respondent did not contact any member of the Carver Middle School administration or its staff concerning his absence until Saturday, February 11, 1989, when he telephoned Principal Gay's secretary, Maria Bonce, at her home and left a message with her daughter that he would not be at work the following Monday. On February 15, 1989, Dr. Vilasuso telephoned Carver Middle School and spoke with Assistant Principal Heise. Dr. Vilasuso told Heise that Respondent was under his care. He was vague, however, regarding the nature of Respondent's illness and he did not indicate when Respondent would be able to return to work. On February 21, 1989, not having heard anything further from either Respondent or Dr. Vilasuso, Principal Gay sent Respondent the following letter: The purpose of this communication is to determine your intentions for the balance of this school term. You've been absent from your teaching position at Carver Middle School since 12:00 a.m [sic] on January 30, 1989. On Saturday, February 11, you called my secretary, Mrs. Bonce, indicating you would return to work next week. On February 15, an individual identifying himself as your doctor called Carver Middle School and spoke to the assistant principal, Mrs. Heise. When he was requested [to provide information] about your illness, medical status and your ability to return to work, he stated he would not give further information without your approval. Until now we have not heard from you since February 11 when you contacted Mrs. Bonce at home. Also, the phone number and address we have on record obviously are no longer yours, therefore, I am unable to ccntact you. In addition to the above, we have no lesson plans, roll books, grade books for your students. It has been reported to me by custodial staff that you are frequently observed in the building after duty hours yet you have failed to communicate with me personally or the assistant principal or speak with your department head or the assistant principal for curriculum. I must call your attention to the contract between Dade County Public Schools and UTD and the teacher handbook which has information whiih addresses teachers' absences. You are clearly in violation of these documents. Finally, may I remind you of a memorandum given to you on January 27. A written response was due to me on February 1st. In addition, a conversation for the record was scheduled for February 1st. That conference will be held. You simply need to tell me when. I must remind you that failure to comply with district and local rules can result in non-reappointment for the 1989-90 school year. After receiving the letter, Respondent, on Thursday, February 23, 1989, telephoned Carver Middle School and spoke with Gay. Although he did not indicate to Gay when he was going to return to school, he did leave Gay with the impression that his condition was improving. Respondent also intimated during the telephone conversation that Gay would be receiving a letter from Dr. Vilasuso concerning Respondent's illness. The following Monday, February 27, 1989, at around 9:00 p.m., Respondent telephoned Secretary Bonce at her home and told her that he would be absent from school the remainder of the week due to illness. On Wednesday, March 8, 1989 Respordent telephoned Gay at school. He told Gay that he wanted to apply for sick leave and asked how he would go about doing so. Gay responded that he had referred Respondent's case to the School Board's Office of Professional Standards and that therefore the matter was "out of his hands" and Respondent would have to contact that office. On no occasion other than during the foregoing telephone conversations of February 11, 23 and 27, 1989, and March 8, 1989, did Respondent communicate with Gay or any member of Gay's administrative staff concerning his absence. Respondent's failure to so communicate with either his immediate supervisor or anyone on his immediate supervisor's administrative staff was willful. On March 28, 1989, Dr. Joyce Annunziata, the head of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards, sent Respondent a letter, which provided in pertinent part as follows: The Office of Professional Standards has been advised that you have been absent without authority from your duties as an employee in the Dade County Public Schools. During this period you did not obtain authorized leave from your supervisor. Florida Statute 231.44 provides: Any District school board employee who is willfully absent from duty without leave shall forfeit compensation for the time of such absence, and his employment shall be subject to termination by the school board. Your absence without authorized leave constitutes willful neglect of duty and subjects your employment with the Dade County Schools to immediate termination. Please be advised that unless you provide within five days from receipt of this letter a written notification to the Office of Professional Standards, 1444 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 215, Miami, FL 33132, of your resolution of your unauthorized leave status, your termination will be submitted to the School Board for final action at its meeting of April 19, 1989. Respondent received Dr. Annunziata's letter on April 10, 1989. He did not provide the Office of Professional Standards with the requisite "written notification" within five days of his receipt of the letter. Accordingly, the matter was considered by the School Board at its April 19, 1989, meeting. Thereafter, Respondent submitted to the Office of Professional Standards a written request for leave without pay for illness. The request sought leave for the period from February 8, 1989, through June 19, 1989. Although the form on which Respondent made his request noted that a "[d]octor's statement indicating diagnosis [and] length of time required for leave" was required, no such statement accompanied Respondent's request. A letter from Dr. Vilasuso concerning Respondent's condition was subsequently received by the Office of Professional Standards on April 28, 1989.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment as an annual contract teacher pursuant to Section 231.44, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of January, 1990. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of January, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-3231 The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties: School Board's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted and incorporated in substance, although not necessarily repeated verbatim, in this Recommended Order. Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. First, second and third sentences: Rejected because they add only unnecessary detail; Fourth and fifth sentences: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. First sentence: To the extent that it suggests that Respondent "never" complied with the "2:00 pm. notification requirement," it has been rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Otherwise, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. Second sentence: Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. To the extent that it suggests that Respondent was absent without authorization during a portion of the period from January 30, 1989, to April 19, 1989, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. To the extent that it suggests that he was absent without authorization during the entire period, it has been rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected because it is irrelevant and immaterial. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. Rejected because it is a summary of testimony, rather than a finding of fact based upon such testimony. Rejected because it is a summary of testimony, rather than a finding of fact based upon such testimony. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Rejected because it is a summary of rather than a finding of fact based upon such testimony. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Second sentence: Rejected because it is a summary of testimony, rather than a finding of fact based upon such testimony. Rejected because it is more in the nature of argument than a finding of fact. Accepted and incorporated in substance. First sentence: Rejected because it is more in the nature of argument than a finding of fact; Remaining sentences: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence to the extent it suggests that a teacher need not comply with the "2:00 p.m. notification" requirement to obtain authorized leave for illness and that Respondent was on such authorized leave during the first 30 days of his absence. Otherwise, they have been accepted and incorporated in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Jaime C. Bovell, Esquire 1401 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Coral Gables, Florida 33134 William DuFresne, Esquire 2929 Southwest Third Avenue, Suite One Miami, Florida 33134 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Joseph A. Fernandez Superintendent of Schools Dade County School Board School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
