Conclusions This cause coming on to be heard before THE SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, at its meeting conducted on August 16, 2011, to consider the Recommended Order, entered on June 21, 2011 by the Honorable Claude B. Arrington, Administrative Law Judge of the State of Florida, Division of Administrative Hearings. THE SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, having considered the Recommended Order, to which neither party filed exceptions, and being fully advised in the Premises: IT IS THEREUPON ORDERED AND ADJUDGED BY THE SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: 1. The Recommended Order is adopted in its entirety and incorporated herein by reference; and 2. RACHEL VON HAGEN’S professional service contract with The School Board of Broward County, Florida is terminated. Filed September 13, 2011 8:54 AM Division of Administrative Hearings Broward County School Board vs. Rachel Von Hagen DOAH Case Number: 11-0567 SBBC AGENDA 081611H02-Final Order aa AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida this \ ( aay of hag » 2011. THE SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD Za Aa By: ia iW. Williams, Chair COPIES FURNISHED: CHARLES T. WHITELOCK, ESQ. Charles T. Whitelock, P.A. 300 Southeast 13" Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 MARK HERDMAN, ESQ. Herdman and Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater Florida 33761 STATE OF FLORIDA, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 Broward County Schoo! Board vs. Rachel von Hagen DOAH Case Number: 11-0567 SBBC AGENDA 081611H02-Final Order APPEAL OF FINAL ORDER Pursuant to Section 120.68, Fla. Sta., a party to this proceeding may seek judicial review of this Final Order in the appropriate district court of appeal by filing a notice of appeal with Noemi Gutierrez, Agency Clerk, Official School Board Records, The School Board of Broward County, Florida, 600 Southeast Third Avenue — 2"! Floor, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301, on or before thirty (30) days from the date of this Final Order. A copy of the notice and a copy of this Final Order, together with the appropriate filing fee, must also be filed with the Clerk, Fourth District Court of Appeal, 1525 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-2399. If you fail to file your notice of appeal within the time prescribed by laws and the rules of court, you will lose your right to appeal this Final Order. fritz/allwork/doah/employment/vonhagen Rachel final order-final
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner has just cause to suspend Respondent from work without pay and to terminate his employment.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Richard Rahey “Respondent" or "Mr. Rahey" was employed by the Palm Beach County School District "Petitioner" or the “District” as a school monitor and behavior intervention associate at Benoist Farms Elementary School (Benoist) during the 2008-2009 school year. He also served as a parent liaison and the President of the Parent Teacher Organization (the "PTO"). In January 2009, District Police began an investigation of bank accounts associated with Benoist when a check that was sent by an organization that subsidizes after school care was not received by the director of Benoist's after school program. Detective Robert Walton found that the check in the amount of $2,314.47 was deposited in an account at a different bank from the one used for Benoist school accounts. Only Mr. Rahey had access to the other account called the "Benoist Farms Elementary PTO" account (the "PTO account"). When asked about the check intended for the after school program, Mr. Rahey said he found it in his school mailbox, so he deposited it. Detective Walton had investigated Mr. Rahey for PTO bank account irregularities in 2005. At that time, Mr. Rahey was an employee and PTO President at Seminole Trails Elementary School ("Seminole Trails"). Although the evidence was insufficient to refer the matter for criminal prosecution, Mr. Rahey was found to have failed "to safeguard money designated for children." A letter of reprimand dated June 15, 2005, warned him as follows: You are directed to familiarize yourself with the established procedures and protocol for handling funds and deposits. You are further reminded that the district's best practices with regard to the collection and deposit of money must be followed. You are advised that any future failure to follow the aforementioned direction will result in further disciplinary action up to and including termination. Detective Walton had more reasons to investigate Mr. Rahey's finances further after finding in public records that Mr. Rahey's home was in foreclosure and that he had filed for bankruptcy. At Detective Walton's request, a subpoena was issued for records from the PTO account and from Mr. Rahey's personal bank account. A number of checks from the PTO account were written to Sam's Club, so Detective Walton requested and received an itemized printout of purchases made using a tax- exempt Benoist PTO Sam's Club membership. When Detective Walton examined the accounts and purchases, he found what appeared to be unauthorized and unexplained purchases, and checks made to cash that totaled in excess of $3,600.00 over a period of time from January 2008 to April 2009. When questioned in May 2009, Mr. Rahey told Detective Walton that he did not remember or was not sure about some of the purchases. He insisted, however, that they were legitimate expenditures for the school, but his records were insufficient to support his claims. Mr. Rahey only had his handwritten ledger to show the purposes of the expenditures. During the questioning, he also acknowledged that Detective Walton had told him in 2005 that the same kind of record-keeping was inadequate for a school organization. This time Detective Walton determined that there was sufficient evidence to refer the case for criminal prosecution.1 Dr. Ruth Ann Miller was the Principal at Benoist. Detective Walton questioned her about certain items, including a PTO account check written for a "microwave for Dr. Miller." Dr. Miller had not authorized Mr. Rahey to buy a microwave and did not have the microwave. When she confronted Mr. Rahey, he initially denied having used funds from the account for his personal use. The District provided Mr. Rahey a copy of the Detective Walton's investigative report and invited Mr. Rahey to attend a Pre-disciplinary Meeting that was held on October 2, 2009, which he did. At the meeting and during the hearing, Mr. Rahey admitted his mistakes, apologized, and blamed his actions on his difficult financial situation as a single parent whose former spouse had stopped paying child support. Superintendent Arthur C. Johnson, by letter dated February 12, 2010, notified Mr. Rahey that he would recommend to the Board at its meeting on March 3, 2010, that he be suspended without pay and that his employment be terminated. As grounds for his action, the Superintendent listed conversion of District funds and/or property, ethical misconduct, failure to exercise best professional judgment, failure to properly control District funds, falsification of documentation, and theft. The following specific policies and statutes were also cited: School Board Policies 1.013 - Responsibilities of School District Personnel and Staff; 2.32 - Personal Business on School Time; 2.16 - Fund Raising Activities by School; 3.27 - Suspension and Dismissal of Employees; and Florida Statutes Section 817.034(4)(a)3. - Organized Fraud; and Section 812.014 - Grand Theft. As a result of budget cuts at Benoist, Mr. Rahey transferred to Bear Lakes Middle School where he was employed as a school monitor until he was dismissed from employment in April 2010. He has continued to serve as a volunteer parent liaison and business partner coordinator at Bear Lakes Middle School where he has the full support of the principal, Dr. Anthony Lockhart. His effectiveness has been compromised. Dr. Lockhart, for example, monitors Mr. Rahey's activities to make sure that he does not handle any money. Although he has confessed to committing the violations of policy and the crimes as charged, Mr. Rahey maintains that his employment should not be terminated because he has done so many worthwhile things to assist the schools. He has increased the number of volunteers and business partners at Bear Lakes. He was instrumental in having one business partner donate $10,000.00 for computers. Over the ten years that he has worked for and volunteered in District schools, Mr. Rahey has received excellent evaluations. He has been volunteer of the year once and has been nominated employee of the year four times. Mr. Rahey helped solicit school supplies and uniforms for new students in the District who were evacuated from Haiti following the earthquake. He has received absolution from his church pastor.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order that suspends Respondent from employment without pay and terminates his employment with the District. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of November, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 10th day of November, 2010.
Findings Of Fact Background Respondent is a teacher certified in English, which he has taught while employed by Petitioner. He was first employed by Petitioner during the 1984-85 school year. In 1987, he was awarded a professional service contract. He has six years' teaching experience outside Highlands County. Principals or assistant principals routinely conduct annual teacher evaluations. The evaluation form contains two sections. Section 1 contains 14 categories that are marked based on one or more classroom observations. Section 2 contains 15 categories that are marked based on classroom observations and experience with the teacher. The back of the evaluation form explains the marks as follows: Mark Description Commendable (C) Indicates exceptional performance of the identified behavior(s). Satisfactory (S) Indicates satisfactory performance of the identified behavior(s) Needs Improvement (NI) Indicates a need for the employee to strengthen/improve performance of the identified behavior(s). Must Improve (MI) Indicates a need for the employee to remediate deficient behavior(s). If the deficiency is not corrected, the employee's contract status could be affected. The back of the evaluation form explains the "NEAT Procedure/Due Process": When an employee is evaluated as Must Improve, remediation procedures must be implemented as follows: Notice--The employee has the right to receive full written notification of the identified deficient behaviors. Explanation--The employee has the right to receive a full explanation for the reason behaviors are considered deficient. Assistance--The employee has the right to receive assistance in remediating the deficient behavior. Time--The employee has the right to a reasonable amount of time to achieve remediation. Various documents exist to normalize the evaluations of teachers. However, a degree of subjectivity necessarily remains in the evaluation process. Petitioner has prepared a booklet entitled, "Performance Appraisal System for Instructional Personnel" (Appraisal Booklet). The Appraisal Booklet introduced into evidence is dated October 5, 1992, but, judging from the cover letter from the superintendent, was in effect for the entire 1992-93 school year. The Appraisal Booklet contains, at page 12, a section describing the assessment process. The booklet states in part: When a competency or behavior is marked "NI-Needs Improvement," the appraiser shall provide counseling and/or resources whereby improvement may occur. For each competency or behavior which is marked "MI--Must Improve," a remediation procedure must be designed and implemented. The procedures will be described in a Professional Development Plan, as called for in the NEAT procedures. Each deficient item shall be addressed in a separate [Professional Development Plan]. The plan shall include the following: Area to be improved: specify the identified problem. Specific desired improvement: write as a measurable goal or objective. Action to be taken: describe action the involved parties will complete to achieve desired improvement. Assistance plan: List and describe who will provide assistance, showing role of each participant. Time line: specify dates for each activity to be completed and evaluated. Evaluation: describe how and when evaluation of progress or success will occur. Consequences: specify consequences if improvement is not achieved satisfactorily. The Appraisal Booklet contains, at page 15, a section entitled, "Use of Assessment Data for Personnel Decisions." This section requires written comments for every C, NI, or MI. Under a subsection entitled, "Unsatisfactory Ratings," the Appraisal Booklet states in its entirety: For every MI assigned, the assessor will conduct a follow-up of the Professional Development Plan to determine if the appraisee accomplished the required improvement and/or when that competency will be reassessed. Failure to improve within the expected time may be grounds for returning to annual contract for an employee holding a Professional Service Contract or a Continuing Contract. If the deficiency is not corrected during the second year, it may be grounds for non-renewal. (See NEAT) If the appraisee receives two consecutive unsatisfactory annual evaluations, the superintendent shall notify the Department of Education as required by statute. On [the evaluation form] three or more ratings of MI . . . will constitute an "unsatisfactory annual evaluation" for purposes of reporting to the DOE. The Appraisal Booklet discusses C's. Nothing in this section of the booklet explicitly addresses NI's except, as noted above, that comments must accompany each NI. The contract between Petitioner and the teachers discusses evaluations, but not in such detail as to address the meaning of NI's and MI's. Concerning remediation, the contract states: Where deficiencies are brought to the teacher's attention by his/her supervisor, the teacher shall be responsible for taking the necessary steps for improving his/her skills to an acceptable level as determined by the principal. Assistance shall be offered the employee and such assistance for improvement shall be noted in writing and a signed copy be retained by the appropriate supervisor and the employee. Following remediation, reassessment shall be accorded the employee in compliance with the procedures of Article XI. If the final assessment report fails to note specific deficiency, it shall be interpreted to mean adequate improvement has taken place. The professional judgment of the evaluator shall not be subject to the grievance procedure. The contract acknowledges that it shall not be interpreted to abridge or in any way usurp the authority or power of [Petitioner] as established by constitutional provisions or state Board of Education regulations or statutes existing at the time of the [contract]. And further, [Petitioner] shall be relieved of compliance with any term or condition of this [contract] if such compliance is contrary to any constitutional provision or state Board of Education regulation or statute in effect or enacted subsequent to the signing of this [contract]. Petitioner has no clear written or unwritten policy regarding whether a performance deficiency evidenced by an MI is corrected by an NI, rather than a C or an S. The determination whether a teacher has corrected performance deficiencies depends on the circumstances. The Lake Placid Teacher Handbook for the 1992-93 school year, a copy of which was given to Respondent at the beginning of the year, notes that teachers are to administer their assertive discipline plan and enforce all school rules. Regarding student control, "teachers must not argue with students, use profanity or sarcasm, and must keep hands off students." Petitioner's Code of Student Conduct for the 1992-93 school year describes the teacher's role in the maintenance of discipline as starting with the preparation of a classroom assertive discipline plan, which outlines a series of increasing consequences for disciplinary problems. Under the first step, the teacher will follow his or her plan, which may contain consequences such as withholding a privilege, isolation, counseling, detention, extra work, task assignment, or a parent conference. Under the second step, if the misconduct is repeated, the teacher shall try to contact the parent and record the result. Under the third step, the teacher will refer the matter to the social worker, school nurse, Guidance Committee, or School Attendance Review Committee for positive intervention. Under the fourth step, if the problem persists or the misconduct becomes a major disruption, the teacher will complete a student disciplinary referral form and a school administrator will determine the appropriate punishment. Evaluations Prior to 1991-92 School Year Respondent's evaluation dated November 13, 1985, contains all S's with the exception of an NI for circulating and assisting students. The evaluation was prepared by Donn Goodwin, an assistant principal at Sebring High School where Respondent was then teaching. Respondent's evaluation dated March 5, 1986, contains all S's except for C's in demonstrating friendly, positive attitude toward all students; maintaining academic focus; using effective questioning techniques; providing for practice; dependability; and punctuality/attendance. The evaluation contains one NI for parent/community relations. The comment accompanying the NI is obscured, but suggests that Respondent did not schedule enough parent conferences, although he did a good job with those that he conducted. The evaluation was prepared by James Bible, the principal of Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated September 4, 1986, contains all S's except for C's in demonstrating effective communication skills, presenting subject matter effectively, maintaining academic focus, arranging physical features of the classroom for a safe learning environment, dependability, work attitude, and commitment. A note at the bottom of the evaluation states that Respondent maintained an "excellent class." The evaluation was prepared by Michael Agner, an assistant principal at Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated February 25, 1987, contains all S's except for C's in maintaining academic focus and maintaining effective classroom control and an NI in using specific academic praise. The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. Respondent's evaluation dated April 6, 1988, contains all S's except for C's in demonstrating effective communication skills, having materials ready, maintaining academic focus, using effective questioning techniques, punctuality/attendance, quantity/quality of work, commitment, and professional behavior/ethics. The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. Respondent's evaluation dated February 28, 1989, contains all S's. A comment under parent/community relations notes: "Need to continue working in this area. Parental support helps your teaching." A comment under student/staff relations adds: "Need to be mindful of backing students in corners with no alternatives." The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. Respondent's evaluation dated October 17, 1989, was obscured in the copying process. It appears to contain all S's with some C's in Section 1. The evaluation was prepared by Thomas Knowles, an assistant principal at Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated October 3, 1990, contains all S's. The evaluation was prepared by Ruth Hatfield, then an assistant principal at Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated February 20, 1991, contains all S's except for C's in having materials ready and circulating and assisting students and NI's in punctuality/attendance, student/staff relations, personal appearance, and receptiveness. Among the comments under Section 1 is that the observer did not see Respondent's assertive discipline rules posted. Section 2 comments are that Respondent was often late and "very defensive--refuses criticism." Under student/staff relations, the comment is: "Alienates students. Backs up kids in corners. Need to be aware of this." Another comment suggests a need to dress more professionally. The final comment states: "Need to work on areas that deal with students and parents." The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. A letter dated May 13, 1991, memorializes a conference that took place on May 9, 1991, between Respondent and Rebecca Clark, another assistant principal at Sebring High School. The letter states that Ms. Clark had noticed Respondent leaving his class while two guest speakers were making a presentation. Upon questioning, Respondent said that he had to run a quick errand and would be right back. Ms. Clark remained in the classroom until the end of the period, at which time Respondent returned. The letter warns Respondent that he must remain with his class and may not leave campus without prior authorization from an administrator. Evaluations During 1991-92 School Year A new principal, Calvin Smith, replaced Mr. Bible at Sebring High School for the 1991-92 school year. Mr. Smith conducted Respondent's next evaluation, which was dated December 2, 1991. Based on an observation taking place during a 50- minute period on November 26, 1991, Respondent received all S's in Section 1 except for a C in presenting the subject matter effectively and an NI in using specific academic praise. In Section 2, Respondent received S's in only five categories: keeping accurate records, punctuality and attendance, initiative, student evaluation, and professional growth. Receiving no C's in Section 2, Respondent received three NI's in personal appearance, receptiveness, and commitment and seven MI's in dependability, work attitude, parent/community relations, student/staff relations, quantity/quality of work, planning, and professional behavior/ethics. The comments for the NI's are brief and in handwriting. Under receptiveness, the comment is: "seem[s] to be afraid of dealing with a problem. I am only trying to make you a better teacher." The comment under commitment states: "dedicate yourself to your job. You have too much talent to waste." Each MI is treated in a separate Professional Development Plan. The Professional Development Plans, which are attached to the December 2 evaluation, consist of several parts: "area to be improved," "desired improvement," "action to be taken," "who will provide assistance," "time line for achieving objectives/goal/improvement," "evaluation process to determine improvement," and "consequences if improvement is not satisfactorily achieved." Under parent/community relations, the desired improvement is: "When dealing with parents you must exhibit an air of professionalism but be understanding." The action to be taken is: "Schedule parent conferences as needed to resolve situations with students. Apologize for your actions if need be and start over with the situation." Under dependability, the desired improvement is: "Should show he is able to be counted on without constant badgering." The action to be taken is: "Submit lesson plans on time. Supply I[n] S[chool] S[uspension] students with work when requested. Meet with parents without being directed to do so. Learn to deal with students as an adult rather than getting into shouting matches, etc." Under student/staff relations, the desired improvement is: "Show you understand students by working with them in correcting deficiencies." The action to be taken is: "Don't get in students['] faces and yell at them. Don't allow things to go on and then establish a rule of the next one goes to the office. Learn to deal with student problems rather than expecting the office to handle the problem." Under work attitude, the desired improvement is: "Show that you like what you do. Turn students on to your subject. Work on faculty relations." The action to be taken is: "Be cooperative in dealing with parents, students, and faculty members. Present an atmosphere of enthusiasm that is contagious and infectious to those around you." Each Professional Development Plan states that assistance or training would be provided if requested by Respondent. For student/staff relations, the plan states: "Inservice will be provided by administrators as requested and a workshop may be recommended." Similar language is contained in the plan for work attitude. Under time line for achieving objectives/goal, improvement, each Professional Development Plan states: "Should show some immediate improvement but enough improvement must be shown prior to evaluation in 92/93 school year to remove the MI." Each Professional Development Plan describes the evaluation process to determine improvement as: "List kept of ineffective behaviors. [Respondent] will be given a copy of each item placed in folder." Each Professional Development Plan warns that, "if improvement is not satisfactorily achieved," there will be a "recommendation to place [Respondent] back on annual contract." By letter dated December 16, 1991, Mr. Smith refers to the evaluation and the evaluation conference that took place on December 5, 1991. The letter notes that one of the Professional Development Plans required Respondent to supply in-school suspension students with work when requested. The letter acknowledges that Respondent had said at the conference that he would take care of all of the MI's. The December 16 letter notes that Respondent had already failed to provide make-up work for five named students who had been sent to in-school suspension. Students punished by in-school suspension are prohibited from attending their classes, but are sent to another part of the school. It is important for their teachers to provide their assignments, so the students can study the same materials that the teacher is presenting to their classes. The December 16 letter concludes: "Repeated cases of this problem will lead to my recommendation to the superintendent that you be suspended without pay for five (5) days for gross insubordination." Respondent received a second evaluation from Mr. Smith during the 1991-92 school year. Dated March 3, 1992, the second evaluation is slightly worse than the first. Section 1 contains the same C for the presentation of the subject matter and NI for using specific academic praise. A new NI appears in Section 1 for demonstrating friendly attitude toward all students, and a new MI appears for maintaining effective classroom control. The new MI rating appears to be based in part on Respondent's allowing several students to have food and drink in the classroom after telling one student to dispose of his food or drink. In Section 2, Respondent received five S's, as he did in the first evaluation, as planning went from MI to S and punctuality/attendance went from S to NI. Work attitude improved from MI to NI, but personal appearance and receptiveness went from NI to MI. A written comment states that dependability improved some, but not enough to remove the MI. The MI's on the March 3 evaluation are again the subject of attached Professional Development Plans. Under dependability, the desired improvement is: "Show you are able to be counted on without constant badgering." The action to be taken is: "Learn to deal with students without being sarcastic or getting into shouting matches. Student and parent complaints are numerous." Under parent/community relations, the desired improvement is: "Exhibit an air of professionalism in meetings with parents." The action to be taken is: "Schedule parent conferences as needed to resolve situations with students. Apologize for your actions if need be and start over. Show parents you care about their child." Under student/staff relations, the desired improvement is: "Work with students in correcting deficiencies." The action to be taken is: "Learn to deal with student problems. Be more friendly. Be consistent in your discipline but be fair." Under receptiveness, the desired improvement is: "Be able to listen to constructive criticism and follow suggestions made by administration." the action to be taken is: "Follow rules and regulations established for personnel and students at Sebring High School rather than defying directions given by an administrator." Each of the Professional Development Plans states that the administration will provide assistance or training if requested to do so by Respondent. The time line for achieving objectives/goal/improvement is now "immediate" for the cited areas. There is no longer any mention of the removal of MI's, except that the Professional Development Plan for student/staff relations requires: "Immediate improvement--MI must be removed prior to October 92 visitation." The consequence of Respondent's failure to remove the MI's remains returning him to annual contract. The March 3 evaluation is followed by a letter dated March 9, 1992, from Mr. Smith to the superintendent. Mr. Smith writes that Respondent has not improved since the December 2 evaluation and recommends that Respondent be placed on annual contract for the following school year. The Grievance Process On March 13, 1992, Respondent filed a grievance seeking a list of specific remedies for each MI in the March 3 evaluation, adherence to the NEAT procedure, a reconfirmation of the deadline stated in the December 2 evaluation of 1992-93 "for remediation," withdrawal of the recommendation that Respondent be returned to annual contract, and transfer of Respondent to another position where he could be evaluated by someone not part of the current Sebring High School administration. Mr. Smith responded to the grievance with two documents, both dated April 7, 1992. In a three-page memorandum, Mr. Smith recounted the December 2 evaluation, noting that Respondent's "statement to all of this (as he signed the assessment and the PDP's) was, 'You mean all I have to do is correct these and I will get satisfactories?'" The April 7 memorandum notes that the March 3 evaluation was worse than the December 2 evaluation. Despite the fact that, with one exception, the March 3 evaluation did not equate correction with the removal of MI's, the April 7 memorandum states: "[Respondent] still has until the 1992-93 assessment to remove the MI's from his assessment. However, if he does not, he will be notified of non-renewal of a contract for 1993-94." Attached to the April 7 memorandum are "Specific Remedies for Must Improve." These remedies track the areas receiving MI's in the evaluations and discussion in the Professional Development Plans. Under maintaining effective classroom control, the April 7 attachment informs Respondent that he is to ensure that his students follow the rules. Under dependability, the April 7 attachment gives 12 examples of assignments that Respondent must perform. These include timely providing grades for meetings of the School Attendance Review Committee, remaining current with printed attendance sheets, submitting in-school suspension assignments when requested, arriving and leaving on time, not leaving the classroom unattended, and not allowing the students to break the rules. Under parent/community relations, the April 7 attachment states that Respondent should meet with parents at his initiative rather than waiting until irate parents demand a conference after hearing their child's complaints. Also, the attachment advises Respondent to be "gentle" with parents and not be negative. The attachment suggests that Respondent return parents' telephone calls. Under student/staff relations, the April 7 attachment warns Respondent not to back students into a corner. The attachment notes that many reports indicate that Respondent uses sarcasm with students and then disciplines them when they reciprocate with sarcasm. The attachment recommends, "Work on your personality to be more accepting and understanding of students." Under quantity/quality of work, the April 7 attachment suggests that Respondent spend more time on grammar rather than literature alone. The attachment suggests that Respondent should become involved with students' activities so that they know that he cares about them, as well as about what they learn. Under receptiveness, the April 7 attachment notes a lack of desire by Respondent to change his attitude about the providing in-school suspension assignments. Under professional behavior/ethics, the April 7 attachment recommends that Respondent not retaliate against students. It is unclear exactly what Mr. Smith means by "retaliate"; it may mean confront the students in class or respond to the students' sarcasm with sarcasm. By letter dated May 13, 1992, Deputy Superintendent John Martin decided the grievance by determining that Petitioner would grant Respondent a subsequent year of employment, under a subsequent year or annual contract, to correct the indicated deficiencies, and, if Respondent "corrects the indicated deficiencies," he would be given a new professional service contract. The May 13 letter also states that Respondent would be transferred, as he had requested. Respondent chose not to pursue additional grievance procedures available to him, so the grievance was resolved at this point. On May 15, 1992, Petitioner informed Respondent that he had been appointed for a "subsequent year of employment . . . on annual contract pursuant to Florida Statute 231.26(3)(e)." On June 23, 1992, Petitioner and Respondent executed a contract for a "'subsequent year of employment,' as that term is used in 231.36(3)(e), Florida Statutes . . .," for the 1992-93 school year. The 1991-92 School Year During the 1991-92 school year at Sebring High School, Respondent experienced problems in his relationship with the students and parents and in his inability to fulfill certain important responsibilities imposed on each teacher. With students, Respondent was often sarcastic. When the students returned in like kind, Respondent took offense and disciplined them, often with a disciplinary referral to the office. Mr. Smith witnessed a half dozen confrontations between Respondent and students in the main office where Respondent made derogatory remarks to the students. With parents, Respondent often failed to behave professionally in parent/teacher conferences. He walked out on one conference involving a parent who was also a teacher at Sebring High School. He often responded negatively to parents and sometimes failed to follow through on conferences or even return parents' telephone calls. Respondent was often late in fulfilling his duties. He was frequently late in getting his grades or attendance sheets to the Student Attendance Review Committee, which consisted of a guidance counsellor, an administrator, student's teachers, and student's parents who met periodically to discuss a student's attendance problems. Respondent consistently failed to submit assignments for students who had been assigned to in-school suspension. Each of the deficiencies described in the preceding paragraph interfered materially with Respondent's performance as a teacher. With respect to each of these deficiencies, Respondent was materially worse than his fellow teachers at Sebring High School. The resulting evaluations were the worst ever given by Mr. Smith, who describes himself as a hard evaluator. Evaluations During the 1992-93 School Year As Respondent demanded in the grievance, Petitioner transferred Respondent to Lake Placid High School for the 1992- 93 school year. He was assigned to teach English to all of the ninth grade students except those in honors and dropout prevention. On November 3, 1992, Respondent received his first evaluation at Lake Placid High School. He received all S's except for C's in demonstrating effective communication skills, and student evaluations and NI's in maintaining academic focus and maintaining effective classroom control. The evaluation was prepared by David Robinson, who was an assistant principal. On February 25, 1993, Respondent received a second evaluation for the 1992-93 school year. This evaluation, which was prepared by the principal, Roger Goddard, was worse than the first. There were no C's, and there were NI's in demonstrating friendly attitude toward all students, maintaining academic focus, parent/community relations, student/staff relations, receptiveness, and professional behavior/ethics. Under the comments in Section 1 of the February 25 evaluation, a note reads: "Needs skills in [knowing] when to use in-class discipline or office referral." The handwritten comments under Section 2 note that Respondent "had difficulty dealing with parents in conferences an/or returning phone calls" and "lack[s] rapport with students, staff, and administration." The handwritten comments state that Respondent is "many times defensive during conferences with administrators" and "needs a better procedure with make-up work utilizing school policy." By letter dated March 19, 1993, Dr. Goddard informed Respondent that he would be unable to reappoint Respondent for employment at Lake Placid High School for the following school year. Respondent asked Dr. Goddard to perform another evaluation, and Dr. Goddard did so on April 23, 1993. There were fewer NI's than in the February 25 evaluation, but the evaluation was not much better. Under Section 1, Respondent received all S's except for an NI in demonstrating a friendly attitude toward all students. An anecdotal comment adds: "There have been over 70 referrals for discipline during the year. This is as many as 20 other teachers combined." Under Section 2, Respondent received all S's except for three NI's in parent/community relations, student/staff relations, and receptiveness. Accompanying handwritten notes state that Respondent "still shows difficulty in dealing with parent conferences," "still lacks understanding of role of assistant principal [and] staff," and "many times still defensive regarding suggestions from administration." By letter dated April 26, 1993, Dr. Goddard advised Respondent that he could not change his original recommendation given on March 19. The letter states that the recommendation is based on the need for a change in the ability to handle discipline effectively within the classroom, handle parent conferences without conflict, and be receptive to administrative suggestions without a defensive attitude. By letter dated April 30, 1993, to Dr. Goddard, Respondent states, in part: . . . Some administrators are possessed by a sort of spectral indifference, and look at their fellow beings as ghosts. For them, teachers and other staff members are often merely vague shadowy forms, hardly distinct from the nebulous background of such a life, and easily blended with the invisible. But you, Dr. Goddard, are an honorable man and I believe, from our conversations, that you really care about the parents, staff, and students of our school. . . . Respondent's letter to Dr. Goddard discusses the preceding evaluation and asks for an opportunity to continue teaching. By letter dated May 25, 1993, Superintendent Richard Farmer states that Dr. Goddard had informed Mr. Farmer that Respondent had not successfully removed all deficiencies from his evaluation. The letter advises Respondent that his annual contract was expiring, Dr. Goddard had decided not to issue Respondent another annual contract, and, according to Section 231.36(4), Florida Statutes, Petitioner would not issue him a new professional service contract. By notice to the Florida Department of Education dated June 2, 1993, Dr. Goddard advised that, after two consecutive unsatisfactory annual evaluations, Respondent's employment with Petitioner was being terminated or not renewed. The 1992-93 School Year Despite the absence of MI's on the 1992-93 evaluations, the problems Respondent had experienced with students, parents, and administrators in 1991-92 worsened in 1992-93. With respect to relations with students, the basic problem is that Respondent reverted to sarcasm at Lake Placid High School, and his students reciprocated, just as his students at Sebring High School had done the prior year. Sarcasm bred sarcasm, which bred disciplinary referrals--125 of them in fact. Respondent outdistanced his nearest competitor in disciplinary referrals by 2.5 times. On two separate days, Respondent submitted more than 10 disciplinary referrals--more than most teachers submitted all year. As Dr. Goddard's comment notes, Respondent issued more disciplinary referrals than a score of his colleagues. The huge number of disciplinary referrals did not mean that Respondent was maintaining firm control of his classes. To the contrary, he was not able to maintain firm control of his classes, partly due to the atmosphere of mutual disrespect that his sarcasm engendered. The number of disciplinary referrals indicated that Respondent had lost control of the situation and tried to shift to the administrators the job of regaining control of his classroom. A major part of the problem, in addition to Respondent's sarcasm, was his inability to adhere to his own assertive discipline plan. Respondent's assertive discipline plan, which was duly posted in his classroom, contains the following consequences in increasing order of severity: warning, contact parents, detention, and office referral. Sometime during the school year, Respondent switched the second and third consequences, so that he would place a student on detention before he would contact the parents. This change was duly posted in the classroom. Respondent's assertive discipline plan is satisfactory, but he never adhered to it. Sometimes he gave detentions, but then failed to appear at the location where the students were to serve the detentions. Sometimes Respondent simply placed the offending students in the hall where they remained, unsupervised, in violation of school rules. Sometimes Respondent gave warnings, and often he gave disciplinary referrals. But he displayed an aversion to parent/teacher conferences by almost invariably omitting the step that required him to contact a parent. Nearly all disciplinary referrals were made prior to this step taking place, and many were made prior to giving the student a detention. Respondent clung doggedly to his sarcasm despite all efforts to free him from this habitual behavior. Dr. Goddard intervened at one point during a parent/teacher conference and prevailed upon Respondent to stop using sarcasm against the student who was the subject of the conference. Respondent's response was to post a sign in his room indicating a "moratorium" in the use of sarcasm--intentionally implying that the cessation in sarcasm would be temporary. At times, Respondent lashed out at students with hurtful remarks lacking even the thin veneer of humor. He told one student that he would be a serial killer. He told another student that he would never be rich and successful. He repeatedly referred publicly to one student as a witch and asked if she had taken her Midol. In front of another student's mother, as well as other teachers and Mr. Robinson during a parent/teacher conference, Respondent referred to a girl as "bitchy." Respondent refused to accommodate valid student needs, such as the unusual demands placed on one child by a disabled brother. The regressive effect on students of Respondent's embittered and embittering classroom presence was unwittingly reflected in another student's class journal. His early entries demonstrated an emotional vulnerability as he depicted his simple, rural lifestyle; his later entries were defiantly copied out of textbooks, magazines, or encyclopedias. As a result of Respondent's poor relations with students, more than one student quit Respondent's class, even if it meant taking English in summer school or another school or dropping out of high school altogether. One parent checked her son out of school just long enough that he would not have to attend Respondent's class. By the end of the 1992-93 school year, morale among Respondent's students and their parents was a very serious problem. Respondent's relationship with parents was, if possible, even worse than his relationship with students, although his contact with parents was less frequent. During one meeting with a father in the main office, the parent and Respondent had a heated exchange. Mr. Robinson intervened and diplomatically tried to end the conference. After the parent had started to walk away, Respondent restarted the argument and approached the parent until their noses were touching. Mr. Robinson again broke up what had transformed from a conference into a confrontation, and again Respondent reinitiated the engagement. Again, Mr. Robinson had to break up the argument. Mr. Robinson attended another parent/teacher conference in which the mother, according to Respondent, looked at him with "eyes . . . like daggers." (Tr 541) The mother observed that her daughter had no problems in any other classes but Respondent's class. The parent charged that Respondent's class was out of control. Respondent saw that Mr. Robinson was not "going to fulfil his role as mediator," so Respondent got up, announced that "I'm not going to take this damn stuff anymore," and walked out of the conference. (Tr 542) At first glance, Respondent's relationship with the administrators seems better than his relationships with the students and parents, but this is due to the professionalism of Dr. Goddard, inexperience of Mr. Robertson, and uninvolvement of Ms. Hatfield. For different reasons, each administrator at the school responded differently to Respondent's increasingly bizarre behavior and in no case did any administrator at the school ever lose his or her composure in dealing with Respondent. Respondent believes that he has been unfairly treated by every administrator at Lake Placid High School, and at least two at Sebring High School. Interestingly, Ms. Hatfield had given Respondent his last evaluation-- in October, 1990--without an NI or MI. However, without any evident provocation, Respondent demanded that the other assistant principal, Mr. Robinson, handle Respondent's evaluations and disciplinary referrals. Respondent was apprehensive that Ms. Hatfield might be biased due to her past service at Sebring High School. In November, 1992, Ms. Hatfield had a conference with Respondent and cautioned him that she was receiving a number of student complaints about his use of sarcasm. Respondent's reaction was to request that he be evaluated by Mr. Robinson, who was in his first year of service as an assistant principal. In retrospect, Respondent's demand proved unwise. As evidenced by his treatment of another teacher, Mr. Robinson displayed a heightened sensitivity toward humor directed at students, even if the humor did not seem sarcastic at all. Thus, Mr. Robinson's concern about Respondent's sarcasm was not due to bias against Respondent, but was due to Mr. Robinson's concern that students be treated with dignity and respect. But, as noted above, even without Mr. Robinson's heightened concern about humor, Respondent's sarcasm exceeded the wildest imaginable limits. Dr. Goddard intervened after the first evaluation. Respondent's concern about bias defies reason and logic when applied to Dr. Goddard, who counselled Respondent and gave him an opportunity to discover for himself the shortcomings of his defensive style of dealing with students, parents, and administrators. To imply that Dr. Goddard's evaluations were orchestrated by individuals at Sebring High School or the district office is to ignore reality. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the very lack of coordination presents legal problems that could have easily been avoided with the smallest amount of coordination. Respondent had trouble with nearly every administrator. And Respondent consistently found himself the blameless target of unwarranted persecution. His paranoia interfered with his ability to do his job. This fact is best illustrated by the time that Dr. Goddard instructed the teachers to clean up their rooms in preparation for a visit that night by the school board. Respondent wrote the following on his chalkboard to be read by the school board members: "The fact that you're paranoid doesn't mean that they are not out to get you." In addition to problems with students, parents, and administrators, Respondent continued to display an inability to fulfill his important responsibilities. He failed to appear at ninth grade orientation at the beginning of the school year, despite the fact that he was a new teacher at the school and taught most of the ninth graders. Respondent routinely failed to supply grades to students for whom guidance counsellors were trying to prepare weekly progress reports in order to monitor the students' progress more closely than is possible with report cards. Respondent was routinely resistant to assigning make- up work. Students would have to pursue him for days to get assignments, until finally Respondent decided to write these up on the chalkboard. On more than one occasion, Respondent's solution--when pushed by parents or administrators--was to avoid the extra work imposed upon him by grading additional materials; rather than assign make-up work or tests, Respondent would simply not penalize the student for the missed assignment, such as by doubling the weight of the next grade. There is no evidence that the administration at Lake Placid High School learned of Respondent's 1991-92 evaluations at Sebring High School until Respondent mentioned them when he received his first evaluation at Lake Placid High School. There is no evidence that the actions taken by the administration at Lake Placid High School were influenced by anything except the Respondent's performance during the 1992-93 school year. Respondent was warned about his problems in evaluations going as far back as the 1980's when Respondent was evaluated by Mr. Bible. The March, 1986 evaluation identifies Respondent's reluctance to deal with parents. The February, 1989 evaluation suggests that Respondent lacked the support of parents and was placing students on the defensive. In the February, 1991 evaluation, Mr. Bible warned Respondent that he needed to improve in several areas, including student/staff relations and receptiveness to criticism from administrators. Again, Mr. Bible pointed out that Respondent was alienating students. Respondent's problems, which culminated in the exceptionally bad evaluations during the 1991-92 school year, largely represented a continuation of problems that had been identified in one manner or another for the preceding five years. But instead of correcting the problems, Respondent had allowed them to get worse. These problems were described in greater detail in the 1991-92 and 1992-93 evaluations due to the deterioration of Respondent's behavior. Petitioner provided Respondent with reasonable assistance in remediating his performance deficiencies. Dr. Goddard made numerous additional visits to Respondent's classroom, and he and other administrators routinely talked to Respondent. After the first evaluation in November, 1992, Mr. Robinson twice recommended to Respondent that he rely on his assertive discipline plan because he was referring too many students to the office. After discovering how poorly Respondent handled parent conferences, administrators ensured that appropriate persons participated in Respondent's conferences to model suitable behavior. In early February, 1993, Mr. Robinson gave Respondent a set of assertive discipline tapes to view to assist in imposing proper discipline in his class. This intervention preceded the February 25 evaluation by almost three weeks. About one week prior to the February 25 evaluation, Mr. Robinson suggested that Respondent attend a workshop on parent/teacher conferences. Respondent attended the workshop. Evidently arranged prior to the February 25 evaluation, Respondent went to a high school in another district to observe a ninth-grade English teacher. The practical effect of this assistance is attenuated by the fact that the February 25 evaluation preceded the visit, although the visit preceded the March 19 non-appointment letter, April 23 follow-up evaluation, and April 26 follow-up letter. The extent of the assistance effectively offered Respondent must be evaluated in the context of Respondent's problems. He was not an ineffective teacher due to an inadequate grasp of the course material or inability to present material imaginatively. To the contrary, Respondent is a highly intelligent, literate individual who is intellectual capable of being an outstanding teacher. If his problems were in his understanding of the material or an inability to find the methods to convey the material to his students, a program of assistance and inservice workshops probably could be designed to provide meaningful help. Instead, Respondent needed to stop disparaging students. He needed to stop confronting parents. He needed to stop ignoring administrators who were trying to stop Respondent from disparaging students and confronting parents. But Respondent simply refused to change his ways, and no amount of videotapes, inservice workshops, school visits, evaluation follow-ups, and informal discussions were going to help. Respondent was given a second chance when he was transferred to Lake Placid High School. But instead of addressing the source of the problem-- himself--he attacked students, parents, and administrators. He avoided performing rigorously all of his teaching duties, such as enforcing his assertive disciplinary plan and its graduated response to misbehavior, promptly providing make-up work, and sending interim grades when needed. Instead, he inexplicably continued to bicker with the students, provoke the parents, and defy the legitimate demands of the administrators.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Highlands County enter a final order not issuing Respondent a new professional service contract. ENTERED on January 13, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on January 13, 1993. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-6: adopted or adopted in substance. 7-8: rejected as irrelevant. 9-18: adopted or adopted in substance. 19: rejected as irrelevant. 20-35: adopted or adopted in substance. 36: rejected as irrelevant. 37-39: adopted or adopted in substance. 40: rejected as irrelevant. Nothing requires that Petitioner make "every effort" to help Respondent through the means cited. 41: adopted or adopted in substance. 42: rejected as subordinate. 43-44: adopted or adopted in substance. 45: rejected as irrelevant. 46: adopted or adopted in substance. 47-48 (first three sentences): rejected as irrelevant. 48 (last sentence)-53: adopted or adopted in substance. 54-56: rejected as irrelevant. 57-59: adopted or adopted in substance. 60-61: rejected as irrelevant. 62: adopted or adopted in substance. 63: rejected as irrelevant. 64-65: adopted or adopted in substance. 66: rejected as subordinate. 67-69: adopted or adopted in substance. 70: rejected as subordinate. 71-74: adopted or adopted in substance. 75-76: rejected as subordinate. 77-78: adopted or adopted in substance. 79: rejected as hearsay. 80-85: adopted or adopted in substance. 86: rejected as irrelevant. 87-92: adopted or adopted in substance. 93: rejected as subordinate. 94: rejected as irrelevant. 95-100: adopted or adopted in substance. 101: rejected as irrelevant. In fact, to permit either student to leave the classroom would violate Paragraph 11 of the Classroom Management section of the Teacher Handbook. 102: rejected as irrelevant. Mr. Smith wore sunglasses indoors during part of the hearing. 103-04: rejected as irrelevant. 105: rejected as subordinate. 106-17 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 117 (second sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 118: rejected as irrelevant and subordinate. 119: rejected as hearsay. 120-34: adopted or adopted in substance. 135-37: rejected as irrelevant. 138: adopted or adopted in substance. 139: rejected as irrelevant. 140: adopted or adopted in substance. 141: rejected as irrelevant. 142-43: adopted or adopted in substance. 144: rejected as subordinate. 145-46: adopted or adopted in substance. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-7: adopted or adopted in substance. 8-10: rejected as irrelevant. 11-14: adopted or adopted in substance. 15-17 (first sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 17 (second sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 18-19: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 20: adopted or adopted in substance. 21-22: rejected as subordinate. 23-24: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 25-26: rejected as subordinate. 27-28 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 28 (second sentence)-29: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 30: adopted or adopted in substance. 31: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 32: rejected as subordinate. 33: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 34: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. This provision governs only when Petitioner must refer matters to the Department of Education. 35: rejected as subordinate. 36: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 37-39: adopted or adopted in substance except as to meaningful follow-up conferences. 40-41: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 42: rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Superintendent Richard Farmer Highlands County School District 426 School St. Sebring, FL 33870-4048 Commissioner Doug Jamerson Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 James F. McCollum James F. McCollum, P.A. 129 S. Commerce Ave. Sebring, FL 33870-3698 Anthony D. Demma Meyer and Brooks, P.A. P.O. Box 1547 Tallahassee, FL 32302
Conclusions On October 27, 2014, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) with the Division of Administrative Hearings (“DOAH”) entered her ORDER CLOSING FILE AND RELINQUISHING JURISDICTION (“DOAH ORDER”) to the Madison County School Board (the “SCHOOL BOARD” or the “BOARD”) in the above captioned proceeding. A copy of the DOAH ORDER is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The DOAH ORDER indicates that copies were sent to counsel for the SCHOOL BOARD, George T. Reeves, Esq., and counsel for the Petitioner, NEW MILLENNIUM CHARTER SCHOOL, (the “CORPORATION”). The DOAH ORDER was stipulated to by the parties. This matter is now before the SCHOOL BOARD for final agency action.
The Issue Whether the Respondent, John Obrzut, should be terminated from his employment for reasons of incompetence and his alleged failure to advise the Superintendent of the Franklin County School District time and filing requirements under the above-cited Statute, because of failure to submit required monthly reports to the School Board as well as for unauthorized absences.
Findings Of Fact On May 6, 1985, the Respondent entered into an employment contract with the Franklin County School Board for employment in the position of Finance Officer and Business Manager. The contract's term continued through June 30, 1986, with a commencing date of July 1, 1985. The contract provided for a probationary status for Respondent. The Respondent was provided with a copy of the job description for the Finance Officer/Business Manager position he accepted and contracted for at the time of his employment. That job description established that the individual directly responsible to the Superintendent and the School Board for all activities concerned with the financial operations of the school system was the Finance Officer/Business Manager, Dr. Obrzut. Superintendent Gloria Tucker interviewed Dr. Obrzut for this position and was especially concerned that he understand the duties he would have in that office because the School Board was experiencing financial difficulties at that time, primarily related to the disheveled condition of its records for the past several fiscal years due at least in part to previous mismanagement by those with Dr. Obrzut's responsibilities. The Respondent was informed that it would be necessary for him, as Finance Officer, to reconstruct portions of those records. Dr. Obrzut did not inquire regarding the specific status of the records during the time of his employment interview and once he became employed he found the problem to be considerably worse than he had expected. Ms. Tucker informed the Respondent that his duties would include keeping her advised of the "TRIM Bill" time requirements in order to meet the budget publication date of July 25, 1985, as required by that law. His job description also required him to prepare a monthly financial statement showing receipts, disbursements and the balance of funds available in the district budget. Additionally, on June 24, 1985, after he was hired, the Respondent was given the various task assignments, in writing, from the Superintendent. These involved: (1) gathering necessary data and preparing the budget amendment for the June 27, 1985 School Board meeting; (2) develop with Mr. Johnson's help the baseline data that would establish the "time-line" for reconciliation of the 1982-1983 and 1983-1984 budgets, which was one of the Respondent's two major priorities for June and July of 1985 because, given the disarray of its financial records, the Board had an immediate necessity to know what cash reserves it truly had on hand; (3) set up a time schedule concerning when final reports were due on each federal and State project and when that information would be available to the Superintendent, as well as to give the Superintendent a written report as to how the "time-line" would operate during July and August of 1985. (4) The Respondent was required to set up a written time schedule as when Department of Education reports were due so that no reports would be filed late. Assignment number 5 involved reviewing the requirements for budget preparation as stated in the law regarding time requirements (i.e. the "TRIM Bill"). The Respondent was to directly contact the County property appraiser concerning when tax millage information from his office would be ready for the budgeting process. The Respondent's past employment history involved various clerical, accounting and financial analyst positions for most of the last two decades, as well as substantial periods of time spent obtaining graduate degrees. His longest period of employment was four years with the Department of Transportation, where he supervised a clerical unit with a number of employees reporting to him. Prior to his employment with the Franklin County School Board, he had no experience as the overall supervisor of financial operations of any agency of government or a private enterprise. He had no experience with school finance procedures established under Chapter 237, Florida Statutes. On June 24, 1985, the Respondent was given the assignment involving task number 5 mentioned above, whereby he was to review the requirements for budget preparation as stated in the above- cited Statute regarding time requirements. He contacted the property appraiser concerning when the Superintendent and the Board might expect tax millage information from his office required for the budget process. The Respondent was also verbally instructed by the Superintendent at this same time to keep her informed of all specific dates required by the law concerning budget events. In the course of these verbal instructions, the Superintendent advised Dr. Obrzut that she was especially concerned about this because this was her first time to be involved in the budgeting process as a Superintendent of Schools. On June 25, 1985, Dr. Obrzut advised the Superintendent that he had called the Franklin County property appraiser's office and it provided him no information on the requirements for the budget process at that time, in the form of the tax millage information, but he expected advice from them on this subject on June 27, 1985. He also advised the Superintendent at this time that he expected to receive a planning document, with the time requirements for the budgeting process, in the mail from the Department of Education and also expected to receive a copy of it personally at a school financial officer's meeting in Tampa. Dr. Obrzut reviewed Section 200.065, Florida Statutes (the "TRIM Bill"), as requested by the Superintendent, but his testimony establishes that he has no recollection of making any notes or recollection concerning the sequence of events required by the Statute as deadlines in the budget preparation process. In any event, the Respondent had no further communication with the Superintendent concerning the budget time requirements. He subsequently learned that a copy of the planning document would also be mailed to the Superintendent and therefore simply assumed she would monitor the State's various budget planning event time requirements herself. He took no further steps to advise her of the various critical time deadlines. In fact, no one in the Franklin County School District administration was monitoring the budget time schedule of events because the Superintendent, whom the financial officer, Dr. Obrzut, directly reported to, was relying on Obrzut to do this. This fact, however, was discovered accidentally by Mr. David Johnson, a contract certified public accountant, who was performing an audit of the internal accounts of the various district schools. Mr. Johnson was meeting with the Superintendent concerning matters about the internal audit on a Wednesday in July 1985, when he inquired of her as to the status of the district's advertising of its forthcoming budget, as required by law. The Superintendent advised him that Dr. Obrzut was monitoring the schedule of events and deadlines concerning the budget preparation and advertising process. Mr. Johnson thereupon visited Dr. Obrzut at his office and retrieved from him the planning document that Obrzut had received from the Department of Education. Mr. Johnson informed the Superintendent that the budget must be completed and ready for advertising prior to the following Tuesday. This was the first time the Superintendent had learned of the immediately impending deadline for budget advertising as required by the above Statute. The Franklin County School District employees responsible for preparation of the budget then had to work through the entire weekend that ensued in order to timely complete the budget in time for the advertising deadline on Tuesday. The testimony of the Superintendent as well as Mr. Johnson, who has extensive experience in the field of educational finance and was accepted as an expert in that field, established that had that deadline been missed the Franklin County School District would have lost approximately $500,000 in tax revenues needed to fund its $3,000,000 operating budget. Dr. Obrzut acknowledged that he was responsible for ensuring that the federal cash advance reports were sent to the Department of Education in a timely fashion in order to ensure the continuous flow of funds to the district for the district's federally funded projects. He established that he prepared one of these reports himself and delegated the task of preparing the September 1985 report to one of his subordinate employees, Donna Ward. He admitted he did not monitor her work and ensure that the report was timely filed and did not learn of the fact that it had not been filed until the Superintendent informed him of that fact at the time she informed him she would recommend his dismissal. The report was delinquent at that time and the district had already ceased to receive federal funds because of that delinquency. David Johnson was accepted as an expert witness in the areas of accounting and Florida school finance. He worked for the Office of the Auditor General for three years and then spent several years in the capacity of a school Finance Officer. He is a certified public accountant and currently operates an accounting firm that renders accounting assistance to four school districts in Florida. Additionally, he serves as chairman of the Walton County School Board. Mr. Johnson was retained to assist Dr. Obrzut in reconstructing the ledgers and records for the fiscal years 1982- 83 and 1983-84. He was also asked to school Dr. Obrzut in the legal and regulatory requirements and accounting procedures attendant to the peculiarities of Florida school finance. Mr. Johnson established that he had great difficulty explaining to Dr. Obrzut the nuances and peculiarities of the Florida school finance law, reporting requirements and accounting procedures. He spent more than one full day in attempting to explain these duties of Dr. Obrzut's position to him. Dr. Obrzut would indicate that he understood, but later conversation revealed that he did not in fact understand what had been explained to him. Further, Dr. Obrzut showed a penchant for discussing tangential or even unrelated matters with great Verbosity during Mr. Johnson's attempts to explain his financial duties to him. This may have frustrated Dr. Obrzut's opportunity to understand the explanation of his financial duties and the requirements of his position and doubtless frustrated Mr. Johnson's efforts to explain them. In any event, Mr. Johnson established that, based upon his association with Dr. Obrzut over a period of several months, that Dr. Obrzut did not possess the knowledge and skills necessary to enable him to serve as a School District Finance Officer, even in view of his educational degrees in the areas of finance. This opinion was unrebutted.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Respondent John Obrzut be terminated from his position of employment with the School Board of Franklin County. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 19th day of December, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-1775 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted, but not for the material import sought to be conveyed. Rejected as to its overall import as not in accordance with the greater weight of the testimony and evidence presented. Accepted to the extent that the Petitioner failed to present evidence of any unauthorized absences, but the remainder of this proposed finding is rejected as not comporting with the greater weight of the material evidence presented. Rejected as not in accordance with the greater weight of the evidence and testimony presented, except that the record does not reflect that he ever received any written reprimand or warning. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Van P. Russell, Esquire WATKINS & RUSSELL 41 Commerce Street Apalachicola, Florida 32320 Edward S. Stafman, Esquire 317 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Judith Brechner, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gloria H. Tucker, Superintendent Franklin County School District 155 Avenue E Apalachicola, Florida 32320
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Fred D. Greene, began service with the Hamilton County School Board as a teacher in August, 1965. He was employed on annual contract for three school years until he was granted a continuing contract by the school board on July 23, 1968, as a teacher pursuant to Section 231.36, Florida Statutes. After the execution of the continuing contract, Petitioner was assigned as coordinator of vocational education during the 1969-1970 school term but in addition to those duties, continued to teach five classes. As Petitioner was assigned additional duties by the Superintendent, his teaching duties were reduced. Starting in 1970 and continuing through 1973, though the continuing contract as a teacher had not been rescinded, Petitioner and the school board entered into annual contracts of employment in which Petitioner was assigned as Director of Vocational Education. On June 5, 1973, the parties entered into a second continuing contract which described Petitioner's duties as "Director of Vocational, Technical and Adult Education." At no time did Petitioner ever hold a contract as "principal" nor was he ever paid as such. His current Florida Teacher's Certificate shows him certified in, among other things, secondary administration and supervision. Both this contract and the 1968 continuing contract contained a provision that the school board was authorized, upon recommendation of the superintendent of schools, to transfer and assign the Petitioner to a "similar position in any other school" in the district, provided that "the duties shall be similar to the duties originally assigned and the salary shall be as heretofore set forth." From the time he was appointed director of VTAE until January, 1981, Petitioner served in that capacity. As director of VTAE, he considered his position as similar to that of a principal in that he reported directly to the Superintendent of Schools, he supervised the teachers who taught within his program (although he did not rate them) he was paid on the non- instructional salary schedule as is a principal he was responsible for the procurement of and administration of students including their promotion and graduation. Nonetheless, he was not classified as a principal, he served schools throughout the county, the teachers in the program were recruited from regular day teachers and additional personnel who taught only in the night program, and these teachers were rated by their day principal when appropriate. Consequently, his position as Director, VTAE, was not similar to that of a principal. At the time he left the job as Director, VTAE, to assume the office of Superintendent of Schools, he was paid a salary of $21,000.00 per year for a 12 month term and was on step 6 of the non-instructional salary schedule. He has never released the school board from the terms of the continuing contract. In January, 1981, Petitioner took office as Superintendent of Schools. At that time the function of Director, VTAE, was assigned to Ms. Scaff who subsequently also occupied several other positions within the school board system including instructional coordinator, secondary curriculum coordinator, community education director, law education director, and management information systems director. Ms. Scaff did not assume all those functions at one time. The job was built up over a period of years and while the duties changed, the title of Director, VTAE, did not. Ms. Scaff was paid as an instructional director on the non-instructional salary schedule. As Director, VTAE, Ms. Scaff, and Mr. Greene before her, occupied one of the director positions reflected in the directory of the School Board. The School Board uses the same contract form for directors and principals and the director is evaluated by the Superintendent of Schools as is a principal, but there are few other similarities between the function of principal and Director. Petitioner served as Superintendent of Schools from 1981 until November, 1984, when he was replaced as superintendent by Mr. Hinton. Several months before his term expired, in June, 1984, Petitioner recommended to the School Board that it appoint Ms. Scaff, who was at that time serving as, inter alia, Director, VTAE, to a two year contract in that position. This contract was approved by the School Board. Shortly after his defeat in the election, Petitioner allegedly told Mr. Hinton that he did not wish to displace anyone employed by the school system in order to enforce his return rights under the continuing contract he held. It was his position that he would accept a teaching position but at a salary level equivalent to that of an administrator until such time as an administrator's position within the system became open. At a special meeting of the School Board called by Petitioner on the last day of his term as superintendent, Mr. Greene nominated himself for the position as principal at NHE. This nomination, however, was tabled by the School Board upon advice of counsel so that an advisory opinion on it could be requested from the Florida Commission on Ethics. At this point it should be noted that though the position as Principal at NHE became vacant prior to Petitioner leaving his position as superintendent, he did not apply during the period that the·advertisement was open. The only person to do so was Harry Pennington who was subsequently placed in that position. When Mr. Hinton assumed the position of Superintendent of Schools, replacing Mr. Greene, he immediately assigned Petitioner to the position as teacher of business education. Mr. Greene accepted the assignment but requested that he be paid a salary equivalent to the 20th step on the salary schedule for the position of instructional director at a figure of $32,550.00 per year. The figure demanded by Petitioner was not paid, however. After conferring with the State Department of Education regarding the proposed salary for Petitioner, the School Board determined that since he held a continuing contract as a teacher, he would be employed at a salary based on the teacher position. He was given credit for four years of teaching service while serving as Superintendent of Schools which placed him at the 20 year service point. In addition, he was given credit for a master's degree and for teaching in his field of certification. His total salary, therefore, was set at $23,460.00 over a ten month term. Petitioner was not satisfied, especially since Mr. Pennington, who was serving as principal of NHE was receiving $28,100.00 per year based on a 12 month employment contract. On May 27, 1985 the school board rejected Mr. Greene's nomination of himself as principal at NHE. The board's rejection of Mr. Greene was based on the recommendation of Mr. Hinton who felt that Petitioner was not qualified for the position in that he did not hold certification in administration and supervision at the elementary level his contract was not for the position of principal he had no experience as principal or assistant principal he did not apply for the position when it was advertised and because counsel advised that filling the position based on self nomination might violate Florida law. Mr. Pennington on the other hand, was fully certified in administration and supervision for all grade levels involved at NHE. Other positions for which Respondent felt himself qualified came open during the 1984-1985 school year but he was not selected to fill any of them. Included in these were that of principal of Hamilton County High School and administrative assistant positions at both North Hamilton Elementary and South Hamilton Elementary. When Mr. Hinton took over as Superintendent of Schools, as a part of his management program and in an effort to correct what appeared to be a problem regarding the late payment of School Board obligations which existed when he took over, he recommended certain personnel changes including the creation of an office manager position. Mattie Fouraker, formerly the business education instructor at Hamilton High School, was appointed office manager to the School Board at a salary approximately equivalent to that she received as a teacher. It is to her vacant job as teacher of business education that Mr. Greene was assigned. Petitioner contends Ms. Fouraker was appointed to the position before it was ever officially created and approved by the School Board. Be that as it may, however, it becomes clear that the Superintendent of Schools intended that a problem be solved and to do so, created a position designed to correct it. He appointed Ms. Fouraker to the job on a temporary basis and as soon as the School Board met at the next scheduled meeting in December, 1984, it approved the position and confirmed Ms. Fouraker's assignment to it. This formal board action, however, served to increase her pay from that of a teacher at $23,460.00 per year to that of an administrative position at $29,700.00 per year and her position was changed from that of a 10 month to a 12 month employment, along with the benefits accruing thereto. Petitioner's salary as business education instructor was developed through a tailored formula developed with an intent to,-in the opinion of Mr. Hinton, put Mr. Greene in approximately the same position for the four years he was Superintendent of Schools. As was stated previously, Mr. Greene was given credit for his 16 years in the classroom plus his years of superintendent for a total of 20 years experience credit. Added to that was credit for a Master's degree and credit for teaching in his field of certification. When the $23,460.00 salary that was arrived at for this was compared to what it was anticipated he would have earned had he stayed as Director of VTAE, it was seen that had he remained in his position on the same salary schedule, he would have presumably earned $2,362.50 per month ($23,625.00 per 10 month school year) as an instructional director, Step 6. This is approximately $155.00 more over the school year. Had Petitioner been paid at the salary of an instructional support position, Step 6, the monthly salary would be slightly lower. It should be noted, however, that due to schedule changes during the period, this might not be a valid comparison. Positions within the school system are assigned by the Superintendent of schools on the nature of the position. Non- instructional personnel are assigned categories on the salary schedule based on an assessment of their qualifications and value to the system. Teachers, on the other hand, who are generally serving under contracts, are placed on the salary schedule consistent with the number of years experience they have plus certain other additions. It was Mr. Hinton's position that Mr. Greene should be paid as a teacher since he was serving as a teacher and once that decision was made, Mr. Greene was paid the highest amount that a person with his certificate and his experience and qualification could earn in that position. When the Florida Commission on Ethics issued its opinion on the question certified to it regarding Petitioner's recommending himself for the position of Principal of NHE, the opinion indicated the Commission could not conceive of how the Petitioner's actions in recommending himself for a position could not have constituted a misuse of public position. In other words, while not saying that it was, the Commission concluded that it probably was a violation. Thereafter, the School Board requested an Attorney General's opinion on whether a school superintendent may nominate himself for appointment of a principal. The opinion was not received as of the date of the hearing. Turning again to the issue of the function of Director of VTAE, the School Board contends that the function of Director has steadily expanded in scope. For example, Mr. Hinton urges that the work that Mr. Greene was doing as Director, VTAE prior to being elected superintendent now constitutes only 10 to 20% of the currently described duties of the position. The additional functions that Ms. Scaff performs, as described above, he contends, constitute more by far than that which Petitioner did when he held the job. In support of that position, Mr. Hinton refers to the organization and management study conducted in 1983 at the request of Petitioner when he was Superintendent of Schools. Among the pertinent recommendations of that study was the restructuring of the organization within the school district level. The position of Director, VTAE was not one of the three Director and five coordinator positions recommended by the study. Ms. Scaff indicates that when Petitioner was defeated in his bid for re-election as superintendent of schools, she indicated her willingness to step down from the position of Director, VTAE and return to classroom teaching. She does not consider the return to a position of teaching as a demotion nor does Ms. Fouraker. It should be noted, however, that both individuals received substantial increases in salary by virtue of their position changes under the Hinton administration. For example, Ms. Fouraker's promotion to the position of office manager carried a pay increase from $23,460.00 to $29,700.00 per year. Ms. Scaff now earns the same. Mr. Greene was at Step 6 on the non-instructional scale when he left the job of Director, VTAE. These scales were modified in the intervening years, and Ms. Fouraker traced Mr. Greene's position as Director, VTAE, to the new scale as if he had stayed in place. She placed him at Step 6 on the new scale at a salary of $28,350.00. Petitioner contends that he should be treated the same as Mr. Coe, Director of Personnel, who realized a large salary and step increase when the pay scales were changed. If this were done, and he was given an instructional director's position at step 20 on the non- instructional salary schedule, his salary would be $32,500.00. Subtracting that $28,350.00 from the $32,550.00 he says he should be earning, Mr. Greene indicates that he lost approximately $4,958.87 for the period starting November 20, 1984, when he began teaching, to the end of the school year. He further contends that his salary loss is continuing at the rate of $757.50 per month and in addition, he is also being deprived of other benefits of employment such as paid annual leave, sick leave, enhanced retirement benefits, and other like perquisites attached to a 12 month contract. Mr. Greene further contends that since he was involved in litigation with the school board concerning Mr. Coe's contract prior to his leaving the position of Superintendent of Schools, the School Board should have known of his entitlements under the continuing contract since it was shown that it had been established for assignments and transfers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Fred D. Greene, be assigned a non-principal supervisor/director position within the Hamilton County Schools as available that he be paid accordingly when performing in such a position but that he be denied adjustment for back pay and attorney's fees and costs. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of October, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of October, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: John D. Carlson, Esquire Gatlin, Woods, Carlson & Girtman 1030 East Lafayette, Suite 112 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Paul Hendrick, Esquire 111 South Central Avenue Suite 1 Jasper, FL 32052 Owen Hinton, Jr. Superintendent Hamilton County School Board P. O. Box 1059 Jasper, FL 32052 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32301 APPENDIX Ruling by the Hearing Officer as to the Petitioner's Proposed Findings Of Fact: Paragraphs Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted* Accepted* Accepted* Accepted Accepted except as to the veracity of the reported comment of the School Board member Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted except as to comments of Ms. Scaff as to her being a principal and signing forms as such Accepted except for Petitioner's comment that he would receive temporary certificate for Elementary Ed principal and would obtain certification in grades K-6 without much problem Accepted Accepted Rejected as irrelevant Irrelevant as a finding of fact should be conclusion of law Accepted Accepted except as to last sentence which is irrelevant unnumbered between and 23 Rejected Rejected Rulings by the Hearing Officer as to Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact (Respondent failed to number paragraphs.) The unnumbered paragraphs are therefore treated in sequence and numbered herein for purposes of identification only. Paragraphs Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted as to substance Accepted Accepted Accepted except that acceptance of the position was not meant to be acquiesed in permanent assignment Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted as it relates to teacher salaries only Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted as to the request made. As of the hearing, the opinion had not been received. It was not offered into evidence and though attached to Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order, was not considered Accepted Accepted Accepted except for the conclusion drawn in the last sentence which was not supported by evidence admitted. Accepted Accepted Accepted Rejected. Position was held by Ms. Scaff who performed the same duties performed by Petitioner when he was the encumbent, in addition to additional duties which he did not *Petitioner's terms describing the personnel changes are not necessarily dispositive of the issue.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner acted properly in discontinuing the employment of Helen T. Arnold pursuant to a continuing contract of employment with the Petitioner?
Findings Of Fact The School Board operates five schools and the St. Marks Adult Community Center. The schools include Sopchoppy Elementary School, Crawfordville Elementary School, Shadeville Elementary School, Wakulla Middle School and Wakulla High School. The School Board employed approximately 175 instructional personnel during 1988. The Wakulla Classroom Teachers Association (hereinafter referred to as the "Association") represents instructional personnel of the School Board in labor negotiations. The Association has entered into a "Master Contract Agreement", a collectively bargained agreement, with the School Board. Article I, Section B of the Master Contract Agreement provides that the School Board has the right to "direct its employees, take disciplinary action for proper cause, and relieve its employees from duty because of lack of work or for other legitimate reasons." The Master Contract Agreement does not provide the method for determining which instructional personnel may be fired by the School Board. Helen T. Arnold was certified by the Florida Department of Education as a teacher in the area of guidance in elementary and secondary (middle and high schools) schools. During the 1987-1988 school year Ms. Arnold was employed by the School Board pursuant to a Continuing Contract of Employment for Instructional Personnel of the Public Schools (hereinafter referred to as the "Continuing Contract"). The Continuing Contract was entered into on June 6, 1980. Ms. Arnold was employed a total of twelve years by the School Board. During her employment by the School Board, Ms. Arnold was employed as a guidance counselor, an alternative education teacher, an in-school suspension teacher and as an itinerant substitute teacher. The School Board employed two itinerant substitute teachers during the 1987-1988 school year. These positions were to be held by individuals fully certified by the Florida Department of Education on a full-time basis as substitute teachers throughout the school district. During the 1987-1988 school year, Ms. Arnold was employed as one of the itinerant substitute teachers. She was based at Wakulla High School. Ms. Arnold only taught at Wakulla High School during the 1987-1988 school year. The Continuing Contract designates Ms. Arnold for reference purposes as the "Teacher". This designation, however, does not specify Ms. Arnold's function with the School Board. The Continuing Contract specifically provides that "the School Board has appointed and employed the Teacher [Ms. Arnold] for continuing employment in the position of "Counselor". [Emphasis added]. The Continuing Contract is to remain in force and effect "from year to year . . . except that the Teacher may be suspended or removed for cause as provided by law." The Continuing Contract is subject to any and all laws, lawful rules and regulations, and policies of the State Board of Education and the School Board. The Continuing Contract provides that it will not operate to prevent discontinuance of a position as provided by law. Under the Continuing Contract, Ms. Arnold had the right to continue in a position as a counselor or a similar position, without the necessity for annual nomination or reappointment. Pursuant to the Continuing Contract, the School Board could assign Ms. Arnold to perform services consistent with the Continuing Contract and to assign her throughout the school district. The School Board had an operating budget for the 1987-1988 school year of approximately eleven to twelve million dollars. Prior to the 1987-1988 school year the School Board directed that a reserve of $350,000.00 should be maintained. This directive was not adopted as a policy of the School Board. The amount of the reserve is approximately three percent of the School Board's 1987-1988 budget. Five percent is generally accepted as adequate. The purpose of a reserve is to meet unanticipated expenses, shortfalls in State sales taxes, which determine the State's funding of the School Board, and changes in the projected student population of the School Board during the year. In January of 1987, the School Board estimated the number of students they would have during the 1987-1988 school year. This estimate was used to determine, in part, the amount of funds which the School Board expected to receive between July 1, 1987, and June 30, 1988, from the State of Florida. The estimate of students also determined the staff which the School Board anticipated it needed for the 1987-1988 school year for each of its five schools. The funds anticipated to be received by the School Board were allocated to meet the projected number of students at each of the schools in the school district. In October of 1987, and February of 1988, the School Board was required to count the actual number of students. Based upon these counts, the State can adjust the amount of State funds payable to the School Board retroactively to July 1, 1987. Based upon the October, 1987, count of students the School Board discovered that it had a greater number of students (approximately 100 more students) in its elementary schools and a lesser number of students in its middle and high schools than had been estimated in January of 1987. Therefore, the School Board received more funds overall from the State. The School Board determined, based upon the actual count of students in October, 1987, that it needed additional staff and other items at the elementary schools, however, and fewer staff and other items at the middle and high schools. The School Board therefore hired additional staff for the elementary schools. The School Board did not transfer or reduce staff from the middle and high schools. The hiring of additional staff and the failure to reduce unneeded staff at the middle and high schools increased the total expenses above budgeted expenses of the School Board for the 1987-1988 school year. The net effect of the October, 1987, count of students was that the school boards reserve was reduced from $350,000.00 to $217,000.00. It was also determined that unless steps were taken to reduce expenses, the reserve would be reduced further for the 1988-1989 school year. The Director of Business of the School Board informed the Superintendent of the School Board that he believed that it would be necessary to reduce expenses in order to meet the School Board's directive to maintain a $350,000.00 reserve for the 1988-1989 school year. Approximately 79% of the School Board's budget is allocated to personnel expenses. The Superintendent concluded that the best way to reduce expenses for the 1988-1989 school year was through a reduction in staff. It was not possible to achieve the necessary reductions of expenses by reducing other costs. The School Board, however, hired new employees for the 1987-1988 and 1988- 1989 school years. The Superintendent decided to recommend a reduction in personnel which would have the least impact on instruction of the core curriculum first. Ultimately, the Superintendent recommended elimination of the following positions: One elementary school teacher at Crawfordville Elementary school; One study hall teacher at Wakulla High School; One guidance counselor at Wakulla High School; One social studies teacher at Wakulla High School; One mathematics teacher at Wakulla High School; Two itinerant substitute teacher positions; and One district-level administrator. At a School Board meeting held on March 14, 1988, the School Board accepted the recommendation of the Superintendent and abolished the recommended positions, including the two itinerant substitute teacher positions, effective for the 1988-1989 school year. Pursuant to Continuing Contract, Ms. Arnold continued in the employment of the School Board even though her itinerant substitute teacher position had been abolished. After approval of the abolishment of the positions recommended by the Superintendent, the School Board needed to determine which employees would have to be terminated as a result of the reduction in positions. The Superintendent concluded that Rule 3.08 of the School Board should govern the selection of the employees to be terminated by the School Board. Rule 3.08 of the School Board provides, in pertinent part: REDUCTION IN PERSONNEL--If a reduction in personnel requires the School Board to choose from its employees the Board shall retain the employees best qualified. In determining qualifications the Board shall consider without limitation educational qualifications, efficiency, compatibility, character and capability to meet educational service needs of the community. The Superintendent and the Principal of Wakulla High School met with Ms. Arnold on March 15, 1988, in the Principal's office. Ms. Arnold was informed that the itinerant substitute teacher position she occupied was being eliminated for the 1988-1989 school year. She was also informed that she would be considered pursuant to Rule 3.08 of the School Board along with Art Mainwood and Betty Jensen for the one remaining guidance position at Wakulla High school. Ms. Jensen was certified in guidance and was employed by the School Board pursuant to a continuing contract. Mr. Mainwood was also certified in guidance and was employed by the School Board pursuant to an annual contract. Ms. Jensen and Mr. Mainwood worked at Wakulla High School. Ms. Arnold was informed during the March 15, 1988, meeting with the Superintendent that a recommendation would be made to the School Board at its March 21, 1988, meeting as to which of the three guidance personnel should be retained. No written notice of the School Board's March 21, 1988, meeting was provided to Ms. Arnold. The Superintendent decided that Ms. Arnold should be considered for the guidance position because that was the area she was certified in. The Superintendent decided that Ms. Arnold should be considered only with others certified in guidance currently employed at Wakulla High School because that was where Ms. Arnold had been "stationed". At no time was Ms. Arnold considered for other guidance positions in the school district. In order to determine the "best qualified" personnel, the Superintendent selected six administrators to independently review Ms. Arnold comparatively with Ms. Jensen and Mr. Mainwood. The six administrators included the Principal of Wakulla High School, the Director of Instruction for the School Board, the Assistant Principal for Instruction at Wakulla High School, the Assistant Principal at Wakulla High School, the Coordinator of Personnel and Automated Student Records for the School Board and a former principal of Wakulla High School. The six administrators did not meet with Ms. Arnold, Ms. Jensen and Mr. Mainwood. They performed their review based upon their knowledge of the three individuals. The three were compared by each of the six administrators based upon the specific criteria listed in Rule 3.08 of the School Board. At least four of the six administrators had never directly supervised Ms. Arnold or made any formal observation of the performance of her duties. Some of the evaluators knew very little about Ms. Arnold. Although the six administrators applied the criteria of Rule 3.08 of the School Board independently, it was not possible for the six reviewers to effectively determine who was the "best qualified" of the three persons they reviewed because of their limited knowledge of the three persons. Ms. Jensen was given the highest overall score. Ms. Arnold received the lowest overall score and the lowest individual score from all six of the evaluators. The method of review employed with regard to Ms. Arnold was not followed in evaluating all of the persons affected by the School Board's reduction in staff. Mary Nasby, another employee on continuing contract, was evaluated in a similar manner to Ms. Arnold. Hossein Achtchi, another employee on continuing contract, was not, however, evaluated in a similar manner. The Superintendent considered the scores of the six administrators in conjunction with the teacher evaluations and other documents in the files of Ms. Arnold, Ms. Jensen and Mr. Mainwood. Based upon this evaluation, the Superintendent concluded that Ms. Jensen was the best qualified of the three individuals and that she should be retained in the one guidance position at Wakulla High School. The Superintendent recommended that the School Board retain Ms. Jensen and that Ms. Arnold's Continuing Contract be terminated. The Superintendent also determined that the annual contract of Mr. Mainwood would not be renewed. The Superintendent's recommendation concerning the guidance position at Wakulla High School was approved by the School Board at a meeting on March 21, 1988. During the March 21, 1988, meeting of the School Board, the School Board terminated the employment of eight individuals. Of these eight individuals, three had continuing contracts of employment with the School Board: Ms. Arnold, Ms. Nasby and Mr. Achtchi. Ms. Arnold and Ms. Nasby are Black females and Mr. Achtchi is an Iranian male. The other five employees terminated by the School Board were all on annual contracts of employment. Ms. Arnold was provided a letter dated March 21, 1988, from the School Board Chairman informing her that her Continuing Contract had been terminated effective June 7, 1988. The letter was hand delivered to Ms. Arnold on March 22, 1988. Ms. Arnold was informed that she had the right to request a formal administrative hearing to contest the School Board's action. Ms. Arnold exercised her right and requested a formal administrative hearing. At the time that the decision was made to terminate Ms. Arnold's employment with the School Board there was at least one individual employed by the School Board in a guidance position for which Ms. Arnold qualified who was not certified in the area of guidance: Melinda Young. Ms. Young was assigned as a counselor at Wakulla Middle School but was not certified in the area of guidance. Ms. Young applied for certification in guidance in May of 1988, but did not receive it until August, 1988. Additionally, there was at least one individual employed by the School Board in a counselor position for which Ms. Arnold was qualified who was employed under an annual contract of employment: Deborah Thibos. The contracts of Ms. Young and Ms. Thibos, as well as the continuing contract of Nancy K. Pope, another person filling a counselor position, all provided that they were employed in the position of "teacher" as opposed to the position of "counselor", as specified in Ms. Arnold's Continuing Contract. Ms. Arnold was not considered for the counselor positions held by Ms. Young, Ms. Thibos or Ms. Pope. Nor was Ms. Arnold compared with Gregory Burns, another guidance counselor of the School Board. Subsequent to the school Board meeting of March 21, 1988, but before the proposed action of the School Board became final (which still has not occurred), Ms. Jensen resigned from the School Board. Therefore, before the School Board's action with regard to Ms. Arnold became final, Ms. Arnold may have become the "best qualified" person of the three considered for the position. Despite Ms. Arnold's availability and desire to continue with the School Board, she was not considered for the counselor position when Ms. Jensen left or when the position became available a second time after Ms. Arnold's termination. Instead, the School Board hired two successive people from outside the School Board under annual contracts. Despite the fact that Ms. Arnold had been employed in positions other than guidance, she was not considered for any other positions with the School Board before her termination or after her termination when openings, including substitute teacher positions, became available. Ms. Arnold applied for vacancies which arose with the School Board after she was terminated. The School Board therefore should have known that she still desired to be employed by the School Board. Ms. Arnold has been employed during the 1988-1989 school year by the Leon County School Board pursuant to an annual contract and at a salary of $26,311.00. Had she continued with the School Board during the 1988-1989 school year, she would be making $24,307.00. Ms. Arnold's rights under her Continuing Contract, however, are greater than her rights under the annual contract with the Leon County School Board.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the School Board offer Ms. Arnold a counselor position for the 1989-90 school year at the same salary she would have been entitled to if she had worked for the School Board for the 1988-1989 school year. It is further recommended that the School Board tender contributions to the State pension fund on Ms. Arnold's behalf in the amount which will insure that Ms. Arnold is entitled to the same retirement benefits as if she had worked for the School Board for the 1988-1989 school year. It is further recommended that the School Board ensure that Ms. Arnold receives retirement credit as if she had worked for the School Board for the 1988-1989 school year. It is further recommended that the School Board pay Ms. Arnold the moneys it would have contributed to the State pension fund on Ms. Arnold's behalf if she had worked for the School Board for the 1988-1989 school year, if the School Board is unable to insure that Ms. Arnold receives retirement credit for the 1988-1989 school year. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of February, 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 3rd day of February, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2022 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. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 8 and 12. 2 10. 3 11-12. 4 7. 5 1-2. 6 3-5. 7 16. 8 17-19. 9 20. 10 23. 11 24-25. The shortfall was $133,000.00. 12 26. 13 24. 14 Hereby accepted. 15-16 25. 17 18. 18 Hereby accepted. 19 28. 20 29. 21 30-31. 22 31. 23 49. 24 5 and 33-34. 25 34. 26 35. 27 37. 28 38 and 40. 29 43-44. 30 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 31 46. 32 46-47. 33 48. 34 50-51. 35 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 36 See 56-58. 37 Not relevant to this proceeding. 38 14. 39-40 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 41 59. 42-45 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 17. 2 See 20-22. 3 23. 4 24. 5 2 and 27. 24. The first sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 8-9 29-30. Only one guidance counselor position at Wakulla High School was abolished. 10 23 and 28. 11 24. 12 Hereby accepted. 13 34. See 40. Not relevant to this proceeding. Hereby accepted. 17 40 and 45. 18 45. 19-20 See 46. 21 Not relevant to this proceeding. 22-23 41-43. 24-25 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 26 48-49. 27 49. Hereby accepted. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 30 Not relevant to this proceeding. 31 37. 32 50-51. 33 51. 34 Not relevant to this proceeding. 35 4 and 6. 36-46 Not relevant to this proceeding. 47 7. 48 8. 49 1. 50 13-15. 51-52 15. 53 10. 54 12. 55 31. 56 14. 57 Hereby accepted. 58 52. 59 53. 60 54. 61 55. 62 35 and 39. 63-64 Not relevant to this proceeding. 65 57. 66-68 Hereby accepted. 69 59. 70-71 Hereby accepted. 72 Not relevant to this proceeding. COPIES FURNISHED: Roger Stokley, Superintendent School Board of Wakulla County Post Office Box 100 Crawfordville, Florida 32327 Marva A. Davis, Esquire Anna Bryant Motter, Esquire MARVA A. DAVIS, P.A. 379 East Jefferson Post Office Drawer 551 Quincy, Florida 32351 J. David Holder, Esquire Rigsby & Holder Suite 200 1408 North Piedmont Way Tallahassee, Florida 32312
Findings Of Fact Respondent was employed by the Bradford County School Board as a cosmetology instructor on a continuing teaching contract at the Bradford-Union Area Vocational-Technical Center (Va-Tech Center) in Starke, Florida, for the school year 1983-1984. Respondent's class was designed to prepare students to become licensed cosmetologists. On one occasion prior to Christmas, 1983, Mary Lee Wolf and Rose Smith, students of Respondent, brought an unopened bottle of wine onto the Vo-Tech Center grounds and presented it to Respondent during a class. There is no evidence that Respondent solicited the gift. Subsequently, on another date and after class hours, students Mary Lee Wolf, Tina Moyer, Bonnie Banks and Respondent's teaching aide, Helen Van Wart, opened the bottle and drank wine from cups in Respondent's presence. Respondent was served a cup, but there is no direct, credible testimony that Respondent personally consumed any wine. There is no evidence that any of those who consumed the wine were minors. In February 1984 the Ace Beauty Company, in conjunction with the Florida Cosmetology School Association, put on the Florida Sunshine Trade Show in Tampa, Florida. Attendance by students in Respondent's class at this particular trade show was encouraged by Respondent and pre-authorized by the Vo- Tech Center Director, David B. Smith, Jr. Mr. Smith made no provisions for a teacher's aide to fill in for Respondent on Monday, February 13 and Tuesday, February 14 because Respondent informed him that all but one or two of her students would be attending the trade show from February 11 through February 14, 1984. In fact, seven students did not attend and those who attended returned late February 13. On Friday, February 10, 1984, Mr. Smith approved use of the Vo-Tech Center van for Respondent's field trip, provided only Respondent drive the van. The same day, Respondent gave Mr. Smith a signed Application for Leave, requesting leave from February 11, 1984 through February 14, 1984. Past experience indicated trade shows may exceed the printed agenda. Saturday morning, February 11, 1984, Respondent and the eleven students travelling to the cosmetology show in Tampa, met in the Vo-Tech Center parking lot to board the van. While passing luggage to the Respondent for loading into the van, Bonnie Banks saw liquor bottles protruding from paper bags and remarked to Respondent that it looked like a party was planned. Respondent did not answer her Various students drank mixed alcoholic beverages from paper cups while standing near the van. Those involved took some care to shield their activities from Respondent and there is no direct credible evidence in the record to indicate Respondent was present or observed this alcoholic consumption on the school parking lot. Before climbing aboard the van, several of the students heard Respondent comment to the effect that the students were all adults and she expected them to behave that way. Some interpreted this to mean they were being given tacit permission to drink alcoholic beverages; others interpreted it as a warning either not to drink alcoholic beverages on the trip or not to let Respondent observe them drinking, if they did. Some of the students drank mixed alcoholic drinks from paper or plastic cups in the van while Respondent drove the van to Tampa. Mary Lee Wolf "tasted" some Kahlua liquor from a bottle in a brown paper bag. At one point, another liquor bottle in a brown paper bag rolled forward on the floor near Respondent in the driver's seat and Respondent passed it back to students behind her with an admonition to the effect of "keep it down back there." While it is unclear whether this comment was directed to Ms. Wolf or to someone in control of the rolling bottle, of those students who observed the bottle incident, all understood Respondent's comment to mean "don't let the liquor be seen" as opposed to "stop drinking and don't be so loud." While en route to Tampa, Respondent stopped in Gainesville, Florida, to refuel. At this stop, students Paula Tanner, Bonnie Banks, and Kay Kane left the van, purchased a six pack of beer at an adjoining convenience store and brought it back in a brown bag to the van. Respondent was in an adjoining bakery and did not see the beer loaded. Thereafter, various students drank beer from paper and plastic cups while Respondent drove the van. There is no evidence that any of these students was a minor and there is no direct, credible evidence Respondent consumed any alcoholic beverages in the van. Also at the Gainesville stop, Respondent drove from the gas pumps to another parking location without closing one of the van doors. The open door contacted the bumper of a parked car. There was little or no visual damage to the van but the students had difficulty closing the door again. Respondent had the necessary minor repair work done to the van in the Vo-Tech mechanical shop upon her return but did not report the accident to Director Smith. When Respondent unloaded the van in Tampa, several beer cans littered the van floor and a liquor bottle was dropped and broken in proximity to Respondent. Upon arrival in Tampa, Respondent registered in the Hyatt Regency Hotel, where the trade show was located. For financial reasons, several students had pre-registered in the less expensive Econo-Lodge some distance from the trade show. Respondent permitted Rose Smith to transport these students to and from the Econo-Lodge accommodations to the cosmetology show at the Hyatt Regency throughout the group's stay in Tampa. She jestingly told Rose Smith to say she was Respondent. On Sunday evening, after all educational activities ceased, Rose Smith also drove several of the students to the Confetti Lounge where they consumed alcoholic beverages. Rose Smith and some other students consumed alcoholic beverages in the van on this occasion. Respondent did not accompany the group to the Confetti Lounge. The Florida Sunshine Trade Show ended at 4:00 p.m., Monday, February 13, 1984. Respondent drove the van back to Starke that evening. During the return trip, some students complained of what they considered excessive speed. Respondent's reply to Paula Tanner's complaint was that if she did not like the ride she could get out and walk. The group arrived at the Vo-Tech campus at approximately 10:30 p.m. People were present on the grounds, in the classrooms, and in the administration offices when the cosmetology students arrived and for some time thereafter Respondent waited at the Vo-Tech Center for most of the students to be picked up. At student Lisa Morgan's request, she eventually took the remaining students home, but Ms. Morgan refused Respondent's offer to wait with her and insisted on waiting for her own ride which did not arrive until after 1:30 a.m. Tuesday morning, February 14, 1984. Respondent retained the Vo-Tech van at her home on Tuesday, February 14, 1984. On February 15, 1984, she reported for work. This is the day the van was repaired. In separate conversations with Barbara Casey, secretary to Director Smith, and with Martha Smith, (Mrs. David Smith) media specialist, Respondent gave the impression she had returned to Starke late Tuesday night. Respondent also submitted a newspaper release to that effect. On or about Friday, February 17, 1984, Respondent submitted to Director Smith a per-diem voucher requesting compensation from 9:30 a.m., February 11, 1984 to 11:00 p.m., February 14, 1984 when she had in fact returned at 10:30 p.m., February 13, 1984. At Mr. Smith's request for a supporting agenda she submitted a typed agenda for the trade show indicating activities through part of Tuesday, February 14, 1984. Four other per diem requests submitted by Respondent during the previous four years for field trips had exceeded the time periods established in their respectively attached agendas. In each instance, Mr. Michael Reddish, finance officer, reduced the time requested and made a reduced per diem reimbursement payment to coincide with the agenda submitted. Each time he did this he informed Director Smith of these actions; neither Smith nor Reddish informed Respondent of these actions, but it may be inferred that she was aware her per diem reimbursement payments were being reduced from the hours she had requested so as to coincide with the agendas she had submitted simultaneously with her per diem reimbursement requests. The per diem reimbursement request submitted on February 17, 1984 with supporting agenda amounted to a request for fifty dollars ($50.00) more than the actual time spent by Respondent on the trade show trip. Respondent's class procedures involved several sources of funds: individual student contributions to a profanity jar, proceeds of a class hot dog sale, fees charged to patrons for student beauty services, charges to students for supplies used by them in class, charges to students for sale of materials such as shampoos and permanents which they took home, and charges to students for special purchase items such as mannequins. Mannequins are false "heads" with rooted hair for hair services' practice. The profanity jar was apparently Respondent's idea to teach decorous language for purposes of future employment. Students who "cussed" were required to deposit various amounts of small change into the jar for each infraction. The amount in this jar at any point in time was never established by any credible evidence, nor has it been established what became of it or that Respondent emptied it. Proceeds from the class hot dog sale were originally intended to be used for groceries for use only for those students attending the trade show field trip. Instead, Respondent responded to non-attenders' complaints and purchased hairspray for the whole class. Although the highest "guesstimate" for hot dog monies was $25, the exact amount of proceeds from the hot dog sale has never been established by any direct credible testimony. At the beginning of the 1983-1984 school year, Director Smith and Respondent agreed that because Vo-Tech and the students each derived some benefit from student use of supplies, the school would charge students half price for supplies they wished to use at home. These types of supplies were initially purchased by the school from internal student money generated from student work on patrons and from sale of the supplies to students. They were internal funds and not county monies in Director Smith's eyes. Director Smith required that funds received from students and patrons be accounted for daily but no one in his office checked up on this. It was left to a teacher or a student to report these amounts on "Report of Monies" logs from each class daily. There is confusion in the testimony of Director Smith, Ms. Edwards, secretary-bookkeeper, and Ms. Norman, school clerk, as to what constituted retail sales and what constituted internal funds, and as to whether wigs and mannequins on hand constitute "supplies" (always retail sales) or are always classified in the category of special pre-paid purchase items. Students could purchase mannequins through the school office but mannequins were normally purchased by the school with county money and Mr. Smith's understanding was that in the 1983-1984 school year there had been only one purchase of mannequins made with county monies and therefore they were not for resale. Ms. Edwards and Ms. Norman thought sale of supplies to students could not generate internal funds and was not permitted, contrary to Mr. Smith's understanding, and both ladies were vague as to whether there had been another set of mannequins for students to purchase. All three administrators agreed resale of items purchased with county funds was improper. Ms. Edwards and Ms. Norman are the persons who determined no amounts of monies in any category had been turned in from Respondent's class in the 1983-1984 school year. On one occasion, student Elizabeth Kelly paid for a mannequin in advance with a check from her grandfather to her, which she endorsed over to Helen Van Wart. She eventually received the mannequin from Helen Van Wart. On another occasion, Bonnie Banks delivered a blank check for $24.00 to Respondent. It was cashed with the name "Betty J. Hutson" filled in and also endorsed on the back. That name is Respondent's name and Bonnie Banks thought that was Respondent's signature but no predicate/foundation/reason exists in the record for that assumption. Bonnie Banks also received her mannequin. In the 1983-1984 school year, money for all supplies regardless of how categorized were collected by Respondent's teacher's aide, Mrs. Van Wart, but the keys to the supply cabinet were freely given out to students. Permanents were left sitting on an open shelf. Mrs. Van Wart did not routinely give out receipts and none of the money students recall paying for supplies was turned in to the Director's office. In the previous years, student monies and retail sales for patrons services and sales to students had been turned in to the office from Respondent's class. In 1983-1984, no theft of monies or supplies was reported to the Director by anyone. Only one student, Elizabeth Kelly, recalls Respondent mentioning some money was stolen but how much or from what source this money was derived was never established by any direct credible testimony. No credible testimony established any supplies were actually missing from the supply cabinet and an outside year end audit revealed no problems in Respondent's class. Petitioner established that over a period of approximately three years, Respondent fell asleep several times while under the hairdryer during class while her students practiced on her. On one other occasion, she was absent from the classroom for a short period of time on a personal errand off- campus. The maximum period of time she was gone was less than an hour and a half and during this period she was entitled to take her lunch. During this absence, a patron was permanented by a student and injured. It is contrary to Vo-Tech policy for students to use chemicals without on-site instructor supervision and Respondent did not advise Director Smith of the patron's injury. She further requested her students to say she was in the school cafeteria when it happened. Cosmetology students attending a normal day of classes on campus would be legitimately credited with seven (7) hours toward their state board requirement. Feeling trade shows were worthwhile learning experiences, Mr. Smith authorized granting students eight (8) hours for the planned activities of a field trip day. At the beginning of the 1983-1984 school year, Respondent told her entire class that no-one-would be required to attend class the day following any multi-day trade show or seminar. On Friday, February 10, 1984, Respondent told her class that they would be returning from the trade show on Monday evening, February 13; that there would be no class on Tuesday, February 14; and that everyone would still get credit for class on Tuesday. Respondent advised her class that students not attending the trade show would receive attendance credit whether or not they attended school on Monday or Tuesday. Seven students were not in school or any school approved instructional program on Monday, February These were the students not attending the trade show that day. Eighteen students were not in school or any school approved instructional program on Tuesday, February 14, 1984. This included the eleven students who had returned from the Tampa trade show with Respondent the night before. Respondent gave all the students credit for seven (7) hours on Monday and seven (7) hours on Tuesday instead of eight (8) hours for Sunday and eight (8) hours on Monday for the students attending the trade show and zero (0) hours credit for the "stay at homes" on Monday and zero (o) hours credit for all students for Tuesday. Director Smith testified he would have no problem if she had given eight (8) hours per day for the trade show activities but the attendance records did not reflect that specifically. Interestingly, after Respondent was suspended, Mr. Smith confirmed Respondent's practice by crediting all students just as Respondent had. Before and during the trade show trip, and at various times thereafter Respondent instructed the students who had been on the field trip, that if asked, they were to say they returned to the Vo-Tech Center grounds on February 14, 1984, instead of a day earlier. Respondent's immediate supervisor, David Smith, instituted an investigation of Respondent' a activities approximately February 17, 1984. Be did not immediately advise her of the serious allegations concerning allegedly missing supplies and leave requests/per diem claims. Respondent was not aided by him in correcting the latter concern. Particularly, she was prevented from correcting the leave requests/per diem claims. On March 17, 1984, Respondent submitted a letter stating she was at home on February 14, suffering from exhaustion and wished to amend her leave and per diem requests. On March 19, 1984, Respondent submitted an amended sick leave request. Director Smith refused to approve these as over thirty days from date of the sick leave and because he considered the initial requests to be fraudulent.
Recommendation Upon assessment of the facts found, and in the conclusions of law reached and in consideration of the argument of counsel, it is recommended 1. That the Bradford County School Board enter a Final Order ratifying Respondent's suspension of employment with the Bradford County School Board without pay and continuing that suspension without pay to and including the end of the 1984-1985 school year, a total of 2 school years. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of February, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of February, 1985.
The Issue Validity of Respondent's placement decision concerning Petitioner, as set forth in letter of Wylamerle G. Marshall, dated March 28, 1978. This cases arises from Petitioner's request for a hearing to review a decision of the Director, Exceptional Child Education, Dade County Public Schools, that placement of the Petitioner in a learning disabilities program was an appropriate placement in the Dade County School System. The decision was effected by letter of March 28, 1978 from Wylamerle G. Marshall to Mrs. Constance Garrett, the mother of petitioner Thomas Garrett. She-thereafter requested review on behalf of her son by letter from legal counsel dated April 6, 1978. The case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for appointment of Hearing Officer on April 12, 1978. Although the hearing in this matter was originally set for May 11, 1978, the Hearing Officer granted Petitioner's request for a continuance and the case was heard on June 14, 1978.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Thomas Garrett, a seven year old boy, who is the son of Constance Garrett, Miami, Florida, was enrolled in the first grade at Orchard Villa Elementary School, Miami, Florida, in September, 1977. Several days after school began, Thomas brought home classroom papers indicating that he had failed on certain tests. Mrs. Garrett spoke to his teacher who informed her that Thomas was hyperactive, disruptive and not able to do classroom work properly. She then went to the principal who told her that letter grades should not have been given in the first grade classes and suggested that the child be placed again in kindergarten. Mrs. Garrett asked that Thomas be tested to determine if he had any learning deficiencies and the principal agreed to initiate administrative processing in that respect. (Testimony of C. Garrett) The normal procedure followed in the Dade County Public School System for placement of a child in a learning disabilities program is for the student's teacher to bring the matter to the attention of the local school authorities who refer the case to a school "team." The team assists the teacher in dealing with any problems arising in the classroom. If the team recommends that the child needs evaluation, the school sends a visiting teacher to the home to obtain the social history of the child to prepare for possible psychological testing and evaluation of the particular case. This information, together with routine school hearing and visual tests, and evaluation of the student's teacher are provided to a psychologist in the school system who performs psychological testing at the school to determine the need for special education. The results of testing are thereafter reviewed by a committee of the county area concerned and final approval of any placement is made by the area staff director of student services for special education. Normally, the local schools are reluctant to test a small child early in the year until school personnel have worked with the child for a reasonable period of time. (Testimony of Shkoler) On September 15, 1977, a visiting teacher was sent to the Garrett home where he obtained necessary data as to the child's background and procured the parent's consent for psychological testing. He turned this material over to school authorities on the same day. At the time of his visit, Mrs. Garrett informed him that she intended to have a private psychologist test her son, and also utilize the services of a public school psychologist, after which she would compare the results. (Testimony of Walton) In the middle of September, a school psychologist was assigned to test Thomas but did not actually perform the testing because Mrs. Garrett obtained the services of a private psychologist who tested her son on September 20. It was therefore necessary for him to postpone any testing until he could see what testing had been done by the private psychologist. In the meantime, however, Mrs. Garrett had been urging the area director of student services, Mrs. Betty Shkoler to hasten psychological testing, but had not made her aware of the fact that private testing had been accomplished. It was not until the latter part of October, however, that Mrs. Garrett took the report of the private psychologist to Mrs. Shkoler, although she had shown it to the Orchard Villa principal. The report stated that Thomas had a need for a fully clinical school with emphasis on motor and perceptual skills and academic learning experiences presented with manipulative-associative techniques. The director of student services had the report reviewed by an area psychologist and it was determined that Thomas should be placed in a learning disabilities program. Mrs. Garrett was contacted and agreed to placement at Westview Elementary School after personal visitation there. Thomas was thereafter placed in the first grade class of Martha L. Chinn at that school. The authorization for placement, dated October 27, 1977, stated that the child's primary educational needs were activities to remediate visual motor deficits, visual closure activities, visual association, and visual sequential memory activities, and a program for gross motor development. Mrs. Garrett signed a consent form to the placement on November 4, 1977. (Testimony of Armour, Shkoler, C. Garrett, Exhibits 1, 3 - 4) Normal transportation arrangements were made by area school authorities whereby the parent is responsible for taking the child to the home school -- in this case Orchard Villa -- where school bus transportation would be provided to the new school, Westview Elementary. However, since Mrs. Garrett had specifically asked that Thomas be picked up by bus at his home for delivery to Orchard Villa, a special request was made to the school transportation office for this type of transportation. Pending receipt of information concerning such transportation, Mrs. Garrett personally transported Thomas to and from Westview Elementary on his first two days of class, October 31 and November 1, 1977. Although she anticipated having him picked up by bus on the following school day, November 3, as a result of Information provided in a note sent to her by the school teacher, this was not done because the school bus transportation office had not received a formal written request for such special treatment. Accordingly, Mrs. Garrett took Thomas to school on that day and was thereafter assured by school bus personnel that he would be picked up that afternoon from school. Conflicting testimony was presented at the hearing as to whether or not Mrs. Garrett was informed that the teacher would be notified as to the fact that Thomas would be picked up by bus that afternoon. In any event, Mrs. Chinn was not so informed and Thomas proceeded to wait for his mother outside the school after class. He was observed by his teacher waiting for his parent at the customary place, and she reassured him after some lapse of time that his mother would be there. She had assumed that Mrs. Garrett would pick him up since she had brought him to school that morning. Thomas later wandered off the school grounds and Mrs. Garrett, who had been waiting to meet the bus, became apprehensive when it did not arrive. She was later informed by the school secretary that Thomas had been found by a man some 24 blocks away from the school and returned there. Mrs. Garrett proceeded to school to pick him up and Thomas would not tell her what had happened, but was like a frightened animal." The next day Mrs. Garrett took him back to school, although he had had nightmares and did not want to return. She talked to a new assistant Principal at the school concerning the incident and was upset by what she perceived to be a callous attitude. On the following Monday, November 7, she took Thomas to the Orchard Villa School for bus pickup, but he was frightened and remained on the floor of the car. She thereafter did not let him return to Westview. Several days later, she was informed that bus pickup could be provided at home; however, she enrolled Thomas in Vanguard School, a private school in Coconut Grove in late November. (Testimony of C. Garrett, Chinn, Shkoler, Hart) The class at Westview Elementary School where Thomas attended for several days is a full-time class for students with learning disabilities. It is taught by a teacher certified in that specialized area who is assisted by an aide certified in elementary education. By the end of the 1977-78 school year, there were 19 children in the class. However, individual attention is given by the teacher to each student to deal with their "deficits" and prepare "prescriptions" to assist in improving weak areas. It was found by Mrs. Chinn that Thomas was weakest in the "motor" area and consequently she prepared materials to deal with this problem. Although he had no particular problem in understanding instructions, he possessed a visual motor perceptive defect which causes difficulty for him to process and retain visual and auditory information. His condition results in inconsistent actions in response to auditory commands whereby in some instances he is capable of carrying out instructions but sometimes cannot do so. Although ideally he should be in a class with a low teacher/child ratio of ten or less children, this ratio may be higher in situations where an aide is present to assist the teacher. Thomas's teacher at Westview found that he seemed no different than any other child in her class and when he returned to school on November 4 after the unfortunate bus incident, he did not appear to be upset or pose any difficulty. (Testimony of Chinn, Armour, Cullen, Exhibit 2) The learning disabilities program in the Dade County Public Schools is adequate for most children and Respondent refers children to private schools only in extreme cases involving children who cannot be properly handled in the public school system for unusual reasons. Although Thomas initially could have received a negative image of public schools from his receipt of failing grades at Orchard Villa, this would not necessarily predispose him against public schools. Although the bus incident undoubtedly produced a temporary stress and fear reaction, there is no evidence that it resulted in a phobia or any other permanent adverse result, although Thomas has never told his mother the details of the incident. (Testimony of Cullen, C. Garrett) Mrs. Garrett paid tuition of approximately $350 a month at the Vanguard School, including transportation by van to and from school. (Testimony of C. Garrett)
Recommendation That Petitioner's request for relief be denied by the Dade County School Board. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of July, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire Dade County School Board Lindsey Hopkins Building 1410 N.E. 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Harold Long, Jr., Esquire Suite 2382 - One Biscayne Tower Two South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131
