Findings Of Fact An Administrative Complaint was served on the Respondent in April, 1983. Herb A. Sang, Superintendent of Duval County County Schools, was responsible for those charges. In the complaint, it is alleged that Respondent is guilty of professional incompetency in fulfilling his duties as a teacher in the Duval County School System in the years 1979-80 and 1980-81. Respondent is a tenured teacher in the Duval County School System and had held that tenure at all times relevant to this inquiry. Respondent opposed these allegations, leading to the formal Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes hearing. Respondent, who has been employed in the school system since 1954, was transferred to Duncan U. Fletcher Senior High School in 1971. Lee remained at Fletcher High through the school year 1979-80. In that year, Lee taught 10th grade English. His performance in the classroom was observed by Dr. Andrew Knight, principal at Fletcher High School, and by other professionals in the school. These observations commenced in September 1979 and continued throughout the school year. By January 30, 1980, Dr. Knight had gained a sufficient impression of the performance of the Respondent to write and inform him of areas of deficiency. A copy of that letter of evaluation may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7, admitted into evidence. In addition to setting forth deficiencies, the letter suggests techniques that might be employed to correct the deficiencies. Relevant areas of concern involved classroom management, teaching effectiveness and classroom performance. Those observations as set out in the letter of evaluation and critique of the Respondent's performance are an accurate depiction of the performance. All these items set forth relate to teacher competency and this depiction of Respondent, coupled with similar observations which were testified to during the course of the hearing, demonstrate a lack of competency on the part of the Respondent in performing his teaching duties. The deficiencies set forth in the letter of evaluation were explained to the Respondent in person. Following the interim evaluation of January, 1980, the annual formal evaluation was made on March 12, 1980. A copy of that evaluation may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 9, admitted into evidence. As depicted in this document, Respondent was still perceived in March, 1980, as giving a poor performance as a teacher. This characterization of his performance, as found in the evaluation of March 12, 1980, is accurate and those observations, together with the observations of his performance as testified to in the hearing, point to the fact that the Respondent continued to be less than competent in his teaching. Throughout that school year, classroom management was the most obvious deficiency. In particular, students were sleeping and talking to each other and not paying attention, a problem not satisfactorily addressed by Lee. As a result, the learning experience was diminished. Moreover, this circumstance was made worse by the fact that Lee's perception of how to plan for instruction and his efforts at carrying out these plans were not structured in a fashion to hold the attention of his classes and promote the goals announced in the Duval County School course Curriculum for Tenth Grade Language Arts. See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 33. Based upon his unsatisfactory evaluation for the school year 1979-80, and in keeping with the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act, Respondent was transferred to Edward White High School in the school year 1980-81. The principal at that school was John E. Thombleson. Thombleson was aware of the unsatisfactory rating that Lee had received and undertook, during the course of Respondent's stay at White High School, to observe and assist Lee in trying to improve Lee's teaching. That improvement was not forthcoming. Lee continued to have problems related to classroom management and teacher effectiveness and he was not responsive to beneficial ideas of improvement offered by Thombleson related to in-service assistance. Ideas for improvement which were posed to the Respondent include those set forth in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11, admitted into evidence which is a memorandum concerning a conference held with Respondent by Principal Thombleson. Other exhibits admitted pertaining to observations by Thombleson and other administrators at White are found to be accurate depictions of the atmosphere in Lee's classroom related to management and teaching effectiveness. Through October, 1980, visits to Respondent's classes revealed a lack of attention on the part of students, a lack of preparedness by the Respondent, a failure to proceed in a sequence which would be commensurate with the curriculum goals set for the classes, tardiness on the part of the Respondent and students, failure to provide lesson plans to the administration observer, failure to conform to the scheduled lesson plan for the day, and failure to provide continuity between the lesson of the day and the following day's assignment. These were problems that had been observed during Lee's 1979- 80 year at Fletcher. Consequently, the required interim evaluation of October 30, 1980, was not favorable to Lee. A copy of that formal evaluation may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 18, admitted into evidence and the observations set forth therein are found to be accurate. Lee was also provided with a memorandum on that date, a copy of which is Petitioner's Exhibit No. 19, admitted into evidence. This document suggested ways to improve classroom management, teaching effectiveness and classroom performance. Both the evaluation and memorandum of improvement were discussed with the Respondent and the matters of that conference are set forth in the memorandum of October 30, 1980, a copy of which is found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 20, admitted into evidence. On November 6, 1980, Respondent's grade book was evaluated and found to be deficient, a finding which is accepted. The grade book was not properly documented, among other shortcomings. Respondent, by correspondence of November 18, 1980, a copy of which is admitted as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 24, requested Principal Thombleson to give concrete examples of expectations of the Respondent in fulfilling his teaching responsibilities. This correspondence was replied to by memorandum of December 5, 1980, a copy of which is admitted as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 25, and contains a continuing explanation of ideas of improvement which had been previously suggested by Principal Thombleson. Lee's performance did not improve after this exchange and the final evaluation at White of March 12, 1981, was not positive. A copy of that evaluation may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 27, admitted into evidence and the evaluation's conclusions are accepted. Overall, in the year 1980-81, Respondent did not perform as a competent teacher while at Edward White. Respondent did not conclude the teaching year at Edward White in 1980- In the face of an attitude which Thombleson considered to be insubordinate and the Respondent's expressed desire to be transferred, Lee was reassigned to William Raines Senior High School in April, 1981. For the remainder of that academic year he served as a substitute teacher. It was not established in the course of the hearing what quality of performance Lee gave as a substitute teacher when assigned to Raines High School and it is therefore assumed that that performance was satisfactory. In the school year 1981-82, Respondent was assigned to Raines High School and acted primarily as a substitute teacher. He remained in the high school for that school year premised upon a settlement negotiation between the Respondent and the Duval County School Board pertaining to an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint which he had filed pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. For the school year 1981-82, the Duval County school administration decided that they would not afford a performance evaluation to the Respondent and none was given. There being no evidence to the contrary, it is assumed that Respondent fulfilled his role as substitute teacher adequately. In the school year 1982-83, Respondent was reassigned to Raines school and worked primarily in the media center program in a nonteaching capacity. Lee did a limited amount of substitute teaching in that year. Jimmie A. Johnson, Principal of Raines school found his work as a substitute teacher to be acceptable as set forth in the memorandum of March 23, 1983, a copy of which is admitted as Respondent's Exhibit B. No contrary position being offered on the question of the quality of performance in the limited role of substitute teacher during that school year, Respondent is found to have performed the role of substitute teacher in a satisfactory manner. Lee's performance as a substitute teacher in the years 1981-82 and 1982-83 while accepted as satisfactory does not overcome the established fact that in the school years 1979-80 and 1980-81, when performing the role of full- time tenured teacher in Duval County, he was not a competent teacher. This performance in the substitute role, while similar, is not sufficiently so to provide a quality of rehabilitation which would set aside the present perception that Respondent is not competent to fulfill the role as full-time classroom teacher in Duval County. This finding is supported by the observations of Dr. Jeffrey Weathers, a professional educator who specializes in teacher evaluations related to their classroom performance as to subject matter and general methodologies. Although some of the tasks which Weathers observed in the Respondent's classroom both at Fletcher and White did not pertain to active instruction, to the extent that other tasks observed called upon Respondent to teach, he was not doing so in an effective manner. As Dr. Weathers described, the vital link between activity and learning could not be found in Lee's classes. Weather's observations, together with those of other professionals at Fletcher and White, coupled with the Respondent's less than cooperative attitude, results in the finding that Respondent has not removed the stigma of his incompetence as a full-time classroom teacher through his teaching in the substitute role at Raines. Finally, while the quality of performance by those students at Fletcher and White who were taught by Lee and participated in the MLST minimum skills tests were similar to students of other teachers in the aggregate, this fact is not enough to set aside the impression of the Respondent's competence. As Dr. Curtis Randolph, who was assistant principal at Fletcher in 1979-80, correctly stated upon reflecting on Respondent's performance, Lee is not competent to teach in Duval County Schools.
The Issue Whether the employment of Petitioner, Cornelius B. Frankliln, was improperly terminated by Respondent, The School Board of Seminole County, in the summer of 1988.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, C.B. Franklin, began service with the School Board of Seminole County in the position of teacher in the 1951-52 academic year. In 1955, Petitioner was awarded a continuing contract of employment by Respondent in the position of teacher. Said continuing contract was in effect at all times relevant hereto. Petitioner was last employed by the School Board of Seminole County, Florida, as an Assistant Principal II at Sanford Middle School on an annual contract of employment, which terminated of June 10, 1989. During his employment at Sanford Middle School as an assistant principal from 1980 through 1988, Petitioner received satisfactory annual evaluations. In March, 1988, Owen McCarron, Assistant Superintendent, applied a "staffing formula" for each school in Seminole County. The staffing formula is not a school board rule but is a formula that the school board approves based upon student population to determine the number of teachers, secretaries, assistant principals, and others needed at each specific school. Mr. McCarron is responsible for the application of the formula. The application of the formula is not submitted to the school board for approval. Mr. McCarron made a mistake in the preparation of the staffing formula for 1988/89. The mistake made was that the number of assistant principals for Sanford Middle School would be reduced from two to one. Having been informed of a reduction, Dan Pelham, Principal, Sanford Middle School, determined that he would have to choose among the Assistant Principal II's employed and decided not to recommend the continued employment of Petitioner. Owen McCarron discovered the mistake and notified Dan Pelham, sometime in late March, 1989. However, Dan Pelham chose not to recommend the continued employment of Petitioner but rather to advertise the position as being vacant. When Mr. Pelham was notified the position was reinstated he considered it to be an "opportunity" to consider alternative persons for the position. Mr. Pelham's decision was based on Petitioner's performance as reflected by his annual evaluations and faculty input. Mr. Pelham held a conference with Petitioner on April 8, 1988, and Petitioner was advised that his contract as an assistant principal at Sanford Middle School would not be renewed for the school year 1988-89, because the School Board had reduced the number of assistant principal positions at Sanford Middle School from two (2) positions to one (1). Petitioner was offered a teaching position, under his continuing contract status, at Sanford Middle School as a peer counselor. The Respondent did not act to approve the reduction in positions, nor was the Respondent notified that Petitioner was not being recommended for reemployment. The School Board does not have a rule to govern how the decision is to be made upon a reduction in staff. At the time of the hearing and at all relevant times prior thereto, Petitioner held a valid Florida Department of Education certification in the teaching fields of health education, physical education and supervision and administration. On or about June 9, 1989, one day prior to the expiration of Petitioner's contract as Assistant Principal II, the Petitioner met with Dan Pelham and John Reichert, Director of Personnel. At that time, Petitioner was again advised by Mr. Pelham that he had not changed his decision not to renew Petitioner as an assistant principal, even though he had been advised that the position had been restored. The Petitioner was advised that he could apply for the vacant Assistant Principal II position but he would have to submit an application and a resume. The Petitioner responded that Dan Pelham was well aware of his qualifications, and that a copy of his resume was on file. At that time, Mr. Pelham offered Petitioner the peer counselor position, but salary was not discussed. Petitioner was given copies of documents containing the job information for the position of peer counselor. The position had not previously existed and had not been advertised. Petitioner was reassured that he had employment with the School Board as a teacher under his continuing contract status. At the same meeting, Mr. Reichert advised Petitioner to accept the teaching position, and at the same time apply for the assistant principal vacancy at Sanford Middle School. Petitioner applied for state retirement on June 27, 1988, and his retirement was accepted by the School Board of Seminole County thereafter, on July 13, 1988. Prior to the time Petitioner submitted his application for retirement, he was verbally offered a teaching position under his continuing contract status for the 1988-89 school year at Sanford Middle School. Petitioner is an experienced school administrator, holds a master's degree in [school] administration and supervision from Rollins College, in Winter Park, Florida. As a component of his master's degree requirement he had instruction in school law. Petitioner was aware that his employment as an assistant principal was on the basis of an annual contract of employment and that the position was not entitled to continuing contract status. Petitioner did not apply for the position of Assistant Principal II (secondary) at Sanford Middle School, after it was declared vacant and advertised (in the Spring of 1988), even though he was told that he would be considered for reappointment to the position if he did. Petitioner was aware that if he accepted the offered position of peer counselor his pay would resume in the Fall of 1988, along with all of the other teachers, and that he would be paid at the top of the teaching salary scale on the basis of his thirty (30) plus years of service. Petitioner did not respond, verbally or in writing, to the offered position of peer counselor subsequent to its offer and prior to his retirement. Mr. L. David Pelham, the principal of Sanford Middle School, was not obligated to reappoint Petitioner to the position of assistant principal, after June 10, 1988. However, Petitioner was entiled to a performance assessment prior to that date. Mr. Pelham recognized that Petitioner held continuing contract status and was entitled to be placed in a teaching position at Sanford Middle School for the 1988-89 school year and thereafter. Petitioner never discussed his decision to retire with Mr. Reichert or Mr. Pelham. Neither person had any communications with Petitioner after the June 9, 1988 meeting. Petitioner's annual contract of employment clearly put him on notice that neither he nor the school board owed the other any further contractual obligation after June 9, 1988 and that he had no expectancy of employment as an assistant principal after June 10, 1988.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the affirmative relief sought by the Petitioner should be DENIED. It is further RECOMMENDED that each party should bear their own costs and attorneys fees. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 31st day of October, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-2007 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Findings of Fact Paragraphs 1 (1st three sentences), 2, 3, 4 (1st sentence), 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 (except the last 2 sentences) - Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 4 (2d sentence), 9,12 - Rejected as against the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 11 (except sentence 2)-Rejected as subservient. Respondents Findings of Fact Paragraph 1 through 26 - Accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert E. Hughes Superintendent of Schools c/o Seminole County School Board 1211 Melonville Avenue Sanford, Florida 32771 John D. Carlson, Esquire Gatlin, Woods, Carlson & Cowdery 1709-D Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Ned N. Julian, Jr., Esquire Stenstrom, McIntosh, Julian, Colbert, Whigham & Simmons, P.A. Post Office Box 1330 Sanford, Florida 32772-1330 Sydney H. McKenzie General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations treated herein, Respondent, William Wyche, held a Florida Teaching Certificate number 106113, issued on October 29, 1980, covering the area of industrial arts. Respondent applied for a Florida teaching certificate by submitting the required application form and documentation on or about October 20, 1980. At the time of submission, Respondent replied "no" to the question in Section V of the form which asks: "Have you ever been convicted or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation. . .?" This answer was false in that: On September 20, 1979, respondent was found guilty of driving while his license was suspended, and fined $50.00; On March 20, 1980, Respondent was found guilty of obtaining property by worthless check and fined $25.00; On March 20, 1980, Respondent was found guilty of driving with a suspended license and fined $100.00; On April 2, 1980, Respondent was found guilty of obtaining property by worthless check and was fined $25.00; and, On April 25, 1980, Respondent was found guilty of obtaining property by worthless check and was fined $25.00. On that same date, in a separate case involving an identical charge, adjudication was withheld but Respondent was placed on probation for sixty days. Respondent explains the check charges on the basis that at the time they took place, all within a few weeks of each other, his bank account had been garnished and because of that garnishment, though he had ample funds in his account to honor these checks, the bank did not honor them. There were quite a few checks dishonored for this reason-so many, in fact, that he lost track of some of them and though he redeemed most, he failed to redeem these. As to the convictions for driving with a suspended license, he thought these were minor traffic offenses that did not have to be listed. Respondent was employed as an industrial arts (IA) teacher at Kirby Smith Junior High School (KSJHS) in Jacksonville, Florida during the 1981-82 school year, teaching in the metal shop. During this period, he was evaluated on a regular basis, based on observations and evaluations by other school officials carried on at various times throughout the school year. During these evaluations, such things as classroom conditions, the instructor's presentations, the preparation of lesson plans, and the use of lesson plans as guidelines for in-class instruction were considered. Lonnie W. Davenport was assistant principal for curriculum at KSJHS during this period and had to insure that teaching was taking place properly in both form and substance. To do this, he contacted his teachers daily and also relied on observations such as described above, and reports submitted to him. These reports were regarding such things as student class size, grade reports by teachers, black/white student count in the homerooms, and teachers' lesson plans which were required from each teacher weekly. While he has no formal IA training, he has a lot of experience in the area. Mr. Davenport first took serious note of the Respondent in mid- December, 1981 when he noted that Respondent had not submitted complete lesson plans. There were holes in those submitted relating to time and quality. In addition, the principal had asked him to look into reported irregularities in Respondent's classroom. His examination of Respondent's lesson plans showed that they were inadequate because they: did not conform to the form required; did not cover the subject matter sufficiently; did not follow a time sequence properly; and, were not sufficiently specific. They should have broken down the instruction into segments for skill development on a step-by-step, day-by-day basis. In short, Respondent's plans did not adequately tell what he was intending to do in his classroom. As to Respondent's teaching, Davenport's observation showed that Respondent: had no plans to show what was expected of his students; maintained the shop in a depressing state. (Here, however, it was admitted that this school was old and the shop dingy, and Respondent could not control all of that. However, Respondent's teaching aids, such as posters, which were old, faded, and torn, added to the dinginess.) allowed shop metal to lay around the shop without being placed in stock storage, creating a safety hazard; failed to safeguard and neglected one student's artwork project, and other students' projects were left out and not placed in storage for the next class period; stored a large stack of sheet metal under a work bench with cutting corners end edges protruding (also a safety hazard) allowed equipment which should have been stored to remain out; failed to have safety lines placed on the floor around individual pieces of equipment; failed to insure that soldering forges were properly shielded or securely fastened down; and, failed to post safety rules prominently in the classroom. Respondent contends that he submitted purchase orders requesting corrections be made of these deficiencies. However, with the exception of several orders for paint, some of which may have been used for the safety lines and to brighten up the area, the remainder of the purchase orders he introduced into evidence (Respondent's Composite Exhibit E), were for metal stock and other pieces of new or replacement equipment. There was no evidence of work orders for correction of any of the cited defects. Mr. Davenport's observations as to Respondent's teaching ability were that: He sat at his desk in the classroom while his students were working in the shop behind his back. As a result, students with problems had to come out of the shop to him for help rather than him being available in the shop to help; students were not required to wear safety goggles while operating power equipment nor did Respondent use them while operating the equipment; The student projects assigned or approved by Respondent were too simple and provided no challenge; The quality of the finished product turned out by Respondent's students was poor; Grading of student projects was accomplished on the basis of negotiation with the student and not on accomplishment or work quality; Once the student had completed the basic project, Respondent had no follow-up projects for them to do to use up the remainder of the school year. He, allowing them to occupy themselves with "busy work," showed to Davenport a lack of commitment to planning; Respondent was observed and overheard by Davenport to chastise a student by threatening to destroy the student's project, resulting in failure. This observation, which Respondent admitted to Davenport, is contrary to a school policy which prevents discipline from affecting an academic grade; and, In one particular class observed, Respondent came to class late. He had allowed a student to take roll, a function required of the teacher, and evidence available to Davenport, led him to believe this was a repeated- occurrence; Respondent's absence allowed students to engage in horseplay and rowdy behavior and, even when Respondent came into class, he chastised the wrong student. As to the type of instruction Respondent was observed to give, when a student would bring a project to him and ask a question, he would answer. For the most part, however, he stayed at his desk while the students worked unsupervised in the shop. He showed no initiative and did not even require students to draw plans or prepare material lists before starting work on a project. On one occasion, a student was injured in the shop. Respondent merely washed the injury, wrapped it, and sent the student back to work. Davenport, who observed this incident, told Respondent on the spot that the student should go to the office for first aid and that Respondent should file an accident report on the incident. The report was not filed by Respondent and the student went to the office at the direction of Davenport, not Respondent. This showed a complete lack of concern, according to Davenport. Davenport counseled the Respondent on the above deficiencies but observed no immediate response. He went back to Respondent's class 5-7 times subsequently for follow-up visits of from 20 minutes to an hour in duration and found little change for the better. He repeatedly offered Respondent assistance in any area to correct the shortcomings and got no response until in March, 1982, when Respondent found out he was going to get an unsatisfactory rating. He had been notified in writing, on January 8 end again on February 5, 1982, by his principal Mr. Shanklin, in addition to others, including an evaluation on January 13, 1982 by Mr. Lowell T. Hudson, supervisor of industrial arts for the school board, that his performance was deficient. These warnings could have left little doubt as to the fact his performance was below standard. Finally, on March 15, 1982, Mr. Shanklin rendered an evaluation on Respondent which showed an overall rating of unsatisfactory. Of the six areas rated in classroom management, two were satisfactory and four were unsatisfactory. Of the twenty- one areas rated in teaching effectiveness, one was satisfactory, nine were rated as needing improvement, and eleven were rated unsatisfactory. Seven of the nine areas of professional/personal characteristics were rated satisfactory, one needed improvement, and one was unsatisfactory. Even after this unsatisfactory report, the school administrative staff still tried to help Respondent. They offered him direct help themselves and, in addition, the services of county in service resource personnel to help with planning. Respondent was receptive to this verbally, but never took any steps to use them. As a result, there was no improvement in Respondent's performance but merely a maintenance of the status quo. There were some minor improvements in the condition of the shop but these were merely cosmetic and did not, in any way, relate to the quality of instruction. In Davenport's opinion, Respondent does not meet the minimum standards of competency for teachers nor can he be trained to meet these standards. He is convinced, and it is so found that Respondent's race played no part in the evaluation process. The principal at KSJHS during this period, Mr. Jack H. Shanklin, agreed with and amplified on Davenport's analysis of Respondent. His first difficulty with Respondent came in October, 1981 when the Dean of Girls wrote him a memorandum stating that Respondent had struck a student with a dowel rod. This was not the first instance of Respondent's striking students. Since Respondent was not designated as one to administer corporal punishment, she had previously warned him to send all disciplinary problems to the office. When Shanklin discussed this with Respondent, he said he did it to control the class. Shanklin did not personally evaluate Respondent until early January, 1982, after Davenport's evaluation. Prior to going to the class, he reviewed Respondent's lesson plans and found them to be sketchy. In his opinion, a substitute teacher could not have taught from them and they were "totally unacceptable." When he went into the classroom, he found the Respondent lecturing end he could not understand what Respondent was trying to get across. Respondent mumbled, was hard to understand, and used few, if any, visual aids. It was obvious to him that the students were bored, confused, and were getting nothing from the presentation. In addition, he observed the shop and found it to be dingy, dirty, and a safety hazard. Mr. Shanklin discussed these deficiencies with Respondent a few days later when he gave him the letter regarding the observation. He went into these deficiencies, and recommendations to correct them, quite thoroughly. He made suggestions as to resource people available to help and pointed out specific references to the teachers' manual. In each case, Respondent always indicated he understood and would try to comply. However, in the succeeding month leading up to the February letter, there were no signs of improvement at all nor was there any indication he had utilized the resource people. Follow-up visits to the classroom showed no change and no indication Respondent was getting anything across to the students. After the February letter was given to Respondent by Mr. Shanklin personally, they had a conference in which Shanklin discussed Respondent's deficiencies and he was told what he had to change to get a favorable evaluation. The most critical areas for improvement identified were: lesson plans safety conditions, and classroom appearance, as well as Respondent's personal untidy and nonprofessional appearance. After this discussion, Shanklin made several visits to Respondent's classroom prior to the March evaluation and did note some improvements in classroom appearance and safety, but not in lesson planning or teaching. Even after the March evaluation, up to the end of the school term, he noted no improvement. On March 29, 1982, he gave Respondent a third letter outlining areas for improvement. Respondent finished out the 1981-82 school year but because of the unsatisfactory evaluation he received, requested a transfer to a different school for the 1982-83 school year. In Shanklin's opinion, Respondent did not meet minimum standards of competency nor could he achieve them because of a lack of effort to improve. Shanklin feels Respondent does not care about the education of children and would make only superficial efforts to be trained. Race is not a factor in this evaluation. At least 50 percent of Shanklin's staff is black. He has 85 teachers on his staff and in the last three years, he has rated 13 teachers unsatisfactory. Of these, 8 or 9 were black. Therefore, of the 255 teacher evaluations he has rendered in three years, 8 or 9 unsatisfactory's were given to black teachers. Dalton D. Epting, Director of Certified Personnel for the school board, talked with Respondent about his evaluation on several occasions when Respondent was at Wolfson High School. If a teacher is on tenure status and received an unsatisfactory evaluation, he may request a transfer to a different school for a second year during which efforts are made through counseling, training, and other assistance, to help him become satisfactory. When Respondent, due to his unsatisfactory evaluation at KSJHS requested a transfer, he was assigned for the second year, to Wolfson High where, for reasons cited below, he was rated unsatisfactory for the second year in a row. Respondent was sent to Wolfson for his second year because there was no vacancy for IA teachers in the system. Even though Wolfson was also full, rather than send Respondent back to KSJHS, they sent him to Wolfson, with all its teachers, so he could have the benefit of other good teachers. Race was not a factor in this decision. It is not automatic that a teacher who receives a second consecutive unsatisfactory rating is discharged. The system looks to see if the teacher was given every assistance to improve; to ensure that everything reasonable was done by way of counseling, resource help, training, and the like, to help him. If it was and the teacher did not improve, he is discharged. Here, school officials looked at all evaluations for both years, considered the discussions held with Respondent, and the input from cadre and resource personnel, and decided that Respondent was incompetent. The decision was made, therefore, to discharge the Respondent and this action was taken. During the 1982-83 school year, after his first unsatisfactory evaluation, Respondent worked for David E. White, principal at Wolfson High School. Immediately White sat down with Respondent, along with the IA supervisor to let him know what was expected of him and what help was available to him. He observed Respondent in the classroom on several occasions and, based on these and other factors in accordance with school board rules, in an effort to let the teacher know how he or she is doing, rendered an unsatisfactory rating on Respondent on October 30, 1982. Among the examples of Respondent's incompetence which led up to this evaluation were progress reports, discipline referrals, notes, and tests prepared by Respondent, some of which went home to parents, that contained obvious spelling, grammatical, and syntax errors. At first, White became aware of concern by students and their parents about Respondent's performance. When these complaints first began, White called in the IA supervisor for the school district, Mr. Hudson, to evaluate Respondent. He began evaluating Respondent himself when the complaints continued. These complaints were to the effect, basically, that the students could not understand Respondent. (It is noted here that Respondent suffers from a slight speech impediment). He would merely read from the textbook with no teacher-student interaction. There was little lab work - mostly lecture or reading. This was not appropriate in the Graphic Arts area which consists of such skills as printing, photography, silk-screening, and the like. Consistent with the notes, reports, end referral slips prepared by Respondent, White noted a lack of grammatical correctness in his oral presentations as well. In addition, White observed that the Respondent's students were not being motivated by him and spent little time on their classroom tasks, and he also observed that Respondent's presentation was lacking in technological detail. For example, on one occasion, Respondent was discussing a box camera and failed to detail the advantages and disadvantages of this type of camera, the type of films available for it, and the merits of each. When the class period was over, White discussed the above with Respondent, suggesting how the lecture could be improved. The following day White came back to class to see how Respondent carried the discussion forward and it was as if White had not said anything. Respondent continued to omit from his lecture the substantive technological information White, as principal, felt should be taught. White concluded that Respondent was not at all familiar with the subject matter he was teaching. 1/ Respondent was also considered to be deficient in his administrative skills. He lost (or had stolen) his grade book as well as his computer worksheets twice during one 9 week period. This created seven extra hours work for the curriculum office, with 3 additional hours by Respondent, to reconstruct, his grades. The fact that Respondent had to help in this project meant someone had to cover his classes for him. It also created a lot of inquiry by parents who, on learning of the lost grade book, questioned the validity of grades given their children. In addition, Respondent's attendance registers were not turned in on time notwithstanding frequent reminders in advance of due dates. At the end of the first semester, White had a conference with Respondent about the above. Respondent began being absent due to sickness in January, 1983 and went on sick leave on 9 February, 1983 which extended through the remainder of the school year. It is important to note that Respondent's absence at this time was valid and there is no inference or insinuation to the contrary. While he was absent, on March 8, 1983, Respondent was given a notice of intent to render an unsatisfactory evaluation report which was, in fact, issued on April 15, 1983. Here it must be noted that there could have been no improvement in performance between the notice and the evaluation as Respondent was not present for duty but was on sick leave. In any event, White contends that as a result of Respondent's teaching, the school's IA program has been seriously damaged, but that has not been shown. While Respondent's classes did net prepare his students for the second year curriculum in those areas, there is no evidence that the school's program has been seriously damaged. Nonetheless, it was shown be that, as white contends, Respondent did not meet minimum county standards and could not be improved to meet them. Consequently, on August 15, 1983, the superintendent of the Duval County public schools, by certified letter, notified Respondent that because of the two years of unsatisfactory evaluations, indicating professional incompetence, he was recommending the School Board discharge Respondent from employment. Thereafter, on January 16, 1984, the Duval County School Board, by Final Order, sustained the charge of professional incompetence, and discharged Respondent as a teacher. Race was definitely not an issue in White's evaluation. In his school, at which the student body comes from the upper level socioeconomic group, and which has rated first in Area Scholastic Aptitude Test scores for the past five ears, White has no black administrators or department chairmen on his staff. One black former department chairman was promoted to vice-principal at another school. His choices for personnel are based on qualifications, not race. At the present time, 12 percent of the teachers on staff are black and over the six years White has been principal at Wolfson High, only 3 black teachers have transferred out. While at both KSJHS and Wolfson High, Respondent was encouraged to consult with Everett T. Hudson, IA supervisor for the school board, and was, in fact, evaluated by him in both settings. He evaluated Respondent first on January 14, 1982, at the request of the Principal at KSJHS end observed Respondent during his 8-9 a.m. first period class. His conclusions were: classroom and shop cleanliness were poor; it appeared that activities were winding down shop organization was poor (no clean-up schedule was posted and metal stock was laying everywhere; the students' projects were not meaningful or of a quality nature; respondent spent too much time lecturing and did not allow for sufficient shop time, and, respondent's lesson plans were not available. When seen, it was obvious Respondent had not used the curriculum guide to draft the few plans he had. When Respondent transferred to Wolfson High, the Principal there also asked Hudson to come out and evaluate Respondent on a more frequent basis. Consequently, because of this request and because of the fact that due to Respondent's previous unsatisfactory rating he was on probation, Hudson evaluated Respondent ten times, at least once in each month, between September 8, 1982 and January 5, 1983. As a result of these evaluations, it appeared to Hudson that Respondent did not know how to: plan a project; lay out equipment; identify woods and where they came from; use certain equipment. It further appeared to Hudson that Respondent's lectures were poor in that he mumbled and he didn't seem to know what he was talking about. Further, his lesson plans were poor, and he failed to keep up with an appropriate time schedule for class. As a result, Hudson ended up, himself, helping the students rather than evaluating. When these observations were made, Mr. Hudson would go over them with Respondent and give Respondent a copy. Notwithstanding he pointed out these deficiencies repeatedly, there appeared to be no improvement at all. The school system here has a remedial program for teachers to use to improve their performance. There are resource teachers to provide assistance and there are also "in service" programs for teachers. Mr. Hudson suggested Respondent take some, one of which he was teaching right at Respondent's school. As he recalls, Respondent came twice out of 15 sessions. As a result of the above, Hudson does not believe that Respondent meets minimum competency standards and could not meet them. In his opinion, Respondent: suffers from a lack of organizational ability; has lackadaisical attitude toward improving the program; would not spend the necessary time to upgrade his skills, and has a weak knowledge of the subject matter. Here again, race was not an issue in these evaluations. Hudson supervises 95 IA teachers in the Duval County school system and is the only administrator. Of these teachers, approximately 25 are black. Over 13 years, he has been called in to evaluate, like this, 5 or 6 teachers, only one of whom was black, and of this number, only 2 have been discharged. Respondent has a Bachelor of Science decree in Education and a Masters degree in Industrial Education, both from Florida A & M University. In addition, he has attended a leadership development course at Michigan State University, military classes in the same while in the army at Ft. Dix, New Jersey, and numerous workshops in Florida at his own expense. It was his hope, when he started working in Duval County, to develop some feel for the IA field in that school system As a result of his experience there, he is of the opinion that the entire IA program is underfunded. Students have to pay for the wood and metal materials they use to build a prefect. He urges that without materials and equipment, a teacher cannot teach, a point concerned by Mr. Davenport, and that was the reason he submitted the purchase orders he did at KSJHS. In that regard, it would appear that about the time Respondent was teaching at KSJHS in 1981, a report by an Inspector (Jenkins) from the school district offices, reflected that materials and equipment in Respondent's class area did not meet minimum state requirements. In addition, there was some problem regarding the excessive size of the class. This problem was immediately corrected end certification in this area was restored. He also contends that a teacher's teaching style may differ from that of his principal's and still be correct. With regard to the April 15, 1953 unsatisfactory evaluation, Respondent contends, in an attempt to contest his rating, that since he was out sick much of the month of January, 1983, and all of the time from February 9, 1983 to the end of the school year, a rating dated in mid April would cover as large a period of time when he was not there as when he was. The Teacher Tenure Act under which this system operates provides for a second full year of evaluation before discharge. Since he was sick for half the second year, he contends, his discharge was not valid. He wants to fulfill his probationary period to prove he is a worthy teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, William Wyche's teacher certificate issued by the State of Florida be revoked for a period of three years, with provision for reinstatement as provided for by statute. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 16th day of August, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk with the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of August, 1984.
Findings Of Fact The hearing officer's findings of fact are hereby approved and adopted. There is competent, substantial evidence to support the the hearing officer's findings of fact. Petitioner takes his vacation between school board meetings or by asking the school board to be excused from attending said meetings. No leave time is actually used for such absences. (Petitioner's Exhibit O) Prior to 1979 the Division had not determined Cooney was an employee being paid from a regular salaries account who was eligible for FRS membership. His actual position and employment status was not questioned until 1980. Following an extensive review of Cooney's position, which had not changed since 1965, the Division determined Cooney was not eligible for FRS membership because he was not filling a regularly, established position. The 1979 rule changes defined "regularly established position", but did not redefine employee.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Division enter a final order declaring Richard W. Cooney eligible for membership in the Florida Retirement System both before and after July 1, 1979. RECOMMENDED this 6th day of September, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of September, 1984.
Findings Of Fact During 1978 and 1979, Petitioner was employed as a full-time teacher on an annual contract basis with the Leon County School Board. The principal at the Petitioner's school did not recommend him for reappointment for the 1979- 1980 school year. Petitioner, accordingly, was not reappointed. The Leon County School Board has adopted rules relating to the reappointment of teachers. School Board Rule 2.02(3)(a) provides: The building principal shall submit to the Superintendent for reappoint- ment, those members of his faculty recommended for reappointment. These reappointments, upon approval of the Superintendent, shall be recommended to the School Board at least six weeks prior to the close of the post school conference. In accordance with this rule, since Petitioner was not recommended for reappointment by his principal, he was not recommended by the superintendent and not reappointed by the School Board. Petitioner was not terminated from his position as a part of a School Board layoff. The Petitioner's job performance had been satisfactory. He was not recommended for reappointment because the school had three persons available to teach courses for which there were only two positions. The Petitioner was the least senior of the three persons and did not have tenure. Accordingly, he was not recommended for reappointment.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Joy Deal (Respondent or Ms. Deal), committed misconduct as alleged by the School Board of Sarasota County (School Board), and, if so, whether the School Board had just cause to terminate her employment.
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Personnel Petitioner is responsible for operating the public schools in the Sarasota County School District, including Sarasota High School (Sarasota High). The School Board is responsible for hiring, firing, and overseeing both instructional employees and non-instructional employees within Sarasota County, Florida. Respondent has been an employee the School Board for 22 years. She has worked as an administrative secretary, but relevant to these proceedings, Ms. Deal was employed at Sarasota High as an SSP-5 Attendance Clerk (Attendance Clerk).5 David Jones (Principal Jones) is Sarasota High's principal and has been employed by the School Board since 2005. He previously served as a math teacher, assistant principal, middle school principal, and principal of another high school. He became the principal at Sarasota High at the start of the 2016/2017 school year, replacing Jeffrey Hradek (Principal Hradek). Sarasota High's administrative team was made up of Principal Jones and numerous assistant principals. Both Ryan Chase and Becky Moyer served as assistant principals under Principal Jones during the 2016/2017, 2017/2018, and 2018/2019 school years. Principal Jones, Assistant Principal Chase, and Assistant Principal Moyer all supervised Respondent during these years at different times. Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) There is a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the School Board and the Sarasota Classified, Teachers Association (SC/TA). Ms. Deal is a member of the SC/TA and subject to the CBA. Article XXI of the CBA (Disciplinary Actions) provides for progressive discipline, with termination of employment as the last step of the disciplinary process: Scope of Article This article covers actions involving oral and written warning, written reprimands, suspensions, demotions, dismissals, or reductions in grade or pay with prejudice. 5 "SSP-5" means Salary Schedule P-5. Disciplinary action may not be taken against an employee except for just cause, and this must be substantiated by sufficient evidence which supports the recommended disciplinary action. All facts pertaining to a disciplinary action shall be developed as promptly as possible. Actions under this Article shall be promptly initiated after all the facts have been made known to the official responsible for taking the actions. * * * An employee whom disciplinary action is to be taken may appeal through the grievance procedure that proposal. An employee against whom action is to be taken under this Article shall have the right to review all of the information relied upon to support the proposed action and shall be given a copy upon request. The Union shall be provided with a copy of all correspondence that is related to the action of the employee the Union is representing. The employee and his/her representative shall be afforded reasonable amount of time to prepare and present appropriate responses to the proposed actions under this article, through Step One of the Grievance Process. This amount of time is to be mutually agreed upon by the parties. * * * Previous charges or actions that have been brought forth by the administration may be cited against employee if these previous acts are reasonably related to the existing charge. All previous charges or actions must have been shared with the employee. Progressive Discipline The discipline, dismissal, demotion, and suspension of any employee shall be for just cause. Where just cause warrants such action(s), an employee may be demoted, suspended, or dismissed upon recommendation of the immediate supervisor to the Superintendent of Schools. Except in cases that constitute a real immediate danger to the district or [sic] the other flagrant violation, progressive discipline shall be administered as follows: Verbal reprimand (written notation placed in site file). Written reprimand filed in personnel and site files. Suspension with or without pay. Dismissal. Sarasota High's administration utilized meetings known as "Weingarten hearings" to make factual findings that would determine whether discipline was warranted for an employee. Employees were provided notice of the allegations against them and allowed to bring counsel or union representation to the hearing.6 Ms. Deal's Job Description As her job title implies, Ms. Deal was responsible for maintaining attendance data and monitoring the comings and goings of students throughout the school day. Ms. Deal's job duties were listed in Board Policy 6.42, Job Description 11 for Attendance Clerk, and include: 6 Article XXI sets forth what is commonly referred to as "Weingarten" rights. See In NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251 (1975)(holding unionized employee has right to notice and union representation, in instances where member reasonably believes investigatory meetings, conferences, or interviews may result in disciplinary action). Communicate daily with a variety of parents and staff. Assist office staff with answering the telephone and greeting parents. * * * Provide a safe and secure workplace. Model and maintain high ethical standards. * * * (15) Maintain confidentiality regarding school matters. * * * Respond to inquiries and concerns in a timely manner. Follow all School Board policies, rules and regulations. Exhibit interpersonal skills to work as an effective team member. Demonstrate support for the School District and its goals and priorities. Perform other incidental tasks consistent with the goals and objectives of this position. As an Attendance Clerk, Ms. Deal had constant interactions with students and parents when they checked in or out of school. She was privy to the students' personal information because she was the school employee with whom parents would interact if they were picking or dropping off a child (outside of normal school start and stop times) for personal or medical reasons. The attendance desk, Ms. Deal's workspace, was in Sarasota High's front office. The front office also houses the school clinic and the office of the At-Risk Coordinator, Keri Gartland. To enter either the clinic or Ms. Gartland's office, staff and students would have to go through the front office. The clinic also has a sliding glass window looking into the front office. The front office had an "outside door" which was open to the public, and a "campus door" to the school grounds. Anyone coming to school after the start of the school day would have to come in the front office through the outside door, stop at the attendance desk to sign in, and go through the campus door to get to class. Students leaving the school before normal exiting times were required to stop by the attendance desk to sign out of school, or have their parent sign them out. Employment History School administrators utilized memorandums of instruction (MOI) as a non-disciplinary means of working with employees to improve job performance. Although MOIs are not disciplinary in nature, they are intended to be corrective tools to focus an employee's attention on certain guidelines and acceptable standards of conduct in response to performance or behavioral issues. Principal Hradek supervised Ms. Deal from 2003 through 2016. During this period, Ms. Deal received non-disciplinary MOIs from Principal Hradek and assistant principals outlining the need to improve her level of cooperation while working with others, stop gossiping, be more tactful, be more courteous to parents and students, be more patient with and respectful of others, and accept guidance from others regarding these issues. On August 25, 2010, Ms. Deal was issued an MOI with regard to ethical deficiencies. The MOI focused on the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida (the Principles) which, as explained below, require employees to take reasonable precautions to distinguish between personal views and those of the School Board, not intentionally distort or misrepresent facts concerning an educational matter in direct or indirect public expression, and not make malicious or intentionally false statements about another employee. In her 2010 evaluation, Ms. Deal was rated "Effective," " Needs Improvement," and " Not Effective." Specifically, the evaluation indicated that Respondent needed improvement accepting constructive criticism and that she needed to increase her ability to accept guidance. The evaluation also stated Ms. Deal was ineffective in the areas of "Cooperation" and "Personal Relationships." Ms. Deal was again reminded to "increase her level of cooperation working with others [and] decrease gossip." Regarding her personal relationships, she was told to "increase tact, courtesy to parents and students, patience and respect for others." At some point during his tenure, Principal Hradek relieved Ms. Deal of her attendance duties and moved her out of the front office into Building Ms. Deal's duties in this new area were to provide secretarial support to the assistant principals, the school resource officer, and the Exceptional Student Education (ESE) liaison. Neither Principal Hradek nor the School Board changed Respondent's SSP-5 Attendance Clerk designation, even though she was no longer performing the duties of that job. In this new role, Respondent had less contact with parents and students. Principal Hradek explained: I think in the role of an attendance clerk with all the public interaction that [Ms. Deal] had with families and various staff it was – that was her flaw. She wanted to talk about things other than her job responsibilities or elicit her opinions. So, moving her over to Building 14, she did a very good job with the special needs students. Ms. Deal had no disciplinary issues or MOIs for a number of years. Then, on August 20, 2015, Principal Hradek issued an MOI to Ms. Deal for having loud outbursts and making profane statements in front of students and staff while contesting new parking procedures. Respondent was again reminded of her ethical obligations and the Principles. When Principal Jones replaced Principal Hradek, Principal Jones made the decision to move Ms. Deal back to the attendance desk in the front office to perform the duties she was designated to do as Attendance Clerk. Shortly after resuming her position as Attendance Clerk, Respondent received an MOI from Principal Jones addressing numerous issues including: her failure to take consistent breaks throughout the day; her use and volume of musical devices during school hours; her verbal communications with colleagues, parents, and students; her failure to bring her concerns to administration instead of voicing them to others; and her need to collaborate with and receive approval from an administrator prior to changing office procedures and protocols. Respondent was reminded again to adhere to acceptable ethical standards and the Principles. On December 1, 2016, Principal Jones received a complaint from a parent complaining Ms. Deal had made an inappropriate comment to his or her child. The student, who suffers from a medical condition, was attempting to address school absences with Ms. Deal. Ms. Deal made rude, embarrassing, and inappropriate comments to the student, her brother, and two other students who were in the front office. The parent's complaint was corroborated by another student. Around the same time, the school administration received another complaint from a different parent regarding inappropriate comments to her child made by Ms. Deal regarding the child's illness. Ms. Deal questioned whether the student should be able to leave the school, and whether the student should be able to obtain work from his or her teachers. On February 1, 2017, as a result of these incidents and after following the proper procedures under the CBA, Assistant Principal Moyer issued Ms. Deal a verbal reprimand for unprofessional behavior. Respondent did not grieve this action. On September 25, 2017, the administration was informed that Respondent had made inappropriate statements regarding a student suffering a seizure to a parent who was signing out another student from school. On September 26, 2017, Respondent was involved in an incident in which she allegedly discussed and laughed at a student's medical issue with a teacher in the student's presence. Ms. Deal refused to allow the student to contact her parents to request a change of clothes needed due to a menstruation accident. Ms. Deal then demanded the student's parent call Ms. Deal even though the student informed Respondent that her parent did not speak English. Ms. Deal allegedly told the student that she did not care if her parents spoke Chinese or Spanish. She then proceeded to discuss the student's medical condition in front of another parent. After an investigation and following the procedures in the CBA, on October 5, 2017, Assistant Principal Chase issued a written reprimand to Ms. Deal for unprofessional behavior in connection with the September 25 and 26 incidents. Respondent did not grieve this action. On August 7, 2018, the administration received two reports from staff regarding inappropriate behavior by Ms. Deal during the distribution of locker assignments. Ms. Deal was frustrated with her computer and was disrespectful to fellow staff members. Ms. Deal also complained to students and parents about the computer and process for assigning lockers, and eventually left school early that day. After an investigation and following the procedures in the CBA, on September 18, 2018, Principal Jones recommended Ms. Deal be suspended for three days without pay for unprofessional behavior. Ms. Deal grieved the suspension. As a result, the suspension was reduced to two days. Ms. Deal did not further grieve or appeal the suspension. At the final hearing, Ms. Deal sought to relitigate the facts underlying these previous disciplinary actions and argued she accepted the discipline based on the faulty advice of her union representative. Ms. Deal presented no evidence contradicting the circumstances regarding these incidents and chose not to testify on her behalf. Even if she had presented such evidence, the time for appealing these previous steps of progressive discipline has passed. November 2, 2018 On November 2, 2018, Ms. Deal had an incident with a student, Johneshia Burks, in the front office (the Incident). The School Board presented no testimony from anyone who was in the front office at the time the Incident started. According to Ms. Deal's PRO, Ms. Burks entered the attendance office, told Ms. Deal that she was there to see Ms. Gartland, and asked Ms. Deal where Ms. Gartland was. Ms. Deal claims she replied, "she did not keep Ms. Gartland's schedule." (Resp. PRO, p.5, ¶8). In her PRO, Ms. Deal also claims she asked Ms. Burks for a hall pass, at which point, Ms. Burks got upset and started verbally attacking Ms. Deal. Ms. Deal also claims Ms. Burks became physically aggressive. (Resp. PRO, p.5, ¶8). Ms. Deal, however, did not testify and offered no credible evidence of the Incident. Although other evidence establishes they were both yelling, there is no evidence that Ms. Burks was physically aggressive or started the argument. Regardless, Denise Masi, the school's security aide and a former New York City police officer, testified as to what she witnessed that day. The undersigned finds Ms. Masi's testimony is unbiased, credible, and convincing; her testimony also is corroborated by various witness statements in the investigative file. Sometime between 11:00 a.m. and noon, Ms. Deal called Ms. Masi for assistance in the front office on the school-issued radio. Ms. Masi arrived at the front office entering from the campus door. She observed Ms. Burks on the side of the door yelling at Ms. Deal, and Ms. Deal behind her desk yelling at Ms. Burks. Although she did not understand what they were yelling about, she heard Ms. Deal yell "you can't stay in here. She has to go." Ms. Masi also observed that there were parents in the office. She also noticed the clinic nurse and assistant looked frightened behind the clinic's glass sliding window, which was closed. Ms. Masi tried to de-escalate the situation by asking Ms. Deal to "keep quiet" and stop yelling. Ms. Deal did not comply. Ms. Masi testified that Ms. Deal was not making it easy to calm everyone down. Realizing Ms. Deal was not going to stop yelling, Ms. Masi removed Ms. Burks from the front office. Ms. Masi assessed that Ms. Burks was waiting to see Ms. Gartland and remained with Ms. Burks. While in a breezeway between the front office and the administrative office, they encountered Ms. Gartland. Ms. Gartland returned to her office through the front office with Ms. Burks without incident. Ms. Masi then went back into the front office to check on the nurse and assistant. The nurse and assistant told Ms. Masi that, in response to hearing the yelling, they suggested to Ms. Deal that she call security and then they closed the glass window into the front office. During Ms. Masi's return to the front office, she observed Ms. Deal was still agitated and kept repeating that she was not Ms. Gartland's secretary. Ms. Masi was interviewed separately by Principal Jones and by Assistant Principal Chase regarding the Incident. Assistant Principal Chase also interviewed Ms. Burks, who gave him a written statement. Based on his conversations with Ms. Burks he learned that Ms. Gartland had requested Ms. Burks to come to her office but Ms. Gartland was not there when Ms. Burks arrived. Ms. Burks claimed Ms. Deal started yelling when she asked her about Ms. Gartland's whereabouts. As part of their investigation, both Principal Jones and Assistant Principal Chase reviewed a video of the Incident. The video had no audio. This video was not retained and was not offered into evidence at the final hearing. The undersigned finds that the testimony regarding what was in the video is not helpful in determining what happened between Ms. Deal and Ms. Burks. Ms. Deal did not testify. Instead, she offered the testimony of Madison Byrd (her daughter and a Sarasota High student), in an attempt to establish that Ms. Deal's actions during the Incident were justified and appropriate. Ms. Byrd claimed she was in the front office during the Incident. According to Ms. Byrd, Ms. Burks was the only person yelling and her mother did not say anything to Ms. Burks. Ms. Byrd admitted she walked into the front office "in the middle of the situation." She also heard the nurse ask Ms. Deal to call security. Ms. Byrd's testimony was subject to bias because of her familial and financial ties to Respondent. Ms. Byrd also indicated she disliked Ms. Burks because of something that happened in middle school. The undersigned finds, to the extent Ms. Byrd's testimony was inconsistent with Ms. Masi's testimony, Ms. Masi's testimony is more reliable and corroborated by other evidence. On November 15, 2018, Principal Jones met with Ms. Deal in a Weingarten meeting to address the Incident. During this meeting, Respondent took no personal responsibility, attempted to lay blame upon Ms. Burks, and denied yelling. Similarly, at the final hearing, Ms. Deal presented no evidence that she accepted some responsibility or that her behavior was appropriate and justified under the circumstances. On November 30, 2018, Principal Jones recommended termination of Respondent's employment based upon Ms. Deal's past disciplinary history for unprofessional conduct in the workplace and the Incident. At the final hearing, Ms. Deal attempted to impeach the School Board's witnesses by asking them if the administration told them to "keep an eye" on her or give written statements against her. There was no evidence anyone was asked to fabricate information about Ms. Deal. It is clear from the testimony and evidence at the hearing that Ms. Deal and Ms. Burks were involved in a shouting match in the front office that could be heard by other parents and staff. Regardless of who started the argument, Ms. Deal was the adult in the room. More importantly, as an Attendance Clerk, Ms. Deal was required to act professionally and according to School Board rules and regulations. Instead, she took no steps to de- escalate the situation, and refused to regain her composure even after being asked by Ms. Masi to do so.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED the School Board of Sarasota County terminate Joy Deal's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of February, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: S HETAL DESAI Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of February, 2021. Joy L. Deal 4503 Hale Street Sarasota, Florida 34233 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Robert K. Robinson, Esquire Rob Robinson Attorney, P.A. Suite 400 500 South Washington Boulevard Sarasota, Florida 34236 Dr. Brennan Asplen, III, Superintendent Sarasota County School Board 1960 Landings Boulevard Sarasota, FL 34231-3365
