Findings Of Fact Respondent in this proceeding is Lloyd Wright. At all times pertinent to these proceedings, he was a social studies teacher employed by the St. Lucie County School District on a professional contract status and assigned to Westwood High School. He holds Florida Teaching Certificate No. 395537. On February 17, 1987, Respondent was suspended from his duties as a teacher for the school district. After an administrative hearing on issues relative to his employment, final order dismissing Respondent from his employment was issued by the school district on September 8, 1987. James Andrews is the principal of Westwood High School. Andrews has known Respondent as a friend, and as a member of the teaching staff at the school, for many years. On February 4, 1987, Andrews was at home with his ill son. His secretary telephoned him regarding allegations being voiced against Respondent by a female student. That student's allegations, and statements of other students alleged to be witnesses, were reduced to writing at Andrews' instruction and reviewed by him upon his return to the office on February 5, 1987. That evening he met with the complaining student, Tenecia Poitier, and her father. He assured them that the matter would be taken up with his superiors. On the morning of February 11, 1987, Andrews brought the allegations to the attention of the school district's Director of Secondary Education during a visit by the director to the Westwood Campus. That afternoon, the director telephoned Andrews and requested that additional statements be obtained from the students. Pursuant to those instructions, Andrews met with the students who had given the previous statements and instructed them to provide the additional statements to him. He forwarded these statements to the district school board office. Andrews has been the principal at Westwood High School for seven and a half years. He holds a master's degree in guidance and counseling and has completed course work in the areas of administration and supervision in excess of 30 academic credit hours. He has served in the educational system for approximately 35 years. Service in the positions of classroom teacher, guidance counselor, assistant principal and principal are included in the scope of his experience. Andrews regularly instructed the staff at the school to refrain from using slang in the classroom, becoming familiar with students or putting their hands on students unless necessary to prevent injury to a student or others. This admonishment by the principal was applicable to all students without regard to race or sex. He does not think it appropriate for a teacher to use the word "fuck" or the phrase "I am going to fuck your brains out" in the classroom. Andrews also finds the use of the phrases "Girl, I want that thing" and "Girl, I'm going to take you to the bushes" inappropriate for a male teacher to use in conversation with a female student. He would not want a male teacher who touched female students intentionally on the buttocks or thighs, or used such words or phrases in the classroom, on his teaching staff. Tenecia Poitier graduated from Westwood High School in 1988. In the 1986-87 school year, she was a student in Respondent's World History class. On one occasion, Respondent pushed Poitier against the wall of the classroom with other students present and told her "One of these days, I'm going to fuck your brains out." Once, when she was going to the school cafeteria, Respondent told her "Girl, I want that thing." Respondent touched Poitier on the leg and buttocks on other occasions and made suggestive statements to her. In response, Poitier rejected Respondent's advances by cursing him and, on one occasion, striking him. Another incident occurred when Respondent seated himself in front of Poitier's desk and propped his feet on her desk in a crossed fashion. The result of Respondent adopting this seating posture meant that Poitier had to look between Respondent's legs when she looked up from her desk work. Poitier got out of her desk, struck Respondent with her notebook, cursed him and told him to get his legs off her desk. Poitier did not observe Respondent engage in this seating conduct with other students. JoAnna McGee was a ninth grade student when she had Respondent as her teacher for World History. Respondent saw McGee walking down the street one day. He sounded his automobile horn at her. Later, when he saw her in the classroom, he told her that if he saw her walking on the street again he would take her "in the bushes." Respondent hugged McGee and other female students on occasion. Tony Lee was a student in Respondent's World History class, along with Poitier. Lee was aware of Respondent's joking and bantering with students. Female students would congregate around Respondent's desk when these sessions occurred. On one of these occasions, female students laughingly said they needed some candy to suck, and Lee heard Respondent reply "I've got something to suck on right here." Lee also heard Respondent make the statement "fuck your brains out" during an exchange with students. Lee overheard Respondent using the phrase "pull your clothes down" in a conversation with Poitier. Lisa Frazier was also a classmate of Poitier during the World History class taught by Respondent. She observed Poitier curse Respondent and strike him with her notebook. Frazier also testified that Poitier had a reputation for disruptive behavior and that Respondent used slang language with students. Respondent admitted using slang expressions, including the phrases "take you to the bushes" and "take you to the woods," in classroom settings with female students. Respondent admitted to a practice of hugging male and female students. Respondent also testified that he never told Poitier that he wanted to "F--- her brains out." When confronted with his sworn testimony from a previous proceeding that he did not recall making the statement, Respondent explained that his previous answer was made upon advice of his counsel at that time. Respondent's denial in this proceeding that he never made such a statement to Poitier, along with his testimony that hugging of students was an unintentional result of previous coaching experience, is not credited in view of his demeanor while testifying. Further, his testimony that his use of the phrases "take you to the bushes" or "take you to the woods" resulted from a film observed in the class and were meaningless slang terms devoid of sexual innuendo, is not credible. Also, the testimony of students Lee and McGee corroborates Poitier's version of Respondent's behavior and further discredits Respondent's testimony, including his explanation that Poitier's complaint against him resulted from Respondent writing up Poitier for academic and disciplinary reasons. Other students were also written up as often as Poitier.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered revoking Respondent's teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of November, 1988. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's proposed Findings 1.-2. Addressed. Unnecessary to result reached. 4.-12. Addressed. 13. Unnecessary to result. 14.-15. Adopted in substance. 16. Unnecessary to result reached. 17.-21. Addressed. 22.-24. Unnecessary to result reached. Addressed in part, remainder unnecessary to result. Unnecessary to result reached. 27.-28. Addressed. 29.-30. Adopted in substance. 31. Unnecessary to result reached. 32.-33. Addressed. 34.-35. Unnecessary to result reached. Addressed. Rejected as a conclusion of law. Respondent's Proposed Findings 1.-2. Addressed. 3.-6. Unnecessary to result reached. 7.-8. Cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary to result. 9.-13. Unnecessary to result reached. 14. Addressed. 15.-17. Unnecessary to result reached. Rejected as cumulative. Rejected, contrary to weight of the evidence. Rejected as a conclusion of law. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. Unnecessary to result reached. Addressed in substance. 24.-25. Unnecessary to result reached. 26.-27. Addressed in substance. 28. Unnecessary to result. 29.-30. Addressed. COPIES FURNISHED: Betty J. Steffens, Esquire Post Office Box 11008 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Lorene C. Powell, Esquire 208 West Pensacola St. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sydney H. McKenzie, Esquire. General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Hon. Betty Castor Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent held active Teaching Certificate 485203 with certification in Political Science and History. She is a hard worker, who, when orphaned, put herself through school, achieving a Master's Degree in Social Justice from Lewis University. Respondent was employed by Petitioner School Board as a social studies teacher at Miami Central Senior High School for the 1981-82, 1982-83, and 1983- 84 school years. During Respondent's first year with the Dade County school system, 1981-82, she was formally observed by her principal, Mr. Hal Guinyard, and other administrators. Respondent had problems with discipline of tardy students, absenteeism, classroom management and noise level control in the classroom and with devising and carrying through variations of instruction. On Respondent's annual evaluation for 1981-82, Respondent was recommended for employment but was found lacking in the area of classroom management. The specific observations leading up to this evaluation were that: Several students entered and left the room at will, other students remained in the halls during class time, some students in the classroom disturbed others in Respondent's class and even nearby classes with irrelevant and extraneous discussions and excess noise. There was excess noise from the late arrivals and those in the halls, too. The Respondent rolled on copy work from the chalkboard or text book with minimal student conversational feedback. Mr. Guinyard suggested to Respondent that she minimize busy work, create an orderly classroom environment, and explore alternative instructional techniques. On October 26, 1982, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Assistant Principal William Matlack, using the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS) of objective analysis. Mr. Matlack rated Respondent as unsatisfactory in the area of techniques of instruction. Excessive time was used by Respondent in preparing her students to take a test. Mr. Matlack prescribed help for Respondent in the area of techniques of instruction by assigning Respondent to observe three effective teachers and list four teacher activities, three student activities, and to analyze the time spent in organizing the class and in instructional activities. He also suggested that she read the TADS chapter on acceptable classroom procedures and teaching techniques and attached 33 pages of reading material to her evaluation, giving suggestions for classroom management, effective planning, techniques of instruction, and techniques of student-teacher relationships. He further advised Respondent of an in-service course in techniques of instruction. While Mr. Matlack did not rate Respondent as unacceptable in classroom management, he found that she still did not control her class for all the reasons previously noted by Mr. Guinyard. Rather than rate her as unacceptable in this area, he directed a memorandum dated October 29, 1982, to Respondent's attention indicating problem areas that could lead to further discipline problems if uncorrected. One of the problems was that Respondent was selling doughnuts for the athletic department between classes, and Mr. Matlack made her aware of the fact that students would be tempted to eat in other teachers' classes and that this was against the school rules. Respondent also was admonished concerning the security danger existing in her leaving money and keys lying about. On February 28, 1983, Respondent was again formally observed in the classroom by Mr. Matlack using the TADS and was found to be deficient in the areas of knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction, assessment techniques, and teacher-student relationships. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of the subject matter because the topics were not covered thoroughly and there was too much digression. There were 11 topics discussed and few were related to each other. Some of the areas were irrelevant, e.g., the importance of obtaining a good lawyer if one is going to win a lawsuit, how to obtain a house in Chicago, and the five black Presidents in the United States. Only 6 minutes were spent on how a bill becomes a law. Only 25 minutes were spent on the prescribed curriculum topics of cabinet duties, income tax, social security, Veterans' Administration, Federal Housing Authority, Health and Rehabilitative Services, and the Equal Rights Amendment, and the irrelevant topics already mentioned. Techniques of instruction was rated unacceptable because Respondent presented the material in a lecture form. The assignment on the board was very similar in technique (copy work for listing and defining terms, outlining a chapter) to what was used during the October 1982 observation; content was, however, different. The students were not ready for the assignment. There appeared to be no scope and sequence to the lesson. The lesson was very disjointed. The students were not involved when questions were asked, and their response was minimal. No effort was made to identify those students not participating or off task nor to involve all of them in the lesson. One or two students carried the class. Respondent did not appear to be effectively using the suggestions made by Mr. Matlack during his prior observation. Mr. Matlack explained to Respondent the need to create inspiration, create interesting presentations, move around the classroom utilizing various techniques and media, direct questions for the purpose of involving students, and for motivational use of questions geared toward individual abilities of respective students. He recommended Respondent re-read the TADS booklet that he had prescribed before. Respondent was rated "improved" in keeping grades for a variety of types of assignments in her grade book, but she still was not making informal assessments of her students' learning. Respondent was rated unacceptable in teacher-student relationships because she was not involving the students in instruction. The students appeared to do as they pleased. The classroom still did not present a neat and orderly atmosphere. The students seemed surprised at Respondent's attempt to enforce rules and regulations. This indicated to Mr. Matlack that the control was for his benefit, being implemented only for the instant period of observation. At the conclusion of the 1982-83 school year, Mr. Guinyard recommended Respondent for continued employment, but rated her overall unacceptable. He found her unacceptable for the year in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. She would continue on prescription (prescribed remediation efforts). Mr. Guinyard testified that he gave Respondent an extra year on prescription and brought in more help so that she might yet improve. During the 1982-83 school year, Mr. Guinyard recommended that Respondent observe other teachers and that she contact Mr. Hanson for help, which she did. Mr. Hanson is the Social Studies Supervisor for Dade County Schools. Mrs. Felicia Accornero (hereinafter Mrs. Mendez), is Assistant Principal for Curriculum (APC). She is not a trained social studies teacher but is certified to teach biology, chemistry, and gifted children. She is certified to work as an administrator, supervisor, or guidance counselor. Additionally, Mrs. Mendez discussed social studies concepts with other social studies teachers in an effort to be of more assistance to Respondent. On October 18, 1983, Respondent was officially observed in the classroom by Mrs. Mendez. Using the TADS analysis system, Mrs. Mendez rated Respondent deficient in the areas of knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. Mrs. Mendez rated Respondent unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because there were substantial errors in her presentation: incorrect spellings, incorrectly defined terminology, and unnecessary use of lay terms rather than formal terms. Mrs. Mendez' perception was that neither the students nor she, personally, understood the lesson as represented by Respondent. Mrs. Mendez recommended that Respondent work with her. Mrs. Mendez also prescribed particular pages from the TADS prescription manual, which included a detailed subject matter inventory. This was a checklist so that Respondent could understand the different areas where she could become knowledgeable so that her subject matter would be more accurate and more relevant to the students. Mrs. Mendez discussed subject matter with Respondent and discussed one lesson a week with Respondent prior to its presentation. At this time, Mrs. Mendez also rated Respondent unacceptable in classroom management because there were too many delays in the class due to the same deficiencies observed previously by Messrs. Guinyard and Matlack, specifically repetitive tardies, disruption by tardies noisy off-task irrelevant extraneous discussions among students during teaching, 50% of the time spent in opening and closing class and other non-instructional activities, lack of discipline, disorganized classroom and disorganized lesson presentation by Respondent. The lesson plan which was in Respondent's 1982-83 lesson plan book for October 18, 1983, was not the one which Mrs. Mendez observed in the classroom. She was give a separate lesson plan. Mrs. Mendez prescribed a TADS chapter on structuring classroom time so that the teacher moves from one activity to another without delay. Mrs. Mendez suggested that Respondent work with both her and the department chairman, Mrs. Consuelo Pino, to improve Respondent's classroom management. Mrs. Mendez rated Respondent unacceptable in techniques of instruction because Respondent was not following a sequence, was not clarifying directions and explanations when necessary, did not give students background information that was necessary for them to understand the topic, and did not perceive when her students did not understand the lesson. Mrs. Mendez prescribed reading a section from the TADS chapter on sequencing lessons and also prescribed help from herself and Mrs. Pino. Mrs. Mendez worked with Respondent to help her place her lesson plans in an understandable sequence. At least weekly for the next ten weeks, Mrs. Mendez helped Respondent. Mrs. Mendez provided Respondent with a book on questioning techniques, helped Respondent organize her room, showed her how to position her desk so that she would have a better view of the students, explained how a seating chart would help her keep accurate attendance quickly, explained how to utilize student folders so that materials would be easily accessible and so that the classroom and instructional techniques and procedures would accordingly be better organized. The prescription deadline was extended to accommodate Respondent. On November 8, 1983, a conference for the record was held with Mr. Mathew V. Lawrence, Mrs. Mendez, and a field representative of United Teachers of Dade. Mr. Lawrence had been Assistant Principal the first two years Respondent taught at Miami Central Senior High and became Principal there for the 1983-84 school year. The purpose of the conference was to discuss the October 18, 1983 observation and the continuing deficiencies. The prescriptions were discussed. The ramifications of continued deficiency were discussed. Respondent's responsibility for basic skills such as reading and spelling was discussed. Respondent was reminded that she was responsible not only for her subject matter, (history, social studies, political science) but for students' basic skills (reading, writing, spelling, grammar). 24.. On November 12, 1983, Mrs. Mendez again formally observed Respondent in the classroom using the TADS analysis technique. Respondent was aware that she would be observed that day. Respondent showed some improvement over the prior observation in that she presented some accurate information for most of the period; however, Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, and techniques of instruction. Mrs. Mendez rated Respondent unacceptable in preparation and planning because her objective was too simple and she did not list activities and assessment techniques, as required. Thereafter, Mrs. Mendez worked with Respondent on writing lesson plans and helped her write lesson plans. Mrs. Mendez found Respondent unsatisfactory in knowledge of the subject matter because Respondent made inaccurate statements, used incorrect grammar, and gave opinions rather than presenting both sides of an issue to students. Mrs. Pino made the same observation. During some parts of the lesson, it appeared that Respondent did not know what she was talking about. While the students appeared to understand most of the lesson, at times they did not. Mrs. Mendez also concluded that Respondent was not adhering to a structured plan but for this formal observation for the last formal observation Respondent had prepared lesson plans for observation days separate and apart from her normal procedure/plan for non-observation days. To improve Respondent's knowledge of subject matter, Mrs. Mendez recommended that Respondent review and study the textbook chapters prior to teaching the lesson because it did not appear that Respondent was doing this. Mrs. Mendez also gave Respondent the opportunity to prepare lessons and to explain them to Mrs. Mendez ahead of the time Respondent would present the material to the class so that Mrs. Mendez could monitor whether or not the information would be clearly presented to the class. Mrs. Mendez rated Respondent unacceptable in techniques of instruction upon much the same grounds as she used to substantiate the unacceptable rating for the categories of preparation and planning and knowledge of the subject matter, all essentially relating back to inadequacy of Respondent's lesson plans, or that the lesson plans were created solely for observation or to satisfy a prescription and were not for actual use. Petitioner's Exhibit 12 does not reflect a specific written prescription in this category, but Mrs. Mendez' oral testimony indicated further emphasis and helpful work on lesson plans was initiated. Respondent was next formally observed by Mr. Matlack on January 19, 1984. Respondent showed improvement this time but Mr. Matlack noted that Respondent needed to record her students' grades in her grade book more promptly as she received them. He also rated her unacceptable in classroom management primarily because of continued disruptions from tardy arrivals. Mr. Matlack directed Respondent to establish rules and regulations for students about coming into the class on time, bringing the needed materials, staying until the period ends, and prohibiting visitors into the classroom. He gave her specific suggestions on how to make these improvements and provided her with a memorandum outlining the deficiencies and prescribed help. Respondent's lesson plan for January 19, 1984, in Respondent's 1983-84 lesson plan book was only partially covered in the period observed that day by Mr. Matlack. On February 8, 1984, Mr. Lawrence rated Respondent unacceptable in classroom management on her midyear annual evaluation for 1983-84. On February 10, 1984, Mr. Lawrence held a second conference for the record with Respondent to discuss her performance assessments to date and his recommendation that she not receive a fourth year of annual contract. He also advised her that if she cleared her deficiencies, he would rescind his recommendation and would recommend a continuing contract. Respondent agreed to a fourth year annual contract. On March 13, 1984, Mr. Lawrence made his first official classroom observation of Respondent according to the TADS and found her to be very deficient. He felt that no teaching and learning were taking place. He observed her to be deficient in the areas of knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. Mrs. Lawrence found Respondent unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because the definitions she gave for vocabulary words were not accurate and not appropriate. The students did not seem to understand the class work. Respondent was not gearing the lesson for all of her students. The lesson plan in Respondent's 1983-84 plan book for March 13, 1984, was not the plan Mr. Lawrence observed being implemented that date. Mr. lawrence prescribed for Respondent to prepare lesson plans for five days that detailed the sequencing of concepts and how each concept would be explained and implemented. Respondent was to include a minimum of five ideas and concepts and give the cognitive levels covered in each area. Mrs. Mendez and Mrs. Pino were recommended as resources. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because students were coming to the room late and being admitted without any evidence they had been detained elsewhere and without reprimand or punishment by Respondent. There was no evidence the students had any knowledge of the correct procedure. Step by step instructions for correcting her classroom management in this area were given to Respondent by Mr. Lawrence. Mr. Tom Shaw later helped her in this area. Mr. Lawrence rated Respondent unacceptable in techniques of instruction because the only two methods she used during the class period were writing definitions for 10 minutes and answering questions from the end of the chapter in the textbook for 45 minutes. The questions at the end of the chapter were unrelated to the vocabulary work. Respondent gave no introduction to the material. There was no evidence of the students understanding the materials, and no opening or closure to the lesson. In order to aid Respondent to improve her techniques of instruction, Mr. Lawrence recommended that Respondent develop a list of at least 10 teaching techniques or suitable teaching methods. He directed her to utilize a minimum of two methods permitting students to actively participate. He directed her to prepare lesson plans for a week that demonstrated these methods and how the students would be involved. He suggested that Mrs. Mendez and Mrs. Pino be used as resources. Respondent was rated unacceptable in assessment techniques based on four student folders selected at random, each of which contained only five test cares and one or two additional sheets of work. The work in the student folders was not representative of what should have been there so late in the school year and therefore students' work was not accurately documented and could not be properly assessed for grading the child. The help that Mr. Lawrence prescribed for Respondent was to prepare two written assessment items per week for three weeks. Each test was to contain a variety of at least three types of questions. He wanted other corrected items such as homework and class work to be contemporaneously placed in student folders. He assigned Mrs. Mendez and Mrs. Pino to help Respondent. Pursuant to Mr. Lawrence's March 13, 1984 prescription, Mrs. Mendez explained to Respondent in a memorandum what was required in the student folders. Subsequently, when Mrs. Mendez reviewed the student folders, she found a student paper consisting of one incomplete sentence fragment graded "A". The student's grammar was not graded (p 14). This one example was clearly contrary to the criteria established by Mrs. Mendez and contrary to the criteria established by Mrs. Mendez and contrary to the instructions for the assignment outlined by Respondent but it still had been graded "excellent." At hearing, Respondent denied that she gave the paper an "A" and asserted that she would require from this particular student two examples the next day. On April 24, 1984, Respondent was formally observed simultaneously by two administrators (Mrs. Mendez and Paul Hanson) and was found by both administrators to be unsatisfactory in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. Respondent had lesson plans and objectives based on the county curriculum, but was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because her plans were not effectively implemented. She did not fill the allocated class time although only about 10% of the planned material was covered. One of the nine listed topics was "Communism." Section 233.064, Florida Statutes, spells out the content and mandates 30 hours for curriculum in "Americanism vs. Communism." On eleven different occasions, Mr. Hanson noted students were totally off task, disruptive and loud, and discussing topics that were not relevant to the lesson on Communism. The students were talking in little groups and in Mr. Hanson's opinion nothing academic was learned by the students during the period and consequently the students might thereby fall short of the statutorily required 30 hours. As a means to help Respondent, Mrs. Mendez suggested that Respondent prepare lesson plans for one week and check with the Assistant Principal who would observe the class to see if the plans were implemented. She recommended that Respondent seek help from both herself and Mrs. Pino. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because the information that she provided concerning Communism was not accurate. There were a number of errors made by Respondent during the course of the lesson. Mr. Hanson prescribed help for Respondent by working with Dan Jones, Social Studies Specialist, during the week of May 11, 1984. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because of the numerous disruptions, extraneous conversations, and constant movement. Student tardiness was noted yet again. Respondent appeared frustrated but was not able to effectively control the situation and did not take any steps to correct or penalize the tardy students. As a means of helping Respondent, Mrs. Mendez suggested that Respondent work with Mr. Shaw who is the assistant principal that generally monitors attendance and discipline problems. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she did not deliver the instructional program acceptably in many areas. Also, upon the same grounds, Mr. Hanson prescribed help from Mr. Jones on this element. By memorandum dated May 7, 1984, Mr. Lawrence changed his recommendation for extended annual contract to dismissal because Respondent had failed to remediate her deficiencies and she was now more deficient than when he had observed her in March. Pursuant to Mr. Hanson's prescription of April 24, 1984, Mr. Jones worked with Respondent on May 17, 1984. He brought her material to use and discussed a number of areas: lesson planning and format, techniques, the Dade County balanced curriculum objectives, the possibility of his visiting one of her classes to provide feedback to her about her techniques of instruction, a possible policy of limiting hall passes, a technique for engaging students in group activities, and the need for having at least two activities per class. He brought three books for her to use, Ideals and Ideologies, The Russians, and Practical Methods for the Social Studies. He assisted with her lesson planning for the week of May 21-25, 1984. On May 24, 1984, Mr. Lawrence completed the annual evaluation of Respondent, rating her as deficient in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. This constituted three more unacceptable areas than on her midyear evaluation. Mr. Jones returned to help Respondent on June 4, 1984. Based upon his visitation, he wrote several suggestions for Respondent. Subsequently, when Mr. Jones observed the class, Respondent was attempting to implement some of the recommendations he had made but the presentation was not well structured or organized. Approximately fifty percent of the class period was lost in digressions and expounding of Respondent's personal opinions. Mr. Jones testified that it is appropriate for teachers to get students to express their opinions; however, those opinions should be based on knowledge of the course concepts and should come from the students, rather than from the teacher so as to encourage students to think independently, to make rational decisions, and to not merely absorb their teacher's opinion. In time of confusion, Respondent unduly delayed clarification of instructions. Mr. Jones opined that if he had been a student, he would have had to have asked questions also and in his opinion, the students were being deprived of a minimum acceptable level of instruction. On June 7, 1984, Respondent was again formally observed by two administrators (Mr. Hanson and Mr. Shaw) using the TADS analysis system. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships, and assessment techniques. Respondent's performance had declined since Mr. Hanson's prior observation. She now was rated as having one acceptable category out of six. Mr. Hanson noted that the "students would have been better off to review without teacher's assistance." Respondent gave incorrect information and was very vague. She made several content errors and confused government forms with economic systems, using the terms synonymously. Mr. Hanson, under the impression that Respondent was still being recommended for a fourth year annual contract, recommended that she take course work over the summer in classroom management and subject matter. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because again there were at least nine interruptions of the same kinds as previously observed. However, where previously the Respondent had ignored inappropriate behavior, this time she indulged in a disruptive outburst reprimanding one student very loudly. There was a student in the room who had been withdrawn from school two weeks prior and recently readmitted. In returning this student to the office for a status check, Mr. Shaw missed several minutes of Respondent's class and his observation is somewhat impaired by this absence. It is to Respondent's credit that even during this period of suspension, this particular student sneaked into school to attend her class. At no time were more than half of the students observed to be on task. Mr. Shaw recommended that the Respondent work with Mr. Hanson to improve her classroom management. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because there were only passive activities being pursued and there was little feedback from the students. Respondent's technique was ineffective in encouraging class discussion. There was inadequate use of media. Because the lesson was not in proper sequence, it created academic confusion. Again, Mr. Shaw recommended that Respondent seek help from Mr. Hanson. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in teacher-student relationships because of the general lack of respect on the part of the students and because of Respondent's erratic reaction to the student's behavior. The observers prescribed the same help. Respondent was rated unacceptable in assessment techniques because there was no means of assessing whether or not the students were understanding the review process that was taking place. The observers prescribed the same help. In 1983 Respondent was referred to a nine-credit social studies course taught by Mr. Hanson at Nova University as part of the administration's attempts to help her master the subject matter of her course. She cooperated by taking the course but failed it. Complaints of misgraded, missing, and plagiarized papers arose among students in Respondent's classes. Administrators concluded that Respondent lacked an appropriate procedure for receiving, organizing, and monitoring papers for grading purposes. Students and parents complained that no effective teaching was going on and that the disorganization in the classroom even prevented individualized learning. On another occasion, Respondent was informally observed by administrators giving wrong information to students as to the number of municipalities in Dade County. Administrators also observed that her grammar, verb tenses and word choice were not a good example to her students. The undersigned observed this pattern at hearing. At the hearing, Respondent testified to an incorrect number of Florida counties. During her testimony, Respondent used the non-word, "malicy" instead of "malice." She used the word "connotatins" several times in contexts which more properly would have required either the word "confrontations" or "altercations." In no respect was "connotations" an appropriate word selection and Respondent defined the word "connotations" as meaning "disagreements." Respondent contended that her emphasis on rote copying from the board and reading aloud was an appropriate response to large classes the majority of whose members did not possess basic skills. Respondent explained that what her observers perceived as her poor grammar was actually "street talk" she intentionally used to reach culturally deprived students. While these may have been legitimate motivations, they do not excuse Respondent's never having progressed in the use of proper grammar and varied teaching techniques for communication with students when other teachers in the same school were able to do so. Respondent's explanation also does not ring true in light of Respondent's numerous grammatical and content errors during her own testimony. Mrs. Pino, the department head, offered additional help to Respondent during Respondent's three years at Miami Central Senior High School. She discussed classroom management, ways to diversify teaching, and other problems which came up on a daily basis. She discussed parent contacts in order to help with classroom management. She gave Respondent additional copies of some papers that Respondent has lost. She reviewed lesson plans with Respondent many times and on occasion would review a lesson plan with her prior to an administrator's observation. Pursuant to Mrs. Mendez' request, Mrs. Pino observed a whole period in order to help Respondent learn how to make smooth transitions from one classroom activity to another. Respondent testified that she encouraged students to borrow books from her even if it meant looking the other way when she knew they were removing them. Loaning or giving books away might be altruistic upon Respondent's part, and indeed, helpful to students' learning the subject matter or developing a love of history, reading, etc., but Respondent's practice of encouraging the fantasy of theft for learning's sake is hardly in the best interests of the child or the teaching profession. Respondent, a Negro, contended that it was her attempts to instill in her students pride in their Black heritage which resulted in her negative ratings. She based this primarily upon body language of Mr. Matlack she said she observed when she showed him the pamphlet "The Five Negro Presidents" (R-1). She claimed there existed a rehearsed "plot" by all the Petitioner's witnesses on the basis of either her minority heritage views or on the basis of her election as a steward in the union, United Teachers of Dade. This explanation is not credible. While "Black History" may certainly be a valid part or enrichment of a high school social studies curriculum, it cannot legitimately usurp all of the class time properly allotted to prescribed curriculum. Moreover, inaccurate history, even inaccurate Black History, serves no valid purpose. The undersigned finds that it was not this theme on a single occasion which observers were concerned with in rating Respondent, but the inaccuracy and confusion of her presentation of that theme which resulted in her negative rating on the one occasion to which she refers. Also this pamphlet was not used at every observation and cannot be attributed as the incentive for so many negative ratings by so many different observers. It is also noted that Mrs. Mendez and Mrs. Pino are of Hispanic background. Although Respondent has responded to criticism positively, was eager to improve, and cooperated readily in all of her observers' suggestions, she still never achieved the standards of competency required and expected by the Dade County School Board. This is so despite extensive efforts of her colleagues to help Respondent reach acceptable performance standards. Respondent has failed to teach efficiently and faithfully due to her failure to communicate and relate to the children in her classroom to such an extent that they were deprived of a minimum educational experience.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of face and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Dade County School Board enter a Final Order in Case No. 84-3171 finding Respondent guilty of incompetency, affirming her suspension, dismissing her from her employment with the Dade County School Board, and denying her any claim for back pay. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order in Case No. 84-3171A finding Respondent guilty of incompetency and incapacity and revoking her Florida Teacher's Certificate for ten years, subject to reinstatement as provided by law. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of March 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of March, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig R. Wilson, Esquire The Law Building, Suite 204 315 Third Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 William Du Fresne, Esquire 1782 One Biscayne Tower Two South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's educators certificate.
Findings Of Fact In the 2000-2001 school year, Respondent, Elizabeth Weisman, held a Florida Teaching Certificate No. 475382. The certificate covered the areas of elementary education and mathematics and was valid through June 30, 2005. When the events herein occurred, Respondent was employed as a dropout prevention teacher at Second Chance School in Tallahassee, Florida. The school is part of the Leon County School District. There is no evidence that Respondent has been disciplined by Petitioner on any prior occasion since she began teaching in Leon County in October 1980. Second Chance School is a school for children with disciplinary problems and who have a history of being extremely disruptive and cannot be handled in a regular school setting. Ms. Weisman was in a difficult position when she started teaching at Second Chance School. She was assigned to teach outside her field and was replacing a teacher who was not as strict a disciplinarian or as demanding of performance as Ms. Weisman. In general, her students did not react well to the increase in discipline and expectations of performance and likely caused increased referrals to the principal's office. Both Ms. Weisman and the students had to adjust to each other On April 6, 2001, J.M. entered Respondent's classroom. Respondent asked him to leave her classroom. He was not supposed to be in the classroom because he had been referred to the principal's office the day before for discipline. J.M. attempted to comply with Respondent's request, but a number of students entering the room blocked him from leaving. Respondent made a shooing motion with her hands to J.M. and raised her foot to indicate for J.M. to leave the room. The gestures were done in a playful manner and were intended as such. While Ms. Weisman's foot was raised, she accidentally brushed or pushed J.M.'s buttocks with her foot. J.M. could feel the push. However, it did not cause him to lose his balance or cause any harm to him whatsoever. The evidence did not demonstrate that J.M. was unduly embarrassed or otherwise affected academically by the incident. Indeed, the incident gave J.M. a good story to tell to others at school. The evidence did not demonstrate that the push was inappropriate or violated any state rules or statutes governing teachers. There was no evidence that Ms. Weisman was less effective as a teacher due to this incident. W.F. testified that on two occasions he witnessed Respondent state to the class that they were "acting like jackasses." J.F.'s testimony was vague and inconsistent. Specifically, W.F. testified that on the first occasion, Respondent stated to the class that they were "acting like jackasses" after class members refused to return to their seats during an altercation between two students occurring outside the classroom. The classroom students were generally cheering the fight on. With respect to the second instance, W.F. testified that Respondent made the statement after W.F. and several of his classmates tricked Respondent into placing her hand on a pencil sharpener covered with glue. W.F. conceded the description was an accurate description of the behavior of the students at the time. At no time did Respondent call an individual student an improper name. Although W.F. testified he was embarrassed by Ms. Weisman, W.F.'s testimony is not persuasive on this point. Nor is it realistic to conclude any significant embarrassment given the bold nature of W.F.'s behavior which preceded these comments. W.F. also testified on direct examination that he witnessed Respondent call the class "a bunch of rat bastards." Again W.F.'s testimony was vague and inconsistent. During cross-examination, however, W.F. testified that the remark was made to a specific female student during a verbal altercation between the student and Respondent. However, Respondent denies ever using or knowing the term "rat bastard." Given Respondent's demeanor, the inconsistency, and the unreliability of the other evidence, Respondent's testimony is the more credible. There was no credible evidence that any student was ever affected in any way by these incidences. No evidence of any change in grades or reduced test scores was introduced at the hearing. An increase in disciplinary referrals was noted by the principal, but that increase was not shown to be tied to these incidences. The increase, if any, was more likely to be due to the fact that she was a new teacher, teaching out of field, who was more strict with her students and demanded more from them. Moreover, statistics supporting this perceived increase in disciplinary referrals was not offered at the hearing. Indeed, later testing showed Ms. Weisman's students improved their test scores. However, the testing was for a different year and class. It was not clear that the same students were being tested. The improvement does show that Ms. Weisman is an effective teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 23d day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 23d day of December, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Matthew K. Foster, Esquire Edward T. Bauer, Esquire Brooks, Leboef, Bennett & Foster, P.A. 863 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 John O. Williams, Esquire Williams & Holz, P.A. 211 East Virginia Street The Cambridge Centre Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue in this case is whether just cause exists to terminate Respondent's employment with Petitioner based on alleged incompetence under section 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2011),1/ as defined by Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056; and/or whether termination of employment is warranted because Respondent failed to correct performance deficiencies under section 1012.34(3).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence and testimony presented at final hearing, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Board is responsible for hiring, firing, and overseeing all employees at Bayside, Lockmar, and other schools in Brevard County. At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was an art teacher in the Brevard County school system. Respondent worked at several different schools in Brevard County, including Bayside, Lockmar, Sea Park Elementary, Endeavor Elementary, and Indialantic Elementary. He taught at Bayside from 2003 until 2010, and then was transferred to Lockmar for the 2010-2011 school year. Respondent was given an annual evaluation each year at the school where he was teaching. Annual evaluations are used for the purpose of reviewing and critiquing a teacher's performance in the classroom. An annual review determines whether the teacher is "effective," "needs improvement," or "unsatisfactory" for the school year at issue. While at Bayside, Respondent's annual evaluations were generally "effective," meaning he was teaching in a fashion deemed satisfactory by the administrators. Mr. Tuttle, the principal, considered him an effective teacher, but he did not personally perform Respondent's evaluations. The evaluation for school year 2007-2008 was somewhat restrained in nature, describing Respondent as "an effective art teacher who satisfies all teacher competencies" and that he "demonstrates an acceptable level of knowledge of the subject matter." In the 2008-2009 school year at Bayside, the new principal, Mr. Novelli, began to have doubts about Respondent's teaching abilities and also about his mental health. Several incidents were reported to Novelli concerning Respondent that made Novelli very concerned. As a result, Novelli began to keep an eye on Respondent and did more frequent "walk-throughs" of Respondent's classroom. Walk-throughs by administrators are an accepted means of gathering information about the teacher and his or her teaching practices. At the end of the 2008-2009 school year, Respondent was given an evaluation that deemed him "effective" as to his overall performance as a teacher. The evaluation describes Respondent in exactly the same words used in the prior year's evaluation form. The effective evaluation was issued despite an incident that occurred at the end of the school year, to wit: The parent of a student contacted Novelli and reported that Respondent had kept the student's art project, refusing to return it to the student. Respondent told Novelli that he kept the project because the student had failed to pay for a canvas; Novelli found that excuse to be inaccurate. The parent said Respondent had asked the female student to pose for him after school and had given the student his cell phone number. Novelli ordered Respondent to return the art project, which he did. Respondent then allegedly began asking other students if the art student was pregnant. When Novelli asked Respondent about the student, Respondent became "very hostile, very loud, very emotional, and [he] started yelling, 'I'm not a pedophile; I don't sleep with my students; I don't do drugs, you can call the American Fence Company and ask them. I've had a drug test with them.'" These unsolicited, random comments by Respondent caused Novelli even greater concern about Respondent's mental well-being. The next school year, 2009-2010, Novelli did an interim evaluation of Respondent. Interim evaluations are done when administration believes a teacher is struggling or having serious issues which impede his or her performance. The interim evaluation was done at the end of October 2009 and indicated several areas of unsatisfactory performance by Respondent, including: Planning; Instructional Organization and Development; Presentation of Subject Matter; Responsibilities; and Student Evaluation. Respondent refused to sign the evaluation form, even though a signature does not equate to acceptance of the evaluation, it simply acknowledges that the evaluation has been discussed with the teacher (which it had been). Principal Novelli observed Respondent's classroom on several occasions and found the activities going on to be inconsistent with the lesson plans for that day. Respondent explained that the words he had written on the white board (in one case, the words "Van Gogh") were his lesson plan for the day. That was not acceptable, because lesson plans should be sufficient for another teacher to utilize to teach the class in the regular teacher's absence. Some of the problems in the area of responsibilities noted in the interim evaluation were: failing to timely provide administration with a list of students who could be identified as advanced placement candidates; failing to provide acceptable contributions of his students' art work for a poster design contest; and failing to submit art work for a proposed field trip timely and appropriately. Respondent was found to have a difficult time communicating with school administrators, guidance personnel, and fellow teachers. It became abundantly clear at final hearing that Respondent would be as uncooperative and recalcitrant as possible when talking to people he did not like. His demeanor demonstrated a strong resentment of his principal and others from Bayside. In the area of student evaluations, Respondent was found to have failed to provide daily participation grades to his students, despite saying he would do so in his course outline. All of his students received an "A" grade for one nine-week period. Novelli found those grades to be inconsistent with the observations he had made in the classroom. As for instructional organization, Novelli observed no substantive instruction going on during his classroom visits. Respondent explained that students were free to stay busy working on projects discussed in prior classes, so it might appear to an outside observer that they were not being instructed. However, there was insufficient evidence produced to substantiate Respondent's position in that regard. A Professional Development Assistance Plan (PDAP) was created for each of the areas of concern set forth in the interim evaluation. PDAPs are tools used to assist struggling teachers to find a way to overcome their shortcomings and improve in the areas of concern. On January 7, 2010, Novelli met with Respondent to go over the PDAPs and discuss Respondent's progress. Respondent refused to sign the PDAP forms. Thereafter, although he was given additional time to comply with the PDAPs' requirements, Respondent failed to follow all of the recommendations set out in the plans. For example, one of the recommendations for assistance involved Respondent going to observe another art teacher in their classroom. Novelli wanted Respondent to observe an art teacher selected by the district resource teacher, but Respondent preferred to observe a teacher (Leah Andritz) with whom he already had a friendship. Novelli felt that Respondent's observing his friend teach would not be as helpful as watching someone Respondent did not know. Novelli offered Respondent paid time off to observe the school-chosen art teacher. Ultimately, Respondent went to observe Andritz on his own time, rather than accept Novelli's offer. Respondent's annual evaluation was completed on February 12, 2010. Three areas (also called "strands") were graded as unsatisfactory: Instructional Organization and Development; Presentation of Subject Matter; and Student Response. The evaluation also graded Respondent as Needs Improvement in the areas of Planning and Responsibilities. The overall evaluation was unsatisfactory. A meeting was set for February 18, 2010, to discuss the evaluation. Assistant Principal Capalbo, whom Respondent trusted, was sent to escort Respondent to Novelli's office for the meeting. On the way from Respondent's classroom to the principal's office--which took three or four times longer than usual, because Respondent was making phone calls along the way--Respondent called and spoke to his union representative. The representative then came to the meeting as well. Respondent made numerous derogatory remarks and complaints about Novelli on the way to the meeting. He said Novelli had tried to have him arrested, had vandalized his car, and had attempted to engage in sexual relations with a married teacher.3/ There is no credible evidence that any of the allegations were true, but they made Capalbo wonder if Respondent was having mental issues. At the meeting, Respondent accused Novelli of recording a prior meeting by way of a USB pen. Respondent angrily threatened to file a lawsuit against Novelli and report him to the superintendent of schools. Each of the attendees at the meeting who testified at final hearing said Respondent became very agitated and angry. The union representative (who did not testify at final hearing) was ultimately able to get Respondent under control and persuaded him to leave the meeting. No credible evidence was provided to prove the existence of a USB pen or that meetings had been recorded. Respondent again refused to sign the evaluation form. As a result of Respondent's conduct at the meeting, Novelli placed him on paid administrative leave pending a review of his mental health and fitness for duty. He was on leave for about one week and returned after undergoing a psychological evaluation. A significant dispute arose between Respondent and Novelli concerning an event known as National Portfolio Day. The event was a special opportunity for art students that allowed them to have their art reviewed and to speak with representatives from several colleges and art schools. Respondent had taken students to the event in prior years. In the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent requested permission to take a number of his students and students from other schools to the event. His request was preliminarily approved by administration, pending several details being worked out. However, the permission was ultimately withdrawn, and no students from Bayside were allowed to attend. Respondent claims that the event was a valuable tool for students and had allowed many students to obtain significant scholarships to colleges in prior years. Novelli found out that the students from other schools who were going to the event were Advanced Placement (AP) students. Bayside did not have an AP program or any AP students.4/ Novelli asked Respondent to put together portfolios for the students he wanted to attend, and Novelli would get the artwork examined by an expert to see if the students were viable candidates for the event, even if they were not technically AP students. Respondent was given a deadline to get the student art portfolios to Novelli so they could be taken to the district office by a date certain. Respondent missed the deadline. Instead, Respondent personally hand-delivered the portfolios to the district office on the day they were due. The artwork was reviewed by an art expert who deemed the work to be inadequate for inclusion in the National Portfolio Day event. She rated the art at the lowest level of a five-tiered rating system. As a result of the art expert's review, Respondent was advised that no students from Bayside would be going to the event. Notwithstanding that decision being communicated to Respondent, he continued to act as if Bayside students would still be attending. He continued making transportation arrangements and notifying students' parents of the impending event. There were several unexplained emails admitted in evidence that show some continuing dialogue about the portfolio trip. The emails addressing this issue create some confusion as to whether Bayside students would be able to attend, but ultimately none attended. At the end of the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent was transferred to Lockmar. Although he had requested a transfer from Bayside, Respondent was extremely upset about the transfer. According to Respondent, he wanted to go to another high school where his former principal, Tuttle, was now the principal. The director of Human Relations Services, however, was told by Respondent's union representative that Respondent wanted to go to an elementary school. Tuttle said that his school's position had already been filled anyway. The principal at Lockmar (Hostetler) did not know at the time of the transfer that Respondent had received an unsatisfactory performance evaluation for his last year at Bayside. When she found out, she issued a memorandum (dated August 5, 2010) informing Respondent that he was on probation for a period of 90 days. The probation status, also called performance review, is essentially the same thing as a procedure called NEAT, except that a performance review is supposed to be completed within 90 days. That is, the teacher has 90 days to show improvement in the delineated areas of concern. It is not uncommon for a teacher to be placed on performance review following an unsatisfactory annual evaluation. As part of the performance review process, Hostetler frequently went into Respondent's classroom to observe his teaching style. Her visits would last the majority of the class period. She would visit classes of different grade levels and students in order to see how Respondent handled various age groups. After approximately eight weeks of reviewing Respondent, Hostetler issued an interim evaluation. That evaluation rated Respondent unsatisfactory in four areas and needs improvement in another area. Once again, Respondent was deemed to have unsatisfactory lesson plans. His instructional organization and development was again deemed deficient, as well as his presentation of subject matter. Further, he was found to be unsatisfactory in the area of responsibilities under the professionalism strand. The overall evaluation for Respondent was unsatisfactory. The evaluation was reviewed with Respondent on October 1, 2010, but he refused to sign it. On that same date, a number of PDAPs were created to help Respondent address his deficiencies. Respondent was given until December 10, 2010, to take steps to improve in the various areas. Later, when it became clear that he would not be able to meet that deadline, the PDAPs were extended to February 18, 2011, then to March 18, 2011, and then extended again to March 23, 2011. At least one of the extensions was done because Respondent was preparing his classes for an upcoming art show. On March 23, 2011, Hostetler completed Respondent's annual evaluation. It included three unsatisfactory scores and two scores of needs improvement. The overall evaluation was unsatisfactory, his second unsatisfactory evaluation in two years. Once again, Respondent refused to sign the evaluation form. There was considerable testimony and evidence presented at the final hearing concerning Respondent's tenure at Indialantic Elementary School from 1998-2002, some ten years prior to the final hearing. In his last performance evaluation at Indialantic, Principal Strong had given Respondent an overall unsatisfactory ranking. Although Respondent's performance at a different school so many years prior to the instant allegations may not be dispositive of anything in this case, it is noted that Respondent's administrators at that time had many of the same concerns as those raised by Novelli and Hostetler years later. Besides the on-going issues with less than satisfactory performance ratings, Hostetler had other concerns about Respondent as well. One issue had to do with Respondent sending children outside the classroom and instructing them to "look for dinosaurs." His intention was to keep the children from disrupting the class by their bad behavior. The instruction to look for dinosaurs was just a way of making the student sit and contemplate their behavior. Respondent claims to have learned the technique during training he took through a program called Sun Coast Area Teacher Training. Respondent maintains that he kept visual surveillance of the children when they were outside; the teacher in the adjoining classroom said he could not really do that and maintain contact with his other students. Nonetheless, it does appear that the children were belittled by their peers when they were sent outside to look for dinosaurs. Lockmar had been asked to take part in a contest sponsored by the local police department. Students were to draw pictures within certain parameters that would allow the pictures, if chosen, to be converted to magnets or other items. Respondent was supposed to have the children draw pictures related to a theme of policemen as peace keepers, then select appropriate pictures to submit for consideration by the judges of the contest. Respondent did have his children make drawings, but almost all of them failed to meet the stated size and content parameters. He then asked personnel in the front office to voice their opinion as to which drawings he should submit. Feeling uncomfortable making a decision such as that, the staff handed the drawings over to Hostetler. She ultimately found only three or four worthy of submission for the contest. Hostetler received complaints from other teachers that their students were not ready to leave the art classroom in a timely fashion. They complained that Respondent did not have them ready to go when the art period ended. Hostetler issued a memorandum to Respondent about addressing that issue appropriately. During the period of time Respondent was under performance review and addressing the PDAPs, he was assigned a peer mentor teacher, John Hays, to assist him deal with deficiencies. Hays worked with Respondent from September 2010 through May 2011, including approximately 15 on-site visits to the classroom and one visit with Respondent to another school's art classroom. Respondent made a few improvements during the time Hays worked with him, including upgrading the kiln, putting student drawings in the front office, and becoming more cooperative with others. However, Hays found that the classroom, as managed by Respondent, was not conducive to learning. The lesson plans did not comport with what was going on in the classroom, even though Respondent usually had an explanation for that, e.g., a special project was coming up and students needed to pay more attention to it than to what the lesson plan described. Hays seemed to doubt whether Respondent's reasons or explanations were entirely truthful. All in all, Hays did not see significant improvement by Respondent in most of the problem areas that were being addressed.5/ When Respondent left Lockmar, he was given the opportunity to retrieve all his personal property. At the beginning of the next school year, the new teacher in the art room discovered several pictures belonging to Respondent in the pod (office area) adjacent to the classroom. Some of the pictures were somewhat disturbing to the new teacher, so she turned them over to her principal, who turned them over to the School Board security office. The pictures depicted a person who looked much like Respondent and contained words and images that were not appropriate for elementary school-aged children (and possibly not even high school-aged children). Respondent testified that some of his high school students had made the drawings, but he would not say that the pictures were supposed to depict him (despite one being labeled "The Mighty O." Respondent was often referred to by students and teachers as "O.") Respondent admitted that the drawings were not appropriate for viewing by young children. There is, however, no evidence that any elementary school children ever saw or had access to the pictures. Respondent made some extremely unusual allegations about his prior principals, Strong and Novelli. He said Strong was responsible for Respondent's girlfriend having a miscarriage, that Strong had intentionally caused that to happen, and that he was afraid Strong may do the same thing to someone else. He said Strong had tried to poison him by placing contaminated mulch around his portable classroom building. He said Novelli had caused him to be arrested by sabotaging Respondent's car so that he would be pulled over by police and illegally searched. He made the allegation about Novelli secretly recording meetings. He alleged that Novelli was involved in either killing or damaging the careers of teachers he did not like. Respondent requested leave to pursue a doctorate degree, but the leave was denied. Immediately thereafter, Respondent re-filed his leave request, citing medical issues. He said he used the leave to, in part, pursue his doctorate, but did not adequately explain the suspicious request for medical leave. The leave request was supported by a note from a chiropractor indicating Respondent had back problems. The note did not verify Respondent's allegation that Strong was poisoning him at Indialantic (a claim raised in Respondent's deposition and final hearing testimony). There was no credible evidence to support the various claims Respondent made against his administrators, leaving the impression that the allegations are baseless. However, there was no direct showing by the School Board as to how these incredible stories directly affected Respondent's capabilities as a teacher. Respondent showed that he could be evasive and obstinate concerning the admission of even the least significant facts. He seemed reluctant to engage in conversation that was not full of innuendo, suggestion, or intrigue. For example, when asked whether he really believed his principal would vandalize his car (as Respondent had alleged), Respondent answered, "Because other teachers in the district, you know the Greek mythology Cassandra, how Cassandra would foretell the future? Other teachers in the district, as the Greek mythologist Cassandra, would forewarn me of Mr. Novelli's prior actions." When asked repeatedly if he believed another principal was interfering with his purchase of a building, Respondent replied, "I was very cautious with the information." When asked what that meant, he said, "It was worth investigating and finding out more." When asked if Principal Strong was responsible for Respondent's girlfriend losing her baby, he responded, "My answer to that is it's an unfortunate situation" and "I have a child that I wish was born and because of the politics, it is not here." Other than Tuttle's restrained endorsement of Respondent, no fellow teachers or administrators were presented to prove or suggest that Respondent could work well with others. Hays said Respondent was cordial to him, but he was not a co-worker or administrator. Respondent seems to be very eager to assist his students as they prepare for life after grade school. He seems to enjoy teaching and wants to return to the classroom. At least two parents of his former high school students endorsed Respondent as an important reason for their child's success. Respondent said he had helped some students obtain scholarships to assist with their college education, although there was no substantive proof of that fact. In his written response to the 2009-2010 evaluation, Respondent stated he would "produce over $300,000 . . . in independent scholarships for [his] students." Although he testified several times about the scholarships he could generate for his students, there was no credible evidence to support his assertion. (The response to his evaluation was well written and rational. It was not comparable to Respondent's way of orally expressing himself, at least as evidenced by his testimony at the final hearing.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Brevard County School Board, terminating the employment of Respondent, Mark Ostermeier, for just cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of June, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of June, 2012.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami- Dade County School Board enter a final order dismissing all charges against Carlos Legoas, rescinding his suspension, and awarding back pay and benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA M. HART 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 1st day of February, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761 Jean Marie Middleton, Esquire School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 John L. Winn, Commissioner Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Rudolph F. Crew, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School District 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, No. 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1394
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Lawrence Brennan, holds Florida teaching certificate number 250648, issued by the State Department of Education. The Respondent is certified in the area of English and his certificate is valid through June 30, 1988. The Respondent is a tenured teacher in the Duval County School System in which he has taught since September 8, 1969. The Respondent has taught at Paxon Junior High School since 1984-84, and has taught compensatory education in Paxon Junior High School during school years 1984-85 and 1985-86. Compensatory education is a special program for children with low test scores. Many of the students also have disciplinary problems. The Respondent received satisfactory evaluations for the last three full years of his employment, to include his years at Paxon. The Respondent was removed from the classroom and Paxon Junior High School following the altercation with a student on February 27, 1986, which gave rise to these charges. The Respondent is currently assigned to one of the media centers of the Department of Education in Duval County. The Respondent was informed in writing of the various requirements and responsibilities of teachers in the Duval County School System. Bresha Woods was a student of the Respondent's in November 1985. Ms. Woods had received six to eight referrals to the Principal's office through November 1985 for disrupting class and for not performing assigned duties. Subsequent to the incident described here, Woods was suspended and transferred to the Darnell Cookman Alternative School in March of the 1985-86 school year. On November 7, 1985, the Respondent told Woods to take her things and to go to the Principal's office for not doing her work and disrupting class. Woods delayed, slowly gathering her books, purse and other belongings. The Respondent approached Woods from the rear as she was at her desk, grasped her by the shoulders, pulled her to her feet alongside the desk, turned her toward the door of the classroom and told her to go to the school office. Woods' statement that she was "marked up" is not credible and the fact that she visited a physician on March 29, 1987, is not relevant because of the passage of time. No report of the physician's findings was offered. Woods' report to Atkinson that Respondent had choked her was contrary to Woods' sworn testimony. Atkinson accepted Woods' version of events as opposed to the explanation of Respondent. See T 179, 180. In January 1986, Delilah Elliott, a new student at Paxon, was late for class and cut across a grassy area between the wings of the classroom building which was closed to walking students. Between classes the Respondent was performing monitoring duties outside the classroom as do many of the teachers and staff and observed Ms. Elliott crossing the prohibited area. The Respondent called for Elliott to stop. Although Elliott heard the Respondent call for her to stop, she ignored him, attempting to go to her next class. The Respondent approached her, grabbed her by the shoulders to restrain her, and pushed her toward the sidewalk. She attempted to walk around him and continue on to her class. Elliott refused to tell the Respondent her name. The Respondent herded Elliott to the Principal's office, sometimes pushing her in the back when she stopped walking. Ms. Atkinson, the Assistant Principal in charge of disciplining girls, having seen the incident, followed the Respondent to the office. Atkinson told the Respondent not to be so physical with the children. The Respondent advised Atkinson that he knew what the rules were. Atkinson advised the Respondent that she would take care of the problem, and that he should return to class. Atkinson took no action against Elliott because, according to Atkinson, walking on the grass was not a referral offense. As the Respondent exited the office, Atkinson heard the Respondent say to Elliott, "You little tramp." The Respondent was frequently in physical contact with students in his class. Craig Monasco and Frank Lane were students in the Respondent's class. The Respondent grabbed their buttocks on several occasions when they were leaning over getting books. This practice, called "scooping" by the students, was a form of horse play engaged in by the students. The students were embarrassed by this. On other occasions, the Respondent pulled students out of their seats in the process of disciplining them within the classroom. Leopolean Spikes was a 13 year old black student in the Respondent's 7th grade comp. ed. English class. Spikes had a history of disruptive behavior in class and had been sent to the Principal's office several times during the school year. On February 26, 1986, Spikes was disruptive in class and the Respondent escorted him to the Principal's office. On this occasion, Spikes had refused to accept the referral, and Spikes said he was going to have his father come out and talk with the Respondent. The Respondent added Spikes' additional comments to the referral regarding Spikes' behavior and escorted Spikes to the Principal's office. Upon re-entering the class, the Respondent stated to the class that had Spikes hit him, the Respondent would have knocked him through the wall. The Principal gave Spikes an in-school suspension for his conduct of February 26, 1986. However, based upon the general school policy, a child with the number of referrals that Spikes had had would have been subject to general suspension. On February 27, 1986, Spikes reported to the Respondent's first period comp. ed. class. Spikes exhibited additional disruptive behavior during the class period of approximately 50 minutes in length. During this time, the Respondent warned Spikes on several occasions that he was going to refer him again if his behavior did not change. Shortly before the class was over, Spikes' continued disruptive conduct caused the Respondent to write a referral of Spikes to the Principal. The Respondent told Spikes to go to the Principal's office. Spikes delayed in getting his personal effects together to go to the Principal's office, and the Respondent went over to Spikes and told him to hurry up and leave the class. Spikes told the Respondent that he would not go to the Principal's office. At this point, a conflict exists in testimony regarding what occurred next. The one non-involved adult observer, Ms. Morkin, the co-teacher, stated that she observed six "acts" to the incident: (1) Spikes stood around reading the referral and not doing anything; (2) Respondent guided Spikes to the door by the shoulder; (3) Spikes ran around her desk to his own desk by the windows and wall; (4) Books were thrown in the direction of her desk from the vicinity of Spikes' desk; and (5) A struggle ensued between Spikes and Respondent, which came to an end with the Respondent kneeling next to Spikes and restraining Spikes on the floor. The various student witnesses had more dramatic versions of the incident, but one can trace the activity by its location. Their versions began with: (1) Spikes refused to go and told Respondent that he was not going to the office at or around Spikes' desk; (2) Spikes or Respondent threw books; (3) Spikes and Respondent fought in the area of the desk; (4) Spikes threatened Respondent with a desk; (5) Spikes and Respondent fought in the area of the wall and Spikes' head hit against the wall; and (6) The fight ended with Respondent pinning Spikes to the floor. The following findings are based upon a most credible evidence and testimony presented: The Respondent was standing in the aisle alongside Spikes' desk and between Spikes' desk and the front of the room where Ms. Morkin's desk was located. Spikes, when confronted by the Respondent and told to hurry, told Respondent he refused to go, and threw his books at Respondent, who was standing between Spikes and Morkin. Spikes adopted a combative stance and the Respondent grabbed Spikes' arms, fearing that Spikes was going to strike him. Spikes began to struggle and both Spikes and the Respondent fell to the floor. Respondent let go of Spikes and regained his feet and Spikes pulled himself to his feet using the back of a school desk which he raised in front of him and advanced toward the Respondent saying, "I'm going to hit you with this desk. See T-70. The Respondent pushed the desk out of the way, grabbed the writing portion of the desk, then grabbed Spikes and a second struggle ensued, during which Spikes hit the Respondent, who grabbed Spikes in a bear hug. Spikes and the Respondent were by the windowed wall of the classroom, and the Respondent attempted to pin Spikes against the windowed wall to stop his struggling and prevent Spikes from hitting him. In doing so, Spikes' head was banged against the window once. Spikes continued to hit the Respondent all this time. The Respondent and Spikes again fell to the floor where Spikes ceased fighting after Respondent pinned him down. After the struggle ceased, Ms. Morkin left to seek assistance as the Respondent requested. After he was at the office, a knot came up on Spikes' head. Spikes parents were called and they took Spikes to the emergency room where he underwent a complete examination, to include X-rays of his head. This examination revealed no abnormal findings except tenderness and swelling in the left occipital area of the head. Subsequent medical problems which Spikes has suffered were related to an injury to the right occipital area. No evidence of such an injury was revealed in the examination or reported by Spikes. See Petitioner's Exhibit The Respondent is approximately 6' tall and weighs approximately 200 pounds. Spikes is approximately 4'6" tall and weighs 72 pounds. Mr. Randolph and Ms. Atkinson, the persons in charge of disciplining children at the school, gave their opinions concerning the appropriateness of the Respondent's actions. In their opinion, the Respondent's actions were inappropriate. The record reflects that both Atkinson and Randolph had failed to apply the requisite disciplinary standards to students by taking action to remove them from the school system permanently, based upon continued disciplinary problems. Atkinson, who observed the Elliott incident, described the Respondent as "striking the student" and was of the opinion that a person who touches another person with their hand is striking the person. Mr. Larry Paulk, Assistant Superintendent for Administrative Affairs for the Duval County Schools, interviewed the Respondent after the altercation. To Paulk, the Respondent appeared hostile and was sarcastic in his dealings and approach to students. Paulk offered his opinion that the Respondent's conduct regarding discipline and leadership was inappropriate. The Respondent has attended psychiatric counseling for the past year to deal with his hostility and to improve his effectiveness as a teacher. There is no evidence of the Respondent receiving progressive discipline for prior acts involving physical contact with students, although he received several written reprimands for inappropriate conduct towards students to include physical conduct, language, and attitude. Mr. Randolph, the principal in charge of boys, advised that the school's solution for the removal of an unwilling child from class was to call the Principal. The Principal would come to the room and ask the student to come out of the classroom and, if the student refused, the Principal would then call a uniformed policeman who would arrest the child for trespassing. In Randolph's experience they had never had to take the final step of calling for a uniformed policeman.
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 Should discipline be imposed on Respondent's Florida Educator's Certificate No. 611934, based upon the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Case No. 990-1149-R, before the State of Florida, Education Practices Commission?
Findings Of Fact STIPULATED FACTS Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 611934, covering the areas of History and Physical Education, which is valid through June 30, 2004. At all times pertinent hereto, the Respondent was employed as a social studies teacher at Sandalwood High School (Sandalwood) in the Duval County School District. ADDITIONAL FACTS Morgan King was a female student at Sandalwood at times relevant to the inquiry. Following her marriage she is known as Morgan Hall. Although Ms. Hall was not a student in Respondent's classes at Sandalwood, she became acquainted with Respondent. Ms. Hall's involvement with Respondent was principally during sixth period of the school day. At that time Ms. Hall would routinely leave her history class at the end of the period and go to Respondent's classroom where she had many friends. When Ms. Hall arrived at Respondent's classroom Respondent and the students, to include Ms. Hall would "hangout and talk." Some of the conversations that Ms. Hall participated in with Respondent and other students in his classroom were of a sexual nature. These conversations followed an earlier conversation in a prior year when Respondent told Ms. Hall a story about a girlfriend that he had when he was a young teenager. He explained that he and the girlfriend would stay up all night together. The girlfriend had kids. Respondent told Ms. Hall about the sexual relations which he had with the girlfriend while Respondent was a teenager. Beyond that conversation, while in his classroom at Sandalwood Respondent followed the theme in his discussion with Ms. Hall concerning sleeping with numerous women, so many women that he could not remember how many he had slept with. He went on to comment to Ms. Hall that when you are married you could not do that, but it was acceptable conduct before marriage. Respondent's comments to Ms. Hall about having sex with a girlfriend before marriage and about the number of women he had slept with before marriage were voluntarily remarks made to Ms. Hall. She did not begin the discussions. Respondent told Ms. Hall about another female student that had come to his classroom after other students had left and flipped up the backside of her skirt revealing the thong underwear she was wearing. While in this classroom in sixth period, friends of Ms. Hall would make fun of her by talking about her "backside," saying that she had a "big butt." Respondent would participate in the conversation, remarking in what Ms. Hall considered to be a joking manner, about Ms. Hall's "butt being big." This comment was made by Respondent a few times. Ms. Hall had conversations with Respondent that insinuated discussion about his penis. As Ms. Hall perceived it, part of what he said was something to the effect that Respondent "could suck his own penis." Ms. Hall in response to Respondent's remarks of a sexual nature would tell him that, "You are a sick old man. That's gross." She would make these comments in a joking manner, but at the same time recognizing that this was a serious matter. She did not want to be rude and offend Respondent, thus the lighter nature of her remarks. On one occasion while in Respondent's classroom, Ms. Hall was sitting on the floor next to his desk against a cabinet. Ms. Hall asked Respondent why it was so cold in the room. He replied, "You know why I like it to be cold, you know why I want it to be cold," while raising his eyebrows. Ms. Hall described how other girls would sit hanging over Respondent's desk with their "boobs are like right there in his face. And everybody's nipples are hard." That was the circumstance that caused Respondent to raise his eyebrows. On the subject of female students being around Respondent's desk in his classroom, Ms. Hall perceived that those students felt comfortable around Respondent. Respondent created the impression that he was like a friend to Ms. Hall and other female students. He was enjoyable company, according to Ms. Hall. She described his conduct as being disgusting a little of the time, but not all of the time. In these exchanges Respondent allowed the female students to act disgusting in their own right. The discussions of a sexual nature at times were promoted by Respondent, at other times they were promoted by the students. Ms. Hall discussed a computer website entitled "Banged Up.com" with Respondent in the classroom. That website contains subject matter with sexual connotations. Debra Coleman was another student at Sandalwood during the relevant time period. She was in Respondent's tenth grade world history class. She had conversations with Respondent of a sexual nature. Ms. Coleman went to Respondent to talk to him about her sex life. Other students talked to Respondent about sex in her presence. Respondent was open to those conversations. Respondent made a comment to Ms. Coleman and other female students, that if they did not do their work he was going to spank them and that they would like it. On one occasion Ms. Coleman was allowed to have an extended lunch period following a discussion in which Respondent asked her if he could bite her lip. She said, "No." Respondent then reached up and pinched her bottom lip. On another occasion when Ms. Coleman was in Respondent's class, Brandie Brinksma, a female student was sitting next to her. Respondent pulled out a money clip. In addressing the female students he said, "I'll give you $500 if you, Brandie, turn to your right and kiss Carrie on the cheek. And, Carrie, I want you to then turn around and act like you are going to kiss her on the cheek and instead of just kissing her on the cheek like, Brandie will turn her head." And beyond that point the students would "start making out." Ms. Coleman was offended by those remarks from Respondent. She got mad and walked out of class. She had never walked out of class before. What Respondent said to the two students was stated in front of the entire class. During one instance when Ms. Coleman was at Respondent's desk in the classroom, a Coke can was on the end of Respondent's desk. Respondent told Ms. Coleman to pick up the Coke can. Respondent placed a measuring ruler next to the Coke can and stated "Imagine 9 1/2 inches of that, going up you," while indicating the measurement on the ruler. Ms. Coleman turned red and responded something to the effect "O.K." and went back to her seat. That measurement was perceived by Ms. Coleman to refer to Respondent's penis. In classroom, in Ms. Coleman's presence, Respondent made a comment about his ability to "Suck his own penis" in the shower, to the effect that "He was able to go down on himself." Some of the male students in the class commented that this physical dexterity was not possible. Respondent commented that he was able to perform this act on himself, but that he had not done it in a while. In April 2000, Aron Muse was the affirmative action supervisor/equal employment opportunity coordinator for the Duval County School Board. He was assigned to investigate Respondent's conduct on the subject of Respondent's conversations with the students concerning sexually related topics. Respondent told Mr. Muse that he was a friend of the students and he was trying to assist them in life in discussing subjects of a sexual nature and that he intended to direct the students in a proper way. Respondent told Mr. Muse that some of his conversations involved sexual jokes. These discussions with students pertain to a bond which the students and Respondent had, according to Respondent. As Respondent told Mr. Muse, the discussions about sexual matters were "nothing personal." Brandie Brinksma was a student of Respondent's at Sandalwood. She is referred to in the Administrative Complaint as B.B. One of her friends was worried about her while she was attending school, concerning Ms. Brinksma's use of drugs and having sex. It is reported that the friend of Ms. Brinksma went to Respondent and asked that Respondent say something to Ms. Brinksma to let Ms. Brinksma know that those were not good choices on her part. Respondent took Ms. Brinksma aside and asked if he could talk to her. Respondent remarked that the other student was worried about Ms. Brinksma's conduct. Respondent advised Ms. Brinksma to think about the consequences of her acts. Although this discussion concerning drugs and sex was not at the instigation of Ms. Brinksma's parents or the school district, Ms. Brinksma was not offended by the discussion with the Respondent. More specifically, in the conversation between Respondent and Ms. Brinksma, Respondent mentioned that he had heard that Ms. Brinksma had been "trippin." This is a term attributable to the other student who had arranged the conversation between Respondent and Ms. Brinksma. Ms. Brinksma told Respondent that she had been having sex and that she had tried the drug Ecstasy once. At times relevant Susan Tidwell, formerly Susan Tabor, was a teacher at Sandalwood. She was acquainted with Respondent. Respondent said "a lot of sexual things" to Ms. Tidwell. One of the Respondent's actions would be to show his bicep by flexing it in Ms. Tidwell's presence. He would say, "If this is this big, guess what else is." This was perceived by Ms. Tidwell as an insinuation that was sexual in nature. Respondent said to Ms. Tidwell on more that one occasion that he wanted to "See Ms. Tidwell in black straddling . . . " and then he would pause for the effect, and add, "a Harley," referring to a motorcycle. Respondent told Ms. Tidwell that he wanted her to lose her "good girl image" and that black leather would be what he wanted to see her in. Respondent told Ms. Tidwell one time that he wanted her to advertise for his lawn service business and that all she had to do was to sit in the back of his pickup truck with a bikini top and that would drum up business. Respondent told Ms. Tidwell at school, "Hey Susan, do you know why God gave women vaginas." She responded that she did not want to hear his joke. As she left a workroom at the school when the bell rung, Respondent continued to insist that Ms. Tidwell listen to the punch line of the joke. While in the hall he delivered the punch line which was "So men would talk to them." Ms. Tidwell was not amenable to hearing the ending to the joke either. Respondent, while Ms. Tidwell and another female teacher Christie Allen were in a school workroom with him, told the two female teachers that he had a fantasy about being stranded on a desert island with the two of them, so that they could be on an island full of "little cookies." Ms. Tidwell was bothered by Respondent's remarks that have been reported and somewhat embarrassed to that point in time. Later in Respondent's classroom, Respondent told Ms. Tidwell that he had talked to the class about her pending divorce. In this conversation he said, "I guess it has been a long time since you had any, so let me know if you need something." Another part of the discussion at that time involved some reference by David E. McConnell, a former teacher at Sandalwood who was visiting the school and was in Respondent's room. Mr. McConnell brought up Respondent's lawn business and commented that Ms. Tidwell needed her lawn done. In response Respondent said to Ms. Tidwell "You know I have something you need, you have something I need." Then he grabbed his crotch. Ms. Tidwell considered the circumstances that took place in Respondent's room on that occasion to be intolerable. Ms. Tidwell reported Respondent's conduct to her school department head and to the assistant-principal at the school, which led to an investigation by the Duval County School District.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Respondent in violation of Counts 2 through 5, dismissing Count 1, and permanently revoking Respondent's educator's certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of November, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S __ CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 7th day of November, 2003.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the specific notice of charges and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Eric Farber, was employed as a psychologist by Petitioner, School Board of Dade County, Florida. At the time of his suspension on December 6, 1989, Petitioner served under a continuing contract. In the Summer of 1989, while at Booker T. Washington Middle School in Miami, Florida, Respondent requested, at least, five female students to remove portions of their clothing while he gave them physical examinations. The proof did not indicate that Respondent was qualified to perform physical examinations of the students or that Petitioner had authorized the examinations. In the Summer of 1989, L.B., was a student at Booker T. Washington. L.B. is a fifteen year old female. According to L.B., she was called to Respondent's office by another student for examination by Respondent. When she arrived, Respondent told her to remove her blouse and brassiere. He told L.B. that he was checking her for breast cancer. L.B. was pregnant at the time. Respondent touched both breasts and then asked her to pull up her skirt that he could examine her vagina. He inserted his finger into her vagina. L.B. then dressed herself and left the room. L.B. thought Respondent was a medical doctor and that his examination was appropriate. M.C. was also a student at Booker T. Washington in the Summer of 1989. M.C. is a fifteen year old female. L.B. told M.C. that Respondent was a doctor who was there to see her. M.C., then, went to Respondent's office. L.B. and M.C. had been friends for over two years. According to M.C., Respondent asked her to fill out some forms. He then asked her to go into the part of the room where he could examine her. The room was separated by a divider which prevented the person seated on one side from seeing the activity on the other side. He asked her to take off her underpants. After a short discussion about problems with her menstrual flow, Respondent touched her vagina and asked her to remove her blouse while he also touched her breasts. Although M.C. did not think Respondent's actions were normal or appropriate, she allowed him to touch both her vagina and her breasts. She, then, told him to stop, and she left the room. Another student at Booker T. Washington that same Summer was T.S. She is a thirteen year old female. According to T.S., she was called to Respondent's office by an office aide. When she arrived, Respondent asked her to wait on one side of the room and draw pictures. L.B. was on the other side of the room being examined while T.S. was waiting. T.S. thought,she heard L.B. scream and did see her leave, appearing to be nervous. When T.S. went into the room for her examination, Respondent asked her to take off her blouse and brassiere, told her he was going to check her for breast cancer and questioned her about the onset of her menses. T.S. removed her clothing as requested, and Respondent, then, touched her breast and her anus. He then remarked that he had mistaken her for another male and sent her back to class. The fourth female student of the group is D.E. She is fourteen years old. According to D.E., Respondent visited D.E.'s classroom in the Summer of 1989 and picked D.E. out of a group of students identified as being from a neighborhood called Riverside. Respondent took D.E. to his office. D.E. understood that Respondent was examining the female students from the Riverside area because of some problem there. Respondent asked her to take off her blouse and brassiere for a breast examination. She refused to do so and returned to her class where she informed her teacher what Respondent was asking. Another female student at Booker T. Washington during the Summer of 1989 was J.N. who is fifteen years old. She was approached by Respondent while she was lying on a cot in the attendance office. According to J.N., Respondent asked if he could see her, that he had something for her. He escorted her into a small office and introduced himself as the school doctor. He then asked her to go into the next room and take off her blouse. When he entered the room, he touched both of her breasts and began explaining parts of the vaginal area to her. He told her to turn around and bend over while he examined her vagina. He placed his finger in her vagina and touched her anus. When she put her pants back on, he told her that he had been checking all the girls from Riverside. He found her vagina to be too narrow and suggested that she rub it to enlarge the opening. J.N. allowed Respondent to touch her because she believed that he had been sent by Petitioner to perform the examinations. J.N. was too embarrassed by the incident to tell her parents. Members of the news media came to the school and tried to interview members of the faculty about Respondent's actions, and the news media of the Miami area carried coverage of the incidents. As a result of his action and the notoriety resulting from it, Respondent, the school and the education profession suffered public disgrace. Respondent's colleagues lost respect for him and his abilities as an education professional, impairing his service to the community. For the 1988-89 school year, Respondent's annual evaluation was acceptable. He received several notable professional awards during his tenure in education, including being selected as a finalist for the teacher of the year award offered by the Dade County PTA in the South Central Area. At the hearing, Respondent did not testify, and the testimony of the students about the events at issue is deemed credible. Although Respondent may in the past have been an outstanding teacher, his actions, during the Summer of 1989 were intentional, unethical and inconsistent with the standards of public conscience. They resulted in creating such public disgrace for the education profession that his effectiveness in the school system was impaired and caused unnecessary embarrassment to the students involved.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County, Florida issue a Final Order dismissing Respondent, Eric D. Farber, as an employee of the School Board of Dade County, Florida without back pay or benefits. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of June, 1990. JANE C. HAYMAN 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 15th day of June, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-6945 The following represents the rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted in this case. The ruling reflects the number of the paragraph which addresses the proposed finding of fact, if applicable. Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in relevant part in paragraph 7. Adopted in relevant part in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in relevant part in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted as subordinate to the findings of fact. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in relevant part in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted as subordinate to the findings of fact. Adopted in paragraph 5. Adopted in paragraph 8. Adopted as subordinate to the findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire School Board of Dade County, Florida Suite 301 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33125 Don S. Cohn, Esquire 1504 Northwest 14th Street Miami, Florida 33125 Paul W. Bell Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner terminated Respondent's annual contract as a teacher for just cause.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner hired Respondent, an inexperienced teacher who had recently graduated from college, and assigned him to teach and serve as an assistant basketball coach at Dixie Hollins High School during the 2000-01 school year. For the 2001-02 school year, Petitioner reassigned Respondent to Tarpon Springs High School, where Respondent assumed the duties of head basketball coach. During both school years, Respondent was on annual contract. Initially, an administrator at Tarpon Springs High School informed Respondent that he would teach American history and economics, which are the subjects that he had taught at Dixie Hollins High School. When Respondent reported for duty at Tarpon Springs High School, administrators did not give him a schedule until a couple of days before classes started. At that time, Respondent learned that, during the first quarter, he was to teach counseling and personal fitness, neither of which he had taught before. He also learned that, the following quarter, he was to teach Freshman Experience, which was a relatively new course, and personal fitness. In the third quarter, he was due to teach earth-space science in place of personal fitness. At least for the first two quarters, Respondent was assigned students in the GOALS program, which is designed for students who have not made substantial academic progress due to social problems. In this program, the students take only four classes per quarter. Each class runs one hour and forty-five minutes, five days weekly. Respondent had difficulties assembling materials for the peer counseling course. Teachers who had previously taught the course were not available. Extensive renovations at the school made it difficult to locate materials for this and other courses. Respondent finally visited a teacher at another school and obtained books, guides, and tests for peer counseling. These materials advised Respondent to help the students learn to settle their disputes peaceably without adult intervention and suggested that the teacher supplement the book with relevant movies dealing with peer pressures, conflict, and social issues. Respondent experienced similar difficulties with the personal fitness course, for which he had books, but no teacher edition or worksheets. However, Respondent's background in athletics presumably prepared him to teach this course. Although Respondent voiced similar complaints about Freshman Experience, he had a quarter to try to obtain materials. Also, no one else at the school had any experience with this course, which the District had abruptly required the high schools to teach. Similar to peer counseling, Freshman Experience is a motivational course that also covers personal and academic issues, as revealed by the titles of the required books, Chicken Soup for the Soul and Ten Steps for How To Manage Time. The seven charges listed in the Preliminary Statement fall into four groups. Charges 1 and 2 are the most serious; they allege that Respondent kissed two students and touched the vaginal area of one of these students. Charges 3 and 4 are also sexual in nature; they allege that Respondent made inappropriate comments to female students about their appearance and inappropriate sexual comments to or in front of students. Charges 5 and 6 pertain to classroom management; they allege that Respondent allowed students to come to his classroom for no legitimate purpose and encouraged students to leave campus to get him food. Charges 7-9 pertain to curriculum, administration, and instruction; they allege that Respondent used noncurriculum-related materials (such as videos), lacked appropriate recordkeeping, and lacked appropriate classroom instruction. Petitioner wisely dropped Charges 6, 8, and 9. No evidence in the record supported these allegations prior to Petitioner's announcement that it was not pursuing these allegations. Charges 5 and 7 require little more analysis. The evidence supports neither of these allegations. Concerning Charge 5, unenrolled students visiting Respondent's classroom included basketball players. While Respondent remained the basketball coach, these players briefly visited the room from time to time to discuss something about the basketball program. Petitioner did not show the extent of these visits or that they were illegitimate. Unenrolled students who were not participating in the basketball program infrequently visited Respondent's classroom. Although the principal testified that one of his assistant principals told him that there was a problem with unenrolled students visiting Respondent's classroom, he added that she rejected his offer to talk to Respondent and said she would handle it. After that conversation between the principal and assistant principal, the principal said the problem was eliminated. Interestingly, though, neither the assistant principal nor anyone else ever talked to Respondent about this issue, which appears not to have loomed large at the time. Concerning Charge 7, Petitioner never proved the rating of any of the films mentioned during the hearing as shown in Petitioner's classroom. Films mentioned during the hearing as shown in one of Respondent's classes include With Honors, Rudy (shown repeatedly), Finding Forrestor, Saving Private Ryan, The Hurricane, [The Mask of] Zorro, and assorted basketball videotapes. The record reflects disagreement among Petitioner's administrators as to the policy concerning the application of the District policy regarding R-rated films. According to the representative of the Office of Professional Standards, The Patriot (apparently an R-rated film) "could" violate this policy, but, according to the principal, who is now handling workforce development in the District office, The Patriot "probably" would not be a problem. Even if The Patriot were a problem, as an R-rated film, it would be so only if Respondent had not obtained permission slips from parents to show this and perhaps other R- rated films. Respondent testified that he did so. Notwithstanding the testimony of one student to the contrary, Petitioner never proved that Respondent failed to obtain permission slips. The issue of the relationship, if any, between the films and the courses fails because Petitioner failed to prove the contents of the films or to prove adequately the prescribed content of the courses, so as to permit a finding that the films were irrelevant to the courses. The broad outlines of peer counseling in particular, at least as established in this record, would appear to accommodate a vast array of films. A sufficient number of students testified in sufficient detail to a broad array of bookwork, class discussion, and other instructional and assessment methods in both peer counseling and Freshman Counseling to overcome whatever proof that Petitioner offered in support of Charge 7. The crux of this case lies in the charges involving sexual improprieties, as alleged in Charges 1-4. The quality of proof was considerably different between Charges 1 and 2, on the one hand, and Charges 3 and 4, on the other hand. Analyzing Charges 3 and 4 first may help explain the findings as to Charges 1 and 2. Concerning Charges 3 and 4, Petitioner proved that Respondent made numerous inappropriate comments to female students, of a sexual nature, that understandably made the students feel uncomfortable. Respondent directed three of these comments and one behavior to T. R., a junior. While walking around the track during the personal fitness class that T. R. was taking from Respondent, he asked her what she thought of a 26-year-old dating an 18-year-old. T. R. was either 18 years old or Respondent implied that the dating would await her 18th birthday; either way, T. R. reasonably believed that Respondent meant her. Although actually 29 or 30 years old at the time, Respondent typically told his students that he was only 26 years old, so T. R. reasonably believed that Respondent meant him. T. R. was so uncomfortable with this question that she mentioned it to a female teacher at the school, Cheryl Marks- Satinoff. Thoughtfully considering the matter, Ms. Marks- Satinoff found that the question was "odd," but not "extremely inappropriate" and "on the fence." Ms. Marks-Satinoff's characterization of the question, in isolation, is fair. In the context of other comments to T. R. and other female students during the relatively short period of two school quarters--little else, if any, of which was Ms. Marks-Satinoff was then aware--the comment acquires its proper characterization. To T. R., Respondent also said, "If I were still in high school, I'd be climbing in your window at night." T. R. was "shocked" by this comment, but her mother or stepmother, when told by T. R. about the comment--again, in isolation--did not attach much importance to it. On another occasion, when a female student asked why T. R.'s grade was better than D. P.'s grade, Respondent replied, "T. R. and I have an agreement." While taking Respondent for personal fitness, T. R. found Respondent staring at her repeatedly. Accordingly, T. R. switched from stretch pants to baggies. T. R.'s testimony is credible. She spoke with adults about two of the comments roughly at the time that they were made. Also, T. R. bore no grudge against Respondent. She said that she did not think twice about the dating comment, although she obviously gave it enough thought to raise it with Ms. Marks- Satinoff. T. R. freely admitted that Respondent made the comment about crawling into her window in a joking manner. She discredited D. P., who is the alleged victim of the most serious sexual incident, discussed below, as a person who always lies, convincingly. T. R. added that D. P. told her once that Respondent "tried" to kiss her and put his hand up her skirt and did not understand why D. P. confided in her initially. T. R. testified that she never heard Respondent do or say anything inappropriate in the personal fitness class that she took with D. P. T. R. testified that Respondent made her and her friends leave if they disturbed his class the few times they got out of their assigned class to visit his office and watch movies. T. R. described another female student, B. H., who testified to several inappropriate comments made by Respondent, as someone who "likes to stir the pot." To A. T., an 18-year-old who graduated from Tarpon Springs High School in June 2002, Respondent alluded to the size of her breasts, in front of the class, and used his hands to frame them. Although done in connection with a warning that A. T. was violating the school dress code due to the revealing nature of her shirt, Respondent delivered this warning in a sexual manner that was obviously unnecessary for the purpose of reminding the student to conform to the dress code. A. T. testified that she liked Respondent as a teacher, but he made her uncomfortable, and he should be more a teacher than a friend. Like T. R., A. T. seemed not to bear any negative feelings toward Respondent, but instead merely seemed to be describing an insensitive incident as it happened. To N. S., a junior at the time, Respondent said, upon learning that she had surgically implanted rods in her back, that he wanted to have sex with her. N. S. testified that she was not bothered by the remark. N. S.'s testimony is credited. She was friendly toward Respondent and had long dated Respondent's teacher assistant. To A. M., Respondent said that she looked pretty and could get any guy she wanted. A. M.'s testimony is credited. She did not have much interaction with Respondent and was not part of any group interested in causing him trouble. She seems simply to have truthfully reported an ill-advised comment that Respondent made to her, although she did not describe her reaction to the comment. To L. D., Respondent said that he had a bracelet of hers that she had lent him and that, whenever he looked at it, it reminded him of her. L. D. felt uncomfortable about this remark. L. D. also testified that Respondent sometimes tried to get the boys to treat the girls with respect, and her testimony is credited. Other witnesses, especially D. P. and B. H., described other comments, but their credibility is poor, and their testimony cannot be credited. The demeanor of two witnesses favorable to Respondent revealed something bordering on exasperation with him, even as they testified that he never said anything sexually inappropriate in class. The demeanor of each witness was consistent with someone who believed that Respondent was only joking around in class, when making sexually charged comments, and had suffered more than enough due to the consequences of lies told by two female students, as described below. In isolation, the comment about having sex with a student with orthopedic rods in her back is sexually offensive, as is the sexual comment and gesture framing a female student's breasts is sexually offensive. The comments about the agreement between T. R. and Respondent, the bracelet reminding Respondent of L. D., and A. M. being able to sufficiently pretty to get any boy are not sexually offensive, in isolation, but, even in isolation, betray a tendency by Respondent to regard certain of his female students as females more than students. With the exception of the comment to A. M., all of the comments, gesture, and behavior, in the aggregate during a relatively short period of time, depict a transformation by Respondent of the relationship between a teacher and several of his students to a more ambiguous relationship, at times resembling the relationship that might exist between these girls and the boys with whom they attended high school. Nearly all of these incidents embarrassed the female students; all of them, except perhaps A. M., reasonably should have been embarrassed by them. Several of these incidents suggest that Respondent regarded these female students as available for him in some role other than that of student--for instance, as females with whom to flirt. Petitioner has proved that Respondent exploited these female students, with the possible exception of A. M., for personal gain. This characterization of these comments, gesture, and behavior is confirmed by Respondent's implausible assertion that all of these students, except N. S., are lying. If confident that the comments, gesture, and behavior were innocuous or at least not improper, Respondent could have gained credibility by admitting these incidents and explaining their innocence. With one exception, Petitioner has not proved that Respondent sexually harassed or discriminated against his female students or these students in particular. The record does not suggest any quid pro quo in the sexual incidents, although the agreement with T. R. approaches the type of proof required. Nor does the record suggest that the sexual commentary, gesturing, or behavior were so pervasive as to create a hostile environment. Two students, N. S., A. M., and L. D., were each the subject of a single comment. One student, A. T., was the subject of a single incident, which consisted of a comment and gesture. On this record, Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent's treatment of these students rose to harassment or discrimination of them or of his female students in general. However, Respondent's treatment of T. R. rose to harassment and sexual discrimination because he made three sexually inappropriate comments and engaged in one sexually inappropriate behavior that caused her to alter her mode of dress. Respondent implicitly asked her to think about dating him--now or later--with the comment about a 26-year-old dating an 18-year-old. Respondent implicitly identified the possibility of their having sex with the comment about climbing in her window. Respondent alluded to the possibility of sex between T. R., a student, and himself, a teacher with the power of the grade, with the comment about her grade resulting from an agreement. And Respondent leered at T. R. sufficiently to cause her to change her workout clothes. In partial mitigation of the sexual comments, gesture, and behavior, but not the harassment or discrimination, no one seems to have provided Respondent with any timely feedback on this manner of interacting with certain female students. The only reports to adults seem to have been of isolated comments. In addition to the two reports noted above, a male student reported inappropriate comments, midway through the first quarter, to the teacher who was head of GOALS. Although the teacher did not describe the inappropriate comments, she said that she talked only to the two female students involved and evidently decided that the matter was not sufficiently important to discuss with Respondent or the administration. As noted above, Ms. Marks-Satinoff learned from T. R. of a borderline inappropriate comment. Sometime later, in January, she spoke briefly with Respondent and advised him to watch inappropriate comments. This marks the only feedback, and it was too late to alter the course of events. However, for the same reason that this lack of feedback does not mitigate at all the harassment and discrimination involving T. R., the value of this mitigation is largely undermined by the fact that the knowledge of the need to refrain from improper personal references to students is not granted only to the most experienced teachers or administrators. Perhaps Respondent was not fully aware that his comments, gesture, and behavior were sexually charged and did not realize the effects of these comments, gesture, and behavior on his students, as some teachers may not be fully aware of their sarcasm and its effect on their students. However, Respondent, as a teacher, remains responsible for determining the effect of his interaction upon his students and ultimately must bear the consequences if he fails to identify the problem. D. P. is the complainant in Charge 1. She was born in September 1984 and was a senior during the 2001-02 school year. Respondent taught her peer counseling during the first quarter and personal fitness during the second quarter. D. P. testified that on Monday, January 14, 2002, she approached Respondent to ask if she could exempt a final exam. She testified that he said to return after lunch. When she did, she testified that they met in his office where he kissed her and moved his hand up her leg until he digitally penetrated her vagina. D. P.'s testimony is unbelievable for several reasons. First, two different students testified that they heard her say that she would get Respondent into trouble. One of the students testified that he heard her say this immediately after an argument D. P. had with Respondent over absences and tardies. D. P. was upset with Respondent because her numerous absences and tardies prevented him from exempting her from the final examination in his class. D. P. did not tell anyone of the alleged incident until immediately after she found that she could not obtain an exam exemption from Respondent. Second, D. P.'s testimony is unusually inconsistent with other statements that she has given. Some inconsistencies are not fatal to credibility, but the number and importance of inconsistencies in her testimony and statements preclude a finding of credibility. Numerous material discrepancies exist between D. P.'s testimony at the hearing and her testimony in a prehearing deposition. Other discrepancies exist between her testimony at the hearing and earlier statements given to law- enforcement officers or made to others. These discrepancies include differences of two hours as to when during the day the incident occurred and one day as to which day on which it occurred. D. P.'s implausible implication is often that the persons taking down her version of events made a mistake. Third, D. P.'s testimony is improbable. First, Respondent was aware of the investigation into his dealings with female students by the morning of January 14. The investigation was already underway by the end of the prior week. For instance, D. P. had given her first statement on January 11. It is unlikely that Respondent would engage in such egregious sexual abuse of a student while he knew that he was under investigation. Second, Respondent's teacher assistant testified that he was in the office during the entire time that the incident supposedly would have taken place, and he never saw D. P. Fourth, D. P. has a poor reputation for honesty among her peers who know her well. D. P. testified that she told several persons about the sexual abuse, but they all denied such conversations. At one point during her testimony, she stated that everyone at school had his or her own opinion concerning rumors as to with which student Respondent was accused of having an improper relationship. As she testified, D. P. seemed clearly to have relished the attention that she had gained by making the charge. S. Y. is the complainant in Charge 2. S. Y. was born in April 1987 and was a sophomore during the 2001-02 school year. She was a student of Respondent. She testified that Respondent taught her Freshman Experience during the third quarter, although she was not a freshman and Respondent did not teach very long into the third quarter before he was terminated, as described below. S. Y. testified that Respondent kissed her one day while they were alone in his office. A number of reasons exist that undermine the credibility of this assertion. First, S. Y.'s testimony is also unusually inconsistent with other statements that she has given. At different times, she has attested that the kiss occurred between Thanksgiving and Christmas, before Thanksgiving, and in January. Second, S. Y.'s timing in reporting the kiss is suspect. First, three times she told investigators nothing about a kiss. Second, she reported the kiss only after she knew that D. P. had accused Respondent of sexual improprieties. S. Y. admitted that emotions were running "sky high" at the time. Unlike D. P., who did not like Respondent, S. Y. liked him, at one time even having a crush on him. S. Y. appeared capable of jealousy regarding her feelings about Respondent, as evidenced by the following facts. Third, S. Y. reported the kiss immediately after he referred her to the office for abruptly interrupting his class and loudly demanding that he tell her who else he was "fucking." Although she denied knowledge that Respondent was having sexual intercourse with any students, including herself, S. Y. admitted that the referral prompted her to report the kiss to an investigator. Fourth, S. Y. engaged in embellishment concerning her relationship with Respondent, as would be consistent with a fantasy attachment to him. Although S. Y. implausibly denied it, she told Ms. Marks-Satinoff that she had been to Respondent's home, which was in a poor section of Clearwater. Respondent's home is not in a poor section of Clearwater. S. Y. also has said that Respondent proposed that she and another girl perform in a porn movie that he would make. The reality is either that she proposed it to Respondent, who told her never to suggest such a thing again, or that a former boyfriend proposed the porn movie--without Respondent's involvement. For the reasons listed above, it is impossible to credit the testimony of D. P. or S. Y. that Respondent sexually abused them. Although the presence of multiple accusations of this type may sometimes be indicative of their reliability, they are more likely due to Respondent's sexual banter and flirtation and repeated failure to maintain appropriate boundaries between the professional and the personal. Both D. P. and S. Y. were doubtlessly aware of Respondent's tendencies in this regard, and, from this sexually charged atmosphere, which Respondent himself had helped create, they struck back at Respondent by making sexual allegations. D. P. chose to strike out at Respondent for not granting her an exemption to which she was not entitled, and S. Y. chose to strike out at Respondent for referring her to the office and not meeting the unrealistic expectations that she and her infatuation on Respondent had generated. Shortly after D. P. and possibly S. Y.'s charges emerged, law enforcement officers arrested Respondent, who remained in jail for nine days. In June 2002, the state attorney's office dropped the charges, although D. P. testified at the hearing that she intended to sue Respondent and Petitioner. Petitioner then terminated Respondent's employment six weeks prior to the end of the term of his annual contract. A proper penalty must reflect the nature of the offense and its impact on the students. Some students who were the subject of improper comments, gesture, and behavior denied embarrassment. Of those admitting to embarrassment, it does not seem to have been traumatizing or even especially painful. Not entirely without reason, some of the students implied that Respondent had already suffered enough, having been fired and served nine days in jail on accusations that were not established on this record. Also, the mitigation discussed above, as to the failure of authority figures to provide Respondent with timely feedback as to the improper comments, gesture, and behavior, but not harassment and discrimination, plays a role in setting the penalty. Petitioner's representative from the Office of Professional Standards testified that Charges 3 and 4 would suffice to warrant dismissal, depending on the frequency of the improper comments. The improper comments warrant, at most, an unpaid suspension of three days, but the harassment and discrimination involving T. R. warrant a more serious penalty. In the absence of the other sexually inappropriate comments and gesture, the harassment and discrimination involving T. R. probably would warrant a long suspension. However, two facts warrant termination. First, the harassment and discrimination involving T. R. are accompanied by the sexually inappropriate comments and gesture involving the other students. Second, still not grasping the requirements of a professional's proper relationship toward his students, Respondent has continued, implausibly, to deny all of the sexually inappropriate comments, except for an admission of a vague version of the comment about the orthopedic rod in N. S.'s back. By branding these students liars when he himself is lying, Respondent makes the case for Petitioner that termination is the proper remedy.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Pinellas County School Board enter a final order dismissing Respondent from employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Florida Education Center Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street 1244 Turlington Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Jacqueline M. Spoto, Esquire School Board of Pinellas County 301 Fourth Street, Southwest Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 33779-2942
