The Issue Whether the Board refused to re-employ Ms. Smith as a teacher's aide for the 1985-1986 school year in retaliation for a Complaint that she filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations in January, 1983?
Findings Of Fact Ms. Smith is a graduate of a high school in the Gadsden County School system. Ms. Smith successfully completed a business education course at Gadsden Vo-Tech after receiving her high school diploma. Ms. Smith was rated qualified to work as a teacher's aide in the Gadsden County School system by the Central Administration office in 1982 and in 1984. Ms. Smith was employed as a teacher's aide at Gretna Elementary School (hereinafter referred to as "Gretna") during the 1982-1983 school year. She began her employment at Gretna in October, 1982. Ms. Smith's immediate supervisor at Gretna during the first month of her employment was the Principal, Mr. Witt Campbell. Mr. Campbell left Gretna in November, 1982. For the remainder of the 1982-1983 school year, Ms. Smith's immediate supervisor was Rosa Barkley, who replaced Mr. Witt as Principal. Ms. Smith was pregnant during the 1982-1983 school year. On January 24, 1983, Ms. Smith became ill because of her pregnancy and had to go to the hospital. Ms. Smith did not return to Gretna during the remainder of the school year. On March 14, 1983, Ms. Barkley went to visit with Ms. Smith at her home. Ms. Smith told Ms. Barkley that she would return to work approximately two weeks after her baby was born. This meant that Ms. Smith would return after the start of the 1983-1984 school year. Ms. Barkley helped Ms. Smith request a leave of absence. This leave of absence was approved by the Board on March 29, 1983. In March, 1983, Ms. Barkley gave Ms. Smith a satisfactory rating on a Gadsden County Non-instructional Personnel Assessment form which was filed with the Board. Ms. Barkley gave Ms. Smith the benefit of the doubt in completing this form because Ms. Smith had been under Ms. Barkley's supervision only from November, 1982 to January, 1983. Ms. Barkley also recommended to the Superintendent that Ms. Smith be re-employed for the 1983-1984 school year. By letter dated June 17, 1983, Ms. Barkley asked the Superintendent to terminate Ms. Smith. Ms. Barkley made this request because she wanted to have an aide that would start the school year in August, 1983 and not in November, 1983, when Ms. Smith planned to return. Ms. Barkley indicated in the letter that Ms. Smith had been absent because of her pregnancy. The Superintendent, Mr. Bishop, decided to grant Ms. Barkley's request. The decision to terminate Ms. Smith was made by the Board and not by Ms. Barkley. Although the Superintendent generally relies heavily on the recommendation of a principal, the decision to terminate Ms. Smith was that of the Board. The Board, based upon the information it was provided, should have told Ms. Barkley, that a leave of absence, and not termination, was the proper remedy to Ms. Barkley's problem. By letter dated July 27, 1983, Ms. Smith was terminated by the Board. Ms. Smith filed a Complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations on January 19, 1984, alleging sex discrimination against Ms. Barkley. Upon the filing of the Complaint the Board investigated and decided that Ms. Smith should be rehired. The Board realized that it had caused the problem and not Ms. Barkley. Ms. Smith was offered the first teacher's aide position available. The position was at Chattahoochee Elementary School (hereinafter referred to as "Chattahoochee"). Ms. Smith accepted the position and began work at Chattahoochee in March, 1984. Ms. Smith worked with fourth grade Chapter 1 children (children who have been disadvantaged with regard to their educational opportunities). Ms. Martha Downs was her teacher. While at Chattahoochee, Ms. Smith had difficulty performing her duties as a teacher's aide. Her primary area of deficiency was in math. Mr. Corbin Scott, the Principal at Chattahoochee, attempted to help Ms. Smith by having Ms. Ella Ponder, a helping teacher, assist her. Although it was alleged that Ms. Smith was required to take a Criteria Reference Test normally taken by fourth graders, the evidence failed to support this allegation. Based upon Ms. Smith's poor performance, Mr. Corbin did not recommend that Ms. Smith be returned to Chattahoochee for the next school year. Although Ms. Smith admitted that she has some problems with math she failed to accept the fact that she was not adequately performing her duties as a teacher's aide. Instead, she believed that Mr. Corbin expected her to "teach" and that he was unfair when he did not recommend her continued employment at Chattahoochee for the next school year. Ms. Smith believed that the Complaint that she filed in January, 1984, affected the way that she was treated at Chattahoochee. This unfounded belief affected Ms. Smith's attitude while at Chattahoochee and later. The Board decided that the period of time that Ms. Smith was employed at Chattahoochee (March, 1984 to June, 1984) was too short. Therefore, in an effort to be fair with Ms. Smith and to settle the dispute with Ms. Smith, the Board decided to place Ms. Smith in another teacher's aide position for the 1984- 1985 school year. During the Summer of 1984, Ms. Smith and the Board settled the Complaint which Ms. Smith had filed in January, 1984. Pursuant to this settlement, Ms. Smith dismissed her Complaint for back-pay and her re-employment at Gretna. Ms. Smith was employed at Gretna during the 1984- 1985 school year as a teacher's aide pursuant to the settlement. Ms. Barkley, Ms. Smith's immediate supervisor at Gretna, was not consulted before the Board decided to return Ms. Smith to Gretna. Principals of schools are not consulted by the Board before employees are assigned to their schools. Although Ms. Smith agreed to return to Gretna as part of the settlement of her Complaint against the Board, she believed that Ms. Barkley would not treat her properly. This belief, which was unfounded, affected Ms. Smith's attitude toward Ms. Barkley and her job during the 1984-1985 school year. Ms. Smith was assigned to assist two teachers for most of the 1984- 1985 school year at Gretna: Ms. Corine D. Palmer and Ms. Charlotte Price. Neither Ms. Palmer nor Ms. Price talked to Ms. Smith about problems which they perceived in Ms. Smith's performance. Ms. Price's attitude was that she was there to teach students and, therefore, she did not want to be bothered with Ms. Smith. Ms. Palmer's attitude was to work around Ms. Smith; she gave up trying to use Ms. Smith effectively because of Ms. Smith's lack of effort. Both ladies essentially stuck their heads in the sand and ignored the problem since neither of them were responsible for evaluating Ms. Smith. Employees at Gretna were required to sign in and sign out on a sheet provided for them at the administrative office of the school. During the school year Ms. Smith was late arriving at school a total of fifteen times. Most of those times she was late more than a few minutes. She was late seven times during 1984 and eight times in 1985. At least three other teachers' aides (Inez Morris, Ida Miller and Mary Wright) were late to school more often than Ms. Smith. While Ms. Smith received an unsatisfactory rating for punctuality for the school year, the other three aides received a satisfactory rating. Many of the times that the other three aides were late, they were late only a few minutes. When they were late more than a few minutes, they notified Ms. Barkley or someone else at Gretna that they would be late, and indicated why. Ms. Smith, on the other hand, did not always notify Ms. Barkley or anyone else that she would be late, or indicate why she was late until she was asked. During the first week of the 1984-1985 school year (August 20-24, 1984), Ms. Smith was late three times. Ms. Smith rode to school with another employee who was late getting to school. On August 27, 1984, Ms. Barkley discussed Ms. Smith's lateness with her and gave her a letter indicating that she was expected to be at school at 8:05 a.m. Ms. Smith was late once during each of the next three weeks. She corrected the problem, however, by arranging to ride with someone else. After the week of September 10-14, 1984, Ms. Smith was late only one other time during 1984. During 1985, Ms. Smith was late at least once a week during seven of the eleven weeks ending March 15, 1985. In addition to being late reporting to school, Ms. Smith was late going to her assigned classroom after arriving at school and after lunch. Ms. Smith was required to be in her morning class no later than 8:15 a.m. Her lateness was reported by Ms. Palmer and Ms. Price and was also noted by Ms. Barkley. Ms. Smith was in the employee lounge on many occasions when she should have been in a class. On October 15, 1984, Ms. Barkley spoke with all of the aides about being in the lounge in the morning when they should be in their classes. Despite Ms. Barkley's comments, that afternoon Ms. Smith was in the lounge when she should not have been, and she continued to be late to her assigned classroom in the mornings. Ms. Palmer and Ms. Price told Ms. Barkley that Ms. Smith was late to class. Both of them tended to do without her and to avoid any effort to try to correct the problem. On February 15, 1985, Ms. Barkley gave Ms. Smith a letter that indicated that Ms. Smith was in the lounge when she was not supposed to be. A similar letter was given to Ida Miller and Dorothy Smith. Ms. Miller and Ms. Dorothy Smith corrected the problem. Ms. Smith did not. Ms. Barkley rated Ms. Smith's attendance as "unsatisfactory". This rating was not based upon the number of days that she was absent. It was based upon the number of times that Ms. Smith was not in her assigned classroom. Ms. Barkley kept a notebook in which she noted the dates of some events involving employees' actions. She has kept these notes since she became a principal. Most of the notes concerning Ms. Smith did not give the reason for absences or lateness. Ms. Smith did not, however, always report the reason for her lateness. Most of the observations involved lateness and absences. The notes concerning Ms. Smith were provided to the Board because she was requested to provide any documentation concerning Ms. Smith. She did not know where her other notes were. Ms. Barkley noted the conference she had with Ms. Smith on August 27, 1984. In this note, she referred to Ms. Smith as "Ms. Attitude." This notation and a later notation that Ms. Smith was in the lounge one day "chomping" show a lack of judgment by Ms. Barkley in the manner that Ms. Barkley referred to Ms. Smith. This lack of judgment is not sufficient, however, to prove that Ms. Barkley terminated Ms. Smith at the end of the 1984-1985 school year in retaliation for the Complaint filed by Ms. Smith in 1983. Ms. Barkley's explanation for these notations is rejected. Ms. Barkley talked to teachers and other aides about Ms. Smith. Ms. Barkley did not, however, limit her inquiries to Ms. Smith. Ms. Barkley was responsible for the supervision of all of the employees at Gretna. She was very active in managing her school. She observed her employees in the halls of the school, in the lounge and in the classroom. She did not single out Ms. Smith. Ms. Barkley asked teachers and other aides about all employees and she checked up on all her employees. Ms. Smith was observed in class by Ms. Barkley. Ms. Smith was seen giving wrong answers and performing sloppy work. When Ms. Barkley talked to Ms. Smith about some of her problems, Ms. Smith's attitude was defensive. She did not believe that she had any problems and believed that Ms. Barkley was being unfair to her. She therefore did not indicate that she agreed with Ms. Barkley or that she would make any efforts to correct her problems when Ms. Barkley spoke to her about her problems. Ms. Price indicated that Ms. Smith had evidenced a poor attitude about her performance with her also. On March 15, 1985, Ms. Barkley met with Ms. Smith and informed her that she would not be recommended for employment during the 1985-1986 school year. Ms. Barkley sent a letter to the Board dated March 15, 1985, recommending that Ms. Smith not be re-employed during the 1985-1986 school year. Ms. Barkley also rated Ms. Smith "unsatisfactory" on five characteristics listed on a Gadsden County Non-instructional Personnel Assessment form dated March 8, 1985. This form was signed by Ms. Smith on March 15, 1985. Ms. Smith was given an unsatisfactory rating for utilization of time, compliance with school and district policies, attendance, punctuality and leadership. This evaluation was similar to the evaluation given Ms. Smith by Mr. Corbin. Ms. Barkley, Ms. Price and Ms. Palmer were given a Personal Reference Form for Teacher Aide Applicants by Ms. Smith. Ms. Smith told Ms. Price and Ms. Palmer that the forms were going to be used by her to apply for a job outside of its school system. Although both teachers had misgivings about Ms. Smith's ability and did not want her back as a teacher's aide, they both liked her personally and wanted to help her find a job. They also wanted to avoid any conflict with Ms. Smith. Therefore, even though they should have known better, they completed the forms giving Ms. Smith affair rating and indicating that they would employ her as a teacher's aide. Ms. Barkley completed the form given to her by Ms. Smith on April 30, 1985. She gave her a poor rating and indicated that she would not employ her as a teacher's aide. Ms. Barkley had completed a Gadsden County Non-instructional Personnel Assessment form when Ms. Smith left Gretna in 1983. Ms. Barkley gave Ms. Smith a favorable evaluation. She did so, however, because Ms. Smith had only worked at Gretna during the 1982-1983 school year for approximately four months and Ms. Barkley had only been there during three of those months. Therefore, Ms. Barkley did not believe it would be fair to give Ms. Smith an unfavorable evaluation. The Board did not refuse to re-employ Ms. Smith for the 1985-1986 school year in retaliation for any dispute between Ms. Smith and Ms. Barkley or any other person. Ms. Smith was not re-employed because she lacked the necessary job skills to work as a teacher's aide and had failed to perform adequately. On or about July 15, 1985, Ms. Smith filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations alleging that the Board had discriminated against her on the basis of retaliation. The Executive Director of the Florida Commission on Human Relations issued a "Determination: No Cause" on May 12, 1987. Ms. Smith filed a Petition for Rehearing. On or about July 13, 1987, the Executive Director entered a "Redetermination: No Cause." Ms. Smith filed a Petition for Relief. The Florida Commission on Human Relations forwarded the Petition the Division of Administrative Hearings by order dated August 18, 1987.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Ms. Smith's Petition for Relief be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 9th day of March, 1988. APPENDIX The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 2. 3 Irrelevant. 4-5 3. 6-7 22. 8 4. 9 23. 10 5. 11 12. The date of termination was July 27, 1983. 12 10. 13-14 13. 15 20-22. 16 10. 17 8. 18 9. 19 22. 20 23. 21 11. The evidence failed to prove that the Board acted solely on the recommendation of Ms. Barkley. 22 25. 23 26. 24 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 25-26 27. 27 28. 28 While Ms. Smith may have corrected the "ride problem" she continued to be late during the 1984-1985 school year. 29-31 27. 32-33 33. 34-36 Although these proposed findings of fact are correct they are irrelevant. 37 41. 38-39 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 40 Irrelevant and not supported by the weight of the evidence. 41 35. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Irrelevant. 44 35. 45-46 36. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Although it is true that Ms. Smith did improve her punctuality arriving at Gretna during 1984 she failed to continue to arrive on time during the rest of the school year. See 28. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 45. 2 21. 3 10 and 11. 4 14. 5 16. 6 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 16. 7 16-18. 8 20 and 22. 9-10 37. 11 41. 12 42. 13 28 and 33. 14 28-29 and 33. 15 45. COPIES FURNISHED TO: EDWARD J. GRUNEWALD, ESQUIRE LEGAL SERVICES OF NORTH FLORIDA, INC. 400 NORTH MADISON STREET QUINCY, FLORIDA 32351 CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON, ESQUIRE 211 EAST JEFFERSON STREET QUINCY, FLORIDA 32351 DONALD A. GRIFFIN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 325 JOHN KNOX ROAD BUILDING F, SUITE 240 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1925 DANA BAIRD GENERAL COUNSEL 325 JOHN KNOX ROAD BUILDING F, SUITE 240 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1925
The Issue As to DOAH Case No. 00-3581, the issue is whether the Respondent's employment with the Petitioner, the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida (School Board), should be terminated for the reasons set forth in the Notice of Specific Charges. As to DOAH Case No. 00-5123PL, the issue is whether the Education Practices Commission should take disciplinary action against the Respondent's teaching certificate for the reasons set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated November 21, 2000.
Findings Of Fact 1. The Petitioner, School Board, is authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida. As such, it is charged with the responsibility for all personnel decisions for the school district. 2. At all times material to this matter, the Petitioner, Tom Gallagher, as Commissioner of Education, was authorized by Florida law to recommend cases for disciplinary action to the Education Practices Commission.* 3. At all times material to this matter, the Respondent, Edward Cohen, held Florida Educator's Certificate No. 640334 valid through June 30, 2001. Such certificate authorized the Respondent to teach physics in grades 6 through 12. 4. At all times material to this matter, the Respondent was employed pursuant to a professional service contract as a teacher assigned to Homestead Middle School, a public school within the Miami-Dade school district. As such, the Respondent was subject to the rules and regulations of the State of Florida and the School Board. 5. Prior to March 8, 2000, several female students enrolled in the Respondent's class at Homestead Middle School complained to an assistant principal regarding the Respondent's behavior and comments in class. 6. The students expressed their discomfort with the manner in which the Respondent held their hands, or touched their backs, or commented on their romantic interests or other topics not related to their studies. In essence, the students wanted the touches and comments to stop. 7. The students did not allege sexual contact with the Respondent. The conduct was more subtle: a handshake held longer than greeting required, a pat on the back more stroking than normal, or an arm/shoulder rubbed. The discomfort stemmed from the continuing pattern of the behavior despite the students having pulled away or having told the Respondent to stop. 8. The students were not disruptive in class, did not conspire to cause the Respondent problems, and were not racially motivated. They were simply middle school girls venting their discomfort at the situation. 9. As is the normal practice when confronted by complaints against a teacher, the assistant principal asked the girls to complete written statements outlining the basis for their concerns. 10. The complaints also alleged that the Respondent had ignored one male student who was beaten up by other students while in the Respondent's class. All of the girls identified the male student by name. 11. The assistant principal advised the Respondent that the students had made allegations and requested a written statement in response. Instead of attempting to work with the administrator regarding the complaints, the Respondent assumed a defiant and defensive attitude. 12. Over the course of the next few days a new principal was assigned to Homestead Middle School. When the new principal, Mrs. Reineke, arrived for duty she was unaware of the student complaints and had never met the Respondent. 13. When a parent of one of the girls confronted Mrs. Reineke with a demand for action regarding the complaints, the principal initiated a formal review of the matter. Allegations of inappropriate statements or touches are always taken seriously. Mrs. Reineke was obligated to follow-up with a prompt review of the complaints. 14. When the Respondent learned that an investigation would result he requested that "the offending or offended students" be removed from his class or that he be moved to another location. 15. Although Mrs. Reineke inquired into the possibility of moving the Respondent to another location, the School Board policy (approved by the teachers' union) prohibited a move at that time during the school year. 16. Additionally, as there was no basis upon which to justify removal of the students from the class, Mrs. Reineke elected to change the Respondent's teaching schedule effective March 20, 2000. 17. This decision was necessitated by the Respondent's refusal to allow the students who had complained against him into his class. Subsequent to their filing the written statements against him, the Respondent sent three of the girls to the office. Further, the Respondent verbally advised an assistant principal that he would not accept them back into his class. 18. When the Respondent learned of Mrs. Reineke's proposed solution (the schedule change), he advised her that he would not accept the change and claimed it was a "racial move." 19. In an effort to resolve the conflict, Mrs. Reineke met with a union steward and agreed to modify the schedule change to assure that the Respondent was qualified to teach all of the subjects on the modified schedule. Nevertheless, the Respondent refused to accept the change. 20. The Respondent would not admit the complaining students back into class, would not accept the schedule change as proposed by the principal (and negotiated by the teacher's union representative), and the investigation of the underlying allegations against the Respondent had not been completed. Given these facts, Mrs. Reineke sought support and assistance from the School Board’s region office. 21. On March 21, 2000, when the Respondent reported to school and again refused to teach his scheduled classes, he was removed from the school and placed on alternative assignment effective that date. Mrs. Reineke also referred the Respondent to the Employee Assistance Program (EAP). 22. As Mrs. Reineke could discern no reason for the Respondent's refusal to accept the schedule change or allow the students back into class, it was hoped that the services available through the EAP might assist the Respondent. 23. The Respondent did not participate in the EAP and continued to allege that Mrs. Reineke's actions were racially motivated. 24. There is no rational or factual basis for the Respondent's claim that the principal's conduct was racially motivated. None of the students' complaints related to the Respondent's race. Persons of the Respondent's race testified as to the factual matters in dispute in this cause and none of them supported the Respondent's claim of racial bias or motivation. 25. Eventually, the investigation resulted in the matter being referred to the School Board's Office of Professional Standards. That office, as required by law, then referred the case to the Education Practices Commission. 26. In completing the investigation of the Respondent's conduct, the following improprieties were substantiated. First, in shaking hands with female students the Respondent would hold the hand longer than necessary for a formal greeting. In fact, requiring students to shake hands in greeting was unnecessary. That the female students were made uncomfortable by the practice should have demonstrated its inappropriateness. It is undisputed that female students would pull away from the Respondent when the hand was held an inappropriate length of time. 27. Second, the Respondent rubbed or patted backs or shoulders in an improper stroking manner causing female students to be uncomfortable. Such conduct was only directed to female students and was inappropriate. 28. Third, the Respondent made improper comments to the students regarding how gay men contract AIDS through anal sex. 29. The Respondent made inappropriate comments to students unrelated to the subject matter taught regarding sexual behavior. He disparaged one student for alleged sexual conduct and falsely attributed her vomiting to pregnancy. 30. When directed to admit complaining female students back into his class, the Respondent refused to do so. Such directive was reasonable in nature and given with and by proper authority. 31. When directed to adhere to an amended schedule change, the Respondent refused to do so. Such directive was reasonable in nature and given with and by proper authority. 32. When a male student was being beat-up by students in the Respondent's class during class, the Respondent failed or refused to intercede on the male student's behalf. 10 33. Parents of students in the Respondent's class lost confidence in his effectiveness to perform as a teacher given the Respondent's acts, omissions, and inappropriate comments. 34. Administrators who attempted to resolve the dispute lost confidence in the Respondent's effectiveness to perform as a teacher, given his refusal to work with the system to effect a mutually agreeable solution to the problem presented by the students' complaints and his refusal to comply with directives. 35. On June 7, 2000, school administrators conducted a final conference for the record (CFR) with the Respondent. This CFR, held at the district level, reviewed the findings of the investigation, reiterated the Respondent's repeated failures to comply with directives issued, and addressed future disciplinary action. 36. Subsequently, the principal recommended that the Respondent's employment with the school district be terminated. This recommendation was reviewed and supported by the region superintendent who is of the same race as the Respondent. According to the region superintendent, the Respondent's refusal to follow directives of the principal as outlined above is so egregious that termination became the school district's only option. 37. In response to the recommendation, the Respondent labeled the administrators "liars" and continued to falsely malign the principal as a "bigot." The Respondent did not and 11 has not recognized the inappropriateness of his sexual comments to students or his refusal to accept the complaining students back into his class. His assertions regarding the schedule change that was initiated and offered to accommodate his concerns pending the investigation were unpersuasive.
Conclusions For Petitioner Timothy A. Pease, Esquire School Board of Miami-Dade County School Board Miami Dade 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 For Petitioner Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Commissioner of Whitelock & Associates, P.A. Education: 300 Southeast 13th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 For Respondent : Edward J. Cohen, pro se 19707 Southwest 118th Place Miami, Florida 33177
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order sustaining the suspension and termination of the Respondent's employment contract. Further, it is recommended that the Educational Practices Commission suspend the Respondent's teaching certificate and require him to complete an approved course in professional ethics. 14 DONE AND ENTERED this 17 day of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. . D. Parrish 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 Divisio Administrative Hearings this 2 j ay of June, 2001.
