The Issue Whether the Superintendent of Hamilton County Schools recommended that the Respondent enter into a professional services contract with the Petitioner, Gene Starr?
Findings Of Fact Gene A. Starr has been continuously employed by the School Board of Hamilton County as an agriculture teacher since the 1985-1986 school year. On March 18, 1988, the principal of Hamilton County High School recommended to the Superintendent of the Respondent that the Respondent enter into a professional service contract with Mr. Starr. At a meeting of the Respondent held on April 12, 1988, the Superintendent made recommendations to the Respondent concerning reappointment of a number of employees. The Superintendent specifically recommended that Mr. Starr receive a professional service contract. A motion was made and seconded by members of the Respondent to accept the recommendations of the Superintendent. The following events took place, as reported in the minutes of the Respondent's April 12, 1988, meeting: At the Board's request, Mr. Lauer [the Superintendent] appeared to discuss the recommendation of Gene Starr. The consensus of the Board was that the agriculture program has not progressed as per expectations, and that Mr. Starr's coaching duties conflict with his duties as an agriculture teacher. It was the opinion of some members that there should be more emphasis on crop production and harvesting and on supervision of home projects. Following the discussion of the Superintendent's recommendation concerning Mr. Starr, the Superintendent "asked for and was granted permission to withdraw his recommendation on & Mr. Starr and to resubmit another recommendation on him at a subsequent meeting." The Superintendent then "amended his recommendation to omit Mr. Starr" and the motion to accept the Superintendent's recommendations was amended to reflect this change. The Respondent then approved the Superintendent's recommendations, as amended. The Respondent did not consider whether there was "good cause" to reject the Superintendent's recommendation concerning Mr. Starr. At a May 10, 1988, meeting of the Respondent the Superintendent recommended that Mr. Starr be reappointed to an instructional position for the 1988-1989 school year and that Mr. Starr serve in the instructional position for a fourth year on annual contract instead of being granted a professional services contract. The recommendation was withdrawn on advice of counsel for the Respondent. At a May 23, 1988, meeting of the Respondent Mr. Starr and the Respondent agreed that Mr. Starr would agree to a fourth year on annual contract, "subject to and without prejudice to a formal hearing on his right to a professional services contract." Mr. Starr was informed of this action in a letter dated May 31, 1988. Mr. Starr filed a Petition for a Formal Hearing challenging the Respondent's action with regard to the Superintendent's recommendation to the Respondent that Mr. Starr receive a professional services contract. In the Petition, Mr. Starr specifically requested the following relief: That the matter be assigned to the State of Florida Division of Administrative hearings [sic] for the assignment of a hearing officer. That a formal hearing be held on this particular petition pursuant to Sec. 120.57(1), Fla. Stat. as to Petitioner's entitlement to employment under a professional services contract.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the recommendation of the Superintendent of Hamilton County Schools be accepted by the School Board of Hamilton County unless the School Board of Hamilton County concludes that there is good cause for rejecting the recommendation. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 18th day of April, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-4116 The Petitioner has submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 3-9. 3 10. 4-8 Statement of events which occurred at the formal hearing and some of the arguments advanced by the parties at the formal hearing. COPIES FURNISHED: Edwin B. Browning, Jr., Esquire Post Office Drawer 652 Madison, Florida 32340 Donald K. Rudser, Esquire Post Office Drawer 151 Jasper, Florida 32052 Owen Hinton, Superintendent Hamilton County School Board Post Office Box 1059 Jasper, Florida 32052 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue in this case is whether just cause exists to terminate Respondent's employment with Petitioner based on alleged incompetence under section 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2011),1/ as defined by Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056; and/or whether termination of employment is warranted because Respondent failed to correct performance deficiencies under section 1012.34(3).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence and testimony presented at final hearing, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Board is responsible for hiring, firing, and overseeing all employees at Bayside, Lockmar, and other schools in Brevard County. At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was an art teacher in the Brevard County school system. Respondent worked at several different schools in Brevard County, including Bayside, Lockmar, Sea Park Elementary, Endeavor Elementary, and Indialantic Elementary. He taught at Bayside from 2003 until 2010, and then was transferred to Lockmar for the 2010-2011 school year. Respondent was given an annual evaluation each year at the school where he was teaching. Annual evaluations are used for the purpose of reviewing and critiquing a teacher's performance in the classroom. An annual review determines whether the teacher is "effective," "needs improvement," or "unsatisfactory" for the school year at issue. While at Bayside, Respondent's annual evaluations were generally "effective," meaning he was teaching in a fashion deemed satisfactory by the administrators. Mr. Tuttle, the principal, considered him an effective teacher, but he did not personally perform Respondent's evaluations. The evaluation for school year 2007-2008 was somewhat restrained in nature, describing Respondent as "an effective art teacher who satisfies all teacher competencies" and that he "demonstrates an acceptable level of knowledge of the subject matter." In the 2008-2009 school year at Bayside, the new principal, Mr. Novelli, began to have doubts about Respondent's teaching abilities and also about his mental health. Several incidents were reported to Novelli concerning Respondent that made Novelli very concerned. As a result, Novelli began to keep an eye on Respondent and did more frequent "walk-throughs" of Respondent's classroom. Walk-throughs by administrators are an accepted means of gathering information about the teacher and his or her teaching practices. At the end of the 2008-2009 school year, Respondent was given an evaluation that deemed him "effective" as to his overall performance as a teacher. The evaluation describes Respondent in exactly the same words used in the prior year's evaluation form. The effective evaluation was issued despite an incident that occurred at the end of the school year, to wit: The parent of a student contacted Novelli and reported that Respondent had kept the student's art project, refusing to return it to the student. Respondent told Novelli that he kept the project because the student had failed to pay for a canvas; Novelli found that excuse to be inaccurate. The parent said Respondent had asked the female student to pose for him after school and had given the student his cell phone number. Novelli ordered Respondent to return the art project, which he did. Respondent then allegedly began asking other students if the art student was pregnant. When Novelli asked Respondent about the student, Respondent became "very hostile, very loud, very emotional, and [he] started yelling, 'I'm not a pedophile; I don't sleep with my students; I don't do drugs, you can call the American Fence Company and ask them. I've had a drug test with them.'" These unsolicited, random comments by Respondent caused Novelli even greater concern about Respondent's mental well-being. The next school year, 2009-2010, Novelli did an interim evaluation of Respondent. Interim evaluations are done when administration believes a teacher is struggling or having serious issues which impede his or her performance. The interim evaluation was done at the end of October 2009 and indicated several areas of unsatisfactory performance by Respondent, including: Planning; Instructional Organization and Development; Presentation of Subject Matter; Responsibilities; and Student Evaluation. Respondent refused to sign the evaluation form, even though a signature does not equate to acceptance of the evaluation, it simply acknowledges that the evaluation has been discussed with the teacher (which it had been). Principal Novelli observed Respondent's classroom on several occasions and found the activities going on to be inconsistent with the lesson plans for that day. Respondent explained that the words he had written on the white board (in one case, the words "Van Gogh") were his lesson plan for the day. That was not acceptable, because lesson plans should be sufficient for another teacher to utilize to teach the class in the regular teacher's absence. Some of the problems in the area of responsibilities noted in the interim evaluation were: failing to timely provide administration with a list of students who could be identified as advanced placement candidates; failing to provide acceptable contributions of his students' art work for a poster design contest; and failing to submit art work for a proposed field trip timely and appropriately. Respondent was found to have a difficult time communicating with school administrators, guidance personnel, and fellow teachers. It became abundantly clear at final hearing that Respondent would be as uncooperative and recalcitrant as possible when talking to people he did not like. His demeanor demonstrated a strong resentment of his principal and others from Bayside. In the area of student evaluations, Respondent was found to have failed to provide daily participation grades to his students, despite saying he would do so in his course outline. All of his students received an "A" grade for one nine-week period. Novelli found those grades to be inconsistent with the observations he had made in the classroom. As for instructional organization, Novelli observed no substantive instruction going on during his classroom visits. Respondent explained that students were free to stay busy working on projects discussed in prior classes, so it might appear to an outside observer that they were not being instructed. However, there was insufficient evidence produced to substantiate Respondent's position in that regard. A Professional Development Assistance Plan (PDAP) was created for each of the areas of concern set forth in the interim evaluation. PDAPs are tools used to assist struggling teachers to find a way to overcome their shortcomings and improve in the areas of concern. On January 7, 2010, Novelli met with Respondent to go over the PDAPs and discuss Respondent's progress. Respondent refused to sign the PDAP forms. Thereafter, although he was given additional time to comply with the PDAPs' requirements, Respondent failed to follow all of the recommendations set out in the plans. For example, one of the recommendations for assistance involved Respondent going to observe another art teacher in their classroom. Novelli wanted Respondent to observe an art teacher selected by the district resource teacher, but Respondent preferred to observe a teacher (Leah Andritz) with whom he already had a friendship. Novelli felt that Respondent's observing his friend teach would not be as helpful as watching someone Respondent did not know. Novelli offered Respondent paid time off to observe the school-chosen art teacher. Ultimately, Respondent went to observe Andritz on his own time, rather than accept Novelli's offer. Respondent's annual evaluation was completed on February 12, 2010. Three areas (also called "strands") were graded as unsatisfactory: Instructional Organization and Development; Presentation of Subject Matter; and Student Response. The evaluation also graded Respondent as Needs Improvement in the areas of Planning and Responsibilities. The overall evaluation was unsatisfactory. A meeting was set for February 18, 2010, to discuss the evaluation. Assistant Principal Capalbo, whom Respondent trusted, was sent to escort Respondent to Novelli's office for the meeting. On the way from Respondent's classroom to the principal's office--which took three or four times longer than usual, because Respondent was making phone calls along the way--Respondent called and spoke to his union representative. The representative then came to the meeting as well. Respondent made numerous derogatory remarks and complaints about Novelli on the way to the meeting. He said Novelli had tried to have him arrested, had vandalized his car, and had attempted to engage in sexual relations with a married teacher.3/ There is no credible evidence that any of the allegations were true, but they made Capalbo wonder if Respondent was having mental issues. At the meeting, Respondent accused Novelli of recording a prior meeting by way of a USB pen. Respondent angrily threatened to file a lawsuit against Novelli and report him to the superintendent of schools. Each of the attendees at the meeting who testified at final hearing said Respondent became very agitated and angry. The union representative (who did not testify at final hearing) was ultimately able to get Respondent under control and persuaded him to leave the meeting. No credible evidence was provided to prove the existence of a USB pen or that meetings had been recorded. Respondent again refused to sign the evaluation form. As a result of Respondent's conduct at the meeting, Novelli placed him on paid administrative leave pending a review of his mental health and fitness for duty. He was on leave for about one week and returned after undergoing a psychological evaluation. A significant dispute arose between Respondent and Novelli concerning an event known as National Portfolio Day. The event was a special opportunity for art students that allowed them to have their art reviewed and to speak with representatives from several colleges and art schools. Respondent had taken students to the event in prior years. In the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent requested permission to take a number of his students and students from other schools to the event. His request was preliminarily approved by administration, pending several details being worked out. However, the permission was ultimately withdrawn, and no students from Bayside were allowed to attend. Respondent claims that the event was a valuable tool for students and had allowed many students to obtain significant scholarships to colleges in prior years. Novelli found out that the students from other schools who were going to the event were Advanced Placement (AP) students. Bayside did not have an AP program or any AP students.4/ Novelli asked Respondent to put together portfolios for the students he wanted to attend, and Novelli would get the artwork examined by an expert to see if the students were viable candidates for the event, even if they were not technically AP students. Respondent was given a deadline to get the student art portfolios to Novelli so they could be taken to the district office by a date certain. Respondent missed the deadline. Instead, Respondent personally hand-delivered the portfolios to the district office on the day they were due. The artwork was reviewed by an art expert who deemed the work to be inadequate for inclusion in the National Portfolio Day event. She rated the art at the lowest level of a five-tiered rating system. As a result of the art expert's review, Respondent was advised that no students from Bayside would be going to the event. Notwithstanding that decision being communicated to Respondent, he continued to act as if Bayside students would still be attending. He continued making transportation arrangements and notifying students' parents of the impending event. There were several unexplained emails admitted in evidence that show some continuing dialogue about the portfolio trip. The emails addressing this issue create some confusion as to whether Bayside students would be able to attend, but ultimately none attended. At the end of the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent was transferred to Lockmar. Although he had requested a transfer from Bayside, Respondent was extremely upset about the transfer. According to Respondent, he wanted to go to another high school where his former principal, Tuttle, was now the principal. The director of Human Relations Services, however, was told by Respondent's union representative that Respondent wanted to go to an elementary school. Tuttle said that his school's position had already been filled anyway. The principal at Lockmar (Hostetler) did not know at the time of the transfer that Respondent had received an unsatisfactory performance evaluation for his last year at Bayside. When she found out, she issued a memorandum (dated August 5, 2010) informing Respondent that he was on probation for a period of 90 days. The probation status, also called performance review, is essentially the same thing as a procedure called NEAT, except that a performance review is supposed to be completed within 90 days. That is, the teacher has 90 days to show improvement in the delineated areas of concern. It is not uncommon for a teacher to be placed on performance review following an unsatisfactory annual evaluation. As part of the performance review process, Hostetler frequently went into Respondent's classroom to observe his teaching style. Her visits would last the majority of the class period. She would visit classes of different grade levels and students in order to see how Respondent handled various age groups. After approximately eight weeks of reviewing Respondent, Hostetler issued an interim evaluation. That evaluation rated Respondent unsatisfactory in four areas and needs improvement in another area. Once again, Respondent was deemed to have unsatisfactory lesson plans. His instructional organization and development was again deemed deficient, as well as his presentation of subject matter. Further, he was found to be unsatisfactory in the area of responsibilities under the professionalism strand. The overall evaluation for Respondent was unsatisfactory. The evaluation was reviewed with Respondent on October 1, 2010, but he refused to sign it. On that same date, a number of PDAPs were created to help Respondent address his deficiencies. Respondent was given until December 10, 2010, to take steps to improve in the various areas. Later, when it became clear that he would not be able to meet that deadline, the PDAPs were extended to February 18, 2011, then to March 18, 2011, and then extended again to March 23, 2011. At least one of the extensions was done because Respondent was preparing his classes for an upcoming art show. On March 23, 2011, Hostetler completed Respondent's annual evaluation. It included three unsatisfactory scores and two scores of needs improvement. The overall evaluation was unsatisfactory, his second unsatisfactory evaluation in two years. Once again, Respondent refused to sign the evaluation form. There was considerable testimony and evidence presented at the final hearing concerning Respondent's tenure at Indialantic Elementary School from 1998-2002, some ten years prior to the final hearing. In his last performance evaluation at Indialantic, Principal Strong had given Respondent an overall unsatisfactory ranking. Although Respondent's performance at a different school so many years prior to the instant allegations may not be dispositive of anything in this case, it is noted that Respondent's administrators at that time had many of the same concerns as those raised by Novelli and Hostetler years later. Besides the on-going issues with less than satisfactory performance ratings, Hostetler had other concerns about Respondent as well. One issue had to do with Respondent sending children outside the classroom and instructing them to "look for dinosaurs." His intention was to keep the children from disrupting the class by their bad behavior. The instruction to look for dinosaurs was just a way of making the student sit and contemplate their behavior. Respondent claims to have learned the technique during training he took through a program called Sun Coast Area Teacher Training. Respondent maintains that he kept visual surveillance of the children when they were outside; the teacher in the adjoining classroom said he could not really do that and maintain contact with his other students. Nonetheless, it does appear that the children were belittled by their peers when they were sent outside to look for dinosaurs. Lockmar had been asked to take part in a contest sponsored by the local police department. Students were to draw pictures within certain parameters that would allow the pictures, if chosen, to be converted to magnets or other items. Respondent was supposed to have the children draw pictures related to a theme of policemen as peace keepers, then select appropriate pictures to submit for consideration by the judges of the contest. Respondent did have his children make drawings, but almost all of them failed to meet the stated size and content parameters. He then asked personnel in the front office to voice their opinion as to which drawings he should submit. Feeling uncomfortable making a decision such as that, the staff handed the drawings over to Hostetler. She ultimately found only three or four worthy of submission for the contest. Hostetler received complaints from other teachers that their students were not ready to leave the art classroom in a timely fashion. They complained that Respondent did not have them ready to go when the art period ended. Hostetler issued a memorandum to Respondent about addressing that issue appropriately. During the period of time Respondent was under performance review and addressing the PDAPs, he was assigned a peer mentor teacher, John Hays, to assist him deal with deficiencies. Hays worked with Respondent from September 2010 through May 2011, including approximately 15 on-site visits to the classroom and one visit with Respondent to another school's art classroom. Respondent made a few improvements during the time Hays worked with him, including upgrading the kiln, putting student drawings in the front office, and becoming more cooperative with others. However, Hays found that the classroom, as managed by Respondent, was not conducive to learning. The lesson plans did not comport with what was going on in the classroom, even though Respondent usually had an explanation for that, e.g., a special project was coming up and students needed to pay more attention to it than to what the lesson plan described. Hays seemed to doubt whether Respondent's reasons or explanations were entirely truthful. All in all, Hays did not see significant improvement by Respondent in most of the problem areas that were being addressed.5/ When Respondent left Lockmar, he was given the opportunity to retrieve all his personal property. At the beginning of the next school year, the new teacher in the art room discovered several pictures belonging to Respondent in the pod (office area) adjacent to the classroom. Some of the pictures were somewhat disturbing to the new teacher, so she turned them over to her principal, who turned them over to the School Board security office. The pictures depicted a person who looked much like Respondent and contained words and images that were not appropriate for elementary school-aged children (and possibly not even high school-aged children). Respondent testified that some of his high school students had made the drawings, but he would not say that the pictures were supposed to depict him (despite one being labeled "The Mighty O." Respondent was often referred to by students and teachers as "O.") Respondent admitted that the drawings were not appropriate for viewing by young children. There is, however, no evidence that any elementary school children ever saw or had access to the pictures. Respondent made some extremely unusual allegations about his prior principals, Strong and Novelli. He said Strong was responsible for Respondent's girlfriend having a miscarriage, that Strong had intentionally caused that to happen, and that he was afraid Strong may do the same thing to someone else. He said Strong had tried to poison him by placing contaminated mulch around his portable classroom building. He said Novelli had caused him to be arrested by sabotaging Respondent's car so that he would be pulled over by police and illegally searched. He made the allegation about Novelli secretly recording meetings. He alleged that Novelli was involved in either killing or damaging the careers of teachers he did not like. Respondent requested leave to pursue a doctorate degree, but the leave was denied. Immediately thereafter, Respondent re-filed his leave request, citing medical issues. He said he used the leave to, in part, pursue his doctorate, but did not adequately explain the suspicious request for medical leave. The leave request was supported by a note from a chiropractor indicating Respondent had back problems. The note did not verify Respondent's allegation that Strong was poisoning him at Indialantic (a claim raised in Respondent's deposition and final hearing testimony). There was no credible evidence to support the various claims Respondent made against his administrators, leaving the impression that the allegations are baseless. However, there was no direct showing by the School Board as to how these incredible stories directly affected Respondent's capabilities as a teacher. Respondent showed that he could be evasive and obstinate concerning the admission of even the least significant facts. He seemed reluctant to engage in conversation that was not full of innuendo, suggestion, or intrigue. For example, when asked whether he really believed his principal would vandalize his car (as Respondent had alleged), Respondent answered, "Because other teachers in the district, you know the Greek mythology Cassandra, how Cassandra would foretell the future? Other teachers in the district, as the Greek mythologist Cassandra, would forewarn me of Mr. Novelli's prior actions." When asked repeatedly if he believed another principal was interfering with his purchase of a building, Respondent replied, "I was very cautious with the information." When asked what that meant, he said, "It was worth investigating and finding out more." When asked if Principal Strong was responsible for Respondent's girlfriend losing her baby, he responded, "My answer to that is it's an unfortunate situation" and "I have a child that I wish was born and because of the politics, it is not here." Other than Tuttle's restrained endorsement of Respondent, no fellow teachers or administrators were presented to prove or suggest that Respondent could work well with others. Hays said Respondent was cordial to him, but he was not a co-worker or administrator. Respondent seems to be very eager to assist his students as they prepare for life after grade school. He seems to enjoy teaching and wants to return to the classroom. At least two parents of his former high school students endorsed Respondent as an important reason for their child's success. Respondent said he had helped some students obtain scholarships to assist with their college education, although there was no substantive proof of that fact. In his written response to the 2009-2010 evaluation, Respondent stated he would "produce over $300,000 . . . in independent scholarships for [his] students." Although he testified several times about the scholarships he could generate for his students, there was no credible evidence to support his assertion. (The response to his evaluation was well written and rational. It was not comparable to Respondent's way of orally expressing himself, at least as evidenced by his testimony at the final hearing.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Brevard County School Board, terminating the employment of Respondent, Mark Ostermeier, for just cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of June, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of June, 2012.
The Issue Whether the Board refused to re-employ Ms. Smith as a teacher's aide for the 1985-1986 school year in retaliation for a Complaint that she filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations in January, 1983?
Findings Of Fact Ms. Smith is a graduate of a high school in the Gadsden County School system. Ms. Smith successfully completed a business education course at Gadsden Vo-Tech after receiving her high school diploma. Ms. Smith was rated qualified to work as a teacher's aide in the Gadsden County School system by the Central Administration office in 1982 and in 1984. Ms. Smith was employed as a teacher's aide at Gretna Elementary School (hereinafter referred to as "Gretna") during the 1982-1983 school year. She began her employment at Gretna in October, 1982. Ms. Smith's immediate supervisor at Gretna during the first month of her employment was the Principal, Mr. Witt Campbell. Mr. Campbell left Gretna in November, 1982. For the remainder of the 1982-1983 school year, Ms. Smith's immediate supervisor was Rosa Barkley, who replaced Mr. Witt as Principal. Ms. Smith was pregnant during the 1982-1983 school year. On January 24, 1983, Ms. Smith became ill because of her pregnancy and had to go to the hospital. Ms. Smith did not return to Gretna during the remainder of the school year. On March 14, 1983, Ms. Barkley went to visit with Ms. Smith at her home. Ms. Smith told Ms. Barkley that she would return to work approximately two weeks after her baby was born. This meant that Ms. Smith would return after the start of the 1983-1984 school year. Ms. Barkley helped Ms. Smith request a leave of absence. This leave of absence was approved by the Board on March 29, 1983. In March, 1983, Ms. Barkley gave Ms. Smith a satisfactory rating on a Gadsden County Non-instructional Personnel Assessment form which was filed with the Board. Ms. Barkley gave Ms. Smith the benefit of the doubt in completing this form because Ms. Smith had been under Ms. Barkley's supervision only from November, 1982 to January, 1983. Ms. Barkley also recommended to the Superintendent that Ms. Smith be re-employed for the 1983-1984 school year. By letter dated June 17, 1983, Ms. Barkley asked the Superintendent to terminate Ms. Smith. Ms. Barkley made this request because she wanted to have an aide that would start the school year in August, 1983 and not in November, 1983, when Ms. Smith planned to return. Ms. Barkley indicated in the letter that Ms. Smith had been absent because of her pregnancy. The Superintendent, Mr. Bishop, decided to grant Ms. Barkley's request. The decision to terminate Ms. Smith was made by the Board and not by Ms. Barkley. Although the Superintendent generally relies heavily on the recommendation of a principal, the decision to terminate Ms. Smith was that of the Board. The Board, based upon the information it was provided, should have told Ms. Barkley, that a leave of absence, and not termination, was the proper remedy to Ms. Barkley's problem. By letter dated July 27, 1983, Ms. Smith was terminated by the Board. Ms. Smith filed a Complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations on January 19, 1984, alleging sex discrimination against Ms. Barkley. Upon the filing of the Complaint the Board investigated and decided that Ms. Smith should be rehired. The Board realized that it had caused the problem and not Ms. Barkley. Ms. Smith was offered the first teacher's aide position available. The position was at Chattahoochee Elementary School (hereinafter referred to as "Chattahoochee"). Ms. Smith accepted the position and began work at Chattahoochee in March, 1984. Ms. Smith worked with fourth grade Chapter 1 children (children who have been disadvantaged with regard to their educational opportunities). Ms. Martha Downs was her teacher. While at Chattahoochee, Ms. Smith had difficulty performing her duties as a teacher's aide. Her primary area of deficiency was in math. Mr. Corbin Scott, the Principal at Chattahoochee, attempted to help Ms. Smith by having Ms. Ella Ponder, a helping teacher, assist her. Although it was alleged that Ms. Smith was required to take a Criteria Reference Test normally taken by fourth graders, the evidence failed to support this allegation. Based upon Ms. Smith's poor performance, Mr. Corbin did not recommend that Ms. Smith be returned to Chattahoochee for the next school year. Although Ms. Smith admitted that she has some problems with math she failed to accept the fact that she was not adequately performing her duties as a teacher's aide. Instead, she believed that Mr. Corbin expected her to "teach" and that he was unfair when he did not recommend her continued employment at Chattahoochee for the next school year. Ms. Smith believed that the Complaint that she filed in January, 1984, affected the way that she was treated at Chattahoochee. This unfounded belief affected Ms. Smith's attitude while at Chattahoochee and later. The Board decided that the period of time that Ms. Smith was employed at Chattahoochee (March, 1984 to June, 1984) was too short. Therefore, in an effort to be fair with Ms. Smith and to settle the dispute with Ms. Smith, the Board decided to place Ms. Smith in another teacher's aide position for the 1984- 1985 school year. During the Summer of 1984, Ms. Smith and the Board settled the Complaint which Ms. Smith had filed in January, 1984. Pursuant to this settlement, Ms. Smith dismissed her Complaint for back-pay and her re-employment at Gretna. Ms. Smith was employed at Gretna during the 1984- 1985 school year as a teacher's aide pursuant to the settlement. Ms. Barkley, Ms. Smith's immediate supervisor at Gretna, was not consulted before the Board decided to return Ms. Smith to Gretna. Principals of schools are not consulted by the Board before employees are assigned to their schools. Although Ms. Smith agreed to return to Gretna as part of the settlement of her Complaint against the Board, she believed that Ms. Barkley would not treat her properly. This belief, which was unfounded, affected Ms. Smith's attitude toward Ms. Barkley and her job during the 1984-1985 school year. Ms. Smith was assigned to assist two teachers for most of the 1984- 1985 school year at Gretna: Ms. Corine D. Palmer and Ms. Charlotte Price. Neither Ms. Palmer nor Ms. Price talked to Ms. Smith about problems which they perceived in Ms. Smith's performance. Ms. Price's attitude was that she was there to teach students and, therefore, she did not want to be bothered with Ms. Smith. Ms. Palmer's attitude was to work around Ms. Smith; she gave up trying to use Ms. Smith effectively because of Ms. Smith's lack of effort. Both ladies essentially stuck their heads in the sand and ignored the problem since neither of them were responsible for evaluating Ms. Smith. Employees at Gretna were required to sign in and sign out on a sheet provided for them at the administrative office of the school. During the school year Ms. Smith was late arriving at school a total of fifteen times. Most of those times she was late more than a few minutes. She was late seven times during 1984 and eight times in 1985. At least three other teachers' aides (Inez Morris, Ida Miller and Mary Wright) were late to school more often than Ms. Smith. While Ms. Smith received an unsatisfactory rating for punctuality for the school year, the other three aides received a satisfactory rating. Many of the times that the other three aides were late, they were late only a few minutes. When they were late more than a few minutes, they notified Ms. Barkley or someone else at Gretna that they would be late, and indicated why. Ms. Smith, on the other hand, did not always notify Ms. Barkley or anyone else that she would be late, or indicate why she was late until she was asked. During the first week of the 1984-1985 school year (August 20-24, 1984), Ms. Smith was late three times. Ms. Smith rode to school with another employee who was late getting to school. On August 27, 1984, Ms. Barkley discussed Ms. Smith's lateness with her and gave her a letter indicating that she was expected to be at school at 8:05 a.m. Ms. Smith was late once during each of the next three weeks. She corrected the problem, however, by arranging to ride with someone else. After the week of September 10-14, 1984, Ms. Smith was late only one other time during 1984. During 1985, Ms. Smith was late at least once a week during seven of the eleven weeks ending March 15, 1985. In addition to being late reporting to school, Ms. Smith was late going to her assigned classroom after arriving at school and after lunch. Ms. Smith was required to be in her morning class no later than 8:15 a.m. Her lateness was reported by Ms. Palmer and Ms. Price and was also noted by Ms. Barkley. Ms. Smith was in the employee lounge on many occasions when she should have been in a class. On October 15, 1984, Ms. Barkley spoke with all of the aides about being in the lounge in the morning when they should be in their classes. Despite Ms. Barkley's comments, that afternoon Ms. Smith was in the lounge when she should not have been, and she continued to be late to her assigned classroom in the mornings. Ms. Palmer and Ms. Price told Ms. Barkley that Ms. Smith was late to class. Both of them tended to do without her and to avoid any effort to try to correct the problem. On February 15, 1985, Ms. Barkley gave Ms. Smith a letter that indicated that Ms. Smith was in the lounge when she was not supposed to be. A similar letter was given to Ida Miller and Dorothy Smith. Ms. Miller and Ms. Dorothy Smith corrected the problem. Ms. Smith did not. Ms. Barkley rated Ms. Smith's attendance as "unsatisfactory". This rating was not based upon the number of days that she was absent. It was based upon the number of times that Ms. Smith was not in her assigned classroom. Ms. Barkley kept a notebook in which she noted the dates of some events involving employees' actions. She has kept these notes since she became a principal. Most of the notes concerning Ms. Smith did not give the reason for absences or lateness. Ms. Smith did not, however, always report the reason for her lateness. Most of the observations involved lateness and absences. The notes concerning Ms. Smith were provided to the Board because she was requested to provide any documentation concerning Ms. Smith. She did not know where her other notes were. Ms. Barkley noted the conference she had with Ms. Smith on August 27, 1984. In this note, she referred to Ms. Smith as "Ms. Attitude." This notation and a later notation that Ms. Smith was in the lounge one day "chomping" show a lack of judgment by Ms. Barkley in the manner that Ms. Barkley referred to Ms. Smith. This lack of judgment is not sufficient, however, to prove that Ms. Barkley terminated Ms. Smith at the end of the 1984-1985 school year in retaliation for the Complaint filed by Ms. Smith in 1983. Ms. Barkley's explanation for these notations is rejected. Ms. Barkley talked to teachers and other aides about Ms. Smith. Ms. Barkley did not, however, limit her inquiries to Ms. Smith. Ms. Barkley was responsible for the supervision of all of the employees at Gretna. She was very active in managing her school. She observed her employees in the halls of the school, in the lounge and in the classroom. She did not single out Ms. Smith. Ms. Barkley asked teachers and other aides about all employees and she checked up on all her employees. Ms. Smith was observed in class by Ms. Barkley. Ms. Smith was seen giving wrong answers and performing sloppy work. When Ms. Barkley talked to Ms. Smith about some of her problems, Ms. Smith's attitude was defensive. She did not believe that she had any problems and believed that Ms. Barkley was being unfair to her. She therefore did not indicate that she agreed with Ms. Barkley or that she would make any efforts to correct her problems when Ms. Barkley spoke to her about her problems. Ms. Price indicated that Ms. Smith had evidenced a poor attitude about her performance with her also. On March 15, 1985, Ms. Barkley met with Ms. Smith and informed her that she would not be recommended for employment during the 1985-1986 school year. Ms. Barkley sent a letter to the Board dated March 15, 1985, recommending that Ms. Smith not be re-employed during the 1985-1986 school year. Ms. Barkley also rated Ms. Smith "unsatisfactory" on five characteristics listed on a Gadsden County Non-instructional Personnel Assessment form dated March 8, 1985. This form was signed by Ms. Smith on March 15, 1985. Ms. Smith was given an unsatisfactory rating for utilization of time, compliance with school and district policies, attendance, punctuality and leadership. This evaluation was similar to the evaluation given Ms. Smith by Mr. Corbin. Ms. Barkley, Ms. Price and Ms. Palmer were given a Personal Reference Form for Teacher Aide Applicants by Ms. Smith. Ms. Smith told Ms. Price and Ms. Palmer that the forms were going to be used by her to apply for a job outside of its school system. Although both teachers had misgivings about Ms. Smith's ability and did not want her back as a teacher's aide, they both liked her personally and wanted to help her find a job. They also wanted to avoid any conflict with Ms. Smith. Therefore, even though they should have known better, they completed the forms giving Ms. Smith affair rating and indicating that they would employ her as a teacher's aide. Ms. Barkley completed the form given to her by Ms. Smith on April 30, 1985. She gave her a poor rating and indicated that she would not employ her as a teacher's aide. Ms. Barkley had completed a Gadsden County Non-instructional Personnel Assessment form when Ms. Smith left Gretna in 1983. Ms. Barkley gave Ms. Smith a favorable evaluation. She did so, however, because Ms. Smith had only worked at Gretna during the 1982-1983 school year for approximately four months and Ms. Barkley had only been there during three of those months. Therefore, Ms. Barkley did not believe it would be fair to give Ms. Smith an unfavorable evaluation. The Board did not refuse to re-employ Ms. Smith for the 1985-1986 school year in retaliation for any dispute between Ms. Smith and Ms. Barkley or any other person. Ms. Smith was not re-employed because she lacked the necessary job skills to work as a teacher's aide and had failed to perform adequately. On or about July 15, 1985, Ms. Smith filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations alleging that the Board had discriminated against her on the basis of retaliation. The Executive Director of the Florida Commission on Human Relations issued a "Determination: No Cause" on May 12, 1987. Ms. Smith filed a Petition for Rehearing. On or about July 13, 1987, the Executive Director entered a "Redetermination: No Cause." Ms. Smith filed a Petition for Relief. The Florida Commission on Human Relations forwarded the Petition the Division of Administrative Hearings by order dated August 18, 1987.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Ms. Smith's Petition for Relief be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of March, 1988. APPENDIX The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 2. 3 Irrelevant. 4-5 3. 6-7 22. 8 4. 9 23. 10 5. 11 12. The date of termination was July 27, 1983. 12 10. 13-14 13. 15 20-22. 16 10. 17 8. 18 9. 19 22. 20 23. 21 11. The evidence failed to prove that the Board acted solely on the recommendation of Ms. Barkley. 22 25. 23 26. 24 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 25-26 27. 27 28. 28 While Ms. Smith may have corrected the "ride problem" she continued to be late during the 1984-1985 school year. 29-31 27. 32-33 33. 34-36 Although these proposed findings of fact are correct they are irrelevant. 37 41. 38-39 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 40 Irrelevant and not supported by the weight of the evidence. 41 35. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Irrelevant. 44 35. 45-46 36. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Although it is true that Ms. Smith did improve her punctuality arriving at Gretna during 1984 she failed to continue to arrive on time during the rest of the school year. See 28. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 45. 2 21. 3 10 and 11. 4 14. 5 16. 6 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 16. 7 16-18. 8 20 and 22. 9-10 37. 11 41. 12 42. 13 28 and 33. 14 28-29 and 33. 15 45. COPIES FURNISHED TO: EDWARD J. GRUNEWALD, ESQUIRE LEGAL SERVICES OF NORTH FLORIDA, INC. 400 NORTH MADISON STREET QUINCY, FLORIDA 32351 CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON, ESQUIRE 211 EAST JEFFERSON STREET QUINCY, FLORIDA 32351 DONALD A. GRIFFIN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 325 JOHN KNOX ROAD BUILDING F, SUITE 240 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1925 DANA BAIRD GENERAL COUNSEL 325 JOHN KNOX ROAD BUILDING F, SUITE 240 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1925
The Issue Did Respondent Siebelts commit the offenses set forth in the petition for dismissal (Case No. 88-4697) and the amended administrative complaint (Case No. 89-0189) filed against her? If so, what discipline should she receive?
Findings Of Fact Based on the record evidence, the Hearing Officer makes the following Findings of Fact: Karen Siebelts has held a State of Florida teaching certificate since 1976. Her current certificate was issued May 1, 1986, and covers the areas of elementary education, elementary and secondary reading, and secondary social studies and psychology. For the past thirteen years Siebelts has been employed by the School Board of Broward County as a classroom teacher. During the early stages of her employment, she taught at Melrose Park Middle School. She then moved to Perry Middle School, where she taught a class of emotionally disturbed sixth graders. Her performance at these two schools was rated as acceptable. In November, 1979, Siebelts was assigned to teach at Charles Drew Elementary School, a neighborhood school located in the predominantly black Collier city area of Pompano Beach. The charges lodged against Siebelts are based on specific acts she allegedly committed while she was a Chapter I Reading/Math and Computer teacher at Charles Drew providing remedial instruction to students whose test scores reflected a need for such special assistance. On January 22, 1985, while seated with her fifth grade students at a table during a reading lesson, Siebelts inadvertently kicked one of the students in the shin. The incident occurred as Siebelts was moving her legs to a more comfortable position. The force involved was minimal and produced no visible injuries. The student immediately demanded an apology from Siebelts. Siebelts responded to this demand with silence. She neither apologized nor said anything to suggest that she had intended to kick the student. Earlier in the lesson, Siebelts had directed the student to stop talking. The student had defied the directive and continued to talk. It was not until approximately three minutes after the student's initial defiance of the directive, however, that the kicking incident occurred. Nonetheless, the student suspected that Siebelts had intentionally kicked her because of her failure to obey Siebelts' order that she not talk. When the student came home from school that day she told her mother that Siebelts had intentionally kicked her during class. The mother immediately reported the incident to the principal of the school, Hubert Lee. The matter was referred to the School Board's Internal Affairs Unit for investigation. The requested investigation was conducted. Following the completion of the investigation, a written report of the investigator's findings was submitted to the administration. No further action was taken regarding this incident until approximately three and a half years later when the instant petition for dismissal was issued. Siebelts was annoyed when she learned that the student and her mother had accused her of wrongdoing in connection with the January 22, 1985, kicking incident. On February 19, 1985, she expressed her annoyance in front of her fifth grade class and in their presence threatened to take legal action against those students and parents who had made libelous or slanderous statements about her or had otherwise verbally abused her. She told the students that they and their parents would be subpoenaed to court and if they did not appear they would be incarcerated. The principal of the school was informed of these remarks shortly after they were made, but it was not until the instant petition for dismissal was issued on August 22, 1988, that Siebelts was first formally charged with having made the remarks. Before coming to work on January 28 1986, Siebelts took a codeine pain medication that her physician had prescribed. When classes started that morning she was still under the influence of the medication. She was listless and drowsy. Her speech was slurred and she appeared incoherent at times. She also had difficulty maintaining her balance when she walked. Because Siebelts had been taking this medication "on and off" since 1979, she had been aware of these potential side effects of the medication when ingesting it on this particular occasion. A teacher's aide in Siebelts' classroom concerned about Siebelts' condition summoned the principal, Hubert Lee, to the classroom. When he arrived, Lee observed Siebelts seated at her desk. She was just staring and seemed "to be almost falling asleep." The students were out of control. They were laughing and making fun of Siebelts. After questioning Siebelts and receiving an answer that was not at all responsive to the question he had asked, Lee instructed Siebelts to come to his office. Siebelts complied, displaying an unsteady gait as she walked to Lee's office. In Lee's office, Siebelts insisted that she was fine, but conceded that she was "on" prescribed pain medication. Throughout their conversation, Siebelts continued to slur her words and it was difficult for Lee to understand her. Pursuant to Lee's request, Dr. Lorette David, Lee's immediate supervisor, and Nat Stokes, a School Board investigator, came to Lee's office to observe and assess Siebelts' condition. A determination was thereafter made that Siebelts was not capable of performing her instructional duties that day, which was an accurate assessment. She therefore was sent home for the day. Because of her impaired condition, rather than driving herself home, she was driven to her residence by Dr. David. Although she believed that she was not suffering from any impairment, Siebelts did not protest the decision to relieve her of her duties because she felt that any such protest would have fallen on deaf ears. Following this incident, Siebelts was issued a letter of reprimand by Lee. She also was referred to the School Board's Employee Assistance Program because it was felt that she might have a substance abuse problem. Siebelts agreed to participate in the program and received counselling. At no time subsequent to January 28, 1986, did Siebelts report to work under the influence of her pain medication or any other drug. During the 1987-1988 school year, Siebelts and two other Chapter I teachers, Rosa Moses and Mary Cooper, occupied space in Charles Drew's Chapter I reading and math laboratory. Their classrooms were located in the same large room and were separated by makeshift partitions. Siebelts is white. Moses and Cooper, as well as the aides who were assigned to the laboratory during that school year, are black. In October, 1987, Moses complained to Principal Lee that Siebelts was not teaching her students, but rather was constantly engaging in loud verbal confrontations with them that disrupted Moses' lessons. Lee had received similar complaints about Siebelts from others. He therefore asked Moses to advise him in writing of any future classroom misconduct on Siebelts' part. Siebelts continued to engage in conduct in her classroom which Moses deemed inappropriate and disruptive. On November 4, 1987, for the last five minutes of one of her classes, she loudly exchanged verbal barbs with her students. Her yelling made it difficult for Moses and Cooper to teach their lessons. On November 5, 1987, throughout an entire 45-minute class period, Siebelts was embroiled in a verbal battle with a student during which she made derogatory remarks about the student's size. She called the student "fat" and told her that she "shake[d] like jelly." The student, in turn, called Siebelts "fruity" and likened her to a "scarecrow." On that same day during a later class period, Siebelts took a student by the arm and, following a tussle with the student, placed him in his seat. Thereafter, she made belittling remarks to the other students in the class. She said that they were "stupid" and "belonged in a freak show." She also referred to them as "imbeciles." Siebelts further told her students that their "mothers eat dog food." On November 25, 1987, Siebelts commented to the students in one of her classes that they would be able to move around the classroom with greater ease if they were not so fat. As she had been asked to do, Moses provided Lee with a written account of these November, 1987, encounters between Siebelts and her students, but Lee did not take any immediate action to initiate disciplinary action against Siebelts. Although she did not so indicate in her report, Moses believed that the unflattering remarks that Siebelts had made to the students on these occasions constituted racial slurs inasmuch as all of the students to whom the remarks had been addressed were black and in addressing these remarks to the students as a group she had referred to them as "you people." Moses thought that "you people" had meant black people in general, whereas Siebelts had intended the phrase to refer to just the students in the classroom. At no time during any of these reported incidents did Siebelts make specific reference to the students' race, nor did she specifically attack black people in general. The target of her demeaning and insulting remarks were those of her students whose unruly and disrespectful behavior she was unable to control. Her efforts to maintain discipline and promote learning in the classroom had failed. She had become frustrated with the situation and verbally lashed out at her students. Unfortunately, these outbursts only served to further reduce her effectiveness as a teacher. On March 1, 1988, Siebelts was involved in an incident similar to the one which had occurred more than three years earlier on January 22, 1985. As on the prior occasion, Siebelts was sitting at a classroom table with her students. Her legs were crossed. When she repositioned her legs, her foot inadvertently came in contact with the top of the head of a student who was crawling under the table to retrieve a pencil the student had dropped. The student had been told by Siebelts not to go under the table but had disobeyed the instruction. She had been under the table for approximately a minute and a half before being struck by Siebelts foot. The blow to the student's head was a light one and produced only a slight bump. Nonetheless, after getting up from under the table, the student, a brash fourth grader who had had confrontations with Siebelts in the past, threatened to physically retaliate against Siebelts. Siebelts did not say anything to the student and the class ended without the student following through on her threat. Following this incident, Siebelts telephoned the student's mother at home to discuss the student's classroom behavior. The call was placed sometime before 9:00 p.m. The conversation between Siebelts and the mother soon degenerated into an argument. They terminated the discussion without settling their differences. Lee subsequently met with the mother. He suggested that a meeting with Siebelts at the school be arranged. The mother indicated to Lee that she would not attend such a meeting unless school security was present. She explained that she was so angry at Siebelts that she was afraid that she would lose her composure and physically attack Siebelts if they were in the same room together.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission issue a final order suspending Karen Siebelts' teaching certificate for two years and that the School Board of Broward County issue a final order suspending Siebelts until the reinstatement of her teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of June, 1989. STUART M. LERNER 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 29th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NOS. 88-4687 AND 89-0189 The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties: Commisioner of Education's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted and incorporated in substance in the Findings of Fact portion of this Recommended Order. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Siebelts was not charged with having made threatening remarks the day after the January 22, 1985, kicking incident. These threats were allegedly made, according to the charging documents, on February 19, 1985. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Insofar as it asserts that Siebelts engaged in name-calling on dates other than those specfied in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint otherwise, it is accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Furthermore, the witness whose testimony is recited in this proposed finding later clarified her testimony and conceded that Siebelts did not use the precise words quoted in this proposed finding. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence to the extent that it suggests that Siebelts made "racial comments" on the dates specified in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint. Insofar as it states that such comments were made on other occasions, it is rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. According to the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint, Siebelts threatened her students with legal action on February 19, 1985. This proposed finding, however, relates to alleged threats of legal action made by Siebelts during the 1987-1988 school year. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Siebelts' Proposed Findings of Fact First unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; sixth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Second unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Accepted and :incorporated in substance; sixth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; ninth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Third unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as subordinate; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as unnecessary; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; sixth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; ninth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Fourth unnumbered paragraph: Rejected as more in the nature of a statement of opposing parties' position than a finding of fact; second sentence: Rejected as subordinate; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; sixth sentence: Rejected as subordinate; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Fifth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; sixth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; seventh sentence: Rejected as subordinate; eighth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; ninth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; tenth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; eleventh sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; twelfth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Sixth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; sixth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Seventh unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony (The exculpatory testimony of Siebelts which is summarized in the first three sentences of this paragraph has not been credited because it is contrary to the more credible testimony of other witnesses) fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Eighth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; third sentence: Rejected as subordinate; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Rejected as subordinate; sixth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Rejected as subordinate; ninth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Ninth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Tenth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Superintendent of School's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted and incorporated in substance, except for the fourth sentence, which has been rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted and incorporated in substance except to the extent that it asserts that Siebelts "advised the students that they and their parents would be placed in jail because of the lies and the slander." The preponderance of the evidence reveals that she actually told them that they and their parents would be incarcerated if they did not appear in court when summoned. First sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Rejected as subordinate. Accepted and incorporated in substance. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Second and third sentences: Rejected as more in the nature of argument concerning relatively insignificant matters than findings of fact addressing necessary and vital issues. Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent that it suggests that Siebelts had alcohol on her breath. Any such suggestion has been rejected because it is contrary to the testimony of Investigator Stokes. Stokes, who has been employed by the School Board as an investigator for the past 20 years, testified that he was standing one or two feet away from Siebelts and did not detect the odor of alcohol on her breath. In view of his experience regarding the investigation of these matters, his testimony has been credited. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Accepted and incorporated in substance. To the extent that this proposed finding states that Siebelts made inappropriate remarks regarding the students' clothing or other matters on dates other than those specified in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint, it has been rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Insofar as it asserts that Siebelts made derogatory remarks about black people in general on the dates specified in these charging documents, it has been rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. To the extent that this proposed finding indicates that Siebelts otherwise insulted the students in her class on the dates specified in the charging documents, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. The "disparaging remarks" which are the subject of this proposed finding were purportedly made during the 1984-1985 school year. The "disparaging remarks" referenced in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint were allegedly made, according to these charging documents, during the 1987-1988 school year, more specifically, on November 4, 5, and 25, 1987. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. The "critical" remarks referred to in this proposed finding were allegedly made prior to the 1987-1988 school year. First sentence: Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial to the extent it references reactions to "disparaging" and "critical" remarks that were purportedly made prior to the 1987-1988 school year. Otherwise, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of the testimony of Siebelts' former students and colleagues rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent that it reflects that Moses actively monitored Siebelts classroom conduct "through December of 1987." The preponderance of the evidence establishes that such active monitoring actually ceased November 25, 1987; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent it indicates that Noses heard Siebelts tell her students that they "were dirty and needed baths." This comment was purportedly overheard, not by Moses, but by Margaret Cameron, a teacher's aide who had left Charles Drew prior to the commencement of the 1987- 1988 school year; fourth and fifth sentences: Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. These proposed findings are based on Cameron's testimony regarding offensive comments she had allegedly overheard while an aide in Siebelts' classroom. These pre-1987-1988 school year comments, however, are not mentioned in either the petition for dismissal or the amended administrative complaint. First sentence: As this proposed finding correctly points out, Siebelts' insulting comments only served to heighten the students' hostility and anger toward her. There is no persuasive competent substantial evidence, though, to support the further finding that these comments "resulted in several physical altercations between the students;" second sentence: Rejected inasmuch as there no persuasive competent substantial evidence that there was any "heated verbal exchange" on November 5, 1987, between Siebelts and the student which preceded their "altercation." The preponderance of the evidence establishes that the verbal battle with her students occurred immediately after this incident; third sentence: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Although she may used physical force during her encounter with this student, it is unlikely that she actually "tossed" him into his seat. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected inasmuch as there is no persuasive competent substantial evidence to support a finding that Siebelts telephoned the student's mother as a result of the incident near the air-conditioner. The preponderance of the evidence does establish that Siebelts did telephone the mother on a subsequent occasion, but there is no indication that Siebelts threatened the mother or otherwise acted inappropriately during this telephone conversation. Although the mother asked to have security personnel present during a parent-teacher conference with Siebelts, the preponderance of the evidence reveals that this request was not the product of any threats that Siebelts had made against the mother. First sentence: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Siebelts' testimony that the contact was unintentional is plausible and has been credited. The circumstantial evidence presented by Petitioners (including evidence of prior confrontations between Siebelts and the student) raises some questions regarding the veracity of Siebelts' testimony on this point, but such evidence is not sufficiently compelling to warrant the discrediting this testimony. Given her penchant for verbalizing to her students her thoughts about them, had Siebelts intended to kick the student as a disciplinary measure, she undoubtedly would have made this known to the student, rather than remain silent as she did; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent that it suggests that immediately after kicking the student, Siebelts had a "smirk on her face." To this limited extent, this proposed finding is not supported by any persuasive competent substantial evidence; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. First sentence: Rejected as not supported by any persuasive competent substantial evidence; second, third, fourth and fifth sentences: Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. To the extent that this proposed finding suggests that Siebelts' behavior at school on January 28, 1986, and her verbal attack of her students on November 4, 5, and 25, 198', reduced her effectiveness as a teacher, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. Insofar as it indicates that other conduct in which she engaged resulted in a reduction or loss of effectiveness, it has been rejected as either contrary to the greater weight of the evidence (other conduct specified in charging documents) or beyond the scope of the charges (other conduct not specified in charging documents). COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Whitelock, Esquire 1311 S.E. 2nd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Edward J. Marko, Esquire Suite 322, Bayview Building 4,1040 Bayview Drive Post Office Box 4369 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33338 Virgil L. Morgan, Superintendent Broward County School Board 1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Thomas P. Johnson, Ed.D. Associate Superintendent Human Resources Broward County School Board 1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Craig R. Wilson, Esquire Suite 315 1201 U.S. Highway One North Palm Beach, Florida 33408-3581 Karen B. Wilde Robert F. McRee, Esquire Executive Director Post Office Box 75638 Education Practices Commission Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent, Glover E. Jones, was licensed as a teacher in the State of Florida holding certificate number 556798, covering the area of mathematics, and was employed by the Madison County School Board as an adjunct instructor at Madison County High School, Madison, Florida. The uncontroverted facts in this case show that Pamela Ann Hale, the alleged recipient of the remarks in question here, was born on August 28, 1969. As of the date of the hearing, she was living with her mother in Live Oak, Florida, attending the 10th grade at Suwannee High School there. At the time of the alleged incident here, she was living with her father in Madison and attended Madison County High School. Her mother and father are divorced. While attending Madison County High School, Hale had the Respondent as her math teacher during the third period of the school day during the month of September 1984, at the beginning of the 1984-1985 school year. She did not have him for any other subjects nor did she know him prior to the beginning of the school year. This class was made up of students who required extra assistance and consisted of approximately 15 to 16 students in remedial math. On the day in question, Hale was selling candy during the class period to raise money for a school organization. She sold candy not only to her fellow students but also to the Respondent. At this point the stories told by Ms. Hale and by the Respondent begin to diverge. Ms. Hale contends that when she approached Jones on the date in question to buy candy he advised her to come back after class and she could sell him some. She contends, also, that she came back after the other students left even though she had another class (health) to attend, sat down at a student desk, and Respondent sat down facing her approximately three or four feet away. It is at this point that, she says, he asked her simple questions about herself and her family. When she answered, he then allegedly asked her if she had ever "fucked" a black man before. He allegedly told her she looked sexy that day. She says he asked her if she noticed that he "had a hard on" and touched himself in the genital area, asking her if she thought she could handle that. At no time, however, did Respondent ever touch the witness. She says he asked her if she had ever "fucked" anyone while someone else was in the room. She replied that she had not. He allegedly asked her if she had a boyfriend and when she said she did, he is alleged to have responded, "I'll bet you fuck him because he's not black." This conversation went on until about 10 or 15 minutes before the fourth period was over. As was stated previously, the witness had health the fourth period and cut the class because, as she tells it, Respondent asked her to stay. While she was in the room with Jones alone, a Mr. Alexander, also a math teacher, entered, along with two other students. While in the room, Alexander asked Respondent if the witness was having any trouble with her work to which Respondent replied that she was, but indicated he would take care of it. Alexander verifies this with the exception that according to his testimony, when he came into the room, Respondent was seated at his desk writing a note and Hale was standing in front of him. This is not a significant difference. After Alexander left, Respondent asked the witness several questions about her siblings including her sister who formerly went to Madison High, but who quit when she had difficulty with some black students the previous year. He asked her if she was going to go to the ball game the following Thursday and, when she replied that she was, she says he suggested that perhaps they could get together that night. Ms. Hale contends she was amazed that Respondent talked to her in this fashion but she also contends she did not leave because she was afraid of him, though he made no threats, either verbal or physical, toward her and made no effort to prevent her from leaving. She also made no comment to Alexander when he and the other students came into the room even though these suggestive statements had already been made. She finally terminated the conversation toward the end of the fourth period by stating she had to go to her next class. Before she left, she asked Respondent for a note, which he gave her and asked her not to repeat the conversation they had had. During fifth period, Hale had lunch scheduled and during lunch with Loretta Sealy, she related in general terms, to Sealy, what had happened. After lunch, she went to the remainder of her classes and went home but even that night, she failed to tell her father of the incident because she was afraid he might do something as a result of his hot temper. Sealy indicates that when she first saw Hale after the incident, when Hale came into the ladies' room, she appeared nervous, upset, and near tears. She said that Respondent had said things which upset her--in essence propositioning her. At first, Hale did not want to report the incident because she felt nobody would believe her. However, Sealy finally convinced her to do so and the two girls went to see the assistant principal, Ms. Miller, two days after the incident took place. Hale told Ms. Miller what had happened and signed the first of several written statements which was prepared for her signature by Miller based on the report given. Later on, she agreed to take a polygraph examination regarding her story. No evidence was presented as to whether the exam was given or not. Ms. Hale attended class with the Respondent during the several days between the time of the alleged incident and the report to Ms. Miller, but once the story came into the open, she was removed from his class. She talked with Miller rather than the principal because she had known Ms. Miller from her prior school. The fact that she did not talk with the principal had nothing to do with the fact that he is black. Respondent's version of the story differs from that of Hale in that he contends that at the end of the class period on the day in question, Hale asked him if she could stay after class. He contends that her remaining had nothing to do with buying candy because he bought candy from her when she came to class. He also claims that she did her homework during this fourth period when she and he were the only people in the room. While she was working, he was behind his desk and she was sitting at a student desk off to his left. Respondent contends that it was Hale who made the first non-business statement by asking him if she could go smoke. He told her that she could not since smoking was not allowed on campus. She responded that another teacher, Mr. Hendrix, had allowed her to smoke in the school building and then went on to indicate that she had "messed" with guys in their twenties when she was twelve. This statement, which came immediately after the comments about Mr. Hendrix and smoking, shocked him. The only reason he did not ask her to leave was because she appeared to have a problem and he thought he might be able to help her. During the course of the conversation she indicated that some blacks had attacked her sister the previous year on campus which had caused her sister to leave school and that, in general, all black students at Madison High were wild. Though Ms. Hale, in her testimony, indicated that when asked by Respondent if she had ever fucked a black man, she responded by asking him if he'd ever fucked a white woman, Respondent denies that Hale ever asked him this question nor did she mention drugs to him in any fashion. He denies making any of the comments attributed to him by Hale or any of the suggestive movements she claimed he made, though in the letter he submitted to the principal the morning after being confronted by the accusations against him, denials were not so strong or so widespread. In fact, in that written statement, he commented, "I'm not saying that the statement made is totally wrong, but there are two things that trouble me most about it." He then goes on to list these two troublesome areas as the statement makes it appear as though he is the culprit and that some things in it are either false or turned around. He then goes on to list the several things Hale is supposed to have said to him that were not included in her statement, such as her sexual activity and her obvious antipathy toward black men. When Hale finally went to see Miller, she appeared to be quite upset though she was not crying. She was somewhat reluctant to talk to Ms. Miller until finally Miller released Sealy to go back to class and after Sealy left, Hale told Miller her entire story. Once Hale had completed her version of the story, Miller asked her to wait and went to talk with the principal who returned to the office with her to talk with Hale. After discussing with the resource officer how to take a statement, Miller returned to the office and took a detailed statement from Hale a second time in the form suggested to her and had it signed by Hale and notarized. Later that morning, Ms. Miller, the principal, Mr. Yanessy, the resource officer, and Mr. Buchanan called Respondent into the principal's office and showed him a copy of Hale's signed statement. Respondent read it, handed it back, and said that the statement was not "exactly" true--that Hale had twisted a lot of things around. He contended that in reality it was Hale who asked a lot of the questions, not him, and that he would do anything to clear his name. Respondent contended he had no interest in either Hale or any other young girl. At this point the investigating group advised him that they would talk with him later and take a statement from him. About two hours later they did meet again and at this time, Respondent repeated his comments made earlier in the day to the extent that while a conversation took place, it did not happen as Hale said it did. At this point, though the school officials wanted to take Respondent's statement, Respondent did not want to speak on the record then. The following morning he gave the principal the letter which was referred to above. Based on an evaluation of the testimony of Ms. Hale, Ms. Sealy, the Respondent, and Ms. Miller, all of which bears on the credibility of the Respondent vis-a-vis his accuser, it becomes clear, and it is so found, that a conversation did take place in the classroom during the fourth period on September 10, 1984, between Respondent and Ms. Hale when the two of them were the only persons in the room. It most likely will never be determined exactly as to who said what to whom. There is no doubt, however, that the Respondent permitted a student who he knew had a class to attend, to remain in his classroom with him at the expense of her absence from that succeeding class. Though Respondent advised Mr. Alexander that he was helping Hale with her school work, there is no other evidence that he did so. Ms. Hale contends he did not and he admits he did not stating only that she did her homework while in the room with him. Whatever the conversation was, it is clear that it was sexually oriented and Respondent used extremely poor judgment in allowing the situation to develop as far as it did. The evidence establishes that Ms. Hale's background is not without cloud. At the age of sixteen she is admittedly sexually experienced and has experimented with various controlled substances such as marijuana and cocaine. Ms. Miller indicated that her academic background was marginal--that while she can do her work and can be an average student, she has, nonetheless, failed. The nature of her testimony on the stand was not so clear as to give a certain picture as to what happened. It is most likely that Ms. Hale herself does not recall the incident with certainty. What is clear is that aside from her discussion with Ms. Sealy over lunch, she failed to make any complaint to anyone with authority to do something about it until several days after the incident took place and then only upon the urging of her friend. In substance then, it is obvious that the truth no doubt lies somewhere between the two stories. When Respondent found out that Ms. Hale had no legitimate reason to be in his classroom, he allowed her to remain and engaged in a conversation with her that should not have taken place. While the exact words are in question, the subject matter is not. It was sexually oriented and the parties were a twenty-five-year-old male teacher and a fifteen- year-old female student. His judgment in allowing that to happen is abysmal and his professionalism in that instance was nonexistent especially in light of the fact that he was warned twice at the beginning of his employment with the school system by his principal, to be very careful of his conduct in dealing with female students. Mr. Ray, the principal, indicates that if the allegations against the Respondent are true, it would seriously reduce his effectiveness as a classroom teacher because of the need for a teacher to observe the strictest propriety in his relationships with students. Such conduct as alleged here would undoubtedly be harmful to the learning process and would create an embarrassment to the student. If the allegations are true he would not want Respondent back working for him. In his opinion, for a situation such as this, if established, there are no less drastic remedies than termination. He believes that there is no place in Madison County for a teacher guilty of these allegations and in addition to termination, revocation of the teaching certificate would be appropriate. On the other hand, if it were to be established that the allegation was not true, then Respondent's effectiveness would not be diminished and the credibility of the student would be damaged. However, in his experience it is very unusual for female students to make sexual advances toward teachers. While it could occur, in his opinion it is not likely and over the 19 years he has been in education, it has never happened to him. Mr. Buchanan, who has been in place as Superintendent of Schools in Madison County for over 8 years, is familiar with the allegations in this case and Respondent's denial. His analysis of the case resulted in his recommendation that the School Board suspend the Respondent from his teaching position and in addition, he reported Respondent to the Education Practices Commission. He took this step because he felt an obligation to report substandard conduct of an educator. Assuming that the allegations are true, in his view, the effectiveness of the Respondent is reduced because in a case like this the teacher loses credibility with his students. He feels that if true, Respondent's conduct would be harmful to the learning process and embarrassing to the student and would have an adverse impact on the relationship between the parents and the school system. Viewing the evidence in its totality and weighing the credibility of all witnesses, as alluded to before, it becomes clear that a one on one conversation took place between the Respondent and Ms. Hale. It is most likely that Respondent did not prompt the conversation and did not request that Ms. Hale remain after class. To the contrary, it would appear that she requested to remain after class. No doubt improper comments were made by both Ms. Hale and the Respondent and it makes no difference whether Ms. Hale or the Respondent initiated the colloquy. It is quite clear that subject matter improper for a conversation between a student and a teacher of opposite sexes, involving sexually suggestive comments took place and that both Respondent and Ms. Hale used language of this nature.
Findings Of Fact Clarence Dixon, Respondent, holds Teacher's Certificate No. 435879, Rank III, covering the area of physical education, which expires on June 20, 1984. At all times material hereto Respondent was employed by The School Board of Broward County at its facility known as Piper High School located at 800 Northwest 44th Street, Sunrise, Broward County, Florida. In that cause of action styled School Board of Broward County v. Clarence Dixon, Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 81-1223, the Honorable R. T. Carpenter, Hearing Officer for the Division of Administrative Hearings, entered his Recommended Order directing [sic] that the Respondent, Clarence Dixon, be discharged as a teacher by The School Board of Broward County. Before the Broward County School Board acted on the Recommended Order of the Hearing Officer, Respondent submitted his resignation, further proceedings against him were terminated and no final order was entered by the Broward County School Board regarding the charges that had been preferred against Respondent. Exhibit 2, the Recommended Order in Broward County School Board v. Clarence Dixon, was admitted into evidence over objection by Respondent, for the limited purpose of showing that the hearing was held. Respondent's stipulation of admitted facts (Finding No. 3 above) admits more than that for which Exhibit 2 was admitted into evidence. The investigation of Respondent's conduct started when Sandra J. Brown, a security officer at Piper High School, overheard some students in the hall discussing Respondent. She then called one of these girls to her office to inquire into any contacts she had with Respondent. When it became evident that Respondent's statements or conduct towards the student may have been inappropriate, the student was taken to the Assistant Principal who, after hearing the story, directed Brown to investigate. As a result of this investigation, the School Board brought charges against Respondent, and, after those charges were disposed of, the proceedings here involved were instituted. Although Respondent disputes the testimony of the three complaining witnesses, McGee, Johnson and Snelling, their testimony was credible and believable, Some testimony was presented to show that Ms. Brown was carrying out a vendetta against Respondent in conducting the investigation; that at least one of the complaining witnesses had a "bad" reputation, meaning that she "came on to men"; that Dixon had told Ms. Brown about a dream he had about her involving sex; that Respondent, like other coaches specifically, was looked up to and frequently approached by students to discuss their problems; and that these incidents had been blown out of proportion to their seriousness. Evidence of misconduct unrelated to the specific charges involving McGee, Johnson and Snelling, has been disregarded as irrelevant to the charges here under consideration. On one occasion during the 1980-1981 school year at Piper High School Respondent approached Lesia McGee, a 16-year-old sophomore, in the hall between classes and commented on the clothes she was wearing and said the next time he saw her in purple slacks he would, as she testified, "tongue me to death." By that, McGee understood that he meant to kiss her. Valynda Johnson was a junior at Piper High School during the 1980-1981 school year and she had no classes under Respondent. She and Respondent talked on campus about how she dressed and various things unrelated to school. On several occasions he sent passes to her to leave class to come talk to him. Some of these times she was excused by her teacher and the conversation did not relate to school work. On one occasion Respondent asked Johnson when she was going to let him do it to her. When she replied "What do you mean?," he responded "You know what I mean." Johnson understood him to be talking about sex. Respondent asked Johnson to meet him at the 7-11 store down the street from the school and called her at her home on one or two occasions. She never went out with Respondent and no physical contact was made between Respondent and Johnson. Respondent had a gold chain delivered to Johnson from him by one of the football players. Respondent's testimony that he found this chain under a garbage can at school and, when he held it up in class to ask whose it was, Johnson claimed it, is not believed. The Amended Administrative Complaint alleges Respondent gave a gold bracelet to Renee Snelling and this complaint was amended at the close of the hearing to change the bracelet to a chain to conform to the evidence. No evidence was submitted that Respondent gave Snelling either a chain or a bracelet. Renee Snelling was an 18-year-old student at Piper High School during the 1980-1981 school year. On one of the first occasions she talked to Respondent he told her she should be a model. Her career as a model was the dominant theme of most of their subsequent conversations. Respondent suggested she go to college and become a model. On one occasion he asked if they had sex would she tell anybody. On another occasion he told her he had a necklace for her. He never cave her the necklace but showed it to her one time when he removed it from his wallet. He called Snelling at her home on one or more occasions to ask her to go out. When Respondent returned from a trip to Moorhead College in Kentucky with some of the football players he took there in his own car to increase their interest in college, he brought back a T-shirt which he had delivered to Snelling by one of the football players. On one occasion Respondent sent a pass to Snelling but she does not recall if she left class to see him in response to the pass. The only occasion Respondent mentioned sex to Snelling was when he inquired if she would tell. The policy at Piper High School regarding passes is that they are used only with respect to school business, and rarely. If a student is in a class he cannot leave that classroom without the permission of that classroom teacher even if he receives a pass from another teacher. Respondent graduated from Pahokee High School in 1974 where he was a football star and a campus leader. With the ecouragement of his coaches, Respondent obtained a football scholarship at Bethune-Cookman College, from where he graduated in 1979. He is appreciative of the help and encouragement he received from his coaches and teachers and desires to repay that debt by helping others as he was helped. In doing this, he encourages all of the kids he talks to to go to college and get an education. When Respondent resigned from Broward County School System, he obtained a job at Pahokee High School in the Special Education Department teaching students with learning disabilities. His principal feels Respondent is doing an excellent job at Pahokee and that he is an asset to the school. During his year at Pahokee Respondent volunteered to coach and led the girls' track team to runner-up position in the state championships. He also took over the cross-country track team, which had been cancelled, and led this team to the district championship. He has continually encouraged students to continue their educations throughout high school and has gone out of his way to help them get scholarships, grants and other assistance towards this goal. Both Respondent and his wife have taken students, with parental consent, to out-of-town games, have had students over for dinner, have driven them to athletic contests, have provided transportation home from football practice which extended beyond the bus schedule, and generally have devoted considerable after-school-hours time to helping and encouraging students to attain higher standards in life.
The Issue Whether just cause exists to impose discipline on Respondent’s employment; and, if so, what is the appropriate discipline.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Respondent was a School Board employee. Respondent was employed as a custodian at Choctawhatchee High School (“Choctaw”) when he was terminated in 2017. As a custodial employee, Respondent was subject to the Collective Bargaining Agreement entered into between the School Board and the Okaloosa County Education Association. When he was terminated, Respondent had been employed by the School Board for approximately 24 to 26 years. Respondent was employed as a custodian at Choctaw beginning in 2015. Prior to that, Respondent was employed by the School Board as lead custodian at Choice School (“Choice”). Before that, at least five years before his employment at Choctaw, Respondent was employed by the School Board as a pre-K liaison at Edwins Elementary (“Edwins”). In addition, Respondent had been employed by the School Board over the years as a bus driver and in other custodial positions. The School Board's termination of Respondent's employment was based largely upon a formal equity complaint1/ (“Formal Complaint”) submitted on October 5, 2017, by Mrs. Williams, a volunteer at Choctaw, alleging harassment by Respondent with an attached email addressing her concerns regarding contacts by Respondent and a history of alleged harassment by Respondent. The email attached to Mrs. Williams' Formal Complaint is dated October 3, 2017, and states: Harassment has gone back to Edwins Elementary nearly 8 years ago. I was a parent as well as a PTO [parent teacher organization] Member/President for a few years at Edwins Elementary. There were constant unprofessional/vulgar comments made by Steve Hall in reference to my body and parts of my body, the way my clothing may fit certain areas of my body or his requesting to take photos of me. I think on occasion he may have taken some photos because as I would turn around and his phone was lifted in my direction to do so. On countless occasions employees would stand with me to hinder him hanging around and commenting. This frequently occurred during his employment at Edwins Elementary School. On one occasion my young high school age daughter, at the time, was at Edwins Elementary School with me during school hours. I was introducing my daughter to some people and Steve walked up so not to be rude I introduced her to him as well. Steve Hall's comment was not "hi" or "how are you?" it was "move over mom . . .!" As her mother I was disgusted! I told Mr. Farley but my daughter did not want to get into it or write a statement. I respected her wishes and just limited her presence on that campus. This entire time I have also been volunteering at Choctawhatchee High School. I found out that he was moved from Edwins to another school. I am still a full-time volunteer at CHS [Choctaw] and one day Steve Hall showed up at Choctaw's front desk. Knowing what actions I have seen from him I was extremely concerned finding out Steve is now an employee at Choctawhatchee High School. Approaching me at the front desk at Choctaw began to be a habit for Steve Hall. I called and met with Mr. Farley to work out a solution hoping this could be resolved professionally. The rule was Steve was not to be anywhere within the front office area to include the mail room. I have had to call Mr. Farley on multiple occasions because he continued to approach me in the front office. Currently he continues to try to communicate inappropriately with me at the football games or on campus, school events. Steve sits in the stands eating concession food and watching the football games for the most of the game. Steve tries to initiate conversation through my son who is special needs and only understands he is suppose to be nice to everyone. Not wanting/needing to explain this situation to my son. [sic] My son responds when spoken to by Steve because Steve is an adult and my son knows I require respect from him no matter who speaks to him. This makes football games and school events difficult every season with this year being no different! At the CHS vs. Tate game I was thankful there was a fence between the sections we were sitting in, so that he could not get closer without going all the way down and back up. I just turned away with no response. It is frustrating feeling like I have to hide to avoid Steve! This school year Steve has come to the front office area 3 times within the first month and a half of school. Each time I reported it and Steve was told to stay away from the front office. On one of the occasions I was in the back, in the mail room. Someone came to let me know Steve was up front looking for me. I tried to go out the back of the mailroom door to Mr. Snaith's office to get assistance and Steve walked in to confront me. The confrontation was extremely uncomfortable to say the least. About that time Mr. Snaith walked in and witnessed most of the confrontation escorting me away from Steve and we called Mr. Farley. Again! Steve was talked to about not coming to the front office for any reason. He has Ms. Liz's phone number (his supervisor) if he needs her. He has since come back to the front office again! He was told again not to come to the front office at all for any reason and it was discussed by Mr. Farley he needed to be more aware of his actions and the way they may be perceived. I am also the parent in charge of "Parents for Prior." After this years current situations, Steve was spoken to by Mr. Bill Smith. Steve Hall approached me at the Pryor Middle School football game held at Choctaw stadium. I was trying to work a table at the game, soon after the most recent issue. Steve approached my son first then walked closer to me requesting to speak to me for a "hot minute" in the alley between the touchdown shack and stadium. I'm sure it would be on the stadium cameras as stated in my statement to Bill Smith. I was unable to leave due to my possession of money and tickets. I glared at Steve and he stated I guess I should just keep walking. I nodded "yes"! This is only the most prominent on campus situations. I called Bill Smith and explained I should tell Steve to stay away. I feel we are past this due to this being years in the making. This has already been addressed and discussed with Steve on multiple occasions. Bill Smith stated I needed to send him an email statement and apologized he had not yet gotten with Mr. Chapman, from a week before, because of the hurricane. This was my second statement to Bill Smith this school year as well as one meeting with him. I enjoy volunteering my time at Choctawhatchee High School. Within a few years I'll be a Choctaw parent, unless I am required to move my son to another high school because of this. This is not what I want to do as a parent or volunteer. I do not feel it is fair I may need to remove myself and choose another high school for my son to attend because of an employee's unprofessional/vulgar behavior. Steve Hall repeatedly drives by my home. The latest time that I know of was within a week or so before school started this year 2017-2018. I was on the phone walking out of my home, I looked up and saw Steve sitting out in front of my home rolling down his window motioning me to come talk to him. I turned to return inside to get my husband, who is law enforcement, but Steve drove off in his green avalanche. I do not live on a main road nor have I given him my address. My street is not a road someone would just drive by on. If this continues I will file a restraining order. If there are any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me. Mrs. Williams’ Formal Complaint was assigned to Gary M. Marsh, investigator, Escambia County School District, on October 11, 2017, for investigation. Mr. Marsh conducted his investigation and submitted his investigative report dated October 31, 2017, to the School Board's superintendent. The investigative report was hand-delivered by Mr. Marsh and received by the superintendent on November 3, 2017. In a letter dated November 14, 2017, the School Board's assistant superintendent of human and resources advised Respondent that she was recommending to the superintendent that Respondent be suspended with pay, effective immediately, and further that his employment with Petitioner be terminated at the December 11, 2017, School Board meeting. The letter states: Mr. Hall, An investigation has now been completed regarding the Formal Equity Complaint made against you on/or about October 5, 2017. A copy of the investigative report is attached for your information and review. This is the second formal investigation of an equity complaint against you since 2014. Based upon a culmination or multiple instances of harassment, misconduct in the workplace or gross insubordination, over the course of the last three years, I am recommending that the Superintendent suspend you with pay effective immediately and further that your employment with the School District be terminated at the December 11, 2017, School Board meeting. The charges against you are based upon the finding of illicit material in your desk at Edwins Elementary School and repeated inappropriate comments leading to coworkers feeling harassed which led to your transfer in 2014 from Edwins Elementary School to Okaloosa Technical College (OTC); in late 2014, during your time at OTC, allegations of unwanted sexual behavior constituting sexual harassment on your part as confirmed in a formal investigation which led to your demotion and transfer from a lead custodian to a custodian at Choctaw High School (CHS). Additionally, while at CHS, new allegations of harassment have been made against you. Due to these allegations you were directed on multiple occasions by both your supervisor and a district administrator not to enter the CHS front office or mail room. As a result of a recent investigation it has been determined that you have continued to enter the school front office area in direct insubordination of your supervisor and a district administrator. Further, after review of the investigative report there is sufficient evidence to believe that harassment of a school volunteer did occur. Your conduct is considered to be gross insubordination, misconduct in office and harassment in direct violation of the following School Board policies: School Board Policy 07-03 Employment Conditions for Education Support Personnel School Board Policy 06-27 Equity Policy: Harassment on the Basis of Race, Color, National or Ethnic Origin, Sex, Age, Religious Beliefs, Marital Status, Pregnancy or Disabilty In accordance with both School Board policy 06-28 E(2) and Section K(a) of the OCESPA Master Contract you may file a written appeal to the Superintendent within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of the enclosed investigative report and this recommendation. In a letter dated November 29, 2017, the assistant superintendent of human resources requested that the superintendent recommend to the School Board that Respondent be terminated for gross insubordination, misconduct, and harassment. The Superintendent notified Respondent in a letter dated November 29, 2017, that she would recommend his termination from employment at the December 11, 2017, School Board meeting for gross insubordination, misconduct, and harassment. At its December 11, 2017, meeting, the School Board approved the superintendent’s recommendation, and Respondent was terminated from his custodian position. Neither Superintendent Mary Beth Jackson nor Assistant Superintendent Stacie Smith testified at the hearing. According to the November 14, 2017, letter from the assistant superintendent, quoted above, the recommendation for Respondent's termination is "[b]ased upon a culmination of multiple instances of harassment, misconduct in the workplace or gross insubordination, over the course of the last three years." [emphasis added]. The three allegations that form the basis of the recommended discipline against Respondent are analyzed below under headings derived from the November 14, 2017, letter as follows: 1) "finding of illicit material in your desk at Edwins Elementary School and repeated inappropriate comments leading to coworkers feeling harassed which led to your transfer in 2014 from Edwins Elementary School to Okaloosa Technical College (OTC)"; 2) "in late 2014, during your time at OTC, allegations of unwanted sexual behavior constituting sexual harassment on your part as confirmed in a formal investigation which led to your demotion and transfer from a lead custodian to a custodian at Choctaw High School"; and 3) "it has been determined that you have continued to enter the school front office area in direct insubordination of your supervisor and a district administrator. Further, after review of the investigative report there is sufficient evidence to believe that harassment of a school volunteer did occur." ILLICIT MATERIAL IN RESPONDENT'S DESK AT EDWINS AND REPEATED INAPPROPRIATE COMMENTS TO COWORKERS LEADING TO A TRANSFER At the hearing, it was revealed that Respondent's employment at Edwins predated his employment at Choice. Respondent was employed at Choice during the 2013-2014 school year.2/ Therefore, the alleged illicit material and inappropriate comments that allegedly occurred at Edwins could not have taken place "over the course of the last three years," as alleged in the November 14, 2017, letter. Notwithstanding the fact that none of the alleged “Edwins events” could have taken place over the past three years as alleged, the School Board presented no testimony or documentary evidence to prove the underlying fact that Respondent had “illicit material” in his desk while employed at Edwins. In fact, there was no testimony at all concerning this alleged prior discipline. Mrs. Williams’ email attached to her Formal Complaint states that the alleged harassment "has gone back to Edwins Elementary nearly 8 years ago." In fact, Mrs. Williams first met Respondent at least seven years before she filed her Formal Complaint against Respondent referenced in this case. When they first met, Respondent worked with the in-school suspension and student training programs at Edwins and her son attended Edwins. Mrs. Williams was a volunteer with the parent-teacher organization. Her duties as a volunteer included fundraising. Mrs. Williams described her initial relationship with Respondent as a casual friendship. Mrs. Williams kept her parent-teacher organization materials in his office and would often call him to gain access to those materials. A self- described “hugger,” while at Edwins, Mrs. Williams used to initiate hugs with Respondent and others. Although not a part of the allegations against Respondent, the evidence shows that, on one occasion, while at Edwins, Respondent asked Ms. Williams “was [she] ever into blacks." Mrs. Williams responded, “No” and that she was married. Respondent asked if she knew anybody who was into blacks because he had a friend who was into “white chicks.” Mrs. Williams told him that she knew a secretary at Choctaw who dated “black guys.” There is no indication that Mrs. Williams considered this conversation with Respondent as offensive or harassment. Mrs. Williams’ email attached to her Formal Complaint alleges that, while at Edwins, Respondent made inappropriate comments to her about her body, parts of her body, the way her clothes fit and asked to photograph parts of her body. Mrs. Williams testified that she was dismayed by his comments but never told Respondent to stop or leave her alone. Regarding Respondent’s alleged request to photograph her, Mrs. Williams testified that he made the request only once; she shook her head "No," but did not verbalize any protests and walked away. Mrs. Williams also alleges that while working at Edwins, Respondent made her aware that he was interested in her by his eye gestures and other nonverbal cues, as well as sometimes saying “whoa” when he walked by her. Respondent denies making gestures or statements indicating that he was sexually interested in Mrs. Williams. There is no indication that Mrs. Williams ever told Respondent to stop his alleged behavior or that she reported the incidents at the time. Mrs. Williams does not recall whether she reported Respondent’s alleged comments or request to photograph her to anyone at the time. Respondent denies the allegations. No witnesses were called to corroborate Mrs. Williams' allegations, and Mrs. Williams testified that she could not “attest” to anyone who could corroborate her allegations. In her testimony, Mrs. Williams explained the reference in her email attached to her Formal Complaint about the occasion at Edwins when Respondent allegedly told her to “move over mom” after she had introduced her daughter. She testified that Respondent’s statement was very offensive and sexual in nature because she believed that Respondent was saying that he liked her but now that he saw her daughter “[he was] going to go after [her] daughter.” Mrs. Williams further testified that she believed that the incident was a reportable offense because her daughter was a minor at the time, but that her daughter did not want to report and she did not file a formal complaint. Mrs. Williams testified that that Respondent had referred to her by nicknames such as “baby,” “baby girl” and “sweetie,” which she found unprofessional and made her feel uncomfortable. While there is evidence that Respondent has used the term “baby girl” in his vernacular, he explained that he used the term as just another way for saying “how you doing.” Respondent explained in his testimony that it was just “[a]nother saying for saying hey, shortie, like they say. So you say, hey, baby girl, how are you doing today?” The context of Mrs. Williams' testimony on this point suggests that Respondent used the nicknames for Mrs. Williams while they were both at Edwins. There is no evidence, however, that Mrs. Williams reported these instances at the time. There is also no evidence that Mrs. Williams ever told Respondent not to call her nicknames, or that she reported Respondent’s use of nicknames. Remarkably, Mrs. Williams’ Formal Complaint does not even mention that Respondent called her by nicknames. Despite the allegations against him, there is no evidence that while at Edwins, or at any other time, Respondent asked Mrs. Williams for a date, out for drinks, suggested that they have sex, touched her inappropriately, talked to her on the phone outside of school, or interfered with Mrs. Williams’ ability to perform her volunteer duties or responsibilities. The allegations against Respondent, while he was at Edwins, do not fall within the “course of the last three years” as alleged in the charging document (the November 14, 2017, letter) and are, therefore, inconsistent with the reasons espoused by the School Board for the discipline sought in this case. Moreover, considering the fact that Mrs. Williams’ allegations against Respondent while he was at Edwins were not timely reported, that her allegations were uncorroborated, drew no protest from Mrs. Williams at the time, and were denied by Respondent, it is found that the evidence is insufficient to show that Respondent harassed Mrs. Williams, sexually or otherwise, while at Edwins. In sum, the evidence presented at the final hearing was insufficient to prove that Respondent made “repeated inappropriate comments,” which led to “coworkers feeling harassed” while he was at Edwins. The evidence also failed to show that Respondent was transferred because of those comments or because illicit material was found in his desk. LATE 2014 ALLEGATIONS OF UNWANTED SEXUAL BEHAVIOR CONSTITUTING SEXUAL HARASSMENT LEADING TO RESPONDENT’S DEMOTION AND TRANSFER FROM LEAD CUSTODIAN TO A CUSTODIAN AT CHOCTAW This allegation, as set forth in the November 1, 2017, letter from the assistant superintendent, refers to allegations of sexual harassment that occurred in 2014 when Respondent was a lead custodian at OTC, which is in the same facility as Choice. In 2014, Respondent began working at Choice as a lead custodian. The allegations arising from Respondent’s time at Choice are not included within Mrs. Williams’ Formal Complaint. The School Board presented no testimony or competent substantial evidence to prove the underlying facts that Respondent committed “unwanted sexual behavior constituting sexual harassment” while at Choice. Respondent testified concerning this alleged prior discipline, acknowledging that he allowed a teacher at Choice to listen to some rap music, that he used the term “baby girl,” and that the School Board considered the use of the term “baby girl” a form of sexual harassment. Respondent denied, however, that he engaged in inappropriate conduct or sexual harassment. Respondent testified that he accepted a transfer as a lead custodian at Choice to a Custodian II position at Choctaw. He further testified that he was advised by the School Board that he would be transferred back to a lead custodian when a position became available. The School Board presented its Exhibit P-8a as evidence of this alleged prior discipline, which was ultimately proffered and “admitted” as a proffered exhibit (Proffer P-8a). Upon reconsideration, while it lacks evidentiary value, Proffer P-8a is received into evidence. Proffer P-8a, entitled “Confidential Inquiry Summary,” is an investigative report purportedly authored by Arden E. Farley, as a contract investigator for the School Board. Proffer P-8a does not prove the underlying facts and does not constitute competent evidence in support of the discipline sought against Respondent in this case. No witnesses were called to prove the underlying discipline related to Respondent’s alleged demotion. Furthermore, Proffer P-8a is hearsay and does not corroborate direct testimony or any other competent evidence. Because Proffer P-8a references Respondent’s alleged use of the term “baby-girl,” the School Board, through counsel, argued that Proffer P-8a is evidence that Respondent was aware that the use of the term “baby-girl,” or similar terms, was improper and could subject him to discipline. This conclusion is contrary to the evidence presented at the hearing. Although Mrs. Williams testified that Mr. Hall used the term during their time at Edwins, Respondent and Mrs. Williams were at Edwins prior to Respondent’s time at Choice. Thus, Proffer P-8a could not have put Respondent on notice that it was inappropriate for him to refer to Mrs. Williams as “baby-girl” while at Edwins. There is otherwise no competent evidence that Respondent referred to Mrs. Williams, or any other complainant, as “baby-girl” or any other nickname while at Choctaw. ALLEGED HARASSMENT OF A SCHOOL VOLUNTEER AND FAILURE TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES NOT TO ENTER THE SCHOOL FRONT OFFICE AT CHOCTAW Harassment is governed by the School Board’s equity policy. Respondent acknowledged that he received a copy of the then existing Equity Policy in 2009. No evidence was presented as to what the Equity Policy consisted of in 2009. The Equity Policies presented at the final hearing reveal that two of the policies were adopted in 2015 and a third Equity Policy was adopted at the December 11, 2017, School Board meeting; the same School Board meeting where the superintendent’s recommendation to terminate Respondent was considered and approved. The alleged harassment of a school volunteer while at Choctaw appears to include encounters at football games, in the front office, and one time at Mrs. Williams’ home. Football Games The testimony at hearing revealed that Mrs. Williams was complaining about two encounters with Respondent at football games. Respondent’s duties at Choctaw required him to be present at football games. During the first encounter, Mrs. Williams and her son were in the stands watching a Choctaw football game. There is a fence that divides the stands. Respondent was on one side of the fence and he attempted to initiate a conversation with Mrs. Williams and her son. Respondent was saying “hello.” Mrs. Williams ignored Respondent and no conversation was undertaken. The second encounter occurred prior to a Pryor Middle School football game, which was taking place at Choctaw. Mrs. Williams, accompanied by her son, was setting up a parent- teacher organization table, and Respondent approached her and her son and initiated a conversation with her son. Mr. Hall knows Mrs. Williams’ son from his time at Edwins. Towards the end of the brief conversation, Respondent asked Mrs. Williams if he could speak with her for a “hot minute.” Mrs. Williams glared at him and then said “no,” and Respondent went about his way. Respondent presented credible testimony that a “hot minute” is slang for “a second” or “just for a minute.” There was no other evidence concerning the term “hot minute.” Front Office The email attached to Mrs. Williams’ Formal Complaint states that Respondent’s “approaching me at the front desk at Choctaw began to be a habit for Steve Hall.” The email further states that Mr. Hall was in the front office three times during the first month and a half of the 2017-2018 school year. In a separate email, Mrs. Williams documented an “encounter” that occurred on September 1, 2017. She does not indicate that Respondent had any contact with her, just that he was in the front office. In fact, on that occasion, Mrs. Williams turned her back to Respondent and Ms. Gloria Scaife, who was working in the front office, spoke with him. In an email, dated September 7, 2017, Ms. Scaife states that Respondent was in the office and asked her if she had seen Ms. Liz (who is the lead custodian). Respondent credibly explained that, on that occasion, he went to the front office to find his supervisor to obtain access to supplies. A second encounter in the 2017-2018 school year occurred in the mailroom. Mrs. Williams was in the mailroom when Respondent entered the room. Mrs. Williams testified that Respondent “cornered her in mailroom . . . that she couldn’t get around him . . . and that he was upset and very loud.” She further testified that she “could not move without touching [Respondent].” Mrs. Williams’ testimony conflicts with the other accounts of this encounter, which are more credible. Andy Snaith, dean of students for Choctaw, testified that there were other people in the mailroom and that he observed “what appeared to be a conversation with [Respondent] and Mrs. Williams. [Respondent's] back was to me. I believe he was doing the talking . . . .” When asked for more detail, Mr. Snaith stated: Q: And with other people in the mailroom, was there enough room, based on what you saw from Mrs. Williams, to back away from Mr. Hall? A: Yeah. It wasn't that crowded. Q: So there was plenty of room for her to move around? A: Yes. Q: Any idea what they were talking about? A: No. Q: How would Mrs. Williams get out of the mailroom, if she wanted to leave? A: There's two ways, I believe where she was standing, she could have gone to the left or to the right. The left is where the door that leads into the hallway, and then the other one leads to the main office. Consistent with the recollection of Mr. Snaith, Respondent testified that upon being told by Mrs. Sanders that Mrs. Williams was telling others that he was saying things to Mrs. Williams, he went to the office to ask Mrs. Williams if this was true. Respondent further testified: I asked [Mrs. Williams], calm and simple, [Mrs. Williams], have I talked to you, have I seen you? She said, no, I haven't seen you in three, four months. I said, that's all I wanted to know, because Liz is making a comment that I have said something to you and that was not true, and I walked away. It is unclear from the testimony as to exactly when this conversation took place, other than sometime early in the 2017-2018 school year. It is clear, however, that that occasion was the last time that Respondent was in the front office area at Choctaw. In her testimony, Mrs. Williams stated that she was not alleging or asserting that Mr. Hall had committed racial discrimination, nor that he made adverse remarks about her color, age, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, or marital status. And Mrs. Williams does not allege that Respondent made any comments about her body parts, the way her clothing fit, or asked to take photos of her while he was at Choctaw. Rather, those allegations allegedly occurred while Respondent was at Edwins, were unreported for years and could not be corroborated. There is no evidence that Respondent ever told Mrs. Williams to perform any improper act and then threatened her with consequences if she failed to comply. There is also no evidence that Respondent ever had authority to make employment decisions affecting Mrs. Williams. Mrs. Williams’ House Respondent first met Mrs. Williams prior to the time related in any of the allegations, when he went by her house to inquire about some tire rims that her husband had for sale. Mrs. Williams testified that in the summer of 2017, two weeks prior to the start of school, Respondent came by her house and parked at the curb. Her son alerted her that Respondent wanted to talk to her. She testified that she was upset because Respondent was there and she spoke with Respondent while he sat in his car. She could not recall what was discussed, but knows the conversation lasted only a couple of minutes, and that she then turned around and walked away.3/ Mrs. Williams stated that Respondent had been by her home on several different occasions but could not elaborate on any other incidents. Respondent acknowledged that he had gone by Mrs. Williams’ house because he does lawn service and was riding by her house. As he recalled, he noticed her son in the yard and asked him to get Mrs. Williams. Respondent and Mrs. Williams had a brief conversation. At no time during that conversation, or any other conversation, did Mrs. Williams tell Respondent to “stay away,” “leave me alone,” or make any other gesture or comment indicating that Respondent was to avoid her. Further, there is insufficient evidence to show that anyone from the School Board told Respondent to avoid contact with Mrs. Williams. Alleged Failure to Follow Directives Respondent acknowledged that shortly after starting at Choctaw, he had been verbally advised to avoid the front office. Mr. Mims, the School Board’s zone manager for custodial services, was the first person to advise Respondent to stay away from the front office. The Dean of Students Andy Snaith never told Respondent to avoid the front office. Even though told not to go to the front office, Respondent had to go by the front office every day. In that regard, Mr. Mims told Respondent that they could not keep him out of the school. Although Respondent understood that the request that he refrain from going to the front office may have been designed to minimize his contact with Mrs. Williams, there was no evidence or testimony presented by the School Board showing that Respondent was ever specifically told to avoid Mrs. Williams or why he was supposed to avoid the front office. Mr. Mims testified that he told Respondent to avoid the front office twice. He further testified that he was aware of Respondent being in the front office only three times over the course of three school years. When finding out about these situations, instead of having a face-to-face meeting, Mr. Mims would merely call Respondent on the phone. Respondent acknowledged going to the front office only twice in 2017, the first being while looking for Mrs. Sanders and the second being the conversation with Mrs. Williams when she was in the mailroom. There is no evidence of a written directive or other documentation advising Respondent to avoid the front office until a September 18, 2017, meeting between Respondent, Bill Smith, and Andy Mims. At that meeting, which was the first meeting between Mr. Smith and Respondent, Respondent was specifically advised to not go into the front office. Respondent has not been in the front office, nor has Bill Smith received a report that Respondent has been in the front office since their meeting in September 2017. Even though there were two instances where Respondent went to the the front office after speaking with Mr. Mims, Mr. Mims testified that while Respondent worked for him, he “met expectations as an employee.” Mr. Mims further testified that Respondent “did everything I asked him to do.” Mr. Mims statements are consistent with his written evaluations of Mr. Hall’s work performed in May 2017, May 2016, May 2015, and May 2014. The stated purpose of the evaluations is to “support decisions concerning employee discipline, promotion and improvement.” Respondent’s evaluations during the pertinent time period do not support the discipline sought in this case. To the contrary, they conclude that he is a hard worker and that he meets the expectations of his supervisors. Even when he allegedly received prior discipline while at Choice during the 2014-2015 school year, Respondent was not placed on a “success plan” for improvement and, in fact, received a “meets expectations” evaluation. The evaluations written by Respondent’s supervisors conclude that Respondent “Demonstrates a willingness to accept authority and direction; Demonstrates appropriate interactions with staff, clients, students and/or parents; Demonstrates appropriate oral skills when communicating with others; [and] Demonstrates appropriate relations with supervisor and peers.” Recognizing that there were issues at Choctaw unrelated to Mrs. Williams, Respondent requested transfers to another school. These transfer requests began during the 2016-2017 school year and continued during the beginning of the 2017- 2018 school year. Even though there were positions available in the schools where Respondent desired to transfer, his supervisor, Mr. Mims, denied Respondent’s requests for transfers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Okaloosa County School Board: Dismissing the allegations against Respondent in this case and rescinding any discipline imposed thereby; Reinstating Respondent’s employment with the Okaloosa County School Board as though there was no break in service of his employment; Restoring all salary, benefits, and rights from the date of his last paid workday to the date of his reinstatement, plus interest from the date that any such pay or benefit was withheld, as appropriate under applicable law; less any earnings or benefits that Respondent received during the time between his termination and the time of his reinstatement. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of November, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III 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 9th day of November, 2018.
The Issue The issued posed herein is whether or not the Respondent School Board of Dade County's reassignment of Petitioner/student, Valerie Patrice McDonald, from Miami Springs Junior High School to the Jan Mann Opportunity School North, should be upheld.
Findings Of Fact Valerie Patrice McDonald, Petitioner, is a student enrolled in the Dade County Public School System. Petitioner was enrolled in Miami springs Junior High School in August of 1978. Petitioner's guidance records indicates no serious behavioral problems and that her attendance at school is excellent. Her academic progress has been a steady B and C average since enrolling in the public school system. Petitioner was referred to the guidance office of Miami Springs Junior High School on numerous occasions during the 1978-1979 school year for various disciplinary problems. For example, on September 25, 1978, Petitioner was referred by her mathematics teacher for playing and not working in class. For this referral, she was counseled. Again, on October 25, 1978, she was referred by the social studies teacher for "being involved in a classroom disturbance with another student wherein pencils were broken, books were thrown out the window and the students began kicking each other. A parent conference was requested." On November 3, 1978, Petitioner was referred by the physical education teacher for "striking another student in the locker room for no apparent reason. Petitioner counseled and warned by principal." Again, on November 16, 1978, Petitioner was counseled for being loud and for refusing to remain quiet when requested. Petitioner was placed outside the classroom door by her English teacher. This pattern of disruptive behavior continued through March of 1979 when Petitioner was involved in a fire incident in the girl's physical education locker room. Based on this incident and the culmination of the prior behavioral problems, an administrative placement was requested by the school board for Petitioner to be assigned to the Opportunity School, which request was approved on April 3, 1979. Since that time, Petitioner has been attending the Jan Mann Opportunity School. Charles W. Bales, principal of Miami Springs Junior High School, testified that the assignment of Petitioner to the Opportunity School is beneficial inasmuch as it permits the student to utilize the benefits of smaller class settings, better individualized instruction; smaller class enrollments; better counselor to pupil ratio and basic educational program which enables a "disruptive" student to succeed in an individualized instructional setting. (TR 18-20) Testimony also reveals that the Opportunity School has a full-time visiting teacher who serves as the contact person for resolving any individual problems such as attendance or other behavioral problems for students at the Opportunity School. Ms. Helen Wilson, Petitioner's mother, requested that Principal Bales reassign Petitioner from three of her teachers due to matters which Ms. Wilson considered to be personal in nature. Principal Bales explained that there were approximately 1500 students at the school and that it was impossible for him to reassign students when personal differences of opinions exist between their teachers. Additionally, Principal Bales testified that students reassigned to the Opportunity School may request a transfer back to the regular school program following the close of the grading periods. Inasmuch as Petitioner has been attending the Jan Mann Opportunity School since March, 1979, it appears that she will be eligible for a reassignment to the regular school program provided that her grades, attendance, and behavioral pattern is such that she can function normally in the regular school program.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner's petition filed herein be dismissed. Additionally, it is requested that the Respondent give full consideration to Petitioner's request that she be reassigned to the regular school program when such a request is properly filed with the school board. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of August, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of August, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Helen Wilson 3311 North West 52 Street Miami, Florida 33142 Michael J. Neimand, Esquire Dade County School Board Lindsey Hopkins Building Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Carolyn T. Smith, holds teaching certificate number 105319, issued by the State of Florida, Department of Education. Respondent is certified to teach French and Spanish through the junior college level. Respondent has been employed as a French and Spanish teacher by Petitioner, School Board of Dade County (School Board) since 1961. From 1961 to 1966, Respondent taught at Mays Junior High School, and from 1966 through 1976 at Southwest Miami Senior High School. During the 1976-77 and 1977-78 school years Respondent was on a leave of absence. In 1978 Respondent resumed her teaching career and was assigned to Palmetto Senior High School (Palmetto). Respondent taught at Palmetto until her suspension from teaching at the conclusion of the 1982-83 school year. Respondent's annual evaluations extending from the 1961-62 school year through the 1978-79 school year were acceptable. It is Respondent's performance from the 1979-80 through 1982-83 school years which is at issue in these proceedings. During the 1979-80 school year the normal work day at Palmetto was 7:20 a.m. to 2:40 p.m. Due to personal hardship, however, Respondent was granted permission to alter her schedule to an 8:10 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. work day. Despite the accommodation afforded Respondent, on at least seven occasions between September 7, 1979 and February 21, 1980, Respondent was from five minutes to one hour and ten minutes late to work. Not only was Respondent late to her first class, she occasionally missed the class entirely as well as the beginning of her next class. On February 21, 1980 Respondent was formally observed by Elaine Kenzel, assistant principal at Palmetto. Ms. Kenzel's observation specifically apprised Respondent that she had been rated unacceptable in professional responsibility because of her tardiness. Ms. Kenzel's observation noted several other areas of performance in which Respondent was unacceptable or needed improvement. These matters were reviewed at conferences with Respondent on February 26 and 28, 1980. Portions of the conferences were attended by Francis Wargo, the principal at Palmetto. Among the topics broached at the conferences were Respondent's failure to properly maintain her grade book, her failure to follow proper grading procedures, her failure to properly assess each student's progress, her failure to use assessment techniques which motivate and enable students to learn, and lack of teacher-student rapport. Respondent's grade book for the 1979-80 school year was messy and, in large measure, incomprehensible to anyone other than Respondent. The grade book failed to indicate the grading period, failed to specify the grade source, failed to weight the grades for various tasks, and was uncoded. It depicted a poor professional image and failed to fulfill its basic purpose--to enable students, parents, replacement teachers and other authorized persons to review a student's achievement. Despite repeated critiques, Respondent's grade books showed little improvement during her tenure at Palmetto. Ms. Kenzel also counseled Respondent about her obligation to maintain a representative sampling of each student's work in her student folders. These samples were necessary to assess student progress, and should include graded tests, homework, classwork and reports. At the time of Ms. Kenzel's observation, six months into the 1979-80 school year, there were few samples of any student's work. What did exist were, in large measure, short quizzes of a vocabulary nature. The student folders were inadequate to assess a student's progress. Finally, Ms. Kenzel critiqued Respondent's instructional technique. Ms. Kenzel suggested that Respondent's students should not be simply repeating lessons in rote fashion, but should be involved in a variety of activities. This would improve student attention and enthusiasm, which Ms. Kenzel perceived was lacking. Final examinations for the 1979-80 school year were scheduled to commence at 7:30 a.m., June 9, 1980. The scheduling of examinations required a rearrangement of the normal class schedule. Fifth period, which normally began at 1:30 p.m., was scheduled for 7:30 a.m. This change required that Respondent report at 7:20 a.m. on June 9, instead of 8:10 a.m. The examination schedule was published, and discussed with Respondent at a faculty meeting. On June 9, 1980, Respondent failed to report for work until 8:15 a.m., 45 minutes after her fifth period examination was scheduled to commence. Respondent's tardiness created a poor testing atmosphere and was a cause of anxiety and frustration for her students. Respondent offered no explanation for her tardiness. On June 11, 1980, a conference for the record was held between Mr. Wargo and Respondent. Respondent's tardiness of June 9, 1980 was discussed, and she was reminded that her work day for the next year would be the same as other teachers, 7:20 a.m.-2:40 p.m. Respondent was told that disciplinary action would be recommended if she failed to observe the prescribed working hours. Respondent was also reminded that school policy forbade a teacher to permit a student to hand-carry any part of an examination to the office for duplication. Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1979-80 school year recommended Respondent for continued employment, but found her unacceptable in classroom management and teacher-student relationships. It is worthy of note that this evaluation was dated June 2, 1980, and therefore predated Respondent's tardiness of June 9, 1980 and the conference for the record held June 11, 1980. The 1980- School Year The 1980-81 school year produced few observations of Respondent's performance. During that year a massive rebuilding project was underway and the administration's attention was directed toward that project and coping with the upheaval it caused. Normal classroom assignments and instruction were often disrupted. Teachers were often moved in and out of classrooms on one day's notice. Consequently, a great deal of latitude was afforded all teachers, and all were rated acceptable. That is not to say Respondent's performance was unblemished. The evidence established two definite areas of deficiency again were present. Respondent's tardiness to school and to class continued, and Respondent was again deficient in her student assessments. In November 1981, Ms. Mona Sowers visited Respondent's class to discuss the progress of her daughter, Carolyn Ann. She was concerned because conversations she had overheard between her daughter and friends left her with the impression they were not being tested. Respondent's grade book demonstrated that no testing or grades were present for Carolyn Ann. Although she inquired of her daughter's progress, Ms. Sowers was not shown any papers, or any other work, which would objectively demonstrate her daughter's progress. Respondent's sole explanation was that she tested her students orally. There were no grades in the grade book for oral or written tests, however, and Respondent was unable to recognize Ms. Sowers' daughter as one of her students until prompted by Ms. Sowers. For the 1981-82 school year, Respondent was again scheduled to work the normal 7:20 a.m. to 2:40 p.m. work day. On the first day of class Respondent was 20 minutes late. During much of the 1981-82 school year Respondent was tardy in arriving, from two to five occasions each week. Teacher tardiness impacts directly on the quantum of education offered the students. While first period is scheduled to begin at 7:30 a.m., adherence to the 7:20 a.m. arrival time is essential if the teacher is to be prepared to start class promptly. Otherwise, 5-10 minutes of class time are wasted by the teacher in organizing herself for that day's lesson. Promptness is particularly crucial for first period since daily announcements, which can occupy up to five minutes of the period, are given at that time. Since each class period is 55 minutes in duration, a loss of only 10 minutes per day equates to a loss of one day of instruction each week. Respondent's tardiness deprived her students of valuable instructional time, and left them unsupervised--a condition not helpful to their safety. Respondent was formally observed on six separate occasions during the 1981-82 school year. Mr. Wargo's observations of September 25, 1981 and November 5, 1982, and Ms. Kenzel's observation of October 12, 1981, rated Respondent overall acceptable, but each noted some areas of unacceptable performance. The deficiencies noted in these three observations were similar to those observed in preceding years. Respondent was unacceptable in classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships and professional responsibility. Respondent wasted up to 20 minutes of class time on extraneous matters, failed to establish or enforce classroom policies on decorum or procedure, and her instruction evidenced a lack of planning. Respondent's classroom was messy and disorganized. Her tardiness continued. Each of these observations was critiqued with Respondent and suggestions to improve her performance were made. She was advised to start classes promptly, establish classroom policies and enforce them, vary her methods of instruction, and visit other classes and observe other teachers' performance. Respondent was reminded that her contract work day was 7:20 a.m. to 2:40 p.m. On February 2, 1982, Mr. Wargo stopped two students leaving Respondent's room. He discovered they had been visiting other students in Respondent's classroom, and that she was unaware of their presence. Respondent was observed passing out papers during a movie, and her students were talking and walking about. This occasioned Respondent's next formal observation. On February 4-5, 1982, Mr. Wargo formally observed Respondent's classes. He rated her overall unacceptable, and unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships and professional responsibility. Apart from Respondent's continuing tardiness, which accounted for her unacceptable rating in professional responsibility, the gravamen of her unacceptable rating in the other areas was basically inadequate planning and variety. Respondent's class was dull, her voice a monotone. Students responded in rote fashion to Respondent's singular questions. There was no variety of instruction or student feedback. Mr. Wargo directed Respondent to use the prescribed lesson plan form that had been developed at Palmetto. It was his opinion that if Respondent prepared a detailed lesson plan her classroom management would improve, student confusion would be avoided, and a more stimulating and organized presentation achieved. On February 9, 1982 Mr. Wargo held a conference with Respondent, Ms. Kenzel and Ms. Patrylo, Respondent's department head, to discuss the unacceptable observation of February 4-5, 1982, the incident of February 2, 1982, and ways to improve Respondent's techniques of instruction. During the course of that meeting, Respondent was advised that Ms. Wally Lyshkov, foreign language supervisor for Dade County Schools, would observe her class on February 19, 1982. On February 19, 1982 Respondent was formally observed by Ms. Lyshkov. While she rated Respondent overall acceptable, Ms. Lyshkov was of the opinion that Respondent's presentation was "staged" for her benefit. Her opinion was formed as a result of student comments that they did not usually do what they were doing, and by the lack of smoothness that results when activities are routine. Although "staged," Respondent's presentation indicates she knows how to teach effectively if she chooses to do so. Respondent had a very detailed lesson plan for the day Ms. Lyshkov observed her. Ms. Lyshkov reviewed Respondent's prior plans and found them to be sketchy. She recommended that Respondent continue to formulate detailed lesson plans, since Respondent's success that day proved their effectiveness. Respondent's last formal observation for the 1981-82 school year occurred on March 2, 1982. Mr. Wargo observed her classes for periods 1 and 2, and Ms. Kenzel observed for a portion of the same classes. Respondent was rated overall acceptable. The results of these observations establish that Respondent is capable of presenting a good lesson when she chooses to prepare herself. The 1981-82 school year evidenced other indications of Respondent's disposition. She was late turning in emergency lesson plans, lesson plans, course outlines and grade sheets. She was late to departmental meetings and to teacher workdays. She occasionally left her classes unsupervised. Despite her previous warning, Respondent continued to permit students to hand-carry examinations to the xerox room for copying. In May 1982 Mr. Wargo issued Respondent a letter of reprimand for unprofessional conduct in calling a student "trash." During the 1982-83 school year Respondent was heard to call various students "cabbage head," "stupid," "dumb," "disgusting," "fools," and "disgusting little creature." On May 27, 1982 Mr. Wargo completed Respondent's annual evaluation and recommended her for continued employment. While Mr. Wargo rated Respondent unacceptable in teacher-student relationships, he was apparently satisfied that she was improving her other areas of deficiency. Subsequent to the annual evaluation a significant number of serious problems surfaced which reflected on Respondent's performance and which caused Mr. Wargo to seriously question his recommendation for continued employment. Respondent was absent, without satisfactory excuse or authorization, from school during the final examination period of June 14 through June 17, 1982. According to Respondent it was not until 2:00 p.m. the preceding Friday that she first learned she would have to take her son, a 12-year-old junior high school student, to Talladega College, Talladega, Alabama, to enroll him in a "Super Stars" summer program she had selected. According to Respondent, her husband could not take their son because he was "on call" at his work. Respondent's explanation for abandoning her obligations is unpersuasive. Respondent had at least four weeks' notice that her son had been accepted for the program. Ms. Patrylo, Respondent's department head, was at school the Friday before exams until 2:45-3:00 p.m. At no time during the preceding four weeks, or on the Friday preceding exams, did Respondent advise the administration or her department head that she would need to be absent that week. Instead, Respondent "fulfilled" her obligations by "informing" the principal's and assistant principal's secretaries late Friday afternoon that she would be absent and left her final examinations in the office. Ms. Patrylo did not become aware of Respondent's absence until the morning of June 14, 1982. During the course of administering the French I final examination to Respondent's first period class Ms. Patrylo discovered a number of significant problems which reflected adversely on Respondent's competence. Respondent's French I examination was a travesty. It was not a French I examination but a French II placement test the department had previously prepared to gauge at what level an incoming student should be placed. Respondent had simply taken a copy of the placement test and written "French I Final" on it. Respondent had been previously instructed that the examination was to be thorough and cover a significant amount of the year's course content. Essay questions were to be included. The French II placement test which Respondent proposed to give her students was composed of 47 questions; no essay questions - were included. Over 50 percent of the test, 25 questions, dealt with the passe' compose', yet that grammatical structure had not been extensively taught. Twenty-five percent of the examination dealt with verbs in the past tense, yet Respondent's students had not studied the past tense. Moreover, the test only required the "bubbling in" of answers on a computer card and did not require any writing. While two hours were allotted for the examination, this exam could be completed in ten minutes. Respondent's classroom was in disarray. Maps valued at $300 were abused. Respondent's closet contained flash cards, audio visual materials, food and other materials haphazardly thrown about. The room was completely disorganized. Respondent left no instructions for completing her book inventory. Consequently, 56 of her textbooks, valued at $11.00 each, were never accounted for. When school started the next year the class was short of books. On June 18, 1982, the last day of school, Respondent was due at school at 8:00 a.m. She failed to arrive until 8:45 a.m. Because of Respondent's tardiness three members of her department had to record grades for four of her classes in order to assure timely delivery of the grade sheets to the computer center. In working with Respondent's grade book to establish final grades, these teachers noted several shortcomings. Respondent's grade book contained no code for weighting of grades, it was impossible to tell which student absences were excused or unexcused, and on some lines two students' names appeared, rendering it impossible to decipher which grades belonged to which student. On June 23, 1982 a conference for the record was held to discuss the shortcomings of Respondent's performance, which were revealed during the last days of the school year. During this conference Mr. Wargo addressed Respondent's historical and current problems in record keeping, tardiness, following district, area and school policies, and classroom management. Mr. Wargo advised Respondent, by memorandum dated June 28, 1982, that he would not recommend Respondent for continued employment for the 1983-84 school year unless she showed marked improvement during the 1982-83 school year in the following areas: Accuracy and completeness of required record keeping. Strict adherence to contracted working hours of 7:20 a.m.-2:40 p.m. You will be expected to be in your classroom no later than 7:25 a.m. Compliance with district, area, and school level directives and policies. Improved classroom management procedures to insure the following: Classroom organized and neat; Attendance and tardy procedures enforced. Seating charts available and up-to-date. Rules and procedures consistently applied. Teacher-student relationships resulting in mutual respect. Consistent classroom performance resulting in continuous acceptable ratings. Respondent agreed to follow Mr. Wargo's suggestions to improve her performance, and to cooperate with the department chairperson. She stated that she would work very diligently the next year, and promised that Mr. Wargo would see considerable improvement. The observations, evaluations, conferences and suggestions made over the preceding three years, and Respondent's commitment to improve her performance and cooperation during the 1982-83 school year, proved futile. From September 1982 through April 1983, Respondent's teaching was observed on one or more occasions by her principal and assistant principal, an area director of the Dade County public schools, and the foreign language supervisor of the Dade County public schools. Each concurs that Respondent's performance was unacceptable in preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques; the same reasons she was found unacceptable in previous years. The root of Respondent's poor performance was indolence. Although proficient in her languages, Respondent demonstrated an unwillingness to change her methods or to plan, deliver and critique her lessons. Throughout the 1982-83 school year, despite numerous conferences, prescriptions, and requests, Respondent's lesson plans were submitted late and evidenced no continuity of purpose. At best, they were sketchy, disorganized and unduly repetitive. At worst, they were incomprehensible and illegible. Their content and appearance compel the conclusion they were hastily prepared to superficially comply with the requirement that she have lesson plans, but without any attention to their content or purpose. Respondent's classroom management was unacceptable throughout the school year. Frequently, less than one-half of available class time was devoted to foreign language instruction. Students were often unruly and undisciplined. They were permitted, without censure, to read novels, listen to radios, gossip, and apparently sleep during Respondent's classes. Respondent's inability or failure to manage her classroom was in large measure a product of her failure to prepare her lessons. Because of the low cognitive level at which Respondent taught, her classes were dull and conducive to student disruption. Her techniques of instruction were unacceptable. Respondent emphasized memorization, recall and drill on a purely audio-lingual basis and ignored the variety and repetitive reinforcement benefits that could be derived from reading and writing a foreign language. Respondent's assessment techniques were unacceptable. After three months into the 1982-83 school year, Respondent's grade book reflected only one written test and her student folders contained no assessment of her students' reading and writing skills. This situation did not improve over the course of the year. At no time during the course of the final hearing did Respondent concede she needed improvement in her techniques. The evidence, however, renders it painfully apparent that a serious problem did exist. Respondent testified that she practiced the audio- lingual method of foreign language instruction, which emphasizes listening and speaking, through level III of a foreign language. Repetition, she says, is essential. Accordingly, Respondent concludes, the presence of repetition in her lesson plans was essential, and the absence of many written tests in her grade book, or student papers reflecting reading and writing skills in the student folders, not unusual. Respondent's explanation ignores some very salient factors, to which she was privy. The Dade County curriculum requires that the four skills-- listening, speaking, reading and writing--be taught at each level of foreign language instruction. Further, Respondent had received unsatisfactory ratings in student assessments during the preceding three years because of her failure to properly test and her failure to document her students' progress in the student folders. By her own testimony Respondent concedes she did not teach the prescribed curriculum. Because of that failure she was unable to assess her students' skills in reading and writing since she had not developed them. By neglecting the reading and writing skills, Respondent not only deprived her students of the skills themselves, but also of the stimulation such variety in technique would have brought to her classroom, the reinforcement that would have been achieved by developing those skills, and the positive impact it would have had on class management. Respondent's attendance history during the 1982-83 school year was poor. As early as September 1982 Respondent was admonished by her principal for her failure to observe the 7:20 a.m. to 2:40 p.m work day, yet she subsequently arrived, on a number of occasions, after 7:30 a.m. During the second semester her tardiness took a new twist. During this time period, while Respondent would apparently arrive at school by the mandated 7:20 a.m. deadline, she would not open her classroom door until 7:30 a.m. While apparently in her classroom at 7:20 a.m., Respondent would not turn on any lights and, consequently, neither student nor administrator could assure her presence. Ms. Patrylo, Respondent's department head, asked Respondent to leave a light on in the room so that Respondent's students would know she was there, and so Ms. Patrylo would not have to be concerned about her absence and the need to unlock the door to admit Respondent's students. Respondent refused Ms. Patrylo's request because "she did not want to run up the electric bill for the Dade County schools." Respondent's response to Ms. Patrylo is not indicative of a cooperative attitude. It is, however, indicative of a plan to frustrate the administration in its attempt to monitor Respondent's compliance with the contracted work hours. The evidence establishes, however, that Respondent failed to adhere to her contracted work hours for the 1982-83 school year. The administration of Palmetto Senior High School, and the School Board, went to considerable lengths in the 1982-83 school year to rehabilitate Respondent. Their efforts were, however, met by little or no effort by Respondent to improve herself. Respondent asserts, rather incongruously since she acknowledges no imperfection in her teaching techniques, that the cause of her failure to improve was caused by the observations and prescriptions themselves and because she had four preparations that school year. Respondent's assertions are unpersuasive. At no time during the 1982-83 school year did Respondent render any such objections. The number of preparations Respondent had was not excessive. Respondent could have obviated the necessity of any prescriptions, and most observations, by abiding the commitment she had given Mr. Wargo at the close of the 1981-82 school year--to improve her performance in these same areas. In short, Respondent's attempt to excuse her "failures," because of the administration's statutorily and contractually mandated efforts to assist her, lacks substance. While occasional improvement in Respondent's performance was seen over the course of the 1982-83 school year, it was sporadic and short-lived. Despite counseling, prescriptions, and workshops, Respondent continued to perform at an unsatisfactory level in the same areas as previous years. It was the consensus of opinion of the professional educators and experts who observed Respondent's classroom performance that she repeatedly failed to teach effectively and faithfully as required by Rule 6Gx 13-4A-1.21V, School Board of Dade County, and failed to communicate with and relate to the children in her classroom to such an extent that they were deprived of a minimum educational experience. The evidence compels the same conclusion. Respondent's tardiness further deprived her students of the minimum educational experience to which they were entitled and her frequent absences from the classroom could have placed her students in physical jeopardy. At the conclusion of the 1982-83 school year Respondent was suspended from her position as a classroom teacher in the Dade County school system.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED That: Petitioner, School Board of Dade County, enter a Final Order in Case No. 83-3067, sustaining Respondent's suspension from her employment, and dismissing Respondent as an employee of the School Board of Dade County; and Petitioner, Ralph D. Turlington, as Commisioner of Education, enter a Final Order in Case No. 84-0149 revoking the teacher's certificate of Respondent, Carolyn T. Smith, for two (2) years. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 1985, at Tallahassee Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 2nd day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Craig R. Wilson, Esquire The Law Building Suite 204 315 Third Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Ellen L. Leesfield, Esquire DuFresne and Bradley, P.A. 2929 S.W. 3rd Avenue Miami, Florida 33129 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
