Findings Of Fact Respondent and the Alternative Learning Center Respondent In 1974, at 22 years of age, Respondent earned his Bachelor of Science degree in social studies from Florida Memorial College, an historically black college in Miami. In his freshman year, he was named the Outstanding Freshman from Southwest Florida attending historically black colleges. At various times during his last three years of college, Respondent worked in inner-city ministries in St. Louis and New Orleans. For about five years following graduation, Florida Memorial College employed Respondent, first as Associate Director of Admissions and then as Director of Alumni-Church Relations, assistant basketball coach, head baseball coach, and head volleyball coach. After moving from Miami to Lee County, Respondent worked for a short time outside of education. At the start of the 1986- 87 school year, Respondent returned to education by accepting employment with the Lee County School District (District) as a social studies teacher at Cypress Lake High School, where he remained for two years. While at Cypress Lake High School, Respondent also served as head girls' basketball coach, head girls' track coach, assistant volleyball coach, and assistant baseball coach. While employed by the District, Respondent helped with the fathers' program at LAMP, which is an educational program operated by the District at the New Directions Center. The LAMP program provides high-school instruction for teenage mothers. Respondent also headed the District's first mentor program, which finds mentors, without regard to race, to encourage minority students to excel in an academic setting, such as in gifted and honors courses. In 1988, Respondent earned his Master of Science degree in educational leadership from Nova University. Then-Superintendent Engle named Respondent to serve as principal-on-assignment for the 1988-89 school year to recruit minority teachers for the District. Respondent was the second minority person assigned to an administrative position in the District. At the time, a federal court had entered a desegregation order against the District. In the ten years prior to Respondent's new assignment, the District had hired about a dozen minority teachers. In one summer, Respondent recruited 30 minority teachers. After completing his assignment in minority teacher recruitment, Respondent returned to Cape Coral High School as Dean of Students. He served in this position for the 1989-90 school year. Following the 1989-90 school year, Respondent was appointed the Coordinator of Educational Equity and Reassignments, in which capacity Respondent served for five years. When he assumed the job, he received a $5000 raise to about $40,000 annually. A coordinator is the lowest level of management in the District office. Coordinators are subordinate to assistant directors or, if none, directors. Directors are subordinate to assistant and associate superintendents, who are subordinate to the Superintendent. The Superintendent is appointed by the Lee County School Board. As Coordinator of Educational Equity and Reassignments, Respondent monitored the district's desegregation efforts. Due to the nature of his responsibilities, Respondent, even though only a coordinator, had direct access to the Superintendent and School Board attorney. Working closely with then-Superintendent Adams, who became Respondent's mentor, Respondent helped redraw school- attendance zones to desegregate schools. Respondent also handled racially based complaints from staff, including teachers, and generally tried to assure that poorer schools received the same resources as those enjoyed by wealthier schools. Respondent became the focus of considerable controversy while Coordinator of Educational Equity and Reassignments. One day, his young daughter answered the phone at home and heard an unidentified caller threaten, "Your nigger father is a dead man." Shortly after the murder of Superintendent Adams, Petitioner, then serving as Interim Superintendent, informed Respondent that she was removing him from his coordinator position. She created a new position for Respondent as Director of Adult Education and Dropout Prevention. Respondent received a raise from $48,000 to $55,000 annually and assumed his new duties in November 1994. Petitioner disclosed that she made the change based on concerns for Respondent's safety and complaints that she had received from the School Board and parents related to Respondent's rezoning decisions. Three months after Petitioner created Respondent's new position, she eliminated it and suggested that Respondent apply for other administrative positions with the District. Respondent and Petitioner discussed an opening at the New Directions Center. The New Directions Center occupies a three-year old facility owned and operated by the Lee County School Board. The New Directions Center comprises three separate programs: the LAMP program, the Academy, and the Alternative Learning Center (ALC). The Academy, which includes the Employment Skills Program, provides alternative education by offering its students different types of teaching strategies than are typically available at conventional schools. Academy students are not behaviorally much different from students attending regular schools in the District. Prior to the 1995-96 school year, each program at the New Directions Center had an assistant principal, and a supervisory principal was in charge of the entire New Directions Center. When she mentioned the opening at the ALC, Petitioner informed Respondent that she intended to appoint a separate principal for each of the three programs starting the 1995-96 school year. In May 1995, Petitioner appointed Respondent to serve as the new ALC Principal, starting July 1. As ALC Principal, Respondent was also the head District administrator at the juvenile detention center, Price Halfway House, and Lee County boot camp. At the time of assuming his new responsibilities, Respondent had served nine years in the Lee County School system: two years in the classroom, one year in administration at a school, over five years in administration involving minority matters at the District office, and less than one year in Adult Education and Dropout Prevention. Respondent received no training in preparation for his new assignment as a school principal. As of February 19, 1996, Respondent's District personnel file contained nothing negative, aside from some isolated suggestions recorded on classroom observation sheets. This was the file that Respondent and his attorney examined after giving the District three days' notice of their intent to examine and copy Respondent's personnel file. Discussed below is Petitioner's contention that two missing items should have been included in the file. Respondent's evaluation for his first year of teaching notes: "Excellent start as a beginning teacher in Lee County." This 1987 evaluation states: "Outstanding teacher. Should be considered for advancement to administration as soon as possible." The 1988 evaluation reports: "Excellent year-- Promoted to dean of students, Cape Coral H.S." The first administrative evaluation of Respondent is in 1989 and covers his work in minority-teacher recruitment. The 1989 evaluation states that Respondent is "an asset to our team." The 1990 evaluation, which addresses Respondent's year as Dean of Students, reports: "Charles has demonstrated his concern for young people and has spent many hours above and beyond the call of duty working with and for kids." For the first year in which Respondent was responsible for desegregation efforts, the 1991 evaluation notes that Respondent has only partially achieved a goal--namely, learning desegregation issues. However, the 1991 evaluation, which was prepared by Dr. Mary Nell Gunter, states: "Charles Daily [sic] demonstrates talent and skill in dealing with people. He is eager to do a good job and I appreciate his professional outlook." A memorandum from Dr. Gunter commends Respondent for his "positive attitude" and work in specific programs. The memorandum suggests, though, that Respondent needs to develop his skills in "facilitative leadership," which he demonstrates in "many instances," but perhaps insufficiently when dealing with "principals and school-based people." Respondent's evaluation for the 1991-92 school year is missing from Respondent Exhibit 13, which is his District personnel file. The missing evaluation apparently was completed with no remarkable comments. Respondent's evaluation for the 1992-93 school year is noteworthy because it was prepared by Petitioner, who was not yet Superintendent. This 1993 evaluation finds that Respondent has fully achieved all of his goals, one of which is: To establish effective communication to the public that would assist in dealing with the increasing cultural, demographic and social change effecting [sic] our students and community. Petitioner's narrative comments on the 1993 evaluation are: Charles Dailey is an extremely valued and important member of the Division of Administrative Operations. He has demonstrated outstanding leadership during the Desegregation process. He is a role model for every administrator in his work ethic, committment [sic], teamwork and educational values. Petitioner found that Respondent reached an effective level of performance (the only satisfactory rating offered on the evaluation form) in all categories. Categories include judgment issues, including making good decisions based on law and policy, and sensitivity issues, including tact, effective dealing with people over emotional issues, exhibiting a positive professional attitude, and perceiving the needs and concerns of other persons. Petitioner concluded the 1993 evaluation as follows: Charles must work under stress everyday in his office due to our desegregation process. He has handled this in an outstanding manner. The evaluation for the 1993-94 school year should have been performed by Dr. James Browder, who is now principal of Cypress Lake High School. Dr. Adams was murdered on February 7, 1994. Another administrator was responsible for Respondent's evaluation until April or May of 1994. Given the understandable disruption resulting from the sudden death of Dr. Adams and the administration reorganization that followed, Respondent's evaluation for the 1993-94 school year was never prepared. However, Dr. Browder testified that he had perceived no problems with Respondent of sufficient seriousness to document in an evaluation. The evaluation for the 1994-95 school year should have been performed by Assistant Superintendent Dr. Mary Santini. She assumed that position in January 1995 and may have felt unable to evaluate Respondent by the time the evaluations are due in May. Respondent has been recognized repeatedly in the educational community. The past three years, Respondent was a finalist for the Ida S. Baker award, which is given to the outstanding minority educator in Florida. Respondent was named in 1995 the administrator of the year for the southeastern United States by the Southeast Desegregation Assistance Center. During this period, Respondent has been serving as a consultant and expert witness in the Rockford (IL) School District desegregation case. The ALC In general, the ALC is the District's last-chance school for students whose disciplinary problems have resulted in their removal from their geographical schools. ALC students are the most difficult to manage in the District. Nearly all ALC students are enrolled in the ALC as an alternative to expulsion from the Lee County School System. A few students are assigned to the ALC through the juvenile justice system. Almost all of the ALC students have had serious problems with criminal activity, seriously disruptive behavior in school, and school attendance. At any given time, roughly 10-20 students attending the ALC have been convicted of felonies. On a cumulative basis for the 1995-96 school year, excluding exceptional student education (ESE) students, 80 students enrolled in the ALC sometime during the 1995-96 school year were guilty of felonies, 91 were guilty of the possession of drugs or drug paraphernalia, 29 were guilty of armed burglary or grand theft, 36 were guilty of assault or battery against a teacher or administrator, 68 were guilty of fighting with other students, 38 were guilty of possession of weapons, and numerous others were guilty of other offenses ranging from "sexual misconduct" (7) to "peeing in a bottle" (1). (Some of these students were guilty of more than one offense, and some students entered the ALC more than once during the school year, so their offenses would be counted more than once in each category.) Prior to the 1995-96 school year, the Supervisory Principal of the New Directions Center was Jeananne Folaros. The ALC Assistant Principal was Richard Hagy. The LAMP Assistant Principal was Carolyn McCollum. And the Academy Assistant Principal was John Wortham. For the 1995-96 school year, Ms. McCollum and Mr. Wortham retained their prior positions except they became principals, and Mr. Hagy and Ms. Folaros were reassigned. Respondent and the ALC When Respondent arrived at the ALC, student behavior and academics were both in need of improvement. Perhaps the most dramatic indicator of the situation was that in the prior school year Mr. Hagy had twice required hospital treatment for injuries he had received from being struck by ALC students. The school was the scene of frequent fights with students wandering in the halls and often in possession of drugs, making it hard for motivated students to work. In an effort to reduce the number of suspensions, the ALC had retained some extremely disruptive students, who sometimes threatened even the teachers. Frightened by these students, some teachers had resorted to a policy of appeasement, allowing difficult students to sleep or play cards in the classroom with academic activity going on around them, or sending these students to a separate timeout room, where they slept and played cards without the distraction of academic activity going on around them. When Respondent was first appointed as ALC Principal, he spoke with middle- and high-school principals and learned of their concerns that the ALC was a "revolving-door" program. They said that the ALC disrupted regular academic programs at their schools and inadequately served the needs of the students assigned to the ALC. District principals and ALC teachers and students reported that the ALC offered a poor educational program where students could easily avoid academic challenge. One of Respondent's first moves was to select Beth Smith as the assistant principal for the ALC. Respondent recognized that their strengths and weaknesses were complementary. She was a curriculum specialist, and he was an effective disciplinarian. After hiring Ms. Smith, Respondent formed a curriculum team consisting of her, a guidance counselor, a school psychologist, and a peer-counseling teacher to address curriculum changes. Respondent reimplemented the 45 good-day policy. This policy meant that the ALC would not return a student to his geographical school until he had 45 days of punctual attendance, good behavior, and successful academics. Respondent developed and enforced a dress code, prohibited sleeping and card games in class, and required teachers to stiffen their academic requirements. Respondent's disciplinary plan eliminated the separate timeout room, where misbehaving students had enjoyed freedom from academics. Respondent instead introduced a multi-step intervention system where the teacher first warned the misbehaving student in the classroom, then warned the student in the hallway, then placed the student in timeout in the classroom, and then sent him to Respondent, who would warn the student, assign cafeteria duty, or suspend him, depending on the seriousness of the offense. In all senses of the word, Respondent was a "hands-on" principal. Sondra Saldana, an ALC guidance counselor, best described Respondent's style when she testified that he meets students where they are. Undoubtedly, Respondent models good behavior in numerous ways. But he does not stop there. With passionate intensity, Respondent readily reveals his love and expectations for each student and satisfaction or dissatisfaction with each student's behavior. Respondent is direct and frank, not oblique or diplomatic. He demands the respect of all of his students, and he earns the respect of nearly all of them because they see that he cares about them in a vital and effective way. Many of the ALC students probably would not have responded to Respondent's disciplinary innovations without clear evidence of Respondent's belief in their academic potential. More than anything else, Respondent wanted "to keep turning on lights for students," according to his favorite expression. Refusing to allow ALC students to think of themselves or be treated like academic or cultural outcasts, Respondent made the ALC more like a regular school, not so that he could have the experience of running a regular school, but so that the ALC students could have the experience of attending and succeeding at a regular school. In giving ALC students more positive opportunities than they had had in the past, Respondent introduced to the ALC student assemblies, a literary magazine, school plays, and other activities typical of regular schools. Respondent ordered the physical education teacher to make the ALC students play sports besides basketball, just like the physical education students were doing at the regular schools. (After hearing the concerns of the physical education teacher about placing bats in the hands of certain students, Respondent agreed to drop softball.) Respondent personally conducted entrance interviews, so he could explain the rules and purpose of the ALC to each new student and any parents or guardians accompanying him. Respondent made the exit process--merely an exercise in paperwork in prior years--an experience that would bring some closure to the ALC experience and prepare the student for a more successful reentry into his geographical school. There is no doubt that Respondent was markedly successful in improving the atmosphere at the ALC. Respondent's immediate supervisor, Herbert Wiseman, the District Director of Secondary Operations, twice during the fall of 1995 complimented Respondent on how well run the ALC was. The latter compliment took place on December 15, 1995, when Mr. Wiseman, with whom Respondent had a good relationship, told Respondent that he was running the ALC well. Mariner High School Principal Michael McNerney described in detail a visit he made to the ALC in November 1995. He was greeted quickly and professionally at the office, rather than allowed merely to walk into the school. Respondent took him to 8-10 classrooms where Respondent and students spoke freely. Respondent knew each of his students and which of them were from Mariner High School. He even knew when each student was due to return to his geographical high school. Jill Culligan, an ALC teacher who was disaffected with Respondent, noted the positive changes in writing on December 5, 1995: Under [Respondent's] system of discipline interventions and sensitivity to individual student needs, the students appear to be exhibiting the better behavior expected of them. Fights are no longer tolerated. More opportunities for assemblies are getting them ready for re-entry into the regular schools. But Respondent always balanced his academic innovations with disciplinary innovations, recognizing that behavior and academic achievement among ALC students are inextricably linked. Respondent personally led the effort to restore and maintain order at the ALC. It was a considerable, ongoing effort, made more difficult by the fact that the most troublesome students were no longer warehoused in the timeout room or banished from school by suspension. A key element of Respondent's relationship with the most difficult of these most difficult students is that he literally was not afraid to touch a student. Respondent was unafraid to place an arm around such students and hug them close to his body. The hug conveyed affection and physical constraint. While holding the child firmly, Respondent would then typically say that he had to calm down. In many instances, this approach was successful; in some instances--disproportionately represented in the next section--this approach was not. There were always clear limits to Respondent's disciplinary efforts. As noted below, he did not believe in striking students, and never did so except one time at the behest of a parent, who sought to avoid the more burdensome punishment of a suspension. Respondent scrupulously tried to get all significant information before taking any disciplinary action. Though a strong believer in discipline, Respondent was never inflexible. To the contrary, it appears he was always willing to fashion the most appropriate penalty under the circumstances--such as pushups or cafeteria duty--and was often willing to modify a penalty upon request of a parent or guardian or even the student himself. During Respondent's tenure, which ended with his suspension on January 11, 1996, there was a fight every three weeks among students. After his suspension, there was a fight everyday. During Respondent's tenure, the police were present at school every other week. After his suspension, the police were present every other day. Despite Respondent's success at the ALC, he encountered some resistance and engendered some resentment among staff. Clearly, disgruntled staff was the source of many of Respondent's problems, causing management problems at school and, more importantly, conveying misinformation to the District office. In general, at least two-thirds of the ALC staff supported Respondent even after he was suspended. Some staffmembers were neutral. Among staffmembers vocally opposed to Respondent, some were doubtlessly put off by Respondent's assertive personality. But there were other reasons for the vocal disaffection of some staffmembers, and some of these reasons have a material bearing on the credibility of these persons as witnesses and the weight accorded their testimony. In some cases, the source of staff disaffection may have been professional, such as when Respondent selected Ms. Smith over Jim Nassiff, an ALC teacher, for the position of assistant principal. Mr. Nassiff was unhappy with Respondent for choosing Ms. Smith over him. Most disaffected staffmembers had job-performance problems, which were exacerbated by the demands that Respondent placed upon them in terms of academics and discipline. Teachers in this category included Kenneth Vitale, Pamela Minton, Cheryl Gruenefeld, and Ms. Culligan. To varying degrees, teachers in this category manifested an unwillingness or inability to adapt to the changes implemented by Respondent. The sources of disaffection of Mr. Vitale and Ms. Culligan are described in connection with incidents involving them. However, two staffmembers were involved in a number of incidents. Lisa Krucher, a security guard, was notable for the extent of her dissatisfaction with Respondent and her inability to perform her job. She defied Respondent's efforts to ban smoking from the ALC building. She was unable to break up fights and lax in enforcing discipline. She eventually became the eyes and ears of Petitioner by daily reporting incidents to Mr. Wortham, who passed them on to Dr. Santini. Her job-related deficiencies were such that--despite her loyalty--Ms. Krucher was transferred to the Academy after Respondent's suspension. Ms. Smith offered a more balanced perspective on Respondent than did Ms. Krucher, and the source of Ms. Smith's disaffection with Respondent is more professional. Previously a guidance counselor in a middle school and dropout prevention program, Ms. Smith is an articulate exponent of the modern disciplinary theories of positive reinforcement and behavior modification. She deemphasizes more traditional, coercive methods of discipline, such as punishment for wrongs-- which of course awaits those ALC students who, having already failed to take their behavioral cues in the setting of the regular schools, continue misbehaving until they encounter the criminal justice system. Respondent does not advocate the more traditional, coercive disciplinary method of punishment for wrongs to the exclusion of more modern techniques of behavior modification. However, his more intense style of personal involvement with misbehaving students bore little resemblance to Ms. Smith's more restrained style. Ms. Smith was disturbed by her perception of how Respondent handled certain misbehaving ALC students. The record is less clear in revealing her methods of modifying the behavior of such students. In any event, her reactions to the misbehavior and Respondent's attempts to correct it were entirely sincere. She was frustrated to the point of tears at times, believing at times that students who continued to misbehave simply had not been exposed to sufficient positive reinforcement. The problem is that Ms. Smith lacked experience with the kinds of students who can be found at the ALC. She was still developing effective means of handling the most dangerous and disruptive of these students when Respondent was suspended. At that time, Ms. Smith still had nothing approaching Respondent's experience in dealing with young persons who, with little if any warning or provocation, explode into a violent frenzy, seriously injuring anyone in their immediate vicinity. Following Respondent's suspension, Petitioner appointed Ms. Smith as Acting ALC Principal. On February 20, 1996, Petitioner replaced Ms. Smith with Mr. Hagy as Acting ALC Principal. Respondent and Students Spring 1995 Visits to ALC: Paragraphs 33 and 35 At the urging of Petitioner, Respondent visited the ALC shortly after Petitioner named him the new principal. He visited the school three times in the spring of 1995 before assuming his duties there on July 1, 1995. On his first visit, Respondent met briefly with Mr. Hagy and discussed how the school operates. On this visit, Respondent saw students loitering in the halls and cursing loudly. Respondent saw the timeout room, where staff had hung plastic to cover the holes that students had punched in the walls. Respondent saw students were sleeping rather than studying. Respondent and Mr. Hagy came across a student who was walking out of the class during the school day very upset, using abusive language. Mr. Hagy asked him to stop, but he ignored Mr. Hagy and walked out. In another class, taught by James Nassiff, Respondent found the class watching an entertainment movie. Mr. Hagy escorted Respondent into several classrooms. These visits were brief. Respondent later made a second visit, without Mr. Hagy, to observe the classes in session. These visits were somewhat longer. In each classroom during the second visit, Respondent introduced himself as the new ALC principal. He warned the students that things would be changing. He promised that he would suspend any student who talked back to a teacher, swore, or fought. Respondent ordered the students not to call male teachers "man" and female teachers "woman"; teachers would be called "Mr." and "Mrs." Respondent told the students that he would not tolerate sleeping or card playing in class. In a lighter tone, Respondent added that the students should tell their friends and family that there was a new sheriff in town and the ALC was going to be about education. Respondent then flashed his badge. The badge is a small shiny badge that designates Respondent as an Honorary Deputy Sheriff for the term of Sheriff McDougal, who remains in office. Respondent understands that the badge confers on him no special power to arrest persons. He has never tried to arrest anyone using the badge, and he has never displayed the badge on the occasions that he has actually summoned law enforcement officers. In Ms. Gruenefeld's class, Respondent found students sleeping. He approached one student who had his head down on the desk and did not look up when Respondent entered the room. Respondent told him to look at Respondent when he was speaking, or Respondent would suspend the student. Ms. Gruenefeld tried to justify the student's behavior on the grounds that he was a good student and had been working very hard. She believed that the student, who was Hispanic, did not engage in eye contact for cultural reasons. Nothing in the record supports the assertion that Hispanics disfavor eye contact. Absent an undisclosed medical condition, the student should have been able to raise his head off the desk and make eye contact with the new principal, who had entered the classroom to introduce himself to the students. There is no indication that Respondent's first or second visits to the ALC destroyed any instructional momentum in the classrooms. Obviously, the students were off-task for the time that Respondent was in the classroom, in most cases due to Respondent's presence. However, the students did not remain off-task for long and soon returned to whatever they were doing before Respondent entered the classroom. At most, Respondent's comments about changes at the ALC might have caused some harmless confusion among those students who were about to be returned to their geographical schools. There is no evidence that students were intimidated by Respondent's announcement or his display of a badge. Some students laughed after Respondent's announcement. Some responded more seriously, wanting to know if he were really going to be the new principal. In general, the students listened thoughtfully to Respondent's statement. Respondent made a third visit to meet with the faculty at the request of an ALC guidance counselor, who had called Respondent and told him that the faculty wanted to meet him. In this meeting, Respondent repeated the ground rules that he had given the students a few days earlier. Respondent invited each teacher to prepare a wish list for the ALC and a list of any concerns that he or she may have. Ending a positive meeting, Respondent introduced the teachers to his favorite expression, "We need to turn lights on for kids." Following Respondent's visits, Ms. Folaros telephoned Respondent and asked him what had taken place. He explained that he wanted to meet the students at that time because summer school would start before he assumed the role of principal. Respondent added that he wanted the students whom he met to tell other students that he would not tolerate students sleeping and misbehaving, as they had been doing in the past. Other Incidents of Flashing the Badge: Paragraph 33 In September or October, 1995, M. P. enrolled at the ALC. M. P. is a 14 year-old ninth grader, who started the year at Lehigh High School. M. P. was sent to the ALC after he urinated in the middle of class into a glue bottle because his teacher had refused him permission to use the bathroom. M. P. was accompanied by his mother and sister on the day that he enrolled--a process that took about 20 minutes. During the entrance interview, Respondent informed M.P. of the rules of the school. They discussed the dress code, the prohibition of drugs on campus, and M. P.'s misbehavior at Lehigh High School. During the conversation, Respondent flashed his badge and warned M. P. not to do anything wrong. M. P. testified that he was scared at the sight of the badge. This testimony is discredited. It takes more than a badge to frighten M. P.. M. P.'s mother saw Respondent flash the badge, and she decided, based on this meeting, that Respondent would be a good role model for her son. Respondent flashed the badge on other occasions. One time, four middle-school girls assaulted another student in the cafeteria. They ignored Respondent when he tried to talk to them, so he flashed the badge and warned them that he could have them arrested. They took him more seriously and listened after that. Another time, Respondent displayed the badge to a boy who was misbehaving in Respondent's office. Again, Respondent warned that he could have the student arrested. Respondent displayed the badge several other times and warned misbehaving students that he could have them arrested. Some of the students took him seriously; others did not. The ability of Respondent to have students arrested did not depend on his possession of the badge, and ALC students understood that. Flashing the badge unlikely intimidated anyone. M. P.'s Other Incident: Paragraph 29 After the entrance interview, M. P.'s mother spoke privately with Respondent about M. P. She described him as emotionally troubled over her recent divorce. She warned that he was quick to anger and especially intolerant of females because he blamed the divorce on his mother. He also resented females because of a gender issue in the family and the teacher who had refused him permission to go to the bathroom at Lehigh High School was a female. While in April Pepin's class, M. P. walked out of the classroom without permission. Ms. Pepin sent him to Ms. Smith's office. Talking to Ms. Smith, M. P. denied that he had left the classroom without permission and gave Ms. Smith trouble. Ms. Smith determined that he had misbehaved in Ms. Pepin's class, decided to suspend M. P. for one day, and called M. P.'s mother. M. P.'s mother asked Ms. Smith to have Respondent reinforce the point with M. P. Ms. Smith preceded M. P. to Respondent's office and explained the situation to Respondent, stating that M. P.'s mother wanted Respondent to talk to her son and that Ms. Smith was having trouble dealing with him. Respondent summoned M.P. into the office, leaned over his desk toward M. P., and raised his voice in an authoritative manner. Respondent warned M. P. that he could not act up at Respondent's school and that, if Ms. Smith told him something, it was like Respondent telling him something. M. P. elected not to listen to Respondent either and tried to walk out of his office. When he turned to walk around the chair, Respondent stopped him by grabbing his arm. Respondent was worried that he might be going after Ms. Smith. Respondent was also intent on not allowing M. P. to disobey Ms. Smith and Respondent by coming and going as he pleased, especially after his mother had asked repeatedly for Respondent's help in dealing with her son. After grabbing M.P.'s arm, Respondent told him to go up against the wall for a search, and, when he did not do so, forced him up against the wall. When Respondent tried to pat down M. P. for weapons, M.P. lost his composure and began to fight with Respondent. M.P. brought his arms down hard on Respondent and struck him. Respondent wrestled M. P. down to the floor and shouted for someone to call the police. Arriving a few minutes later, the police officers had to bind M.P. by the ankles and drag him to the police car, where he tried to kick out the car window. M. P.'s mother then had M. P. admitted to Charter Glades Hospital, a psychiatric treatment facility. M. P. remained hospitalized for ten days and remained on homebound instruction for two months. Charter Glades treated M. P. for an anger disorder. M. P.'s mother blames Respondent for M. P.'s hospitalization. She is understandably worried about her son, but the evidence does not in any way suggest that Respondent initiated, and the greater weight of the evidence does not prove that Respondent exacerbated or unreasonably triggered, M. P.'s obvious behavior disorder, which had manifested itself before his assignment to the ALC. Ms. Smith felt that Respondent overreacted to the situation, but she was unaware of the details or extent of M.P.'s behavior disorder prior to the incident. Under the circumstances, Respondent was justified in reacting quickly to prevent M. P. from leaving the office and precluding the possibility that the student might strike Ms. Smith. Pushups: Paragraphs 20 and 21 Respondent sometimes gave the option of pushups to male students whose misbehavior otherwise warranted suspension. (For female and other male students, Respondent would sometimes offer cafeteria duty.) On at least two occasions, students chose to do the pushups. Respondent demanded 50 pushups and sometimes called out the count himself, starting fast and ending slow. If a student could not do 50 pushups, Respondent allowed him to do as many as he could; in no event would Respondent suspend him for failing to reach 50. On one occasion, three students were doing their pushups in Respondent's office when a faculty meeting was about to start. The teachers were supportive of the students, cheering them on. When finished, the students, taking the matter in good humor, thanked Respondent for not suspending them. There is absolutely no evidence that any of the students choosing to do pushups were humiliated, injured, or exposed to a risk of injury. Presumably, as alleged by Petitioner, their arms shook and, for the white boys, their faces reddened. These things happen with pushups. Spankings: Paragraphs 18 and 19 There were two student spankings during the fall of 1995. One of them took place in October 1995 and involved O. B., who is 13 years old. O. B. lied to Respondent about not being involved in a fight. Based on O. B.'s word, Respondent was about to suspend another boy. After discovering the truth, Respondent went down to O.B.'s classroom and found the class watching a movie. Respondent said, loud enough for the teacher, Mr. Vitale, and other students to hear, "Son, you've lied to me. You've lied to me." O. B. answered, "Man, I don't know what you're talking about." Respondent then grasped O. B. firmly by the back of the neck and walked him down to Respondent's office. In the office, Respondent suspended O. for five days, called O. B.'s father (his biological grandfather who had adopted O. B.), and told him that he needed to pick up his son. O. B.'s classmates already knew that O. B. had lied about the incident. O. B. was not embarrassed by the manner in which Respondent removed him from class, nor was he hurt by the grasp of Respondent. When O. B.'s father arrived, he said to Respondent that O. B. had just been suspended and had been out of school more than he had been in. The father asked Respondent if there were another alternative, like a spanking, and suggested that Respondent spank the child. Respondent said he did not like to spank students. The father asked if he could, in order to avoid another suspension. Respondent said that was acceptable to him, so the father took his belt and applied it to O. B.'s buttocks five or six times. O. B. cried a little, so Respondent suggested that the father take him home for the rest of the day, rather than return to the classroom after having cried. The father did that. Respondent, O. B., and O. B.'s father were the only persons present during the spanking. The blinds were drawn in Respondent's office during the spanking. The other spanking involved J. N., who is also 13 years old. One day, J. N. repeatedly misbehaved. His teacher, Mr. Nassiff, talked to him several times without effect. J. N. got angry at another student and was about to get into a fight. Another teacher told him to be quiet and he refused. School Resource Officer Fred Jackson and Ms. Krucher also intervened, but failed to calm J. N. J. N. demanded to talk to Respondent. After a brief discussion, Respondent said that he was going to have to suspend J. N. if he misbehaved again that day. Respondent allowed J. N. to return to his class. J. N. returned to class and immediately caused trouble by getting into an argument with another student. Mr. Nassiff sent him back to the office. Respondent called J. N.'s mother and said that he was being suspended. J. N.'s mother asked Respondent to spank her child instead. She explained that she could not afford to arrange for someone to care for J. N. while he was out of school. He had just finished a suspension two or three weeks earlier, and his mother lacked the funds to hire another babysitter. After expressing some reluctance, Respondent agreed to the spanking, but required J. N.'s mother to come to the office to serve as the witness. She did, and Respondent, behind closed blinds and a closed door, hit J. N. six times with a belt on the buttocks. The spanking did not hurt and J. N. did not cry out. Lee County School Board Policy 5.16 addresses corporal punishment as follows: Subject to the provisions of law, if a teacher or school administrator feels that corporal punishment is necessary, at least the following procedures shall be followed: Reasonable alternatives have been used and documented. Written permission has been obtained from the student's parent or guardian at the beginning of each school year, and a call to the parent or guardian for each specific incident involved prior to using corporal punishment. The use of corporal punishment shall be approved by the principal or designee before it is used. The use of corporal punishment shall be administered only in the presence of the principal, another administrator, or a teacher. The principal, other administrator, or teacher shall, in the presence of the student, be informed of the reason for the punishment before it is administered. A principal, or designee who has administered corporal punishment shall, upon request, provide the student's parent or guardian with written explanation of the reason for the punishment and the name of the administrator or teacher who was present. Policy 5.16 is inapplicable to the O. B. spanking because O. B.'s father, not an employee of the District, spanked the child. Policy 5.16 is inapplicable to the J. N. spanking because--consistent with his disciplinary philosophy--Respondent never determined that corporal punishment was necessary. Such a determination is the precondition stated in the flush language of Policy 5.16 for the remaining conditions to apply. Respondent had determined to suspend J. N. Policy 5.16 governs spankings initiated by District employees, not by parents. Respondent merely acceded to the mother's requests that he substitute for suspension the lesser punishment of a mild spanking and that Respondent perform the spanking for her, in her presence--in effect as her agent and not an agent of the School Board. Violation of Dress Code: Paragraph 31 In September 1995, Respondent noticed an unidentified female student exiting a school bus on her way to class at the ALC. She was wearing a top that exposed her midriff, in violation of the ALC dress code. In the presence of District Transportation Coordinator Janet Harris, Respondent told the girl, "Get your ass into my office and call your mother. We don't allow those kinds of tops." Petitioner did not call the improperly clad student as a witness. There was no sexual content to Respondent's ill- chosen word, voiced in the presence of a female employee of the School Board who was a stranger to Respondent. Ms. Harris was not so startled by the comment as to report it at the time to anyone. She first mentioned it the next month to Mr. Wortham. Absent additional proof of the circumstances surrounding Respondent's isolated remark, including the student's reaction, Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent's momentary lapse disparaged and embarrassed the student. C. L. Incident: Paragraph 22 C. L. was a 200-pound female student at the ALC with a history of violent outbursts where she would leave school and not return home for a couple of days. C. L.'s mother asked Respondent, when he became principal, not to allow C. L. to continue to leave school whenever she wanted. Previously, if she were resolved to leave school, no one would try to stop her. One day at school in September or October 1995, C. L. was out of control, trying to leave the school. Gerald Gilmore, a security guard, was trying to stop her when Respondent approached. Respondent took one of C. L.'s arms, and she suddenly dropped on him. Respondent and Mr. Gilmore each took an arm and walked her to the office, talking to her the whole way in an attempt to calm her. Respondent summoned Officer Jackson to help calm C. L. In the office, Respondent and Mr. Gilmore placed C. L. in a chair. Each time she popped out of the chair, they returned her to the chair. Eventually, C. L. calmed down, and they let her return to class. D. C. Incident: Paragraph 26 One morning in October 1995, Respondent saw D.C. smoking marijuana off-campus before school. When D. C. entered the school, Respondent asked him to come down to the office. D. C. was belligerent. Respondent placed his right arm around the back of the D. C., who was about Respondent's height, and grabbed his right arm, while holding his left arm close to the boy's side. Respondent then walked D.C. down the hall, side-by-side, to the office. Respondent frequently used this hold on students who were noncompliant. It does not hurt the student, but gives Respondent control over the student's movements. In particular, Respondent can sense immediately if a student is going for a weapon. Respondent's use of this hold and his readiness to search students (which is also part of his effort to keep drugs off campus) are prompted by Respondent's justified concerns for the safety of students and staff. The ALC has no metal detector and weapons are a constant worry. In the fall of 1995, Respondent found one student at school carrying a .25 caliber pistol with 18 rounds of ammunition in it. Once in the office, D. C. voluntarily leaned against the wall in Respondent's office so Respondent could search him with an electronic beeper. Respondent did not find any marijuana, but found a tobacco cigarette with half of the tobacco removed from the cigarette. Students smoking marijuana often removed part of the tobacco from a tobacco cigarette and replaced it with marijuana to avoid detection. Respondent suspended D. C. from school and contacted D.C.'s probation officer. D. C. subsequently violated the conditions of his probation and is now missing. ESE Student and Housing Project: Paragraph 32 In November 1995, Respondent spoke to an unidentified female student who was repeatedly being suspended for disciplinary reasons. The student lived in a public housing project. Respondent warned the student that, if she continued to get suspended, stay home, and cause trouble around the project during school hours, she and her mother could be evicted from the project. The student calmed down and behaved appropriately after that. Respondent was a commissioner of public housing for the City of Fort Myers at the time. He understood the rules of the housing projects, which permit the eviction of tenants whose unsupervised school-age children cause trouble in a project during school hours. Slightly Built Child: Paragraph 25 Petitioner presented no significant evidence on this allegation. It probably refers to another incident, such as the S. P. incident discussed below. M. B. Incident: Paragraph 28 In November 1995, M. B. was involved in a fight in the classroom. Respondent gave him the option of a suspension or working in the cafeteria, where he would clean up trays and take out the trash. He chose cafeteria duty. Shortly after arriving in the cafeteria, M. B. so infuriated the cafeteria manager that he called Respondent and told him that M. B. was the most arrogant boy he had ever seen, and he did not want the student back in the cafeteria again. Respondent left his office to retrieve M. B. and found him walking toward the office. Respondent said, "Son, come here." M. B. approached Respondent, who asked him what was his problem. M. B. said that he refused to empty any "God damned" trash. Respondent placed his arm around M. B.'s back and escorted him to the office. M. B. wanted to go straight home, and Respondent would not allow him. Respondent asked him to lean against the wall so Respondent could check him for weapons and drugs. M. B. did so. Respondent then called M. B.'s grandmother and warned her that, if M. B. continued to fight, he could be expelled for two years. She asked him not to suspend him. Respondent agreed not to suspend him, and M.B. completed the school day without further incident. L. S. P. Incident: Paragraph 23 S. P. is a 12 year-old male. He is about five feet one inch tall and is slightly built. He fights constantly. S.P. was sent to the ALC last year for fighting and insubordination. He was transferred from the ALC to his geographical school last Christmas, but, by the time of the final hearing in the present case four months later, he was back at the ALC. On the day of his testimony, S. P. had a black eye from fighting. On his first day at the ALC, S. P. got into a fight. He had not even reached his classroom when he started fighting with another student while still in the office. Respondent saw the fight and put his arm around the child's back, grasped the student's right arm, and hugged the boy close to Respondent. Respondent tried to calm him, warning that he did not want to have to suspend S. P. before he was even enrolled. S. P. tried to escape Respondent's grasp, but Respondent would not release him until S. P. said that Respondent was choking him. Respondent released him then, even though he was not choking the student. When S. P. remained noncompliant, Respondent grasped him again in the same manner as before. Respondent warned S. P., as he hugged him close to Respondent, "Son, you can't continue to fight. You're going to force me to suspend you." However, S. P. swore at Respondent, who replied that S. P. was suspended for the day. After telling S. P. that he was suspended, Respondent walked S. P. to the bench outside Respondent's office and sat him down. S. P. was upset and, after Respondent walked away, began crying. M. T. R. Incident: Paragraph 27 J. B. is an 18 year-old female who attended the ALC in the fall of 1995. From the third day of her attendance at the ALC through the remainder of the fall term, she was sexually harassed and physically threatened by T. R., who is another student at the ALC. On three occasions, J. B. complained of the harassment and threats, including actual touching, to Ms. Krucher, who did nothing about J. B.'s complaints. The first two complaints were early in the fall term and the last complaint was in January 1996. The day after her last complaint to Ms. Krucher had resulted in no action, J. B. complained directly to Respondent. After interviewing J. B., Respondent sent her back to class and summoned T. R. from his class. Terry Smith, a security guard, escorted T. R. to the office. Respondent told T. R. that he should not talk to or look at J. B. If he saw her walking down the hall, he should go in a different direction. Above all, T. R. was not to touch her anymore. T. R. denied any knowledge of who J. B. was. Respondent sent for J. B., who came to Respondent's office and stood in the doorway. When T. R. was told this is who was complaining about him, he jumped up, screaming to J. B., "What the hell are you doing telling people I did this?" He then lunged toward a visibly frightened J. B. Ms. Krucher pushed J. B. safely out of the doorway and escorted her back to the classroom. Respondent got to T. R. before he got to J. B. and pinned him against the wall. T. R. struggled, hitting Respondent while he tried to control T. R.'s arms. Mr. Smith assisted Respondent, who had T. R.'s upper body, by grabbing T. R.'s legs, and the two men wrestled T. R. to the floor. Ms. Krucher returned, and Respondent told her to call the school resource officer, so T. R. could be removed from the campus. In the meantime, Respondent and Mr. Smith tried to calm T. R. by talking quietly to him. Before the school resource officer arrived, T. R. calmed down and pleaded with Respondent not to send him to jail. T. R.'s girlfriend was pregnant, and he had criminal sex abuse charges pending. Respondent agreed to suspend T. R. for the rest of the day and not have him arrested. Respondent and Teachers Culligan Incident: Paragraph 41 At a faculty meeting early in the 1995-96 school year, Ms. Culligan addressed Respondent's decision to eliminate the timeout room. Ms. Culligan endorsed the previous policy where a teacher sent a student to the timeout room for a short period the first time, a longer period the second time, and the remainder of the day the third time on the same day. She said that she typically would not have to send a student back a second or third time. Respondent answered that that was not what the records showed. He implied that teachers had routinely sent students to the timeout room for long periods of time. He did not state that Ms. Culligan had resorted to the timeout room more than did the rest of the teachers, although she likely had. Respondent had considerable difficulty with Ms. Culligan. At the start of the 1995-96 school year, Ms. Culligan sent more students to the office for minor offenses than did other teachers. By memorandum dated September 21, 1995, Respondent directed Ms. Culligan to follow the interventions that "have been explained to you countless times." The memorandum reviews the intervention plan in detail and concludes: Failure to follow this directive violates the rights of the student in the academic setting when it has been clearly stated in writing, that this school will follow that particular policy. This is the third occasion that I've had the opportunity to address this particular policy with you and am therefore directing you to follow this policy to the letter. If I can be of assistance, please feel free to contact me. After receiving this memorandum and the assistance of Ms. Smith in improving her cultural sensitivity, Ms. Culligan reduced her office referrals to an acceptable level. But her claims of humiliation and embarrassment over Respondent's informative reply at the faculty meeting, as well as her testimony concerning other incidents, are largely the product of the early difficulties that Ms. Culligan experienced with Respondent's new, more demanding discipline plan. Nassiff Incident: Paragraph 41 During another faculty meeting, Respondent was discussing an assembly that was to take place in the next day or two. The assembly, which featured drug-detecting dogs from the Port Authority, would be attended by ALC students. This was to be the first assembly ever for ALC students. Respondent was discussing the logistical aspects of moving the students into and out of the assembly and explaining how the assembly was part of the academic rehabilitation of ALC students. Suddenly, Mr. Nassiff raised his hand and asked who would be responsible for watching his students. They were in physical education at the time of the assembly, and Mr. Nassiff thought that the physical-education teacher should continue to watch Mr. Nassiff's students during what was Mr. Nassiff's planning period. Respondent had told the teachers that they could leave school early that day to make up for their lost planning time. Upon hearing Mr. Nassiff's question, some teachers groaned audibly. Respondent replied by asking Mr. Nassiff, "You're an administrator-in-training. How would you respond to that question?" Mr. Nassiff answered Respondent's question by saying, "I'd give me my planning period." Respondent replied, "That's not an appropriate answer. If you want to be an administrator, you wouldn't ask a question like this. Let me see you after the meeting." After the meeting, Respondent explained to Mr. Nassiff the importance of teamwork. Mr. Nassiff conceded that he had said the wrong thing and knew it the moment he had said it. Respondent first gave Mr. Nassiff an opportunity to extricate himself gracefully from the awkward situation created by his question. When Mr. Nassiff persisted, Respondent answered him, directly but not in a hostile tone. Most teachers found nothing inappropriate in Respondent's handling of this situation. Mr. Nassiff and the few teachers who felt otherwise evidently preferred that Respondent handle privately an issue that Mr. Nassiff raised publicly. But Mr. Nassiff invited a public response, and Respondent's handling of the matter was entirely suitable. Announcement Incident: Paragraph 39 One day early in the 1995-96 school year, the students misbehaved badly. The next morning, during the morning announcements, Respondent stated that he expected students to act appropriately in an academic setting. He noted that too many students were coming down to his office and that they needed to do what teachers tell them to do. Respondent added words to the effect that teachers would continue to follow the intervention plan. The effect of such an announcement, nominally addressed to the teachers, was to notify the students that their teachers had no choice but to follow the intervention plan and, if the students objected to the plan, their problem was with Respondent, not with individual teachers. By this comment, Respondent was trying to take some of the pressure off the teachers for enforcing the new intervention plan, which, as noted above, imposed greater burdens on teachers than the previous policy with its excessive reliance on the timeout room and suspension. The meaning of Respondent's announcement does not lend itself to contrary interpretations. Two of the three witnesses who testified that the announcement demeaned the teachers testified about a number of incidents. The testimony of these witnesses--Ms. Culligan and Ms. Minton--must be doubted based in part on the fact that their claimed reaction to Respondent's announcement appears disingenuous. Holzborne Incidents: Paragraphs 36 and 37 Kathleen Holzborne is the lead communications teacher at the Academy. One school day, Ms. Holzborne saw Respondent opening classroom doors in the Academy looking for someone. This was innocuous. Respondent was likely looking for someone or checking on nearby classrooms after a disturbance. Another school day, Ms. Holzborne saw Respondent admitting drug dogs and their handlers into Academy classrooms while Mr. Wortham was elsewhere in the building. Respondent was doing this under the authority of Mr. Wiseman, who was also in the building. Another school day, Respondent and Ms. Holzborne were in the cafeteria while the Academy students were eating lunch. Respondent said she did not need to stay, adding, "Daughter, everything will be fine here." Respondent is from a family of ministers. He sometimes speaks of persons as sons and daughters, meaning they are sons and daughters of God. He used "daughter" in speaking to Ms. Holzborne in a personal, nonsexual manner not intended to intimidate or offend. Had she objected, he would have apologized and explained his innocent use of the word. However, Ms. Holzborne did not complain to Respondent or anyone else until, months later, she mentioned the comment during Petitioner's investigation. Testifying, Ms. Holzborne seemed much more upset over Respondent's alleged failure to return promptly a piece of a tripod, but Petitioner has not charged Respondent with this omission. Intimidation Incident(s): Paragraph 38 Respondent did not intimidate his teachers or staff. To the contrary, he was supportive of teachers and staff, although he demanded that they work hard and smart. At the time of Respondent's suspension, faculty morale was good. A small number of teachers were dissatisfied with Respondent, but not many. The greater part of the faculty got along with each other and Respondent. A reliable portrayal of Respondent's supportiveness comes from Lisa McKeever, an ALC teacher who displayed an unusual degree of independence for a witness in this controversial case. She testified to tell the truth, unaffected by any fear of retribution from Petitioner or Dr. Santini or from the community of supporters of Respondent. Answering a question about whether she supported the Charles Dailey Foundation, which was organized to help pay Respondent's legal fees, she testified that, if she had money to give away, she would first give it to her children and then to literary or musical organizations before she would give it to the Dailey Foundation or any political organization. On two occasions, students threatened Ms. McKeever while she was seven months pregnant. In one case, a boy pushed her up against a chalkboard. Respondent asked Ms. McKeever what she wanted him to do about it. Ms. McKeever did not want him suspended, so Respondent dealt with him, but did not suspend him. In another case, a girl approached her with a clenched fist, threatening Ms. McKeever by saying, "You stupid flat-assed white bitch. Get out of my fucking face." Ms. McKeever was frightened by this assault, and Respondent expelled the student, who that night was arrested after attacking family members with a knife. Respondent and Administrators, Law Enforcement Officers, Guardians, and School Board Policies A. Overenrollment: Paragraph 51 The overenrollment issue arose at the start of Respondent's tenure as ALC Principal. Dr. Santini arranged a meeting on June 20, 1995, among the three new principals at the New Directions Center. The purpose of the meeting was to divide responsibilities among the principals. Ominously, Dr. Santini testified that she had had lots of experience with Respondent not cooperating. It is not entirely clear what specific ALC enrollment policies were advocated by Dr. Santini and Respondent at the June 20 meeting, or even that either of them advocated a specific policy. Dr. Santini stated that the ALC was a short-term program. Respondent wanted the same flexibility that the ALC administrators had had in the past in deciding when to return students to their geographical schools. The ALC enrollment policy from the preceding school year had been the 45 good-day policy described above. In general, Dr. Santini wanted to limit enrollments due to safety considerations. Overcrowding at the ALC became a bigger problem once the new school year got underway due to the introduction of more students from regular schools, as a result of a new zero-tolerance policy in the regular schools, and increased referrals from the juvenile detention center. Respondent's argument for greater enrollment flexibility was based on behavioral and academic factors. Behaviorally, an ALC student might need more than 45 days before he is ready to return to his geographical school. Academically, an ALC student might have difficulty returning to his geographical school due to the differences in the calendars at the ALC and regular schools. The high schools are on a seven-period daily schedule, and the ALC is on an 18- day modular schedule where one class is taught for 18 days. A behaving, attending ALC student could only take two and one-half classes in 45 school days, so that, when returned to his geographical school, he would be behind his classmates in most of his classes. After the meeting, Dr. Santini spoke with Respondent privately and told him that his behavior during the meeting had bordered on the insubordinate. Respondent countered that Dr. Santini was discriminating against him on the basis of race. Respondent's continued implementation of the 45 good- day policy at the start of the 1995-96 school year did not violate any directive that Dr. Santini had given him. Their disagreement during the June 20 meeting was probably limited to a disagreement over general philosophy. Most likely, Dr. Santini had decided to see the effect on ALC enrollment levels of Respondent's implementation of the 45 good-day policy. On October 20, 1995, Dr. Santini conducted another meeting concerning ALC enrollments. This time she met with Respondent and Mr. Wiseman. She called the meeting after receiving a telephone call that a student had remained at the ALC since April 1995. She was also concerned with current ALC enrollment levels under Respondent's approach. During this meeting, Dr. Santini told Respondent that the ALC building was designed for a maximum of 270 students. She told him to cap enrollment at 250 students. Dr. Santini testified that she told Respondent that she approved of the 45 good-day policy. She also testified that Respondent was angry at the meeting. If Dr. Santini approved the 45 good-day policy at the October 20 meeting, the only reason why Respondent would have angered at the meeting would have been a disagreement over the application of the policy; after all, Respondent wanted the 45 good-day policy. Perhaps, Dr. Santini believed that she was approving the 45 good-day policy, but in fact she was not, as evidenced by their closing comments and her October 25 memorandum, described below. At the end of the October 20 meeting, Dr. Santini promised written guidelines and asked Respondent if he wanted any input. Dr. Santini testified that Respondent said that the only thing that he disagreed with was, if a student must be returned to his geographical school at the end of 45 days, ready or not, that those schools would be prepared to help him in the transition. Mr. Wiseman promised to adopt or modify the PASS program to help with this transition. The significance of Respondent's comment, as recounted by Dr. Santini, is as additional proof that Dr. Santini had not approved the continuation of the 45 good-day policy and Respondent was resigned to following her new enrollment policy. The comment tends to prove the elimination of the 45 good-day policy because, if the ALC were permitted to retain students until they were ready to return to their geographical school, there would be little need for the geographical school to help with the transition. The comment proves the obedience of Respondent because he had disagreed was more than the issue of the preparedness of the geographical school to help the former ALC student. Respondent had tried and failed to win Dr. Santini's approval for the 45 good-day policy, so that the ALC students returning to their geographical schools would not need any special assistance from the geographical schools in the transition. But this comment proves that he was giving up on the 45 good-day policy. Dr. Santini sent a memorandum dated October 25, 1996, to Respondent with copies to Petitioner, Mr. Wiseman, and all principals in the District. The memorandum largely memorialized what Dr. Santini had said at the meeting five days earlier. Dr. Santini testified that the only change between the October 25 memorandum and what she had said at the October 20 meeting was that she had eliminated the 45 good-day policy. She explained that she did not want Respondent to be the sole person to decide what good days were. However, the omission of the 45 good-day provision from the memorandum is strong proof that Dr. Santini never approved the 45 good-day policy at the October 20 meeting. There were less drastic means of eliminating Respondent's discretion in applying the 45 good-day policy, without eliminating the policy itself. Dr. Santini could have reserved such authority for these decisions to Mr. Wiseman, herself, the principal of the geographical school, or some combination of the above. The October 25 memorandum states in its entirety: The following plan is to be implemented immedi- ately as a result of our meeting on Friday, October 20, 1995. High school, middle school and ESE students will be returned to their home schools at the end of a quarter after approximately 45 days at the Alternative Learning Center (ALC). In most cases, those students entering the ALC during the first three weeks of a quarter would be eligible for return at the end of that quarter. Those students entering after the first three weeks of a quarter would remain at the ALC until the end of the following quarter. In rare cases a student may be returned to a different high school when recommended by the home school principal and agreed to by the receiving principal. All high school principals have agreed to alter their PASS program to accommodate an orderly reentry of students into the high schools. The ALC will not exceed 250 students. When full capacity is reached the student who has made the most progress will be returned to his/her home school when a new student arrives at the ALC. The above procedures would not prohibit a principal from requesting an earlier return or an extended stay at the ALC. The ALC will continue to function in its capacity as a special center serving the high schools, middle schools and special schools with an ongoing influx and reflux of students. It is understood that the school principals and the ALC principal will main- tain open and direct communication in a spirit of cooperation to best help students. Ultimately, the length of a student's stay at the ALC is dependent upon the nature of the original offense and the sound judgment of the principals involved. There are two possible interpretations of the October 25 memorandum. Either it is a consistent expression of an inflexible enrollment cap with the final sentence as a general surplusage to other, more detailed provisions to the contrary. Or, if the last sentence is to be given real effect, the memorandum is contradictory and meaningless. Paragraph 1 of the October 25 memorandum states clearly that the duration of a student's enrollment at the ALC is 45 days. As mentioned above, there is no requirement that these be good days. The word "approximately" does not restore any discretion to the ALC principal or anyone else; rather, like Paragraph 2, the word "approximately" allows for some minor flexibility in shortening or lengthening the 45-day enrollment based on the end of the academic quarter. More importantly, Paragraph 5 of the October 25 memorandum unconditionally limits the enrollment of the ALC to 250 students and supplies a simple procedure for the release of students when the enrollment exceeds 250 students. The student making the most progress when enrollment exceeds 250 students is returned to his geographical school. The returned student is not necessarily prepared for the transfer; he is only the most prepared among the ALC students. Paragraph 6 grants some discretion to the principal of the geographical school, not the ALC, to shorten or extend the stay of a student at the ALC. But the provision gives no guidance as to when stays should be lengthened. Nothing in this provision conflicts with the preceding provisions of the October 25 memorandum. The last sentence of the flush language at the end of the October 25 memorandum seems to ignore the preceding, more- detailed provisions of the memorandum. The last sentence abruptly introduces some discretion to the ALC and geographical school principals as to the length of a student's stay at the ALC. Respondent could not afford to read his supervisor's memorandum as contradictory and meaningless. His reading of the memorandum was guided by what Dr. Santini had told him at the October 20 meeting, which was that the 45 good- day policy was no longer in effect. When enrollment reached 250 students, Respondent had to return the students who had made the most progress. As promised, Mr. Wiseman sent a memorandum dated November 1, 1995, to the eight high school principals stating: Please send to me immediately, above your signature, a statement that you will provide the opportunity for returning students from the ALC to make up their work, and not be denied the chance to pass their classes. Return your memo to me by Wednesday, November 8, 1995. The principals did so. Shortly after receiving the October 25 memorandum, in compliance with her directive, Respondent returned 75-80 students to their geographical schools. Included in this number was A.B., whom Respondent returned to Mariner High School. Respondent had serious reservations as to A. B.'s readiness to return to a less-structured school setting. Even the student shared these misgivings. When he learned he was to be returned to Mariner High School, A. B. told Respondent that he was worried that he was not ready to return to a regular school. He had been apprehended with drugs or drug paraphernalia twice previously and was undergoing counseling. Three weeks after he was returned to Mariner High School, A. B. was apprehended with marijuana. On December 13, 1995, a Board-appointed hearing officer conducted A. B.'s formal expulsion hearing. Witnesses at the hearing, including Respondent, were sworn to tell the truth and subject to cross examination. Petitioner was represented by counsel, and A.B. was represented by his father, who has been a law enforcement officer for 21 years and is currently employed with the Cape Coral Police Department. Petitioner charged that A. B. had been in possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia on November 28, 1995, and was a repeat offender. Petitioner sought to expel A. B. for the remainder of the 1995-96 school year and the following year-- evidently, the maximum penalty allowed by law. A. B. had attended the ALC on at least two occasions. His more recent ALC enrollment was from April 17, 1995, through November 6, 1995. In his opening statement at the expulsion hearing, A.B.'s father admitted that A. B. had been caught possessing marijuana and stated: But the point of the issue too is that he was sent back to Mariner. He was in the ALC. He was flourishing in ALC for the first time. Whatever Mr. Dailey sparked in him was the first time since he's ever been in school. He was bringing books home and everything else, which is not heard of from ALC. When he was alerted to come back to Mariner, he went to Mr. Dailey and told him he wasn't mentally or physically ready to go back. Because the other problem that if he's offered a joint, he can't say no. And Mr. Dailey agreed and that's when that fell apart less than four weeks later. The hearing officer asked A. B.'s father if he wanted A. B. to return to the ALC. The father responded by saying, "Yes, sir. I never wanted him to leave. . . . And the result of this too which I wish people would take into consideration, the night that this happened, because of this, my wife tried to commit suicide." A. B.'s father continued in his opening statement: In ALC Dailey sparked four point something and he was studying. He was getting high grades. His grade point average went up. He didn't want to leave. He did not have the problem. Four weeks--it wasn't even four weeks after he was back that this happened. .... I'm not totally blaming [Mariner High School]. A[.] is at fault with that too. And that's what we are addressing through the counseling. But to put him out in the street or expel him I don't think is the answer either. Especially since for the first time in his life he showed an interest in school. Petitioner's second witness in the expulsion hearing was an assistant principal at Mariner High School. He testified in response to a question directed toward the propriety of the handling of A. B. at Mariner High School: Our position there is that Mr. Dailey is a competent expert, that he handles the people and when he recommends for us to come--for someone to come back, we take that individual. . . . Answering the question whether he would have handled A.B. differently if he had known that he had not successfully completed the ALC program, the assistant principal testified: . . . You know, we have to accord him his rights like all the kids who complete the program at the Alternative Learning Center. Once he's paid his debt and satisfied them that he's capable, then they send him to us. I don't know of any students they send to us that they don't feel like has made the improvement that the school was set up to start with. Do you understand what I'm saying? So when they come to us, their staffing to exit over there is telling us that they feel like they had--now the kid has shown improvement and he's now corrected what it is and he's ready to return. Petitioner's last witness at the expulsion hearing, John Hennebery, who is the District Director of Student Services, testified that the ALC Principal determines when the student is to be returned to his geographical school. A. B.'s father called Respondent as his sole witness. In response to a question as to A. B.'s progress at the ALC, Respondent testified: . . . I noticed, number one, he tends to be completely honest and tells the truth. That's the experience I have had with him. He is begin- ning to come around in terms of when he feels someone is making up evidence or getting to that point, he would seek out--attempt to seek out in terms of trying to find some assistance rather than jumping in first. But that again is a kind of structured environment that we have at the Alternative Learning School. Q: In your professional opinion, do you believe that [A.] at this point in time still needs that structure of school? A: I most certainly do. Q: At the time when he was requested from the School Board to go back to Mariner, did [A.] approach you in reference to this? A: Yes, he did. Q: And in what aspect did he? A: The usual policy of the district was that on a first offense there was a 45 good day policy. That means that the student has the responsi- bility of spending 45 good days there, good days, which are defined as attendance, punctu- ality, academic and discipline. And on the second offense it's a ninety day offense. Q: Uh-huh. A: Then this year the rules are changed. In the middle of the semester. I was given a directive from the Assistant Superintendent, along with other Principals were informed of it; that the students were called by numbers. At the Alternative Learning School were addi- tional programs of juvenile justice, programs dealing with the number of felons that we were having come into school; that our numbers were getting too large and we had to--I had to send students back. [A.] was one of the students that had been there a period of time and that based on the period of--on the time that he had spent there, that we have to send him back to Mariner. [A.] had some concern about that and spoke with me in great detail about going back and being under those pressures. Now my conversation with [A.] was that because if he had done well at the Alternative Learning School, that my expectations with [A.] would be that he would go over there and do well and make good decisions at Mariner High School. So that in terms of that's the type of conversa- tion that we had and that's where it led. Now did [A.] complete his stay? No, he did not. And he is not one that I would have automatically sent back to Mariner because I was not yet convinced of his ability to deal with the pressures that he was going to have to face at Mariner High School. * * * Q: But your general concerns that the peer pressure is basically--or the pressures in the school itself that he couldn't handle was also [A.]'s concerns too when he came to speak to you about going back? A: Yes, those were [A.]'s concerns but those would be anyone's concerns as relates to going back to the regular school once you have been at the Alternative for a long period of time. You get the anxiety of going back and wanting to do well. So it's not out of the ordinary for students, I might say, to be excited. I have students right now that actually do something wrong so they won't have to go back. So [A.]'s concern or his emotions that he expressed were not unordinary. I felt at that time that because I was given a directive, that it was my responsibility as a Principal to assist him in moving in that direction and I had all the confi- dence in the world in the Mariner staff that they would assist him in moving in that direction. There is an issue that I must be very honest is that the decisions that [A.] makes is [sic] [A.]'s decisions and once in fact--and this is what we teach them at the Alternative School; that once in fact you see that kind of situation present, then you must not go to the situation. You must remove yourself from the situation. And, you know, I'm one that's trying to be very fair and equitable in this hearing and in telling you that this is a situation that, yes, he should have known not to go near that, should have backed off from it. Q: Did he? A: No, sir, he didn't. Was I ready to release him? No, I wasn't. I'd like to concur with Mr. McNerney. I'd like to see [A.] back at the Alternative Learning School for ninety days with the approval of the-- with some kind of documentation showing that he has completed his drug testing and after that, then backing up Mr. McNerney's decision in attendance at the school. And I'm being very honest. The preceding excerpts from the transcript represent all of Respondent's material testimony. Petitioner conducted limited cross examination, devoted to an exposition of the District's drug policy. A. B.'s father introduced into evidence a letter dated December 12, 1995, from Licensed Mental Health Counselor Beverly Barbato, Ph.D., stating that it is in A. B.'s best interest to return to the structure of the ALC. On December 18, 1995--working without a transcript in the interest of time--the hearing officer summarized the testimony of the witnesses, commending each of them for some aspect of their participation in the hearing. As to Respondent, the hearing officer stated: "Mr. Dailey should certainly be commended for his honesty and his ability to assess the situation in a very diplomatic manner." Acknowledging that Petitioner sought expulsion for the maximum time permitted by law, the hearing officer stated that he "sense[d] that both Mr. Hennebery and Mr. McNerney felt that reinstatement should occur in the 1996-1997 school year or upon [A.] completing a successful drug rehabilitation program pursuant to Florida Statutes." Never mentioning old or new enrollment policies at the ALC in his discussion, the hearing officer accepted the recommendations of Respondent, A. B.'s father, the treating health care professional, and A. B. that A. B. be placed on probation for the remainder of the 1995-96 school year at the ALC, subject to additional conditions. In no way did the hearing officer's recommendation rely on Respondent's brief testimony about the transfer of A. B. under the new ALC enrollment policy. The court reporter finished the transcript on December 26, 1995. In Exceptions filed January 8, 1996, Petitioner requested that A. B. be expelled at least for the remainder of the 1995-96 school year. The record does not indicate what action the School Board took on the hearing officer's recommendation. The expulsion transcript reveals that the Assistant Principal at Mariner High School construed the ALC enrollment policy to ensure that students would not be returned to their geographical schools until they were ready to return. The Director of Student Services shared this misinterpretation, at least to the extent of thinking that the transfer decision was made by the ALC principal. The expulsion transcript reveals that Respondent told the truth that B. had come to Respondent and said he was afraid he was not ready to return. Respondent told the truth that he too shared these concerns. And Respondent told the truth that the current policy was that he had no choice but to return unprepared students when ALC enrollments reached the cap. In one respect, Respondent's testimony may have reflected a misunderstanding of a portion of Dr. Santini's policy. He testified that the new policy meant that "the students were called by numbers." Numbers triggered the necessity to return some students. But the new policy did not require that students be returned on a first in, first out basis. Rather, the students to be returned were to be those most prepared to be returned. Respondent's testimony seems to indicate that he interpreted the new policy as providing that he return students on a first in, first out basis. He implied that he selected for transfer the students who had been enrolled the longest at the ALC. In his next sentence, Respondent mentioned "numbers" in connection with the enrollment at the ALC getting too high as trigger for the need to transfer some ALC students. This suggests that his reference to "numbers" was not to the determination of who to return to their geographical schools. But in his next sentence, Respondent implied that the decision to return A. B. was based strictly on how long he had been at the ALC. However, two sentences later, Respondent recounted how A. B. had done well at the ALC, implying that he had at least made some progress, although without any mention of his progress relative to the progress of the other ALC students. Close analysis of Respondent's testimony does not reveal the basis on which he selected the students to be transferred. However, even if Respondent returned A. B. on a first in, first out basis, this action, although not consistent with the better reading of the October 25 memorandum, would have been consistent with Paragraphs 1 and 2, which imply that the sole criterion of enrollment duration is the length of the student's enrollment. Although close scrutiny of the October 25 memorandum permits a reconciliation of Paragraphs 1, 2, and 5--though not also the last sentence of the flush language-- Respondent cannot be expected to perform such textual analysis to discern meaning from such careless wording. In any event, Respondent's testimony at the expulsion hearing did not dwell on the inflexible enrollment cap ordered by Dr. Santini. He mentioned it briefly, then proceeded to describe, almost as briefly, his application of the policy in A.B.'s case. He cast his testimony in a light favorable to Petitioner by explaining that many ALC students are worried about their ability to survive in a regular school, A. B. had made some progress at the ALC, Respondent had encouraged A. B. to behave at Mariner High School, and A. B. must bear final responsibility for his poor choices. After receiving Dr. Santini's memorandum, Respondent was doing the best he could to implement the new enrollment policy. Probably unknown to Dr. Santini at the time, Respondent called Mr. Wiseman around Christmas vacation and asked if he should transfer 112 students then or wait until the end of the semester in January. Mr. Wiseman told Respondent to retain the students until the semester break. Dr. Santini never tried to clarify her confusing memorandum to Respondent or assist him in its implementation. In response to questioning during a School Board meeting from a School Board member concerning the conflict between Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the October 25 memorandum, Dr. Santini issued a memorandum of clarification dated January 5, 199[6.] The January 5 memorandum was issued to all middle- and high-school principals. The first four paragraphs are identical to the October 25 memorandum, except for the addition of a sentence to the fourth paragraph mentioning some new software to facilitate the transition of students back to their geographical schools. The new fifth paragraph states: The ALC will not exceed 250 students unless there are special circumstances with individual students that may warrant extended time. The principal of the geo-school will discuss these circumstances with the ALC principal. When extended time is recommended, the ALC principal will then compile a short report to the Secondary Operations Director that includes the following: the time already spent at ALC by that student, the original offense committed by that student, and any other justification that may warrant extended time (i.e., parent request). The Secondary Operations Director will consider all above factors and then give approval or disapproval on any requested extended time. Dr. Santini also revised the last sentence of the October 25 memorandum to reflect that the length of a student's assignment to the ALC is dependent on the nature of the original offense and the sound judgment of the principals and-- now--Director of Secondary Operations. The overenrollment issue did not end here. Dr. Santini conducted a meeting with Respondent and Mr. Wiseman on January 9, 1996, but this is addressed below in connection with another issue. However, one more fact has a bearing on the issue of overenrollment itself. Respondent never violated the ALC enrollment policy as Dr. Santini applied it to Respondent's immediate successors, Ms. Smith and Mr. Hagy. During the 77 days of Respondent's tenure, the average student enrollment was 265 students. During the 73 days of his successors' tenure, the average student enrollment was 253 students. After adjusting for actual attendance, there were 184 students present on average under Respondent's tenure and 189 students present on average under his successors' tenure. Improper Voluntary Enrollment and ESE Procedures: Paragraph 52 At the end of July 1995, Respondent called Mr. Hennebery and asked if he could voluntarily enroll two students. Mr. Hennebery explained that ALC administrators had made voluntary enrollments before deciding to discontinue the practice one or two school years ago. Since that time, Dr. Santini or Mr. Wiseman had approved all voluntary enrollments. Mr. Hennebery was not Respondent's direct or indirect supervisor. Mr. Hennebery lacked the authority to accept voluntary enrollments, or to make policy on this issue. At no time did Respondent's direct supervisors, Dr. Santini or Mr. Wiseman, instruct Respondent as to voluntary enrollments. The issue of voluntary enrollments is not, in any event, of major importance. Of the hundreds of students enrolled at the ALC during Respondent's tenure, not more than 18 of them were voluntarily enrolled. Most if not all of the students whom Respondent voluntarily enrolled were exceptional cases who were ineligible to return to their geographical schools or enter the Academy. During Respondent's tenure, six ESE students were transferred from the ALC without individual educational plans. Respondent relied on Mr. Vitale, who was the ESE department head, and Ms. Smith to handle ESE paperwork, as Respondent candidly admitted at the hearing that he was unknowledgeable about ESE procedures. Five of the six students left the ALC and entered Adult Education. These were obviously older students for whom an individual educational plan is of less importance than it would be for students with many more years in the educational system. Ultimate responsibility for ensuring compliance with ESE procedures at the ALC rests with Respondent. However, the circumstances suggest only an innocent mistake on Respondent's part, not incompetency, misconduct in office, or gross insubordination. Student Visits to Hi Tech Center Central: Paragraph 55 One day in late November 1995, Ms. Saldana had arranged for two students to visit the District's High Tech Center Central, which is a vocational school. When they returned, they told her that, at the end of the day, the counselor at High Tech Center Central had refused to talk to them because they were ALC students. Ms. Saldana called High Tech Center Central Director Ron Pentiuk, who confirmed that he would not allow ALC students to enroll directly from the ALC or even to visit his campus while still enrolled at the ALC. He said that this had been his agreement with Ms. Folaros. Ms. Saldana explained that, in the case of three to five students, they could not first return to their geographical schools because they were graduating early. If they could not enroll in High Tech Center Central directly from the ALC, they could not attend the vocational school. Mr. Pentiuk refused to consider the request, insisting the students still had to spend six to nine weeks at their geographical schools before they could enroll at the vocational school. He said someone in the District office told him not to accept any more ALC students. By letter to Respondent dated December 19, 1995, with copies to Dr. Santini, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Wortham, and others, Mr. Pentiuk restated his position: "no ALC students will have direct access to High Tech Central programs. . . . [A]ll visitations shall come from the student[']s geo school and not ALC directly." The letter cites as authority for this policy a meeting that took place at the start of the 1994-95 school year between representatives of High Tech Center Central and the New Directions Center. The implicit reason for this policy is that Mr. Pentiuk wanted someplace to send a student if he failed to perform at High Tech Center Central. By memorandum dated January 10, 1996, to Mr. Pentiuk, Respondent memorialized a discussion at a principals' meeting earlier that day. The agreement appears to allow ALC students who are ready to be returned to their geographical schools, but have not yet been returned, to visit the High Tech Center Central. The record reveals only that Respondent tried to send ALC students to the High Tech Center Central for visits. When they were treated rudely by Center personnel, Respondent and Ms. Saldana discovered an unreasonable policy that emanated not from the District office, but from an understanding reached by Mr. Pentiuk and Respondent's predecessor. This agreement had little logic to commend it. It delayed and, in some cases, denied ALC students access to important vocational training. Mr. Pentiuk explained that he could not deal directly with ALC students because he needed to have a place to which to return them if they misbehaved. However, his concern does not address the aspect of the policy prohibiting even campus visits by ALC students. And his concern fails even to address the remainder of the policy, as the record does not explain why Mr. Pentiuk could not expel students back to the ALC as easily as to their geographical schools. In any event, Respondent and Ms. Saldana rectified the situation, achieving a much-improved policy than the one that preceded Respondent's involvement. Refusal to Reenroll J. M.: Paragraph 50 In September 1995, Respondent refused to reenroll J.M. when his grandmother brought him back to school after an unexcused absence. J. M.'s father had called Respondent and complained that his mother was interfering with J. M., her grandson. The boy was skipping school with the father's brother, who was also of school age. J.M. asked Respondent not to let the grandmother return the boy to school or supply a legal excuse for his absence. When J. M.'s grandmother brought the boy back to school one day, Respondent did as the father had directed him. Respondent told the grandmother, "Ma'am, you can't bring your child back. I got a call from your son, and he is the legal guardian. Call your son and get it straight with him. I shouldn't even be talking to you about J. M." E. Arrest of W. S.: Paragraph 49 On November 1, 1995, W. S. tried to leave the cafeteria without permission. She has a history of violent outbursts. Riley Ware, a teacher, tried to stop her. W. S. asked him who he thought he was with that crooked gold tooth. Mr. Ware responded by telling her to sit her "big-lipped" self down. (Respondent later reprimanded Mr. Ware for this comment.) W. S. swore at Mr. Ware, calling him, among other things, a "black bitch." Teacher Christine Peete then intervened. She said, "Young lady, you've been very inappropriate." Gently placing her arm on W. S.'s shoulder, Ms. Peete added, "Come with me until you cool off." W. S. angrily responded by slinging Ms. Peete's arm off of her shoulder. She shouted, "Get your hands off me, bitch. I'll dip on [beat up] all of you. Ms. Peete had to return to her class, so she asked Ms. Krucher to escort W. S. to the office. Ms. Peete found Respondent in the middle-school area and told him that he needed to deal with W. S. Respondent returned to his office to find W. S. leaving. He greeted her by saying, "Well, daughter, Ms. Peete tells me that you called her a bitch." S. said she called Mr. Ware a bitch, but she did not call "that bitch" (Ms. Peete) a bitch. Respondent told her she was suspended for five days, and W. S. replied, "I don't give a fuck about five days." Respondent raised the suspension to seven days, and W. S. lunged toward Respondent and Ms. Peete, who was standing next to him. W. S.'s initial lunge threw Respondent, herself, and a computer to the floor. Respondent wrestled his way to the top, and W. S. demanded that he get his "big belly" off her. She scratched him or snapped his suspenders, causing his chin to bleed. She grabbed his tie and choked him. She tried to bite and kick him. Respondent ordered a nearby staffperson to call the police. Officer Garrett Kusienski of the Fort Myers Police Department responded to the call and arrived at the school in a three or four minutes. When he arrived at the ALC office, Respondent and W. S. had just gotten off the floor, and Respondent and several male staffmembers were escorting her into the office. Respondent approached Officer Kusienski and asked him to arrest W. S. Officer Kusienski asked why, and Respondent directed him to handcuff and remove her. Officer Kusienski refused to do so until Respondent explained why. Officer Kusienski's police report, which is credited, states Respondent answered that, if Officer Kusienski were not going to do his job, "I needed to get off his campus." Officer Kusienski asked again what happened, and Respondent "stated that he would give all the details to Chief Hart when he was contacted, to get the hell off his campus if I wasn't going to arrest anyone." Officer Kusienski left the building, but returned a few minutes later, spoke with W. S. and possibly others, and took her into custody. The police report notes that another officer, who had arrived on the scene as backup, took statements from witnesses. At the hearing, Officer Kusienski testified that Respondent said, "If I'm not going to do my fucking job to get the fuck off this campus." Officer Kusienski did not explain at the hearing why he deleted one "fuck" entirely and replaced another with "hell" in his police report. It is unlikely that Officer Kusienski was graciously sparing Respondent any embarrassment in the report because he also noted that Respondent became "very disorderly toward me." The only other evidence that Respondent said "fuck" is Ms. Krucher, who testified that Respondent said it to Officer Kusienski once, not twice as Officer Kusienski testified. However, her testimony is contradicted by numerous other witnesses, who testified that she was not there and they did not hear Respondent say "fuck" to the officer or otherwise during the incident. Ms. Krucher's testimony has not generally been credited on grounds, among others, that she harbored considerable ill-will toward Respondent. The testimony of Officer Kusienski is countered by the testimony of Officer Jackson, also of the Fort Myers Police Department. Officer Jackson testified that Respondent did not use foul language toward Officer Kusienski. There is no preponderance of the evidence as to what Respondent said to Officer Kusienski. Respondent Late to Work: Paragraph 54 On November 16, 1995, the parent of a student at Cape Coral High School called Respondent and asked him to attend a meeting for the purpose of determining whether to transfer the parent's child to the ALC. The parent did not want the child transferred to the ALC and asked for Respondent's help at the meeting. Seeing a chance to help control the ALC enrollment, Respondent agreed to attend the meeting, which was scheduled for 7:00 a.m., and try to help the student remain at his geographical school. Respondent's intent was to speak first and then drive back to the ALC, which was about 20-30 minutes away at that time of day. Respondent reasonably expected that he would arrive at the ALC between 7:30 a.m. and 7:45 a.m. Respondent typically arrived at school at 7:30 a.m. and took cafeteria duty until school starts at 8:00 a.m. The evening of November 16, Respondent called Mr. Ware and told him to cover the cafeteria the following morning in case Respondent was late. Ms. Smith was on personal leave on November 17. However, Respondent and LAMP principal McCollum had an agreement that, if one of them was absent from the campus, the other would serve as acting administrator to be called upon by teachers or staff as needed. Their agreement--which was a necessity for Ms. McCollum because she lacked an assistant principal--did not require that either give the other advance notice of his absence. Unfortunately, Respondent did not get to speak first at the meeting, which ran longer than Respondent had expected because the student had been charged with drug possession, not merely disrespect to a teacher, as Respondent had been told. From the meeting at Cape Coral High School, Respondent called someone--probably Mr. Ware--and told him that he would be later than he had anticipated the prior night. Respondent returned to the ALC between 8:30 a.m. and 8:45 a.m. When Respondent did not appear at school by 8:00 a.m., Ms. Krucher told Mr. Wortham that Respondent had left the ALC without an administrator. Mr. Wortham called Dr. Santini and told her. The same afternoon, Dr. Santini or her designee called Respondent and asked him where he had been that morning. Dr. Santini and Mr. Wiseman met with Respondent on November 20 to discuss Respondent's tardiness on November 17. This meeting is described in the following section. By memorandum to Respondent dated November 28, 1995, with copies to Petitioner and Mr. Wiseman, but not to Respondent's personnel file, Dr. Santini concluded as to the incident: As per our conversation of November 20, 1995, I am reminding you that I consider the fact that you were not in school on November 17, 1995 until 8:45 A.M. with no assistant present, a serious offense. The students at ALC need constant monitoring and supervision and to have the school unstaffed by any administrator, even for forty minutes, could lead to a catastrophe. I do not expect this to happen again. By letter dated December 8, 1995, to Dr. Santini, with copies to Petitioner and Mr. Wiseman, Respondent acknowledged receipt of her November 28 "letter relating to your concerns of me not being present in my building without an assistant." The letter explains that, once at the Cape Coral High School meeting, Respondent learned that the student had not only threatened a teacher, but had also used drugs. The letter states that Respondent had previously covered for Mr. Wortham and Ms. McCollum. Respondent's letter concludes: This is not to say that I don't concur with you. I most certainly agree with you whole heartedly that not only in ALC but all schools, we must have an administrator on duty. An administrator was on duty, as I had informed you verbally. Mrs. McCollum and I had total agreement relating to coverage without any problems. Your letter gives the perception that I was purposely avoiding my responsibility and was irresponsible in fulfilling my duty as a principal. I would like the record to show that I was fulfilling my duty as an educator, as a principal and as a community leader. Through my efforts, I was able to at least save the life of a young man that we could have possibly lost to drugs. This is one I don't have to look over and he not look back. Thank you for your concern and I accept your letter of concern and would vow that I will continue to work with you and to make the ALC the best learning environment that I can. Dr. Santini's November 28 letter is not a letter of reprimand, nor did she intend for a copy of the letter to be included in Respondent's personnel file. Her intent is inferred from the absence of the letter from Respondent's personnel file in mid-February, the omission from the letter of any express notation of copies to Respondent's personnel file (as contrasted to the January 2 letter described below), and the failure of Dr. Santini to respond to Respondent's subsequent characterization of the letter in his letter of December 8. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent violated any policy of the District in effect on November 17. The record reveals no prohibition against having another administrator, such as Ms. McCollum, cover for Respondent for a short time, even in the absence of advance notice. November 20, 1995, Meeting: Paragraph 42 Three days after Respondent was late to work due to the meeting at Cape Coral High School, Dr. Santini and Mr. Wiseman visited Respondent to discuss the incident, as well as charges of heavy-handed dealing with students, yelling at teachers, and leaving campus early. Dr. Santini and Mr. Wiseman dismissed as unfounded all charges except for Respondent's tardiness on November 17. Around this time, Ms. Krucher, who had been talking to Mr. Wortham daily, began contacting Dr. Santini and possibly Petitioner, whom Dr. Santini testified that she had suggested Ms. Krucher call. The purpose of these calls was to supply, on a confidential basis, unfavorable information about Respondent. If the information resembled her testimony, nearly all of it was unreliable. One incident illustrates the lengths to which unidentified persons would go to fabricate evidence unfavorable to Respondent. By two-page, handwritten letter dated February 17, 1996, from Ms. Pepin to Ms. Minton, Ms. Pepin objected to a statement attributed to Ms. Minton in the newspaper to the effect that she spoke for all of the ALC staff when she criticized Respondent. In her letter, which is entirely supportive of Respondent, Ms. Pepin admitted that, last June, she had not much liked Respondent entering her classroom and giving his "new sheriff in town" speech. But the letter continues to state that she now understands the effectiveness of Respondent's style. Someone--not in the office of Petitioner's counsel-- fraudulently altered Ms. Pepin's letter and sent it to Petitioner's counsel. By careful folding, whiting out, and photocopying, this person reduced the two-page letter to five and one-half lines and moved Ms. Pepin's signature beneath these lines, so as to make the letter look like a short note objecting to the "new sheriff" speech. This person then passed the counterfeit note as a gross distortion of Ms. Pepin's views-- literally out of context. It is highly unlikely that such fraud would be perpetrated by someone in the District office. The record does not reveal who had access to the letter after it was received by Ms. Minton. But the incident reveals indisputably the unreliability of at least some of the information that Dr. Santini and Petitioner received about Respondent. In any event, toward the end of the November 20 meeting, Respondent demanded that Dr. Santini tell him who had made the allegations against him. The request was not unreasonable given the inaccuracy of most of the charges. Dr. Santini refused to divulge the name or names of these persons. She explained reasonably that, if she were going to do something about the charges, she would tell him, but she was not going to do anything about them. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent was rude in the November 20 meeting. Dr. Santini's November 28 memorandum makes no mention of any rudeness. Petitioner's counsel did not inquire of Mr. Wiseman as to Respondent's behavior at the November 20 meeting. Dr. Santini's testimony was not detailed in its description of Respondent's behavior at the November 20 meeting. On direct, she testified only that Respondent exhibited an "insubordinate attitude," and "we couldn't talk to him for his continuing to talk to us." Dr. Santini did not use the word "shout" or "yell" to describe Respondent's manner of speaking. On cross, Dr. Santini added only that Respondent was "insubordinate, rude, and unreceptive." Gate Incident: Paragraph 43 Immediately after school on December 12, 1995, a boy hit a girl near the front gate of the New Directions campus. Respondent, Mr. Ware, Mr. Gilmore, Mr. Smith, Ms. Krucher, Mr. Nassiff, Mr. Wortham, and other adults immediately went to the scene. At first, the two students refused to tell Respondent what had happened. A group of boys outside of the gate had seen the altercation. Respondent motioned them to enter the school grounds, but, before he could talk to them, Mr. Nassiff told Respondent that he had seen the altercation. Not needing to speak to the group of boys, Respondent motioned them to go back. However, two or three of them were already inside the gate. A security guard was in the process of locking the two front gates, so Respondent told Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith to escort the two or three boys off campus through the back gate, which was closer to their homes. Unknown to Respondent, the remaining boys from the group had just told Mr. Wortham that they were going to beat up the next student whom they saw. Respondent, the two students involved in the altercation, and other staff, except for Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith, walked toward the ALC where Respondent could deal with the two students. Respondent saw Mr. Wortham signalling to Ms. Krucher, and Respondent asked her what he wanted. She replied that he wanted her to close the back gate. Respondent told her not to close the back gate because he had just sent Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith with some students to let them out the back gate. He reminded her that he, not Mr. Wortham, was her boss. At the time, Respondent was unaware that some Academy students were preparing Christmas decorations inside the back gate, which typically remained open before and after school for deliveries. Respondent was also unaware that Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith had not gone to the back gate because they had been able to get the students through one of the front gates before it had been locked. After Respondent returned to the ALC building, the group of students walked around the side the school to the back gate, where one or more of them beat up an Academy student so badly that he required hospitalization. As soon as Respondent learned of the incident in the back, Respondent called Mr. Wortham, who said he was angry and had some concerns. Respondent invited him to discuss them, but he declined, saying he would instead call Dr. Santini. Respondent suggested that he take his concerns directly to Petitioner in that event. Respondent then found out from Mr. Nassiff and Ms. Krucher what had happened. Respondent asked Mr. Nassiff to explain to Mr. Wortham that Respondent had not known that there were students in the back inside the gate and that Respondent had sent two teachers back there to escort students out of the campus. Shortly after that, Respondent went to the Academy building to speak to Mr. Wortham. Respondent explained what had happened from his perspective, and Mr. Wortham acknowledged that he had later found that out, but, by that time, he had already called Dr. Santini. Petitioner did not call Mr. Wortham to testify about the gate incident, even though Petitioner claims it was his order that Respondent countermanded. Under the circumstances reasonably known to him at the time, Respondent behaved responsibly throughout the gate incident. He did not know he lacked crucial information when he told Ms. Krucher not to go to the back gate. But he reasonably assumed that he had more information than did Mr. Wortham. He knew that he had already sent two men to the back. Even had he known that the boys wanted to beat someone up and that an Academy student was in the back, Respondent would reasonably have relied on Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith to prevent the attack. When Respondent told Ms. Krucher that he, not Mr. Wortham, was her boss, he was merely emphasizing his direction that she not close the back gate. He was not stating the cause for the direction. The cause was that he had sent two men to the back gate. Respondent's comment about who was Ms. Krucher's boss was thus not an act of insubordination or lack of cooperation. I. Respondent's Police Interview About Gate Incident: Paragraph 48 Mr. Nassiff witnessed the police interview of Respondent concerning the gate incident. In the interview, Respondent did not state that he countermanded Mr. Wortham's order to Ms. Krucher to go lock the back gate. Respondent did not withhold material information from the police, who were investigating the beating of the Academy student, not Respondent. The direction that Respondent gave Ms. Krucher was entirely appropriate under the circumstances as reasonably understood by Respondent at the time that he told her not to close the back gate. There was no reason for Respondent to mention this minor point to the police. J. January 9, 1996, Meeting: Paragraph 44 Three days after the gate incident, Dr. Santini asked Respondent to come to her office that day. He said that he was helping students deliver Christmas food baskets to the needy and could not, so they set up a 7:00 a.m. appointment for the following Monday, December 18. When Respondent arrived at the meeting, expecting it to be between him and Dr. Santini, he found Mr. Wiseman and Mr. Wortham, who had prepared a written statement. Dr. Santini said she wanted to hear both sides of the gate incident. Respondent objected that the meeting was unfair because he had not had the chance to prepare a statement. Dr. Santini replied that she had not asked Mr. Wortham to prepare a statement, and Respondent said that at least he had known what the meeting was about. Mr. Wortham and Respondent each stated what happened. Mr. Wiseman asked Mr. Wortham if he had disclosed to Respondent the threat by the group of boys in the front, and Mr. Wortham admitted that he had not. Dr. Santini said that she would speak to Ms. Krucher to obtain a statement, but refused Respondent's request that she also speak to Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith. Respondent was worried that he was being set up and informed Dr. Santini that he would be requesting a meeting with Petitioner to complain about the discriminatory treatment that he was receiving. Respondent contacted Petitioner's office to set up a meeting. Petitioner contacted Respondent during Christmas break, and, at her request, the two of them met for two hours on December 28 at a local restaurant. They discussed the ALC enrollment policy, Respondent's testimony at the expulsion hearing, Respondent's claims of harassment by Dr. Santini, Dr. Santini's practice of invariably bringing Mr. Wiseman with her on visits with Respondent, Respondent's good relationship with Mr. Wiseman whenever he was separated from Dr. Santini, and the gate incident. Petitioner told Respondent that he needed to return to school after Christmas break and work more closely with his supervisors, as well as Ms. McCollum and Mr. Wortham. Petitioner promised to set up a meeting among her, Respondent, and Dr. Santini. This meeting was later scheduled for January 9, 1996, at 3:00 p.m. By letter to Respondent dated January 2, 1996, with copies to Petitioner, Mr. Wiseman, and Respondent's personnel file, Dr. Santini stated that she had completed her investigation into the gate incident and had spoken with Respondent, Mr. Wortham, and Ms. Krucher following the meeting of December Dr. Santini concluded: the key issue is the fact that after Mr. Wortham asked your security guard, Lisa Krucher, to run to the back of the school and lock the gate because he felt the boys who were threatening to harm someone would come in through the back gate, you instructed Lisa Krucher not to lock the gate because she worked for you and not Mr. Wortham. I consider this action on your part a poor judgment call and a lack of cooperation with other adminis- trators on campus. * * * I am directing you from this point on, to work together with Mr. Wortham for the benefit of the children in the school. The attitude that employees work for one principal and not another is an attitude that can cause disruption and, as we have seen with regard to this incident, harm to a student. Dr. Santini's letter misstates an important fact. Respondent did not redirect Ms. Krucher "because she worked for you and not Mr. Wortham." He redirected her because he had sent two able staffpersons to the back gate, and there was no need to send a third person. Dr. Santini evidently discredited an important element of Respondent's version of the gate incident. She could not have determined that Respondent countermanded Ms. Wortham's order for the sole reason of showing Ms. Krucher who was her boss, unless Dr. Santini had eliminated the possibility that Respondent countermanded the order because he had already sent two men back there. Whether Respondent sent the two men to the back or not is a difficult fact question. Although Dr. Santini might reasonably have concluded that Respondent, Mr. Ware, and Mr. Smith were lying, her factual determination is deficient as long as she refused to talk to Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith. Respondent was reasonably concerned with Dr. Santini's fairness when she talked to Mr. Wortham's corroborating witness, but refused even to talk to Respondent's corroborating witnesses. On January 5, 1996, which was the date that Dr. Santini issued her letter clarifying the October 25 memorandum on the ALC enrollment policy, Dr. Santini contacted Respondent's office to set up a meeting for January 8, which was the day prior to their meeting with Petitioner. She had by now seen the transcript of the expulsion hearing and wanted to discuss this matter with Respondent. Taking the advice of Dr. Cecil Carter, an administrator in the District, Respondent called Dr. Santini's office back and asked the purpose of the meeting. Dr. Santini relayed the information through someone in her office that they were going to discuss Respondent's "deposition." The only deposition with which Respondent was familiar was in connection with his testimony in the Rockford, Illinois desegregation case. Dr. Santini inadvertently used "deposition" to mean Respondent's testimony at the A. B. expulsion hearing. However, Respondent assumed that she was going to discuss some aspect of desegregation with him. Around 2:00 p.m. on January 8, Respondent told his secretary to call Dr. Santini's office and cancel the meeting. He told his secretary that he was ill and going home directly after school, but told her to tell Dr. Santini that she could call Respondent at home and they could at least talk on the phone. Dr. Santini did not call Respondent at home. Instead, she and Mr. Wiseman appeared, without prior notice, in Respondent's office between 8:00 and 8:30 a.m. on January 9, 1996, which was the day of the meeting with Petitioner. Respondent said he was busy with school duties, and they waited until he could see them. In a few minutes, Respondent, Dr. Santini, and Mr. Wiseman met. Dr. Santini started the meeting by saying, "Charles, I'm going to talk to you about this deposition." She showed him the transcript of the A. B. expulsion hearing. She stated, "The way this looks, I'm going to have to write you up." Understandably worried that Dr. Santini had already made her decision to discipline him, Respondent asked for permission for his secretary to attend the meeting as a witness. Dr. Santini said no. Respondent then asked to tape the meeting. Dr. Santini agreed. As Respondent left to find a tape recorder, Mr. Wiseman said, "Mary, you're going to have to give him a chance to tell his side of the story." Unable to find a tape recorder, Respondent returned to the meeting. Dr. Santini pointed to a page of the transcript and, without discussing the testimony directly, declared that Respondent had testified that numbers were more important than students. Respondent tried to interrupt, but Dr. Santini would not allow him. Respondent stated, "You can't accuse me of things and expect me not to respond." Dr. Santini replied, "You are going to listen to me." Dr. Santini accused Respondent of talking to A. B.'s father. In fact, Respondent had told him to work with Mr. Hennebery's office. Suddenly, Respondent told her that the meeting was over until we meet Petitioner. Dr. Santini slammed a book and told Respondent that he had "disrespected me and Mr. Wiseman." Respondent answered, "My dear friend, how have I disrespected you?" Dr. Santini stated, "That's it." She turned and walked out the door. Mr. Wiseman was still seated when she left. He then jumped up, shook Respondent's hand, and said, "See you later, baby boy." Alone among the key participants in this case, Mr. Wiseman appears to have maintained his sense of humor. During this brief meeting, for example, Mr. Wiseman was the only person not to have raised his voice. Later on the day of January 9, the meeting with Petitioner took place with Respondent, Dr. Santini, Mr. Wiseman, Dr. Carter, Dr. Counsel, and an administrative assistant in attendance. Respondent began the meeting by reading a letter from him to Petitioner dated January 8, 1996. The letter reviews the condition of the ALC when he was appointed principal, the changes that he has made, and the problems posed by the ALC enrollment policy stated in the October 25 memorandum. The participants discussed the ALC enrollment policy. Respondent objected that it appeared that they had met with other principals and not him. Mr. Wiseman admitted that they had met and had excluded Respondent because he had threatened another principal. There is no evidence of such a threat. After the discussion about ALC enrollments ended, Petitioner said that she was out of time and everyone would have to return to finish their discussion. Petitioner told Respondent that she had sent Dr. Santini and Mr. Wiseman to see him, and she did not want him calling off meetings with her staffmembers, such as he had done that morning. Respondent understood that he should not do that. Respondent complained that he had thought that he was doing an outstanding job and could not understand what the problem was with his job performance. Dr. Santini disagreed with him about the job he was doing. Respondent stated that no one had ever sufficiently spelled out a problem so that he could address it. He asked who was complaining about what. He asked Dr. Santini directly if she had any complaints. Dr. Santini said she had one complaint, but would not disclose it to Respondent, even after being urged to do so by all of the other participants, except the administrative assistant. Dr. Santini said that the attorneys had told her that she did not have to disclose it. She then said to Petitioner, "Bobbie, the problem is he will listen to you, not me." Respondent and Dr. Santini began to argue about the meeting earlier in the day. In anger, Respondent said he would not follow Dr. Santini's directions, but go directly to Petitioner. He also admitted that he was afraid of Dr. Santini. Petitioner closed the meeting by promising to check with the attorneys and see if she could supply Respondent with a copy of the complaint to which Dr. Santini had referred. Two days later, on January 11, Petitioner sent a letter to Respondent suspending him with pay due to "your conduct in a meeting with Mr. Herb Wiseman . . . and Dr. Mary Santini on January 9, 1996." The letter adds: "you should know that other allegations have been made against you that are currently being investigated by the District." V. Conclusion Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, or immorality. Petitioner never trained Respondent to serve as a school principal. Respondent's previous administrative roles provided valuable experience, but they had also permitted Respondent to become accustomed to serving in a close relationship with a Superintendent who was also a mentor, working outside the normal hierarchical channels of the District office, and alienating numbers of parents, teachers, and administrators in making tough rezoning and equity decisions. But Respondent's qualifications were obvious. As Petitioner wrote in one evaluation, Respondent was a "role model" for other administrators in, among other things, teamwork. Despite the gaps in his experience, Respondent employed vast stores of energy, enthusiasm, and commitment to make the ALC work for its students. He intelligently assessed the situation at the ALC and devised strategies for exploiting the available resources. Fully aware of his own limitations, for instance, he hired Ms. Smith for her knowledge of curriculum. In a short time, he had produced dramatic results at the ALC. Respondent complied with Dr. Santini's directives, although before adoption he argued with those of them with which he disagreed. The October 25 memorandum, as well as the October 20 meeting, set an enrollment cap. Respondent acceded to Dr. Santini's decision. He closed the October 20 meeting with a plea that geographical schools be prepared to finish the job that the ALC would not have time to finish. He transferred 75-80 students out by early November. He asked Mr. Wiseman around Christmas break if he should transfer another 112 students back to their geographical schools. And his average enrollment exceeded the enrollment of his successors by 13 students--while his average actual attendance was five students less than the average actual attendance of his successors. By mid-December, Dr. Santini, misinformed by unreliable information from Ms. Krucher and possibly other informants at the ALC, was concerned about whether Respondent would work out as the ALC Principal. This concern may have influenced her gate investigation and reaction to Respondent's testimony at the expulsion hearing. The situation rapidly deteriorated when Dr. Santini visited Respondent, unannounced, on the morning of the day that they had a meeting with Petitioner and began the meeting by saying that she would probably have to write up Respondent for his testimony. A supervisor should always be able to conduct a meeting with a subordinate. Respondent should not have abruptly terminated the meeting with Dr. Santini. Supervisors terminate meetings, not subordinates. However, this was an isolated action by Respondent, who had never before terminated a meeting with a supervisor. Respondent had understandably felt that Dr. Santini had treated him unfairly in the gate incident, heard her announce at the start of this meeting what looked like a decision, and decided to deal with all of this at the meeting with Petitioner later that day. Under the circumstances, Respondent's imprudent decision to end the meeting did not rise to gross insubordination. In the final analysis, as Petitioner testified, it is good practice to document problems with employees before terminating them. And, as Petitioner testified, her staff did not do so here. Clearly, Respondent and Dr. Santini have a serious communications problem, for which each bears some responsibility, even though, by the nature of things, a communications problem is typically a bigger problem for the subordinate employee than it is for his boss. But as Dr. Council and Dr. Gunter testified, there was no reason for this case to proceed this far. And the case would not have come this far if District staff had tried to help Respondent or even treated this case as a performance case--where, under the law, District staff would have had to identify Respondent's deficiencies and help him eliminate them.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Lee County enter a final order dismissing the Petition, reinstating Respondent, and awarding him back pay as provided by law. ENTERED on June 28, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on June 28, 1996. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1: adopted or adopted in substance except as to date of initial employment. 2-3: adopted or adopted in substance. 4: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, to the extent of the implication that these behaviors were more than isolated or represented significant problems. 5: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 6-7: adopted or adopted in substance. 8-9: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 10 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance, as to the back of the neck. 10 (remainder)-12: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 13 (through "end"): adopted or adopted in substance. (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (through "classroom"): adopted or adopted in substance, except as to throwing C. L. into the chair. (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (through "credited"): adopted or adopted in substance. 16 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 17: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 18 (first sentence): rejected as subordinate. 18 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 19: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 20: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that O. B. complied with Respondent, who did not apply force to move him. 21: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. The testimony of Ms. Culligan is not credible. 22 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 22 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 23: rejected as subordinate. 24: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 25: adopted or adopted in substance, except that Ms. Krucher did not witness the entire incident. 26: adopted or adopted in substance, except that Ms. Krucher did not step between J. B. and T. R., nor did she witness the rest of the incident. She prevaricated the portion of the incident that she missed while returning J. B. to her classroom, J. B. testified that Ms. Krucher returned her to her classroom. J. B. also testified that Ms. Krucher even tried to convince her than T. R. had not lunged at J. B. Ms. Krucher's credibility as a witness is very poor. 27: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that T. R.'s testimony was stricken after several vacillations demonstrated that, as to this incident, he could not distinguish between the truth and fiction. 28: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 29 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. 30 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 31: Respondent's testimony that he feared M. P. was on drugs is not credited, at least to the extent of attempting to create a well-founded fear in Respondent's mind that the mental state of M. P. was so altered as to render him dangerous. However, Respondent intervened with M. P. to stop him from leaving and preclude the possibility that this student, who obviously is afflicted with a serious behavior disorder, might strike Ms. Smith. The remainder of this proposed finding is rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 32 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (except last sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. There is no need to resort to Ms. Keel's testimony about the "rat's ass" remark. 33 (last sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 34: adopted or adopted in substance, except as to crediting Ms. Krucher's testimony and as to any harm to the student's mental health. 35 (except last sentence): adopted or adopted in substance, except that the displaying of the badge never frightened or intimidated anyone and no student believed that Respondent had extraordinary arrest powers by virtue of the badge. When Respondent spoke to the class, they presumably were off-task, but he did not destroy any instructional momentum. 35 (last sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 36: adopted or adopted in substance, except that Respondent did not badger the student or mistreat him in any way. 37: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 38: adopted or adopted in substance, although Respondent appropriately dealt with the student, who should have raised his head to meet the new principal. 39: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that Respondent threatened the student with suspension if he did not make eye contact and listen to him. 40 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. 40 (third sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 40 (fourth sentence): rejected as irrelevant and unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 41: rejected as recitation of evidence and unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 42: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that on rare occasions Respondent opened doors to Academy classrooms. 43-45: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 46: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except to the extent of findings in the recommended order. 47-48 (except last sentence): adopted or adopted in substance, except Respondent did not say, "her record." (last sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 49 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 50-51 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 51 (remainder)-52: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 53: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 54 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 54 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Respondent had not made a prior arrangement with Ms. McCollum, but Petitioner failed to prove that he was required to. 55: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 56 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. 56 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 57: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 58: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that Respondent terminated the meeting. The behavior was inappropriate, but did not constitute either insubordination or, more to the point, gross insubordination. 59 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. 59 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 60: adopted or adopted in substance. 61: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, as to no reason to arrest W. S. at the time. However, the altercation had ceased, and Respondent should have answered the reasonably inquiry of the officer. But his behavior did not constitute misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetency, or immorality. 62: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Petitioner never accounted adequately for Officer Kusienski's omission of the word "fuck" from his police report or, less importantly, the discrepancy between Ms. Krucher and Officer Kusienski as to the number of times that Respondent uttered the expletive. Another problem for Petitioner was the contrary testimony of another officer of the Fort Myers Police Department. 63: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 64 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance, at least as to the effect that the grandmother could not serve as the legal guardian of J. M. because she was not. 64 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence and hearsay. 65-66: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 67 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 67 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that Respondent voluntarily admitted up to 18 students. 68: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 69 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 69 (second sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 69 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, as to Respondent's role in the failure to obtain individual educational plans constituting misconduct in office, incompetency, or gross insubordination. 70-71: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-13: adopted or adopted in substance, although there is some uncertainty as to the dates of Respondent's early employment with the District. The findings in the recommended order are guided by the dates and job descriptions contained in the evaluations. 13A: rejected as irrelevant. 14-15: adopted or adopted in substance, except that M. P. was not fearful. 16-29: adopted or adopted in substance. 30: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. The incident did occur. 30A-43: adopted or adopted in substance. 44: adopted or adopted in substance, but Respondent's brief conversation with Ms. Krucher more closely resembled the version in the recommended order, rather than the more elaborate version in the proposed finding. 45-46: adopted or adopted in substance. 47 (first sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Dr. Santini never reviewed several lines of the testimony. She focused only on one phrase. (remainder)-48 (through "Wiseman"): adopted or adopted in substance. (remainder): adopted or adopted in substance, although it is unclear the extent to which they discussed the January 5 memorandum itself, as opposed to the ALC overenrollment issue generally. 49-55: adopted or adopted in substance. 56-57: rejected as subordinate, except to the extent described in the recommended order. 58-62: adopted or adopted in substance, although the fact that Respondent's enrollments were no higher than the enrollments of his successors suggests that Respondent's enrollments did not exceed the cap or the cap as applied. 63: rejected as subordinate. 64-68: adopted or adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Superintendent Bobbi D'Allessandro The School District of Lee County 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3988 John M. Hament Kunkel, Miller and Hament 1800 Second Street, Suite 882 Sarasota, Florida 34236 Harry A. Blair Blair & Blair, P.A. 2138-40 Hoople Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901 The Honorable Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint? If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, the stipulations of the parties, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Teaching Certification and Experience Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate 177890, which covers the area of music and is valid through June 30, 1995. He has been a teacher for the past 27 years. Respondent has spent his entire teaching career teaching music in the Dade County public school system. For fourteen of these years, including the 1990-91 school year and a portion of the 1991-92 school year, he was a music teacher at Sunset High. In terms of student population, Sunset High is one of the largest high schools in the state. During the 1990-91 school year there were approximately 3200 to 3300 students enrolled at the school. As a result of its large student enrollment, classrooms and hallways were crowded and teaching conditions were less than optimum. At all times material to the instant case, Respondent was the teacher responsible for Sunset High's choral program, which enjoyed an excellent reputation due in large measure to Respondent's efforts and dedication. He often stayed at school until late in the afternoon working with his students. Respondent taught beginning, intermediate and advanced chorus at Sunset High. The advanced chorus classes had fewer students than did the other chorus classes. One of the advanced chorus classes Respondent taught was comprised exclusively of female students, approximately 20 in number. It was referred to as "Nightingales." The other advanced chorus class had both male and female students. It was known as "Camelot." The students in "Nightingales" and "Camelot" not only sang in class, they also performed for others, particularly during the holiday season. Rehearsals for these performances were held after the regular school day. Verbal Attacks Respondent was very demanding of his students. He reprimanded them, often loudly and in an angry tone of voice, when they did not follow his instructions or when their singing in class or during rehearsals failed to meet his expectations. These reprimands became more frequent as a performance date grew nearer. Occasionally, Respondent's reprimands included foul language, such as the words "asshole," "bitch" and "shit." There were also times that Respondent called a student with whom he was displeased "stupid" or an "idiot." Respondent's outbursts reduced some of his students to tears because they did not want to be a disappointment to Respondent. The students in Respondent's classes were not the only ones subjected to his tirades. Respondent also lambasted other students at the school and, on isolated occasions, even staff members. For example, during the 1990-91 school year Respondent occasionally yelled at guitar students who were practicing in the hallway in the only space that was available to them for that purpose and threatened to throw them against the wall if they did not leave the area. During that same school year, he was also rude to Marilyn Smith, another music teacher at the school, in the presence of students. Respondent also yelled at Judy Cospito, the school treasurer, for a considerable amount of time in front of approximately 200 people waiting in the lobby of the school auditorium to purchase tickets to a student choral performance. Cospito had volunteered to sell tickets to the performance and Respondent was upset that she had not arrived at the auditorium earlier. Cospito never again offered to do any volunteer work for Respondent. Touching of Students Respondent was not always ill-tempered. On many occasions he acted as a deeply caring teacher with great affection for his students. Respondent openly displayed his affection for his students, particularly his female students towards whom he was more affectionate than their male counterparts. He hugged female students, on some occasions approaching them from the side and on other occasions approaching them from the front. On one occasion, one of Respondent's female students, E.H., was seated at the piano, when Respondent approached her from behind, put his arms around her and touched her breasts. E.H. was startled by Respondent's actions and she jumped up from her seat. Respondent then walked away. This was not the only time that Respondent touched the breast of a female student in his class. After class one day at the beginning of the 1991- 92 school year, J.J., a member of "Nightingales," tried on for Respondent at his request a used performance costume that one of the returning members of the class had offered to sell to her. Upon seeing J.J. in the costume, Respondent thought that it might be too tight around J.J.'s chest. He therefore, pointing at her chest, asked her if it fit there. The finger with which Respondent pointed made contact with one of J.J.'s breasts. Immediately after touching her, Respondent moved his finger away. Respondent kissed female students on the cheek. J.S. was among the female students that Respondent kissed in this manner. Respondent put his hand on the knee of female students, including E.H., T.G. and A.B., when they were sitting next to him. He did this to E.H. with some regularity. On one such occasion, when E.H. and Respondent were alone in Respondent's office, Respondent moved his hand a little above her knee. Respondent shook the hands of female students and, as he did so, rubbed one his fingers against the palms of their hands. J.J. was one of the students to whom Respondent did this. Respondent also held the hands of his female students. One such instance of hand-holding occurred during a school trip to Tampa, Florida, where five of Respondent's students, including T.G., performed in a statewide competition. As T.G. entered the auditorium where the competition was being held, Respondent grabbed her hand and led her to her seat. He continued to hold her hand after they were seated, making her feel uncomfortable. He eventually let go of her hand. Respondent gave his female students shoulder rubs and back massages. He also scratched their backs. T.G. was one of the students whose back Respondent scratched. On one occasion, Respondent playfully stroked the hair of V.N., a member of "Nightingales." On another occasion, he patted M.F., a female student of his, on the buttocks with his hand. M.F. was angered by the incident. Some of Respondent's students, such as E.H., J.J., J.S., and T.G., felt uncomfortable when he touched them, but said nothing about their discomfort to Respondent. Neither did they bring the matter to the attention of the school administration. They thought that if they did tell, the school's choral program would suffer, which was something that they did not want to happen. V.N. and M.F. were two students who let Respondent, at least, know that they did not like it when he touched them. After being made aware of their feelings on the matter, Respondent stopped touching them. There were some students, such as A.B., 2/ who did not find Respondent touching them objectionable. Stares and Suggestive Remarks Respondent appeared at times to stare at T.G., making her feel uncomfortable. He also made comments in class regarding the physical appearance and clothing of his female students. For instance, during deep breathing exercises he commented to the larger breasted girls in the class that he liked the way they were sitting in their chairs. To girls who were wearing outfits that were more revealing than usual he would remark that they looked sexy and that they should wear these outfits more often. Among the girls to whom such remarks were directed were J.J. and J.S., both of whom suffered embarrassment as a result. The remarks embarrassed J.S. to such an extent that when she came home from school she cried. On one occasion, Respondent jokingly told the class that he was going out on a date with J.J. Although Respondent was simply trying to be funny (there was no "date" planned), J.J. was not amused. To the contrary, she was embarrassed by the remark. Handling of Booster Club Monies The Sunset Choral Parents Association (hereinafter referred to as the "Association") is a booster club that supports the choral program at Sunset High. It is an independent entity that operates outside the control of the Dade County School Board. Dade County School Board policy prohibits School Board employees from participating in the fund-raising activities of booster clubs such as the Association. The Association sold jackets and shirts to raise money. Normally, one of the parent members of the Association would come to school to collect money from any student or staff member who wished to purchase a jacket or shirt. On one occasion, a security guard at the school wanted to purchase a jacket from the Association, but there was no Association member available to take her money and give her a receipt. She therefore handed the money to Respondent, who provided her with a receipt. Respondent turned the money over to the Association that afternoon. School Board Disciplinary Action and Respondent's Subsequent Conduct On or about February 4, 1992, Respondent was temporarily transferred from Sunset High and reassigned to administrative duty pending the completion of the Dade County School Board's Special Investigative Unit's investigation of allegations of misconduct made against him. The investigation substantiated that Respondent had engaged in conduct that was unbecoming a School Board employee. Following the completion of the investigation, Respondent returned to Sunset High. On June 11, 1992, he was given the following written reprimand by the principal of Sunset High, Dennis Davis: On January 31, 1992, it was reported that you had displayed inappropriate behavior by yelling at students, using profanity to students and touching female students in an improper manner while teaching chorus in room 122. You violated the United Teachers of Dade Contract Article VII, Section I, as well as School and Dade County School Board Rule 6GX13-4A-1.21 Employee Conduct, and Chapter 6B-1.01(3) Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida. You are accountable for your actions in your capacity as a certificated professional educator and should act in a manner which is consistent with the documents listed above. You are directed to refrain from using inappropriate behavior in the performance of your assigned duties. Any recurrences of the above infractions will result in further disciplinary action. On June 11, 1992, Respondent also received the following written administrative directives from Principal Davis: As stated to you during the re-entry conference on Tuesday, April 21, 1992, written administrative directives would be forthcoming. By this memorandum, I am direct- ing you to refrain from yelling. Additionally, there is to be no use of profanity in class. You are further directed to curtail all touching of female students and remarks that can be construed as sexual or improper. The names and statements of the students who were involved in this investigation have been made known to you. You are directed to avoid any remark or action to any of these students that can be construed as punitive or retaliatory. Your signature below signifies receipt of this memorandum and your intent to comply with these directives. Respondent has complied with these administrative directives since his return to the classroom. 3/
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Counts I through VI of the Administrative Complaint and disciplining him for having committed these violation by imposing the punishment proposed in Petitioner's recommended order which is set forth above. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 5th day of August, 1993. 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 5th day of August, 1993.
Findings Of Fact Except for the matters at issue, the Petitioner is full qualified for licensure as an agent and to obtain an agency license. The Petitioner served twenty (20) years in the US Army, retiring as a sergeant-major in 1973. His last ten (10) years in service were involved directly with work which the agency concedes is the equivalent of the work done by an employment clerk. The Petitioner, since retiring from the US Army, has been employed as a teacher/career counselor in the Detroit school system at the high school level. There he instructed high school ROTC six (6) to seven (7) hours per week. The remainder of his time was spent in counseling and duties associated with administration of the ROTC department of which he was head. The Petitioner has counseled more than 200 students regarding careers to include helping them fill out applications, helping to place them in programs, and encouraging them to develop job skills. He held this position until applying for this license. The petitioner also served for more than three (3) years immediately preceding his application on the Harper Woods School Board. As a member of the school board he had to approve the hiring, firing and granting of tenure to school board employees, and review negotiated contracts for employees of the school board.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the application of Ralph E. Young for an employment agency/agent license be granted. DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of December, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of December, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: W. J. Gladwin, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Ralph E. Young 2117 South East Erwin Road Port St. Lucie, Florida
The Issue Whether just cause exists for the Petitioner's proposed non-renewal of the professional services contract under which the Respondent is employed.
Findings Of Fact From school year 1987-88 to school year 1990-91, and at all times material to this case, Respondent Aaron Ellis was employed as a guidance counselor by the School Board of Hendry County pursuant to a professional service contract. The professional services contract under which the Respondent was employed specifically provides that the Respondent may not be dismissed except for just cause as provided in Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Richard K. Shearer has been the Principal at Westside Elementary School since July 1989. At the time Shearer was assigned to Westside, the Respondent was on staff as a guidance counselor, but did not have regular classroom duties and was to respond to referrals from teachers of troubled students. Between August 7 and December 12, 1989, the Respondent placed 44 long distance telephone calls from his school office telephone. The calls, totaling 64.81 in tolls, were not school related. Westside Elementary School's Teacher Handbook specifically provides that long distance calls made from and charged to the school should be school related, and that permission must be obtained prior to such calls being made. On January 23, 1990, Principal Shearer discussed the inappropriate telephone use with the Respondent and informed him that reimbursement was required. Prior to this conversation, the Respondent had made no attempt to reimburse the school for the cost of the calls. By letter of January 26, 1990, Principal Shearer confirmed the conversation and stated that reimbursement was required by February 9, 1990. The letter, a copy of which was placed in the Respondent's personnel file, further states that, "[i]n the future, all long distance calls must be directly related to Westside Elementary school students, and must be logged completely and accurately with specific information as to who was called, what student it was in reference to, and the reason for the call." On April 4, 1990, Principal Shearer completed a guidance assessment form which set forth the Respondent's professional evaluation and performance ratings. Mr. Shearer discussed the evaluation with the Respondent who refused to sign the evaluation, but instead filed a separate response. Prior to completing the form, Mr. Shearer had observed the Respondent on an informal basis at least three times and had performed one documented formal observation. He also observed the Respondent in casual meetings with numerous students. In the evaluation, Mr. Shearer noted that the Respondent required improvement in the areas of "utilization of time", "interpersonal relationships", and "routine office procedures". The Respondent's overall performance rating was unsatisfactory. The comments section provided that: Mr. Ellis has some excellent qualities in the way he communicates with students. He also has some glaring weaknesses in making the most effective use of school time, in relating to fellow staff members including those in authority over him, in following generally understood office procedures. Improvement is necessary in these areas during the 1990-91 school years. Attached to the guidance assessment form were "notices of desired improvement" identifying the improvements expected of the Respondent. The notices provided additional information related to the Respondent's performance deficiencies and indicated that if improvements were unsatisfactory, the Respondent's employment contract could be non-renewed. Mr. Shearer was concern that the Respondent did not follow through on referrals by teachers of troubled students. He also believed the Respondent to be difficult to talk to and was somewhat distant from other staff. As to desired improvements in interpersonal relationships, the notice of desired improvement provided: Mr. Ellis does not work as effectively with other staff members as might be possible or desirable. He seems to have trouble or resent answering to those in authority over him.... Mr. Ellis needs to stay in closer contact with teachers and administrators as together they decide on strategies to help students needing counseling or referrals for possible E.S.E. staffing....Staff or small group meetings will be set up upon request to discuss staff relations and counseling procedures. Expectations of the Counselor will be fully discussed at the beginning of the new school year....Better staff relations will hopefully develop by the end of the 1990-91 school year. Mr. Shearer believed that the Respondent failed to spend adequate time assisting referred students. As to desired improvements in utilization of time, the notice of desired improvement provided: Mr. Ellis does not use his time as efficiently or as effectively as he might during the school day....Mr. Ellis needs to show more initiative in scheduling his time appropriately during the school day....Schedules may be provided or developed and/or a classroom assigned to help him achieve more contact with students in need of counseling. A log of counseling sessions may be put to use....Improvements are expected during the 1990-91 school year. Mr. Shearer was sometimes unable to locate the Respondent on-campus, sometimes due to the Respondent's alleged illness (notice of which was not timely provided), other times because the Respondent would leave the Westside Elementary campus or would walk to another school located on the same property with Westside. As to desired improvements in routine office procedures, the notice of desired improvement provided: Mr. Ellis does not follow normally accepted office procedures. He does not always call in when he is to be out for the day, does not discuss extended absences with his supervisor, misses too much time from work, and has had a problem with unauthorized long distance phone calls....Mr. Ellis will conform to normal office procedures that are expected of all staff members.... A full explanation of what is expected of Mr. Ellis will be given by the Principal during the week of pre-planning....These problems should be corrected immediately, but for certain by the end of the 1990-91 school year. By memorandum of April 19, 1990, the Respondent replied to Principal Shearer's April 4th assessment. The Respondent stated that he believed he worked effectively with other staff members and did not have trouble in working or answering to those in authority. He noted that there were no complaints from teachers related to him and that he had never refused to perform assigned tasks. He wrote that he believed his time to have been utilized efficiently, that he had not been made aware of any related problems prior to the evaluation, and that he was amenable to suggestions related to more effective use of time. The Respondent insisted that he followed routine office procedures, although he acknowledged one instance of absence without notifying superiors. He noted that the matter of the inappropriate telephone calls had been handled through the letter of January 26, 1990 (a copy of which had been placed in the Respondent's personnel file) and through the reimbursement for such calls. He concluded, "I believe that your formal assessment of my performance should have, for reasons cited above, rated me as "satisfactory" in all areas. I will, however, do all you find necessary in order to demonstrate my better-than-satisfactory performance as a counselor at Westside Elementary School." By letter dated April 20, 1990, Hendry County School Superintendent William C. Burke informed the Respondent that due to the Principal Shearer's assessment and evaluation, he was being charged with unsatisfactory performance for the 1989-90 school year. The letter stated, "As provided in F.S. 231.36, you may request to meet with me or my designee for an informal review of the determination of unsatisfactory performance and/or request an opportunity to be considered for a transfer to another appropriate position, with a different supervising administrator, for the 1990-91 school year." The letter also stated that during the 1990-91 school year, the Respondent would "be provided assistance and inservice training opportunities to help correct the noted deficiencies" and that he would "be evaluated periodically to keep you apprised of progress." Although Principal Shearer was available to offer assistance or additional information related to the performance deficiencies, the Respondent demonstrated no interest in taking advantage of the available assistance, apparently because he did not agree with the evaluation. There is no evidence that the Respondent requested transfer to another position with a different supervising administrator. Thereafter, Mr. Shearer determined it necessary to provide a structured setting for the Respondent to perform his responsibilities. By letter dated June 21, 1990, Principal Shearer provided and outline of the guidance program he expected the Respondent to implement during the 1990-91 school year. The Respondent was assigned a permanent classroom for the school year which was designated as the "time-out or in-school suspension room" which was a part of the school's discipline program. "Disruptive" and "disinterested" students were to be referred to the Respondent's classroom. Such students would "benefit from more direct contact with the Guidance Counselor than we have been able to give in the past years." The Respondent was assigned three tasks related to the permanent classroom setting. He was to develop and maintain a record-keeping system for each child that included basic information, the reason for the referral to time- out, and "any notes on types of counseling or any progress made...." He was to "supervise and hopefully motivate students to keep up with their classwork while in time-out." Finally, he was to "use whatever opportunities that arise, individually or collectively, to counsel with students about the feelings or attitudes that led to their disruptive behavior or lack or (sic) classroom performance and ways to deal more appropriately with these feelings." The June 21 letter provided that the Respondent would "have a good deal of autonomy within your classroom, but it should be understood...that this is not a 'reward' or play time, or something to be looked forward to. The students will have no 'special area' privileges while in your room....The idea is total isolation from other students until dismissal time." The letter indicated that this job description was unusual for a school counselor, but that the program would permit the Respondent to have "much more direct contact with students who are having trouble succeeding in school." Concluding, the principal wrote that the plans were "subject to fine-tuning" as the year progressed, and that he welcomed the Respondent's input in the program. A memorandum from the principal went to all Westside Elementary teachers on or about August 22, 1990 which provided information on the Respondent's "time-out" classroom. The information in the memorandum was essentially similar to that in the June 21 letter to the Respondent. Between August 6 and August 17, 1990, the Respondent placed 7 long distance telephone calls from his school office telephone. The calls, totaling $17.25 in tolls, were not school related. By letter to the Respondent dated October 11, 1990, Principal Shearer wrote that, "...once again, in spite of my clear instructions to the contrary, you have charged personal telephone calls on our school telephone." The letter stated that "NO MORE personal calls are to be charged, by you, to our school phone! This is not a service available to you, or any other staff member." The Principal required immediate reimbursement and placed a copy of the letter in the Respondent's personnel file. The letter noted that continued noncompliance would result in more serious discipline being imposed. During the 1990-91 school year, Mr. Shearer often relieved the Respondent from the Time-Out room during lunch and planning periods, and had frequent contact with the Respondent. The Respondent was often observed sitting at the desk, his feet up on the desktop, reading a newspaper or book. Occasionally, the Respondent would be eating in the classroom. Additionally, there were complaints from the adjoining school that the Respondent took Time- Out students on walking tours around the other school campus, allowing them to purchase and eat snacks. Mr. Shearer believed the situation to be inappropriate, given that the Time-Out room was directed towards correcting inappropriate behavior, and spoke to the Respondent on several occasions about the situation, but the Respondent apparently did not believe the matter to be a problem. Mr. Shearer also encouraged the Respondent to discuss counseling concerns with highly-regarded staff from other schools and to attend relevant conferences, but the evidence fails to establish that the Respondent took advantage of such opportunities. On January 8, 1991, Principal Shearer completed a guidance assessment form which set forth the Respondent's professional evaluation and performance ratings. The evaluation was reviewed by Shearer and the Respondent on January 18, 1991. The Respondent signed the evaluation. The Respondent's evaluation in the area of "interpersonal relationships" had improved to satisfactory. Mr. Shearer noted that the Respondent still required improvement in the areas of "utilization of time", and "routine office procedures". The Respondent's overall performance rating was not noted. The comments section provided that: Some improvement noted in interpersonal relationships. Paperwork is very weak. Personal phone calls were made again this year on school phone and on school time against my direct instructions. Does not make use of available time with problem students in Time-out or with other students when counseling could be beneficial. Continues to miss entirely too much time from school. Attached to the guidance assessment form were "notices of desired improvement" identifying the improvements expected of the Respondent. The notices provided additional information related to the Respondent's performance deficiencies and indicated that if improvements were required by March 15, 1991 or that the principal would recommend non-renewal of Respondent's employment contract. As to desired improvements in utilization of time, the notice of desired improvement provided: Continues to miss too much time from school. Does not make best use of extended time with problem kids in Time-Out. Does not actively seek out students or opportunities to counsel. Does not adequately follow-up on students referred for counseling....Make school attendance a higher priority. Take the initiative in scheduling students for counseling, those in Time-Out, as well as others who are in need....Keep an active log of students counseled in Time-Out and at other times. Keep a daily "diary" of activities done and students worked with....All necessary forms and papers will be made available. An F.P.M.S. package on "Using Time Efficiently" will be provided. As to desired improvements in routine office procedures, the notice of desired improvement provided: Paperwork is very weak, and record-keeping is almost non-existent. Long-distance personal phone calls have been made on school phones and on school time after direct instructions to the contrary....Record-keeping must be more accurate and more detailed to document work done with and for students. Compliance with directives is mandatory. All calls on school phones will be school related!....Progress will be monitored closely....Assistance will be provided as needed and/or as requested....Notebook with updated forms to be filled out on each student in Time-Out and those counseled otherwise will be provided. Mr. Shearer provided the Respondent with materials appropriate to maintain records on counseling activities. There is no evidence that such materials were utilized or that the Respondent made any effort to address the performance deficiencies noted by Mr. Shearer. On March 26, 1991, Principal Shearer completed a guidance assessment form which set forth the Respondent's professional evaluation and performance ratings. The Respondent refused to sign the evaluation. Mr. Shearer noted that the Respondent required improvement in the areas of "utilization of time", and "routine office procedures". The Respondent's overall performance rating was unsatisfactory. The comments section provided that: Mr. Ellis has made some improvements in his general attitude and has begun to have a little more student contact, but there is still much room for improvement. There are several major areas that are still unsatisfactory. At this time I am recommending that his contract not be renewed for the 1991-92 school year. Attached to the guidance assessment form were "notices of desired improvement" identifying the improvements expected of the Respondent. The notices provided additional information related to the Respondent's performance deficiencies and indicated that the principal was recommending non-renewal of Respondent's employment contract. As to desired improvements in utilization of time, the notice of desired improvement provided: Continues to miss too much time from school. Still spends too much of his school day without direct contact with students. Has not been consistent enough on his follow-up of many of the children referred to him for counseling.... Must make school attendance a higher priority. Must show more initiative in meeting with students having problems. Initial contacts must be followed up and documented on a regular basis....Should meet with teachers on a regular basis to see what students are experiencing difficulties that he might be able to help with....Every consideration will be given to working out student schedules to allow maximum contact time with the Guidance Counselor. As to desired improvements in routine office procedures, the notice of desired improvement provided: Paperwork remains very poorly and sloppily done. Record-keeping is still very sketchy. Record-keeping must be more accurate and more detailed to document work done with students....Assistance will be provided as needed or as requested....Will continue to supply record books, calendars, files, etc. as may be needed to help keep organized and documented. By letter to Respondent dated April 11, 1991, Hendry County School Superintendent Burke informed the Respondent that due to the Principal Shearer's assessment and evaluation, he was being notified that "your performance deficiencies have not been corrected. Further I am notifying you that you shall not be issued a new professional service contract for the next school year." The Time-Out program was continued through the remainder of the 1990- 91 school year, but was thereafter discontinued. Mr. Shearer assessed the program as having been unsuccessful, at least in part due to the lack of interest and negative attitude regarding the program by the Respondent, who believed the program to have been a punitive measure against him by Mr. Shearer. Guidance counselors in the Hendry County Schools are asked to "volunteer" 1/ to assist school officials in obtaining psychological and social histories of students who may be emotionally or environmentally handicapped. The practice is to seek out a counselor who is assigned to the same school as the student. The counselor interviews the child and family, and completes appropriate paperwork containing the relevant information. The forms are not complicated and do not require special expertise to complete. The counselor receives $20 for each complete history taken and $10 to update a previously taken history. The Respondent was asked and agreed to take the history of a specific Westside Elementary School student. Neither the student nor the family spoke English to the extent that the Respondent, speaking only English, would be able to conduct the interview. In such situations, interpreters may be used, but the interview is to be conducted by the counselor. The Respondent did not ask if he could use an interpreter and did not seek approval to give the interview assignment to another teacher. The Respondent asked Rosa M. Santana, a Spanish speaking second grade teacher at Westside Elementary, to perform the interview. He did not offer to compensate her prior to her performing the interview. On or about April 28, 1991, Ms. Santana interviewed the child and family. Ms. Santana took her mother, who speaks Spanish fluently, with her to the interview. The Respondent was not present when the interview was done. Ms. Santana completed the interview form and listed herself as the interviewer. Ms. Santana thereafter returned the interview form to the Respondent. He altered the interview form to identify himself as the interviewer and Ms. Santana as an interpreter. He then submitted the completed form and the bill for $20 to school officials as his charge for taking the student's social history. School officials became aware of the fact that the Respondent did not complete the interview, and paid the money to Ms. Santana rather than to the Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Hendry County School Board enter a Final Order terminating the professional services contract of Aaron Ellis at the end of the 1990-91 school year. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of November, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 22nd day of November, 1991.
Findings Of Fact On October 29, 1984, Bruce E. Beneby, Respondent, was on the instructional staff at Dixie Hollings Senior High School as band instructor. Dennis Hale, a detective in the Pinellas County Sheriff's Department, went to Dixie Hollings Senior High School around 5:00 p.m., October 29, 1984, to pick up his son after band practice and to ask Respondent why he had thrown Hale's son's textbook in the garbage. Upon his arrival at the school in the vicinity of the bandroom, Hale observed Beneby running around the building with his shirt off. One of the milling students told Hale that Beneby was about to fight a student. When Hale arrived at the scene he observed Beneby holding a pair of scissors in a threatening manner toward the student, Ellis Tedrick. Tedrick had a six-foot length of drain pipe. Neither struck the other. Hale told both to stop but was not obeyed until he produced his sheriff's badge. Earlier, after band practice, Tedrick asked Beneby why he had thrown some of the girls off the Re Belle squad. He and Beneby got into an argument and Beneby picked up a band stand with which he threatened Tedrick. Other witnesses testified regarding Beneby's aggressiveness on other occasions. Testimony respecting Beneby having a gun in his briefcase to protect himself from the parents of students in his class is disregarded. No charge of this nature was made against Respondent as reason for his dismissal. No evidence was presented by any witness that observed Respondent destroy or throw away school property such as textbooks.
The Issue At issue herein is whether or not the Respondent School Board of Dade County's reassignment of the Petitioner based on an alleged pattern of disruptive behavior in the educational program should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the following relevant facts are found. During September, 1978, Victor John Cecchi was transferred from Miami Springs Junior High School to the Jan Mann Opportunity School North. Charles W. Bales, the principal of Miami Springs Junior High School appeared at the hearing and testified that the Petitioner was transferred based on an extensive pattern of "disruptive behavior in the educational program which deprived other students in the program of the full benefits of the educational system." According to principal Bales, the transfer to the Jan Mann Opportunity School North is one where the Opportunity School provides a more controlled atmosphere, smaller classes, more direct supervision which enables a "problem child" to get the benefits of the Dade County educational program. It is eventually the goal of the Opportunity School to reintegrate the "problem child" back into the regular school system so that he is mainstreamed back into the full academic process. During the period October 4, 1977 through the assignment in September of 1978, Petitioner had been referred to the principal's office 35 times for referrals due to disruptive behavior. Principal Bales testified in detail respecting the various incidences by the Petitioner wherein he had been involved in an extended pattern of disrupting classes, leaving the school campus without permission, engaging in altercations with other students and destroying the personal property of others. During these incidences, petitioner was at times returned to the school campus by truant officers and officers from the Miami Springs Police Department While the Petitioner, through his father, does not dispute the fact that he was referred to the principal`s office based on a pattern of disruptive behavior, Petitioner requested that his son be reconsidered for reassignment back in the normal school program at Miami Springs Junior High School. In this regard, testimony reveals that the Petitioner has attended the Jan Mann Opportunity School for a total of only three days since his reassignment to the center. Testimony reveals further that the school system through its Opportunity School affords "problem or disruptive students" opportunity to reacclimate themselves through the process by attending the Opportunity School which provides a different setting. For example, the classroom setting is very individualistic and the number of students range from eight to twelve. Special vocational programs are offered and the pupil to counselor ratio is greater in the Opportunity School. For these reasons, and based on the fact that the Respondent has afforded Petitioner numerous occasions within which he was allowed to correct his disruptive pattern while attending the Miami Springs Junior High School, I shall recommend that the Respondent's reassignment of him to the Jan Mann Opportunity School be upheld.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the petition filed herein be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of August, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Cecchi 331 Swallow Drive Apartment 17 Miami Springs, Florida 33166 Michael J. Neimand, Esquire Dade County School Board Lindsey Hopkins Building 1410 NE 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33013 JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of August, 1979.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether there is just cause to terminate Paula Sinclair's employment with the Broward County School Board based upon the allegations made in its Administrative Complaint dated July 9, 2015.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within Broward County, Florida. Article IX, Florida Constitution; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Specifically, the School Board has the authority to discipline employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Sinclair started her employment with Petitioner in 2007. She was employed as a guidance counselor pursuant to a professional services contract. Sinclair has a Florida Educator's Certificate and received a bachelor's degree in youth and community studies from Surrey University in England, a postgraduate diploma in social work and criminology from Middlesex University in England, and a master's degree in school guidance counseling from Nova University. Sinclair was a guidance counselor at Walter C. Young Middle School for the 2007-2008 school year. The following school term, 2008-2009 school year, Sinclair transferred to New River Middle School and held the position of a guidance counselor. 2009-2010 School Year Sinclair was placed at Indian Ridge Middle School ("Indian Ridge") for the 2009-2010 school year. She was assigned as the eighth grade guidance counselor. On August 3, 2009, Assistant Principal Michael Lyons ("Lyons"), and Busjit-Bhalil ("Busjit"), guidance counselor, met with Sinclair to explain her duties and responsibilities. Indian Ridge opened for the school year on August 25, 2009, and Sinclair started getting parent complaints about her performance. She also started making scheduling errors. On August 27, 2009, Sinclair had her first conference with Lyons. On August 28, 2009, Lyons had a second conference with Sinclair regarding her scheduling being taken over by Busjit because Sinclair was either not completing the work or the work was not timely done. On September 2, 2009, Lyons set a meeting for September 8, 2009, with Sinclair, Busjit, and Zagari to discuss Sinclair's job performance because Sinclair had made numerous mistakes. On September 3, 2009, Sinclair placed an eighth grade student in a seventh grade course. On September 11, 2009, Lyons met with Sinclair and outlined Sinclair's major areas of job performance concerns. Scheduling, poor communications with parents, inability to provide accurate information, and failure to read and respond to emails in a timely manner were addressed with Sinclair. Lyons set up a cycle of assistance to provide Sinclair the help she needed to bring her performance up to District level. Lyons also provided Sinclair training. He directed Sinclair to work with the following co-workers to get specific training in the different areas she needed improvement: Busjit, to review all guidance functions and duties, scheduling practices, procedures and protocols; Nancy Bourbeau ("Bourbeau") for TERMS1/; Susan Perless ("Perless") in regard to ESE students; Brown for best practices with parents and to read CAB system emails daily, as well as formulate a record-keeping system for phone communications. During the meeting, Sinclair responded by staring silently at Lyons. Sinclair was provided two weeks to correct the performance deficiencies. On September 15, 2009, Lyons followed up the meeting discussions from September 11, 2009, with a memo to Sinclair outlining the serious concerns regarding her job performance. The memo deemed the following areas substandard: Students being placed in double reading classes that are not designed for being double blocked. Placing 8th grade students in 7th grade classes. Placing advanced students in regular education classes. Providing only 5 courses for students when they should have 6 courses. Wrong team designations on student schedules. Incorrect course and section numbers on student schedules. Interacting with parents in a curt manner. Failure to return phone calls from parents. Providing wrong or inadequate information to parents. Failure to follow direction in formulating a new algebra class. Failure to notify impacted teachers of schedule changes. Failure to process schedule changes in a timely manner. Failure to open and read emails in a timely manner. A general lack of "Withitness" in regard to school matters. On September 15, 2009, Busjit started Sinclair's training on TERMS panels. She reviewed the differences among the intensive reading classes and processes for accessing the server and database. On September 16, 2009, Bourbeau, data management specialist, trained Sinclair on TERMS and scheduling. Bourbeau went through every panel guidance counselors needed to know and discussed the procedures of a schedule change, as well as how to create a new schedule. On September 22, 2009, Perless, ESE specialist, reviewed the different roles in ESE with Sinclair, went over the panels in TERMS, and discussed the role of guidance in the area of ESE. After Sinclair received the training and assistance, her performance did not improve at all. She was inept in performing scheduling tasks and continued to assign students to the wrong class. Busjit continued to instruct Sinclair numerous times on the process of scheduling students properly. On December 4, 2009, Lyons discovered the physical education ("PE") waivers2/ were not completed. Lyons provided Sinclair a directive to ensure that all students in need of a PE waiver have one by December 18, 2009. Lyons first instructed Sinclair to perform the task by August 28, 2009, previously extended the deadline to November 13, 2009, and addressed the issue again on November 16, 2009. On or about December 4, 2009, a conference was held with Sinclair, which was detailed in a summary of conference memo dated December 8, 2009. The memo detailed that Sinclair would continue to receive assistance to help improve her performance, but if her performance did not improve, she would be placed on a Performance Development Plan ("PDP"). The next day Sinclair was absent from work. On December 18, 2009, Lyons wrote a memo to Respondent concerning her excessive absenteeism and requested Sinclair to provide a doctor's note justifying her absences since December 9, 2009. On December 19, 2009, Sinclair produced a Return to Work Certificate from Dr. Alvarez ("Alvarez") with a return date to start during the school holiday period, December 21, 2009. On or about January 15, 2010, Sinclair reported that she was taken to the emergency room the previous evening and filed for Family Medical Leave ("FMLA") requesting 12 weeks of leave from work. The request was accompanied by a Certificate of Health Care Provider and stated Sinclair had been treated by Alvarez since 1997 and was unable to perform her duties. On January 15, 2010, while out on FMLA, Sinclair applied for a hardship transfer to another school for the 2010- 2011 school year. On February 19, 2010, while on leave Sinclair also filed a discrimination charge against Lyons and the principal, which was denied. Upon Sinclair's return to work, her inability to perform her duties continued, and she made repeated mistakes. Sinclair failed to submit the students' PE waivers and educational plans after repeated directives from administration. She also failed to complete the Florida Virtual students' list. Sinclair's work was substandard. She could not perform basic routine counseling functions of the job, such as the scheduling of students. Sinclair received a satisfactory performance rating in the Instructional Personnel Assessment System because Broward County Teachers Union contract prohibits any employee from getting less than a satisfactory without first being on a PDP. 2010-2011 School Year Sinclair transferred to Northeast High School ("Northeast") for the 2010-2011 school year. She was assigned the ninth grade and a third of the seniors, who were split between the three counselors. Lupita Wiggins ("Wiggins") was Sinclair's guidance director at Northeast. Before school started, Wiggins asked Sinclair if there were any areas she needed help with and Sinclair requested training in TERMS. Wiggins met with Sinclair at her home and went over TERMS with Sinclair. Wiggins also trained Sinclair about high school graduation requirements since Sinclair had previously worked in guidance at middle schools. Sinclair did not show up to work the first two weeks of school. When she reported to work, Wiggins started noticing that Sinclair was having difficulty in scheduling. In November 2010, Wiggins discovered Sinclair still had not moved the ESOL students from Mercier's class, which she should have completed near the beginning of the year. On January 4, 2011, Wiggins reviewed the process for scheduling students properly with Sinclair again. On January 21, 2011, Sinclair incorrectly scheduled Term 8 courses for Term 9. Sinclair never mastered TERMS and continued to make mistakes such as: placing students in the wrong classes for the wrong quarters, which caused teachers' rosters to be missing students; placing a freshman student in a 10th grade biology class; double booking a student; and placing a non-ESOL student in an ESOL writing class. On January 21, 2011, Wiggins requested a list of ninth graders who had below a 2.0 GPA. Sinclair provided Wiggins a list of seniors who either had been in Apex3/ and were rejected or already scheduled for Apex. Wiggins worked with Sinclair to try to help her understand how to schedule properly and spent over two hours explaining to Sinclair again how to look at the students' credits to determine the courses that they needed. On January 25, 2011, Sinclair supplied another wrong class in Apex by not providing the classes for fourth or second period Apex classes. On February 24, 2011, Sinclair made another scheduling error and the terms did not match up. Sinclair also scheduled one student for American History as a needed graduation requirement, but removed her out of another class needed as a graduation requirement. Wiggins sat down with Sinclair countless times to try to teach her how to schedule students properly. Sinclair continued to make huge errors. On March 9, 2011, Sinclair improperly removed a student out of Spanish II, the second part of the two-year foreign language mandatory requirement to go to a four-year university, and told the student she needed Geometry in the second semester for graduation. The student already had all of her credits for math. On March 28, 2011, Sinclair still had not fixed the TERMS scheduling error brought to her attention by Wiggins on February 24, 2011. Wiggins had to constantly go back and double-check and recheck Sinclair's work, as well as fix it or do it herself. Wiggins also received complaints from parents that Sinclair was being unprofessional and disrespectful. 2011-2012 School Year In the 2011-2012 school year, Sinclair returned to Northeast where her performance issues continued. On or about August 26, 2011, Sinclair was notified of five ninth grade students who she did not place in the appropriate reading class, and Sinclair was instructed to correct the scheduling. Subsequently, Wiggins checked the five students' statuses and Sinclair had only changed one student's status, which was still an incorrect placement. From September 12 to October 7, 2011, Wiggins reviewed Sinclair's senior letters. Thirty-five of them had erroneous information. One letter told a student he was on target for graduation and not on target at the same time. In another letter Sinclair detailed a meeting with a student, who had withdrawn two weeks prior to the meeting date. Sinclair continued to fail to perform her counseling duties. She was still unable to use TERMS, continued to improperly schedule classes for students, and could not evaluate transcripts. She even failed to assign students to core classes. On or about November 29, 2011, Sinclair went out on FMLA through January 3, 2011. Alvarez noted in her doctor's note that she needed to rest. Jonathan Williams became the principal at Northeast and decided to develop a PDP to address Sinclair's ineptitude. On April 24, 2012, Allan Thompson, assistant principal, notified Sinclair by memo that she had been absent since April 19, 2012, and he was unable to write her PDP. Therefore, the meeting was being rescheduled for April 30, 2012, "for the purpose of writing your PDP." Sinclair did not return to work on April 9, 2012, as scheduled. Instead, Sinclair applied for a leave of absence. Principal Williams signed the request but noted that he was in the process of developing a PDP for Sinclair. Sinclair's leave was approved and she was absent from April 9, 2012, through May 9, 2012. Sinclair requested another hardship transfer to another school while out on leave. The transfer was denied. A conference was scheduled with Sinclair to write the PDP on May 11, 2012, but at 7:00 p.m. on May 9, 2012, Sinclair wrote an email stating "due to illness, I will not be in until next week." Sinclair never returned to work in time to write the PDP and she did not receive an evaluation for the 2011-2012 school year because of her days on leave: she did not meet the minimum requirements to get an evaluation. 2012-2013 School Year Sinclair took personal leave for the 2012-2013 school year. Her request stated her reason was "to care for my 88 year old Aunt who is dependent on me for everything. She recently had a fall and is declining health." Sinclair did not receive an evaluation rating for the 2012-2013 school year because she was not in attendance and/or actively teaching one day more than half of the school year, which is the minimum requirement to be evaluated. 2013-2014 School Year In August 2013, Respondent came off leave from Northeast and was placed at Western High School ("Western") because an opening was available after a guidance counselor retired. Principal Jimmy Arrojo ("Arrojo"), assigned her to the ninth grade students since she had previously been a guidance counselor over ninth grade students. On August 7, 2013, Arrojo first met with Sinclair and treated the meeting as an entry interview trying to get to know Sinclair and transition her comfortably into her new position. Sinclair did inform Arrojo that she had previously been placed on a cycle of assistance. Arrojo explained to Sinclair that her job duties included counseling students, scheduling, reading transcripts, placement of students, dealing with problems that may occur, talking with parents, and setting up parent conferences. During the initial meeting, Arrojo provided Sinclair a list of immediate assignments due August 16, 2013. He instructed Sinclair to find the incoming ninth graders at risk report, look up ninth grade graduation requirements, and review her job description and highlight any areas where she thought she might have issues. Lauren Cohen ("Cohen"), Western's school counselor director, was Sinclair's supervisor assigned to guide Sinclair through guidance including registration, evaluating transcripts, and scheduling. In October 2013, Cohen started receiving emails and phone calls from parents requesting a counselor change from Sinclair. Parents would request verification of information Sinclair provided and other parents would report that Sinclair had not responded to them. Mary Jones ("Jones"), assistant principal over the guidance department, also became concerned with Sinclair's performance as a guidance counselor because Sinclair generated numerous complaints from parents and was making mistakes. Jones decided to provide Sinclair extra help to improve her work performance. Sinclair made numerous scheduling errors, improper class placements, as well as calculated incorrect grades and credits for the students assigned to her. Sinclair's errors and failures exposed her students to graduation mishaps. Sinclair also had attendance issues and Arrojo had several informal conversations with Sinclair to help her improve her performance. On December 19, 2013, a mid-year review meeting was held with Sinclair, Cohen and Jones. Sinclair's weaknesses with scheduling, including her inability to schedule students with TERMS, incorrect grades, discipline records, graduation requirements, and credits, were discussed with Sinclair during the meeting. Sinclair's failure and inability to perform her duties continued into 2014. Sinclair was still providing incorrect information to students, placing students in the wrong classes, and improperly evaluating transcripts. The School Board evaluates employee's performances with the Broward Instructional Developments and Growth Evaluation ("BrIDGES") system. The School Board uses iObservation to maintain the observation data. BrIDGES is mutually agreed upon by the School Board and Broward Teachers Union. BrIDGES has an evaluation tool for guidance counselors in sections J through R, which evaluates their day-to-day interactions and responsibilities. During evaluation observations, administrators record ratings based on numeric values that are averaged out based on the calculations that have been determined in the District. There are five different ratings based off of what is observed. Each rating has a numeric value. Innovating is worth 4 points, applying is worth 3 points, developing is worth 2.5 points, beginning is 2 points, and not using is 1 point. The points are averaged to come up with the Instructional Practice Score. Jones was trained on BrIGDES and iObservations. On February 22, 2014, Jones observed Sinclair's day to day activity. She also evaluated Sinclair's interaction with colleagues. Jones rated Sinclair beginning. On March 11, 2014, Jones conducted a meeting observation of Sinclair with an incoming ninth grade registration. During the meeting, instead of properly guiding the student and showing the student the course on the course card, Sinclair asked the student to find the course. Jones rated Sinclair beginning for the interaction since Sinclair did not demonstrate she knew how to map courses on the course card as she had been previously instructed and trained. On April 7, 2014, Jones was dissatisfied with Sinclair's timing and methods used to communicate information skills and rated Sinclair with beginning in the category of promoting positive interactions with students and parents for a classroom incident. The rating was for a parent meeting Sinclair had. She interrupted the instructional flow of the classroom and put a teacher on the spot by calling her during class and questioning her about the student instead of taking a message and facilitating communication between teacher and parent later. On or about April 9, 2014, Jones conducted a 30-minute formal observation of Sinclair's registration of a new ESE student. Sinclair showed up 30 minutes late to the scheduled conference and provided incorrect information about the course and credit. Jones rated Sinclair beginning for the observation because of the errors. On May 1, 2014, Jones assessed Sinclair's evaluation category for collegiality and professionalism, domain 4, and noted that Sinclair "identified ESE student and his needs during registration." She gave her a score of developing. Sinclair's performance as a guidance counselor at Western went up and down. Sometimes she did what was needed to be done. And, more often than not she scheduled students inappropriately. When Jones met with Sinclair to review issues, she would just stare at Jones and not provide an answer to her questions even if prompted and asked a direct question. Sinclair would reply with silence or reply "I don't recall." After her observations for the 2013-2014 school year, Sinclair ended up with an Instructional Practice Score 2.335, which showed she needed improvement. 2014-2015 School Year Sinclair started off the 2014-2015 school year needing to improve her Instructional Practice Score. The District provides support for employees with performance concerns. Tanya Thompson ("Thompson"), evaluation coordinator for the District, was assigned to Western to coordinate support for employees that receive a less-than- effective annual evaluation. Thompson's job is to provide assistance in rectifying the employee's performance deficiencies. Thompson started to assign Sinclair Nardia Corridon ("Corridon") as her fall peer reviewer to provide extra help and coaching, which would improve Sinclair's performance to the District level. However, Sinclair requested that she not get Corridon as her peer reviewer. For the 2014-2015 school year, Cohen oversaw the guidance department and met with all the guidance counselors periodically to address processes and issues. When Sinclair did not grasp the guidance counseling processes, Cohen started working one-on-one with her to explain and show her how each counseling duty should be done. Thompson assigned Gisella Suarez ("Suarez"), to Sinclair from the District as her peer reviewer after Sinclair notified Thompson she did not want Corridon. Suarez was assigned to coach Sinclair and help enhance her job performance. She did not serve as part of the assessment procedure or evaluation process for Sinclair. Even though Sinclair had a weekly peer reviewer, Cohen continued to provide Sinclair school-based support including extra meetings, and making sure that she sat down with her often to go over the different aspects of the counseling job including addressing parent concerns, following protocol for test materials, registering students, evaluating transcripts, scheduling, placing students, and Response to Intervention ("RtI).4/ Cohen documented her support meetings with Sinclair in coaching logs dated August 11, 13, 14, 22, 26, 28, 2014, September 2, 5, 9, 2014, October 29, 2014, November 4, 2014, and December 11, 12, 2014. On August 22, 2014, Suarez started coaching Sinclair and also documented her training sessions by coaching logs each time she met with her. When Sinclair met with Suarez, she shared her final evaluation from the previous year. Suarez used the evaluation to develop the session topics for coaching Sinclair. Suarez met with Sinclair weekly and focused her coaching sessions on all the areas of concern from Sinclair's evaluation. Suarez coached Sinclair on areas such as: contacting and communicating with parents, teachers, and students; facilitating educational planning in her office; and using counseling technology to help look up data on students. On or about August 28, 2014, Sinclair erroneously overrode the system and allowed a student to register for a higher math class because the parent wanted the student in the class. Sinclair should have verified that the class was appropriate by accessing the student's transcript or had the student tested before placing the student in a higher level math class. During the coaching sessions, Suarez would provide Sinclair additional resources to look at or ask her to log on to a database or go to a website. Repeatedly Sinclair did not follow through with the assistance and would inform Suarez that she did not have time. On or about August 31, 2014, the counselors were handling incoming registrations for private school transfers and middle school transfers prior to the start of the school year. Sinclair was not performing her share of registrations because she was not able to get into TERMS for a day and a half. Sinclair had to have her password reset. Jones rated her beginning for waiting a day and a half to gain access to the main working database, TERMS, and have access to check students schedules or appropriately place students. On September 9, 2014, Cohen reviewed RtI with Sinclair and showed her the website for the prevention office and all resources. They reviewed the use of technology on iObservation. Cohen also instructed Sinclair not to blame other counselors when working as a team. Cohen continued to receive numerous complaints about Sinclair not returning emails and phone calls to parents. While observing Sinclair, Suarez would also provide her feedback and suggestions to improve her interactions when she met with parents. Sinclair was generally receptive. However, Sinclair did not follow through with Suarez's suggestions. Sinclair struggled remembering her password to access BASIS, the web based guidance counselors' database to obtain the information for students. On October 6, 2014, Jones conducted a 30 minute formal observation during Sinclair's registration of a foreign student. Sinclair conversed with the student's uncle from the beginning of the meeting to the end about the student's registration without including or interacting with the student. Instead of letting the uncle convey the information to the niece and making her a part of the conversation, Sinclair repeatedly told the uncle, "you can talk to her about this tonight." Jones ultimately interceded in the meeting and pulled up InfoCat, a database utilized to identify foreign speaking students, to pair the new student with a student on campus that spoke the same home language and help transition the student. While coaching Sinclair, Suarez accessed Sinclair's skills with RtI and determined that she could not even go into the database even though she had been a counselor for over four years. Since Sinclair was responsible for RtI, Suarez provided Sinclair a Brainshark webinar from the District's counseling department to assist her in becoming proficient on RtI. The tool detailed the RtI process and included training on how to get on the system, initiate referrals, maintain data on interventions, and how to input information. On October 8, 2014, Suarez suggested that Sinclair register for the District RtI additional training. Sinclair attended the training. On October 10, 2015, Suarez met with Sinclair and used her coaching period with her to view the Brainshark RtI webinar since Sinclair still had not viewed it on her own time although Suarez had suggested it previously. Suarez had to log on to Brainshark because Sinclair could not access it. After the District RtI training and webinar training, Sinclair still struggled with RtI. She was still only able to get on RtI one time independently while with Suarez and continued to forget her password, although she would write her password down, and how to get on the system. On October 27, 2015, Jones observed Sinclair performing domains 2 through 4 and rated Sinclair developing because she did what she was supposed to do. On October 29, 2014, Cohen reviewed transcripts and test codes with Sinclair. Cohen met with Sinclair and went through the process and trained Sinclair again on how to enter grades and what assessment codes to use on a grade transcription sheet. When coaching Sinclair, Cohen had to repeat most topics multiple times. On November 3, 2014, Suarez and Sinclair watched a BASIS webinar to improve Sinclair's performance with BASIS. Sinclair took notes. Suarez also coached Sinclair on Virtual Counselor, a simple web-based program the District has where students, including middle school aged students, teachers and parents have access to student's grades and attendance. Sinclair also struggled with getting into Virtual Counselor and using the system. On November 20, 2014, Jones decided that it was about halfway through the school year so she would conduct an informal observation to see how Sinclair was doing. On December 11, 2014, Cohen met with Sinclair to review the previous assignment to put together a one page sheet with everything a ninth grader would need to know about semester grades including GPA, exams, and end-of-course classes ("EOC"). Sinclair's product did not contain the requested information and when asked to explain the document Sinclair could not explain it to Cohen. Cohen went over the components again and Sinclair took notes. Cohen ended the meeting by quizzing Sinclair. Cohen asked Sinclair if a student passed the nine weeks but failed the exam would they get credit. Sinclair looked at Cohen and would not answer. After being asked three times, Sinclair said no, which was the wrong answer. Cohen explained that Sinclair needed to learn, understand, and master how credits worked as part of her counseling job and she needed to be able to explain it to students properly. On December 12, 2014, Jones and Derek Gordon had a meeting with Sinclair and provided her a summary memo informing her that there were concerns with her job performance and a possible professional growth plan would be implemented. Jones summarized Sinclair's performance of November 20, 2014, informal meeting in the memo. Jones also rated Sinclair as not using for area L; beginning for area M; and not using for area N. The Post Observation Summary memo which stated: There was little interaction with parents during the parent meeting Resources were not provided to the parents No conclusions were drawn or action plan created following conference Based on my observation, I am concerned about your performance. I stated that I would provide you with assistance in order to assist you in improving your performance. I also encouraged you to continue working with your Peer Reviewer, Ms. Suarez. I also have had the opportunity to conduct observations this year. Based on those observations, a rating of beginning or not using have been given in the following elements: Use of Available Technology Participating in District and School Initiatives Supporting and organizing the Physical Layout of the Session Room Collecting and Analyzing Data to Develop and Implement Interventions Within a problem- Solving Framework Know and understand that if these deficiencies are not remediated, you may need to be placed on a Performance Development Plan. On December 12, 2014, Suarez also attempted to meet with Sinclair for their next weekly coaching session. Suarez's plan for the session was to review RtI again and to look at some technology resources for students. Sinclair did not respond to Suarez while she was in the office and finally stood up and opened the door showing Suarez out after approximately 20 minutes. Suarez responded requesting a date for their next coaching meeting the following week. Sinclair informed her she would get back to her. On January 8, 2015, Sinclair left Suarez a voicemail on her cellphone saying that she did not believe she needed her support any further. On January 9, 2015, Jones provided Sinclair a January 14, 2015, meeting agenda which listed topics to be addressed at the meeting, including at risk students, failing ninth grade students, RtI, goal-setting with ninth graders, transcript evaluation, and appropriate placement for scheduling. The email requested Sinclair to "please be sure to come prepared with a list of ninth grade students who have failed the first semester." On or about January 13, 2015, Arrojo met with Sinclair and addressed her attendance. He pointed out she had been absent 13 days and it was only halfway through the school year. He also informed her that she only had less than a day of sick leave left. Arrojo further explained that Sinclair had a pattern of non-attendance because most of the absences were tied to days off, a weekend or a vacation.5/ Arrojo questioned Sinclair about the absences four times and she did not respond or answer. Finally, Arrojo directed Sinclair to report to work on a daily basis and explained that Sinclair's numerous absences as guidance counselor caused problems for the guidance department because unlike a teacher who has a substitute replacement, the other guidance counselors had to pick up Sinclair's work when she was out. On January 13, 2015, Jones also sent Sinclair an email rescheduling the meeting time for January 14, 2015, at 1:30 p.m. On that same day, Sinclair incorrectly added classes for a student in Term 1 when it was second semester Term 2, and the student should have been added to Term 2. Each of the student's classes Sinclair scheduled started with a "1" which represents Term 1 instead of "2", which represents Term 2. On January 14, 2015, Sinclair reported to the meeting with the administrators at 1:30 p.m. and then excused herself to the restroom, came back at 1:45 p.m. and refused to answer any questions without a union representative. After she conferred with the union representative, the meeting began at 1:55 p.m. At the meeting on January 14, 2015, Arrojo observed. Jones requested that Sinclair provide the list of ninth grade at risk students that she had asked for previously on multiple occasions and instructed Sinclair to bring to the meeting for review. Sinclair refused to show the administrators the documentation she was holding in her hands or turn it over for review. It was explained to Sinclair that an accurate compilation of at risk students is important in order to determine which students out of the approximate 800 freshmen need extra help to graduate because credits are lacking, a low GPA, attendance issues, or discipline issues. Sinclair's previous reports on at risk students had varied from 21 to as large as 100. Jones had requested a copy of the list Sinclair was working off to review it for accuracy of criteria and properly identify the at risk students that needed plans formulated to help them. Sinclair would not respond to Jones several requests for the list even after she asked her directly. Sinclair just stared at the administrators with no response. Sinclair finally said 100 plus students were on the at risk list. Jones asked for the list a third time and Sinclair did not hand her the list. Jones asked Sinclair did she look on BASIS, the computer database that contains student data, including a tool that compiles list by areas at risk. Sinclair continued to stare blankly at Jones and not answer her. At some point in the meeting, Sinclair finally asked Jones, "does it matter what list?" Jones explained, "Yes, because on BASIS there's only 12 students and you're saying there's a hundred plus students." During the meeting, Jones tried to get Sinclair to open BASIS to look up the list. Sinclair was never able to open BASIS. Sinclair also failed to provide the strategies for at risk students or discuss interventions with Jones and Arrojo during the meeting. She just stared blankly at and through her supervisors. Sinclair never produced the list. At the end of the meeting Arrojo requested Sinclair leave the list that was in her hand but Sinclair just walked out. On January 14, 2015, Principal Arrojo also provided Sinclair a summary memo of the January 13, 2015, meeting and offered Sinclair employee assistance, which she refused. The memo provided expectations with the following directives: You are expected to report to work on a daily basis. This is an excessive amount of absences that has had an adverse impact on the operation of our school be reminded that attendance is an essential function of your job. All future absences will require you to provide a doctor's note verifying that you were ill. However, providing a doctor's note does not excuse an absence for which you have no accumulated sick leave. In order to try to prevent any students from falling through the cracks, Jones personally took the time to create the at risk list and discovered only 15 students were on the failure at risk list, not the 100 Sinclair claimed. On January 16, 2015, Sinclair received a pre- disciplinary meeting notice regarding insubordination. The letter detailed that Sinclair: refused to adhere to My directive to provide the list of at risk and failing 9th grade students that I requested and you refused to respond to inquiries regarding these students at a meeting held in Assistant Principal Ms. Missy Jones' office on January 14, 2015. During this pre- disciplinary meeting we will discuss your insubordination and failure to respond to inquiries regarding your students and your failure to turn in requested documentation. Prior to being placed on PDP Sinclair was provided District based support to see if her deficiencies could be corrected and job duties could be performed at an acceptable level. She received counseling notes, meetings with the guidance director, peer reviewer, and assistant principal. However, Sinclair was still repeating mistakes, not grasping basic guidance functions, making errors and not making progress with all of the support given. On January 23, 2015, Arrojo provided Sinclair a notice for a January 28, 2015, at 9:00 a.m. meeting "for the purpose of writing your Performance Development Plan." On January 28, 2015, Sinclair reported to Western. Arrojo was waiting for her in his office to meet and she left the school grounds around 8:00 a.m. Sinclair's union representative showed up for the meeting and was not aware Sinclair had left the school premises. On January 28, 2015, a memo was provided to Sinclair from the pre-disciplinary meeting held on January 23, 2015, which stated: [R]efused to respond to inquiries regarding your students and your refusal to turn in requested documentation, I have decided to issue you a Verbal Reprimand. Effective immediately, you are to fully answer all inquiries and you will provide an/all requested documentation from your supervising administrator/s. That same day, Arrojo wrote Sinclair another meeting notice, which she ultimately refused to sign, directing Sinclair to report to his office February 2, 2015, at 1:00 p.m. for the purpose of writing her PDP. Sinclair called out on February 2, 2015. On January 29, 2015, a transfer of support meeting was held. Sinclair requested Corridon to be her peer reviewer instead of Suarez because she had a guidance counselor background. Corridon met with Sinclair and discussed the areas of support needed. On February 2, 2015, Arrojo wrote Sinclair a third meeting notice in an attempt to set up a meeting on February 5, 2015, at 12:30 p.m. for the purpose of writing her PDP. On February 5, 2015, a PDP was created for Sinclair. Sinclair was informed that her Instructional Practice Score was 1.898, in the unsatisfactory range. Sinclair was given a 90-day probationary period letter, which stated "failure or refusal to remediate all areas identified as deficient would be less than effective BrIDGES evaluation and/or termination of contract." The PDP highlighted Sinclair's performance concerns, which included but were not limited to the following: failing to systematically tract academic progress of students who were in danger of failing; inability to get participants to record and represent the exchange of information from interactions with the counselor; inability to consistently access and utilize technology to enhance the quality of services; inability to develop or articulate interventions or providing counseling to develop effective behaviors; and failure to collect and analyze data to develop interventions with the RtI framework. On February 6, 2015, Corridon, the second peer reviewer, started coaching Sinclair twice a week. She reviewed and provided assistance in all the areas Sinclair made an unsatisfactory rating on the PDP. On February 9, 2015, Jones emailed Sinclair to instruct her to read Policy 6000.1, and a meeting would be set soon to discuss the policy. Corridon spent coaching sessions going over and over the same areas of assistance with Sinclair. Sinclair would often forget her password, after writing it down. Corridon went over the RtI process manually and the next time Corridon reviewed it with Sinclair, Sinclair was not be able to follow through the RtI process independently. Sinclair did not demonstrate any consistency and there was not much effectiveness in terms of improvement with regards to performance. After Sinclair was placed on PDP, observations continued to ascertain the status of her work performance and progress. Jones observed Sinclair on March 5, 2015, March 8, 2015, March 30, 2015, April 9, 2015, May 1, 2015, and May 8, 2015. Arrojo observed Sinclair on March 3, 2015, March 9, 2015, March 19, 2015, and April 14, 2015. During the observations, Sinclair consistently continued to make numerous mistakes and rarely was capable of performing her job successfully. As a guidance counselor, Sinclair had an office to work from, was provided the opportunity to attend regular guidance department meetings with the other guidance counselors, sit in on plan reviews, schedule reviews, and share other counselor information together. Even so, Sinclair continued to commit constant errors repeatedly. She did not improve and her mistakes endangered the students' graduation timelines, college entrance opportunities, as well as scholarships. Additionally, she put undue strain on the guidance department by having the other guidance counselors in the department stop their workload, pick up Sinclair's work to get it done or correct her errors. Numerous scheduling and transcript errors had to be corrected by the other staff. Sinclair showed minimal improvement and still could not put basic guidance counseling skills into practice. Instead, she repeated the errors even after extensive coaching and one-on-one training. On March 4, 2015, Western had an incoming ninth grade open house. The event is for incoming freshman and their parents from the middle schools to come and learn about Western. Sinclair failed to show up even though she was required to attend and she did not contact any one to let them know she would not be in attendance. Other guidance counselors had to step in and handle Sinclair's table for incoming freshmen. Sinclair never provided an excuse for her absence. Prior to the open house, Arrojo had informed Sinclair that he would be introducing her to the 1000+ visitors at the event. On March 8, 2015, Jones observed Sinclair and memorialized the observation in a post observation summary memo dated March 18, 2015. Sinclair provided 19 records for 11 students, of which only four were at risk, even though Jones had asked her yet again for the at risk students' list as she had been requesting since January. Sinclair was still not providing the at risk student list so that the intervention plans could be created and implemented to provide the services needed by the students. Jones also requested RtI records with the at risk list. The 19 records were all Sinclair supplied from August 2014 to March 8, 2015. At some point, Sinclair said over 100 students were at risk but she only brought four at risk student records to the meeting of March 8, 2015, not the requested list. Sinclair had very little documentation of her efforts to help the students. Sinclair also failed to be able to list or address the traits of Policy 6000.01 as requested on February 9, 2015. Additionally, when asked, Sinclair was unable to discuss quality points, the points provided for higher-level classes like AP that boost students GPA for graduation. Sinclair needed to comprehend and be able to explain quality points to parents and/or students to successfully perform her job. Sinclair only contacted 20 students in December and 63 in January according to her log. Jones determined the number was low since December is only two school weeks. Out of the 83 students contacted, Sinclair failed to address the need of improving one's GPA, which 520 of the ninth graders also needed her assistance with, as well as her providing them with information. By email on March 9, 2015, Corridon scheduled Sinclair to go to Cooper City High School ("Cooper City") on March 16, 2015, at 9:00 a.m. to shadow Clara Able ("Able"), a guidance counselor, so she could observe her day-to-day activities and be taught more counseling skills. On March 10, 2015, Jones emailed Sinclair and requested she provide additional documentation about some items discussed in the earlier March Policy 6000.1 meeting observation. Jones set a deadline of March 13, 2015. Jones requested the information so that she could properly rate Sinclair from the observation. Jones informed Sinclair that she could provide her more time if she could not have the documents ready by the 13th as requested: You mentioned that you call in students, call home to parents to provide tutoring information, etc. Please provide me with recent documentation that corroborates your outreach efforts. Examples of this could be L27 entries, list of targeted students, phone logs, examples of the tutoring services, etc. You mentioned you shared the Quality Points information with parents/students who come to your office. Please provide documentation of who has received this information and what exactly you share with them. At the meeting, Sinclair provided Jones incomplete L panels6/ and student sign in logs, which failed to have the sign out time for the students and incomplete. Out of the 18 contacts provided, Sinclair was only able to provide records for less than 10 students. The backup materials provided did not provide any details of discussions with students she had met with to utilize later for follow up or documentation. Jones reminded Sinclair during the meeting that she was available to help her if needed and even though she was receiving assistance from site-based coaches and a peer reviewer, there were still on-going concerns regarding her performance. By email on March 13, 2015, Jones scheduled a meeting with Sinclair on March 19, 2015. The email notified Sinclair that the meeting would cover RtI, student registration, and SBBC Policy 6000. The email instructed Sinclair, "As we will need to reference documentation on those topics during the meeting, the meeting will take place in your office. Please be ready to refer to items in your possession on the topics referenced above during our meeting." On March 16, 2015, Sinclair showed up approximately an hour and forty minutes late for her shadow session with Able. By the time Sinclair arrived Able, had left Cooper City and Sinclair did not get the counseling training. On March 17, 2015, Jones provided Sinclair a meeting notice to report to the principal's office on March 30, 2015, at 9:00 a.m. to review her PDP. On March 18, 2015, Arrojo hand-delivered a summary memo to Sinclair from the March 13, 2015, meeting, which stated: Middle school registration took place this week at Indian Ridge Middle School. You came to the middle school with the incorrect course cards. You arrived and placed the Grade 10-12 Course Selection sheets (green cards) on the desk to register the incoming freshmen or current 8th graders. Ms. Cohen, Guidance Director, told you those were the incorrect forms and supplied the correct ones to you (blue cards). The next day, you again brought the incorrect Grade 10- 12 Course Selection sheets and placed them on the desk for the incoming 9th grade students to use. Ms. Cohen, Guidance Director, again removed the forms from the desk and provided the correct ones for you. You were unable to start a testing session for the group of students you were proctoring on March 11, 2015. You were trained on protocols for testing administration on February 26th, 2015. You were a Testing Administrator in a session previously held on March 2, 2015. You reported to the computer-based testing session without your laptop on March 11, 2015. As Testing Administrator, your laptop was required in order to start the session and approve students to begin testing. You were searching for a session code in the bin to begin computer-based testing, unaware that one had to be created once you log in as the Testing Administrator. Ms. Cohen, Guidance Director had to log in as Testing Administrator for the session as you were unable to log in after multiple. On March 19, 2015, Arrojo, Jones, and D. Jones observed Sinclair. She was incapable of explaining how a student earns a credit. She confused semesters with nine weeks and included the EOC calculation percentages when explaining the general course calculations. Sinclair also failed to explain how to utilize the forgiveness rule. Sinclair did not have an understanding of how to use the tool to help students make up credit and replace or forgive a student's original bad grade, which helps improve the GPA of the student who failed. Jones scored her beginning for the meeting. During the meeting, Sinclair also displayed her typical responsive behavior to the administrator's questions. She stared blankly in response to pointed questions. Sinclair never provided the RtI list, even though she had been over RtI during the 2013-2014 school year. Ultimately, Arrojo had D. Jones pull the list and D. Jones took over RtI because Sinclair was incapable of performing the task. On March 20, 2015, Cohen met with Sinclair to follow up on the status of the transcripts that had been previously erroneously handled. Sinclair failed to have them corrected by the March 20, 2015, deadline. Cohen used the meeting to provide coaching on accurate future transcript evaluation. Cohen sat with Sinclair one-on-one and went through each folder and listed with her what needed to be done to award the students credit as well as provided examples. Cohen reminded Sinclair to indicate student name and student number, use designated colors to highlight grade level credit earned, and add appropriate assessment codes to EOC courses. During the coaching session, Cohen also pointed out transcript and registration errors. One such error discussed was Sinclair awarding half of a credit to a student when Dade County clearly stated the student was in Term 1 or Quarter 1 and the student could not have earned a credit yet. Cohen never received the requested transcripts. Cohen suggested Sinclair check her drawers for the missing transcripts and Sinclair became upset. The transcript information was not available to be entered into the system and students were not properly placed or were in statuses to miss credits for graduation. The guidance department also had to request transcripts from prior schools a second time because of Sinclair not supplying the transcripts. Sinclair's deficiencies in her performance as a guidance counselor continued almost on a daily basis. On March 30, 2015, a meeting was held to review Sinclair's PDP. Sinclair's Instructional Practice Score had improved minimally to 2.043, needs improvement. The meeting ended with Arrojo agreeing to continue to provide Sinclair observations and coaching in an attempt to help Sinclair improve her work performance. On April 2, 2015, a memo was written regarding the March 30, 2015, meeting outlining Sinclair's ongoing performance issues. The memo detailed the following observations: During the observation, Ms. Sinclair could not identify students that she was the case manager for and therefore, unable to provide strategies for improvement. Ms. Sinclair was able to log in to Virtual Counselor but was not familiar with the RtI layout in Virtual Counselor. During the observation, Ms. Sinclair continued to click on the screen hoping to navigate through the website. Mr. Sinclair was unable to describe how a student earn a credit. In speaking, Ms. Sinclair included the EOC calculation percentages while explaining the general course calculations. On April 7, 2015, Jones conducted a formal observation meeting with Sinclair. A new student from a private school was being registered and enrolling as an incoming ninth grader. Sinclair showed up 15 minutes late without any explanation or apology for tardiness. Sinclair recommended four out of the six classes that were closed to the student. The four classes were all on the closed class list Sinclair had been provided both by a printed copy on April 6, 2015, and emailed on March 30, 2015. After the registration observation, Jones asked Sinclair for the closed class list provided to her. Sinclair had it taped to her desk but she did not use it when registering the student. Jones asked Sinclair to tell her which classes she had recommended to the parent and she could not answer. Sinclair also could not find the student's name in Virtual Counselor. Sinclair's work continued to be unsatisfactory because she failed to competently perform her duties as a guidance counselor; failed to communicate appropriately with students, colleagues, administrators and parents, which caused numerous complaints; stared and refused to acknowledge conversations with administrators; failed to have command of her area of specialization as guidance counselor with the repeated errors. Additionally, she made the same mistakes over and over and did not show improvement or competency. On April 9, 2015, Corridon provided Sinclair's last coaching session. In April, Jones was still trying to get the list from Sinclair of students who failed the first semester even though it was late in the year to start addressing the struggles of failing students. On April 28, 2015, Jones conducted a formal observation and requested Sinclair go through the process of creating a referral in RtI. Sinclair was able to login to the referral database but clicked from screen to screen, unable to either navigate the database properly or record key information. Sinclair also failed to navigate resource sites necessary to provide students resources for assistance. Jones rated Sinclair a beginning for the exercise. On May 1, 2015, a post observation conference was held with Sinclair to discuss the observation of April 22, 2015. Sinclair, David Olafson, and Jones attended. Jones shared the findings from the Marzano observation system, which Sinclair obtained beginning/not using datamarks in design question 2, element 12 and elements M and Q. Specifically, Jones documented the following observations in the memo: Lack of familiarity with the BASIS database when entering students and other pertinent information. The counselor advises students to visit certain websites to begin to do better in school. The students receive no handout with key points or an overview of what the website offers. The counselor does not diversity the resources offered to students in danger of failing and the do not address they students deficiencies. Students in danger of failing were expected to create their own plan for success. Some students have been in danger for failing all year and were not seen until April 2015. On May 6, 2015, a meeting observation for domains 2 through 4 was conducted. Sinclair was asked to pull up the presentation she used for incoming freshmen to discuss graduation requirements. She was not able to find the document after multiple tries. On May 8, 2015, a post observation conference was held to discuss the results of the 30-minute observation held on May 6, 2015. Jones outlined Sinclair's ongoing performance concerns and numerous errors, as well as improper actions, which included Sinclair: improperly inputting 21 out of 38 transcripts reviewed; failing to monitor and assist three students in danger of failing by only meeting with each of them one time in April; failing to review the TERMS panels with each student along with Virtual Counselor; failing to assess the student's deficiencies incorrectly so was unable to offer additional services to the student, which impacted student's placement and graduation status; failing to look at two student's L panels to review their history and help develop the direction to proceed; and failing to provide services to a student who indicated problems at home. That same day Jones notified Sinclair to report to the principal's office on May 15, 2015, for the final review of PDP. On May 15, 2015, Sinclair's final review was conducted. She never was able to perform the basic functions of counseling. Sinclair failed to do the job and her ineptitude continued throughout the PDP process. Sinclair's final Instructional Practice Score was 1.974, unsatisfactory. As a result, Arrojo recommended Sinclair for termination based on her failure to correct her performance deficiencies during a 90-day PDP. After Sinclair left Western, the missing transcripts Cohen had requested from Sinclair and instructed her to look for were found in Sinclair's office.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Broward County School Board, enter a final order: dismissing the charge of violation of rules 6A- 5.056(2)(a); finding Respondent in violation of rule 6A-5.056(2)(b), (c), (d), and (e); rule 6A-5.056(3); sections 1012.33, 1012.53(1) and (2); and School Board Policy 4008(B). upholding Respondent's suspension without pay and termination for just cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of March, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of March, 2017.
The Issue The issues are whether the proposed change of school attendance boundaries for five middle schools and five high schools (West Side Schools) located in southwest Pasco County (County) is a rule, and, if so, whether the proposed rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is an educational unit and an agency defined in sections 120.52(1)(a) and (6), Florida Statutes. One of its duties is to assign students to schools after consultation with the Superintendent. See § 1001.41(6), Fla. Stat. The School Board has divided the County into geographic areas for purposes of drawing attendance boundaries. At issue here is an area that encompasses the West Side Schools, comprised of 35 designated areas, all west of the Sunshine Parkway, in which five middle schools and five high schools are located. Petitioners and Intervenors are students or parents who reside in area 12. Students in area 12 are currently assigned to J.W. Mitchell High School (Mitchell) or Seven Springs Middle School (Seven Springs). With a few exceptions cited below, under the new attendance plan, area 12 students will be reassigned to the River Ridge Middle School or River Ridge High School (River Ridge) beginning in school year 2017-2018. Only the rezoning for area 12 is being challenged in this case. Around 140 students will be moved from Mitchell and Seven Springs to other schools during the first year. Intervenors Evelyn Nessler and Dominic Faiella, who are in the third and second grades, respectively, will not change schools this fall and are unaffected by the new rezoning. Petitioner Nicholas Carvalho is currently in the eighth grade at Seven Springs and, as a result of his graduation, will be assigned to River Ridge this fall. Intervenor Brady Nessler is in the terminal grade for elementary school and, upon graduation, will be assigned to River Ridge this fall. Thus, the reason for reassignment of Carvalho and Nessler is unconnected to the new rezoning. The County is experiencing an increase in population caused by new residential development in the western part of the County. As a result, enrollment in some West Side Schools has exceeded capacity. For the spring term of school year 2016- 2017, Mitchell exceeds capacity by 18 percent, while Seven Springs exceeds capacity by 22 percent. Without a change in boundaries, in school year 2017-2018, Mitchell is projected to exceed capacity by 27 percent, while Seven Springs is projected to exceed capacity by 31 percent. In contrast, both River Ridge High School and River Ridge Middle School are currently below capacity, operating at 86 and 93 percent capacity, respectively. The over-capacity at the two schools is expected to continue, as more residential development is being planned in the State Road 54 corridor near area 12, Mitchell, and Seven Springs. To counter this condition, attendance zones are periodically redrawn in an effort to balance school enrollment. A School Board planner recalled there have been 27 boundary changes during his tenure as an employee. This case, and one other, Case No. 17-0629RP, which challenges the East Side Schools rezoning plan, are the first instances when attendance zones have been formally challenged. As the Superintendent observed, school rezoning "can be an incredibly painful process" because parents often move into neighborhoods with the belief that schools come with the homes. A fair assumption is that as long as rezoning does not affect their children, parents are content with a new rezoning plan. Because of anticipated growth in the County and existing disparities in school enrollment, in August 2016, the Superintendent instructed his planning staff to begin the process of developing a plan for amending school attendance boundaries, including the West Side Schools. The stated goal was to "review and alter the southwest secondary school boundaries in order to redistribute the school populations between overcrowded and under crowded schools and to provide for future growth as much as possible." Resp. Ex. 17, p. 00285. He further directed that a recommendation be formulated in time for the School Board to approve a new plan before February 1, 2017. This deadline was necessary because by April of each year, the School Board must prepare a proposed budget for the following year; adequate lead time is required to develop a new transportation routing plan; and once new boundary lines are drawn, an open enrollment plan, known as the School Choice program, allows students, between February 1 and March 1 of each year, to apply for enrollment in another school, i.e., in this case their former school. The School Board has adopted a set of Bylaws and Policies, which apply to "Legislative/Policymaking," or rulemaking, and follow the requirements found in chapter 120. See Pet'r Ex. 1. Policy 0131 provides that "the term 'rule' and 'policy' shall have the same definition." Id. at 1. The policy spells out in detail the procedural requirements for adopting policies (rules), which include notice of the proposed policy, a hearing, preparation of a rulemaking record, Board action, and appropriate notices. Id. at 2-3. The policy also describes how a substantially affected person may challenge a proposed policy (rule). Id. at 4. Reference to a "rule" and chapter 120 was made in various announcements, notices, and statements throughout the rezoning process. Also, the School Board acknowledges in a discovery response that section 120.54 is one of the statutes that apply to the rezoning process. Even so, the School Board takes the position that its policies and chapter 120 do not govern the redrawing of attendance boundaries. As a consequence, the Superintendent did not review the Bylaws and Policies or chapter 120 before he established the rezoning process. As explained by one witness, the School Board has not used formal rulemaking in prior rezoning plans, and it was its intention to follow usual past practice. The Superintendent opted to follow the same rezoning process used since at least 2004 or 2005. Under this process, a boundary committee, advisory in nature, is appointed for the purpose of developing multiple boundary maps and then recommending one of them to the Superintendent. The Superintendent does not attend the meetings or direct any member to draw a plan in a particular way. The Superintendent considers, but is not required to accept, the committee recommendation. A parent meeting is also conducted to allow parents to provide input into the process. After the committee and parent meetings are concluded, the committee submits a recommendation to the Superintendent, who then submits a final recommendation to the School Board. By law, two adoption hearings must be conducted by the School Board, which makes the final decision. A boundary committee is comprised of parents, district staff, and principals of affected schools. The committee is intended to represent the interests of students, parents, communities, schools, and the district. The committee for the West Side Schools consisted of 27 members, three of whom reside in Longleaf, a residential community in area 12 where most Petitioners and Intervenors reside. During the rezoning process, a committee will typically conduct three meetings before making its recommendation. In this case, the Superintendent scheduled a fourth meeting to be held after the parent meeting so that parent input could be considered. In developing new school attendance boundaries, the committee was instructed to follow certain guidelines. Under these guidelines, a new boundary should provide socioeconomic balance, maintain to the extent possible an in-line feeder pattern, provide for future growth and capacity, provide safe and efficient transportation, maintain subdivision integrity, and consider long-term school construction plans. See Pet'r Ex. 23. The committee was also given "lots of information" at the first meeting including, among other things, existing and projected enrollments for each school for school years 2016-2017 and 2017-2018; five and ten-year projected enrollments for each school; long-term school construction plans; future growth potential in the area; minority, low income, and special education population by area; and total population history for each school. The School Board employs a full-time public information officer who directs and coordinates the dissemination of information to the public. This is accomplished through social media (Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook) and a School Board website accessible to the public. In addition, a special zoning website was established during the rezoning process. The website and social media profiles are identified on the inside front cover of the student planner issued to every student at the beginning of the school year. The district also operates a program known as School Connect, which is capable of sending telephone messages, emails, and text messages to the parents. School Connect was used to make automated telephone calls to the contact telephone number listed on a student's information card informing the parents of the time and date of the parent meeting. See Resp. Ex. 6. All parents with a valid telephone number received a call, although some parents either did not personally answer the call or did not remember its substance. School Connect also sent emails and texts to parents, including notification of the plan the Superintendent was going to recommend to the School Board. Signs and notices regarding the rezoning were not posted in the neighborhoods before any meeting. However, multiple notices were posted on social media and websites, and text messages, emails, and telephone messages were sent to parents. This constituted substantial compliance with the requirement that notice of rulemaking be "post[ed] in appropriate places so that those particular classes of persons to whom the action is directed may be duly noticed." § 120.81(1)(d)3., Fla. Stat. Besides telephone calls, text messages, emails, and social media, on November 7, 2016, letters were sent to affected parents informing them of the parent meeting on November 14, 2016. See Resp. Ex. 3. Although the final plan was not known at that time, the letter put parents on notice that Mitchell and Seven Springs were overcrowded due to the influx of new homes being built in that area. Many parents knew as early as August 2016 that a new rezoning plan was going to be adopted that fall, but none believed area 12 would be affected due to its proximity to Mitchell and Seven Springs. This mistaken belief probably explains why some parents did not diligently follow the process until the parent meeting or even the School Board meetings when a final plan was adopted. However, one Intervenor formed a group known as "Delay West Pasco Rezoning" in August 2016 in an effort to prevent area 12 from being moved. There is no evidence that any parent or homeowner association requested that they be provided advance written notice of any meeting during the entire process. On September 6, 2016, the procedures for school rezoning were announced on Facebook and other social media. A press release for various media was issued on September 14, 2016. The press release provided the day, time, and location of each boundary committee meeting. The press release was also published on the School Board's Twitter account. The boundary committee for the West Side Schools was appointed on September 16, 2016. Committee meetings were conducted on October 5, October 26, and November 7, 2016. These meetings were open to the public, and all were live-streamed on YouTube.com., although some parents say portions of the broadcast were inaudible. The meetings were also broadcast live on the School Board's Facebook account, and a link to the broadcast was published on its Twitter account. Only around 30 parents attended each meeting. Members of the public who attend the committee meetings are observers only, they do not have input into the meeting process, and they are not allowed to participate in committee discussions. However, there is nothing to prevent an observer from asking a member a question before or after the meeting, or in another setting. As noted above, three committee members lived in Longleaf where most Petitioners and Intervenors reside, and members were encouraged to speak with neighbors and homeowner associations to keep them updated on what was occurring. All documents considered by the committee were posted on the School Board and special zoning websites. Finally, minutes for each meeting, which summarized decisions of the committee and gave notice to parents as to which path the committee was taking, were published before the following meeting. On November 14, 2016, "hundreds" of parents attended a parent meeting, which lasted more than three hours. Before the meeting began, parents were told which options were still being considered by the committee. Although committee members were present, Petitioners stated that questions were not answered by the members, and the entire meeting consisted of comments by the parents. So that their input would be considered, the Superintendent scheduled a fourth committee meeting on November 17, 2016. Five plans were considered by the committee at its fourth meeting, but there was no consensus on which plan to adopt. By a 13-to-12 vote, with two members absent, the committee recommended approval of a new plan known as Plan 4A2, which was posted on the website and social media the same day. Under the plan, effective school year 2017-2018, area 12 students (and others) would be reassigned to River Ridge. Notably, Plan 5A2, the option with the second most votes, garnered 12 votes and is "very similar" to Plan 4A2. It also reassigned area 12 students to River Ridge. The River Ridge joint campus is approximately eight or nine miles north of area 12, while Mitchell and Seven Springs, also a joint campus, are only two or three miles south of area 12. The Superintendent concurred in the recommendation to approve Plan 4A2 with one modification which did not affect area 12: students in areas 1 through 4, previously unaffected, would be reassigned to Gulf Middle School and Gulf High School. In developing the new plan, the committee followed the guidelines given to it at the outset of the process. The new plan took into account future growth and capacity of the schools. Consideration was also given to providing socioeconomic balance. Subdivision integrity was maintained, in that the entire Longleaf community was reassigned to the same schools. During the development of the plan, the committee had available the long-term school construction plans of the district. The district transportation coordinator was a member of the committee and ensured that the new plan provided safe and efficient transportation. Finally, because of overcrowding and anticipated growth in the area, the school feeder pattern structure, which now directs area 12 students to Mitchell and Seven Springs, was necessarily impacted. On balance, however, the guidelines were observed. A few alternative plans were submitted by parents during the committee process, including at least one plan prepared by an unidentified observer that was left on the committee's table before a meeting. The alternative plans are not of record. Pursuant to other district policies, certain exceptions apply to the new area 12 attendance boundary. Students who are rising seniors at Mitchell are grandfathered and remain at Mitchell. Students approved under the School Choice program to remain in Mitchell or Seven Springs may also do so. To take advantage of this program, a student must give a valid reason, such as hardship, separation of siblings, participation in certain extracurricular activities, or acceptance into the Mitchell Academy for Medical Arts Program, which is not offered at River Ridge. Many Petitioners and Intervenors have applied for School Choice to remain at Mitchell or Seven Springs, but there is no guarantee their requests will be approved. Notice of the Superintendent's recommended plan, including the map, was posted on the Board's website seven days before the first School Board meeting. In addition, the same information was posted on the district's Twitter and Facebook accounts, and emails were sent to those parents who provided an email address. Finally, the Superintendent published a letter on December 12, 2016, explaining his reasons for recommending Plan 4A2. It is fair to say that all parents had actual notice well before the first School Board meeting that area 12 was being reassigned to different schools. On November 20, 2016, a Public Notice (Notice) was published in the Tampa Times advising that a first reading on the new school attendance boundaries would be conducted by the School Board on December 20, 2016, and that final action would be taken at a second meeting on January 17, 2017. The Notice read in relevant part as follows: PUBLIC NOTICE INTENT TO ADOPT A RULE TO ESTABLISH SCHOOL BOUNDARIES FOR THE 2017-2018 SCHOOL YEAR The District School Board of Pasco County intends to change attendance boundaries for the 2017-2018 school year for the schools listed below: * * * West Pasco County Schools Chasco Middle, Gulf Middle, Paul R. Smith Middle, River Ridge Middle, Seven Springs Middle, Anclote High, Gulf High, J.W. Mitchell High, Ridgewood High, River Ridge High First reading on this matter is scheduled for the regular meeting of the District School Board of Pasco County on December 20, 2016. School Board action on this matter is scheduled for the regular meeting of the District School Board of Pasco County on January 17, 2017. Even though none of Petitioners or Intervenors read the Notice, they now complain that it does not contain a detailed summary of the new boundary lines, a reference to the grant of rulemaking authority, a reference to the statute being implemented, a summary of the estimated regulatory costs, or the other details normally included in agency rulemaking pursuant to section 120.54. There is, however, no evidence that the parents were prejudiced by a lack of more information in the Notice. With the exception of those parents who voluntarily chose not to attend, virtually all other parents who were not working or were not out of town had actual notice and attended the two School Board meetings. Sensing that Plan 4A2 was going to be selected, on December 17, 2016, with the assistance of a committee member who happened to be an attorney, Petitioners James Stanley and Cecilia Loyola, husband and wife, drafted a letter to the Superintendent and School Board Chairman. See Pet'r Ex. 2. The letter stated the proposed rule (new attendance boundaries) was arbitrary and capricious. It requested (a) a workshop pursuant to section 120.54(2)(c) mediated by a neutral party, and (b) the attendance of committee members at the workshop to answer questions. The letter also asked that if a workshop was not conducted, the rulemaking process be suspended and a separate draw-out proceeding be conducted pursuant to sections 120.569 and 120.57. Finally, the letter asserted that by limiting each speaker to only "one or three minutes," the School Board was violating section 120.54(3)(c). This was the first and only time that a parent invoked a chapter 120 rulemaking requirement in an effort to slow or derail the rezoning process. The letter was delivered to the Superintendent and Board Chairman on the day of the meeting. By that late date, the request was untimely, and the Superintendent had insufficient time to prepare a written response stating why a workshop was unnecessary, as required by section 120.54(2)(c). See § 120.54(3)(c)2., Fla. Stat. (a person must "timely" assert and affirmatively demonstrate to the agency that the rulemaking proceeding does not protect his substantial interests). No draw-out or workshop was conducted, and except for the Superintendent's reply letter, discussed below, no formal ruling was made by the School Board at the meeting on the untimely draw-out and workshop requests. On February 17, 2017, the Superintendent replied to the Stanley/Loyola letter. See Pet'r Ex. 3. The three-page letter outlined the multi-step rezoning process that was followed by the School Board, the efforts to solicit and facilitate parent participation, and the numerous types of notice given to the parents. Thus, he concluded that a workshop was unnecessary. At both School Board meetings, members of the public were allowed to speak. Normally, one hour of public testimony is permitted for an agenda item, with a three-minute time limitation for each speaker. Because three sets of attendance boundary plans were being considered as a single item, this time was expanded, and each plan was allotted one hour, for a total of three hours. To accommodate the large turnout of parents wishing to speak (58), only 90 seconds was allotted to each speaker, including those representing groups. Given the time constraints, not every parent was given the opportunity to speak. However, 16 speakers who were not allowed to speak at the first meeting were scheduled to speak first at the second meeting on January 17, 2017. Committee members were not required to attend either School Board meeting to explain Plan 4A2 or to answer questions posed by the audience. At this point in the process, the Superintendent, and not the committee, bore the responsibility of making a final recommendation to the School Board and to answer any questions members had. At the close of public comment on December 20, 2016, the School Board considered and approved Plan 4A2. However, one Board member suggested a modification to Plan 4A2, which would delay by one year the reassignment of students in areas 1 through 4 from Mitchell and Seven Springs to Gulf High School and Gulf Middle School. In all other respects, Plan 4A2 remained the same. This suggestion was to be reviewed by the Superintendent prior to the second meeting the following month. On January 17, 2017, the day of the second School Board meeting, the Superintendent sent a memorandum to School Board members regarding the rezoning issue. Among other things, he stated that "[t]he establishment of school attendance boundaries is authorized by Section 1001.42, Florida Statutes. In addition, the Administrative Procedures [sic] Act requires that the District publish a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Rule twenty-one days prior to the public hearing. The first reading was held on December 20, 2016." Pet'r Ex. 19. On January 17, 2017, the day of the second School Board meeting, the Superintendent tweeted on his Twitter account that he intended to recommend the adoption of Plan 4A2, as modified. See Pet'r Ex. 9. After public comment, final action was taken by the School Board and Plan 4A2 was adopted as the new school attendance boundaries for the West Side Schools. Unlike typical agency rulemaking, the adopted plan is in the form of a map, rather than a numbered rule. See Resp. Ex. 16. The additional cost for parents to transport their children to a new school is highly speculative, and no evidence was adduced to show that the new plan would increase regulatory costs, directly or indirectly, more than $200,000.00 within one year after implementation. See § 120.54(3)(a)b., Fla. Stat. Therefore, a statement of estimated regulatory costs for implementing the new boundary lines was not prepared by the School Board, and none was requested nor submitted by a third party. As required by section 120.54(3)(e)6., a copy of the new boundaries was filed with the "office of the agency head" after it was adopted at the second meeting. The parties stipulated that had the students who are named as parties testified at the final hearing, they would have reiterated the allegations set forth in the Second Amended Petition and Motion for Leave to Intervene. These include allegations that the students will be emotionally affected by the transfer; they will be separated from friends, teachers, counselors, and certain extracurricular programs in which they now participate; the change will limit their ability to walk or bike to school; and they will have increased travel time to attend the new schools. The parents expressed a wide range of concerns with the new attendance boundaries. Many wondered why area 13, which lies just west of area 12, was not reassigned to River Ridge. However, the committee decided early on to use State Road 54 as a demarcation line, sending students who reside north of State Road 54 to River Ridge. Area 12 lies north of the roadway, while area 13 is just south of the line. The reassignment of area 12 students was based on this consideration and is not illogical or unreasonable. Most parents purchased their homes with the understanding that their children would always be attending the schools located closest to their homes. The new school assignments will result in longer bus rides, inconvenience for parents who drive their children to school in the morning, or pick them up after regular school hours if they participate in extracurricular activities. The parents also noted that driving on Starkey Boulevard (Starkey) is the shortest route to the new schools. They described the route as unsafe and one that requires them to make a difficult left turn onto Starkey when leaving Longleaf. There are, however, other routes to the new school, and the district transportation coordinator established that student safety is a top priority. Several parents, including one who is a realtor, expressed a concern that the value of their homes would decline since buyers would not choose to purchase a home if their children could not attend the schools closest to their homes. However, the record gives no indication that any homes have been offered for sale, any homes have been sold at a distressed price, or any homeowners have not been able to sell their homes due to the proposed rezoning. Parents are concerned that River Ridge does not have the same clubs, extracurricular activities, or educational opportunities that are found in Mitchell and Seven Hills. The record shows, however, that both schools are ranked as "B" schools; they have the same core academic and educational programmatic offerings; they both have advanced offerings for students who excel; they both have magnet programs; and both are accredited by AdvancED/Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. There is no evidence that classes currently available at Mitchell and Seven Hills will not be available at River Ridge this fall, or even that such classes will remain available to the students at Seven Springs and Mitchell. In summary, there is no evidence that the students will not have the same educational opportunities at the River Ridge schools as they now receive at Mitchell and Seven Springs. Some students visit doctors and dentists who have offices near Mitchell and Seven Springs. Having to travel from River Ridge to those offices will be more time-consuming and inconvenient. This is not, however, a ground to invalidate a rule. It was contended that some parents provide a false address to the School Board in order to have their children enrolled in Mitchell and Seven Springs, rather than their assigned schools under the current school attendance plan. Petitioners assert that if all addresses are verified, those students can be removed, and the overcrowding at Mitchell and Seven Springs alleviated. However, no evidence to support this assertion was produced. Some parents complained that emails requesting answers to questions that were sent to the Superintendent or planning staff during the process were never answered. Although the Superintendent instructed staff to reply to all emails, if hundreds or thousands of emails were received by staff during the process, it is likely that some were not answered.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should be suspended from employment for twenty days without pay for misconduct and unprofessional conduct in violation of School District Policies 1.013 and 1.014, Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.001(3) and 6B-1.006(4)(b), (5)(a) and (5)(h), and School Board Bulletins #P-12542-CAO/COO-Count Day and Class Size Reduction Review, and #P-12519-CAO/COO-Florida Department of Education Student Enrollment Procedures.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Palm Beach County School Board (the Board or Petitioner), operates, controls, and supervises all public schools within the Palm Beach County School District (the District), as authorized by Subsection 1001.32(2), Florida Statutes (2008). The District School Superintendent, Dr. Arthur C. Johnson (Superintendent Johnson) is responsible for the administration, management, and supervision of instruction in the District, as provided in Subsection 1001.32(3), Florida Statutes (2008). Respondent, Dr. Gwendolyn Johnson (Dr. Johnson or Respondent) was the principal at Independence Middle School (Independence) during the 2007 to 2008 school year. In her thirty-five years with the District, Dr. Johnson was a principal for eight years, an assistant principal for eleven and a half years, a guidance counselor for approximately nine years, and, before that, an elementary and high school occupational specialist. At Independence, Respondent's assistant principals were Kathleen Carden, Martest Sheffield, and Scott Duhy. Although the projected enrollment was 1174, not the minimum number of 1201 required to justify having a third assistant principal, Dr. Johnson requested and, on May 15, 2007, received approval to keep the third assistant principal, Mr. Duhy, subject to reaching or exceeding the required enrollment by the time the count of students was taken on or about the eleventh day of school in the fall. The increase over the projection was possible because Independence was the 2007 receiving school for students whose parents transferred them from D- or F-rated schools under No Child Left Behind Act. For the 2007-2008 school year, Dr. Johnson assigned primary responsibility for maintaining a count of the student population to another one of the assistant principals, Dr. Carden. In addition to determining the number of assistant principals, the enrollment count is used by the District to determine other staffing, including the number of teachers, and guidance counselors assigned to each school. Attendance at Independence was reported by teachers each school day on bubbled attendance sheets. The sheets were scanned each day and the data stored in a computer program called the Total Education or Resource Management System (TERMS). The sheets were returned to the teachers who used them to record attendance for a two-week period before signing and submitting them, and receiving new computer-generated biweekly attendance scan sheets. On August 23, 2007, the District notified all principals, including Dr. Johnson, by memorandum (Bulletin # P- 12519-CAO/COO/FO/FTE), that any student who had never attended any period since the first day of school must have a withdrawn code entered into the TERMS program by August 27, 2007. Dr. Johnson e-mailed the Bulletin to her administrative staff and convened a meeting of that group to review it. Her secretary also e-mailed a reminder of the requirements to the staff on August 27, 2007. Teachers reported students who never attended school from the beginning of the year, the so-called "no-shows," by making handwritten notes or by drawing lines through the student's name on the attendance sheets, expecting those names to be removed from their rosters. Students who never showed up were not bubbled absent on the attendance sheets. A student aide in the student services office scanned the sheets, so the school's data processor, Angela Jones, did not see the teacher's notes and make changes in the computer. Once teachers kept getting biweekly attendance sheets with the names of no-shows and transfers on them, they started e-mailing or otherwise notifying Ms. Jones who began to keep a running list of no shows and transfers. Ms. Jones was not allowed to enter the withdrawal code in TERMS until authorized to do so by either Dr. Johnson or Dr. Carden, as shown by their e-mails. Rather than following the instructions in Bulletin # P-12519 to withdraw all no-shows by August 27, 2007, no-shows were treated like transfers and were not withdrawn until the student's new school requested their records. Dr. Johnson's claim that she was not aware that procedures outlined in the District's Bulletin of August 23, 2007, were not being followed by Ms. Jones and Dr. Carden, is not credible. She was present at the meetings in her office and her conference room, well after the August deadline, during which Ms. Jones continued to receive instructions to wait for approval to make withdrawals. On August 31, 2007, the District notified all principals, including Dr. Johnson, by memorandum (Bulletin # P- 12542-CAO/COO) that the District's enrollment count day was September 7, 2007, and that the count would be taken from TERMS. Dr. Johnson sent an e-mail to all teachers to count students, as directed in the Bulletin of August 23, by only including students who had been in attendance at least one period since school began on August 22, thereby excluding no-shows from the count. Prior to 2007, this would have been the enrollment number that the school faxed or e-mailed to the District. For the first time in 2007, the number used by the District was the number taken from TERMS summary enrollment screen that included no-shows at Independence. The District also relied on that data for its Full Time Equivalent (FTE) survey and report to the State Department of Education (DOE). The FTE count is used to determine per pupil funding by the State. The actual number of students at Independence on September 7, 2007, was 1188 but the number taken from the TERMS database and reported was 1214, a twenty-six student discrepancy that was later, after an audit, reduced to twenty-four. In October 2007, Dr. Johnson falsely verified the accuracy of the FTE survey that was, subsequent to the audit, determined to be an over-count of 23 students. Dr. Johnson testified that she verified the accuracy of the count relying on the work of Dr. Carden, Ms. Jones, Exceptional Student Education Coordinator Carol Lee, and ESOL Coordinator Ann Costillo. She denied attempting to fraudulently inflate the number to gain or maintain resources allocated by the District, but she knew there was a difference in the numbers based on a September report from Dr. Carden. She also knew that, if the teachers followed her instructions regarding how to count students, the "actual" number of 1214 from TERMS, written in by Dr. Carden, had to be incorrect. TERMS data also was uploaded to another program called Grade-Quick. When it was time to give grades at the end of nine weeks, Ms. Jones no longer had the ability to alter the rosters and teachers were required to give a grade to each student on their roster. David Shore was the Grade-Quick technical support person at Independence. At the suggestion of Dr. Johnson, he sought advice from the District's technical support person, Bruce Roland, who told him to have teachers give each no-show student a grade of "F" to avoid an error code. The uploaded grades for students who did not attend Independence, according to Mr. Roland, would be deleted from the District's mainframe. Fearing other consequences of giving "Fs," including the possibility of generating letters to parents whose children did not attend Independence, and doubting Mr. Shore's advice because he was relatively new in his position, some teachers refused to give "Fs" to no-shows. After discussions with Dr. Johnson, Mr. Shore instructed teachers to give a grade of "C" instead and to be sure also to give a conduct grade. One teacher apparently found a way to give a conduct grade, but no letter grade, to students who were not enrolled in her class and to somehow avoid a computer error code. Some time during the fall semester, anonymous complaints concerning the enrollment at Independence were made to the State Auditor General's Office, who referred the matter to an auditor in the District's office. In December 2007, the audit confirmed that the count at Independence was incorrect largely because no-shows and withdrawals were not withdrawn timely from the computer in TERMS before the District's initial count on August 27, 2007; before the District's eleven-day count on September 7, 2007; nor before Dr. Johnson twice verified the accuracy of the FTE count in October 2007. Dr. Johnson made no effort to make corrections, after she admittedly was aware of the errors in October, November, and December. Dr. Johnson blamed teachers who were unprofessional, racist, and disgruntled over her more strict adherence to the attendance rules for teacher planning and professional development days, and over proposed spending of A-plus money. She testified that they deliberately failed to bubble no-shows as absentees. That assertion contradicts the testimony of her witness that the proper procedure was followed by teachers who drew lines through the names of no-shows rather than bubbling them as absent. It also contradicts the instructions she gave in a memorandum to teachers, on October 5, 2007, telling them to write codes next to students' names on their rosters, NS for no- show, WD for withdrawn - If a student was present at least one day..., T for transfer, and A for add. Her memorandum instructs teachers to give the information to Ms. Jones on October 11, 2007. Ms. Jones said she did look at rosters for FTE reporting and she did make corrections. She too says her count was accurate at the time unless teachers withheld information. The teachers' rosters were maintained and, from a review of the class rosters, the auditor concluded that the error was made in not correcting TERMS to comply with teachers' reports. Dr. Johnson also blamed her supervisor, Marisol Ferrer, for sending a less experienced manager, Joe Patton, to attend a meeting, on October 11, 2007, with her of the Employee Building Council, a group that included some teachers who were antagonistic towards Dr. Johnson. It is true that only later did Mr. Patton recall that, after the meeting and after Dr. Johnson left, some of teachers told him there were problems with the student count at Independence. At the time, however, Mr. Patton did not tell Ms. Ferrer or Dr. Johnson about the comments. Dr. Johnson testified that, had she been told after that meeting on October 11th about the problems, she could have corrected the numbers before she submitted her verification of accuracy. She did know that Dr. Carden showed her two sets of numbers on September 7, 2007. Although she testified that she believed the fluctuations were normal because students come and go during the day for doctor's appointments or for other reasons, Dr. Johnson took no further steps to determine if that was in fact the cause of the discrepancy. After Dr. Johnson and Dr. Carden instructed Ms. Jones to begin making withdrawals after the October FTE report, some of the withdrawals were backdated showing the no-show students' withdrawal dates as the first day of school, August 22, 2007. The District submitted corrections to DOE before the deadline for incurring penalties, ultimately reducing the FTE count at Independence by 23 students.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida, enter a final order suspending Respondent for twenty days without pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of April, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick W. Ford, Esquire 2801 PGA Boulevard, Suite 110 Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 Sonia Elizabeth Hill-Howard, Esquire Palm Beach County School District 3318 Forest Hill Boulevard, C-302 Post Office Box 19239 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-9239 Dr. Arthur C. Johnson, Superintendent Palm Beach County School District 3318 Forest Hill Boulevard, C-302 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-9239 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, Monroe County School Board, has “just cause” to terminate the employment of Respondent, Maryeugene E. Dupper, as a teacher for Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, Monroe County School Board (hereinafter referred to as the “School Board”), is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Monroe County, Florida. Article IX, Florida Constitution; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Specifically, the School Board has the authority to discipline employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Respondent, Maryeugene E. Dupper, has been a classroom teacher with the School Board since August 2000. She began her employment as a substitute teacher and was subsequently employed as a full-time teacher at Poinciana Elementary School (hereinafter referred to as “Poinciana”), where she worked with profoundly handicapped students. She remained at Poinciana through November 2006. Throughout her employment at Poinciana, Ms. Dupper received good performance evaluations, although they did decline over time. On November 17, 2006, Ms. Dupper transferred to Gerald Adams Elementary School (hereinafter referred to as “Gerald Adams”), where she taught a Pre-K Exceptional Student Education or ESE class for the first time. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Ms. Dupper was employed as a teacher pursuant to a professional services contract. 2006-2007 School Year. From the beginning of her employment at Gerald Adams, Ms. Dupper evidenced difficulty implementing the curriculum in a meaningful way. In particular, Ann Herrin, Principal at Gerald Adams, whose testimony has been credited, found that Ms. Dupper was having a difficult time establishing the scope and sequence of lessons and effective classroom management techniques. Among the deficiencies Ms. Herrin found with Ms. Dupper’s performance was the lack of progress notes for her students. Ms. Dupper failed to keep any notes indicating that she had performed any formal evaluation of her students. When Ms. Herrin asked Ms. Dupper how she could tell whether her curriculum was successfully reaching each student, Ms. Dupper simply replied that “I am a teacher and I just know.” After conducting two formal observations and a number of informal observations of Ms. Dupper, Ms. Herrin, in her 2006- 2007 annual teacher evaluation concluded that Ms. Dupper “Needs Improvement” in Management of Student Conduct, Instruction Organization and Development, Knowledge of Subject Matter, and Evaluation of Instructional Needs. Ms. Herring used a Teacher Annual Assessment Plan Comprehensive Assessment Form for this evaluation. Overall, Ms. Herrin rated Ms. Dupper as “Needs Improvement” noting that “Curriculum content is lacking – making the learning environment unacceptable and unmanageable.” Subsequent to Ms. Herrin’s evaluation of Ms. Dupper, Ms. Herrin issued a Professional Development Plan for Ms. Dupper dated May 30, 2007. Ms. Dupper, who had been provided assistance throughout the school year by Gerald Adams administrative staff, was offered guidance in the Professional Development Plan intended to improve her performance as a teacher. That guidance is accurately described in paragraph 9 of the School Board’s Proposed Recommended Order. At the beginning of the 2007-2008 school year, the School Board instituted a new curriculum for use by Pre-K teachers. That curriculum, the Galileo Curriculum (hereinafter referred to as “Galileo”), is a computer-based program which includes lessons plans and benchmarks and goals for teachers to use in assessing student performance. Although Galileo includes a means for teachers to keep track of student progress, Galileo is not a student evaluation instrument intended for use in “testing” student progress. 2007-2008 School Year. During the 2007-2008 school year, Ms. Dupper was observed on October 11, November 8, and December 18, 2007, and on March 20 and 26, and May 6 and 22, 2008. Despite efforts to provide Ms. Dupper with professional assistance and making several changes in the teacher’s aide assigned to assist her, Ms. Dupper’s performance remained inadequate. Ms. Dupper was provided with assistance by teachers at Gerald Adams, including a “mentor," and by the head of the Exceptional Student Education department and an Exceptional Student Education Program Specialist. Ms. Dupper was observed on one occasion by Ms. Herrin when every student in Ms. Dupper’s “learning center” left the area while she continued to “teach.” One student stood on a table dancing, uncorrected by Ms. Dupper. On two occasions, a student left Ms. Dupper’s classroom altogether and were taken back to Ms. Dupper’s classroom before she realized they were gone. On nine different occasions during the 2007-2008 school year, Ms. Herrin requested a discipline plan from Ms. Dupper. No plan was ever provided. Ms. Dupper’s use of Galileo was minimal during the 2007-2008 school year. The system contained a checklist, by domain or skill, which was intended for use by a teacher in determining whether each student was learning the listed skills. Ms. Dupper rarely used the system, however, only logging into the Galileo system 19 times. Nine of those times were on the same day and four were on another day. Other Pre-K teachers utilized Galileo an average of 100 times more than Ms. Dupper. Ms. Herrin’s 2007-2008 annual evaluation of Ms. Dupper, dated April 4, 2008, found that her performance had declined and was “Unsatisfactory.” Ms. Herrin found Ms. Dupper “Unsatisfactory” in Management of Student conduct, Instruction, Organization and Development, Knowledge of Subject Matter, and Evaluation of Instructional Needs. Ms. Dupper’s performance in Professional Responsibilities also declined due to her failure to complete Individual Education Plans on time, incomplete and inaccurate progress notes, and her failure to follow suggestions for improvement. The 90-Day Probation Period. As a result of her continuing decline in performance, Ms. Dupper was informed on April 9, 2008, that she was being placed on a 90-day probation period pursuant to Section 1012.34, Florida Statutes. She was informed that her deficiencies included the inability to manage student conduct, lack of lesson planning, inadequate knowledge of subject matter, lack of student progress evaluation, and inadequate professional responsibility. Ms. Dupper was given suggestions for how to improve her deficiencies over the summer break, suggestions which Ms. Dupper did not follow. While on probation, Ms. Dupper was also offered an opportunity to transfer to another school, an offer which was not accepted. On June 6, 2008, at the request of Ms. Dupper’s union representative, a second annual evaluation was performed by Ms. Herrin. While Ms. Herrin found some improvement, she found that, overall, Ms. Dupper’s performance was “Unsatisfactory.” Ms. Dupper was on probation during the 2007-2008 school year a total of 62 days, excluding holidays and “professional days.” During the summer months between the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 school years, Ms. Dupper, who was not teaching, failed to follow any of Ms. Herrin’s suggestions for personal improvement opportunities. The first day of school for the 2008-2009 school year and the commencement of the 90-day probation period was August 11, 2008. Ms. Herring formally observed Ms. Dupper during the third week of September 2008, and on October 2, 2008. Assistant Principal Willis observed Ms. Dupper on October 8, 2008. Ms. Dupper’s performance and use of Galileo continued to be unsatisfactory, despite continuing efforts of the administration staff to assist her, as more particularly and accurately described in paragraphs 30 through and including 35 of Petitioner’s Proposed Recommended Order. Additionally, Ms. Dupper continued to fail to prevent her very young students from leaving the classroom without her knowledge. Excluding non-school days, Ms. Dupper was given more than 120 days from the commencement of her probation period until her probation period was considered ended in October 2008. By the middle of October 2008, Ms. Herrin concluded that Ms. Dupper had not evidenced satisfactory improvement in her teaching skills. Ms. Herrin’s conclusions concerning Ms. Dupper’s unsatisfactory performance as a teacher, which were not contradicted, are credited. The Decision to Terminate Ms. Dupper’s Employment By letter dated October 30, 2008, Ms. Herrin recommended to Randy Acevedo, Superintendent of the Monroe County School District, that Mr. Acevedo review documentation concerning Ms. Dupper’s 90-day probation period and make a recommendation pursuant to Section 1012.33, Florida Statutes, concerning her continued employment. Ms. Herrin provided Mr. Acevedo with the following information for his review: Attached please find a copy of the professional development plan and this year’s observations conducted by Assistant Principal, Grace Willis and me. The remaining documentation for the 2007 and 2008 school years have been submitted to personnel. I have also attached the follow up documentation, the review of the 90-Day plan and the observations that outline the deficiencies that still remain. This teacher’s performance remains unsatisfactory. Petitioner’s Exhibit 7. Missing from the information provided for Mr. Acevedo’s consideration was any information concerning student performance assessed annually by state or local assessment. By letter dated November 14, 2008, Mr. Acevedo informed Ms. Dupper that he was going to recommend to the School Board at its December 16, 2008, meeting that her employment as a teacher be terminated. By letter dated November 18, 2008, Ms. Dupper requested an administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, to challenge her anticipated termination of employment. The School Board accepted the Superintendent’s recommendation at its December 16, 2008, meeting, suspending Ms. Dupper without pay, pending a final determination of whether her employment should be terminated. Student Performance Assessment. The Florida legislature has specified in Section 1008.22, Florida Statutes, a “Student assessment program for public schools.” This assessment program is to be considered in evaluating student performance as part of a teacher’s evaluation. The assessment program, however, does not apply to Pre-K students. “FLICKRS” is a state assessment tool intended for use in evaluating Kindergarten students. FLICKRS allows schools to evaluate whether a Kindergarten student is actually ready for Kindergarten-level work. FLICKRS is not utilized by the School Board to evaluate the progress of Pre-K students. The School Board has not developed any means of annually assessing the performance of Pre-K students. As a consequence, the decision to terminate Ms. Dupper’s employment by the School Board was not based upon any annual assessment of her students’ performance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order: (a) dismissing the charges of the Administrative Complaint; (b) providing that Ms. Dupper be immediately reinstated to the position from which she was terminated; and (c) awarding Ms. Dupper back salary, plus benefits, to the extent benefits accrued during her suspension, together with interest thereon at the statutory rate. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of July, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 22nd day of July, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Scott Clinton Black, Esquire Vernis and Bowling of the Florida Keys, P.A. 81990 Overseas Highway, Third Floor Islamorada, Florida 33036 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761 Randy Acevedo, Superintendent Monroe County School Board 241 Trumbo Road Key West, Florida 33040-6684 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
