The Issue The issue in this case is whether to impose sanctions against Respondent, Brooke Braly, up to, and including, revocation of her Educator’s Certificate.
Findings Of Fact The Commissioner is responsible for monitoring each person who holds a Florida Educator Certificate and who is working in any school district within the State. Part and parcel of the Commissioner’s duties is the determination of whether any teacher violated any of the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession. At all times relevant hereto, Ms. Braly held Florida Educator Certificate No. 1106771, covering the areas of elementary education and English for speakers of other languages. The certificate is valid through June 30, 2021. Ms. Braly is employed as a teacher in the Volusia County School System, teaching at the School in the area of Modified ESE with Varying Exceptionalities. Her students were those with physical and/or mental disabilities which resulted in learning difficulties. Ms. Braly had served in that position for seven years as of the date of final hearing, including the 2017-2018 school year. An incident occurred at the School on December 5, 2016, i.e., the 2016-2017 school year, involving the Student. Based on that incident, the Commissioner issued an Administrative Complaint on November 21, 2017 (some 10 months later), which contained the following allegations: On or about December 5, 2017, [Ms. Braly] failed to notify school administrators after she confiscated a BB gun from a student at the beginning of the school day. [Ms. Braly] also failed to properly secure the BB gun to prevent the student from regaining possession of it while still on school property. The Salient Facts From the evidence presented, it is clear that on December 5, 2016, the Student approached Ms. Braly at the beginning of the school day. The Student told Ms. Braly that he had inadvertently failed to remove his BB/airsoft pistol from his backpack before leaving for school that morning. He asked her what he should do, and Ms. Braly took the gun from him to secure it for the day. At no time was she worried that the Student had intentions of using the BB gun or that it was a serious problem. In fact, Ms. Braly did not even believe it was a BB gun, but thought it was a plastic toy gun. At the end of the day, the Student took the gun home with him. As the Student was exiting the school bus at his stop that afternoon, another student sitting on the bus saw the BB gun, which the Student had stuck into his waistband under his shirt. The Student’s shirt was lifted for some reason and the other student spotted the gun. That student went home and immediately sent an email to several School administrators to report what he had seen. The administrators reviewed surveillance videos from the bus and identified the Student as the person carrying the gun. An investigation ensued and the Administrative Complaint was filed. The less clear and/or less persuasive “facts” of this case are set forth below. The Gun The Commissioner presented a picture of a BB gun at final hearing which was purported to be the same gun Ms. Braly had confiscated from the Student on December 5, 2016. The black and white picture shows a replica Smith & Wesson handgun of small to average size. Ms. Braly says that the gun depicted in the picture is not the gun she took from the Student. The Student’s father brought a handgun to final hearing that he said was the gun at issue. It was plastic, lightweight, and tan and black in color. There was a clip (presumably for holding BBs) that could slide into the handle of the gun. The father demonstrated how to insert the clip and how to “cock” the gun by sliding back the top portion. That action would engage a spring that would release once the trigger was pulled, i.e., it was a spring-fired pistol, not a recoil action weapon. According to the Student, the gun fired plastic pellets rather than BBs. Ms. Braly, who only saw the gun for a few moments on the morning of December 5, 2016, remembers it to be black with an orange tip, unlike the gun produced at final hearing. At some point, the Student was asked to identify the gun from a picture depicting several different handguns. The Student pointed out to an investigator which of the depicted guns looked most like his BB pistol. The photographic line-up was not offered or admitted into evidence, so no finding is made as to what it may have shown, vis-à-vis what the gun looked like. At the final hearing, the Student’s father acknowledged that he had previously told School administrators he had destroyed his son’s gun back in December when the event occurred. The gun he produced at final hearing was obviously not destroyed; in fact, it looked very new and barely used. The Student said the gun produced at hearing was the same gun he gave to Ms. Braly on December 5, 2016. Mr. Starin, an investigator for the Volusia County School District, was tasked with looking into the incident. He did not speak to the Student’s parents nor did he attempt to locate the gun (other than having the Student identify what the gun looked like from the pictorial lineup). The most persuasive evidence is that the gun given to Ms. Braly on December 5, 2016, was the same as or similar to the one depicted in the Commissioner’s exhibit and proffered at final hearing. It was very light and obviously a toy, but was designed to resemble a real gun. Though it looked somewhat like a real weapon from afar, it is hard to believe anyone who held the gun or saw it up close would think it real or capable of causing serious harm to a person. December 5, 2016 As the Student was walking to his bus stop, he told his sister he had forgotten to remove the BB gun from his backpack after carrying it with him to the park the night before. His sister advised the Student to give the gun to his teacher so as not to get in trouble at school. Upon arrival at the School, the Student immediately approached Ms. Braly, who he trusted and believed would help him do what was most appropriate in this situation. When no other students were nearby, the Student told her about the gun. Ms. Braly took the gun and placed it in her office in a desk drawer. The Student remembers her placing the gun in a cardboard soda can box. Ms. Braly remembers just placing it in a desk drawer. It is patently obvious by his actions that the Student had no intentions of displaying the gun at school for any purpose. He very intentionally tried to diffuse any danger or unease that might have arisen due to his mistake. Ms. Braly took the Student’s actions and demeanor into account when deciding what to do. Ms. Braly thought the toy gun would be safe in her locked office as that was where she kept her purse and car keys during the school day. Normally no one had access to the office during the day, except that construction was going on and some of the workers did have access to the office. Ms. Braly did not consider those workers a threat to steal anything or to rifle through her desk during the day. She also did not consider the toy gun worthy of anyone’s interest. She believed her response to the situation was reasonable, based on all the circumstances and her knowledge of the Student. At the end of the day, the Student retrieved the gun. How that occurred is not entirely clear from the evidence. The Student says that he asked Ms. Braly at the end of the day if he could get his gun. She was very busy at the time and just told him, “yes,” so he went into the office and retrieved it. He remembers Ms. Braly telling him to put it in his backpack so that no one else would see it. He did so, but then transferred it to his waistband later. An ESE co-teacher with Ms. Braly remembers Ms. Braly being completely absorbed in the preparation of an Individual Education Plan for another student that afternoon. The co-teacher had instructed students not to bother Ms. Braly and does not remember the Student or anyone else talking to Ms. Braly that afternoon. Ms. Braly does not remember being asked by the Student whether he could get his gun from the office. She simply did not even think about the gun after acquiring it that morning. To her, the gun was a toy and did not warrant much attention. Sometime the next day, she realized the gun was gone and surmised that the construction workers must have left the door open so that the Student was able to get his gun. She did not explain why she thought the Student – rather than the workers – had taken the gun from her office. At any rate, the Student retrieved his gun before he left for home. As he was exiting the school bus, the other student noticed the gun in his waistband and notified School administrators. That action is very understandable considering the school shootings across the nation in recent times. December 6, 2016 Once the school administrators got word about the gun and identified the Student, they contacted Ms. Braly. The School resource officer, Deputy Abato, went to Ms. Braly’s class and asked to talk to her. They went into her office, away from the students, and she was asked about the gun. The conversation lasted only a few moments. Deputy Abato was only concerned with whether the gun was real or not. Convinced it was not, he did not pursue the matter. Later, Ms. Braly was asked by assistant principal Feltner to write a statement concerning the incident. Her statement reiterated what had happened, i.e., the Student showed her the gun, she identified it as a toy and placed it in her office, and the Student later retrieved it. Again, how she knew that the Student retrieved the gun rather than someone else getting it is not clear. Deputy Abato’s statement from that same day mirrored Ms. Braly’s statement. Deputy Abato said that if a student pulled a gun on him that looked like the one in the picture offered into evidence, he would order the student to put the gun down. If they did not do so, he would likely shoot them. Whether the gun the Student had was like the picture is not clearly established in the record. The best evidence is that the gun could have looked like that, but even that evidence is neither clear nor convincing. The gist of the Commissioner’s argument in this case is that: IF an armed deputy saw the Student with the gun, and IF the deputy ordered him to put it down, BUT the student did not immediately comply, THEN the deputy MIGHT be inclined to fire on the student. Though completely plausible in general terms, that eventuality seems very unlikely under the facts of this case. Later Developments On December 15, 2016, Investigator Starin issued an “Investigative Summary” describing his findings after conducting a brief investigation. The report did little more than recite what other people had said. Mr. Starin concluded that the Student brought the gun to school, gave it to his teacher, and retrieved it at the end of the day. The summary provides little substantive information and makes no recommendation or assertion of wrongdoing by Ms. Braly. The investigator only talked to three people as part of his minimal investigation into the incident on December 5, 2016: Ms. Braly; Deputy Abato, who had only secondhand knowledge; and the Student. It is remarkable that Mr. Starin did not interview Ms. Braly’s co-teacher or her paraprofessional, both of whom were in the classroom that day, or the Student’s parents. The overall level of the investigation is consistent with the degree of seriousness of the events. That is, there was a slight breach of protocol, but no probability of harm to the Student or others at the School. The Board decided that the incident nonetheless warranted some discipline. The School Board notified Ms. Braly that a letter of reprimand would be issued and she would be suspended for three days without pay. Although this was a fairly low level of discipline, Ms. Braly has challenged it; the matter is currently in arbitration. Notwithstanding the discipline imposed, the Board has re-hired Ms. Braly for the 2018-2019 school year in the same position she has held for the past seven years. In fact, she has continued teaching at the School since the December 5, 2016, incident. She is an effective teacher and has not had any other disciplinary actions against her, and the School recognizes her as an effective ESE teacher. The Commissioner also seeks to discipline Ms. Braly, noting that she failed to report the incident and did not adequately secure the toy gun. Both of these allegations are true, whether they violate any particular policy or not. The Commissioner proposes a letter of reprimand, suspension of Ms. Braly’s Educator Certificate for six months, and two years of probation. However, based on the best evidence available, Ms. Braly’s conduct was both reasonable and essentially benign. If any sanction against Ms. Braly was warranted, it should be minimal at worst.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Pam Stewart, as Commissioner of Education, dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent, Brooke Braly, in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Gretchen Kelley Brantley, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Branden M. Vicari, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. Suite 110 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North Clearwater, Florida 33761 (eServed) Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a psychologist should be approved, pursuant to Chapter 490, Florida Statutes. This proceeding arose as a result of Respondent's provisional denial of Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement as a psychologist under Chapter 490, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 21U-11, Florida Administrative Code, based upon Respondent's determination that Petitioner did not hold a license in another state which was obtained by requirements substantially equivalent or more stringent to requirements for licensure as a psychologist in the State of Florida. At the commencement of the hearing, Petitioner was advised of his rights in administrative proceedings. He indicated his understanding of such rights and elected to represent himself at the hearing. Petitioner testified in his own behalf and submitted 4 exhibits in evidence. Respondent presented the testimony of Dr. Frank Biasco, a member of the Board of Psychological Examiners. Joint Exhibit 1 representing the application file of Petitioner was also received in evidence.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Henry S. Tugender, Morganville, New Jersey, filed an application for licensure by endorsement as a psychologist with Respondent Board of Psychological Examiners on February 22, 1982. By letter of November 4, 1982, the Board's executive director informed Petitioner that his application had been denied by the Board pursuant to Rule 21U-11.04, Florida Administrative Code, because he did not hold a license in another state obtained by requirements substantially equivalent or more stringent to requirements for licensure as a psychologist in the State of Florida. Petitioner thereafter requested an administrative hearing. (Testimony of Tugender, Joint Exhibit 1) Petitioner received a master's degree in clinical psychology from Long Island University in 1959. He pursued doctoral studies in the clinical psychology program of Arizona State University from 1962 to 1964. In 1970, he obtained a Doctor of Philosophy degree from East Coast University, Dade City Florida, with a major in psychology. He was in an "external" degree program that involved a minimum residency during two summers and and submission of a dissertation. The university was not accredited by the American Psychology Association (APA) and is no longer in existence. (Testimony of Tugender, Joint Exhibit 1, Petitioner's Exhibit 1) Petitioner is licensed to practice psychology in three states and the District of Columbia. He was licensed in New Jersey in 1968, Illinois in 1971, Pennsylvania in 1975, and the District of Columbia in 1973. At the time of licensure, none of the three states or the District of Columbia required a doctoral degree to obtain a license. He qualified in each instance by having a master's degree, plus a varying number of years of experience. (Testimony of Petitioner, Joint Exhibit 1) At the time Petitioner was licensed in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Illinois and the District of Columbia, the licensure requirements of those states were not substantially equivalent to or more stringent than those now contained in Chapter 490, Florida Statutes, in that they did not require a doctoral degree with a major in psychology from a school with an APA approved program, or from a school maintaining a standard of training comparable to those universities having programs approved by the APA or the doctoral psychology programs of the state universities. Rifle 21U-11.04(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, sets forth criteria that must be met in all respects in order to demonstrate that the doctoral program meets the comparability requirements established by the rule. Petitioner presented no evidence concerning the content of his doctoral program at East Coast University, but conceded at the hearing that the program did not meet a number of the requirements specified in the rule. (Testimony of Petitioner, Biasco) Petitioner seeks to relocate to Florida for professional and health reasons. He currently is in private practice in New Jersey. He specializes in hypnosis and has been active in that field over many years. At the time of hearing, he held a valid Florida Department of Education teacher's certificate in psychology. He is also a certified school psychologist in the states of Pennsylvania and New Jersey. He is affiliated with a number of professional organizations and is listed in the National Register of Health Service Providers in Psychology. In 1974-75, he served as a consultant to the Florida Parole and Probation Commission, and in the Department of Corrections. (Testimony of Petitioner, Joint Exhibit 1, Petitioner's Exhibits 1-4)
Recommendation That Petitioner's application for licensure as a psychologist by endorsement be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of July, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM 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 14th day of July, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Jane Raker, Executive Director Board of Psychological Examiners 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Randy Holland, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol - 1601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Henry S. Tugender 35 Wickatunk Village Morganville, N.J. 07751
Findings Of Fact Dr. Bert, a white woman, has been employed 25-1/2 years by the Department of Education (hereinafter "DOE"). Dr. Bert earned a Bachelor's of Science (1950), a Master's of Science in home economics education (1963), and a Ph.D. in home economics (1967) from the College of Economics at Florida State University. Beginning in 1950, Dr. Bert was employed as a teacher of high school home economics first at Union County High School (3 years), and then at Havana High School until 1965, when she took leave to finish her Ph.D. courses and write her dissertation. Dr. Bert first went to work for DOE in 1967 as a Vocational Studies Assistant. In 1975, she was promoted to the position of Program Director and worked in the area of research and development. While there, she helped Florida bring in over $30 million in federal grants for various vocational education programs (including home economics). During the period 1980-1985, when the federal government cut back the funds available for educational research and development, the R & D program was phased out; however, Dr. Bert remained as a Program Director in the R & D position, writing grants and seeking funds from other sources. In 1985, DOE was reorganized. Dr. Bert was laterally reassigned and given the job of Program Director I in home economics education by the Division Director, Dr. Joe Mills. Dr. Mills knew that Dr. Bert had earned her Ph.D. in home economics and asked her to take the position. As Program Director for Home Economics Education, Dr. Bert supervised a staff of four other professionals (Program Specialist III's) and was responsible for monitoring and administering the Florida and Federal government programs in home economics education, occupational education and homemaking education in all of the 67 local school districts. The Federal government provides Florida and other states with most of the monies needed for the administration of these programs, collectively referred to as "consumer and homemaking education." DOE's function is to establish the minimum education standards and curricula required in each area and otherwise to carry out the intent of Federal and Florida Law. As Program Director, Dr. Bert voiced repeatedly her concerns in 1992 regarding expenditures of federal funds earmarked for the Consumer and Homemaking Education Program which she described as illegal to Jerry Barnett, DOE's Budget Officer. The June 1993 report of audit on federal financial assistance programs at DOE for fiscal year 1992 confirmed that DOE was mis-spending federal monies, as Dr. Bert had pointed out. Dr. Bouie is a black woman, who had worked for DOE 14 years. She earned a Bachelor's of Science from Florida A&M University in home economics education (1967), a Master's of Science in home economics education from Tuskeegee Institute (1974), and a Ph.D. from Florida State University College of Education in administration and supervision (1983). From 1970- 1979, Dr. Bouie was a home economics instructor in Volusia County, Florida. Dr. Bert and Dr. Bouie were employed in 1992 in the Bureau of Vocational Programs and Services, which is within the Division of Vocational, Adult, and Community Education (the Division's name has now changed to "Division of Applied Technology and Adult Education" but will be referenced by its former name herein, or called the "Division"). Pat Hall (hereinafter "Hall") is the Bureau Chief of the Bureau of Vocational Programs and Services within the Division, and Lanny Larson (hereinafter "Larson") is the Director of the Division. On July 20, 1992, Castor issued a memorandum to the "Policy Group." The subject matter of the memorandum concerned the possible loss by minority employees of their positions or opportunities for advancement due to attrition and downsizing. The memorandum closed by announcing that Herb Parker (hereinafter "Parker") would be meeting with managers to development strategies to reduce the effect of attrition and downsizing and to enhance the composition of the work force. Hall, who was not a member of the policy group, was not aware of the July 20th memorandum, and never met with Parker. Neither Parker, Castor, nor Larson suggested to Hall that she promote a Black. Larson, as a member of the policy group, had seen the July 20th memorandum. Larson was never pressured by Castor to hire a Black and had never met with Parker pursuant to the memorandum. Larson was the Division Director of Vocational Adult Community Education and a member of Commissioner Castor's "Policy Group." He was aware of Castor's policy guidance not to reduce the number of Blacks in the process of downsizing the Department and in promoting Blacks at DOE. In the first week of October of 1993, Hall learned that her Bureau might have to leave five vacant positions unfilled and subject to elimination because of a legislative mandate. Not filling positions vacated by resignations and retirements was the primary means used to achieve the new manning levels of the Departmental reorganization. Hall analyzed her Bureau as to work-load issues, functions required, and expertise areas of remaining staff to insure that the Bureau's work could be covered with available personnel without laying anyone off. Hall's bureau was tasked to search out, apply and complete for Federal, state, and private grants, and to research new and merging issues in vocational education. No new personnel would be available to perform these new resource development duties. Hall's personnel review showed that Dr. Bert had worked 16 years in and was ultimately the Program Director of Research and Evaluation, which included resource development for 16 years. Dr. Bert had an extensive background, broad experience and considerable expertise in this area; and she was the only person in the Bureau with such experience. Hall's review also showed that Dr. Bouie had worked as a home economist for the Agricultural Extension Service, was a Junior and Senior High School home economics teacher, and was Chairperson of her Home Economics Department of her high school in Volusia County, Florida. Dr. Bouie also had a solid background in programs designed for the disadvantaged and the limited English proficient, together with programs administered through the Community Based Organizations Delivery System. She had developed a reputation for being a team player. Hall was of the opinion that this experience would be invaluable to the Bureau's Home Economics Section. The economic development and demographic trends in Florida resulted in the need for extensive restructuring and changes to the program offerings in each vocational area, to include Home Economics. Hall, at Larson's request, previously had asked Dr. Bert to look into changing the Home Economics curriculum. Dr. Bert refused, and Hall asked Shirley Lee, one of Dr. Bert's subordinates, to review the curriculum for change. Dr. Bert refused to allow Lee to conduct the project during normal working hours. Dr. Bert's refusal to consider changing the curriculum was, in Hall's opinion, an example of Dr. Bert's lack of receptiveness to change. In Hall's opinion, Dr. Bert was not the best person to initiate and develop those changes because Dr. Bert had, in the past, not been receptive to new initiatives for Home Economics. Larson was of the same opinion. Hall recommended to Larson that Dr. Bert be transferred to the new position of Program Specialist IV in Resource Development and that Dr. Bouie be placed in the Program Director I position. The decision to transfer Dr. Bert and Dr. Bouie to their new positions was jointly made by Hall and Larson based on Hall's review and recommendation. Both transfers were at the same pay grade. Thirty (30) such lateral transfers have been made due to reorganization in the Division over the last two years. Hall met with Dr. Bert on October 21, 1992 to notify and explain to Dr. Bert her pending transfer. Dr. Bouie was notified of the transfer on or about the same date. Dr. Bouie had not asked for and did not want to make the transfer. The fund-raising position into which Dr. Bert was transferred was a newly created position, having no support staff. Unlike her previous R & D position at DOE, Dr. Bert was given little or no assistance, met infrequently with Larson, and was given no extraordinary resources to perform the duties of her new job. Her transfer was a demotion. Dr. Bouie would retain certain duties she was already performing, as well as assuming those previously performed by Dr. Bert. Louis Davidson, the Health Occupations Program Director, and Loretta Costin, the Marketing Program Director, were also required to take on additional duties within the Bureau. Both Davidson and Costin are white. In late October, 1992, Dr. Bert learned from Dr. Mae Clemons that a group of Blacks at DOE had been communicating with Betty Castor, the Commissioner of Education, regarding the lack of Blacks in administrative positions given the number of Blacks with doctorate degrees. Dr. Clemons showed Dr. Bert an anonymous letter written sometime in 1992 to Betty Castor, containing the name of Blacks seeking promotions at DOE. Dr. Connie Hicks-Evans' and Dr. Bouie's names were two of the names listed in the anonymous letter to Commissioner Castor as having doctorates. Commissioner Castor called Dr. Hicks-Evans about the letter, and then faxed a copy to her. Dr. Hicks-Evans then called the meeting of Blacks holding doctorate degrees at DOE to discuss the issues and decide how to respond to Castor's inquiry. A group of black employees met in the DOE cafeteria to discuss informally the situation in October, 1992. Dr. Hicks- Evans discussed at the meeting the fact that Blacks were being denied promotions. Although this had not happened to her, it had happened to Rufus Ellis, James Scruggs and Baxter Wright. Dr. Bouie attended this meeting. She had never seen the anonymous letter before that meeting. Dr. Bouie believed that Blacks had applied for various positions and were not considered. She and other black employees wanted to find out what was happening in the Department. The subject of Dr. Bouie's transfer into Dr. Bert's position was not discussed at the group meeting. Dr. Bouie had not been told about her transfer at the time of the meeting. On November 2, 1992, Betty Castor met with a group of Blacks within DOE to discuss their concerns regarding promotions and other issues. The nine Blacks listed as "present" at the November 2 meeting were: Dorothy Bouie; Rufus Ellis, Jr.,; Connie Hicks-Evans; James A. Scruggs; Baxter Wright; Mae Clemons, Adeniji Odutola; Herb Parker; and Jean Williams. Dr. Bouie asserts she did not attend the November 2nd meeting with Commissioner Castor because she was sick that day. Her statement is deemed credible. Almost a year after the transfer was effective (December 21, 1992), the Program Director I position was upgraded to Program Director II, and Dr. Bouie's pay grade was increased from pay grade 25 to 27. Dr. Hicks-Evans did not know if any of the Blacks other than Dr. Bouie had been promoted at DOE since the anonymous letter was written and the meetings were held. Dr. Larson is the division Director of Vocational Adult Community Education which has four bureau. Two of the bureau chiefs are black (Leatricia Williams and John Lawrence), one is hispanic (Glenn Thomas), and the fourth is white (Pat Hall). Larson acknowledged that the decision to reassign Dr. Bouie into Dr. Bert's position and, subsequently, upgrading the position to promote Dr. Bouie, met the guidance of Castor regarding promotions for Blacks holding doctorate degrees; Dr. Bouie was not reassigned and promoted because of the Blacks' efforts in October and November, 1992. Larson was also aware of the 1992 movement by Blacks holding doctorate degrees, who were seeking promotions, prior to his decision to reassign Dr. Bert and place Dr. Bouie in Dr. Bert's position. There was never any pressure by the Commissioner on Dr. Larson to promoted Blacks because he had already met his EEO goals. The promotion of minorities at DOE was discussed quarterly as an issue related to performance appraisal and performance appraisals of all Division Directors at DOE by Castor. In July, 1992, Larson promoted a Black (Leatricia Williams) to one of his Bureau Chief jobs to replace another Black (Jim Barg). Although Dr. Larson could have reassigned Ann Rushing, a qualified white female, to the resource development position, he felt that Dr. Bouie was a better candidate for that position. Paulette Mainwood, Charlotte Gore, and Nancy Phelps were other qualified whites in the division whom Dr. Larson did not consider for the resource development position. Dr. Parker, a black male, has been DOE's Director of Administration for three years. He was promoted to the position by Castor and replaced by Larson, who was reassigned. Parker's job includes running the DOE's affirmative action program, and he attended the November 2, 1992 meeting with the other Blacks and Castor. The first informal group meeting of Blacks occurred about two weeks prior to the November 2, 1992 meeting with Castor. The anonymous letter had to have been sent before then. Parker met with all Division Directors regarding promotion of Blacks within the Department because he was the Chairman of the EEO Committee, and Betty Castor was concerned about promotion of minorities within the Department. The Department had goals established, and progress was discussed quarterly at executive steering committee meetings. Attainment of departmental affirmative action and EEO goals were not required by any law, according to Parker.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations Commission enter its Final Order finding no cause regarding the Petitioner's complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of June, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of June, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 93-5812 Both Parties submitted proposed findings of fact which were read and considered. The following states which of their findings were adopted, and which were rejected, and why: Petitioner's Proposed Order: Findings: Paragraph 1 Subsumed in 1 Paragraphs 2-7 Paragraphs 3-7 Paragraphs 8,9 Irrelevant Paragraphs 10, Subsumed in 7,8,9 11,12 Paragraph 13 Paragraph 22 Paragraph 14 Paragraph 10 Paragraph 15 True, but Bert was qualified as the resource person, and Bouie was qualified as the Home Economics Director. Paragraphs 16,17 Subsumed in 21-24 Paragraphs 18,19 Paragraphs 25,26 Paragraphs 20,21 Paragraph 32 Paragraphs 22,23 Paragraph 10 Paragraphs 24-27 Paragraphs 27-31 Paragraphs 28,29 Paragraphs 33,34 Paragraphs 30,31 Paragraphs 27,28 Paragraphs 32,33 Paragraphs 11, 15-18 Paragraph 34 Irrelevant Paragraph 35 Subsumed in 15-18 Paragraphs 36-44 Paragraphs 35-41 Paragraphs 45-51 Paragraphs 42-46 Respondent's Proposed Order: Findings: Paragraph 1 Paragraph 1,2 Paragraph 2 Paragraph 11 Paragraph 3-6 Paragraph 15-18 Paragraph 7 Paragraph 24 Paragraph 8 Paragraph 19 Paragraphs 9-11 Paragraphs 20-22 Paragraphs 12,13 Subsumed in 25-28 Paragraph 14 Irrelevant Paragraph 15 Paragraph 12 Paragraph 16 Paragraph 13 Paragraph 17 Irrelevant COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce A. Minnick, Esquire 660 East Jefferson Street Post Office Box 11127 Tallahassee, FL 32399-3127 William H. Roberts, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, PL-01 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4113 Dana C. Baird, Esq. General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4113
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Petitioner, Seminole Community College, is a community college governed by a community college district board of trustees vested with the responsibility of operating the college in accordance with applicable statutes, rules of the State Board of Education and State Board of Community Colleges, as well as its own rules. Each community college board of trustees is responsible for establishing and discontinuing programs and course offerings. Each community college board of trustees is responsible for the appointment, employment, and removal of personnel. Such personnel includes course instructors employed by the college to teach specific courses or programs offered by the school. The Petitioner offers instruction in courses ranging from basic academic subjects, which might be comparable to high school courses, to sophisticated courses that might be comparable to four-year college courses. Additionally, the Petitioner is the area vocational center and adult continuing education function for Seminole County. Prior to April 9, 1991, the Respondent had been a continuing contract instructor employed by the Petitioner for several years. Respondent was employed to teach culinary arts. In the 1986 school year, the food management production and services program (referred to culinary arts in this record) was given a formal evaluation as it had experienced a decline in student enrollment. Goals were established to encourage student participation the program and additional development of the program. The evaluation or program review described in paragraph 6 was performed under the guidelines addressed in Appendix K, and resulted in the program being placed on probation for one year with the following condition: that the enrollment goal of an average of 16 full-time or full-time equivalent students per term be established. The probation term ran from April 1, 1986 through, presumably, March 30, 1987. Appendix K is a procedure utilized by the Petitioner to evaluate and review programs or courses offered by the school. On February 27, 1986, Respondent executed a statement wherein she acknowledged that should her program be eliminated that her instructional position would be terminated. Further, on March 27, 1986, the president of the college issued a letter to Respondent advising her of the probation status of the program. The letter further provided that should the program be terminated, that the instructional position held by Respondent would be terminated. In January, 1991, Dr. Samuels, as Vice President for Instructions, issued a memorandum to the Deans' Council advising them of budget cuts incurred and expected by the college. Further, the memorandum provided that it was expected that instruction would have to absorb a major fraction of the expected future decreased amount. On January 17, 1991, the college president issued a memorandum to all full-time college employees that addressed the cuts experienced to that date and the expectation of cuts to be considered in the planning for the next budget year. In connection with planning for the 1991-92 budget year, Dr. Samuels met with the deans for the areas of instruction under his supervision and requested that they consider alternatives given budget cuts of three levels: $200,000; $400,000; and $600,000. The goal was to prioritize spending to meet the instructional needs of the college, and to assume potential budget "worst case" scenarios. Dean Tesinsky gave the directors of her applied technologies area the following guidelines to prepare their proposals for services and programs: to preserve full-time faculty positions; to preserve full-time equivalent (FTE) student hours; if possible, to reduce regular part-time support first; and to eliminate unproductive programs. "Unproductive programs" were defined as having low enrollment relative to capacity and a decreasing enrollment trend. Such programs are also referred to as "weak programs" in this record. When the reviews of their programs were completed by the directors, Dean Tesinsky then reported the findings to Dr. Samuels. Such findings recommended the elimination of the upholstery, welding and culinary arts (on- campus) programs at the $600,000 budget cut level. Those programs were deemed the unproductive programs reviewed. The reviews performed by the directors and Dean Tesinsky did not follow the guidelines set forth in Appendix K. Concurrent with the planning done incidental to the budget cuts options, Dr. Samuels reviewed information regarding the course offerings and courses or sections not available at the college but which were in great demand by large numbers of students. Courses of instruction which were identified as being in critical need of full-time instructors were: computer assisted drafting (CAD); biology, with laboratory experience; mathematics, foreign languages, and humanities. Further, there were vocational programs within the applied technologies area where additional sections and, consequently, instructors, were needed to meet student demand for courses. As a result of the foregoing, Dr. Samuels concluded that the budget amounts needed for instructors' salaries would have to increase, not decrease. To that end, Dr. Samuels concluded that monies captured from the elimination of unproductive programs could be redistributed to fund sections in the high demand areas of instruction previously identified. Given the notion that they would have to eliminate Respondent's program, Dean Tesinsky, Dr. Samuels, and Russ Calvet attempted to relocate Respondent to another program or course of instruction. However, no course or instructor opening was found for which they felt Respondent could qualify. On March 22, 1991, the college president issued a letter to Respondent that provided, in part, as follows: I have been informed that it is no longer feasible to continue the Food Service program. Therefore, in consideration of the College's mission to meet the educational needs of the community, the current budget concerns for the next fiscal year, and the past, present, and projected future enrollments of the Food Service program, it has been determined that the program will be discontinued at the end of this fiscal year. It is therefore with considerable regret that I inform you that a recommendation shall be made to the District Board of Trustees on April 9, that your contract with the College be terminated as of June 30, 1991. Your educational qualifications do not make it possible to reassign you to another instructional program area; however, should a position vacancy occur for which you are qualified, you will be notified. On April 1, 1991, the president forwarded a memorandum to the district board of trustees that addressed the proposed termination of employment of the three vocational instructors. That memorandum reiterated the information given to the Respondent in the letter dated March 22, 1991. On April 9, 1991, the board of trustees voted to terminate the full- time, continuing contract position held by Respondent. Subsequently, Respondent timely requested an administrative hearing to review that decision.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Trustees of the Seminole Community College enter a final order confirming the elimination of the food service program and the termination of Respondent's continuing contract. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of July, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: Paragraphs 1 through 3, 5 through 7, 12, 14 through 22 are accepted. The date of exhibit 49 (paragraph 21) is April 16, 1991. As to paragraph 4, it is accepted that Respondent was hand-delivered the letter notice dated March 22, 1991; otherwise rejected as a conclusion of law. It is concluded, however, that such letter was sufficient to place the Respondent on notice of the college's position regarding the proposed actions. That portion of paragraph 8 which suggests that Director Dennard's analysis was the first time the Food Services program was identified as weak is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. This program had been placed on probation in 1986. Paragraph 9 is accepted as to the general statement; however, as exhibit 43 was not entirely legible the cost figure cited could be verified. Paragraph 10 is rejected to the extent that it suggests the food service program had been on probation in any year other than 1986. With the following clarifications, paragraph 11 is accepted: that additional full-time instructors were needed; that the number of adjunct instructors would be reduced since full-time instructors would be added; that adding full-time instructors was a meaningful goal in order to upgrade programs/courses; add "therapy" after the word "respiratory" in the first sentence of 11b.; add under 11c., that there are now less than 500 students on overload status. The first sentence of paragraph 13 is accepted. The remainder is rejected as irrelevant. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: To the extent addressed in the foregoing findings of fact, paragraphs 1 and 2 are accepted. Paragraphs 3 through 5 are accepted but are irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 6, it is accepted that Dr. Samuels is Vice President for Instructions with the general responsibility for all the instructional programs at the college and that he made recommendations to the president of the college; otherwise rejected as not supported by the record cited. Paragraph 7 is accepted. Paragraph 8 is rejected as not supported by record cited. Paragraph 9 is accepted with the clarification that Mr. Calvet's title is Dean of Personnel Services. Paragraph 10 is accepted. Paragraph 11 is rejected as it does not make sense. Paragraph 12 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 13 is rejected as not supported by the record cited. Paragraph 14 is rejected as irrelevant; no wrongdoing or misconduct has been suggested by the Petitioner. With regard to paragraph 15, it is accepted that the letter dated March 22, 1991, was the first written notice of the proposed action; otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. With regard to paragraph 16, see comment above regarding proposed finding of fact 15. Paragraph 17 is rejected as a misstatement of the record. To suggest the Petitioner contemplating "firing" Respondents grossly misstates their position. The Respondents' programs were eliminated and, consequently, their continuing contracts terminated. No suggestion of misconduct, incompetence, or wrongdoing on the part of these instructors should be suggested. To the contrary, these instructors were well qualified in their respective fields and respected by the employer. Paragraphs 18 and 19 are accepted. Paragraph 20 is accepted to the extent addressed ruling 12 above. Paragraph 21 is rejected as repetitive; see above. Paragraph 22 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 23 is rejected as repetitive; see above. Paragraphs 24 through 30 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence, irrelevant, or not supported by the record cited. Paragraphs 31 through 37 are accepted. Paragraph 38 is accepted when clarified to add "an administrative procedure" for "the" after the word "out." Paragraph 39 is accepted. Paragraph 40 is rejected as a conclusion not supported by the record cited. Paragraph 41 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 42 is accepted. Paragraph 43 is rejected as repetitive or irrelevant. Paragraph 44 is rejected as not supported by the record cited or irrelevant. Paragraph 45 is rejected as not supported by the record cited or irrelevant. Paragraph 46 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 47 is rejected as argument and irrelevant. Paragraph 48 is rejected as argument and irrelevant. Paragraphs 49 through 52 are accepted. Paragraph 53 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 54 is accepted. Paragraph 55 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 56 is accepted. With the deletion of the word "only" paragraph 57 is accepted. Paragraph 58 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 59 is rejected as not supported by the record cited. Paragraph 60 is rejected as repetitive or irrelevant. Paragraph 61 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 62 is accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 63 is accepted; otherwise rejected as irrelevant or not supported by the evidence cited or speculation. Paragraph 64 is accepted. Paragraphs 65 and 66 are rejected as not supported by the record cited. Paragraphs 67 is accepted to the extent that the meeting(s) identified the programs as "weaker." Paragraph 68 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 69 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraphs 70 through 73 are rejected as argumentative, irrelevant, or not supported by record cited. The first sentence of paragraph 74 is accepted; otherwise rejected as argument, irrelevant, or not supported by record cited. Paragraph 75 is rejected as argumentative, irrelevant, or not supported by record cited. The first two sentences of paragraph 76 are accepted; otherwise rejected as not supported record cited or contrary to the weight of evidence. Paragraph 77 is rejected as repetitive, irrelevant, and not supported by record cited. Paragraph 78 is rejected as conclusion of law or irrelevant. Paragraph 79 is rejected as it does not make sense or irrelevant. Paragraph 80 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 81 is rejected as irrelevant. With the addition of the phrase "or could be" after the word "would," paragraph 84 is accepted; otherwise rejected as contrary to the record cited. Paragraphs 85 and 86 are rejected as contrary to the record cited. Paragraph 87 is accepted. Paragraph 88 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 89 is repetitive in part but is accepted. Paragraph 90 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 91 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 92 and 93 are accepted. Paragraph 94 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 95 is rejected as not supported by the record cited. Paragraph 96 is rejected as repetitive or irrelevant. Paragraph 97 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 98 is rejected as not supported by record cited, contrary to the weight of evidence. Paragraph 99 is rejected as repetitive and irrelevant. Paragraph 100 is rejected as repetitive and irrelevant. Paragraph 101 is accepted. Paragraphs 102 through 105 are rejected as repetitive or irrelevant. Paragraphs 106 through 110 are accepted but are irrelevant. Paragraph 111 is rejected as contrary to the evidence. Paragraphs 112 through 115 are accepted. Paragraph 116 is rejected as argumentative. Paragraph 117 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 118 is rejected as not supported by record cited. Paragraphs 119 through 122 are accepted. Paragraph 123 is rejected as repetitive. Paragraphs 124 and 125 are accepted. Insert word "contact" after "thirty" in paragraph 125. Paragraph 126 is rejected as irrelevant or argumentative. Paragraph 127 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 128 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 129 is accepted. Paragraph 130 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 131 through 134 are accepted. Paragraph 135 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 136 and 137 are accepted with the addition to paragraph 137 that such position was only part-time and not vacant. Paragraph 138 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 139 through 141 are accepted. Paragraph 142 is rejected as repetitive or irrelevant. Paragraphs 143 through 147 are accepted. Paragraph 148 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 149 through 152 are accepted. Paragraph 153 is rejected as not supported by the record cited. Paragraph 154 is rejected as not supported by the record cited. Paragraphs 155 through 160 though repetitive in part are accepted. Paragraph 161 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 162 is rejected as repetitive, argumentative, or irrelevant. Paragraph 163 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Dana Fogle FOGLE & FOGLE, P.A. 217 East Plymouth Avenue Post Office Box 817 DeLand, Florida 32721-0817 Joseph Egan, Jr. EGAN, LEV & SIWICA, P.A. Box 2231 Orlando, Florida 32802 Margaret T. Roberts COBLE, BARKIN, GORDON, MORRIS & REYNOLDS, P.A. 1020 Volusia Avenue Post Office Drawer 9670 Daytona Beach, Florida 32120
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed by the School Board of Dade County as a classroom teacher. During the 1980-1981 school year, Respondent was assigned to Southwood Junior High School as a science teacher. During that school year, Dr. E. L. Burck was the principal at Southwood. In August, 1980, Respondent applied for a part-time position teaching photography during the evenings at Robert Morgan Vocational Technical Institute. When Dr. John D. White, the vice principal at Robert Morgan, hired Respondent, he explained to Respondent that it would be necessary for Respondent to qualify for a teaching certificate in the area of photography. Respondent told White that he believed he was certifiable based upon his work experience and indicated to White that he would pursue the necessary steps to obtain his certification. At the time that White hired Respondent to teach part-time during the fall 1950 semester, White knew that Respondent was employed full-time at Southwood. During the fall 1980 semester, the administrators at Robert Morgan determined they wished a full-time program at Robert Morgan and decided that if enough students would be generated, they would need a full-time photography teacher in January, 1981. The possibility of a full-time position was discussed with Respondent. Respondent decided that if he could obtain a full-time position at Robert Morgan in January, he would pursue obtaining certification; however, if he could not obtain a full-time position, he would not pursue obtaining certification since it was difficult to teach full-time at Southwood in addition to part-time at Robert Morgan. During December, 1980, while enrollment was underway at Robert Morgan and it appeared probable that a full-time photography position would become available, Respondent spoke with Dr. Burck at Southwood regarding the possibility of transferring to Robert Morgan on a full-time basis beginning January 5, 1981, the first day of classes following the Christmas, 1980, vacation. Burck explained to Respondent the procedures relating to such a transfer of assignment and further explained that he needed to have definite information as soon as a final decision had been made so that he could initiate procedures for obtaining a teacher to replace Respondent. Just prior to Christmas vacation, Dr. White (as the potential "receiving principal") and Dr. Burck (as the potential "sending principal") discussed the possibility of the full-time photography class and the possibility of Respondent's transfer to Robert Morgan to teach that class. White explained that he did not yet know if the full-time class would materialize but that he would give Burck two weeks' notice in order that Burck could find a replacement teacher. Burck conveyed to Respondent the content of this conversation and advised Respondent that until such time as the class materialized and Respondent was replaced at Southwood, Respondent was still a staff member at Southwood and Burck expected to see him on January 5, 1981. Respondent did not report for work at Southwood on Monday, January 5, 1981, and failed to advise anyone at Southwood that he did not intend to return to teach his classes. Burck and another employee of Southwood attempted to locate Respondent. On January 6, 1981, White ascertained that there was sufficient enrollment for the full-time photography teacher's position at Robert Morgan. He instructed an employee at Robert Morgan to process the necessary paperwork to hire Respondent full-time. It was discovered that Respondent did not have, nor had he applied for, his vocational certificate covering the field of photography. Since White had told Respondent in August, 1980, to obtain certification and Respondent had apparently done nothing to do so, White gave to Respondent a deadline of Friday, January 9, 1981, to obtain verification of his ability to secure the proper teaching certificate. Also on January 6, 1981, White and Burck discussed Respondent's employment. White advised Burck that Respondent was teaching part-time at Robert Morgan and that there appeared to be a problem with Respondent's certification. Burck then talked with Respondent, and Respondent told Burck that he was teaching at Robert Morgan as a full-time instructor and that the certification problem would be resolved shortly. Burck told Respondent he needed an immediate resolution because Respondent's students at Southwood were without a regular teacher. Burck reminded Respondent that Respondent's assignment was at Southwood and that no transfer had been officially requested or granted. Burck contacted Dr. Thomas Peeler, South Area Director, and requested Dr. Peeler's assistance in resolving Respondent's status. On January 7, 1981, Dr. Peeler contacted White at Robert Morgan and advised White that Respondent was not reporting to work at Southwood. White had assumed that Respondent was reporting to his assigned school. Peeler instructed White to advise Respondent that he was to report to work at Southwood the following day. On January 7, White told Respondent to report to Southwood the following day. On January 8, White again advised Respondent that he was to report to work at Southwood. On January 9, White released Respondent from his part-time teaching assignment at Robert Morgan since Respondent had not achieved either obtaining the required certification or obtaining verification that he was in fact certifiable. Also on January 9, Burck contacted Respondent and advised Respondent that he had not been transferred and was still assigned to Southwood. On Monday, January 12, 1981, Dr. Peeler, the South Area Director, ordered Respondent to report to his teaching position at Southwood on Tuesday, January 13. Later that same day, Dr. Burck ordered Respondent to return to work on the 13th. Respondent told Dr. Burck that he would not return to work. On January 13, Dr. Peeler wrote Respondent, ordering him again to immediately report to his teaching assignment at Southwood. Peeler advised Respondent that his failure to report could result in suspension. In view of Respondent's continued refusal to obey orders, and in view of Respondent's advice to Burck the evening of January 12 that he would not report to Southwood to fulfill his teaching duties, a replacement teacher was located to fill Respondent's position as a science teacher at Southwood. Between January 5, 1981, and January 30, 1981, Respondent did not report to his assigned teaching position despite repeated orders from his superiors, Respondent knew that his place of employment had not been changed, and Respondent was absent from his teaching duties without leave. On January 30, 1981, a conference was held among Mr. Eldridge Williams, the Executive Director of the Office of Personnel for the Dade County Public Schools, Dr. Thomas Peeler, the South Area Director, and Respondent to discuss Respondent's repeated failure to report to work and Respondent's employment status. At that meeting, Respondent offered to return to work at Southwood on February 2, 1981; however, his position had been filled. Insofar as payroll status, Respondent was classified as absent without leave. No alternate position was available for placement of Respondent through the remainder of the 1980-1981 school year. On March 9, 1981, Patrick Gray, the Assistant Superintendent in the Office of Personnel, wrote Respondent regarding the south area supervisor's recommendation that Respondent be suspended or dismissed from employment. Gray's letter ordered Respondent to immediately return to Southwood or to resign or to retire in order that his employment status could be resolved. At the time he wrote that letter, Gray was not aware that Respondent's position at Southwood had been filled. In response to his letter of March 9, Gray received a letter from Respondent dated March 16, 1981, requesting another conference. A second conference between Respondent and Eldridge Williams was scheduled for April 2, but Respondent refused to meet with only Williams. Accordingly, a conference was scheduled for April 17, 1981, with Patrick Gray, Eldridge Williams, Dr. Peeler and Respondent. As a result of that conference, Respondent submitted a leave request dated April 22, 1981, requesting leave for the period of April 27, 1981, through the end of the school year in June, 1981. This request for leave was approved by Gray on August 7, 1981, retroactive for the period requested. A formal letter of reprimand dated October 13, 1981, was issued to Respondent as a result of his insubordination in refusing to report as ordered to Southwood Junior High School. During the 1981-1982 school year, Respondent was assigned to Redland Junior High School as a science teacher. Utilizing proper procedures, Respondent was absent on September 16, September 28, October 6, October 22, October 23, October 26, October 27, October 28, October 29, October 30, November 2, November 3, November 4 and November 5, 1981. On September 28 and October 6, Respondent utilized personal leave. On the other 12 days, he utilized sick leave. On November 5, 1981, Respondent advised Judy Cobb, Assistant Principal at Redland Junior High School, that he was looking for another job. Cobb advised Norman Lindeblad, Principal of Redland Junior High School, of this conversation with Respondent. On Friday, November 6, 1981, Respondent advised Lindeblad that he would not be returning to his teaching assignment at Redland Junior High School. Respondent told Lindeblad to fill Respondent's teaching position, and Lindeblad advised Respondent that he could not do so without receiving such directive in writing. Lindeblad advised Respondent that he expected Respondent to report to his teaching position on Tuesday, November 10, 1981, absent some other resolution of the problem such as approved personal leave or resignation. Late in the evening on November 9, 1981, Respondent telephoned Lindeblad at home and advised Lindeblad that he would not report on Tuesday, November 10, 1981, to teach his classes. On Tuesday, November 10, 1981, Respondent once again advised Lindeblad that he would not return to his teaching position at Redland. Respondent scheduled an appointment with Lindeblad on November 11 to finally resolve his status, and Lindeblad advised Respondent that unless verification of illness was provided, Lindeblad would commence recording Respondent's leave as leave without pay beginning on Friday, November 6, 1981. On November 11, 1981, Respondent appeared at Redland Junior High School and gave to Lindeblad a memorandum authorizing Lindeblad to replace Respondent in his science teaching position as of Wednesday, November 11, 1981. On November 16, 1981, the personnel office received an application for leave without pay from Respondent, which application was dated November 11, 1981, and which application requested leave effective November 11, 1981, due to Respondent's ill health. The portion of the application for leave requiring the signature and recommendation of the principal was not completed. Although the application required a statement from a physician justifying the request if the request were based upon ill health, Respondent provided only a short letter signed by a therapist possessing a degree in education stating that Respondent felt stress and frustration. No information regarding any physical symptoms, diagnosis or prognosis was volunteered. Since proper procedures require the principal's recommendation for extended leave, Lindeblad was asked to provide his recommendation to the personnel office. On November 18, 1981, Lindeblad sent a memorandum to the Office of Personnel stating that he did not recommend approval of leave for Respondent since no statement from a physician had been provided to verify Respondent's alleged ill health and because Lindeblad felt that the Respondent had begun unauthorized leave before he even requested leave. On November 19, 1981, Patrick Gray advised Respondent that Respondent's request for leave was not approved. Respondent was further advised that since he refused to carry out his teaching assignments for the second year in a row and since Respondent was simply attempting to obtain a teaching position in an area for which he was not certified and could not be certified, then Respondent's options were limited to either resignation or suffering suspension and dismissal proceedings. Respondent did not resign, and dismissal proceedings were initiated. Respondent was absent in accordance with proper procedures for the 14 days ending on November 5, 1981, as set forth in Paragraph numbered 24. Commencing on November 6, 1981, Respondent was absent without leave. Although Respondent eventually obtained verification of his work experience for the addition of photography to his teaching certificate, as of October 1, 1981, Respondent was still not certifiable for the reason that he still needed three full years of teaching experience and 14 semester hours of credit in vocational education courses. By the time of the final hearing in this cause, Respondent had still not obtained a teaching certificate enabling him to teach photography.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of gross insubordination, incompetency, willful neglect of duty and absence without leave; dismissing Respondent from employment by the School Board of Dade County; and denying Respondent's claim for back pay. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 21st day of January, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 21st day of January, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Esquire 3000 Executive Building, Suite 300 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Robert F. McKee, Esquire 341 Plant Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606 Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools Lindsay Hopkins Building 1410 NE Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the letter from the Petitioner dated January 16, 2003, and in the Notice of Specific Charges filed February 27, 2003, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Article IX, Florida Constitution; Section 230.03, Florida Statutes (2002).3 At the times material to this proceeding, Mr. Lefkowitz taught emotionally handicapped and seriously emotionally disturbed students in North Miami Beach High's Bertha Abbess exceptional student education program. He has been employed by the School Board since 1993, and is currently employed under a professional services contract. At the times material to this proceeding, Mr. Lefkowitz and at least one other person were making a music video for a course they were taking at Florida International University. Alvarro Gutierrez was working with Mr. Lefkowitz on the video, and Mr. Gutierrez had chosen the girl who would sing and would choreograph the dances for the video. Mr. Gutierrez did not, however, have any dancers, and Mr. Lefkowitz told Mr. Gutierrez that he knew some girls "from school" who were dancers and that he would ask them if they wanted to dance in the video. J.D. was, at the times material to his proceeding, an 11th-grade student at North Miami Beach High, although she was not a student of Mr. Lefkowitz. Rather, J.D. met Mr. Lefkowitz in a school hallway, while she was selling candy for her French class, and they apparently had several conversations during school hours. In one of these conversations, Mr. Lefkowitz mentioned that he was filming a music video for a college class. J.D. asked if she could be in the video, and Mr. Lefkowitz agreed and asked J.D. if she had any friends who could also dance in the video. J.D. introduced Mr. Lefkowitz to her friend N.F. N.F. was, at the time, an 11th-grade student at North Miami Beach High, but she did not know Mr. Lefkowitz until J.D. introduced them. Mr. Lefkowitz did not know at the time he met her that N.F. was a student at North Miami Beach High. J.D. also introduced Mr. Lefkowitz to Glamour Legros, whom she knew because she and Ms. Legros attended the same church. Prior to introducing Mr. Lefkowitz to Ms. Legros, J.D. had told him on a number of occasions how much Ms. Legros wanted to meet him.4 Ms. Legros and N.F. shared an apartment. Ms. Legros was not a student at the times material to this proceeding, and she was older than N.F. and J.D. J.D., N.F., and Ms. Legros agreed to dance in the music video and went to Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment several times to discuss, rehearse, and shoot the video. Mr. Lefkowitz picked up J.D., N.F., and Ms. Legros and drove them to his apartment on the occasions when they were working on the video. Mr. Lefkowitz also took J.D. and her friends home on these occasions. M.D., J.D.'s brother and a student at North Miami Beach High at the time, went to Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment once, and H.D., another student at North Miami Beach High, was at Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment on at least one occasion, when she danced for the music video. These two students also rode with Mr. Lefkowitz in his car on at least one occasion. In addition to her visits to Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment and her rides in his car, J.D. spoke with Mr. Lefkowitz numerous times on the telephone. When working on the video, J.D. went to Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment with her friends. She was alone with Mr. Lefkowitz once, after her friends left Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment; Mr. Lefkowitz took her home after about an hour. Mr. Gutierrez did not observe Mr. Lefkowitz engage in any improper behavior with J.D. or her friends at Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment during the time they were discussing, rehearsing, and shooting the music video. On April 21, 2003, Ms. Legros called the police and she and N.F. reported that Mr. Lefkowitz had come to their apartment, beat on the door, and threatened them verbally. According to the police incident report, the police were dispatched at 10:09 p.m. and arrived at Ms. Legros's and N.F.'s apartment at 10:12 p.m. Mr. Lefkowitz had outpatient surgery on April 18, 2002. Mr. Lefkowitz's mother was with him at his apartment from April 18 through the morning of April 22, 2002, the day he returned to work. According to Ms. Lefkowitz, Mr. Lefkowitz was in bed, asleep, on the night of April 21, 2002. On April 22, 2002, Raymond Fontana, the principal of North Miami Beach High, received a telephone call from a woman who identified herself to Mr. Fontana's secretary as J.D.'s aunt and who told Mr. Fontana that an exceptional student education teacher named "Neil" was having a relationship with J.D., a student at North Miami Beach High; the caller also reported that the teacher had been involved in an "incident" that had been reported to the police. Ms. Legros was the person who called Mr. Fontana.5 Mr. Fontana called Allyn Bernstein, an assistant principal at North Miami Beach High, into his office and asked her to look into the allegations made by the caller. Dr. Bernstein called Mr. Lefkowitz into her office and, before she could say anything, Mr. Lefkowitz told her that he knew why she had summoned him, that an ex-girlfriend had threatened to make trouble for him because he wouldn't give her money. When Dr. Bernstein questioned Mr. Lefkowitz about his relationship with the student J.D., Mr. Lefkowitz denied knowing her. Dr. Bernstein also called J.D. into her office. In response to Dr. Bernstein's questions, J.D. denied knowing Mr. Lefkowitz. She stated that she did not have a social relationship with any teacher outside of school and that she had never met any staff member outside school. After Dr. Bernstein reported to Mr. Fontana that she believed that there might be "something there,"6 Mr. Fontana reported the matter to the school district personnel, who referred the matter to the Miami-Dade School Police Department, and an investigation was initiated. Once the investigation was initiated, Mr. Lefkowitz was placed on alternate assignment at his home effective May 3, 2002. The investigator, Detective Victor Hernandez, interviewed N.F., Ms. Legros, J.D., H.D., M.D., and Mr. Lefkowitz. During the course of his investigation, Detective Hernandez was told that Mr. Lefkowitz and N.F. had dated and that they had had sexual intercourse. When Detective Hernandez interviewed Mr. Lefkowitz, Mr. Lefkowitz denied that he knew either J.D. or N.F. In a report dated September 2, 2002, Detective Hernandez described his investigation and set forth the substance of the statements given by the witnesses. Detective Hernandez concluded that the charges that Mr. Lefkowitz had violated Rules 6B-1.001 and 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code, and School Board Rules 6Gx13-4.109 and 6Gx13-4A-1.21 were substantiated. A Conference-for-the-Record was held on October 2, 2002, with Paul Greenfield, District Director, presiding. Mr. Lefkowitz attended the Conference-for-the-Record, together with the School Board's Director of Region II and Mr. Fontana. Mr. Lefkowitz requested that his attorney be allowed to attend, but this request was denied.7 Mr. Greenfield reviewed Mr. Lefkowitz's history with the Miami-Dade County public school system and presented the results of the investigation. Mr. Lefkowitz denied having met J.D. and N.F. and denied that they were ever in his apartment. After the Conference-for-the-Record, Mr. Fontana recommended to the Superintendent of Region II that Mr. Lefkowitz's employment be terminated. Mr. Lefkowitz lied to Dr. Bernstein, to Detective Hernandez, and to the participants in the Conference-for-the- Record about his relationships with J.D. and N.F. because he knew it was improper for the students to be in his apartment and for him to associate with students outside of school. Mr. Lefkowitz expressed remorse at his behavior and acknowledged that his conduct was not appropriate. J.D. testified that she and Mr. Lefkowitz never dated or had sexual intercourse. Ms. Legros testified that she did not know whether Mr. Lefkowitz and J.D. had had sexual intercourse. She claimed, however, to have observed Mr. Lefkowitz and J.D. at Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment hugging and kissing and acting like "boyfriend and girlfriend to me."8 Ms. Legros has no personal knowledge that Mr. Lefkowitz had sexual relations with N.F., but testified that N.F. told Ms. Legros that she had had a relationship with Mr. Lefkowitz. An 11th-grade student testified at the hearing that he considered Mr. Lefkowitz to be a good teacher, a role model, and a teacher that he would remember after high school. Mr. Fontana testified that he thought Mr. Lefkowitz's effectiveness as a teacher had been impaired because of the "manner in which he dealt with students, having students come to his apartment, dealing with students that are out of the realm of his teaching responsibilities." Mr. Fontana observed that "once you breach that student/teacher relationship and you lose that professionalism I don't think you can ever go back and have the same degree of effectiveness as a teacher."9 In making his decision to recommend that Mr. Lefkowitz be terminated from his employment as a teacher, Mr. Fontana considered Mr. Lefkowitz's employment history with the Miami- Dade County public school system. Mr. Lefkowitz was twice referred for evaluation as to his medical fitness to perform his duties as a teacher and was twice found fit to perform these duties. Mr. Lefkowitz was the subject of three allegations of battery on a student, one in February 1995, one in February 1999, and one in March 1999; the February 1995 charge was substantiated,10 and Mr. Lefkowitz was given a verbal warning; the remaining two charges were unsubstantiated. Finally, in August 1995, Mr. Lefkowitz had an unacceptable annual evaluation, was given a TADS Category VII prescription in the area of Professional Responsibility, and successfully completed the prescription within the specified time. Summary The greater weight of the credible evidence presented by the School Board is insufficient to establish that Mr. Lefkowitz dated either J.D. or N.F. or that Mr. Lefkowitz had sexual intercourse with N.F. The School Board presented no direct evidence establishing that J.D. and Mr. Lefkowitz had a romantic relationship or that N.F. and Mr. Lefkowitz had a sexual relationship. The School Board relied exclusively on Ms. Legros's testimony to establish that these relationships existed,11 and most of her testimony was based on hearsay, not personal knowledge. Ms. Legros had no personal knowledge that N.F. had sexual relations with Mr. Lefkowitz, and the only behavior that Ms. Legros testified that she personally observed was Mr. Lefkowitz and J.D. in Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment hugging and kissing and, in Ms. Legros's estimation, acting like boyfriend and girlfriend. Ms. Legros is found not to be a particularly credible witness, and her uncorroborated testimony is not sufficiently persuasive to establish that Mr. Lefkowitz and J.D. more likely than not were dating or that the hugging and kissing, if she indeed observed such behavior, was sexual in nature. Both J.D. and Mr. Lefkowitz denied having a romantic relationship, but it is difficult to credit fully their testimony, given that both J.D. and Mr. Lefkowitz lied to School Board personnel about knowing one another and that Mr. Lefkowitz lied to School Board personnel about being acquainted with N.F. However, on reflection and after a careful review of the evidence, the testimony of J.D. and Mr. Lefkowitz is credited over that of Ms. Legros. The greater weight of the credible evidence presented by the School Board is not sufficient to establish that Mr. Lefkowitz telephoned N.F. on April 21, 2002, and threatened her or that he went to the apartment shared by Ms. Legros and N.F. on the night of April 21, 2002, and made threats to harm them. Mr. Lefkowitz's mother testified unequivocally that she was with Mr. Lefkowitz from April 19 through the morning of April 22, 2002, and that he was recovering from surgery and sleeping on the night of April 21, 2002. The School Board presented no evidence that Mr. Lefkowitz telephoned N.F. and threatened her, and Ms. Legros was the only witness to testify that Mr. Lefkowitz came to her apartment and made threats. The testimony of Mrs. Lefkowitz is credited over that of Ms. Legros.12 The evidence presented in this case is sufficient to establish that Mr. Lefkowitz failed to exercise the best professional judgment, failed to maintain the highest ethical standards, and used his position as a teacher to his personal advantage by recruiting young women students to perform as dancers in the music video he was filming as part of a college assignment. Mr. Lefkowitz admitted that he had engaged in inappropriate conduct: He had had a personal relationship outside of school with both J.D. and N.F.; J.D. and N.F. danced in a music video he made for a college project; J.D. and N.F. were in his apartment several times; and he drove J.D. and N.F. in his car to and from his apartment. The contents and tone of the written statement Mr. Lefkowitz adopted as his testimony supports an inference that he was on very familiar terms with both J.D. and N.F., and with Ms. Legros as well.13 Mr. Lefkowitz's poor judgment in developing significant social relationships outside of school with two female students at North Miami Beach High and his inappropriate behavior in having these students as guests in his car and in his apartment reflect poorly on him as a teacher employed by the School Board. Mr. Lefkowitz also failed to exercise the best professional judgment and to maintain the highest ethical standards with respect to his dealings with the School Board during the investigation of his conduct. Mr. Lefkowitz lied to Dr. Bernstein and Detective Hernandez and at the October 2, 2002, Conference-for-the-Record when he said he did not know J.D. or N.F., and he admitted at the final hearing that he lied because he knew that he should never have involved these students in making the music video, should never have given these students rides in his car, and should never have invited the students to his apartment. Mr. Lefkowitz's lack of truthfulness reflects poorly on him as a teacher employed by the School Board. The evidence presented by the School Board is also sufficient to establish that Mr. Lefkowitz engaged in one instance of inappropriate behavior involving students M.D. and H.D. Mr. Lefkowitz admitted that, on one occasion, he picked up these two students in his car and drove them to his apartment, where H.D. danced in the music video and M.D. observed Mr. Lefkowitz and cohorts filming the music video. Mr. Lefkowitz did not have repeated out-of-school contacts with these two students, as he did with J.D. and N.F., but his behavior with M.D. and H.D. reflected poorly on him as a teacher employed by the School Board. The evidence presented by the School Board, which consisted only of Mr. Fontana's conclusory and general statements, is not sufficient to establish that Mr. Lefkowitz's conduct impaired his effectiveness as a teacher in the Miami- Dade County public school system. The evidence presented by the School Board is, however, sufficient to permit an inference that Mr. Lefkowitz's effectiveness as a teacher was impaired. Mr. Lefkowitz encouraged students to develop personal relationships with him and to spend significant amounts of time with him in his apartment. Even though J.D., the young woman with whom he was primarily involved, was not a student in his class, his willingness to become involved with this student and her friends brings his personal and professional judgment into question and necessarily affects the school administration's assessment of his fitness for supervising high school students. It may also be inferred that Mr. Lefkowitz's effectiveness as an employee of the School Board was also impaired because he lied to the principal and assistant principal of his school and to the regional superintendent of the Miami-Dade County public school system about even knowing J.D. By not being truthful with the school system administrators, Mr. Lefkowitz diminished his credibility as a professional educator.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order; Finding that Neil D. Lefkowitz is guilty of having committed misconduct in office and of violating School Board Rules 6Gx13-4-1.09 and 6Gx13-4A-1.21; Suspending Mr. Lefkowitz without pay for a period of 24 months, retroactive to the date on which the School Board suspended him from his employment without pay; and Imposing such conditions on Mr. Lefkowitz upon his return to employment as the School Board deems appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 31th day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 31th day of July, 2003.
The Issue Whether respondent, an assistant professor at Miami-Dade Community College, should be dismissed on grounds of willful neglect of duty, gross insubordination, and incompetency as alleged.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Joan Humphries, earned a bachelor's degree from the University of Miami, a master's degree in counseling and guidance from Florida State University, and a Doctorate of Philosophy in experimental psychology from Louisiana State University. (Testimony of Humphries.) Before coming to Miami-Dade Community College, she worked as a psychological consultant at Louisiana State Hospital and taught at the University of Miami. She has been employed by the College for approximately 15 years--since October, 1966. (Testimony of Humphries.) First employed by the College as a part-time instructor, she soon became a full-time instructor of introductory psychology courses. She is now a tenured assistant professor and was granted a continuing teaching contract by the College. (Testimony of Humphries.) During her years at the College, she received annual performance evaluations from the chairperson of her department--now named the Department of Behavioral Studies. Until 1978, she was evaluated as a competent instructor. Her 1970 evaluation stated: Dr. Humphries continues to do an excellent job of teaching PSY 207. She has been most helpful in orienting new faculty members [and] is a most dependable and valuable member of the psychology faculty. (P-75.) In 1971, David Powers, her new department chairperson, recommended her for promotion and gave her this evaluation: Joan Humphries possesses excellent knowledge of her subject field. Her course is extremely well planned out and organized. She is quite fair in her grading techniques, . . . (P-78.) In 1972, she was rated as "outstanding" in professional status, growth, and development; "competent" in her performance as a faculty member; and as giving "more than most" in ancillary services to the College. In 1973, Dr. Powers again rated her as competent and described her professional strengths and goals: Professional Strengths: Joan displays an in-depth knowledge of behavioristic psychology. Joan is competent in utilization of audiovisual materials and psychological equipment. She is conscientious in meeting her office hours. She has originated several ideas for obtaining both community involvement and enrollment in future psychological courses. Joan involves her students in community activities by requiring a ten hour out-of-class service project. Professional Goals: In order to maintain larger retention rate, Joan should develop a diversity of instructional strategies including greater enthusiasm in teacher presentation. She should place less emphasis on objective testing and involve more subjective methods for student evaluations, [i]ncluding student feedback on course activities and evaluative tools should be meaningful for her students. This summer she will be acting chairman of a committee for a parental education course to be offered in the fall. (P-82.) In 1974, Dr. Powers again rated her as a "competent" faculty member and "outstanding" in professional status, growth, and development. He recommended her for promotion and described her professional strengths: Professional Strengths: Joan is showing even more enthusiasm [sic] toward the college this year than last year. She has developed many innovative ideas including a proposed psychology laboratory, courses associated with the county judges and for the education of elderly citizens within the community, and a rationale for a four day college work week. Joan helped increase the fall term departmental productivity figure by conducting a large section of 100 Psychology 211 students. She has incorporated a formal student evaluation system into her course. She not only participates in community betterment but requires her students to spend at least 15 hours working on a community project. In determining the student's grade, this year, she has placed greater emphasis upon student involvement in projects, experiments, and oral presentations. In her classes Joan includes recent relevant research findings in order to clarify psychological concepts. She has devoted many hours toward coordinating the senior citizens program and the parent education course. She is an active sponsor of Phi Lambda Pi and continually invites guest speakers into her classes. Joan actively engages in scientific research and she has recently written an article for the Journal of Parapsychology. Joan is recommended for promotion to Associate Professor, Senior. Professional Goals: Joan should be a good resource coordinator for utilization of the new Alpha Theta Cyborg. This coming year the department could use her for teaching a couple sections of Psychology 212. Her ideas for meeting the community's needs are practical and worth implementing. Joan should perhaps develop a written syllabus in outline form to give to all of her students at the beginning of the course. Joan would like to initiate and teach a course in recent psychological developments, i.e., biofeedback, hypnosis, and brain research. (P-89.) She was not promoted, however, because she had not yet completed the required three years in grade. She appealed the College's failure to promote her. Although she subsequently satisfied the three-year requirement, she has not been promoted. She attributes this to discrimination by the College because of her earlier appeal. In 1975 and 1976, she was rated "competent" but given specific suggestions for improved performance (P-119.) In 1977, she was rated as a "competent" faculty member who contributed "more than most" in ancillary services to the College, and recommended for promotion. But, "some reservation" was indicated concerning her professional status, growth, and development. (P- 235.) In 1978, her new department chairperson, Gerald L. Sicard, rated her as "competent;" described her as a dedicated psychologist who gave enthusiastic lectures; and noted that evaluations by her students were generally positive. (P-315.) She was rated "unsatisfactory" by the evaluations completed in 1979, 1980, and 1981. The Charges: Eleven Specific Allegations of Misconduct The College's charges against respondent--willful neglect of duty, gross insubordination, and incompetency--rest on eleven specific allegations of misconduct. The findings of fact which follow are organized under the pertinent allegation. Alleged: Over a period of years, the respondent has demonstrated belligerence toward those in authority. Respondent has not demonstrated a pattern of belligerence or hostility toward her College superiors. Her supervising department chairperson, Mr. Sicard, had difficulty defining the term at hearing. When pressed, he gave as examples her desire to tape record conversations when meeting with a supervisor, her writing of memoranda when an issue could be easily resolved by an office conference, and her refusal to sign a performance evaluation form because she did not agree with it. Such conduct illustrates her distrust of her supervisors and the persistence with which she advocated her views; they do not demonstrate belligerence. Neither, according to her students, did she exhibit belligerence toward her supervisors in the classroom environment. 7 College administrators became irritated with her obvious distrust, her persistence, and her unwillingness to compromise; two examples: (1) When her fellow faculty members selected a common course textbook for use in introductory psychology, she resisted and stubbornly advocated another choice. (2) During 1978, Mr. Sicard learned that respondent was offering extra grade points to students who campaigned for enactment of the Equal Rights Amendment ("ERA") to the U.S. Constitution. Students who desired to campaign against the ERA were not, however, equally rewarded. Mr. Sicard questioned her about the fairness of this practice and its relevance to introductory psychology. She explained that prejudice against women was a disease, that to give students points for campaigning against the ERA would be supporting a disease. Mr. Sicard, still unconvinced, instructed her by memorandum on November 6, 1978, to discontinue the awarding of points to students for pro-ERA or any other political activity. (P-359.) One week later she explained, in writing, that she had been promoting good mental health, not partisan politics, and cited various publications by psychologists in support of her view that discrimination against women was detrimental to human welfare; and that, in the past, her students had worked for legislation benefiting autistic children and migrant workers and the College had supported such action. She ended by asking Mr. Sicard if advocacy of human rights and legislation supporting human rights would be considered engaging in partisan politics. But, although she disagreed with her supervisor, she complied with his directive and discontinued the practice. (Testimony of Sicard, Tikofsky, Hansen, Signorelli, Humphries.) Alleged: On numerous occasions, the respondent willfully and deliberately failed to comply with directives from College administrators relative to her classes of instructions. In connection with respondent's 1978 performance evaluation, Mr. Sicard and respondent negotiated and agreed upon goals and objectives for the coming year. The College contends that several of the goals were not met. Some of these items were tasks which Mr. Sicard thought were important at the time, others originated with the respondent. The effect to be given these goals is ambiguous. Mr. Sicard now considers some of them to be mandatory or directory in nature; others not. In any case, during the ensuing year, respondent satisfied most of the goals and objectives specified in the 1978 evaluation. In 1978, as already mentioned, respondent's department decided to select a common text for introductory psychology courses. Respondent resisted the consensus selection; she advocated an alternative and wrote memoranda to Mr. Sicard expressing her views. He responded with this memorandum: Instead of replying to the above-memos, it would probably be mutually beneficial to discuss your problems during my office hours. This way we can move from adversary roles to the cooperative model existing with the other departmental faculty. In doing this, I hope we can work together to achieve your and the department's goals. Please advise me in this matter. (P-334.) Thereafter, respondent did not go to Mr. Sicard's office to discuss the issue further. But the nature of his memorandum is, by its terms, non-directory, even conciliatory in nature. Respondent's failure to accept the invitation cannot fairly be translated into willful failure to comply with an administrator's directive. On December 4, 1978, Mr. Sicard recommended that respondent's employment be terminated for various "acts of insubordination." (P-368, P-369.) He asserted that she violated regulations by utilizing the psychology laboratory for hypnosis and biofeedback treatment for students with smoking and overweight problems; that her earlier awarding of grade points to students who worked for ERA violated a 1976 directive of David Powers, the previous department chairperson; and that she continued to refer students to Robert Courier, an alleged psychic and hypnosis counselor, despite the fact that Mr. Courier had been prohibited from instructing students in her classes. Her alleged failure to comply with laboratory regulations, even if true, does not constitute willful violation of an administrator's directive relative to her classroom instruction; and Mr. Sicard acknowledges that her referral of students to Mr. Courier "do[es] not violate previous directives" to respondent. (P-368.) This leaves only the alleged violation of Mr. Powers' 1976 directive. In that directive, Mr. Powers directed Respondent to obtain prior clearance from the departmental chairperson for "[a] 11 off-campus activities which affect the student's grade[s]." (P-147.) In 1977, however, Mr. Power's successor chairperson, Bess Fleckman, effectively countermanded or negated the effect of Mr. Powers' directive. By a memorandum dated March 21, 1977, she asked respondent to take full responsibility for assignments to students, stating that this should not "be a concern of a chairperson." (P-261, P-262, P- 263.) Thus, respondent's subsequent assignments concerning off-campus ERA activities did not violate a directive from her supervising administrator. By memorandum dated April 3, 1979, Mr. Sicard suggested that respondent improve her teaching techniques by accepting the assistance of Ms. Fleckman--a qualified and experienced classroom instructional specialist. (P- 388.) Respondent replied with a memorandum stating that she did not wish to work with Ms. Fleckman because she did not feel Ms. Fleckman "would be objective in evaluating my performance. (P-391.) Mr. Sicard replied on April 17, 1979, converting his suggestion into a clear directive that respondent work with and accept the assistance of Ms. Fleckman. Although clearly unhappy with the arrangement, respondent complied. (P-404.) The College has not shown that respondent ever refused or willfully and deliberately failed to comply with an administrator's directive which was phrased in clear and mandatory terms. Administrators, understandably, preferred to give suggestions to respondent, not orders or directives. But, failure to agree with or follow a suggestion does not amount to willful violation of a directive. (Testimony of Humphries, Fleckman, Sicard.) Alleged: Respondent . . . repeatedly refused to follow directives from college administrators, which has distracted from the objectives of her department, division, and campus. This charge is similar to the preceding allegation; no additional evidence was offered to substantiate it. Consequently, it is similarly concluded that no showing has been made that respondent repeatedly refused to follow directives from college administrators. (Testimony of Humphries, Fleckman, Sicard.) Alleged: Respondent deliberately failed or refused to perform assigned duties within the parameters established by her department chairperson. This charge may overlap with charges contained in paragraphs B and C above. The only additional incident of any significance offered by the College in substantiation involves respondent's purported attempt to use the psychology laboratory for therapy purposes. In June, 1978, respondent served as coordinator of the department's psychology laboratory with the assignment to expand its uses. On June 22, 1978, she circulated a memorandum to faculty members announcing a new laboratory program called "Positive Personal Programming," which would be carried out by Kenneth Forrest; she believed he was a student in an honors-level psychology course taught by Dr. Cecil B. Nichols. The program involved treating subjects with weight control or smoking habits by means of hypnosis and biofeedback techniques. Since regulations allegedly precluded use of the laboratory for therapy purposes, Mr. Sicard instructed respondent that this proposed program could not be implemented. Although she protested that the proposed program would be beneficial and should be allowed, she complied with his directive and immediately cancelled the program. The program was never implemented. Mr. Sicard testified that he did not know whether the program described in respondent's memorandum to faculty was ever implemented, but he "assumed" it was. (Tr.160.) He considered respondent's memorandum as an act of insubordination justifying her termination. (P-368.) The evidence does not establish that the proposed use would violate applicable regulations. 2/ In any case, it has not been shown how a program which was never instituted could violate any limitations on use of the psychology laboratory. The College has not shown any deliberate failure or refusal by respondent to perform her duties within the parameters established by her department chairperson. (Testimony of Sicard, Humphries.) Alleged: Respondent failed to satisfy established criteria for the performance of assigned duties. No objective criteria have been promulgated to assess the performance of College faculty members. In the absence of such criteria announced prospectively, the College seeks to establish by expert testing that respondent did not cover the material required in an introductory psychology course; that she placed undue emphasis on biofeedback techniques; and that the grading system she used was inadequate. Although there is conflicting testimony on these matters, the testimony of Ronald F. Tikofsky is accepted as persuasive. Now a departmental chairperson at the University of Wisconsin, he obtained a master's degree in psychology, and took a minor in psychology for his doctorate. He taught in the Department of Psychology at the University of Michigan, where he became a full professor, and later served as chairperson of the Department of Psychology at Florida International University from 1971 through 1979. He has participated in the development of college curriculum, helped college instructors develop teaching techniques, and evaluated the performance of faculty members. His academic credentials are impressive, his testimony was objective, forthright, and credible. (Tr. 967-1017; R-48.) His opinions are accorded great weight. He opined that, in his profession, there is no consensus on any set number of concepts which should be taught in college level introductory psychology courses, that this properly follows within the discretion of the individual instructor. His review of the topics respondent covered during the fall and winter semesters of 1980 led him to conclude that she covered the basic materials of an introductory psychology course, and that the time she devoted to biofeedback theory and demonstrations was appropriate. After reviewing respondent's grading records, he concluded that her grading method was not unusual or unacceptable. Development of grading curves is an art, not a science; it involves the interplay of several variables and the subjective judgment of the instructor. Generally, respondent would take the class average, note the distribution, establish cutoff points for various grade levels, apply them to the data, and then apply a subjective factor. Mr. Tikofsky testified that the number of credit points assigned for completing outside projects was neither excessive nor inappropriate. These opinions of Mr. Tikofsky are expressly adopted. The College has not shown that respondent failed to satisfy any meaningful performance standard, announced either prospectively or retroactively. (Testimony of Tikofsky, Sicard, Humphries.) Alleged:. Respondent failed to comply with directives for required improvements that were set forth in her yearly personnel evaluations. As already mentioned above, the yearly personnel evaluations contained "goals and objectives," not "directives." These goals and objectives were the product of discussion and negotiation between the department chairperson and instructor; some were considered mandatory, others not. Those that originated with the instructor lacked mandatory effect. The three goals and objectives concerning biofeedback--contained on respondent's 1979 personnel evaluation form--originated with the respondent. She made a good faith effort to complete or completed each of those biofeedback goals. The remaining six goals and objectives were satisfied by respondent. As to the 1978 personnel evaluation, most, if not all, of the listed goals and objectives were satisfied. Her next evaluation--where she was rated unsatisfactory--does not fault her for failing to meet any 1978 goal or objective. The evidence does not show that respondent failed to satisfy any goal or objective which was listed on her evaluation and clearly understood--at the time--to be a directive, rather than an end toward which effort should be directed. (Testimony of Sicard, Humphries; P-315, P-474.) Alleged: The level of instruction in respondent's classes was below reasonable minimum standards. This charge overlaps with paragraph E above, and H below. The College has not established or published any objective minimum standards to measure an instructor's performance. Respondent used a standard approach to teaching introductory psychology: she used a vocabulary or concept list for each chapter of the textbook and gave frequent objective tests. Her classes were structured and well-disciplined. Her students were generally satisfied with her performance and compared her favorably to other instructors at the College. Those who went on to take more advanced psychology courses made grades similar to or better than those they received from respondent. Ms. Fleckman helped her to improve her teaching techniques. When Ms. Fleckman observed her teaching in 1979, she could offer only a few suggestions and rated her 8 on a 10-point performance scale. Videotapes of respondent teaching her classes were viewed at hearing. After reviewing the tapes, Mr. Tikofsky opined that respondent was an adequate and competent classroom instructor. His opinion is accepted as persuasive. The videotapes demonstrate convincingly that respondent delivers lectures in an organized, methodical fashion and that she has the attention of her students. The tapes further show that she takes her teaching responsibilities seriously, is genuinely interested in the subject matter, and that she tries to relate and respond to her students. In light of the above, and the findings contained in paragraph E above, it is concluded that respondent's level of instruction in her classes did not fall below reasonable minimum standards, either announced prospectively or applied retroactively. (Testimony of Humphries, Tikofsky, Fleckman, Signorelli.) Alleged: Students in respondent's classes were deprived of required course material. This charge overlaps charges contained in paragraphs E and G above, and the findings relating to those charges also apply here. During the fall and winter of 1980, Mr. Tikofsky opined that respondent covered the topics appropriate to a college level introductory psychology course. His opinion is accepted as persuasive. The topics which should be covered are left up to the individual psychology instructor. The College does not specify the topics and materials that must be covered. When respondent was suspended near the end of the 1980 winter quarter, she had covered the material which--according to her own class syllabus-- should have been covered at that time. The charge that her students were deprived of required course material is unsubstantiated by the evidence. (Testimony of Humphries, Tikofsky; P-2.) Alleged: Respondent's classes were unstructured. As already mentioned, respondent's classes were structured and well disciplined. Ms. Fleckman conceded that her classes were structured. Students took copious notes and were able to organize her lectures into outline form (see paragraph G above). This charge is unsubstantiated by the evidence. (Testimony of Humphries, Signorelli, Stipulated testimony of Students.) Alleged: Respondent maintained little control over students. Respondent conducted her classes in a no-nonsense, businesslike manner. She welcomed questions from students, but she did not tolerate disruption. She was a disciplinarian and was respected by her students. This charge is unsupported by the evidence. (Testimony of Humphries, Classroom Videotapes, Signorelli, Stipulated testimony of Students.) Alleged: Respondent failed to maintain enrollment and completion rates at acceptable levels. The College has not established, prospectively, criteria to determine acceptable student attrition rates. Never before has a College instructor been recommended for termination because of an unacceptable attrition rate. Respondent's 1979, 1980, and 1981 evaluations--where she was rated unsatisfactory--concluded that she failed to "maintain enrollment and course completion at acceptable levels." (P-380, P-474.) Although she repeatedly asked Mr. Sicard for a specific attrition figure which she should meet, no figure was ever supplied. Mr. Sicard concluded that her attrition rate was "too high in relation to her peers." That conclusion is unsubstantiated. Her completion rate, over the years, was 51.7 percent, a figure which compares favorably with her fellow instructors: Alan Winet (56.3); James Killride (50.6); Margaret Casey (54.3); Dorothy O'Conner (44.4); Peter Diehl (44.4); Royal Grumbach (51.5); Lawrence Chernoff (45.2); Ronnie Fisher (42.5); and Harold Andrews (47). Moreover, between 1978 and 1980, her attrition rate was improving, sometimes exceeding 60 percent. It is concluded that, when compared with her peers, respondent maintained an acceptable student course-completion rate. (Testimony of Hansen, McCabe.) Respondent's Relationship with College Administrators Respondent was frequently at odds with College administrators. She petitioned the College for a four-day work week and a female professor's bill of rights. She appealed the College's failure to promote her and repeatedly accused the College of sexual discrimination. She was an outspoken critic, questioning and challenging the actions of College administrators. (Testimony of Sicard, Humphries.) Her relationship with administrators was marked by mutual distrust and became adversarial in nature. To avoid misunderstandings, she resorted to tape- recording her meetings with supervisors; her communications with administrators were increasingly reduced to writing. (Testimony of Sicard, Humphries.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent be reinstated as a continuing contract employee at Miami- Dade Community College with full back pay for the period of time of her suspension. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 1st day of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. Caleen, Jr. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of June, 1982.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether there is just cause to terminate Respondent’s employment.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Overhoff began his employment with the School District on October 20, 2006, as a roofer in the School District’s maintenance department. As a roofer, Mr. Overhoff’s job duties included maintaining and repairing roofs of the School District’s schools and ancillary buildings. His duties also included procuring roofing materials needed on a job, when those materials were not available at the maintenance department’s central warehouse. The School District hired private contracting companies to do major roof repair, and Mr. Overhoff’s duties included meeting with the contractors to discuss the contract work being performed. At all times relevant to this case, Mr. Overhoff was a member of the Support Personnel Association of Lee County (SPALC). During June 27, 2008, through July 11, 2008, Mr. Overhoff resided at 4613 Vinsetta Avenue, North Fort Myers, Florida. Mr. Overhoff’s work hours were from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. with a 30-minute unpaid lunch break and a 15-minute paid break in the morning and a 15-minute paid break in the afternoon. Mr. Overhoff reported to the School District’s maintenance office each morning to receive his work assignments for the day. Each employee was assigned more than eight hours of work to ensure that each employee would have sufficient work for the entire day. After receiving his work assignments, Mr. Overhoff gathered the materials he needed for his jobs that day and traveled to the various locations in the county to work on the School District’s buildings. He was expected to return to the School District’s maintenance office by 3:00 p.m. each day to complete the paper work for the roofing work that had been performed that day and to conference with his supervisors concerning work assignments. Mr. Overhoff was assigned a white pick-up truck owned by the School District and designated as M404. Mr. Overhoff was to use this vehicle to go to his work assignments pursuant to The School Board of Lee County Policy 7.04, which provides that employees who drive School District vehicles “shall [u]se the vehicle strictly for approved District business.” Sometime in April 2008, the School District received a call from a neighbor of Mr. Overhoff, who reported that a School District vehicle was parked in Mr. Overhoff’s driveway during work hours. Donald Easterly, the director of Maintenance Services for the School District, met with Mr. Overhoff in April 2008 to discuss the telephone call. Mr. Easterly made Mr. Overhoff aware that the use of a School District vehicle for personal use was prohibited and that personal business could not be conducted during work hours unless it was during a break. The School Board of Lee County Policy 5.33 prohibits the transaction of personal business on school time and provides: The following rules, regulations and guidelines are to be used to prohibit personal business on school time. No employee of the School District may conduct personal business on school time except for emergencies approved by the principal or Superintendent. No School District equipment or supplies shall be used to conduct personal business or any other activity not connected with the School District. During the time relevant to this case, employees in the maintenance department were allowed to stop at restaurants, convenience stores, and fast food establishments for their lunch and morning and afternoon breaks, if the stops were made while the employees were in transit to a job location. It had also been the practice to allow employees to stop by their bank, if the time was counted as break time, and the stop was while in transit to a job location. It was not permissible for an employee to use a School District vehicle to go to his home unless the employee had permission from his supervisor. In May 2008, the School District began installing Global Positioning Systems (GPS) on some of the vehicles used in the maintenance department. The selection of the vehicles for installation of a GPS was made at random. On June 2, 2008, a GPS was installed on the vehicle M404, which was driven by Mr. Overhoff. The superintendent of the School District has alleged in the Petition for Termination of Employment that Mr. Overhoff used a School District vehicle for his personal use on June 27, June 30, July 1, July 2, July 7, July 8, July 9, July 10, and July 11, 2008. Each day will be discussed individually below. On each day in question, Mr. Overhoff was driving the School District vehicle identified as M404. The locations to which the vehicle traveled and the times of arrivals and departures are based on the information captured by the GPS system installed in vehicle M404 during the relevant time periods. There has been no dispute concerning the accuracy of the information. At the end of each work day, Mr. Overhoff and other employees in the maintenance department were required to complete a daily labor sheet, which identified the work that was performed by work order number, task number, and description of the work; identified the location where the work was performed; and listed the amount of travel time and work hours for each work order. The time was to be listed in 15-minute increments. All locations where work had been performed were to be listed on the daily labor sheet. However, if an employee had to return to the maintenance department during the day, the time spent there was not usually recorded on the daily labor sheet. Mr. Overhoff had never been given any formal instruction on how to complete the daily labor sheet. He understood that the number of hours for travel and work should equal eight hours. His daily labor sheets did not always accurately reflect the locations at which Mr. Overhoff had stopped during the workday and did not always accurately reflect the time that he spent working at School District facilities. Prior to August 2008, the employees in the maintenance department were not required to list their break times on the daily labor sheets, and there was no requirement to list every stop made during the day. After August 2008, the maintenance department employees were required to accurately account for all their time during the day, including break times and stops at the maintenance department on Canal Street. June 27, 2008 On June 27, 2008, vehicle M404 was turned on at 6:29:07 a.m. at the maintenance department located at Canal Street. At 8:01:17 a.m., the vehicle entered the 7-11 store located at Southland Court, and, at 8:12:57 a.m., the vehicle departed the 7-11 store. At 8:31:17 a.m., the vehicle arrived at San Carlos Park Elementary School and remained there until it left at 9:19:27 a.m. The vehicle left San Carlos Park Elementary School and went to a Hess Station/Dunkin Donuts business, where the vehicle remained from 9:22:07 a.m. to 9:39:57 a.m. After leaving the Hess Station, the vehicle arrived at Lexington Middle School at 9:57:57 a.m. The vehicle departed the school at 10:16:17 a.m. and arrived at the Canal Street maintenance department at 10:40 a.m. The vehicle remained at the maintenance department until 11:01 a.m. The next stop for the vehicle was at 11:19:37 a.m. at Mr. Overhoff’s home, where the vehicle remained until 11:28:17 a.m. The vehicle left Mr. Overhoff’s home and went to One Price Optical in Cape Coral, Florida, where it arrived at 11:34:07 a.m. and left at 11:37:07 a.m. At 11:43:47 a.m., the vehicle arrived at Bank of America, and, at 11:44:17 a.m., the vehicle departed from the bank. The vehicle returned to Mr. Overhoff’s home at 11:51:58 a.m. and remained there until 11:53:17 a.m., when it departed for One Price Optical. The vehicle arrived at One Price Optical at 12:00:17 p.m. and left at 12:01:27 p.m. heading for Tanglewood/Riverside Elementary School, where it arrived at 12:22:37 p.m. and left at 12:37:47 p.m. The next stop the vehicle made was at another 7-ll store, where it arrived at 12:53:27 p.m. and left at l:01:57 p.m. The vehicle traveled past Mr. Overhoff’s house and arrived at One Price Optical at 1:18:17 p.m. and remained there until 1:33:47 p.m. From One Price Optical the vehicle proceeded to North Fort Myers High School, where it arrived at 1:38:37 p.m. and left at 1:52:17 p.m. From North Ft. Myers High School, the vehicle proceeded to the Professional Building on Dixie Parkway, arriving at 2:01:37 p.m. The vehicle remained stationary for 16 minutes and 40 seconds, circled the block around the Professional Building, and left at 2:21:37 p.m. From the Professional Building, the vehicle proceeded to Dunbar High School, arriving at 2:30:27 p.m. and leaving at 2:43:47 p.m. From Dunbar High School, the vehicle proceeded to the maintenance department at Canal Street, where it arrived at 2:53:47 p.m. Mr. Overhoff spent a total of 29.5 minutes in the morning at a convenience store and a service station. He spent from 11:01 a.m. to 12:01 p.m. on personal business, including stops at his home, a bank, and an optical business. The total time for his personal business was one hour. He left the maintenance department at 11:01 a.m. and could have taken his personal vehicle to run his personal errands and gone back to the maintenance department when he was finished. The locations where he conducted his personal business were northwest of the maintenance department. The next work assignment after he completed his personal business was located southwest of the maintenance department, which means that the errands that he was running were not on the way to a work assignment. In the afternoon, Mr. Overhoff stopped at another 7-11 store for 8.5 minutes, took a circuitous route by his home, and went back to One Price Optical. The amount of time that elapsed from the time he reached the 7-11 until he left One Price Optical was over 40 minutes. His home and One Price Optical were not located on a route that would have taken him logically to his next work assignment. Mr. Overhoff started his workday at approximately 6:30 a.m. Subtracting Mr. Overhoff’s lunch time and break times, Mr. Overhoff used .6 hours of work time above his allotted break times for his personal business. No evidence was presented to show that Mr. Overhoff took annual or sick leave for this time. Based on his daily labor sheets, Mr. Overhoff recorded eight hours of travel and work time for June 27, 2008. On June 27, 2008, a lens fell out of Mr. Overhoff’s glasses. Mr. Overhoff had permission from his supervisor, Michael Hooks, to go to an optical business to have the lens replaced. Mr. Hooks did not give Mr. Overhoff permission to stop by a Bank of America to conduct his banking business. The stop at the bank was not made while in transit to another job. Mr. Hooks did not give Mr. Overhoff permission to make multiple trips to One Price Optical. Mr. Hook had given Mr. Overhoff permission to stop by his house one time to check on Mr. Overhoff’s son. According to Mr. Overhoff, June 27, 2008, was the date that Mr. Hook had given him permission to stop to check on his son at home. Mr. Hook was not certain of the date that he gave such permission, but it was for one time only. June 30, 2008 Vehicle M404 left the maintenance department at Canal Street at 7:29:27 a.m. and arrived at Dunbar High School at 7:38:17 a.m. The vehicle left Dunbar High School at 7:38:17 a.m. and arrived at Kuhlman Concrete, LLC, at 7:40 a.m. The vehicle left Kuhlman Concrete, LLC, at 7:41 a.m. and arrived at North Fort Myers High School at 7:55:37 a.m. The vehicle left the high school at 8:50:27 a.m. and proceeded to Villas Elementary School, arriving at 9:02:47 a.m. and leaving at 9:31:57 a.m. The vehicle arrived at the James Adams Building at 9:45:37 a.m. and departed at 9:52:57 a.m., proceeding to a Hess Gas Station, where it arrived at 10:15:37 a.m. and left at 10:18:57 a.m. The next stop was at the North Fort Myers Academy of the Arts, where the vehicle arrived at 10:26:47 a.m. and departed at 10:41:17 a.m. The vehicle arrived at Diplomat Middle School at 10:59:27 a.m. and left at 11:35:37 a.m. From the Diplomat Middle School, the vehicle arrived at Mr. Overhoff’s house at 11:46:47 a.m., departed at 11:56:07 a.m., and arrived at North Fort Myers High School at 12:00:57 p.m. The vehicle did not stop at the school, but drove through the school grounds and left at 12:02:57 p.m. The vehicle turned in at Kentucky Fried Chicken at 12:21:57 p.m. and exited at 12:22:37 p.m. The vehicle proceeded to McDonald’s, arriving at 12:36:57 p.m. and leaving at 12:40:27 p.m. At 12:52:17 p.m., the vehicle arrived at Three Oaks Middle School and departed at 1:29:57 p.m. From the middle school, the vehicle proceeded to a Bank of America, arriving at 1:35:37 p.m. and leaving at 1:42:17 p.m. After leaving the bank, the vehicle went to South Fort Myers High School, arriving at 1:54:47 p.m. and leaving at 2:04 p.m. The next stop was Ray V. Pottorf Elementary School, where the vehicle arrived at 2:13:47 p.m. and left at 2:29:27 p.m. The vehicle proceeded to High Tech Central/New Directions, arrived at 2:37:57 p.m., drove through the campus, and exited at 2:44:57 p.m. At 2:54:07 p.m., the vehicle arrived at the maintenance department at Canal Street. Mr. Overhoff stopped at a convenience store for three minutes mid-morning. At lunch time, he stopped at his home for nine minutes. The stop at his home was not authorized and was not in transit to another job location. The travel time to and from his home was eight minutes. He turned into a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant for 40 seconds. According to Mr. Overhoff, he went into the Kentucky Fried Chicken parking lot to take a telephone call or open a work folder. The next stop is a McDonald’s fast food place where he remains for 3.5 minutes. According to Mr. Overhoff, this is another stop to do paperwork. In light of his earlier stop at Kentucky Fried Chicken, Mr. Overhoff’s testimony is not credited. Additionally, Mr. Overhoff’s general assertions that his many stops at convenience stores were to do paperwork is not credible. He was given 30 minutes at the end of each work day for the specific purpose of completing his paperwork. The many inaccuracies in his paperwork do not support his assertion that he was making stops to keep his paperwork accurate and in order. Later in the afternoon, he made a six-minute stop at Bank of America. The side trip to the bank did not appear to be on a logical route to his next work assignment. Thus, four minutes’ travel time is assessed for the bank trip. The total time for his personal business was 33.5 minutes. July 1, 2008 On July 1, 2008, vehicle M404 left the maintenance department on Canal Street at 7:03:37 a.m. and arrived at a gas station/convenience store off Metro Parkway at 7:10 a.m. Leaving the convenience store at 7:14 a.m., the vehicle proceeded to Three Oaks Middle School, arriving at Three Oaks Middle School at 7:39 a.m. and leaving at 8:16 a.m. From the middle school, the vehicle traveled to Ray V. Pottorf Elementary School arriving at 8:36 a.m. and leaving at 8:41 a.m. The vehicle returned to the maintenance department at 8:50 a.m. and remained there until 9:16 a.m. The vehicle proceeded to Bonita Middle School, arrived there at 9:52 a.m., and left at 10:22 a.m. The next stop was Orange River Elementary School, where the vehicle arrived at 11:01:27 a.m. and departed at 11:05:27 a.m. At 11:12 a.m., the vehicle stopped at a restaurant/convenience store and remained there until 11:33 a.m. The vehicle arrived back at the maintenance department at 11:41 a.m. and departed at 12:20 p.m. The vehicle arrived at Trafalgar Middle School at 12:55 p.m. and departed at 1:18 p.m. The next stop was Gulf Middle School, where the vehicle arrived at 1:27 p.m. and left at 1:40 p.m. At 1:48:57 p.m., the vehicle arrived at Bank of America off Skyline Boulevard. The vehicle left the bank at 1:56:07 p.m. From the bank at Skyline Boulevard, the vehicle proceeded to the Bank of America at Viscaya Parkway, arriving at 2:09 p.m. and leaving at 2:19 p.m. At 2:23:07 p.m., the vehicle arrived at One Price Optical. The vehicle left One Price Optical at 2:27:07 p.m. The next stop was the James Adams Building, where the vehicle arrived at 2:44 p.m. and left at 2:46 p.m. At 3:02:57 p.m., the vehicle was parked at the maintenance department. The stop at the convenience store in the morning consumed ten minutes of Mr. Overhoff’s morning break time. The lunch at a restaurant took 21 minutes. In the afternoon, Mr. Overhoff stopped at two banks for a total of 17 minutes. Another stop was made at One Price Optical for four minutes. The stop at One Price Optical was not authorized and, based on the map contained in Petitioner’s Exhibit 7, the trip was not on the route back to the next job location. Thus, the travel time from the last bank stop, four minutes, should be added to the time. The time expended on personal business was 56 minutes. July 2, 2008 On July 2, 2008, vehicle M404 left the maintenance department at 7:04 a.m. and arrived at the James Adams Building at 7:13 a.m. The vehicle left the James Adams Building at 7:56 a.m. and arrived back at the maintenance department at 8:05 a.m. The vehicle left the maintenance department at 8:27 a.m. and arrived at the 7-11 store off Metro Parkway at 8:33 a.m. The vehicle left the 7-11 at 8:37 a.m. and returned to the James Adams Building at 8:50 a.m. At 8:57 a.m., the vehicle left the James Adams Building and returned to the maintenance department at 9:04 a.m., where it remains until 9:26 a.m. The vehicle arrived at Fort Myers High School at 9:41 a.m. and left at 9:56 a.m. Arriving at Orange River Elementary at 10:18 a.m., the vehicle remained until 11:03 a.m. when it proceeded to the Taco Bell off Palm Beach Boulevard. The vehicle reached Taco Bell at 11:05 a.m. and left at 11:38 a.m. At 11:47 a.m., the vehicle arrived at Edgewood Academy, where it left at 11:50 a.m. The vehicle arrived at Dunbar High School at 11:59 a.m. and departed at 12:05 p.m. From Dunbar High School, the vehicle proceeded to Mr. Overhoff’s house, where the vehicle remained from 12:27:17 p.m. to 12:30:07 p.m. At 12:49 p.m., the vehicle arrived at the James Adams Building, where it remained until 12:57 p.m. From the James Adams Building, the vehicle proceeded to a 7-11 store located off Winkler and Colonial Boulevard. The vehicle arrived at the 7-11 at 1:09 p.m. and departed at 1:11 p.m. At 1:17 p.m., the vehicle arrived at Lowe’s Shopping Center off Colonial Boulevard and Ben C. Pratt Parkway. The vehicle left the shopping center at 1:27 p.m. The next stop was Colonial Elementary, where the vehicle arrived at 1:34 p.m. and departed at 1:36 p.m. The vehicle returned to the maintenance department on Canal Street at 1:47 p.m. and remained there. In the morning, Mr. Overhoff went to a convenience store, which was not in route to a job location. The time spent at the convenience store was four minutes and the travel time to and from the convenience store from the maintenance department was 12 minutes for a total of 16 minutes for his morning break. Mr. Overhoff had lunch at Taco Bell for 33 minutes. In the afternoon, Mr. Overhoff stopped at his home for almost three minutes; however, the stop at his home was not on route to any job location. Thus, the travel time to his home and back to the next job should be included in any break time. The travel time for the trip home was 41 minutes, and the total time taken for his trip home was 44 minutes. The stop at his home was not authorized. Mr. Overhoff’s excuse for the stop at his home was to get boots and use the bathroom. His testimony is not credited. Mr. Overhoff testified that he needed his boots to clean off water, but the job in which he had been cleaning off water was before he stopped at his home. In the afternoon, Mr. Overhoff stopped at a convenience store for two minutes and went to Lowe’s for ten minutes. The stop at Lowe’s was not authorized. The stops at the convenience store and at Lowe’s were not in transit to another job location. The travel time should be calculated based on the time it took to get from Lowe’s to his next work location, which was 14 minutes. The total time that Mr. Overhoff spent on personal business was 1.95 hours. Thus, Mr. Overhoff spent .95 hours above his allotted break time for his personal business. No evidence was presented that leave was taken, and his daily labor sheet showed that he worked for eight hours on that day. July 7, 2008 On July 7, 2008, vehicle M404 left the maintenance department on Canal Street at 7:22 a.m. and proceeded to a 7-11 at the corner of Winkler and Colonial Boulevard, arriving there at 7:33 a.m. and leaving at 7:38 a.m. The vehicle arrived at Ray V. Pottorf Elementary at 7:43 a.m. and left at 9:35 a.m. The next stop was Lexington Middle School, where the vehicle arrived at 9:51 a.m. and departed at 10:05 a.m. From Lexington Middle School, the vehicle went to Fort Myers Beach Elementary School, arriving at 10:18 a.m. and leaving at 10:22 a.m. The vehicle arrived at Tanglewood/Riverside Elementary School at 10:46 a.m. and left at 11:04 a.m. At 11:21 a.m., the vehicle returned to the maintenance department at Canal Street. Leaving the maintenance department at 12:04 p.m., the vehicle proceeded to Dunbar High School, arriving at 12:10 p.m. and leaving at 12:23 p.m. At 12:39 p.m., the vehicle arrived at Crowther Roofing and remained there until 12:52 p.m. The vehicle made another stop at One Price Optical at 1:12 p.m. Leaving One Price Optical at 1:21 p.m., the vehicle arrived at Taco Bell off Santa Barbara Boulevard at 1:27 p.m. and left at 1:46 p.m. The vehicle arrived at Mariner High School at 1:53 p.m. and departed at 2:09 p.m. At 2:14 p.m., the vehicle entered the Publix Shopping Center off Santa Barbara Boulevard, departing at 2:17 p.m. From 2:22 p.m. to 2:37 p.m., the vehicle was stopped at a warehouse. At 2:44 p.m., the vehicle arrived at Mr. Overhoff’s house, where it remained until 2:47 p.m. At 3:07 p.m., the vehicle returned to the maintenance department at Canal Street. Mr. Overhoff stopped at a convenience store for five minutes in the morning. In the early afternoon, he made a nine- minute stop at One Price Optical, which was not an authorized stop. He stopped at Taco Bell for 19 minutes. He went to a Publix Shopping Center for three minutes, to a warehouse for 15 minutes, and to his home for three minutes. The stops at the Publix Shopping Center, the warehouse, and Mr. Overhoff’s home were not authorized, were for personal business, and were not in transit to a job location. Thus, the travel time from the shopping center to his home, which totals 12 minutes should be added to the time taken for personal business. The total time for personal business on July 7, 2008, was 65 minutes, which was five minutes above the allotted break times. July 8, 2008 On July 8, 2008, vehicle M404 left the maintenance department at Canal Street at 7:44 a.m., arrived at ALC Central/New Directions at 7:53 a.m., and departed ALC Central/New Directions at 8:23 a.m. The vehicle returned to the maintenance department at 8:28 a.m. and remained there until 8:41 a.m. At 8:58 a.m., the vehicle arrived at Tropic Isles Elementary School and remained there until 9:37 a.m. From the elementary school, the vehicle proceeded to the 7-11 store located off Pondella and Orange Grove. The vehicle arrived at the 7-11 at 9:39 a.m. and left at 9:42 a.m. From the 7-11, the vehicle proceeded to New Directions, arriving at 9:55 a.m. and leaving at 9:57 a.m. The vehicle returned to the maintenance department at Canal Street at 10:03 a.m. and departed at 10:33 a.m. The next stop was Cypress Lake High School, where the vehicle arrived at 10:56 a.m. and left at 11:28 a.m. From Cypress Lake High School, the vehicle traveled to Bank of America off Cypress Lake Drive. The vehicle arrived at the bank at 11:30 a.m. and left at 11:38 a.m. From the bank, the vehicle arrived at the 7-11 store off Metro Parkway at 11:45 a.m. and departed at 11:55 a.m. After leaving the 7-11 store, the vehicle proceeded to South Fort Myers High School, arriving at 11:59 a.m. and departing at 12:31 p.m. The next stop was Roofing Supply Company, where the vehicle stopped at 12:46 p.m. and left at 12:59 p.m. The vehicle proceeded to New Directions and arrived at 1:07 p.m. The vehicle remained at New Directions until 1:53 p.m. From New Directions, the vehicle headed to the maintenance department at Canal Street, where the vehicle arrived at 2:06 p.m. and remained. Mr. Overhoff stopped at a convenience store in the morning for four minutes, at a bank for eight minutes at lunch time, and at a convenience store for ten minutes at lunch time. These stops were made in transit to a job location. July 9, 2008 On July 9, 2008, vehicle M404 left the maintenance department at Canal Street at 7:12 a.m. and arrived at the 7-11 store off Metro Parkway and Colonial at 7:23 a.m. The vehicle remained at the 7-11 store until 7:30 a.m., when it left for Six Mile Cypress School, arriving at 7:42 a.m. and leaving at 7:53 a.m. The next stop for the vehicle was The Sanibel School, where the vehicle arrived at 8:29 a.m. and departed at 9:19 a.m., headed for Bailey’s General Store off Periwinkle Way. The vehicle arrived at Bailey’s General Store at 9:25 a.m. Mr. Overhoff made an authorized purchase of a 6-volt lantern at the store and left the store in the vehicle at 9:35 a.m. to return to The Sanibel School at 9:42 a.m. The vehicle remained at The Sanibel School until 10:29 a.m. At 10:39 a.m., the vehicle arrived at the 7-11 store off Periwinkle Way, where the vehicle remained until 11:02 a.m. From the 7-11, the vehicle traveled to Riverdale High School, where it arrived at 11:53 a.m. The vehicle remained at Riverdale High School until 1:36 p.m. The next stop was a convenience store on Palm Beach Boulevard, where the vehicle arrived at 1:42 p.m. and left at 1:46 p.m. From the convenience store, the vehicle proceeded to Edgewood Elementary School, arriving at 1:59 p.m. and leaving at 2:09 p.m. From Edgewood Elementary School, the vehicle traveled to New Directions/ALC Central, arriving at 2:16 p.m. and leaving at 2:23 p.m. The next stop was Dunbar High School, where the vehicle arrived at 2:28 a.m. and left at 2:56 p.m. The last stop was the maintenance department at Canal Street at 3:00 p.m. Mr. Overhoff stopped at a convenience store early in the morning for six minutes, at another convenience store at mid-morning for 23 minutes, and at a convenience store in the afternoon for four minutes. These stops were in transit to job locations. July 10, 2008 On July 10, 2008, vehicle M404 left the maintenance department at 8:30 a.m. and arrived at the Hess Service Station off River Road at 8:50 a.m. The vehicle remained at the Hess Service Station until 8:53 a.m., when it departed for Lee County Electric Company off Electric Lane. The vehicle arrived at the utility company at 8:56 a.m. and left at 8:59 a.m. The next stop was North Fort Myers Academy of the Arts, where the vehicle arrived at 9:06 a.m. and departed at 9:40 a.m. From North Fort Myers Academy of the Arts, the vehicle proceeded to Hector A. Cafferata, Jr., Elementary School, arrived there at 10:07 a.m. and left at 10:47 a.m. The next stop was Ida S. Baker High School, where the vehicle arrived at 11:05 a.m. and left at 11:26 a.m. At 11:29 a.m., the vehicle arrived at Gulf Middle School and left at 11:45 a.m. From Gulf Middle School, the vehicle traveled to Three Oaks Elementary School arriving at 12:41 p.m. and leaving at 1:11 p.m. The vehicle next arrived at Bonita Springs Elementary School at 1:30 a.m. The vehicle left Bonita Springs Elementary School at 1:55 p.m. and arrived at Lowe’s at Rolfes Road at 2:27 p.m. Mr. Overhoff made an authorized purchase at Lowe’s, and the vehicle left Lowe’s at 2:54 p.m. and arrived at the maintenance department at 3:04 p.m. Mr. Overhoff stopped at a convenience store for three minutes in the early morning and at the electric company for three minutes. The stop at the electric company was not an authorized stop. July 11, 2008 On July 11, 2008, vehicle M404 left the maintenance department at Canal Street at 7:34 a.m. and arrived at the 7-11 store off Lee Boulevard at 8:00 a.m. The vehicle remained at the 7-11 until 8:04 a.m., when it departed for Veteran’s Park Academy, where it arrived at 8:18 a.m. and left at 9:58 a.m. From Veteran’s Park Academy, the vehicle traveled to North Fort Myers High School, where it arrived at 10:45 a.m. and departed at 11:38 a.m. The vehicle returned to the maintenance department at Canal Street at 12:03 p.m., where it remained until 12:24 p.m. From the maintenance department, the vehicle traveled to the 7-11 store off Pondella Road, where it arrived at 12:39 p.m. and left at 12:43 p.m. From the 7-11, the vehicle traveled to Mariner High School, where it stopped at 12:57 p.m. and left at 1:28 p.m. The next stop was Riverdale High School, where the vehicle arrived at 2:07 p.m. and departed at 2:17 p.m. After leaving Riverdale High School, the vehicle went to Bank of America, arriving at 2:20 p.m. and leaving at 2:24 p.m. The vehicle left the bank and headed to Dunbar High School, where it arrived at 2:44 p.m. and left at 2:51 p.m. The last stop for the vehicle was at the maintenance department at Canal Street at 2:56 p.m. Mr. Overhoff stopped at a convenience store for four minutes in the early morning, at a convenience store for three minutes at lunch time, and at a bank in the afternoon for four minutes. The stops were in transit to job locations. The School District initiated an investigation into Mr. Overhoff’s use of a School District vehicle for personal business while on School District time. A predetermination conference was held on September 25, 2008. Mr. Overhoff appeared at the predetermination conference along with a representative of the SPALC. At the conclusion of the investigation, the School District determined that probable cause existed to impose discipline on Mr. Overhoff. On December 18, 2008, Mr. Overhoff was suspended with pay and benefits. By Petition for Termination of Employment, the superintendent for the School District recommended to the School Board that Mr. Overhoff be terminated from his employment. Mr. Overhoff requested an administrative hearing. On February 24, 2009, the School Board suspended Mr. Overhoff without pay and benefits pending the outcome of the administrative hearing. Mr. Overhoff had no prior disciplinary actions taken against him while he has been employed with the School District. Prior to the incidents at issue, Mr. Overhoff had received good performance evaluations. He is regarded by the director of maintenance for the School District as a good roofer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Mr. Overhoff violated The School Board of Lee County Policies 5.02, 5.29, 5.33, and 7.04; finding that Mr. Overhoff willfully neglected his assigned duties; suspending him from employment without pay from February 24, 2009, to September 30, 2009; and placing him on probation for one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of August, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of August, 2009.
Findings Of Fact During the 1985-86 school year Respondent Gregory Hunter Stephens was a student in the tenth grade at Miami Sunset Senior High School. On April 18, 1986, during the lunch period Respondent drove into the faculty parking lot in his Corvette with the police following closely behind. It was determined that during his lunch break Respondent had been driving his Corvette in a nearby condominium development threatening residents and throwing beer cans on the lawns. The residents had summoned the police. An Assistant Principal held a conference with Respondent's father whose response was that the police should have better things to do than to bother his son for drinking beer and driving around during his lunch break. Respondent was given a three-day suspension. On May 22, 1986, Respondent got into a fight in class, a Group III violation of the Code of Student Conduct. A conference was held with Respondent's father, and Respondent was given a ten-day suspension. Although other informal discussions were held with Respondent's father during that school year, by the end of the third grading period Respondent's grades were one "C," one "D," and 4 "Fs." His absences from his classes during the third grading period alone ranged between 2 and 13. He received only a "3" for his effort in each and every class. During the 1985-86 school year, Respondent was absent 95 days out of the 180-day school year. On March 3, 1987, an Assistant Principal observed Respondent leaving the campus during Respondent's second-period class. He stopped Respondent and gave him a warning. A few minutes later he caught Respondent again attempting to leave. Respondent's mother was contacted, and Respondent was given a "work detail detention." On April 2, 1987, a fight broke out off campus between a group of Latin students and a group of Anglo students. On the following day Respondent admitted to an Assistant Principal that he was one of the participants. All of the students involved (including Respondent) were suspended for three days for that Group III Code violation. On October 19, 1987, Respondent was nearly involved in a collision in the parking lot. Respondent got out of his car and started pushing the other driver. A fight ensued. Respondent's parents were contacted, and he was given a ten-day suspension. By the time of the October 19th incident, Respondent had already been absent 6 days that school year. Further, although the Assistant Principal had two conferences with Respondent's father during the month of October, Respondent was receiving one "C," one "D," and five "Fs" in his classes. A Child Study Team was convened, and a meeting was held on November 3, 1987. Respondent and his parents refused to attend. The Team recommended that Respondent be transferred to Douglas MacArthur Senior High School-South, based upon the October 19, 1987, incident, his failing grades during the most-recent two years, and Respondent's chronic aggressive behavior which constituted a threat to the welfare of the other students. It was determined that Respondent required assistance a normal school could not provide and that a structured environment would be more appropriate since the educators at Miami Sunset Senior High School had unsuccessfully attempted to modify Respondent's behavior by conferences between Respondent and a counselor, meetings between Respondent's parents and assistant principals, indoor suspensions, outdoor suspensions, and work detail suspensions
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered assigning Respondent Gregory Hunter Stephens to the opportunity school program at Douglas MacArthur Senior High School-South until such time as his performance reveals that he can be returned to the regular school program. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 29th day of March, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 29th day of March, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: JOSEPH A. FERNANDEZ, SUPERINTENDENT SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY 1410 NORTHEAST SECOND AVENUE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132 FRANK R. HARDER, ESQUIRE 175 FONTAINEBLEAU BOULEVARD SUITE 2A-3 MIAMI, FLORIDA 33172 LANA STEPHENS 15490 S.W. 85TH LANE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33183 MADELYN P. SCHERE, ESQUIRE ASSISTANT BOARD ATTORNEY DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1410 NORTHEAST SECOND AVENUE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132 PHYLLIS O. DOUGLAS, ESQUIRE ASSISTANT BOARD ATTORNEY DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1410 NORTHEAST SECOND AVENUE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether respondent committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Fred J. Miller, currently holds Florida teaching certificate number 150969, covering the areas of elementary education, business education and administration, which is valid through June 30, 1992. At all times material hereto, respondent was employed as a teacher at Miami Park Elementary School in the Dade County School District. In the summer of 1990, S.L., a minor female student, was in respondent's fourth grade class at Miami Park Elementary School. On one occasion during such term, respondent observed that S.L. was not doing her school work and was instead drawing, contrary to instructions he had given earlier in the day. In response, respondent grabbed the paper upon which S.L. was drawing, crumpled it up and directed S.L. to stand in the corner. S.L. then opened the top of her desk to put her books away, and while her head was under the desk top respondent pushed the top down striking the back of S.L.'s head. Such contact apparently hurt S.L., since she then began to cry, but there was no compelling proof offered at hearing from which any reasonable conclusion could be drawn regarding the severity of the blow or any injury sustained. S.B. a minor male student, was also in respondent's fourth grade class at Miami Park Elementary School during the summer of 1990. On two occasions during such term, respondent made physical contact with S.B. The first occasion arose when S.B. and the other students in the class were lined up to go to lunch. During such time, S.B. was apparently talking and whispering to other students and respondent grabbed him by the arm, above the elbow, yanked him out of the line, and made him walk on the side of the line. S.B. averred at hearing that such action hurt and embarrassed him; however, there was no compelling proof regarding the severity of any harm or the degree of any embarrassment beyond what one would reasonably expect from having been disciplined. The second occasion arose when S.B. was apparently not doing his school work and was instead drawing. In response, respondent tore up the drawing, grabbed S.B. by the ear, pulled him up from his seat, and made him stand in the corner. Again, there was no compelling proof regarding the degree of harm, if any, occasioned by such contact, and S.B. offered no testimony that such action on respondent's part caused him to suffer any embarrassment. A.S., a minor male student, was also in respondent's fourth grade class at Miami Park Elementary School during the summer of 1990. At hearing, A.S. offered testimony regarding two occasions on which respondent made physical contact with him. The first occasion arose when A.S. was talking when he should not have been, and respondent pulled him by the ear and made him stand in the corner. There was, however, no proof at hearing that such conduct harmed or embarrassed A.S. The second occasion arose when the respondent "jacked up" A.S.; a phrase used to describe respondent grabbing the front of A.S.'s shirt and pulling him up. No proof was offered regarding the circumstances which surrounded this incident, and no showing of harm or embarrassment to A.S. In addition to the foregoing incidents, S.B. and A.S. also offered testimony regarding other occasions during the summer of 1990 when respondent made physical contact with other students in their fourth grade class. In this regard, S.B. offered testimony that respondent "snatched . . . [E.W.] . . . out of line about two times and yanked his ear too." And, A.S. offered testimony that respondent also "jacked up" other students when they misbehaved in class. There was, however, no proof offered regarding the circumstances surrounding these incidents, and no showing that such students were harmed or embarrassed by respondent's conduct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that a final order be entered which finds respondent guilty of having violated the provisions of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, and thereby Section 231.28(1)(h), Florida Statutes, with regard to his conduct toward S.L.; which imposes the penalty recommended in paragraph 5 of the foregoing conclusions of law; and, which dismisses all other charges against respondent. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of February 1992. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 27th day of February 1992.
