The Issue The issues for determination at the final hearing were: 1) whether the Respondent should be dismissed from employment due to incompetency; and 2) whether the conflict in the statute cited in the Notice of Charges dated November 18, 1982, and the Notice of Hearing dated June 18, 1983, constitute inadequate notice to the Respondent Muina of the charges against him. At the final hearing, Marsha Gams, a learning disability teacher at Carol City Junior High School, Rosetta Vickers, Director of Exceptional Student Education, Dade County School Board, Carol Cortes, principal at Carol City Junior High School, Karen Layland, department chairperson of the Exceptional Education Department at Carol City Junior High School and Desmond Patrick Gray, Jr., Executive Director of Personnel, Dade County School Board, testified for the Petitioner School Board. Petitioner's Exhibits 1-13 were offered and admitted into evidence. Yvonne Perez, Bargaining Agent Representative, United Teachers of Dade, Alexander Muina and Desmond Patrick Gray, Jr., testified for the Respondent. Respondent's Exhibits 1-5 were offered and admitted into evidence. Subsequent to the hearing, the Respondent requested via telephone conference call, that Respondent's Exhibit 6, the published contract between the Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade, be admitted into evidence as a late-filed exhibit. The contract was admitted over Petitioner's objection. Proposed Recommended Orders containing findings of fact have been submitted by the parties and considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order. When the parties' findings of fact were consistent with the weight of the credible evidence introduced at final hearing, they were adopted and are reflected in this Recommended Order. To the extent that the findings were not consistent with the weight of the credible evidence, they have been either rejected, or when possible, modified to conform to the evidence. Additionally, proposed findings which were subordinate, cumulative, immaterial or unnecessary have not been adopted. On July 11, 1983, the Petitioner filed objections to the Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Penalty. Certain of the Petitioner's objections were subsequently stipulated to by the Respondent and are not in issue in this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Alexander Muina has been employed by the Dade County School System for approximately nine years. He initially worked with regular students, then worked as an assistant teacher with profoundly mentally handicapped students. During the 1979-80 school year, the Respondent became a permanent substitute in a class for the trainable mentally handicapped. He held this position for approximately two months and during that period received a satisfactory annual evaluation. During the 1980-81 school year the Respondent was assigned to the "ESOL" Program which is an acronym for English for Speakers of Other Languages. During this period, the Respondent taught as an itinerant teacher at three different schools each week. One of the schools the Respondent was assigned was Carol City Junior High School, where he taught on Thursdays and Fridays, as part of the Entrant Program. This was a program which was established for the approximately 13,000 children who had entered the Dade County School System during the Mariel boat lift. Mrs. Carol Cortes, principal at Carol City Junior High School, compiled the Respondent's annual evaluation for 1980-81 after consulting with the two other principals to whose schools Respondent was also assigned. At that time, Respondent received an acceptable annual evaluation from Cortes; however, Cortes had not continually observed the Respondent or had continuous direct contact with him since he was only at the school two days a week. At the close of the 1980-81 school year, the Respondent asked Cortes if there was an opening in exceptional education in which he could be placed. Toward the end of the summer a position became available in varying exceptionalities, an area in which the Respondent is certified by the State of Florida, and he accepted this position. A varying exceptionality class includes students who have three types of learning disabilities or exceptional problems, including the educable mentally handicapped, the learning disabled, and the emotionally handicapped. Although the Respondent is certified by the State of Florida to teach varying exceptionalities, during his first year instructing the class the Respondent experienced significant problems which are reflected in his evaluations of November, January and March of the 1981-82 school year. The first observation of Respondent as a varying exceptionalities teacher was done on November 5, 1981, by Carol Cortes, principal. The Respondent's overall summary rating was unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning and classroom management. Individual Education Plans (IEPs) for each of the students were not being followed. The Respondent was not using the IEPs to develop activities for the students which would meet the goals of providing "diagnostic prescriptive teaching." Using the IEPs and the diagnostic prescriptive teaching techniques is crucial to the success of exceptional educational students. The students were not being taught according to their individual abilities, but rather were doing similar classroom work. Additionally, classroom management was lacking in that the Respondent did not formulate adequate behavior modification plans for the students who were observed talking and milling about the classroom. Following her first observation, Cortes offered assistance to Respondent, including changing his physical classroom layout and placing him with the department chairperson. This was done so that the chairperson could assist in developing the activities and plans necessary for the students and could also provide support in developing behavior modification plans. Cortes also asked the school psychologist to work with the Respondent in establishing such plans. Dr. Gorman, the assistant principal, had frequent informal observations of the Respondent in an attempt to help him with his classroom difficulties. The next formal observation of Respondent was performed by Cortes on January 20, 1983, and the overall summary rating was again unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, classroom management and techniques of instruction. Preparation and planning was unacceptable because the Respondent was still not following the student's IEPs. He continued to assign the same general activities to all students regardless of individual differences. His class was confused regarding their goals. Because the Respondent was not teaching toward the objectives set forth in the IEPs, the children were not achieving a minimum education experience. The Respondent was marked unacceptable in classroom management because he did not have adequate control over the students. Students were walking around the class and the class was generally noisy The work that the Respondent did with individual students was in the nature of giving directions rather than actually teaching. In order to teach it is necessary to provide students with new concepts and provide teacher input rather than simply monitor students. The Respondent was marked unacceptable in techniques of instruction because his lesson planning was deficient. He spent the majority of time in the classroom attempting to discipline students. His grade book was kept in an inappropriate manner and the students were frustrated. As a result of these problems, Cortes requested that the Respondent visit a program at Madison Junior High School which had an acceptable behavior modification program in place. The Respondent visited the program on January 26, 1982; however, no substantial improvement after the Respondent's visit was noted. The Respondent also took a reading course in late January, 1982. No significant improvement was noted following completion of that course. In January of 1982, a social studies position at Carol City Junior High School became available. Cortes offered that position to the Respondent and he could have transferred into the social studies department if he had so desired. The Respondent, however, elected to remain in the field of exceptional student instruction. At that time, Cortes felt that the Respondent was attempting to deal with his deficiencies and he should be given the opportunity to correct the problems with his class. Mrs. Vickers, Director of Exceptional Student Education for Dade County Schools, made a routine visit to Carol City Junior High School on January 27, 1982. She had heard from one of her education specialists that there were difficulties in classroom management in the Respondent's classroom. She observed that many of the students were not on task in that they walked around the classroom, talked out loud, and called the Respondent "pops". A few of the students tried to work, but the noise level in the class was so high it was disruptive. Vickers chose not to do a formal observation at that time, because she felt that there were many areas that she could not have marked acceptable. Instead, Vickers chose to do a planning session with Respondent on that same date. At the planning session, Vickers discussed with Respondent such topics as getting the students on task, bringing supplies and materials, completing assignments and doing homework. She discussed IEPs with the Respondent and the minimal skills tests that the children are administered in grades 5, 8 and 11. She explained to the Respondent how to use a grade book and examined the student's work folders. Although the folders contained significant amounts of work, the work did not correlate with the objectives on the children's IEPs. Vickers was also concerned that the Respondent was monitoring the class rather than directly instructing the students on specific skills. He did not pull individual students or groups aside for direct instruction. Vickers returned to the Respondent's classroom on February 25, 1982, in order to conduct a formal observation. At that time, Vickers gave the Respondent an unacceptable overall summary rating. She found him deficient in the categories of classroom management, techniques of instruction, assessment techniques, student-teacher relationships, and acceptable in the category of preparation and planning. She rated the Respondent unacceptable in classroom management because a serious problem existed with the management of his students who were not on task. The students were not working in an orderly fashion and the class was so loud that it distracted the class on the other side of the room. When Vickers tried to speak with the teacher in the adjoining room, the noise level in the Respondent's class prevented a successful conversation between them. Due to these problems, the Respondent's students were not receiving a minimum education experience. Children with learning disabilities are easily distracted by visual or auditory interference; this problem was occurring in Respondent's class. Vickers rated the Respondent unacceptable in techniques of instruction since he was not using the diagnostic prescriptive teaching method that is required in the Dade County School System. Respondent was not utilizing small groups to give specific help with skills, but was instead, monitoring. Vickers also rated the Respondent unacceptable in assessment techniques. Exceptional education teachers are required to do a profile on each student showing the skills that the student has met and the skills that the student needs to improve. The Respondent did not meet this requirement. Finally, Vickers found the Respondent unacceptable in student-teacher relationships since she observed that the students showed an unacceptable level of respect for the Respondent. Vickers suggested that the Respondent visit three other exceptional education teachers along with regular teachers in school. She also scheduled an assertive discipline workshop for exceptional education teachers and asked that Respondent attend. The Respondent however, did not attend the workshop. On March 25, 1982, Cortes completed Respondent's annual evaluation for 1981-82 and recommended nonreappointment. This annual evaluation took into consideration all of the observations done by administrators in the building. She found the Respondent unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. Cortes next observed the Respondent on May 17, 1982, and again gave him an overall summary rating of unacceptable. She found him unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning and classroom management. Preparation and planning was unacceptable because the Respondent was not following the IEPs for the students. Cortes observed that the Respondent misspelled a word on the black board and the students copied his misspelling. Classroom management remained unacceptable because most of the class was not working. The Respondent continued to have difficulties controlling his students who continued to address him inappropriately by calling him "pops". As the Respondent moved from student to student, the remainder of the class was either talking or milling about the room. Respondent did not have understandable classroom rules and resultant consequences for breaking such rules. Rather than institute positive rewards for students who met the classroom criteria, his emphasis was on negative reinforcement. Following Cortes' discussion with the Respondent as to these deficiencies, she continued to see minimal improvement. It was also recommended that the Respondent visit Mrs. Layland, the department chairperson, to observe her classroom management techniques. Layland had a behavior modification plan in place and was able to work individually with each student while other students remained on task. The Respondent did visit Mrs. Layland's class but there was no significant improvement following that visit. On May 24, 1982, Cortes performed a second annual evaluation on the Respondent in which she found him unacceptable in one category, preparation and planning and acceptable in the remaining categories, but did not recommend him for reemployment. The second annual evaluation had only one unacceptable category, preparation and planning, and overall Respondent was rated unacceptable. However, the area in which the Respondent was rated unacceptable is especially important in the context of exceptional education. Preparation and planning is an important aspect of this field since planning for exceptional education students must be done on an individual basis. Additionally, the teacher has to plan what each student will be learning over a given period of time, and such planning is necessary in order to successfully instruct these students. Notwithstanding the Respondent's improvement, Cortes moved for his nonreappointment at the conclusion of the 1981-82 school year. The Respondent, however, was reappointed for the 1982-83 school year, when it was determined that the documentation upon which the nonreappointment was to be based was insufficient due to noncompliance with the existing union contract. Prior to the completion of the 1981-82 school year, the Respondent, through his area representative, Yvonne Perez, requested a transfer back into a regular classroom where the Respondent could teach Spanish or Social Studies. This was based on the Respondent's recognition that he was encountering extreme difficulties in teaching varying exceptionalities. Patrick Gray, Personnel Director for the Dade County School System, was aware of the request for a transfer on behalf of the Respondent and agreed to consider it. Gray subsequently determined not to transfer the Respondent, and reassigned him to his existing position. Following his assignment back to Carol City Junior High School, Cortes began to formally observe the Respondent. The first such observation of the 1982-83 school year occurred on September 13, 1982, less than one month after teachers had returned to school. Cortes observed the Respondent and documented an observation sheet with five attached papers. Observations performed the previous year had included only one statement. Approximately one month later, Cortes conducted another observation with four detailed attachments. The documentation provided to the Respondent in September and October of 1982 was accumulated to verify or affirm the decision which was made by Cortes in May of the prior year, to terminate the Respondent. Based on Cortes' observations of the Respondent while he was employed at Carol City Junior High School, she would not recommend him for a teaching position in any other field. According to Cortes, the Respondent is lacking the basic skills necessary to be a successful teacher. Marsha Gams, chairperson of the Exceptional Education Department at Carol City Junior High School during the 1981-82 school year and Respondent's supervisor, met with the Respondent on numerous occasions during the course of his assignment to Carol City Junior High School. Although Gams saw improvement on Respondent's part during the period that she observed him, the improvement was not significant. Based on Gams' observation of the Respondent's class, she felt that the Respondent's students were not receiving a minimum education experience since the Respondent did not have an adequate grasp of the curriculum and materials required for the learning disabled and educable mentally handicapped students. The Respondent's class eventually affected Gams' students due to the noise level which came from his adjoining class. Karen Layland, chairperson of the Exceptional Education Department at Carol City Junior High School during the 1982-83 school year, also worked with the Respondent. They had joint planning periods and spent a number of afternoons reviewing lesson plans, methods, curriculum, and matching materials to IEP objectives. According to Layland, the Respondent's basic problem was that he did not clearly understand the requirements of teaching varying exceptionalities Layland did not observe significant academic progress in the Respondent's class. The Respondent's grade book was disorganized and the materials contained in the student's folders were not appropriate for the particular students. Moreover, there was a lack of organization in his classroom in that students left class without permission. Although Layland felt that the Respondent was well intentioned, he did not have an adequate grasp of the curriculum, teaching management and behavior management that are necessary in an exceptional education setting. Even if Layland had been allowed to continue to work with the Respondent for the remainder of the school year, she did not feel that he could have been brought up to a competent level to teach varying exceptionalities during that period of time. Based on her observations, Layland believed that the Respondent's students were not receiving a minimum education experience due to the Respondent's lack of definite knowledge of methods in instructional techniques for varying exceptional students. By November, 1982, the School Board had made a determination that the school system had exhausted its remedies to raise the Respondent's performance to an acceptable level. Although the Respondent had obtained an acceptable rating from Cortes at the end of the 1982 school year, even this evaluation demonstrated a serious deficiency on Respondent's part. Additionally, during the 1981-82 school year the Respondent encountered numerous significant problems which had not been adequately remediated in order to permit him to continue teaching varying exceptionality students. The school board administration declined Perez' request that the Respondent be transferred into a regular class on the belief that the Respondent was incompetent in basic classroom instruction. However, based on the Respondent's teaching record prior to his employment at Carol City Junior High School, the Respondent encountered difficulties only when he was teaching varying exceptionalities, and in other fields, his basic skills were documented as acceptable. At all material times, the Respondent was employed as an annual contract teacher and did not hold a professional service contract.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Petitioner Dade County School Board affirming the dismissal of the Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, 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 26th day of September, 1983.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner was a duly constituted school board, charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Dade County, Florida. The Petitioner has rule making authority and the authority to enter into collective bargaining agreements. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the parties were bound by the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement between the United Teachers of Dade and the School Board. Pursuant to Section 1 of Article V, Petitioner has the exclusive right to suspend, dismiss, or terminate an employee for "just cause." The term "just cause" as defined by Section 3(D) of Article XXI of the contract: . . . includes, but is not limited to, misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, immorality, and/or conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Such charges are defined, as applicable, in State Board Rule 6B-4.009 (Florida Administrative Code). Pursuant to its rule making authority, Petitioner has adopted Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, which sets forth the expected conduct of employees as follows: All persons employed by The School Board of Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. Unseemly conduct or the use of abusive and/or profane language in the presence of students is expressly prohibited. Pursuant to its rule making authority, Petitioner has adopted Rule 6Gx13-4C-1.02, which sets forth the expected conduct of non-instructional personnel as follows: The Board recognizes and appreciates the important supporting role played by non- instructional personnel in the school system's educational program. For that reason the Board endeavors to select persons of the highest quality to fill vacancies as they occur. One of the important functions served by the non-teaching staff is that of demonstrating good citizenship in the community. The Board reaffirms the wish that all employees of the schools enjoy the full rights and privileges of residency and citizenship in this community and in the state. Because of its high regard for the school system's non-teaching staff, the Board confidently expects that its employees will place special emphasis upon representing the school system ably both formally and informally in the community. Pursuant to its rule making authority, Petitioner has adopted Rule 6Gx13-4-1.08, which prohibits violence in the workplace as follows: Nothing is more important to Dade County Public Schools (DCPS) than protecting the safety and security of its students and employees and promoting a violence-free work environment. Threats, threatening behavior, or acts of violence against students, employees, visitors, guests, or other individuals by anyone on DCPS property will not be tolerated. Violations of this policy may lead to disciplinary action which includes dismissal, arrest, and/or prosecution. Any person who makes substantial threats, exhibits threatening behavior, or engages in violent acts on DCPS property shall be removed from the premises as quickly as safety permits, and shall remain off DCPS premises pending the outcome of an investigation. DCPS will initiate an appropriate response. This response may include, but is not limited to, suspension and/or termination of any business relationship, reassignment of job duties, suspension or termination of employment, and/or criminal prosecution of the person or persons involved. Dade County Public School employees have a right to work in a safe environment. Violence or threats of violence by or against students and employees will not be tolerated. Article VIII of the collective bargaining agreement addresses the subject of a “Safe Learning Environment.” Section 1(A) of Article VIII provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “A safe and orderly learning environment is a major priority of the parties. ” At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a school security monitor. The job description of a school security monitor provides the following basic objectives and responsibilities: BASIC OBJECTIVES Under general direction from the school principal, he/she performs duties to monitor student activity in promoting and maintaining a safe learning environment and insures the appropriate standards of conduct are followed. JOB TASKS/RESPONSIBILITIES Visually observes student behavior during school hours, on school property. Reports serious disturbances to the school administration and resolves minor altercations. Physically patrols all school buildings, grounds, and determines reason for the presence of outsiders. Stops and questions all students not in class during class time. Monitors parking lots and student gatherings (before, during, and after school hours). Reports any safety or security problems to the administration. Performs any other duties set by the school principal or his/her designee. Respondent was initially employed by Petitioner as a temporary custodian in February 1988, and assigned to Madison Middle School (Madison). In June 1988, Respondent was employed as a school security monitor at Madison, where he remained until December 1993. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Thelma Davis was the principal of Madison. In December 1993, Respondent's assigned post was near a gate in close proximity to the chorus room. J. B. and K. A. were female students at Madison during the school year 1993-94. J. B. was born March 8, 1981. In December 1993, J. B. was a twelve year-old seventh grader and a member of the chorus class taught by Edward G. Robinson. In early December 1993, Respondent made a series of inappropriate comments and gestures of a sexual nature to J. B. when she passed his assigned post. Respondent winked at J. B. as she passed his post and blew her kisses. On one occasion, he asked if she was a virgin. On another occasion he asked her the color of her underwear. On another occasion, he made a statement as to how warm they would be under covers together. K. A. overheard Respondent say to J. B. that he and she would be warm under the covers together. J. B. became visibly upset the day Respondent asked her the color of her underwear. Mr. Robinson observed J. B. crying. J. B. thereafter told Mr. Robinson about Respondent's comments and behavior. Mr. Robinson reported the information to the principal. A day or two later, J. B., accompanied by K. A., again complained to Mr. Robinson about Respondent's comments and behavior. Mr. Robinson again reported the information to the principal, and an investigation was instigated. The investigation was conducted under the supervision of Captain Arnie Weatherington, an experienced law enforcement officer employed by the Dade County School Police. In December 1993, Respondent was removed from the school campus and reassigned to the Region III office. The investigation was closed in May 1994 as being substantiated. In light of the substantiated findings, Ms. Davis recommended that Respondent's employment with the Petitioner be terminated. Louise Harms of the Petitioner' Office of Professional Standards conducted a Conference for the Record (CFR) with Respondent on May 3, 1994. During the CFR, Ms. Harms advised Respondent as to the findings of the investigation. Respondent remained assigned to the Region III office until February 1995, when he was involuntarily transferred to Westview Middle School. The investigation into this incident was closed by Respondent’s reassignment to Westview. There was no formal recommendation at that time by the Superintendent or by the Office of Professional Standards that Respondent’s employment be terminated for his misconduct at Madison. At Westview, Respondent had the responsibility to patrol the outdoor areas of the campus. He was given a walkie- talkie and a golf cart to assist him in performing his duties. Respondent’s instructions as to the cautious and safe use of the golf carts included the explicit instructions that children were not permitted to ride in a golf cart or to sit in a parked golf cart. During the school year 1996-97, Respondent's assigned responsibilities included patrolling the physical education area. During the 1996-97 school year, John McHale was a physical education teacher at Westview. His responsibilities included taking attendance, maintaining control of the class, and following the district curriculum. In November 1996, Mr. McHale's physical education class and three other classes that were taught by a Ms. Roque, Patricia NewKirk, and Nathaniel Stephens were held on an outdoor basketball court. On November 13, 1996, Mr. McHale was in charge of his own class and, in her absence, Ms. Roque's class. Mr. McHale's class and Ms. Roque's class were assembled on the basketball court so Mr. McHale could take roll. In addition, Mr. Stephens' class was assembled on the basketball court so Mr. Stephens could take roll. While Mr. McHale was in the process of taking roll, Respondent began joy riding in his golf cart. He rode onto the basketball court around and between the two classes under Mr. McHale's supervision. Students jumped on the golf cart. Respondent talked to students. Mr. McHale approached Respondent, told Respondent that he needed to get the classes under control, and asked Respondent to get the golf cart off the basketball court so he could do his job. In response, Respondent stated: "Take your ass back to your class. No bald-headed white man telling me what to do."2 Tempers flared, Respondent got off the golf cart, and the two men approached one another. Mr. Stephens, who is larger than either Respondent or Mr. McHale, stepped between the two men with his back facing Respondent. Respondent struck out at Mr. McHale with a closed fist, making contact with Mr. McHale’s shoulder. Mr. Stephens separated the two men and took Mr. McHale to the locker room. Respondent did not have any justification for driving the golf cart onto the basketball courts while the physical education classes were using the courts. That conduct disrupted the classes that were using the courts. Mr. McHale reported the incident to Darrel Berteaux, the school principal. Mr. Berteaux requested that the DCSP conduct an investigation. The investigation into this incident was conducted by Lieutenant Oryntha Crumity, an experienced law enforcement officer employed by the Dade County School Police. During the course of the investigation, Respondent contacted several of the student witnesses and asked each student whether the student was on his side. By making such contact, Respondent attempted to intimidate these student witnesses. Approximately a month after the incident, Mr. Berteaux received reports that Respondent had approached several student witnesses. He immediately requested that Respondent be transferred from Westview. Respondent was thereafter transferred from Westview. Proceedings to terminate his employment were initiated following a review of these matters by the Petitioner's legal staff.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein. It is further recommended that the final order terminate Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of September, 1998
The Issue Whether Ms. Rokos' teaching certificate should be revoked or otherwise disciplined for gross immorality or moral turpitude in violation of Section 231.28(1)(c), and (f), Florida Statutes (1987), of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), (e), and (h), Florida Administrative Code, the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, and Section 231.28(1)(h), Florida Statutes (1987).
Findings Of Fact Nicole D. Rokos holds Florida Teaching Certificate 542378, in the areas of mental retardation and specific learning disabilities. She is 35 years old and has taught at exceptional student education programs for 11 1/2 years. At the time of the incident involved, Ms. Rokos was employed as a special education teacher at Ely High School by the School Board of Broward County. Ms. Rokos teaches students who are learning disabled, mentally handicapped, and emotionally disturbed. Learning-disabled students are typically of average or above average intelligence who do not learn in the same way as regular students, but require different teaching strategies and methods to succeed academically. Ms. Rokos often had contact with her students in addition to her regular class periods. She attempted to involve students in activities relating to areas in which they were insecure in order to improve their self-concept. As a teacher for 8 1/2 years at Ely High school, Ms. Rokos received very good evaluations of her performance which noted not only her teaching skills, but also her involvement in extra-curricular activities, see, e.g., the evaluations of December, 1982 and February, 1985. None of her evaluations contained any entries in the portion of the form used to describe areas needing improvement. Other teachers at Ely High School regard Ms. Rokos as an excellent teacher. Former students also regard her as an inspiring teacher. One of Ms. Rokos' students at Ely High School in 1988-89 school year was Earl Thomas Williams, Jr. He has learning disabilities in the areas of oral and written communication and mathematics and is of average intelligence. During December of 1988-89 school year he was 18 years of age, 6'3" tall and weighed 226 pounds. During evenings Earl Williams often would call Ms. Rokos for help with homework. Earl's father has high regard for Ms. Rokos, and believes that due to her work with Earl, Earl has stayed in school, and now attends community college. During the 1988-89 school year Marla Henderson, a cousin of Nicole Rokos by marriage, also attended Ely High School. She met Earl Williams through Ms. Rokos. Marla and Earl went out together from mid-September to mid-November, 1988. On December 3, 1988, at Earl's suggestion Ms. Rokos and another teacher accompanied Marla Henderson and Earl Williams to an Ely High School football game. That night Ms. Rokos dressed in socks and sneakers, white jogging shorts, white sweatpants which said "Tigers" down the side in orange letters, white tank top under a gray T-shirt with "Ely" written in orange letters across the front and a green "Ely" windbreaker. Earl Williams wore a yellow shirt, white jeans, and under them black cotton shorts that reach to the mid- thigh, which are similar to spandex bicycle shorts, but which fit somewhat more loosely. Those shorts had large white lettering horizontally at the elastic waist, as well as large white lettering vertically on the outside thigh area. After the game, at approximately 10:00 p.m., all four returned to the other teacher's home, where Ms. Rokos picked up her car, and left with Marla and Earl. Ms. Rokos' car has tinted windows. Marla was in the front seat and Earl in the back. Earl was sulking due to the recent break-up of his relationship with Marla. Ms. Rokos first dropped off Marla at approximately 11:00 p.m. Before returning to Earl's home, Earl ostensibly asked Ms. Rokos if they could go to a park and talk. Ms. Rokos drove to Kester Park in Pompano Beach, a park of approximately one square block. She pulled into the park between tall trees which line the perimeter of the park. The tree canopy obscured the light from near-by street lights in the car. A home invasion robbery had been reported to the Pompano Beach Police Department at a home near the park at about 11:00 p.m. At approximately 11:30 p.m. Officer William Weir of the Pompano Beach Police Department was in the area. He found Ms. Rokos' vehicle pulled between the trees at the park, which was then closed. Because the park was closed, and the car was partially concealed from view by the trees, he was alarmed, because the car could have been involved in the nearby robbery. Officer Weir was in a marked police car. Officer Weir drew near Ms. Rokos' car, and parked behind it so that the car could not back on to the street, nor go forward because of the trees and foliage in the park. He activated the spot lights on the top of his car, and could clearly identify a female figure inside the car. The driver side window was partially opened. As Officer Weir approached the car on foot, the driver attempted to back out, and although the car lurched back, its path was obstructed by the police car. As Office Weir reached the side of the car, a back-up officer arrived on the scene and also approached the vehicle. Officer Weir shined his police flashlight into the automobile where he could see Ms. Rokos and, for the first time, a man who was sitting in the passenger seat, who had not been visible before because the passenger seat was fully reclined. Officer Weir saw that Ms. Rokos was dressed only in a shirt, and was nude from the waist down. He could clearly see her thighs, pubic hair and genital area. Earl Williams was completely nude, and attempting to hide his genitals with the cloth of his yellow shirt. Officer Weir saw the student's penis protruding from beneath the material and his pubic hair. All facts taken together have led the Hearing Officer to infer that sexual contact between Ms. Rokos and the student had occurred or was imminent but interrupted by Officer Weir. In order to investigate further, Officer Weir directed both Ms. Rokos and Earl Williams to dress and exit the vehicle. After seeing Ms. Rokos' clothing with the Ely High School logo and noting the youth of her passenger, he asked whether she was a teacher. Initially, she denied it but later admitted to Officer Weir that Earl Williams was one of her students. Earl Williams readily admitted he was a student at Ely and Ms. Rokos was his teacher. She asked the officer not to report the incident, and was obviously distraught. Officer Weir then determined that Earl Williams was not a minor, and then warned Respondent about her conduct and allowed both of them to leave. Although no arrests were made, Officer Weir did file a uniform offense report about his contact with Ms. Rokos and Earl Williams at the end of his shift. Ms. Rokos testified that she was not nude, but had removed her socks, shoes, and sweatpants to be more comfortable, but was still wearing her shorts, and that Earl Williams had removed his shirt, which was in his lap, and had taken off his jeans, but he was not nude because he was wearing the black shorts. The testimony of Officer Weir is more credible. He saw the student completely nude and Ms. Rokos nude from the waist down. His testimony was emphatic and specific. Moreover, it was quite cool during the early morning hours of the night of December 3-4, 1988. There is no reasonable explanation for a teacher to have been parked in a car in a closed city park late at night with a student who had, according to her testimony, removed both his shirt and jeans, and for her to have removed her running shoes, socks, and sweatpants. Moreover, due to the bold white lettering horizontally across the waistband of the student's black shorts, and the bold white lettering vertically down the outside thigh of the shorts, the police officer would not have mistaken the shorts for flesh, even though the student is black. After receiving the incident report completed by Officer Weir, Lieutenant DeFuria of the Pompano Beach Police Department forwarded the report to the Director of Special Investigations at the School Board of Broward County, Howard J. Stearns. After reviewing the report on December 5, 1988, the first school day following the incident, Mr. Stearns had the administrators of Ely High School notify Ms. Rokos to meet with him at his office concerning the incident. At the interview, Ms. Rokos told Stearns that she was wearing underpants and the student was not nude. Having heard her denial, Mr. Stearns suggested that if she were being truthful, then Officer Weir must be lying, and the Pompano Beach Police Department should be requested to investigate the false report made by Officer Weir. Mr. Stearns began to dial the number of the Police Department, when Ms. Rokos relented and said that she did not think that any investigation of Officer Weir should be made. Ms. Rokos then broke into tears and asked to see her union representative. After meeting with that representative, Ms. Rokos resigned her position with the School Board of Broward County. One of the reasons she did so was to avoid the publicity incident to an investigation into the incident by the School Board. As the result of being discovered in such a compromising situation with one of her own students, Ms. Rokos has lost her effectiveness as a teacher in Broward County and would not be reemployed by the School Board of Broward County as an educator.
Recommendation It is recommended that the teaching certificate of Nicole D. Rokos be permanently revoked. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 12th day of January, 1990. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 12th day of January, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 89-3947 Rulings on findings proposed by the Commissioner of Education: 1. Adopted in finding of fact 1. 2. Covered in finding of fact 1. 3. Adopted in finding of fact 6. 4. Adopted in finding of fact 6. 5. Adopted in finding of fact 11. 6. Adopted in finding of fact 12. 7. Adopted in finding of fact 12. 8. Adopted in finding of fact 12. 9. Adopted in finding of fact 13. 10. Incorporated in finding of fact 13. Considered in finding of fact 15. Considered in finding of fact 16. Considered in findings of fact 6 and 12. The remaining portions of the proposal are rejected as argument. It is true, however, that it would have been impossible for Earl Williams to have disrobed without Ms. Rokos being aware of it. Discussed in finding of fact 15. Rejected as unnecessary. Discussed in finding of fact 16. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Discussed in finding of fact 17. Rulings on findings proposed by Ms. Rokos: Adopted in finding of fact 1. Adopted in finding of fact 2. Generally adopted in finding of fact 3. To the extent appropriate, the evaluations are discussed in finding of fact 4. To the extent appropriate, discussed in finding of fact 5. Rejected as subordinate to the findings of fact made in findings 3-5. Rejected as unnecessary. To the extent appropriate, discussed in finding of fact 5. Discussed in finding of fact 6. Discussed in finding of fact 7. To the extent appropriate, discussed in finding of fact 8. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted as modified in finding of fact 8. Discussed in finding of fact 9. Discussed in finding of fact 10. Rejected, see the findings made in finding of fact 10. Rejected; even if Ms. Rokos and Earl Williams discussed any matters relating to school, such discussions were not the focus of their activities in the car. See, the final sentence of finding of fact 12. Discussed in finding of fact 12. Discussed in finding of fact 12. How far the window was open is not significant; the officer had an adequate view of the scene. Adopted in finding of fact 12. Rejected for the reasons stated in finding of fact 15. Adopted in finding of fact 13. Rejected as subordinate to finding of fact 13. Rejected as unnecessary. 25 and 26. Discussed in finding of fact 16. To the extent appropriate, discussed in finding of fact 16. It is not clear whether Mr. Stearns said anything which would have led Ms. Rokos to believe than the school board would not report the matter to the Department of Education. The school board had no choice, and the matter was reported and investigated by the Department, which led to this proceeding. COPIES FURNISHED: Carolyn LeBoeuf, Esquire Brooks & LeBoeuf, P.A. 836 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas W. Young, III, Esquire FEA/United 208 West Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Karen Barr Wilde Executive Director Department of Education Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Martin B. Schapp, Administrator Professional Practices Services 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sydney H. McKenzie General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was a noninstructional employee of the School Board of Date County, Florida at all times material hereto, and was assigned to Thomas Jefferson Junior High School as a teacher's aide. The Respondent has six years' experience as a teacher's aide with the Dade County School System. He has a high school education and thirteen months of college, as well as twelve months of technical training, including studies in psychology. The Respondent has never, in all the time he has been employed in the Dade County School System, had any complaints lodged against him for aggressive or violent conduct and has never been previously involved in an incident in which he struck a student, although on one occasion he had to defend himself when a student attacked him. On September 22, 1980, the Respondent escorted some students to a physical education class on the school athletic field. While he was attempting to get the complaining student, Jose Velez, to return to the classroom, that student threatened him with violence and ultimately physically attacked the Respondent. Mr. Turnquist had to restrain the student and escort him to the school office for imposition of disciplinary measures regarding his behavior. The Petitioner's first witness, Gloria Randolph, is the Assistant Principal for Curriculum and Teacher Morale. She supervises the Exceptional Student Department, as well as the teachers' aides, and is acquainted with the protagonists in the subject incident. She observed the Respondent enter the school office with the student, Jose Velez, conversing in loud voices, both the Respondent and Velez appearing quite agitated. The Respondent told her that he "brought this boy up here and want something done about it." The Respondent and the subject student, at that time, were standing about five feet apart. She stepped between them, but the student kept advancing and she had to shove him back repeatedly. The student, Velez, acting in an aggressive, mocking manner, urged the Respondent to hit him, and threatened him with bodily harm. The tension between the two kept increasing, with the ultimate result that the Respondent struck the student with a light blow to the cheek. According to both Petitioner's witnesses, the student seemed relieved at that point and immediately calmed down. Witness Randolph acknowledged that the Respondent exercised good judgment, up until the point of striking the student, because he followed appropriate procedures in bringing the student to the office for disciplinary measures to be taken, and did not indulge in an argument with the student, although she did feel it was poor judgment for him to strike the student. The student, Jose Velez, is at least six feet in height and is considerably taller than the Respondent. Petitioner's witness, Marilyn Mattran, a teacher at Jefferson Junior High School, who was in the office and observed the subject altercation, established that Velez repeatedly threatened the Respondent with physical harm and that the student engaged in most of the yelling and in the aggressive behavior she observed. She corroborated the fact that when the Respondent actually struck Velez, that he immediately calmed down. She also corroborated the testimony of witness Randolph, as well as the Respondent's witness, Leah Alopari, that Jose Velez is an emotionally disturbed student who has an extensive history of aggressive, violent behavior and has made a practice of threatening students and teachers with physical violence and harm, even to the extent of threatening the use of a deadly weapon. He has, on occasion, done physical violence to other children. These three witnesses all acknowledged that the Respondent has never in the past, in their experience, demonstrated poor judgment in his conduct toward and transactions with students or teachers. Leah Aloari is the Respondent's supervising teacher. Jose Velez was one of her students, and she corroborated the fact, demonstrated by the other witnesses, that this particular student was aggressive, difficult to control and prone to engage in violent behavior. The Respondent assisted her in helping discipline her students, with the academic program and in escorting children to and from lunch, classes and the athletic field. She has never observed the Respondent engage in violent behavior in his relations with teachers or students, nor commit an act which exhibited poor judgment or misconduct in the course of his duties. As indicated above, the Respondent has had an exemplary record in his six years with the Dade County School System. Jose Velez, on the other hand, has been a constant disciplinary problem as acknowledged by the Petitioner's and Respondent's witnesses. The Respondent has a chronic neck injury involving a pinched nerve in the neck, and genuinely believed himself to be in danger of physical assault and harm by Velez when the incident occurred in the office. He believed it unwise to retreat in the fact of Velez's threats and aggressive advance upon him because he felt Velez was about to physically attack him. The Respondent did not feel that the other teacher and the Assistant Principal, who were the only other persons in the office at the time, could have restrained or adequately controlled Velez alone if he had retreated. There is no question, especially in view of the fact that the Respondent had already been assaulted by the student on the athletic field, that he genuinely believed that the situation called for him taking steps to defend himself. His act of self-defense in striking the student was itself marked by some restraint in the sense that he withheld striking the student with as much force as he was capable of. There is no evidence that he caused any permanent harm to the student. Indeed, even the Petitioner's witnesses established that it had the beneficial effect of calming the student down and preventing any further violent conduct on his part or possible injury to the students, the Respondent, others present, or possible damage to the Petitioner's property in the immediate vicinity. The undersigned considers it significant also that the student, although initially complaining of the Respondent's action, did not appear and testify at the hearing in furtherance of his complaint against the Respondent and that there was no significant physical injury inflicted upon Velez.
The Issue Is Respondent school teacher guilty of violating Rule 6B-1.006(3), Florida Administrative Code, by failure to make reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to their physical safety? Is Respondent guilty of violating Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty?
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Kelly L. Bradley, Florida Teaching Certificate 768569 (expiration date June 30, 2000), is a certificated teacher in the State of Florida and held a teaching certificate in 1998-1999. She taught at Lola M. Culver Elementary School during the 1998-1999 school year and was an employee of Petitioner Duval County School Board. Respondent had been employed by Petitioner from January 1996 through October 1996, as a substitute teacher at several elementary schools and was employed full time at Lola Culver commencing October 1996, teaching emotionally handicapped students. This was her first full-time job as a teacher. She received satisfactory evaluations with favorable comments for each of her three years at Lola Culver. She has no record of prior discipline. During most of the 1998-1999 school year, Respondent and Kristy L. James, another certificated teacher, were co-sponsors of the School Safety Patrol at Lola Culver. Respondent volunteered to replace another co-sponsor who left in mid-year. This was her first experience as a Safety Patrol co-sponsor. A "reward" trip near the end of each school year was traditional for Lola Culver's Safety Patrol members. Ms. James had been a co-sponsor of the Safety Patrol for the 1996-1997, 1997-1998, and 1998-1999 school years, but neither she nor Respondent had received any significant instruction in the duties and responsibilities of sponsors. Near the end of the 1998-1999 school year, Ms. James and Respondent planned an overnight trip to Orlando for Safety Patrol members for June 4-5, 1999, a Friday and a Saturday. Ms. James exclusively handled the paperwork for approval of the June 4-5, 1999, field trip by Lola Culver's current principal, Carolyn Davis. She also exclusively handled the permission slips and medical authorizations signed by parents and all arrangements for "chaperones." Swimming had been on the agenda sent home by Ms. James and approved by the prior principal in each of the previous school years. Swimming was also on the 1999 agenda, which instructed students to pack a swimsuit. For the 1999 trip, Ms. James also sent another document, outlining the cost of the field trip for students and soliciting chaperones, and permission slips/medical releases to all the children's parents. Only the agenda mentioned swimming. The permission slip did not expressly mention swimming or solicit information about a child's ability to swim. It solicited only health information and authority to treat in an emergency. Eight fifth grade students (boys and girls) went on the trip, including Litoria Gibson, a non-swimmer, who ultimately drowned while on the field trip. Nowhere on the signed permission slip returned to Ms. James did Litoria's parents state that she could not swim or should not swim. Unbeknownst to anyone concerned, Litoria's mother had instructed Litoria "not to get in the water" during the field trip.1 Respondent and Ms. James went on the trip as co- sponsors and as chaperones. Respondent invited a personal friend and substitute teacher, Eric Lee, to go on the trip as a chaperone. Ms. James' husband, Joey, came along in the same capacity, and two parents, Gail Brown and Hazel Morningstar, also went on the trip. Hazel Morningstar testified that she had considered herself present on the trip only to watch her own son and, based on an oral promise to Rita Whorten's parents, to watch Rita Whorten. In a conversation during the planning stages, Ms. James stated that Rita Whorten would be "with" Ms. Morningstar and her son. At no time material did Ms. Morningstar affirmatively notify anyone she would not act as a group chaperone. In fact, she considered herself to be a chaperone. Gail Brown is the mother of Marcus Brown, one of the Safety Patrol students. Ms. Brown testified that she only went on the trip because she does not allow her son to go on trips involving water by himself, even though Marcus knows how to swim. She further testified that she did not feel any chaperoning responsibility toward any child but her own. However, she knew the teachers would assume that she was going to chaperone all the children, and she never affirmatively notified anyone that she would not act as a group chaperone. The group traveled via a school bus, driven by Petitioner's approved bus driver, Patricia Benton. Ms. Benton was paid for driving the bus, but personally paid for her teenage son, whom she brought along on the trip. Ms. James had asked Ms. Benton to drive the bus, and Ms. Benton's son's inclusion in the trip was in the nature of a "perk" for Ms. Benton. Ms. Benton's son was never considered either a responsible adult or a chaperone. Ms. Benton had accompanied Ms. James and the Safety Patrol on a similar field trip at the end of the 1997-1998 school year and had participated in watching over the children at that time. However, herein, Ms. Benton testified that on the 1999 trip she considered herself only along to drive the bus and watch over her own son. Indeed, neither Ms. James nor Respondent counted Ms. Benton as a "chaperone" in calculating the "one chaperone per every ten children" that they understood to be Petitioner's requirement for field trips. Nonetheless, both teachers considered Ms. Benton to be another responsible adult. Ms. Benton admitted that at times on this trip she was prepared, if necessary, to discipline any disrespectful children. Neither teacher inquired of Ms. Benton if she could or would swim. Respondent and Ms. James considered themselves, Joey James, Mr. Lee, Ms. Brown, and Ms. Morningstar to be chaperones. Neither teacher ever inquired of Mr. Lee, Ms. Brown, or Ms. Morningstar whether they could or would swim. This was Respondent's first overnight field trip. As teachers and Safety Patrol co-sponsors, Respondent and Ms. James regarded themselves as jointly responsible and in charge. Everyone else appears to have looked to Ms. James for leadership. The bus departed from Lola Culver Elementary School at 7:00 a.m., Friday, June 4, 1999. After arriving in Orlando, the group spent most of the day at Sea World. While the group was at Sea World, Respondent and Ms. James assigned responsibility for specific children to specific adults, except for the bus driver, Ms. Benton. No adult protested the assignments. At Sea World, Respondent and Eric Lee were responsible for Litoria Gibson and Makia Hicks. These assignments were essentially designed to keep everyone together and to keep the children under supervision in the amusement park, but they were not intended to last beyond the Sea World portion of the trip. However, no reassignment of responsibility for any child occurred after the group departed Sea World. In the late afternoon, the group was bused to Howard Johnson's South International, a motel. After they checked in, the students were allowed to go swimming in the motel pool. Upon arrival at the motel at approximately 5:45 p.m., room keys were distributed, and it was agreed that adults and children would meet by Ms. James' room, which fronted on the pool area. The children were instructed not to go to the pool until the adults were ready. The pool at the motel was a very large one located in an interior courtyard. The water was 3.5 feet deep at the shallow end and 5.5 feet deep at the deep end. No lifeguard was provided. Nonetheless, the pool had been used safely for the 1998 Safety Patrol field trip, and Ms. James and Ms. Benton were familiar with the motel layout and the pool. Ms. James considered herself a good swimmer, having been a swimmer since childhood. She was comfortable around water. Respondent was an experienced swimmer and athlete. She had learned to swim in early childhood, had had formal lessons during high school, and had done a lot of pool training in connection with playing college volleyball. She had continued to swim regularly in her adult life. She was trained in CPR. Some of the adults, including Respondent, and all of the children met as agreed and proceeded to the pool area. Prior to going to the pool, Respondent briefed all the children on not running or wrestling in the pool and pool area. Initially, Ms. James remained in her room to make a telephone report to Lola Culver's principal, Carolyn Davis. Joey James and Ms. Morningstar arrived at the pool dressed to swim. Litoria Gibson went to poolside wearing a red jumpsuit which would not be considered an unusual item for a child to wear to go swimming. The children entered the pool for the first time at approximately 6:00 p.m., under the direct supervision of Joey James and Ms. Morningstar, who got into the pool's shallow end with some of them. Ms. Morningstar asked who could not swim. Litoria Gibson and another girl raised their hands. Litoria said, "I can't swim." She never volunteered that she was not allowed in the water. Ms. Morningstar told the two girls that they should stay in the shallow end of the pool. Litoria Gibson was tall for her age, approximately the same height as Ms. Morningstar. Ms. Morningstar invited Litoria into the pool and spent 15-30 minutes with her in the pool's shallow end. They squatted to get wet and acclimated to the water. Ms. Morningstar showed Litoria how to stand so that the water only reached her chest and how to doggie paddle and told Litoria that if she got in trouble she could lie flat on her back and float. Litoria then felt comfortable in the water and, giggling happily, entered into dunking games with the other children. When Ms. Morningstar left the pool for the sauna, she warned Litoria to stay in the shallow end of the pool, only chest-high in the water, or get out of the pool altogether. Ms. Morningstar assumed that all the parents' respective permission slips would have alerted the teachers as to which children could or could not swim, so she did not tell anyone which students could not swim. At various times before 7:30 p.m., Joey James and Ms. Morningstar disciplined students by taking away water toys and calming rowdy behavior. Eric Lee arrived at the pool dressed to swim and able to swim shortly after the children entered the pool, but he stayed on the sidelines at the deep end and would not enter the pool. Respondent arrived at the pool dressed to swim and swam a little while Ms. Morningstar was in the shallow end and Joey James was in the deep end. Makia Hicks got into the pool with Respondent and said "Can you stand in here with me?" Respondent questioned Makia, and determining that Makia indeed could not swim, Respondent told her, "Well, you can come in here and I'll show you how to kick your feet." Respondent did not overhear the similar conversation between Litoria and Ms. Morningstar. (See Finding of Facts 33- 34). Later, Respondent got out of the pool and took Makia and Jessica Hayes to the hot tub. She made sure Makia got out of the pool at that time. Respondent, Makia, and Jessica then returned to the pool and were playing around. Ms. James, dressed to swim, arrived at the pool about the time Ms. Morningstar first went to the sauna. Mesdames Brown and Benton arrived poolside sometime after everyone else and remained there for most of the time until 7:30 p.m., in adjoining chairs and approximately midway between the deep and shallow ends of the pool. During this period, Ms. Benton made several trips to and from the jacuzzi and Ms. Brown made at least one trip to and from her room. Neither woman was dressed to swim. By their own accounts, both women were adequate but not trained swimmers, and neither of them intended to swim. When Ms. James arrived poolside, Respondent got out of the pool and she and Ms. James chatted in adjoining poolside chairs on the side opposite from Mesdames Brown and Benton. Makia sat on the edge of the pool with her feet in the water. Fifteen to 20 minutes after arriving poolside, Ms. Brown overheard that Litoria and one other child (she was not sure which child) could not swim. When Ms. Brown heard this, Litoria was already "walking the wall" (moving via her hands on the lip of the pool wall) into the deep end of the pool. Ms. Brown asked Litoria if she could swim and when Litoria said she could not swim, Ms. Brown ordered Litoria back to the shallow end of the pool. At least twice more before 7:30 p.m., Ms. Brown ordered Litoria back to the shallow end from the deep end, but Ms. Brown did not alert anyone else that Litoria was venturing into the deep end. She also assumed that Litoria's parents had informed the teachers that Litoria could not swim, so she did not tell anyone that information either. At approximately 6:30 p.m., Ms. Benton overheard or otherwise figured out that Litoria could not swim. She also assumed that Ms. James and Respondent knew Litoria could not swim and therefore, she did not mention it to them. After being poolside for awhile, Ms. James and Respondent went to Ms. James's room to telephone for pizza for everyone's dinner. Where, precisely, each of the other adults were during this brief period of time is in some dispute, and it may be that Ms. James and/or Respondent came and went from Ms. James's room more than once. Ms. James and Respondent did not specifically designate any adult to be in charge at the pool in their absence(s). Nonetheless, by all accounts, Mesdames Brown and Benton were fully dressed in poolside chairs most of this time and Joey James, Mr. Lee, and Ms. Morningstar were in and around the pool most of this period of time. Later, when it was anticipated that the pizza delivery man would be arriving, Ms. James and Respondent again left the poolside together. As they walked past Ms. Brown and Ms. Benton, Ms. James said, "We're going for the pizza." Neither Ms. James nor Respondent gave any specific instructions concerning the students. Ms. Brown and Ms. Benton acknowledged that they had heard Ms. James say that both teachers were leaving the pool area. Ms. James and Respondent left the pool area and entered a motel corridor off a door leading to the pool area. The children and pool area could not be adequately observed and monitored from this motel corridor. Joey James and Mr. Lee arrived in the corridor simultaneously with the two teachers. Ms. James gave the men instructions to go to the bus and retrieve a cooler of soft drinks and take the cooler to the picnic area at the far end of the pool. Ms. Morningstar arrived in the corridor in time to hear the foregoing instructions concerning the cooler. This meant there were now five adults not watching the children. Respondent then gave Ms. Morningstar enough specially-printed T-shirts for all members of the party, told her the T-shirts would be distributed during dinner, and asked her to take the T-shirts to the picnic area and set up for dinner. Respondent also asked Ms. Morningstar to "check on the kids."2 Ms. James and Respondent assumed the foregoing instruction meant that a third adult (Morningstar) would then be joining the two adults (Brown and Benton) already poolside to watch over and protect the eight students. Ms. Morningstar immediately went to the pool area, carrying the T-shirts. Ms. James, who had the money to pay the delivery man, and Respondent immediately went up an interior hallway toward the hotel lobby to await the pizza delivery man. The six pizzas Ms. James had ordered would require two people to carry them all, but additionally, Respondent wanted to talk to Ms. James alone because she had a concern and planned to defer to Ms. James's field trip experience as a long-time Safety Patrol sponsor.3 On her way to the picnic area, Ms. Morningstar found all the children, including Litoria, in the deep end of the pool. Most were playing dunking games. Apparently, Litoria sometimes participated in dunking, but when Ms. Morningstar spotted her, Litoria was holding onto the pool wall. She was blowing bubbles in the water between her outstretched arms and occasionally pushing off a few inches, floating on her face, and then grabbing the wall again. Ms. Morningstar said, "Litoria, are you sure you feel comfortable? Because you don't know how to swim." Litoria replied, "No, ma'am, I feel comfortable. I'm here with everybody and everybody's beside me." Ms. Morningstar did not consider Litoria in danger as close to the wall as she was, with children near her in the pool, and with Ms. Brown, Ms. Benton, and other adult strangers nearby. She proceeded to the picnic area, passing Brown and Benton in their chairs, and telling them she was going to set up for pizza. At about this time, a few minutes before 7:30 p.m., Ms. Brown was approached by a little girl who wanted to get her pool shoes from her room. Ms. Brown told the child to get her key and she would go with her so that the child would not be alone in a motel room. As they rounded a corner of the deep end of the pool, Ms. Brown spotted another little girl clinging to the side and sobbing, "She tried to drown me!" Then there was a clamor from the other children and Ms. Brown noticed that Litoria, in her red outfit, was floating face down, only inches from the edge of the pool. Just then, Ms. Benton approached and also saw Litoria. Both women screamed. Ms. Morningstar and Mr. Lee, who were in the picnic area, heard the screams and ran to the deep end of the pool to help. With the help of two of the boys and Eric Lee, Ms. Brown hauled Litoria out of the pool. The adults peeled away from Litoria's face a plastic mask designed to cover the wearer's eyes and nose, but not the mouth. The face mask's breathing tube had been lost. Blood came profusely from Litoria's mouth.4 The teachers were notified where they were waiting for pizza in the motel lobby. They returned immediately to render aid. A qualified bystander rendered CPR. Medical attention was summoned via "911." Although Litoria's pulse and breath sounds were revived at poolside, she ultimately died of drowning Christine Arab, General Director of Human Resources for the School Board, holds Bachelor's and Master's Degrees in Elementary Education, and is a doctoral student in curriculum and education. She has been a certified elementary and exceptional student education classroom teacher. In her opinion, Respondent did not take reasonable efforts to protect her students in that she failed to determine which children could and could not swim and left the pool area without making sure that at least one of the adults was prepared to be in the pool with the children, was able to rescue the children, and had agreed to accept the responsibility to oversee and rescue the children from the water if necessary. It was the absence of these precautions by Respondent that mattered to Ms. Arab, not the length of time that Respondent was absent from poolside. Ms. Arab stated, concerning the other adults' behavior on the field trip that, "[G]iven what they each understood their role to be or commitment to be - I think there's a lot of blame to go around . . .." She also described various acts and omissions of the other adults as either reasonable or unreasonable. However, I do not assign the weight to her personal opinions on these subjects that I do to her professional opinion as an educator concerning Respondent's duty of supervision and effectiveness as a teacher. There is no School Board policy defining the duties of "chaperones." The School Board did not prove that it had any specific written policy against swimming on field trips. Ms. Arab conceded that if Ms. James's prior principal had approved swimming for the previous year's field trip and the current principal, Ms. Davis, had not disapproved swimming in 1999, there was no way the teachers could have divined there was any "no swimming on field trips" policy. Principal Davis was disciplined by a 21-day suspension without pay for her flawed oversight of the field trip. This is a very severe penalty for an administrator. Ms. Arab had input into the School Board's decision to prosecute this case. In her opinion, the severity of a termination recommendation against Respondent was warranted because Respondent's flawed oversight of the field trip itself was such that the public and the School Board could have no future confidence in Respondent. Ms. Arab felt the only way the School Board could trust Respondent henceforth would be under the closest supervision and that would be ineffective teaching in the School system. However, Ms. Arab also conceded that had Litoria not drowned, Respondent's failures would not have risen to the level of a terminable offense.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of a violation of Rule 6B-1.006(3), Florida Administrative Code, through her failure to make reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to their physical safety, and of a violation of Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by misconduct in office, suspending her without pay for six months, and requiring her to repeat her supervised one year of beginning teacher training upon her return to the classroom. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 27th day of June, 2000.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was reassigned to Douglas MacArthur Senior High School- North, an alternative school, on December 16, 1982, because of his unacceptable conduct in Grade 9 at North Miami Junior High School. Petitioner presented evidence of 16 incidents of conduct by Respondent which required disciplinary action in the year preceding his reassignment to the alternative education program. Additionally, his grades in all courses were unsatisfactory at the time of reassignment. Respondent did not accept the alternative school assignment and instead obtained employment at a restaurant. He is now living with his grandmother, Mrs. Helen Wood, who seeks his return to a regular junior high school program. She has discussed this proposal with the principal of Thomas Jefferson Junior High School and he apparently agrees with her. Respondent's evidence established that his family life was difficult and disruptive during the period of his misconduct. His situation has now stabilized and he is responsive to his grandmother's supervision. He should, therefore, be given an opportunity to return to the regular academic program (Grade 9) at Thomas Jefferson Junior High School.
Recommendation In consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order classifying Respondent as a disruptive student, but permitting him to attend the Thomas Jefferson Junior High School in a probationary status. ENTERED this 6th day of May, 1983, at Tallahassee Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, 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 May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Valentine, Esquire 3000 Executive Plaza 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Mrs. Helen Ward 1000 Northwest 153rd Street Miami, Florida 33169 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issue is whether respondent's educator's certificate should be disciplined for the reasons cited in the administrative complaint filed on November 7, 1995.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Respondent, Richard T. Vaughn, Jr., is licensed as a teacher having been issued Florida Educator's Certificate 678116 by the Department of Education. The certificate covers the area of sociology and was valid through June 30, 1995. When the events herein occurred, respondent was employed as a mathematics teacher at the Marion Regional Juvenile Detention Center (MRJDC) and The Phoenix Center in the Marion County School District. Based on conduct which occurred during school year 1993-94, on May 19, 1994, respondent was suspended from his teaching position by the Marion County School Board (Board). After an administrative hearing was held in December 1994, a final order was entered by the Board on March 31, 1995, terminating respondent for misconduct in office, incompetency, and willful neglect of duty. After learning of the Board's action, and conducting a further inquiry, petitioner, Frank T. Brogan, as Commissioner of Education, issued an administrative complaint on November 7, 1995, alleging that respondent's conduct also constituted a sufficient ground to discipline his teacher's certificate. The charges stem from incidents which allegedly occurred while respondent taught at MRJDC from September 1993 until April 7, 1994, and at The Phoenix Center from April 8, 1994, until May 17, 1994. In his request for a hearing, respondent has denied all material allegations. During most of school year 1993-94, respondent taught at MRJDC, which is a detention facility for students who are awaiting trial on criminal charges. As might be expected, the students at MRJDC "are very difficult to work with." At hearing, respondent's supervisor established that respondent had "difficulty" with his work, he was "uncooperative" with other faculty and staff, and he had "problems" with his peers. His behavior was generally described by all witnesses as being "bizarre" and "irresponsible." On some occasions, he would become angry with his students and "storm" out of his classroom leaving the students unsupervised. While respondent was teaching at MRJDC, it was necessary for the principal of the school's education center to meet with respondent because he would not speak to any of his colleagues. Respondent took the position that speaking with his peers was not in his job description, and thus it was unnecessary for him to do so. Although admonished by the principal to communicate with his peers, respondent continued to be abrupt and uncommunicative. During his tenure at MRJDC, respondent exhibited irrational and explosive behavior while teaching his classes. For example, he frequently engaged in screaming tirades against students who failed to meet his disciplinary expectations. In addition, it was not unusual for respondent to be confrontational with his students, and if threatened by one, he would challenge the student to carry out the threat, or to meet him outside the classroom to resolve the matter. Respondent's pattern of explosive behavior at MRJDC culminated on April 7, 1994, when the MRJDC superintendent was called to respondent's classroom to resolve an "emergency" situation. As it turned out, a student had thrown some pencil lead, hitting respondent in his glasses. Respondent began yelling at the student and challenging him to come outside the classroom and "take him on" to settle the score. When the superintendent arrived, she asked respondent to leave campus for the remainder of the day. However, respondent became abrupt and confrontational with the superintendent, initially refused to leave, and continued yelling at the student for another five minutes. Because of respondent's pattern of irrational and explosive behavior throughout the school year, and his loss of effectiveness as a teacher at MRJDC with both his colleagues and his students, a decision was made to transfer respondent to The Phoenix Center, an alternative education school, in order to give him one final opportunity. Effective April 8, 1994, respondent was reassigned to The Phoenix Center as an exceptional student education teacher. His class consisted of no more than four or five students. Despite the small number of students, respondent continually called the dean of students to resolve disciplinary problems which arose in his classroom. It can be reasonably inferred that respondent lacked the necessary demeanor and temperament to effectively manage and control his classroom. On May 3, 1994, respondent was described as being "incoherent" and "in a rage" while engaged in an altercation with a student who had threatened him. While the student was being led from the classroom to the principal's office by the dean of students, respondent became "agitated" and followed the student down the hallway continuing to challenge him to carry out his threat. Although ordered by the dean to return to the classroom, respondent initially refused to do so. Respondent's explanation for his conduct was that he was trying to prove a point with the student. For at least the second time that school year, respondent was instructed by the principal not to challenge students who had made threats. By engaging in the conduct described in the previous finding of fact, and that described in findings of fact 6 and 7, respondent intentionally exposed his students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. On May 6, 1994, while coaching a school softball team, respondent became outraged over a call by the umpire and left the campus without permission. During his absence, the students were unsupervised. On May 17, 1994, respondent was returning to campus in his automobile when he approached a group of students in the roadway. One female student ignored her teacher's request to move and intentionally remained in the middle of the road. As he approached the student, respondent gunned his engine and drove straight for the student but hit his brakes stopping just short of her. Respondent later explained that he was merely trying to prove the point that if a student remained in the road with a car approaching, she would "be in trouble." By engaging in this conduct, respondent failed to make a reasonable effort to protect a student's physical safety. By virtue of his personal conduct over the school year at both MRJDC and The Phoenix Center, respondent's effectiveness as a classroom teacher has been seriously reduced.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding respondent guilty of violating Sections 231.28(1)(f) and (i), Florida Statutes, and Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e), Florida Administrative Code, revoking his certificate for one year, allowing him to reapply for an educator's certificate only upon certification by a mental health professional that he is competent and capable of performing his duties as an educator, and upon reemployment, placing him on probation for a period of three years. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of September, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675, SunCom 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of September, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 224-B Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Kathleen M. Richards, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Carl J. Zahner, II, Esquire Department of Education Suite 1701, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Richard T. Vaughn, Jr. 1731 26th Street, South St. Petersburg, Florida 33712
The Issue The issues in this case are whether, as the district school board alleges, Respondent got into an altercation with a student which allegedly involved taunting, pushing, and yelling; and, if so, whether such contact or conduct constitutes just cause for Petitioner's dismissing Respondent from his position as a school teacher.
Findings Of Fact The Indian River County School Board ("School Board" or "District"), Petitioner in this case, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Indian River County Public School System. At all relevant times and as of the final hearing, the District employed Respondent Joseph Nathaniel ("Nathaniel" or "Coach Joe") as a teacher. Nathaniel was assigned to work at Sebastian River High School in Sebastian, Florida, for the 2015-16 school year. In previous years, though not that one, Nathaniel had been an assistant football coach, which is why Nathaniel is commonly known as Coach Joe. As an employee of the District for about 13 years before the events giving rise to this proceeding, Nathaniel had never been found to have committed a disciplinable offense. The events in dispute occurred on November 17, 2015. That morning, Nathaniel was on duty during the school's first lunch period (between, roughly, 11:00 a.m. and noon) as a hallway monitor, a task to which he and other suitable teachers were regularly assigned. Coach Joe was responsible for keeping those students not on their lunch break in class and the ones who were supposed to be at lunch out of trouble. When this period began, a man named Isaiah Speights, 18, was in class, as scheduled. His teacher, Cathy Bradshaw, had started working at Sebastian River High School only a few weeks earlier. At around 11:15 a.m., Isaiah asked Ms. Bradshaw for a hall pass so that he could use the bathroom, and she gave him permission to leave the classroom, which he did. Elsewhere, around the same time, Coach Joe was about to encounter a group of students loitering in the hallway. When he did a few minutes later, he posed to each student questions such as "Who are you?" and "Where are you supposed to be?" before sending them off to their respective classes. As this was taking place, Isaiah happened to be returning to his class on the hall pass Ms. Bradshaw had given him. He saw Nathaniel and the students and paused momentarily to survey the scene. Instead of walking on, Isaiah mimicked Nathaniel, who had not noticed Isaiah behind him, calling out: "Who the fuck are you, and where are you supposed to be?" thereby managing to be at once insolent, insubordinate, and foul-mouthed. (Incredibly, if sadly, the evidence suggests that students at Sebastian River High School commonly address teachers using similarly vulgar language——evidently because such verbal defiance is either not punished, or is not punished severely enough to stop it from being commonplace.) Coach Joe wheeled around to see who had mocked him, and he observed Isaiah——who had grabbed hold of an overhead door frame with one hand——dangling by an arm, swinging and twisting his body in a display that was the very picture of impertinence. Showing considerable self-restraint, Coach Joe asked Isaiah where he was supposed to be and, after seeing Isaiah's pass, told him to get back to class. Complying, Isaiah swung around and walked down the hall, away from Nathaniel, turning left to enter Ms. Bradshaw's classroom. Coach Joe's transactions with Isaiah and the other students having been completed, he started walking to his own classroom, which was located further down the same hall as Ms. Bradshaw's. This meant that, by coincidence, Coach Joe "followed" Isaiah——not in pursuit, but in the sense that he took the same route as the student had approximately ten seconds earlier. Coach Joe noticed that Isaiah had entered Ms. Bradshaw's room. Nathaniel knew Ms. Bradshaw was new to the school, and he decided to inform her that students should not routinely be allowed out of class on passes during lunch periods, when other students are on break. Nathaniel stuck his head in Ms. Bradshaw's room, or perhaps stood just inside the doorway (accounts differ), as he intended to make only a brief stop, and gave her a friendly reminder not to let students out of class.1/ Nathaniel's comment was directed to Ms. Bradshaw——he was not addressing (much less reprimanding) Isaiah. When Coach Joe arrived, Isaiah had been standing at the front of the class, joking around with Ms. Bradshaw. As soon as Nathaniel spoke to Ms. Bradshaw, Isaiah, with a smirk on his face, interjected, "Why the fuck are you behind me, nigger?"——and laughed. This astonishingly disrespectful and provocative challenge to Coach Joe's authority took place in front of the entire classroom of approximately two dozen students.2/ Isaiah's taunting predictably drew Coach Joe all the way into the classroom as he reasonably felt the need immediately to assert his control over the situation and the student. (Had Coach Joe simply walked away at this point, the incident probably would not have "escalated"——"escalation" being, in the School Board's view, something to be avoided at practically all costs——but then, such a submissive retreat in the face of the student's overt dominance display would have sent a clear message to everyone in the classroom that Isaiah possessed the power to make Coach Joe surrender.) Approaching Isaiah, Nathaniel instructed the student, firmly but not angrily, to give Ms. Bradshaw the hall pass and take his seat. Isaiah refused to give back the pass and sit down——this is undisputed. Had Isaiah simply given back the pass and sat down, the situation would have ended. Instead, Isaiah gave Nathaniel back talk and stood his ground, causing the situation to escalate. What happened next is hotly disputed, and there is conflicting evidence in the record relating to the ensuing few, crucial minutes. It is worth noting, however, that, to this point, Isaiah had been the only aggressor, while Nathaniel, the target of Isaiah's unprovoked verbal attacks, had done nothing to or affecting Isaiah that could reasonably be viewed as a provocation; if anything, Nathaniel's responses, so far, had been measured and lenient. Around this time, Isaiah began to clench his fists and posture in the manner of the cartoon character, the Hulk. Nathaniel interpreted Isaiah's pose as a form of agonistic behavior and felt that Isaiah was attempting to build momentum for a physical attack of some sort. In light of the events leading up to this moment, Nathaniel's interpretation was reasonable. Nathaniel asked Isaiah if he (Isaiah) was going to do something with his hands. By now, the confrontation between Isaiah and Coach Joe had attracted the attention of the students. One of them, S.H., began recording the incident using her cell phone's movie camera. She filmed about 39 seconds and stopped. After an indeterminate period, she resumed filming for about 12 seconds, and then stopped again. The District relies heavily upon the two video clips that this student made, especially the longer, first clip. The Cell Phone Movies Given the prominence of filmic evidence in this case, the undersigned will interrupt the narrative to discuss, briefly, his view of the role of a fact-finder in evaluating proof of this nature. It is tempting to assume that filmic evidence is, as the District believes, "objective and not biased" (Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order at 4); that it conveys the same, obvious meaning to every viewer and, being thus unambiguous, requires no interpretation; and that, rather than comprising a series of images that resemble reality, the moving pictures are reality, making every viewer an eyewitness to the scene. The undersigned rejects all of these premises. Aside from the intentional bias that might be introduced through editing or doctoring a film, of which there is no evidence here, video has inherent limitations that undermine its supposed objectivity. The most obvious is that all films have a point of view. The camera records from one angle to the exclusion of all others, tricking the viewer into thinking that the visual perspective of the movie is the only one that matters and constitutes the indisputable truth. In the instant case, the film was shot from the back of the classroom, giving the viewer the point of view of a student somewhat removed from the action. For the most part, Coach Joe is facing the camera, which means that the viewer gets a relatively good look at his face and movements, and can hear most of what he says. Isaiah, in contrast, has his back to the camera; the viewer cannot clearly see everything he does, and most of what he says is inaudible. The effect is to amplify Coach Joe's actions while minimizing Isaiah's. Imagine that, instead of providing a back-row seat perspective, the film had been shot from the front of the classroom, behind Coach Joe, so that Isaiah would be facing the camera, giving the viewer a point of view more closely resembling that of Nathaniel. This perspective would bring Isaiah's actions clearly into view and his words into the viewer's ears. The viewer would also be able to see——as Nathaniel himself could have——the other students, sitting in the background like an audience, watching to see who would prevail. Isaiah, not Coach Joe, would be the "star" of this hypothetical film, which, no doubt, would tell a different story from the one we have. Another limitation of the filmic evidence in this case is that it is not complete. The video begins in medias res, with Coach Joe reacting to Isaiah's agonistic behavior, which has taken place beforehand, off camera. Of course, the video tempts the viewer into believing that anything not shown in the film must not have happened——and that is a form of bias. Further, when the movie starts, Coach Joe already seems a little upset, his voice slightly raised as he says to the student (whose back is to the viewer): "You gonna do something with your hands? Are you about to do something with your hands?" The viewer really cannot see Isaiah's hands, and to the extent glimpses of them come into sight, no clearly threatening gestures are visible. The effect, right off the bat, is to represent Coach Joe as a man who, being unaccountably agitated, is berating a student for no apparent reason. This, too, is bias. Films tell stories. In this sense, video evidence is assertive in nature; it "speaks" to the viewer and——at least metaphorically——"testifies" to the fact-finder. The easy mistake is to assume that the narrative of the video is unambiguous. It is not. Viewers project onto the images their own interpretations of the meaning and significance of the conduct depicted. Some ambiguity in the film might arise from mechanical, technical, or production flaws. Here, S.H. shot her movies from a distance, on a cell phone, so that the orientation of the screen is a narrow, vertical window; consequently, while straining to see what is going on in the film, one gets the feeling of spying through a rectangular keyhole. The images are small, moreover, and magnification only reduces the resolution, degrading the quality of the picture. Because S.H. was so far back, students periodically move in front of the camera, blocking our view of Coach Joe and Isaiah at important moments. The sound quality is so-so; we can hear Coach Joe fairly well, but not Isaiah. All of these shortcomings add up to a general lack of clarity, creating uncertainty about what is being shown. Aside from the foregoing deficiencies, the narrative of the film is not clear and unambiguous; it is subject to different interpretations. Some viewers of the main video in this case, for example, perceive in Isaiah's actions an attempt on his part to retreat and deescalate the situation. The undersigned, in contrast, having watched the tape dozens of times, sees nothing of the sort. As the undersigned construes the film, Isaiah appears never to retreat, except tactically and then only as necessary; indeed, he seems always to be on the offensive, constantly looking for advantage in the scuffle that follows. The narrative of Isaiah the practically innocent bystander trying his best to defuse Coach Joe's inexplicable rage strikes the undersigned as laughable——but is one, he supposes, that a reasonable viewer might see in the video if that is what he wants to believe took place. Finally, there is the temptation to believe that the video is the event, rather than a representation of the event. This temptation tricks the viewer into thinking that, by watching the video, he has enjoyed unmediated access to the disputed event, becoming an eyewitness to the truth. But this is clearly not the case. The video is merely a medium of delivering content; it mediates some, but not nearly all, of the relevant data from the historical event at issue, in a manner that informs (and arguably entertains) rather than re-creates, and hence is neither infallible, unimpeachable, nor inerrant. In sum, video evidence has strengths and weaknesses that are different from those of, say, an eyewitness. Filmic evidence is potentially very strong evidence, to be sure, but moving pictures should not be considered inherently superior to other types of evidences, and video proof should not be accorded great deference or automatic credibility on the ground that film is special. Video evidence is especially useful in accurately conveying what someone said (where the audio is clear) and for establishing precise time frames. It might assist us in visualizing what occurred. But filmic proof is not helpful, or is at best of limited value, when it comes to making assertions about the significance, meaning, and story of the images captured therein; these require the application of human intelligence based upon a careful consideration of all the available evidence. Ultimately, the fact-finder must critically review video evidence, keeping in mind the limitations of this medium, and determine its relative persuasive value in the context of the entire record. That is what the undersigned has done in this case. Back to the Narrative "You gonna do something with your hands? . . . Are you about to do something with your hands? . . . I suggest you give the lady her pass, and go sit your behind down." These are first three sentences that Coach Joe utters in the video. It takes him about nine seconds to make these statements——nearly one-quarter of the main video. During this period, Isaiah is talking, but his words cannot clearly be heard. One thing is obvious and undisputed, however: Isaiah does not comply. The importance of this point must be emphasized. Up to now, the only directives that Coach Joe has given Isaiah are to return the pass and take his seat. Despite everything that has already happened, beginning in the hallway, Coach Joe has not reprimanded, scolded, or punished Isaiah. He has not ordered him to do anything unreasonable or unjustifiable, unlawful or demeaning. He has directed Isaiah to sit down. Isaiah has no reasonable grounds for disobeying this most basic of directives from a teacher to a student——none whatsoever. And yet Isaiah disobeyed. Instead of complying with the unambiguous command to sit down——a reasonable directive that Coach Joe clearly had the authority to give——instead of backing gracefully out of an increasingly tense situation that he himself had initiated without any reasonable cause; instead of simply taking his seat and submitting to the teacher's reasonable exercise of legitimate authority, Isaiah upped the ante: he mouthed off. "I'm telling you this right now . . . ," Isaiah started to say, as if he had the right to tell Nathaniel what would or should be done. Naturally, Nathaniel could not permit a student to tell him what to do, particularly in front of a roomful of students. He promptly set Isaiah straight: "You don't tell me nothing." Isaiah then jabbed Coach Joe in the stomach, which startled the teacher. "What?!" said Coach Joe, as his arms raised slightly in surprise before swiftly shooting forward to shove Isaiah back and out of striking range. Again, it is necessary to pause for elaboration. The School Board attempts to downplay the crucial fact that Isaiah escalated the situation, rapidly and dramatically, when he poked Coach Joe in the stomach, committing the first act of physical aggression, which constituted a battery. To be very clear, this was not an act of self-defense on Isaiah's part; no one, not even Isaiah, makes that claim. Before Isaiah struck him, Nathaniel had not touched Isaiah, or even threatened to touch the student; he had merely told him to sit down, which Isaiah unreasonably refused to do. The School Board refers to Isaiah's battery upon Coach Joe as incidental, de minimis contact, a "slight touch," but the undersigned rejects this characterization. Isaiah deliberately poked his fist into Coach Joe, leaning in to make the blow and pushing off from the teacher's stomach. The force of this blow——whether it was powerful enough to inflict pain or just annoyed Coach Joe——is irrelevant. The student crossed a bright, red line when he intentionally struck the teacher for no reason. Upon being pushed, Isaiah stumbled momentarily, involuntarily taking two or three steps backwards before regaining his balance and purposefully setting his feet. As this happened, Coach Joe said, "Don't use your hands on me, little boy!" Contrary to the notion that Isaiah retreated (which is false), Isaiah in fact squared off and then moved slightly toward Coach Joe. When Isaiah came forward, Nathaniel yelled at him: "Don't you ever put your hands on me!" As if to punctuate the point, Coach Joe pushed Isaiah's forehead with his right forefinger while articulating the word "ever," causing the student's head and shoulders to rock back, either from the force of the blow or because Isaiah simultaneously bent backwards in an evasive maneuver or from flinching——probably a combination of these. Still, Isaiah failed to heed Coach Joe's warning not to use his hands. He lunged at Nathaniel, striking the teacher around the shoulders and knocking him back. Coach Joe straightened up and pointed at Isaiah with his left index finger, shouting, "Do you understand that?" Obviously Isaiah did not understand that he was not to use his hands on the teacher, for he began slapping at Coach Joe's finger, pushing his arm down. Coach Joe, clearly angry now, yelled at Isaiah: "Don't you ever put your hands on me. Don't you ever——EVER——put your hands on me!" Isaiah screamed back, "Get the fuck off me man!" Ms. Bradshaw interjected at this point: "Sit down, Isaiah. Sit down." That, of course, would have been the sensible thing for Isaiah to do. Instead, removing an obstacle between himself and Coach Joe, Isaiah picked up a desk and hurled it, end-over-end, behind his body, towards his classmates, in reckless disregard of the harm this heavy object might cause if it struck someone, which fortunately did not happen, but easily could have. Once the desk was out of the way, Isaiah charged Coach Joe, and the two began to tussle. Coach Joe, who stands roughly six feet, four inches tall, has a height advantage of about four inches on Isaiah. At approximately 350 pounds, Nathaniel outweighed the younger man, too, by nearly 200 pounds, more or less. But Isaiah, trim and athletically built, had the advantages of speed and agility. Coach Joe could use his size advantage to subdue Isaiah if he could get his arms around the student. Nathaniel's concern——a reasonable one——was that Isaiah would scramble under him and knock him over; if Isaiah managed to get Nathaniel on his back, Nathaniel would lose most of the advantages his size gave him. At first, Isaiah kept free of Nathaniel's grasp. When the teacher grabbed Isaiah's shirt, Isaiah slipped out of the garment. Eventually, however, the two wound up in a boxers' clinch. The testimony is in conflict as to what transpired while the two men grappled, and the video evidence is inconclusive, the camera being too often either turned away from the action or prevented from taking a good shot by students getting in the way. Nathaniel testified that Isaiah had gotten a piece of his shirt in one hand and was choking him with it, while using his other hand to throw short punches at Nathaniel's jaw. Isaiah denied doing these things. Near the end of the main video, however, Coach Joe can clearly be heard saying several times: "Swing! Swing! Swing!" The School Board argues that Coach Joe was taunting Isaiah by urging him to take a swinging punch. Nathaniel testified that he wanted Isaiah to swing so that Isaiah would release the teacher's shirt, which was tugging against his throat and choking him——an explanation the School Board calls "absurd." But the undersigned finds Coach Joe's testimony to be credible. What makes little sense is the idea that Coach Joe was taunting Isaiah, for at that moment, Coach Joe did not yet have the upper hand, and he certainly had no need to encourage Isaiah to react violently, as Isaiah had already done so without provocation or reasonable cause. The motivation behind Coach Joe's egging Isaiah on to take a swing most likely was, as Nathaniel testified, to goad Isaiah into releasing his grip on Nathaniel's shirt. Whether this tactic worked is unclear, but Coach Joe eventually got his arms around Isaiah and wrapped him up in a bear hug so that the student could not break free. This enabled Nathaniel to wrestle Isaiah to the ground and pin him on his back. While the struggle was under way, another teacher, Chris Jefferson, had entered the room for reasons unrelated to Isaiah or Coach Joe. Mr. Jefferson saw that Isaiah needed to calm down before Nathaniel could release him because the student was twisting, squirming, and shouting uncontrollably, imploring Mr. Jefferson (or somebody) to "get this big motherfucker off of me!" Mr. Jefferson urged Isaiah to relax. When Isaiah finally stopped resisting, Mr. Jefferson said, "Coach Joe, let him up." Nathaniel let go of Isaiah and stood up. Isaiah remained in a rage. He flipped over another desk and tried to use the classroom telephone, but Nathaniel prevented him from making a call. Isaiah screamed at Ms. Bradshaw to call both his mom and an assistant principal named Dr. Keaton. As he did so, the school resource officer, Deputy Eric Sesack, and the school security officer, David Lunsford, entered the room. Deputy Sesack directed Isaiah to leave the classroom and go to the office. Isaiah stormed out, unaccompanied; that is, he was allowed to take off on his own. Deputy Sesack, Mr. Lunsford, Coach Joe, and Mr. Jefferson followed Isaiah——but at some distance. That Isaiah was permitted to stalk the hallways without escort is troubling, given that he had lost control of himself and was a danger to others. In the words of teacher Kendrick Willis, who was in the hallway and saw Isaiah, the student was "yelling and screaming" and "going crazy." The fact of Isaiah's meltdown cannot seriously be disputed, considering what he did next, which was, first, punch a metal locker and, second, kick a water fountain with enough force to knock it off the wall. Although this criminal act was committed in plain view of a law enforcement officer, Deputy Sesack did not arrest Isaiah because he felt that attempting to subdue the student at that point would be too risky. Moments later, Isaiah, agitated and shirtless, barged into the front office, where he demanded that he be allowed to use the telephone at the counter. The secretary on duty gave Isaiah "permission" to make a call, but it would probably be more accurate to say that she acceded to his demand. In any event, the secretary obviously had no idea that Isaiah had just recently committed a battery upon a teacher and vandalized school property, so her permission——if it can be called that—— was not predicated on knowledge of all the material facts. Coach Joe arrived in the office about 24 seconds behind Isaiah. Seeing Isaiah about to use the phone, Nathaniel abruptly revoked the privilege by grabbing the handset from Isaiah. The School Board contends that this action amounted to an unprovoked "escalation." The undersigned does not see it that way. The evidence shows, for one, that Coach Joe and others (Messrs. Jefferson and Willis) worried that Isaiah might use the phone to summon someone to the school to cause trouble. Whether or not this concern was well-founded the undersigned cannot determine, but it is noteworthy that, in fact, they all shared it. More important, Isaiah should not have been allowed to freely use the telephone at that moment, as though he were in the middle of an ordinary day, just minding his own business, innocent of any misconduct. Rather, Isaiah should have been treated as a suspect in at least two crimes (battery and criminal mischief) for which there was probable cause to believe he had recently committed during school hours, on school property. Based on the evidence of record, the undersigned determines that Coach Joe was one of the only adults present who seemed to understand that Isaiah should be detained, questioned, and perhaps arrested——not allowed to go on his merry way. Taking the telephone away from Isaiah was reasonable under the circumstances. As Coach Joe sensibly forbade Isaiah from using the telephone, Deputy Sesack arrived on the scene. The police officer removed Isaiah from the office and, once outside, gave the student a cell phone to use. Isaiah placed a call to a family member and soon thereafter left campus in a friend's car, since no one present saw fit to take him into custody. Later, Isaiah would be suspended for kicking the water fountain, but because he withdrew from Sebastian River High School, this suspension was never served. The District based its preliminary decision to terminate Nathaniel's employment on the grounds, at bottom, that he had unreasonably made physical contact with, taunted, and threatened Isaiah, all of which, together or individually, constituted a failure to protect the student from personal injury or conditions harmful to learning; an intentional infliction of unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; and a disruption of the learning environment. The undersigned rejects these premises and determines as a matter of ultimate fact, based on the evidence adduced at hearing, that it was Isaiah who disrupted the learning environment; Isaiah who intentionally disparaged (and attacked) Coach Joe; and Isaiah who created conditions harmful to learning. Coach Joe's duty was to make reasonable efforts to protect students and himself from Isaiah. Coach Joe discharged his duty. Isaiah was way out of line, and somebody in authority needed to put the student in his place. It fell to Nathaniel to do so. Had Coach Joe been "nice" to Isaiah and let him have his way, as the District seems to believe would have been preferable, Isaiah's appalling behavior would have received positive reinforcement, making it more likely that Isaiah would act that way again. Other students would have been encouraged to emulate Isaiah's conduct. The learning environment would have suffered. Fortunately for Sebastian River High School, Coach Joe had the fortitude to stand tall, roll up his sleeves, and do the tough job of keeping a foul-mouthed, defiant, and violently aggressive student from causing further damage. For this he should be given a pat on the back, not a pink slip.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Indian River County School Board enter a final order exonerating Nathaniel of all charges brought against him in this proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 31st day of January, 2017.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: During the 1986-87 school year the Petitioner was employed by the Respondent as a Compensatory Education Teacher at Lake Butler Middle School. Additionally, he served as Assistant Football Coach and Junior Varsity Baseball Coach. The Petitioner is over the age of eighteen years. During the 1986-87 school year the Petitioner possessed a temporary teaching certificate issued by the Florida Department of Education (Certificate Number 562142) disclosing "Highest Acceptable Level of Training - Bachelor's Degree." The Petitioner also possesses a permanent teaching certificate with a validity period of July 1, 1987, through June 30, 1992. Superintendent of Schools, James H. Cason, III, met with M. H. Boyd, Principal, Lake Butler Middle School and Petitioner's principal, prior to formulating his decision to recommend Petitioner to Respondent for additional year of employment. Boyd advised Superintendent Cason that she was not entirely satisfied with Petitioner's performance but that she could "live with" Petitioner's reappointment for the 1987-88 school year. Superintendent Cason also conferred with the head coach, James F. Niblack, Petitioner's supervisor for the athletic duties performed by Petitioner, prior to formulating a recommendation to Respondent concerning Petitioner's reappointment for the 1987-88 school year. Coach Niblack recommended Petitioner's reappointment for the 1987-88 school year. Superintendent Cason made a timely written nomination that Petitioner be reappointed by the Respondent in an instructional position for the 1987-88 school year. On April 27, 1987, Respondent conducted a meeting for the purpose, inter alia, of acting upon the recommendation of Superintendent Cason for personnel appointments. The Respondent voted unanimously to reject the recommendation of Superintendent Cason that Petitioner be reappointed to an instructional position for the 1987-88 school year. No reason for the rejection of the nomination of the Petitioner by the Respondent was verbally stated at the April 27, 1987, meeting nor spread upon the minutes of such meeting. During the hearing, and after conferring with the members of the board, counsel for Respondent stipulated that Petitioner met the statutory requirement to be eligible for appointment to a position with Respondent in that he is of good moral character, is over the age of eighteen (18) years and holds a certificate issued under the rules of the State Board of Education. School Board member, W. S. Howard, Jr., a cousin of Boyd, requested that Boyd prepare an evaluation of Petitioner. The record is not clear as to whether the evaluation was made before or after the Superintendent conferred with Boyd on Petitioner's reappointment. Petitioner was evaluated "satisfactory" in ten (10) of the eighteen (18) areas measured on the evaluation instrument that was utilized, "unsatisfactory" on two (2), "not applicable" was marked on two (2) criteria and four (4) were left unmarked by the evaluator. The evaluation instrument utilized by the Respondent in evaluating the Petitioner's performance was not the instrument which should have been utilized during the 1986-87 school year although such instrument was utilized by the principal for other employees at the Petitioner's school. The Respondent officially sponsors, maintains and funds the athletic programs in which the Petitioner rendered services during the 1986-87 school year. Such programs constitute an integral part of the overall educational program offered by the Respondent to children of Union County. The Petitioner's service to the athletic program conducted by the Respondent was rated satisfactory or above.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent, School Board of Union County, enter a Final Order GRANTING the Petitioner an annual contract for the 1987-88 school year and reimbursing Petitioner for any loss of wages due to his non-pay status which resulted from Respondent's rejection of his nomination. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED AND ENTERED this 27th day of August, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 August, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2536 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1.-11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 through 11, respectively. 12.-15. Adopted in Findings of Fact 13 through 16, respectively. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5, 6 and 7. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact and 6. The fact that Boyd had some reservations concerning Petitioner's abilities to teach the compensatory education class is adopted in Finding of Fact 5, the balance of paragraph 6 is rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The fact that Niblack recommended Petitioner for reappointment is adopted in Finding of Fact 6, the balance of Paragraph 7 is rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The fact that the Union County School Board voted not to rehire Petitioner is adopted in Finding of Fact 9, the balance of paragraph 8 is rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The fact that the reason for Respondent's vote to reject Petitioner's reappointment was not verbally stated or spread in the minutes is adopted in Finding of Fact 10, the balance of paragraph 9 is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record in that the testimony of the individual School Board members lacked credibility. Rejected as being presented as an argument and not as a Finding of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald G. Meyer, Esquire Meyer, Brooks and Cooper, P.A. 911 East Park Avenue Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Bobby Lex Kirby, Esquire Route 2, Box 219 Lake Butler, Florida 32054 James H. Cason, III, Superintendent The School Board of Union Co. 55 Southwest Sixth Street Lake Butler, Florida 32054 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sydney McKenzie, General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Fred D. Greene, began service with the Hamilton County School Board as a teacher in August, 1965. He was employed on annual contract for three school years until he was granted a continuing contract by the school board on July 23, 1968, as a teacher pursuant to Section 231.36, Florida Statutes. After the execution of the continuing contract, Petitioner was assigned as coordinator of vocational education during the 1969-1970 school term but in addition to those duties, continued to teach five classes. As Petitioner was assigned additional duties by the Superintendent, his teaching duties were reduced. Starting in 1970 and continuing through 1973, though the continuing contract as a teacher had not been rescinded, Petitioner and the school board entered into annual contracts of employment in which Petitioner was assigned as Director of Vocational Education. On June 5, 1973, the parties entered into a second continuing contract which described Petitioner's duties as "Director of Vocational, Technical and Adult Education." At no time did Petitioner ever hold a contract as "principal" nor was he ever paid as such. His current Florida Teacher's Certificate shows him certified in, among other things, secondary administration and supervision. Both this contract and the 1968 continuing contract contained a provision that the school board was authorized, upon recommendation of the superintendent of schools, to transfer and assign the Petitioner to a "similar position in any other school" in the district, provided that "the duties shall be similar to the duties originally assigned and the salary shall be as heretofore set forth." From the time he was appointed director of VTAE until January, 1981, Petitioner served in that capacity. As director of VTAE, he considered his position as similar to that of a principal in that he reported directly to the Superintendent of Schools, he supervised the teachers who taught within his program (although he did not rate them) he was paid on the non- instructional salary schedule as is a principal he was responsible for the procurement of and administration of students including their promotion and graduation. Nonetheless, he was not classified as a principal, he served schools throughout the county, the teachers in the program were recruited from regular day teachers and additional personnel who taught only in the night program, and these teachers were rated by their day principal when appropriate. Consequently, his position as Director, VTAE, was not similar to that of a principal. At the time he left the job as Director, VTAE, to assume the office of Superintendent of Schools, he was paid a salary of $21,000.00 per year for a 12 month term and was on step 6 of the non-instructional salary schedule. He has never released the school board from the terms of the continuing contract. In January, 1981, Petitioner took office as Superintendent of Schools. At that time the function of Director, VTAE, was assigned to Ms. Scaff who subsequently also occupied several other positions within the school board system including instructional coordinator, secondary curriculum coordinator, community education director, law education director, and management information systems director. Ms. Scaff did not assume all those functions at one time. The job was built up over a period of years and while the duties changed, the title of Director, VTAE, did not. Ms. Scaff was paid as an instructional director on the non-instructional salary schedule. As Director, VTAE, Ms. Scaff, and Mr. Greene before her, occupied one of the director positions reflected in the directory of the School Board. The School Board uses the same contract form for directors and principals and the director is evaluated by the Superintendent of Schools as is a principal, but there are few other similarities between the function of principal and Director. Petitioner served as Superintendent of Schools from 1981 until November, 1984, when he was replaced as superintendent by Mr. Hinton. Several months before his term expired, in June, 1984, Petitioner recommended to the School Board that it appoint Ms. Scaff, who was at that time serving as, inter alia, Director, VTAE, to a two year contract in that position. This contract was approved by the School Board. Shortly after his defeat in the election, Petitioner allegedly told Mr. Hinton that he did not wish to displace anyone employed by the school system in order to enforce his return rights under the continuing contract he held. It was his position that he would accept a teaching position but at a salary level equivalent to that of an administrator until such time as an administrator's position within the system became open. At a special meeting of the School Board called by Petitioner on the last day of his term as superintendent, Mr. Greene nominated himself for the position as principal at NHE. This nomination, however, was tabled by the School Board upon advice of counsel so that an advisory opinion on it could be requested from the Florida Commission on Ethics. At this point it should be noted that though the position as Principal at NHE became vacant prior to Petitioner leaving his position as superintendent, he did not apply during the period that the·advertisement was open. The only person to do so was Harry Pennington who was subsequently placed in that position. When Mr. Hinton assumed the position of Superintendent of Schools, replacing Mr. Greene, he immediately assigned Petitioner to the position as teacher of business education. Mr. Greene accepted the assignment but requested that he be paid a salary equivalent to the 20th step on the salary schedule for the position of instructional director at a figure of $32,550.00 per year. The figure demanded by Petitioner was not paid, however. After conferring with the State Department of Education regarding the proposed salary for Petitioner, the School Board determined that since he held a continuing contract as a teacher, he would be employed at a salary based on the teacher position. He was given credit for four years of teaching service while serving as Superintendent of Schools which placed him at the 20 year service point. In addition, he was given credit for a master's degree and for teaching in his field of certification. His total salary, therefore, was set at $23,460.00 over a ten month term. Petitioner was not satisfied, especially since Mr. Pennington, who was serving as principal of NHE was receiving $28,100.00 per year based on a 12 month employment contract. On May 27, 1985 the school board rejected Mr. Greene's nomination of himself as principal at NHE. The board's rejection of Mr. Greene was based on the recommendation of Mr. Hinton who felt that Petitioner was not qualified for the position in that he did not hold certification in administration and supervision at the elementary level his contract was not for the position of principal he had no experience as principal or assistant principal he did not apply for the position when it was advertised and because counsel advised that filling the position based on self nomination might violate Florida law. Mr. Pennington on the other hand, was fully certified in administration and supervision for all grade levels involved at NHE. Other positions for which Respondent felt himself qualified came open during the 1984-1985 school year but he was not selected to fill any of them. Included in these were that of principal of Hamilton County High School and administrative assistant positions at both North Hamilton Elementary and South Hamilton Elementary. When Mr. Hinton took over as Superintendent of Schools, as a part of his management program and in an effort to correct what appeared to be a problem regarding the late payment of School Board obligations which existed when he took over, he recommended certain personnel changes including the creation of an office manager position. Mattie Fouraker, formerly the business education instructor at Hamilton High School, was appointed office manager to the School Board at a salary approximately equivalent to that she received as a teacher. It is to her vacant job as teacher of business education that Mr. Greene was assigned. Petitioner contends Ms. Fouraker was appointed to the position before it was ever officially created and approved by the School Board. Be that as it may, however, it becomes clear that the Superintendent of Schools intended that a problem be solved and to do so, created a position designed to correct it. He appointed Ms. Fouraker to the job on a temporary basis and as soon as the School Board met at the next scheduled meeting in December, 1984, it approved the position and confirmed Ms. Fouraker's assignment to it. This formal board action, however, served to increase her pay from that of a teacher at $23,460.00 per year to that of an administrative position at $29,700.00 per year and her position was changed from that of a 10 month to a 12 month employment, along with the benefits accruing thereto. Petitioner's salary as business education instructor was developed through a tailored formula developed with an intent to,-in the opinion of Mr. Hinton, put Mr. Greene in approximately the same position for the four years he was Superintendent of Schools. As was stated previously, Mr. Greene was given credit for his 16 years in the classroom plus his years of superintendent for a total of 20 years experience credit. Added to that was credit for a Master's degree and credit for teaching in his field of certification. When the $23,460.00 salary that was arrived at for this was compared to what it was anticipated he would have earned had he stayed as Director of VTAE, it was seen that had he remained in his position on the same salary schedule, he would have presumably earned $2,362.50 per month ($23,625.00 per 10 month school year) as an instructional director, Step 6. This is approximately $155.00 more over the school year. Had Petitioner been paid at the salary of an instructional support position, Step 6, the monthly salary would be slightly lower. It should be noted, however, that due to schedule changes during the period, this might not be a valid comparison. Positions within the school system are assigned by the Superintendent of schools on the nature of the position. Non- instructional personnel are assigned categories on the salary schedule based on an assessment of their qualifications and value to the system. Teachers, on the other hand, who are generally serving under contracts, are placed on the salary schedule consistent with the number of years experience they have plus certain other additions. It was Mr. Hinton's position that Mr. Greene should be paid as a teacher since he was serving as a teacher and once that decision was made, Mr. Greene was paid the highest amount that a person with his certificate and his experience and qualification could earn in that position. When the Florida Commission on Ethics issued its opinion on the question certified to it regarding Petitioner's recommending himself for the position of Principal of NHE, the opinion indicated the Commission could not conceive of how the Petitioner's actions in recommending himself for a position could not have constituted a misuse of public position. In other words, while not saying that it was, the Commission concluded that it probably was a violation. Thereafter, the School Board requested an Attorney General's opinion on whether a school superintendent may nominate himself for appointment of a principal. The opinion was not received as of the date of the hearing. Turning again to the issue of the function of Director of VTAE, the School Board contends that the function of Director has steadily expanded in scope. For example, Mr. Hinton urges that the work that Mr. Greene was doing as Director, VTAE prior to being elected superintendent now constitutes only 10 to 20% of the currently described duties of the position. The additional functions that Ms. Scaff performs, as described above, he contends, constitute more by far than that which Petitioner did when he held the job. In support of that position, Mr. Hinton refers to the organization and management study conducted in 1983 at the request of Petitioner when he was Superintendent of Schools. Among the pertinent recommendations of that study was the restructuring of the organization within the school district level. The position of Director, VTAE was not one of the three Director and five coordinator positions recommended by the study. Ms. Scaff indicates that when Petitioner was defeated in his bid for re-election as superintendent of schools, she indicated her willingness to step down from the position of Director, VTAE and return to classroom teaching. She does not consider the return to a position of teaching as a demotion nor does Ms. Fouraker. It should be noted, however, that both individuals received substantial increases in salary by virtue of their position changes under the Hinton administration. For example, Ms. Fouraker's promotion to the position of office manager carried a pay increase from $23,460.00 to $29,700.00 per year. Ms. Scaff now earns the same. Mr. Greene was at Step 6 on the non-instructional scale when he left the job of Director, VTAE. These scales were modified in the intervening years, and Ms. Fouraker traced Mr. Greene's position as Director, VTAE, to the new scale as if he had stayed in place. She placed him at Step 6 on the new scale at a salary of $28,350.00. Petitioner contends that he should be treated the same as Mr. Coe, Director of Personnel, who realized a large salary and step increase when the pay scales were changed. If this were done, and he was given an instructional director's position at step 20 on the non- instructional salary schedule, his salary would be $32,500.00. Subtracting that $28,350.00 from the $32,550.00 he says he should be earning, Mr. Greene indicates that he lost approximately $4,958.87 for the period starting November 20, 1984, when he began teaching, to the end of the school year. He further contends that his salary loss is continuing at the rate of $757.50 per month and in addition, he is also being deprived of other benefits of employment such as paid annual leave, sick leave, enhanced retirement benefits, and other like perquisites attached to a 12 month contract. Mr. Greene further contends that since he was involved in litigation with the school board concerning Mr. Coe's contract prior to his leaving the position of Superintendent of Schools, the School Board should have known of his entitlements under the continuing contract since it was shown that it had been established for assignments and transfers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Fred D. Greene, be assigned a non-principal supervisor/director position within the Hamilton County Schools as available that he be paid accordingly when performing in such a position but that he be denied adjustment for back pay and attorney's fees and costs. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of October, 1985, in Tallahassee, 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 of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of October, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: John D. Carlson, Esquire Gatlin, Woods, Carlson & Girtman 1030 East Lafayette, Suite 112 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Paul Hendrick, Esquire 111 South Central Avenue Suite 1 Jasper, FL 32052 Owen Hinton, Jr. Superintendent Hamilton County School Board P. O. Box 1059 Jasper, FL 32052 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32301 APPENDIX Ruling by the Hearing Officer as to the Petitioner's Proposed Findings Of Fact: Paragraphs Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted* Accepted* Accepted* Accepted Accepted except as to the veracity of the reported comment of the School Board member Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted except as to comments of Ms. Scaff as to her being a principal and signing forms as such Accepted except for Petitioner's comment that he would receive temporary certificate for Elementary Ed principal and would obtain certification in grades K-6 without much problem Accepted Accepted Rejected as irrelevant Irrelevant as a finding of fact should be conclusion of law Accepted Accepted except as to last sentence which is irrelevant unnumbered between and 23 Rejected Rejected Rulings by the Hearing Officer as to Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact (Respondent failed to number paragraphs.) The unnumbered paragraphs are therefore treated in sequence and numbered herein for purposes of identification only. Paragraphs Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted as to substance Accepted Accepted Accepted except that acceptance of the position was not meant to be acquiesed in permanent assignment Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted as it relates to teacher salaries only Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted as to the request made. As of the hearing, the opinion had not been received. It was not offered into evidence and though attached to Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order, was not considered Accepted Accepted Accepted except for the conclusion drawn in the last sentence which was not supported by evidence admitted. Accepted Accepted Accepted Rejected. Position was held by Ms. Scaff who performed the same duties performed by Petitioner when he was the encumbent, in addition to additional duties which he did not *Petitioner's terms describing the personnel changes are not necessarily dispositive of the issue.
