The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent should be dismissed from his position of employment as a School Monitor on the basis of conduct which is alleged to constitute conduct unbecoming an employee, willful neglect of duty, and misconduct in office.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent, Hector Valdez, was employed by the School Board as a School Monitor and was assigned to work at Hialeah Miami Lakes Senior High School. At all times material to this case, Michael Bowers (who is not a party to this proceeding) was also employed as a School Monitor and was assigned to work at Hialeah Miami Lakes Senior High School. The Respondent and Michael Bowers were coworkers; neither was supervisor over the other. On September 25, 1991, for the first time ever, the Respondent gave Bowers a ride in the Respondent's car after work. First they went to the union office. Bowers' beeper went off and Bowers asked the Respondent to drive him to Bowers' mother's house. The Respondent complied. While the two men were at the residence of Bowers' mother, Bowers' beeper went off again. Bowers told the Respondent that the last beeper call was from a runaway girl or from a girl who had been thrown out of the house by her mother. Bowers went on to explain that he needed to meet the girl to talk to her and try to convince her to go home. To that end, Bowers asked the Respondent to drive him to one of the Metro stations. The Respondent complied with Bowers' request. At the Metro station Bowers met two girls. The Respondent had never seen either of the two girls before. From their age and appearance, they looked like they might be students, but the Respondent did not know whether they were students. The oldest of the two girls appeared to be pregnant. Bowers explained to the Respondent that he (Bowers) needed to go somewhere to talk to the girls and try to convince them to go home. Purportedly to that end, Bowers asked the Respondent to drive him and the two girls to a motel. The Respondent complied with the request. When they arrived at the motel, Bowers and the girls went into the motel and Bowers obtained a motel room. The Respondent remained in his automobile and played no part in obtaining the motel room. A few minutes later, Bowers asked the Respondent to take him to buy a pizza. The Respondent drove Bowers to a pizza shop and then drove Bowers and the pizza back to the motel. The Respondent left Bowers at the motel and did not see Bowers or the two girls again until the next morning at work. The Respondent did not know that Bowers intended to spend the night at the motel with the two girls, nor was he aware that Bowers intended to engage in any other form of improper conduct with either of the two girls. On September 26, 1991, when Bowers reported to work at Hialeah Miami Lakes Senior High School, he brought with him the same two girls who had been with him at the motel the previous day. The Respondent did not play any role in transporting the two girls from the motel to the high school on September 26, 1991, and did not find out until several days later that Bower had spent the night at the motel with the two girls and had brought them to the school. 1/ On September 26, 1991, after the Respondent reported to work at Hialeah Miami Lakes Senior High School, he saw the two girls who had been with Bowers at the motel the previous evening. The girls were on the school campus and the Respondent knew they were not supposed to be there because they were not students at Hialeah Miami Lakes Senior High School. 2/ As soon as he saw the two girls on September 26, 1992, the Respondent went looking for Bowers. When the Respondent found Bowers he told him the girls were on campus, reminded him that the girls weren't supposed to be there, and told him that he (Bowers) needed to do something about it. Bowers assured the Respondent that he would so something to take care of the matter. Bowers did not do anything effective to take care of the matter, because the two girls remained at Hialeah Miami Lakes Senior High School all day on September 26, 1991. The Respondent knew that Bowers had not taken care of the matter because he saw the two girls on the school campus several times during the day on September 26, 1991. On September 26, 1991, the Respondent did not report to the school administrators of Hialeah Miami Lakes Senior High School that the two girls who had been with Bowers at the motel were on the school campus. The Respondent's duties as a School Monitor required that he make a report to the school administrators of any trespassers on the school campus. The Respondent was aware of his duty to report trespassers on the school campus. At the hearing the Respondent candidly admitted that he failed to follow proper procedure on September 26, 1991, by failing to report the presence on campus of the two girls who had been with Bowers the previous evening.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the School Board issue a Final Order in this proceeding to the following effect: Dismissing all charges against the Respondent and restoring him to his former position of employment with back pay from the date of his suspension. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of July 1992. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SC 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of July 1992.
The Issue Did Respondent Siebelts commit the offenses set forth in the petition for dismissal (Case No. 88-4697) and the amended administrative complaint (Case No. 89-0189) filed against her? If so, what discipline should she receive?
Findings Of Fact Based on the record evidence, the Hearing Officer makes the following Findings of Fact: Karen Siebelts has held a State of Florida teaching certificate since 1976. Her current certificate was issued May 1, 1986, and covers the areas of elementary education, elementary and secondary reading, and secondary social studies and psychology. For the past thirteen years Siebelts has been employed by the School Board of Broward County as a classroom teacher. During the early stages of her employment, she taught at Melrose Park Middle School. She then moved to Perry Middle School, where she taught a class of emotionally disturbed sixth graders. Her performance at these two schools was rated as acceptable. In November, 1979, Siebelts was assigned to teach at Charles Drew Elementary School, a neighborhood school located in the predominantly black Collier city area of Pompano Beach. The charges lodged against Siebelts are based on specific acts she allegedly committed while she was a Chapter I Reading/Math and Computer teacher at Charles Drew providing remedial instruction to students whose test scores reflected a need for such special assistance. On January 22, 1985, while seated with her fifth grade students at a table during a reading lesson, Siebelts inadvertently kicked one of the students in the shin. The incident occurred as Siebelts was moving her legs to a more comfortable position. The force involved was minimal and produced no visible injuries. The student immediately demanded an apology from Siebelts. Siebelts responded to this demand with silence. She neither apologized nor said anything to suggest that she had intended to kick the student. Earlier in the lesson, Siebelts had directed the student to stop talking. The student had defied the directive and continued to talk. It was not until approximately three minutes after the student's initial defiance of the directive, however, that the kicking incident occurred. Nonetheless, the student suspected that Siebelts had intentionally kicked her because of her failure to obey Siebelts' order that she not talk. When the student came home from school that day she told her mother that Siebelts had intentionally kicked her during class. The mother immediately reported the incident to the principal of the school, Hubert Lee. The matter was referred to the School Board's Internal Affairs Unit for investigation. The requested investigation was conducted. Following the completion of the investigation, a written report of the investigator's findings was submitted to the administration. No further action was taken regarding this incident until approximately three and a half years later when the instant petition for dismissal was issued. Siebelts was annoyed when she learned that the student and her mother had accused her of wrongdoing in connection with the January 22, 1985, kicking incident. On February 19, 1985, she expressed her annoyance in front of her fifth grade class and in their presence threatened to take legal action against those students and parents who had made libelous or slanderous statements about her or had otherwise verbally abused her. She told the students that they and their parents would be subpoenaed to court and if they did not appear they would be incarcerated. The principal of the school was informed of these remarks shortly after they were made, but it was not until the instant petition for dismissal was issued on August 22, 1988, that Siebelts was first formally charged with having made the remarks. Before coming to work on January 28 1986, Siebelts took a codeine pain medication that her physician had prescribed. When classes started that morning she was still under the influence of the medication. She was listless and drowsy. Her speech was slurred and she appeared incoherent at times. She also had difficulty maintaining her balance when she walked. Because Siebelts had been taking this medication "on and off" since 1979, she had been aware of these potential side effects of the medication when ingesting it on this particular occasion. A teacher's aide in Siebelts' classroom concerned about Siebelts' condition summoned the principal, Hubert Lee, to the classroom. When he arrived, Lee observed Siebelts seated at her desk. She was just staring and seemed "to be almost falling asleep." The students were out of control. They were laughing and making fun of Siebelts. After questioning Siebelts and receiving an answer that was not at all responsive to the question he had asked, Lee instructed Siebelts to come to his office. Siebelts complied, displaying an unsteady gait as she walked to Lee's office. In Lee's office, Siebelts insisted that she was fine, but conceded that she was "on" prescribed pain medication. Throughout their conversation, Siebelts continued to slur her words and it was difficult for Lee to understand her. Pursuant to Lee's request, Dr. Lorette David, Lee's immediate supervisor, and Nat Stokes, a School Board investigator, came to Lee's office to observe and assess Siebelts' condition. A determination was thereafter made that Siebelts was not capable of performing her instructional duties that day, which was an accurate assessment. She therefore was sent home for the day. Because of her impaired condition, rather than driving herself home, she was driven to her residence by Dr. David. Although she believed that she was not suffering from any impairment, Siebelts did not protest the decision to relieve her of her duties because she felt that any such protest would have fallen on deaf ears. Following this incident, Siebelts was issued a letter of reprimand by Lee. She also was referred to the School Board's Employee Assistance Program because it was felt that she might have a substance abuse problem. Siebelts agreed to participate in the program and received counselling. At no time subsequent to January 28, 1986, did Siebelts report to work under the influence of her pain medication or any other drug. During the 1987-1988 school year, Siebelts and two other Chapter I teachers, Rosa Moses and Mary Cooper, occupied space in Charles Drew's Chapter I reading and math laboratory. Their classrooms were located in the same large room and were separated by makeshift partitions. Siebelts is white. Moses and Cooper, as well as the aides who were assigned to the laboratory during that school year, are black. In October, 1987, Moses complained to Principal Lee that Siebelts was not teaching her students, but rather was constantly engaging in loud verbal confrontations with them that disrupted Moses' lessons. Lee had received similar complaints about Siebelts from others. He therefore asked Moses to advise him in writing of any future classroom misconduct on Siebelts' part. Siebelts continued to engage in conduct in her classroom which Moses deemed inappropriate and disruptive. On November 4, 1987, for the last five minutes of one of her classes, she loudly exchanged verbal barbs with her students. Her yelling made it difficult for Moses and Cooper to teach their lessons. On November 5, 1987, throughout an entire 45-minute class period, Siebelts was embroiled in a verbal battle with a student during which she made derogatory remarks about the student's size. She called the student "fat" and told her that she "shake[d] like jelly." The student, in turn, called Siebelts "fruity" and likened her to a "scarecrow." On that same day during a later class period, Siebelts took a student by the arm and, following a tussle with the student, placed him in his seat. Thereafter, she made belittling remarks to the other students in the class. She said that they were "stupid" and "belonged in a freak show." She also referred to them as "imbeciles." Siebelts further told her students that their "mothers eat dog food." On November 25, 1987, Siebelts commented to the students in one of her classes that they would be able to move around the classroom with greater ease if they were not so fat. As she had been asked to do, Moses provided Lee with a written account of these November, 1987, encounters between Siebelts and her students, but Lee did not take any immediate action to initiate disciplinary action against Siebelts. Although she did not so indicate in her report, Moses believed that the unflattering remarks that Siebelts had made to the students on these occasions constituted racial slurs inasmuch as all of the students to whom the remarks had been addressed were black and in addressing these remarks to the students as a group she had referred to them as "you people." Moses thought that "you people" had meant black people in general, whereas Siebelts had intended the phrase to refer to just the students in the classroom. At no time during any of these reported incidents did Siebelts make specific reference to the students' race, nor did she specifically attack black people in general. The target of her demeaning and insulting remarks were those of her students whose unruly and disrespectful behavior she was unable to control. Her efforts to maintain discipline and promote learning in the classroom had failed. She had become frustrated with the situation and verbally lashed out at her students. Unfortunately, these outbursts only served to further reduce her effectiveness as a teacher. On March 1, 1988, Siebelts was involved in an incident similar to the one which had occurred more than three years earlier on January 22, 1985. As on the prior occasion, Siebelts was sitting at a classroom table with her students. Her legs were crossed. When she repositioned her legs, her foot inadvertently came in contact with the top of the head of a student who was crawling under the table to retrieve a pencil the student had dropped. The student had been told by Siebelts not to go under the table but had disobeyed the instruction. She had been under the table for approximately a minute and a half before being struck by Siebelts foot. The blow to the student's head was a light one and produced only a slight bump. Nonetheless, after getting up from under the table, the student, a brash fourth grader who had had confrontations with Siebelts in the past, threatened to physically retaliate against Siebelts. Siebelts did not say anything to the student and the class ended without the student following through on her threat. Following this incident, Siebelts telephoned the student's mother at home to discuss the student's classroom behavior. The call was placed sometime before 9:00 p.m. The conversation between Siebelts and the mother soon degenerated into an argument. They terminated the discussion without settling their differences. Lee subsequently met with the mother. He suggested that a meeting with Siebelts at the school be arranged. The mother indicated to Lee that she would not attend such a meeting unless school security was present. She explained that she was so angry at Siebelts that she was afraid that she would lose her composure and physically attack Siebelts if they were in the same room together.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission issue a final order suspending Karen Siebelts' teaching certificate for two years and that the School Board of Broward County issue a final order suspending Siebelts until the reinstatement of her teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of June, 1989. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NOS. 88-4687 AND 89-0189 The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties: Commisioner of Education's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted and incorporated in substance in the Findings of Fact portion of this Recommended Order. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Siebelts was not charged with having made threatening remarks the day after the January 22, 1985, kicking incident. These threats were allegedly made, according to the charging documents, on February 19, 1985. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Insofar as it asserts that Siebelts engaged in name-calling on dates other than those specfied in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint otherwise, it is accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Furthermore, the witness whose testimony is recited in this proposed finding later clarified her testimony and conceded that Siebelts did not use the precise words quoted in this proposed finding. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence to the extent that it suggests that Siebelts made "racial comments" on the dates specified in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint. Insofar as it states that such comments were made on other occasions, it is rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. According to the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint, Siebelts threatened her students with legal action on February 19, 1985. This proposed finding, however, relates to alleged threats of legal action made by Siebelts during the 1987-1988 school year. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Siebelts' Proposed Findings of Fact First unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; sixth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Second unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Accepted and :incorporated in substance; sixth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; ninth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Third unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as subordinate; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as unnecessary; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; sixth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; ninth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Fourth unnumbered paragraph: Rejected as more in the nature of a statement of opposing parties' position than a finding of fact; second sentence: Rejected as subordinate; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; sixth sentence: Rejected as subordinate; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Fifth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; sixth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; seventh sentence: Rejected as subordinate; eighth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; ninth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; tenth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; eleventh sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; twelfth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Sixth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; sixth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Seventh unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony (The exculpatory testimony of Siebelts which is summarized in the first three sentences of this paragraph has not been credited because it is contrary to the more credible testimony of other witnesses) fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Eighth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; third sentence: Rejected as subordinate; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Rejected as subordinate; sixth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Rejected as subordinate; ninth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Ninth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Tenth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Superintendent of School's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted and incorporated in substance, except for the fourth sentence, which has been rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted and incorporated in substance except to the extent that it asserts that Siebelts "advised the students that they and their parents would be placed in jail because of the lies and the slander." The preponderance of the evidence reveals that she actually told them that they and their parents would be incarcerated if they did not appear in court when summoned. First sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Rejected as subordinate. Accepted and incorporated in substance. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Second and third sentences: Rejected as more in the nature of argument concerning relatively insignificant matters than findings of fact addressing necessary and vital issues. Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent that it suggests that Siebelts had alcohol on her breath. Any such suggestion has been rejected because it is contrary to the testimony of Investigator Stokes. Stokes, who has been employed by the School Board as an investigator for the past 20 years, testified that he was standing one or two feet away from Siebelts and did not detect the odor of alcohol on her breath. In view of his experience regarding the investigation of these matters, his testimony has been credited. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Accepted and incorporated in substance. To the extent that this proposed finding states that Siebelts made inappropriate remarks regarding the students' clothing or other matters on dates other than those specified in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint, it has been rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Insofar as it asserts that Siebelts made derogatory remarks about black people in general on the dates specified in these charging documents, it has been rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. To the extent that this proposed finding indicates that Siebelts otherwise insulted the students in her class on the dates specified in the charging documents, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. The "disparaging remarks" which are the subject of this proposed finding were purportedly made during the 1984-1985 school year. The "disparaging remarks" referenced in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint were allegedly made, according to these charging documents, during the 1987-1988 school year, more specifically, on November 4, 5, and 25, 1987. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. The "critical" remarks referred to in this proposed finding were allegedly made prior to the 1987-1988 school year. First sentence: Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial to the extent it references reactions to "disparaging" and "critical" remarks that were purportedly made prior to the 1987-1988 school year. Otherwise, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of the testimony of Siebelts' former students and colleagues rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent that it reflects that Moses actively monitored Siebelts classroom conduct "through December of 1987." The preponderance of the evidence establishes that such active monitoring actually ceased November 25, 1987; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent it indicates that Noses heard Siebelts tell her students that they "were dirty and needed baths." This comment was purportedly overheard, not by Moses, but by Margaret Cameron, a teacher's aide who had left Charles Drew prior to the commencement of the 1987- 1988 school year; fourth and fifth sentences: Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. These proposed findings are based on Cameron's testimony regarding offensive comments she had allegedly overheard while an aide in Siebelts' classroom. These pre-1987-1988 school year comments, however, are not mentioned in either the petition for dismissal or the amended administrative complaint. First sentence: As this proposed finding correctly points out, Siebelts' insulting comments only served to heighten the students' hostility and anger toward her. There is no persuasive competent substantial evidence, though, to support the further finding that these comments "resulted in several physical altercations between the students;" second sentence: Rejected inasmuch as there no persuasive competent substantial evidence that there was any "heated verbal exchange" on November 5, 1987, between Siebelts and the student which preceded their "altercation." The preponderance of the evidence establishes that the verbal battle with her students occurred immediately after this incident; third sentence: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Although she may used physical force during her encounter with this student, it is unlikely that she actually "tossed" him into his seat. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected inasmuch as there is no persuasive competent substantial evidence to support a finding that Siebelts telephoned the student's mother as a result of the incident near the air-conditioner. The preponderance of the evidence does establish that Siebelts did telephone the mother on a subsequent occasion, but there is no indication that Siebelts threatened the mother or otherwise acted inappropriately during this telephone conversation. Although the mother asked to have security personnel present during a parent-teacher conference with Siebelts, the preponderance of the evidence reveals that this request was not the product of any threats that Siebelts had made against the mother. First sentence: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Siebelts' testimony that the contact was unintentional is plausible and has been credited. The circumstantial evidence presented by Petitioners (including evidence of prior confrontations between Siebelts and the student) raises some questions regarding the veracity of Siebelts' testimony on this point, but such evidence is not sufficiently compelling to warrant the discrediting this testimony. Given her penchant for verbalizing to her students her thoughts about them, had Siebelts intended to kick the student as a disciplinary measure, she undoubtedly would have made this known to the student, rather than remain silent as she did; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent that it suggests that immediately after kicking the student, Siebelts had a "smirk on her face." To this limited extent, this proposed finding is not supported by any persuasive competent substantial evidence; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. First sentence: Rejected as not supported by any persuasive competent substantial evidence; second, third, fourth and fifth sentences: Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. To the extent that this proposed finding suggests that Siebelts' behavior at school on January 28, 1986, and her verbal attack of her students on November 4, 5, and 25, 198', reduced her effectiveness as a teacher, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. Insofar as it indicates that other conduct in which she engaged resulted in a reduction or loss of effectiveness, it has been rejected as either contrary to the greater weight of the evidence (other conduct specified in charging documents) or beyond the scope of the charges (other conduct not specified in charging documents). COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Whitelock, Esquire 1311 S.E. 2nd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Edward J. Marko, Esquire Suite 322, Bayview Building 4,1040 Bayview Drive Post Office Box 4369 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33338 Virgil L. Morgan, Superintendent Broward County School Board 1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Thomas P. Johnson, Ed.D. Associate Superintendent Human Resources Broward County School Board 1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Craig R. Wilson, Esquire Suite 315 1201 U.S. Highway One North Palm Beach, Florida 33408-3581 Karen B. Wilde Robert F. McRee, Esquire Executive Director Post Office Box 75638 Education Practices Commission Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent, Sean F. McKinney, should be placed in the Dade County School Board's opportunity school program due to his alleged disruptive behavior and failure to adjust to the regular school program.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: During the 1986-87 academic year; Respondent attended Miami Carol City Senior High School in Dade County, Florida. During the 1985-86 school year, Respondent attended junior high school and received failing grades in all of his academic courses. Respondent's promotion to Miami Carol City Senior High was done in error. Respondent's grades for the 1986-87 school year, the first two grading periods, were as follows: COURSE ACADEMIC GRADE EFFORT CONDUCT Mathematics 1st F 3 D 2d F 3 F Physical 1st F 3 F Education 2d F 3 F Language 1st F 3 F Arts 2d F 3 F Communications Social 1st F 3 D Studies 2d F 3 D Language 1st F 3 C Arts Readings 2d F 3 C Industrial Arts 1st F 3 F Education 2d F 3 F Science 1st F 3 F 2d F 3 F SYMBOLS: GRADE "F" UNSATISFACTORY EFFORT "3" INSUFFICIENT CONDUCT "C" SATISFACTORY CONDUCT "D" IMPROVEMENT NEEDED CONDUCT "F" UNSATISFACTORY Respondent was administratively assigned to the opportunity school on March 23, 1987. Respondent did not enroll at the opportunity school and did not attend classes. Consequently, Respondent's academic record for the 1986-87 term ends with the second grading period. When a student is disruptive or misbehaves in some manner, a teacher or other staff member at Miami Carol City Senior High School may submit a report of the incident to the office. These reports are called Student Case Management Referral forms and are used for behavior problems. During the first two grading periods of the 1986-87 school year Respondent caused nine Student Case Management Referral Forms to be written regarding his misbehavior. All incidents of his misbehavior were not reported. A synopsis of Respondent's misbehavior is attached and made a part hereof. Theresa Borges is a mathematics teacher at Miami Carol City Senior High School in whose class Respondent was enrolled. While in Ms. Borges' class, Respondent was persistently disruptive. Respondent was habitually tardy and/or absent from Ms. Borges' class. When Respondent did attend class he was ill- prepared and refused to turn in assigned work. When Respondent did attempt to do an assignment it was unsatisfactorily completed. The Respondent refused to work and would put his head down as if sleeping in class. On one occasion Respondent grabbed a female student between the legs. Respondent's disruptive behavior was exhibited on a daily basis in Ms. Borges' class. Larry Williams is an English teacher at Miami Carol City Senior High School in whose class Respondent was enrolled. Mr. Williams caught Respondent fighting with another student in class. Respondent failed to complete homework assignments for Mr. Williams and turned in only 3-5 percent of his work. Respondent was disruptive and would walk around the classroom talking to other students. Since Respondent was habitually tardy he would interrupt the class with his late arrival. William E. Henderson is the assistant principal at Miami Carol City Senior High School. Mr. Henderson received the Student Case Management Referral forms that were submitted for Respondent and counseled with him in an effort to improve Respondent's conduct. Additionally, Cora McKinney was contacted with regard to Respondent's discipline and academic needs. Respondent's behavior problems were discussed in-depth with Mrs. McKinney. Such conferences did not result in any changed behavior on Respondent's part. While Mrs. McKinney made a sincere and continuing effort to bring Respondent's grades and behavior into line, such efforts did not alter Respondent's lack of progress.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order affirming the assignment of Respondent to Douglas MacArthur Senior High School-North. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of August, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of August, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-1955 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in substance in FF #1. Adopted in substance in FF #3. Adopted in substance in FF #2. Adopted in substance in FF #6. Adopted in substance in FF #6. Adopted in substance in FF #6. Adopted in substance in FF #7. Adopted in substance in FF #7. Rejected as hearsay as to whether this student instigated the fight; otherwise adopted in substance in FF #7. Adopted in substance in FF #5 and attached Synopsis. Adopted in substance in FF #8. Adopted in substance in FF #8. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Jaime Claudio Bovell 370 Minorca Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Cora McKinney 3450 Northwest 194th Terrace Carol City, Florida 33054 Mrs. Madelyn P. Schere Assistant School Board Attorney The School Board of Dade County Board Administration Building, Suite 301 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 SYNOPSIS OF STUDENT CASE MANAGEMENT REFERRAL FORMS SEAN F. MCKINNEY DATE INCIDENT DISCIPLINE September 26, 1986 excessive absences counseled October 16, 1986 excessive unexcused tardies and absences from class (period) Three days SCSI October 28, 1986 not attending classes conference with mother 3 days SCSI December 11, 1987 fighting excessive tardies 10 days suspension January 13, 1987 disruptive behavior, [grabbed girl between legs] five days SCSI February 5, 1987 defiant, refused to leave school property after hours 5 day suspension March 17, 1987 defiant, in halls unapproved time, left office without permission conference with parent, initiated opportunity school processing March 20, 1987 not attending school 10 day suspension
The Issue This is a case in which the School Board of Dade County proposes to assign Rodolfo Damian Menedez to the Jan Mann Opportunity School-North. The School Board contends that the assignment to opportunity school is appropriate because of the student's "disruption of the educational process in the regular school program and failure to adjust to the regular school program." The Respondent and his parents oppose the assignment to opportunity school. This case was originally scheduled for hearing on September 20, 1985, but was continued because there were no court reporter and no translator in attendance. The parties agreed to reschedule the hearing on oral notice of less than 14 days in order to secure an early hearing date. At hearing on October 7, 1985, both parties stated they had no objection to the notice of hearing. At the end of the formal hearing, the Hearing Officer advised both parties that they would be allowed ten (10) days within which to file proposed findings of fact and conclusion of law. On October 21, 1985, the Respondent filed a document titled "Final Order" which has been treated as a proposed recommended order with proposed findings of fact. As of the time of the issuance of this Recommended Order, the Petitioner has not filed any proposed findings of fact or conclusions of law. Specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent are incorporated in the appendix attached to this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact There is information in the school records which indicates that the Respondent was involved in other instances of misconduct, but I have not made further findings in that regard for several reasons. First, the records do not appear to be all that carefully prepared, which causes me to place little credence in the accuracy of the records. Second, the records were not corroborated by testimony of a witness with personal knowledge, except for certain admissions in the testimony of the Respondent and his mother. Third, the Respondent denied the accuracy of some of the information in the records. Third, the Respondent denied the accuracy of some of the information in the records. And, finally, much of the information in the records is vague and general and does not adequately explain the nature of the incidents of the nature of the Respondent's role in the incidents, this being particularly true of the incidents involving fighting.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons it is recommended that the School Board of Dade County enter a Final Order rescinding the assignment of Rodolfo Damian Menendez to the Jan Mann Opportunity School-North and assigning him to an appropriate school in the traditional school program. DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of October, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of October, 1985. APPENDIX The factual assertions contained in the Respondent's posthearing document titled "Final Order" have been treated as proposed findings of fact and are specifically ruled on as follows: The substance of the proposed findings of fact contained in the following paragraphs have been accepted and incorporated into the findings of fact in this Recommended Order: FIRST, SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH, and EIGHTH. The proposed findings of fact contained in the following paragraphs are rejected as irrelevant in light of the other findings and in light of the recommended disposition of this ease: FIFTH, SIXTH, and SEVENTH. The proposed findings of fact in the following paragraph is rejected because it is a proposed conclusion of law rather than a proposed finding of fact: NINTH. As of the time of the issuance of this Recommended Order, the Petitioner had not filed any proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Jackie Gabe, Esquire 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 800 Miami, Florida 33137-4198 Ignacio Siberio, Esquire 525 N.W. 27th Avenue Suite 100 Miami, Florida 33125 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Mr. William R. Perry, Jr., Director Alternative Education Placement Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Ms. Maeva Hipps School Board Clerk Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate the employment of Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner first employed Respondent, as a custodian, in late 1991. Respondent's first job was as a substitute custodian, which was a temporary assignment offering few benefits. Petitioner assigned Respondent to Sarasota High School. The substitute position is also known as a non-appointed position. On February 1, 1994, Petitioner changed Respondent's status from non-appointed to appointed. Respondent successfully completed the six-month probationary period. Two years later, Petitioner transferred Respondent from Sarasota High School to the Oak Park School. This transfer resulted from the settlement of a grievance proceeding concerning a matter unrelated to the issues in this case. At the end of the 1996-97 school year, Petitioner transferred Respondent to Sarasota High School. By this time, Respondent had sufficient seniority to be able to bid for a job at a school of his choosing, and Respondent desired to work at Sarasota High School. Respondent began to experience serious job-related problems during the 1997-98 school year. He did a poor job cleaning the classrooms and other assigned areas. His supervisor estimated that Respondent would complete about 60 percent of his assignment. Frequently, Respondent was a "no call, no show," meaning that he neither appeared for work when scheduled nor called in advance of his nonappearance. On at least one occasion in December 1997, Respondent left work early, without permission, so that his supervisor had to have another custodian finish Respondent's job. From the 1997-98 school year until Respondent's departure from employment with Petitioner, he was repeatedly late, absent, or early in departing. On the many occasions on which Respondent was a "no call, no show," Petitioner was required to assign Respondent's work to another custodian working the same shift. This custodian would have to complete his or her own work and Respondent's work in the same shift. This repeated situation undermined the morale of Respondent's coworkers, who resented the extra work for which they received no additional compensation and their inability to do a good job, in the available time, on their assignment and Respondent's assignment. By letter dated April 16, 1998, Petitioner suspended Respondent for one day without pay due to his insubordination. After receiving this discipline, Respondent continued to require reminders from Petitioner about Petitioner's policies for requesting leave and documenting sick leave. Respondent's repeated failure to comply with these policies constituted insubordination. In January 1999, another custodian was serving as acting head custodian during the night shift that Respondent worked. A vendor representative visited the high school to examine some equipment. When the acting head custodian asked Respondent to show the representative a piece of equipment normally used by Respondent, Respondent refused. Angry at the persistence of the acting head custodian in repeating the request, Respondent then attacked the acting head custodian, grasping the man's neck so hard as to leave marks. Respondent was again disciplined for his insubordination. By letter dated March 17, 1999, Petitioner suspended Respondent for three days without pay. On March 3, 1999, Petitioner transferred Respondent from Sarasota High School to "Regional," which refers to an area encompassing several schools. During the summer of 1999, Respondent worked at the Sarasota County Technical Institute. On July 13, 1999, the senior head custodian could not find Respondent, who had already displayed the same work habits and attendance problems that had characterized his earlier employment with Petitioner. When the head custodian finally found Respondent, the head custodian accused Respondent of shirking his work. The record does not permit a finding as to whether Respondent was really performing his work. However, about an hour after giving Respondent a new assignment of cleaning some windows, the senior head custodian checked up on Respondent. Finding him productively at work, the senior head custodian complimented Respondent by saying, "Good job." Respondent replied, "You don't know who you are messing with." Respondent left the job early, without permission. The next day, Respondent called the regional manager for the Facilities Department, who is the supervisor of the senior head custodians. He warned her that if she sent him back to Sarasota County Technical Institute, he might do something bad to the senior head custodian. The regional manager immediately reassigned Respondent so that he could work at Riverview High School. After initially proposing to terminate Respondent, by letter dated August 18, 1999, Petitioner suspended Respondent for one day with pay for insubordination. As the 1999-00 school year proceeded, Respondent continued his pattern of "no call, no show," tardy appearances, and early departures. For example, from October 11, 1999, through March 24, 2000, Respondent was "no call, no show" on 11 occasions. The other custodians increasingly resented Respondent's unreliability because they had to perform Respondent's work without additional pay. Evidently learning of the dissatisfaction of one custodian, Respondent angrily confronted her by getting in her face, shaking his finger at her, and warning her that if she did not have anything good to say, she should not say anything at all. Despite the exhortations of his supervisors and coworkers, Respondent continued to disregard Petitioner's attendance and notification policies. Finally, on March 24, 2000, Respondent showed up with 15 minutes left in the eight-hour shift that he had specifically requested the night before and explained that he had had car trouble. He did not offer an explanation for why he had failed to call his supervisors and Petitioner's district office to notify them of this claimed problem. This incident effectively ended Respondent's employment with Petitioner. By letter dated June 19, 2000, Petitioner terminated Respondent's employment, effective July 12, 2000, due to insubordination. During his employment with Petitioner, Respondent repeatedly disregarded Respondent's policies regarding notification and documentation of leave, repeatedly disregarded the reasonable requests of his supervisors that he comply with these policies, repeatedly ignored the reasonable requests of his supervisors to perform specific assignments in a competent manner, and repeatedly abused coworkers, to the point of grasping one by the throat. In context, these behaviors by Respondent constituted gross insubordination.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Sarasota County School Board enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment with the school board effective July 12, 2000. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of September, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of September, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. David Bennett, Superintendent Sarasota County School Board 1960 Landings Boulevard Sarasota, Florida 34231 Honorable Tom Gallagher, Commissioner Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Charles D. Bailey, III Bowman George 22 South Tuttle Avenue, Suite 3 Sarasota, Florida 34237 Wayne Goff 107 20th Street West Palmetto, Florida 34221
The Issue Whether Respondent is subject to personnel action as specified in the Notice of Charges and if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Casey Carlisle is a teacher at Santa Fe High School and is employed by the Alachua County School Board on a professional service contract. Respondent has taught at Santa Fe High School since 1990 and has taught in the Florida public school system for 32 years. The 2006-2007 school year for students began on Monday, August 14, 2006. Respondent teaches a business systems technology course during the sixth period in Room 11-011. The class has approximately 30 students. Respondent is hard of hearing. He advises both teachers and students of his hearing problem, and tends to speak louder than most. According to his wife, he does not need a microphone when he is talking. He had advised the sixth period class of his hearing problem and his tendency to speak loudly on the first day of school. Room 11-011 is a large classroom, although not the largest in the school. The noise from the air conditioner, lights, computers and monitors, and the normal activity of having a classroom full of students shuffling their feet and passing things out, combined with Respondent's hearing deficit, is such that Respondent finds it necessary to speak loudly in this room. Respondent also has a tendency to "talk with his hands," and did so often during his testimony at hearing. The computers in Respondent's classroom were not functioning properly on the first day of school, which caused frustration for students and teacher alike. As a result, Respondent changed his plans for the second day and gave the students an alternative lesson. In preparing for this lesson, it was necessary for him to hand out books and document holders at the beginning of class that were still in the storage cabinets in the classroom. On this same day, Principal Bill Herschleb was monitoring students in a common area on campus during the transition between fifth and sixth periods, which is his normal practice during the initial days of a school year. A student came up to him and asked for help retrieving a backpack that had been left in Room 11-011. Herschleb escorted the student to the classroom to retrieve the backpack so that the student would not be considered tardy going to his next class. Herschleb entered Respondent's classroom with the student while Respondent was giving instruction and handing out books and document holders. According to Herschleb, he remained in the room only 15-30 seconds, and Respondent's back was to him. Herschleb testified that Respondent was yelling down the second row of students in the direction of a particular student, leaning toward that student and saying very loudly, "Come on, buddy, come on," in what the principal perceived as a threatening challenge. The principal believed that he would have to intervene because a physical confrontation was eminent. The principal testified that Respondent was speaking much louder than normal; that he was gesturing and motioning; that the veins of his temples were sticking out and that in Herschleb's judgment, the volume of Respondent's voice was not appropriate for a classroom setting. During this brief exchange, Respondent also allegedly stated, "I'll show you what we're going to do," and turned to his left. At that point, he saw the principal standing near the door and asked what he needed. Herschleb explained that the student wanted to get his backpack. However, the backpack was not located and both Herschleb and the student left the classroom. Herschleb acknowledged that while he felt the incident to be totally inappropriate, Respondent used no name calling and no profanity, and no physical altercation actually occurred. Herschleb did not testify how close Respondent was to the student in question and did not explain how he could see veins at Respondent's temples when Respondent had his back to him. Several students, as well as Respondent, testified regarding their recollection of the incident. Their testimony varied greatly, in terms of whether anything out of the ordinary happened; whether Respondent was speaking louder than normal; which student, if any, was the subject of Respondent's anger; and the reason for any action taken by Respondent. Their testimony was uniform, however, that there was no physical threat to any student. Further, the incident, to the extent there was one, had not made a lasting impression on any student in the classroom. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that Respondent admonished Garrett Holton for speaking in class when he asked questions of Sarah Sapp, a student sitting next to him, after Respondent had instructed the class not to talk without being recognized first. He pointed at Garrett while speaking to him, but there were no threatening gestures. Respondent did raise his voice, but was not much louder than usual, especially when it is taken into account that he was in the process of passing out document holders and at times had his back to the class. While Respondent did not feel well and may have been irritated, he was not angry. Respondent told the student he would get a referral if he continued to talk. Both the student to whom the comments were directed and the girl to whom he was speaking ultimately viewed the incident as not being a "big deal." Garrett Holt testified that while he was embarrassed initially and did not want to get into trouble, he did not take it too seriously and did not indicate any reluctance to return to the class the next day. Sarah thought it was just a normal day, and teachers yelling in class is "nothing new." She did not think the incident was a big deal and felt she and Garrett were treated appropriately and should have waited to discuss the lesson after Respondent finished talking. The students did not feel threatened and the incident was not the subject of conversation around the school. No student or parent complained about the incident. Indeed, one student testified that the matter had been "blown up into something that it wasn't," and it wasn't "necessary to go to court over." Several students considered the day just an ordinary day. Respondent certainly thought so, and was actually pleased with the overall progress of his class that day, given the challenges the computers had presented. After class ended, Respondent saw the backpack that the student with Herschleb had not been able to find, and loaded it onto his cart to take it to Herschleb or to the student via the lost and found. The next morning Respondent saw Herschleb and told him he had found the backpack. He asked what Herschleb wanted him to do with it and apologized for not helping more to find the backpack during class time, making a comment to the effect that "it shouldn't have happened that way." Herschleb understood his apology to mean that Respondent recognized that his behavior the day before as inappropriate. On Wednesday afternoon, August 16, 2006, Herschleb gave Respondent a letter notifying him of a meeting with the principal to be held on Friday, August 18, 2006. Respondent did not know that Herschleb had any concern about his conduct during the August 15, 2006, sixth period class until Herschleb made the allegation on Friday, August 18, 2006. During this meeting, Herschleb explained what he had observed on Tuesday afternoon in Respondent's classroom and why he was concerned. Respondent denied any wrongdoing. Respondent was placed on administrative leave with pay so that the matter could be investigated. The matter was also reported to Joan Longstreth, Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources for the Alachua County School Board. An investigator was assigned who obtained random statements from members of the sixth period class. After receipt of the administrative investigative report, a committee was convened to review the report and make a recommendation. While the committee members discussed the student statements, the most significant factor in recommending disciplinary action to the superintendent was the fact that the school principal had observed the incident.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing all charges against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th of February, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was an employee of the School Board of Dade County, Florida, more particularly a Title One teacher at Miami Carol City Senior High School during the 1981-1982 school year. On May 6, 1982, John Cohn was a student in Respondent's fourth period class. Arnold Coats was a substitute teacher working with Respondent in Respondent's classroom on that day. After Respondent had given the students an assignment, Cohn requested and received permission to leave the classroom to go to the bathroom. While absent from the classroom, Cohn decided he wished to speak with Ronald Golemhieski, another teacher at Miami Carol City Senior High School. Cohn returned to Respondent's classroom to request permission. Coats came to the door and gave Cohn permission to go talk to Golembieski, but Cohn decided he should get permission from Respondent since Respondent was the teacher of the class. Cohn waited in the doorway of Respondent's classroom. When he finally got Respondent's attention, he beckoned with his finger, requesting Respondent to come to the doorway. Respondent went to the doorway, and Cohn requested Respondent's permission to go talk to Golembieski. Respondent grabbed Cohn, pulling him forcefully into the classroom. Commotion broke out in the classroom, and someone yelled for assistance. Golembieski heard the commotion, as did Victoria Bell, the hall monitor. When they arrived at Respondent's classroom, Respondent and Cohn were struggling with each other. They were face to face, and Respondent had his arm around Cohn's neck with his hand on Cohn's throat in a choking manner. Golembieski grabbed Cohn away from Respondent and, after separating them, took Cohn to his classroom to calm him down. Bell and Coats pushed the rest of the students back into their seats and restored order in Respondent's classroom. When the altercation ended, Cohn's shirt was torn and he had scratches on his chest. Just prior to Respondent's outburst, Cohn did nothing to provoke Respondent in any way and was not disrespectful to Respondent. When Cohn got Respondent's attention, Respondent both looked at Cohn and walked to the doorway in a normal manner, thereby giving no warning that he intended to touch Cohn in any way. Respondent interpreted Cohn's beckoning with his finger as an invitation to fight, although Respondent admits that Cohn said nothing to him indicating that he wished to fight.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Notice of Charges, approving Respondent's suspension and dismissing him as an employee of the School Board of Dade County, and denying any claim for back pay. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 31st day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of August, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Esquire 3000 Executive Plaza, Suite 800 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Ellen L. Leesfield, Esquire 2929 SW Third Avenue, Fifth Floor Miami, Florida 33129 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1410 NE Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
