Findings Of Fact Except to the extent they are consistent with these Findings of Fact, all proposed findings of fact are rejected as either not supported by competent, substantial evidence, contrary to the greater weight of the evidence or irrelevant. On November 6, 1974, LaRosa was granted a Florida Teacher's Certificate and subsequently was employed by the Duval County School System. On October 24, 1975, LaRosa failed to appear at 3 a.m. for work as a substitute teacher in the P.E. Department at John Gorrie Junior High School. After having been involved in a car accident the night before and not having gotten to sleep until 5 a.m., LaRosa overslept and therefore did not notify the school board that he would be absent or advise the school of the reason for his failure to appear for class until noon that day. On or about February 25, 1976, LaRosa was convicted in Duval County, Florida, of driving while intoxicated on the previous February 15. He was fined $200, and his driver's license was suspended for three months. On June 9, 1976, LaRosa was arrested in Duval County, Florida, for driving while intoxicated on that day. On or about July 2, 1976, LaRosa was convicted in Duval County, Florida, of having driven while intoxicated on June 9, 1976. He was sentenced to ten days in the Duval County Jail. LaRosa's convictions, set forth above, were considered by the Professional Practices Council of the Department of Education. The Council found "no probable cause to believe that the certificate be revoked or suspended at this time . . . and a letter of warning regarding repeated offenses be directed to the educator." By letter dated September 23, 1976, the Council warned LaRosa against future conduct that would reduce his effectiveness as an educator. Subsequent to the events set forth in the proceeding Findings of Fact, LaRosa left the teaching field and his certificate lapsed. From 1978 to the present, he has engaged in a number of employment positions unconnected with the field of education. On or about May 5, 1981, LaRosa was arrested for disorderly intoxication and public disturbance in Duval County, Florida. He subsequently was convicted on his plea of guilty and sentenced to 15 days' suspended sentence with six months' probation. In or about September, 1981, LaRosa was arrested for disorderly intoxication in Duval County, Florida. On November 18, 1981, be was convicted of that offense and violation of the probation alleged in the preceding paragraph. The court sentenced LaRosa to 68 days in jail (58 days were suspended) and given six months' probation for that offense, as well as for the violation of probation with regard to the previous offense. On or about July 6, 1982, LaRosa was convicted in Duval County, Florida, for driving while intoxicated during the previous March. He was sentenced to 38 days in jail. LaRosa's Application for Teacher's Certificate was received by DOE on August 26, 1982. The application reflects that it was signed by LaRosa and that be swore and subscribed to its accuracy before a notary public on August 20, 1982. In the application, LaRosa was asked the following question: Have you ever been convicted or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation or are there any criminal charges now pending against you other than minor traffic violations? The application then provided spaces for a yes/no response and asked for details about any arrests, dates, nature of charges and dispositions. LaRosa's August 28, 1982, response to the foregoing question was simply that he had been arrested in "Jax Fla" and that the nature of the charge(s) was "DWI." LaRosa failed to include any further statement about the nature of his charges, and he did not include any information or reference to the dates and dispositions of the arrests and convictions set forth in the preceding paragraphs. On February 25, 1983, LaRosa was convicted in Duval County, Florida, of driving while licensee was suspended in December 1982. He was sentenced to 68 days in jail with 58 days suspended and was placed on unsupervised probation. LaRosa was not intoxicated at the time of his arrest. At the time of the arrest for this incident, the police administered a field sobriety test, which LaRosa passed. The arrest report states that LaRosa bad been drinking. LaRosa denies that he had been drinking. But the circumstances were suspicious and, coupled with the police officer's observations, prevent me from finding that LaRosa was not drinking. Since LaRosa has the ultimate burden of persuasion, I find that he had been drinking immediately prior to the time of his arrest. In a letter dated May 26, 1983, LaRosa responded to a letter from Professional Practices regarding his admission of "DWI" arrest on Section V of the Application for Teacher's Certificate. In his letter, LaRosa wrote: The explanation of my charges are as follows: Driving while under the influence of alcohol. Driving on a suspended license. Public intoxication. I was sentenced 18, 38, and 68 days for these offenses. On October 6, 1983, LaRosa was again convicted in Duval County, Florida, for driving while license was suspended. For that offense, LaRosa received a 38-day suspended sentence and a $25 fine. When LaRosa was stopped by police, he at first misstated his name but was not intoxicated. At the time of the arrest, LaRosa again was given and apparently passed a field sobriety test. LaRosa denies having been drinking. But, again, the circumstances were suspicious, and the police arrest report contains a statement that the policeman thought LaRosa bad been drinking. Therefore, I find that LaRosa had been drinking just before the time of his arrest. LaRosa claims that be stopped drinking in August, 1982, after being released from jail, and that he has not been drinking since. As stated, I find his claim not to be completely accurate. He attended Alcoholics Anonymous meetings at least twice a month during the year 1982 and attended eight to ten meetings in 1983. At the time of the final hearing, LaRosa had not been to an AA meeting in four months. LaRosa's personal conduct, set forth above, seriously reduces his effectiveness as a teacher. Mr. Nolan G. Gillmore, Secretary Staffing Supervisor for the Duval County School Board, gave opinion testimony in the area of education and personnel administration in Duval County and the State of Florida and in the area of effectiveness of teachers. Mr. Gillmore is of the opinion that, at this time, LaRosa's conduct would disqualify him from being a person the Duval County School System would hire as a teacher. Mr. Gillmore also is of the opinion that, at this time, LaRosa could not be an effective teacher because of the effect of his conduct on his relationship with his students and that be would have difficulty in his relationships with his fellow teachers and the community. Finally, Mr. Gillmore opined that, upon the evidence DOE presented at the final bearing, the Duval County School System would move to terminate LaRosa if he were a teacher in the system. LaRosa concedes to wrongdoing and says he would "take a two-year suspension." He thinks he has rehabilitated himself from his drinking problems and thinks be can be a good teacher. So does his friend, Paul Galloway, who is a teacher and has taught with LaRosa in the past. But, Mr. Gillmore's testimony was more persuasive than the testimony of LaRosa and Galloway.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Education Practices Commission deny this application of Anthony W. LaRosa for a Florida Teacher's Certificate. RECOMMENDED this 15th of March, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 15th day of March, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Anthony W. LaRosa 3554 College Place Jacksonville, Florida 32204 Wilson Jerry Foster, Esquire 616 Lewis State Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Donald L. Griesheimer Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues are whether Respondents, James A. Shanks Middle School, Havana Magnet School, and/or Carter-Parramore Academy, subjected Petitioner to discrimination on the basis of his age, sex, or race, in violation of section 760.10, Florida Statutes,1 and/or whether Respondent retaliated against Petitioner for the exercise of protected rights under section 760.10.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Gadsden County School District is an employer as that term is defined in section 760.02(7). It is the governing body responsible for the administration of public schools in Gadsden County and is therefore treated as a Respondent in this proceeding, though unnamed by Petitioner. James A. Shanks Middle School, a public school of Gadsden County, is an employer as that term is defined in section 760.02(7). Havana Magnet School, a public school in Gadsden County, is an employer as that term is defined in section 760.02(7). Carter-Parramore Academy, a public school in Gadsden County, is an employer as that term is defined in section 760.02(7). Mr. Jones, who was 63 years old at the time of the hearing, is a black male. Mr. Jones’s complaint is that he applied for open teaching positions in January 2020 at two Gadsden County public schools, applied for a third position in October 2020, and did not receive an interview for any of the positions. Mr. Jones alleges that the failure to interview him constituted discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and/or age. Mr. Jones has worked in the recent past as a substitute teacher for the School District. The record established that Mr. Jones was eligible for a temporary teaching and professional teaching certificate for social sciences from October 12, 2017, through October 12, 2020. Mr. Jones was not eligible for certificates in other educational areas. Mr. Jones testified, and the School District did not dispute, that he has applied for “hundreds” of positions with the School Board over the years. These applications were mostly for teaching positions but also included a range of jobs from bus driver to deputy superintendent. Mr. Jones has filed two discrimination complaints against the School District prior to the instant cases that resulted in DOAH Recommended Orders. In the most recent case, Jones v. Gadsden County School Board, Case No. 20-4489, 2021 WL 1256500 (Fla. DOAH Mar. 30, 2021), ALJ James H. Peterson III found that the School District’s internal application system had labeled Mr. Jones as “ineligible” for employment, and that Mr. Jones had therefore been summarily excluded from the pool of candidates for several positions with the School District. The School District explained that Mr. Jones stated on his application that he had a criminal record, which triggered an automatic “ineligible” notification on the School District’s internal employment application system. ALJ Peterson went on to find that the evidence established that Mr. Jones had been cleared by the Department of Education and that he had, in fact, been eligible for employment by the School District. ALJ Peterson found that the School District’s employment application system erroneously labeled Mr. Jones as ineligible for employment, but that this error was a simple mistake and not evidence of unlawful discrimination or retaliation. In a Recommended Order entered on March 30, 2021, ALJ Peterson recommended that the FCHR enter a Final Order dismissing Mr. Jones’s petition for failure to provide evidence of discrimination. The hearing in DOAH Case No. 20-4489 was completed on December 16, 2020. After the hearing made it aware of its error, and well before ALJ Peterson issued his Recommended Order, the School District corrected the error and manually removed the “ineligible” designation from Mr. Jones’s employment application. In an email dated January 27, 2021, counsel for the School District advised Mr. Jones his application status had been changed from “ineligible” to “complete” and that his criminal history would no longer prevent him from applying for employment with the School District. As to the applications at issue in these consolidated cases, Mr. Jones applied for social studies teaching positions at Carter-Parramore Academy and James A. Shanks Middle School in January 2020, and applied for a social studies teaching position at Havana Magnet School in October 2020. These applications were all made before the School District had corrected Mr. Jones’s application status in light of the hearing before ALJ Peterson. On each of these applications, Mr. Jones did not receive an interview because the School District’s employment application system showed him as “ineligible.” Major Willie Jackson, a 58-year-old black male, has been the principal at Carter-Parramore Academy for three years. Mr. Jackson testified that Mr. Jones had worked for him at James A. Shanks Middle School about five years ago as a one-on-one assistant for an exceptional education student, but that Mr. Jones had been hired by the school’s Exceptional Student Education department, not by him. Mr. Jackson recalled interviewing Mr. Jones for another position at James A. Shanks Middle School but could not recall whom he ultimately hired. Mr. Jackson testified that he did not interview Mr. Jones for the social studies teaching position at Carter-Parramore Academy in January 2020 because the School District’s application system showed that Mr. Jones was ineligible for employment. Mr. Jackson stated that he would have interviewed Mr. Jones but for the erroneous statement as to his eligibility. Mr. Jackson ultimately hired John Leprell, a white male in his early forties. Mr. Jackson testified that he had no knowledge of any prior FCHR complaints that Mr. Jones had made. Mr. Jackson credibly testified that none of his decisions was based on Mr. Jones’s age, race, or sex, or in retaliation for engaging in protected activity. Parish Williams, a black male over the age of 40, was the principal at Havana Magnet School in January 2020. He testified that he did not know Mr. Jones and did not know his age or race before the hearing in the instant cases. Mr. Williams also testified that he was unaware of any FCHR or other complaints that Mr. Jones had made against the School District. Mr. Williams testified that he did not interview Mr. Jones for the open social studies teaching position at Havana Magnet School because the School District’s application system indicated that Mr. Jones was ineligible. Mr. Williams stated that he would probably have interviewed Mr. Jones had he not been flagged as ineligible. Mr. Williams ultimately hired Patrice Monroe, a black female, for the position. Mr. Williams credibly testified that his decision on the job position was not based on Mr. Jones’s race, age, or sex, or in retaliation for engaging in protected activity. Maurice Stokes, a black male over the age of 40, was principal at James A. Shanks Middle School when Mr. Jones applied for a social studies teaching position in October 2020. Mr. Stokes stated that he did not know Mr. Jones personally but had seen him before. Mr. Stokes could not recall whether Mr. Jones had applied for the position, but he knew that he did not interview Mr. Jones. Mr. Stokes testified that he would not interview Mr. Jones or any other candidate who was listed as “ineligible” on the School District’s employment application system. Mr. Stokes hired Ken Hubbard, a 60-year-old black male, for the social studies position. Mr. Stokes testified that he hired Mr. Hubbard because he was the best social studies candidate available. Mr. Stokes had no knowledge of any FCHR complaints that Mr. Jones had made against the School District. Mr. Stokes credibly testified that his decision was not based on Mr. Jones’s race, age, or sex, or in retaliation for engaging in protected activity. Sonya Jackson, Human Resources Director for the School District, testified about the process by which the School District corrected Mr. Jones’s information in its database. She testified that Mr. Jones has continued to make applications since the “ineligible” status was removed from his record. Ms. Jackson stated that Mr. Jones was called for an interview on a maintenance supervisor position for which he had applied, but that he turned down the interview. Mr. Jones testified at length but provided no evidence that the School District or any of its personnel had discriminated against him based on his race, age, or sex, or that anyone retaliated against him for exercising his right to file complaints of discrimination with the FCHR. Mr. Jones claimed that in 2008 the School District dismissed him from a teaching job in a manner disallowed by statute,2 and that it has spent the last 13 years covering its tracks by placing false records in his employment file. He complained that the School District only hires women for teaching positions, though two of the three jobs he applied for in these cases were eventually filled by men. Mr. Jones appears to assume that when someone of a different race, age, or sex is hired for a job that he seeks, the result is due to discrimination against him. If the person hired is a woman, then Mr. Jones was discriminated against based on sex. If the person hired is younger, then it is age discrimination. Mr. Jones had no real answer when confronted with the hiring of Mr. Hubbard, a 60-year-old back male, at James A. Shanks Middle School. He also could not explain away the fact that the hiring decision in each of the three cases was made by a principal who was black, male, and over 40 years of age. Mr. Jones provided no evidence that any of the decisions not to interview him were causally linked to protected activity. Mr. Jones established that he is prolifically litigious but failed to establish that his activities are as well known in the community as he believes. Each of the principals credibly testified that they were unaware that Mr. Jones had engaged in protected activity. 2 Mr. Jones never provided a citation to the law he claimed the School District violated by dismissing him. In summary, Mr. Jones offered insufficient evidence that he was discriminated against based on his race, age, or sex. Mr. Jones also offered insufficient evidence that he was subjected to unlawful retaliation. Mr. Jones offered no credible evidence disputing the non- discriminatory reason given by the School District for its failures to interview him for the three positions at issue. Mr. Jones offered no credible evidence that the School District’s stated reason for not hiring him was a pretext for discrimination based on his age, race, or sex.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Ronald David Jones, pro se 1821 McKelvy Street Quincy, Florida 32351 For Respondents: William Breen Armistead, Esquire Coppins Monroe, P.A. 1319 Thomaswood Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that neither James A. Shanks Middle School, Havana Magnet School, nor Carter-Parramore Academy committed an unlawful employment practice, and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in this case. 3 Brungart was decided under the Family and Medical Leave Act, but its reasoning as to the element of retaliation has been repeatedly applied in cases involving Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. See e.g., Mitchell v. Mercedes-Benz U.S. Int’l, Inc., 637 Fed. Appx. 535, 539 (11th Cir. 2015); and Willis v. Publix Super Mkts., Inc., 619 Fed. Appx. 960, 962 (11th Cir. 2015). DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of October, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of October, 2021. Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 William Breen Armistead, Esquire Coppins Monroe, P.A. 1319 Thomaswood Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Stanley Gorsica, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Ronald David Jones 1821 McKelvy Street Quincy, Florida 32351 Gwendolyn P. Adkins, Esquire Coppins, Monroe, Adkins and Dincman, P.A. 1319 Thomaswood Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Findings Of Fact Michael J. Craven holds a Florida teaching certificate #244046, Post Graduate, Rank II, for elementary education, junior college and supervision. During the school year 1978-1979, he was employed as a foreign language teacher and curriculum assistant at Terry Parker Senior High School in Duval County. He was on an annual contract. At the conclusion of the school year he was not rehired because of a police report received by the personnel office of the Duval County school system. The report alleged that Mr. Craven had committed a sexual offense. Michael Legan is a detective with the Duval County Sheriff's Office. He is attached to the vice squad and was so employed on February 15, 1979. On that date he was on duty at an establishment called Daytona International where pornographic movies were shown in numerous small booths. Mr. Craven approached detective Legan who was wearing plain clothes and asked him if he wanted to watch a movie with Mr. Craven. Detective Legan agreed and went into a booth. Upon their entry Mr. Craven put one hand on Detective Legan's buttocks and grabbed his crotch with the other one, while attempting to fondle him. At that point Mr. Craven was arrested. On February 22. 1979, an information was filed by the State Attorney against Mr. Craven. It alleged that on February l5, 1979, he violated Section 800.02, Florida Statutes by fondling and rubbing Detective Legan's buttock and penis. Mr. Craven pled guilty as charged on March 19, 1979. He received a fine of $50.00 by the Duval County Court. Immediately after his arrest, Mr. Craven notified his school principal of his arrest. Other than to rehire him for another year of teaching, no discipline concerning Mr. Craven's arrest or conviction was ever taken against him by the Superintendent or School Board of Duval County. Since the school year of 1968-1969, Craven has received excellent evaluations of his performance as a school teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED That a final order be entered by the Education Practices Commission, pursuant to Section 2, Chapter 80-190 Laws of Florida (1980) suspending Mr. Craven's certificate to teach for a period of three (3) years commencing with the date of the final order. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 10th day of October, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Collins Building Room 101 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of October, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: L. Haldane Taylor, Esquire 1902 Independent Square Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Michael J. Craven 3460 Red Oak Circle East Orange Park, Florida 32073
Findings Of Fact Respondent was issued Florida Teacher's Certificate No. 482561 on April 23, 1981, which certified her as authorized to teach elementary education and act as an elementary and secondary school counsellor until June 30, 1985. This certificate is valid now and was valid at all times pertinent to this hearing. On December 16, 1981, at the time of the incidents alleged, Respondent was working for a telephone answering service in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. She was in the process of moving to Jacksonville and had hired an individual named James Dallas to move her possessions for her. Since the day prior to the day in question, she had seen Dallas and his friend going through her luggage, she became convinced he was planning to rob her. As a result, she removed certain items from her luggage to her purse, which items included the handgun and the "knife" in question. Respondent admits to having the gun in her possession concealed in her purse. She contends, however, she had purchased it legally and was of the opinion it was properly registered. Whether it was or not is immaterial, as the ultimate fact is it was concealed in her purse and she did not have a license to carry a concealed gun. As to the "knife," she contends it was not a knife, but part of a manicuring set. The probable cause affidavit executed by the police officer who arrested her, however, indicated that he found a 4 1/2 inch black- handled steak knife in her purse along with the handgun. At no time did Respondent draw or threaten with either weapon, although at the time of her arrest she was involved in a disturbance with Dallas. I find, therefore, that the "knife" in question was in fact a knife. On March 5, 1982, Respondent pleaded guilty in the Circuit Court for Broward County, Florida, to carrying a concealed firearm and carrying a concealed weapon (misdemeanor) She was placed on probation for three years for carrying the gun and for one year, to run concurrently with the three, for carrying the knife, and adjudication of guilt was withheld with a provision for expungement of the record upon successful completion of probation. She immediately moved to Jacksonville. She initially intended to apply for employment in the Duval County school system, but found that she needed to attach a copy of her teaching certificate, which had, in fact, been stolen from her luggage. Therefore, on April 2, 1982, she submitted an application for a duplicate certificate on which she listed her arrest for and the disposition of her offense. It was on the basis of her application for a duplicate license that this action to discipline her was initiated. In January, 1983, almost a year later, there was no showing of any report by the courts to Petitioner or any complaint or report by any other agency. Respondent is currently working at Edward Waters College in Jacksonville as Recruitment and Admissions Counsellor and has been so employed since December, 1982. Her supervisor, the Dean of Student Affairs, finds her to possess high skills and creative abilities and to have much to offer the field of education, even though he is aware of her plea of guilty and the offenses to which it relates. Her probation officer, who has observed her since she arrived in Jacksonville, relates a glowing picture of her probation and indicates she has been very satisfactory and absolutely no problem. She follows and lives up to all standards of her probation. In fact, she has been so good, he intends to recommend early termination of her probation as soon as she has completed half the term, which is the earliest he can do so. The Director of Personnel Systems and Records for the Duval County school system does not know Respondent, knows nothing of her professional record or competence, and has not reviewed any application from her to teach in the Duval County schools. However, he is of the opinion that by virtue of her involvement with the law alone, and regardless that upon completion of her probation her record would be expunged, her effectiveness in an educational situation would be lessened because of the knowledge by others within the system of her offenses. Under the teachers' Code of Ethics, a teacher should set an example for the students. A teacher is responsible to not only the students, but also to the faculty and parents, and a teacher's off-campus conduct can and does have an effect on the teacher's performance. Respondent does not feel her effectiveness as a teacher has been reduced. In fact, she feels that because of what she has learned from this situation she has become more aware of her responsibilities to society and to the educational system. This, she feels, enhances her effectiveness.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, therefore, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Education Practices Commission dismiss the Administrative Complaint. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Department of Administration 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of August, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire Berg & Holder Post Office Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Marvin I. Edwards, Esquire Edwards, Willis & Marinucci 3300 Independent Square Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Donald L. Griesheimer Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE EDUCATION PRACTICES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA RALPH D. TURLINGTON, as Commissioner of Education, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 83-501 BEVERLY J. MCNAIR, Respondent. /
The Issue Respondent's continued employment with the Dade County Public Schools, as set forth in minutes of the School Board for October 19, 1977.
Findings Of Fact During the 1975-1976 and 1976-1977 academic school years, Respondent was an employee of the Petitioner as a teacher at the Richmond Heights Junior High School. (Stipulation) By order of the State Board of Education, dated September 20, 1977, the teaching certificate of Respondent, Department of Education Number 3436, was suspended for a period of two years. The matter is currently being appealed to the First District Court of Appeal. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, Stipulation) On October 19, 1977, Respondent was suspended without pay from his position by Petitioner due to the suspension of his teaching certificate by the State Board of Education. On October 31, 1977, Respondent requested a hearing in the matter. Petitioner provided Respondent with formal notice of charges on December 13, 1977, seeking his dismissal from employment with the school system. Respondent became a teacher in 1937 and has been employed in that capacity by Petitioner since 1961. He testified at the hearing to the effect that, in his opinion, the present proceedings are improper in that the action by the State Board of Education was premature and should not have been taken until the charges upon which such action was based had been considered by Petitioner in administrative proceedings. Respondent sought to introduce character testimony in his behalf by a number of witnesses, but upon objection by Petitioner, such testimony was not permitted by the Hearing Officer as it would be irrelevant to the proceedings. The proffered testimony would have shown that the witnesses had all known the Respondent for a lengthy period of time and that he is a dedicated employee of the school system who has served his community and church as an example for students. (Testimony of Anders, Respondent)
Recommendation That Respondent, Raphu S. Williams, be dismissed from employment as a teacher by the School Board of Dade County, Florida, under the authority of Section 231.36(4), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of April, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jesse McCrary, Esquire Dade County Public Schools Lindsey Hopkins Building 1410 Northeast 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Elizabeth DuFresne, Esquire One Biscayne Tower Suite 1782 Miami, Florida 33131 Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire Dade County Public Schools Administrative Office Lindsey Hopkins Building 1410 Northeast 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this hearing, Respondent was a public school teacher licensed by the State of Florida to teach English language at the secondary school level, and her teaching certificate was current and in full effect. The Respondent, Queen Bruton, is employed by the Duval County School Board and holds tenure under the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act. On November 22, 1982, Respondent was sent a Notice of Proposed Dismissal by the School Board indicating the Board's intention to dismiss her as a teacher upon a charge of professional incompetency. The grounds for such conclusion include an indication that Respondent received unsatisfactory evaluations of her performance for the 1980-81 and 1981-82 school years. The Duval County Teacher Tenure Act (TTA), Chapter 21197, Laws of Florida (1941), as amended, permits the discharge of a teacher for, inter alia, professional incompetency as a teacher if certain conditions are met and procedures followed. All teachers in the Duval County public schools are evaluated whenever necessary, but at least once a year. Under the rating system in effect during the 1980-81 and 1981-82 school years, an unsatisfactory rating is awarded when an evaluation contains eight or more deduction points. Ratings are: (1) satisfactory, (2) needs improvement, and (3) unsatisfactory. On the rating form in use during the time in issue here, an unsatisfactory rating results in two deduction points in Items 1 through 27, and one deduction point in Items 28 through 36. An evaluation of "needs improvement" does not result in any deduction points. The School Board of Duval County has not, in any formal way, defined professional incompetence. The evaluation process is but one tool in the management of teacher employment. An unsatisfactory evaluation is not, therefore, conclusive of professional incompetence, but is one factor in that judgmental decision. The procedure used by the School Board in evaluating teacher performance was not adopted in conformity with the Administrative Procedure Act. At the time of adoption, the School Board was operating under teacher working conditions that had been implemented after extensive bargaining between the School Board and the teachers' union. These working conditions contained extensive provisions involving "teacher evaluation." When a contract was finally agreed upon between the School Board and the teachers' union, it contained provisions concerning teacher evaluation identical to those which were in effect under the working conditions previous to the implementation of the contract. These provisions, therefore, do not constitute rules "as defined in Section 120.52, Florida Statutes," but instead constitute guidelines for the evaluation of teacher performance arrived at not by decision of the School Board under conditions which require public hearing but jointly by agreement of the parties to the negotiations of the teacher contract between the School Board and the union, a collective bargaining agreement. Warren K. Kennedy was in Respondent's sophomore English class at Forrest Senior High School in Jacksonville during the 1980-81 school year. At one point during the school year, Kennedy saw a series of approximately 22 sexually explicit words or phrases written on the blackboard in Respondent's room. Kennedy copied these words and notified the principal, who went to Respondent's classroom and saw them himself. These words were placed on the board by someone other than Respondent, with her permission, and consisted of a part of an exercise in outlining. As such, Respondent claims the words themselves mean nothing, but words of that nature, including "orgasms, sexual intercourse, French tickler, blow job, condoms, dildo, masturbation, orgy," and the like serve no legitimate purpose in, and are not a legitimate part of, a sophomore English class. Respondent's classroom that year was chaotic. Students did little work, but instead talked openly and freely. Respondent sat quietly at her desk doing paperwork unless the noise got so great as to disturb other classes. Students felt free to walk out of class with impunity. Cursing was prevalent in class, and discipline was nonexistent. Defacing of school property occurred on at least one occasion with Respondent taking no corrective action. As a result, several students and the parents of other students requested their transfer from Respondent's class to another. Respondent was also unreliable in submitting grades and reports in a timely fashion. Observations of Respondent in the classroom environment by several different individuals revealed she did not insist her students come to class equipped with the proper supplies for effective writing or textbook activity. She rarely utilized visual aids pertinent to the matter being discussed. Classroom discussion with students did not generally involve a broad sampling of the class, but was focused on only a few class members. Her questions to the students were often vague and confusing to the students. Respondent's principal during that school year, Ronel J. Poppel, at whose request the above observations were made, himself observed Respondent in the classroom on several occasions. As a result of the input from those requested observations and of his own observations, he prepared an evaluation form on Respondent on March 15, 1981, which bore an overall rating of unsatisfactory and reflected that her performance was declining. This report, which reflected 7 of 36 items as unsatisfactory (12 total deduction points), had 20 other items rated as "needs improvement" and contained such written-in suggestions as "needs classroom management techniques, needs better standards of behavior, needs to have long-range planning from the beginning of the year, needs to show more enthusiasm for teaching--needs more variety in methods of teaching," and "should use better judgment in selection of topics." As a result of this evaluation, the observations of her principal and others, and the several counseling periods during which Respondent's deficiencies were pointed out to her along with suggestions for improvement, Respondent was put on notice of her failing performance and afforded the opportunity to take advantage of teacher education counseling (TEC) and, while she did enroll in at least one improvement course, failed to take full advantage of the available opportunities. Poppel's evaluation of Respondent as an incompetent teacher is based on: His personal observation; Evaluation by other professionals; Parent complaint follow-up; Her demonstrated lack of effective planning; Her lack of enforcement of school policies; Her lack of or inability to motivate students; Observed and reported chaotic classroom deportment; Her failure to keep proper records; and Her failure to leave lesson plans for substitutes. Notwithstanding the above, Respondent was well versed in the subject matter she was to teach and had the subjective background to be an excellent teacher. Her shortcomings, as described above, however, far outweighed the positive aspects of her credentials. Respondent was transferred for the 1981-82 school year to Fletcher High School in Jacksonville where she was placed under the supervision of Dr. Ragans, Principal, to teach English. Dr. Ragans spoke to Mr. Poppel, her former principal, about Respondent's weak areas so that he could develop plans to help her in those areas. In an effort to prepare Respondent for the coming year and to ensure she was fully aware of school policies and standards, Dr. Ragans held an extensive conference with Respondent to discuss her previous year's unsatisfactory rating and to make plans to remedy or remediate those areas. On August 25, 1981, he wrote a letter to Respondent in which he reiterated the items discussed previously. Review of this letter reveals there could be little doubt of what Dr. Ragans expected. Nonetheless, when he personally observed her in her classroom less than a month later, he found many of the same weaknesses previously identified, such as a noisy classroom environment, talking by students without being called on, Respondent appearing preoccupied with desk work, and inadequate lesson plans. In the observation report, he made numerous suggestions for improvement and offered Respondent the opportunity to a conference which she did not request. Prior to that observation, however, on September 8, 1981, Dr. Ragans and Respondent met with Dr. Jeff Weathers, TEC consultant for the School Board, in a full discussion of her professional shortcomings, at which meeting a suggestion was made that Respondent enroll in certain university-level courses in classroom management and motivation. Respondent was somewhat reluctant to take these courses because she felt they might interfere with her planning and her preparation for classes. Nonetheless, she did attend one class. Dr. Ragans had advised her he would arrange for substitute teachers for her so that she could take available classes. She was also invited to meet with master teachers in the school to seek assistance and to observe them, and she did in fact do so. In addition, a program was set up for her lesson plans to be reviewed by experts at the School Board. Respondent denies she ever submitted these plans, but according to Judith B. Silas, a resource teacher at School Board headquarters who reviewed Respondent's plans in December, 1981, her plans were confusing and lacking a consistent format: the dates on the plans reflect they were from an earlier series of years; objective numbers did not refer to the 1981 Curriculum Guide and did not cross-reference; and some included material had no relationship to plans or lessons. Ms. Silas's comments, forwarded to the school in February, 1982, were discussed with Respondent. A follow-up letter dated September 25, 1981, outlining the substance of the joint meeting with Dr. Weathers, was forwarded to Respondent. Shortly thereafter, on October 29, 1981, Dr. Ragans prepared a preliminary evaluation on Respondent rated overall as unsatisfactory in which 13 items were rated that way and 12 more rated as "needs to improve." On November 25, 1981, Respondent was provided with a lesson presentation checklist drawn by Dr. Weathers for her to use along with a notice of several night courses available to Respondent and a notice of a proposed observation of another teacher by Dr. Weathers and Respondent on December 14, 1981. After this observation, Dr. Weathers and Respondent discussed the positive aspects of that teacher's operation that Respondent could and should emulate. A new classroom observation of Respondent was set for January, 1982. In the interim, in January, 1982, Dr. Ragans received at least one parent request for a student to be transferred from Respondent's class because the classroom environment was noisy, unruly, and not conducive to learning. As a result of this letter and other parent contacts of a similar nature, Dr. Ragans had several informal discussions with Respondent during this period. On February 23, 1982, Respondent requested a conference with Dr. Ragans on her upcoming evaluation which was, she understood, to be unsatisfactory from a letter to her on February 5, 1982, from Dr. Ragans. This rating, conducted on February 2, 1982, but not signed by Dr. Ragans until March 3, 1982, was unsatisfactory, containing 14 items so marked and 13 marked "needs to improve." At the conference, held the same day as requested, Dr. Ragans advised Respondent he still felt she had marked deficiencies previously indicated regarding classroom control, authority, respect, lesson plans coordination, classroom planning, her failure to provide purposeful learning experiences, no student motivation, and her apparent inability to be understood by her students. Also cited to her were the continuing parent complaints and those of other teachers that their classrooms, used by her (she was a traveling teacher with no room of her own), had been damaged by her students. Much of this had previously been outlined in Dr. Ragans' February 2, 1982, letter indicating his intent to rate Respondent as unsatisfactory. Both Dr. Weathers and another school district supervisor, Dr. Henderson, observed Respondent in the classroom situation in late January or early February, 1982. Both individuals identified the same deficiencies as previously noted by so many others, and both made recommendations for improvement which were passed on, intact, to Respondent. In early March, 1982, Dr. Ragans advised Respondent in writing of his intent to evaluate her on March 15, 1982, to see if she had made any improvement. He did this because of Respondent's feeling that the previous evaluation had not given her enough time to work out improvements. This latest evaluation was also overall unsatisfactory. Two days later, on March 17, 1982, Respondent indicated in writing that she did not accept this evaluation. On April 30, 1982, Dr. Ragans again visited Respondent's classroom so that, if she had markedly improved, he could try to extend her contract or change her evaluation before the end of the school year. However, he could observe no appreciable change. Shortly after this visit, on May 3, he discussed with Respondent complaints he had received from several parents about warnings she had sent out on some students which inconsistently showed both satisfactory performance and danger of failing on the same form. She explained this as all students, including straight "A" students, who had not taken the MLST (test) were in danger of failing. Dr. Ragans felt this excuse was feeble and unjustified and demonstrated poor judgment on her part. All this was confirmed in a letter on May 17. A complaint from a parent of one of Respondent's students, received on June 11, 1982, initiated an audit of the grades given by Respondent during the school year. Results of this audit revealed at least 68 errors involving 46 students, including three students who received passing grades when they, in fact, had failed and should have been in summer school. A total of 13 student grades had to be changed, requiring a letter of notification and apology from the principal. Respondent did not deny the inconsistencies shown in the audit, but defended them on the basis of, in many cases, their being the result of her exercising her discretion and prerogative to award a grade different from that supported by recorded achievement if, in her opinion, other factors so dictated. In any case, the number of inconsistencies requiring a grade change was substantially higher than is normal. During the 1981-82 school year, Respondent had not been assigned a classroom of her own, but instead met and taught her classes in the rooms assigned to other teachers. This situation, while not unique to Respondent and one which several other teachers had as well, is nonetheless a definite handicap to any teacher. In an effort to alleviate the impact of this situation, all Respondent's rooms were scheduled as geographically close together as possible, and she was assigned only one subject to teach. Therefore, though she may have had several class periods which progressed at different speeds, the planning and preparation was similar and much less an arduous task than if she had different subjects to prepare for. In any case, there is little relationship between this and discipline and control in the classroom. Dr. Mary Henderson, Director of Language Arts/Reading for the Duval County School Board, observed Respondent in the classroom during both the 1980- 81 and 1981-82 school years at two different schools. Recognizing that Respondent has definite strengths in her knowledge of the subject matter to be taught and her recognition of and communication to the students of the relationship of their lessons to the test requirements, Dr. Henderson still felt Respondent was not a competent teacher. On both occasions, she found Respondent's lesson plans to be inadequate, her techniques in classroom management were deficient, she failed to make effective use of the students' time, and she failed to effectively motivate her students to participate in the classroom activities. Throughout all this period, according to both supervisors and others who observed her, Respondent always maintained a pleasant, calm, positive, and cooperative approach to all with whom she came into contact. At no time did she show hostility or resentment. Also, there was never a question as to her knowledge of the subject matter. Respondent possesses a bachelor's degree in English and a master's degree in administration and supervision. She has sufficient credit hours to qualify for a major in Spanish. She has also taken several in-service courses in such subjects as linguistics, methods of curriculum and instruction, British literature, and school administration. She is certified to teach English, Spanish, and typing. She has been a teacher in several Florida school systems for 29 years, of which the last 21 years were in various Jacksonville area schools. She is tenured. She was selected for summer school employment in 1980, while at Forrest High School, even though tenure does not ensure selection to teach summer school. During the 1980-81 school year, Respondent was caring for the aunt who raised her and who was suffering from terminal cancer. This required frequent travel back and forth to another part of the state, and in addition to being a physical burden, constituted a severe strain on her mental state. During that year, she started out teaching only twelfth grade classes, but as a result of a reduction in class sizes during the school year, she was given some additional tenth grade classes for which she had not prepared. Respondent feels her classroom discipline was not so unusual as to be remarkable. She feels she maintained classroom discipline as well as required and contested the allegations that she rarely referred students to the administration for additional discipline. She made all reasonable effort to improve her performance by enrolling in some of the courses recommended by Drs. Weathers and Ragans, but had to wait until the second semester because she did not get the information on the first semester courses until after they had started. The classes she took urged the use of listening and negotiating skills rather than the authoritative method in dealing with students. She tried to implement what she learned in her classrooms and feels she succeeded regardless of what the testimony shows. In addition, she took a course dealing with self- concept and self-confidence and applied for admission to Jacksonville University's master of arts program in an effort to upgrade her skills. Respondent admits that at the beginning of the 1981-82 school year, she was not using formal lesson plans. She had been asked by the administration for plans on a weekly basis and had jotted down ideas on paper. To formulate these ideas, she used prior years lesson plans, but did not turn any of these in. This does not track with Ms. Silas's testimony that the Respondent's plans she reviewed appeared to be from prior years. I find that prior years' plans were used by Respondent extensively and how these plans were transmitted to Ms. Silas for review is immaterial. Respondent, based on the above, while possessing the necessary technical qualifications to perform as a teacher, while possessing the appropriate knowledge of her subject matter, and while possessing the desire to impart that knowledge to her students, is nonetheless incompetent to conduct a class, maintain proper discipline, and generate adequate student motivation to accomplish these desired ends.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be removed from classroom teaching duties and be assigned some other function within the school system until such time, unless sooner released for other good cause, as she can retire with maximum benefits. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of September, 1983, 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 1st day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary E. Eckstine, Esquire Chief Administrative Hearings Section City of Jacksonville 1300 City Hall Jacksonville, Florida 32202 William F. Kachergus, Esquire Maness & Kachergus 502 Florida Theatre Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Herb A. Sang Superintendent Duval County Public Schools 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207
The Issue Whether Respondent, Mark Ostermeier, violated Sections 1012.795(1)(c), (1)(g), and/or (1)(j), Florida Statutes (2011), and/or Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a), as alleged by the Administrative Complaint dated October 14, 2014; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Pam Stewart, as Commissioner of Education, on behalf of the Florida Educational Practices Commission, is authorized by Florida law to investigate and prosecute cases against teachers with Florida teaching certificates. See §§ 1012.315, 1012.795, and 1012.796, Fla. Stat. Respondent, Mark A. Ostermeier (Respondent), holds a Florida educator’s certificate, Certificate No. 662488, covering the subject area of art, grades kindergarten through 12. Respondent’s teaching certificate is valid through June 30, 2016. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent was employed by the Brevard County School District (District) and worked as an art teacher at the high school and elementary school levels. Except for the school year ending 2002, the District issued acceptable evaluations to Respondent. From the time Respondent was assigned to Bayside High School (Bayside) until the 2008/2009 school year Respondent received acceptable evaluations. For the school years 2008/2009 and 2009/2010 Respondent was assigned to Bayside. The principal at Bayside during the relevant time span was Robin Novelli. While at Bayside, Respondent was responsible for instructing students in grades 9 through 12 in the area of art. During the 2008/2009 school year, Mr. Novelli became concerned regarding Respondent’s classroom management, planning, and instruction. Although he signed off on the evaluation for that year (performed by another school administrator), Mr. Novelli decided he would assume the role of evaluator for Respondent for the following school year. Before 2008/2009, Respondent received acceptable evaluations. The principal at Bayside during those years was John Tuttle, who signed off on all of Respondent’s evaluations, but did not personally evaluate Respondent. Mr. Tuttle believed Respondent to be a competent instructor. In May 2009, Respondent exhibited unacceptable behavior and Mr. Novelli received complaints from a parent and student that Respondent had refused to return the student’s artwork. The student withdrew or did not re-enroll in Respondent’s art class, and Respondent took one of the student’s paintings to his home. When the student and parent demanded the return of the painting, Respondent refused to return it. When Mr. Novelli intervened, Respondent relented and eventually returned the student’s painting. The student believed Respondent was refusing to return the painting in an effort to get the student to re-enroll in Respondent’s class. Respondent denied the allegation but did not have a valid reason for not returning the student’s art. Bayside did not have an advanced placement (AP) art program. Respondent was desirous of establishing such a program and sought to do so. One of the activities that would enhance an AP art program was a field trip Respondent proposed for students to attend a National Portfolio Day conference. Respondent attempted to pitch the field trip for his art students, but did not follow directives in order to get the trip approved. Mr. Novelli did not approve the trip. Respondent did not have art students who met the requisite level of proficiency to warrant an AP level class. Nevertheless, Respondent continued to fuel the students’ desire to attend the conference. When Respondent failed to meet the prerequisite criteria to have the field trip approved, he blamed Mr. Novelli. In October 2009, Mr. Novelli observed Respondent and gave him an interim evaluation that marked him as overall unsatisfactory. Five categories were unsatisfactory and one category needed improvement. Thereafter, Mr. Novelli gave Respondent prescriptive plans for improvement. The Professional Development Assistance Plans (PDAPs) itemized what Respondent needed to do to improve his performance. The plans provided specific strategies and acts for Respondent to do to improve. Respondent did not follow the PDAP. Trying to communicate with Respondent proved difficult, as his interpretation of what was needed to improve differed from the directives of the PDAP. Respondent did not improve, and it became Mr. Novelli’s opinion that students in Respondent’s art classes had been deprived a minimum educational experience. Mr. Novelli’s expectations of Respondent were based upon his years as a trained administrator to evaluate teachers in all courses. Because Respondent continued to provide deficient classroom management, planning, and instruction, Mr. Novelli evaluated Respondent as unsatisfactory. As the end of the school year approached, Respondent’s performance did not improve to any significant degree. Rather than continue at Bayside, Respondent’s union representative, acting on his behalf, sought a transfer for Respondent to another school. That transfer was granted by the District. Respondent made several false accusations against Mr. Novelli and/or other school administrators. At one time or another Respondent stated he had been recorded with a USB recording pen; had been falsely arrested because of a false claim made by a District employee; had been poisoned due to an environmental hazard that Respondent was forced to endure; lost a child because of District treatment; and had his car vandalized by a school administrator. None of the accusations were accurate. Respondent started the 2010/2011 school year with a PDAP at Lockmar Elementary School (Lockmar). While at Lockmar, Respondent was supervised by the principal, Ms. Hostetler. Respondent respected Ms. Hostetler and acknowledged she had worked to assist him. Nevertheless, despite her efforts to give Respondent constructive help to meet the criteria and to improve deficiencies, Ms. Hostetler evaluated Respondent as unsatisfactory. The issues with planning, classroom management, and ability to provide effective instruction to students continued. In October 2010, Ms. Hostetler gave Respondent an interim evaluation that scored him as unsatisfactory in four categories and needs improvement in one. Ms. Hostetler noted that (as in the past) Respondent failed to have adequate lesson plans, failed to provide meaningful instructions to students in an organized, efficient manner, and failed to manage his classroom to assure that all students were appropriately engaged in the lesson. Additionally, Ms. Hostetler noted that Respondent did not have his classroom ready for instruction when students arrived for class and did not timely release the students back to their teachers at the conclusion of the art session. This was a problem because the classroom teachers were delayed or inconvenienced by Respondent’s behavior. Despite counseling for this issue, Respondent’s deficiencies at the beginning and conclusion of class continued. It came to Ms. Hostetler’s attention that Respondent was sending disruptive students outside his classroom to “look for dinosaurs.” His belief that this technique for behavior management was acceptable was erroneous. Ms. Hostetler did not approve the practice and opined that it placed students at risk. Respondent did not accept Ms. Hostetler’s authority as definitive on the issue. Respondent maintained that his technique was an acceptable strategy that should have been allowed. Ms. Hostetler next evaluated Respondent in February of 2011. Noting little improvement, the February evaluation found the Respondent’s teaching practices remained unsatisfactory. Respondent failed to use 21st Century equipment as Ms. Hostetler had requested. Additionally, he did not use art materials appropriately, did not control the classroom, and did not differentiate course work by age and grade. Nevertheless, Ms. Hostetler gave Respondent more time to improve and again issued a PDAP that was designed to give Respondent specific directives. At the conclusion of the school year, Ms. Hostetler evaluated Respondent’s performance as unsatisfactory. He was given a contract for the following school year in error. The District eventually caught the mistake and notified Respondent that his employment with the schools would be terminated. Subsequent to a two-day administrative hearing, the DOAH Administrative Law Judge issued a Recommended Order that found the District’s action was supported by the weight of the evidence presented. Respondent’s teaching was unacceptable during the 2010/2011 school year and failed to provide students with a meaningful educational opportunity. Respondent was incompetent to comply with directives, which were reasonable and tailored to help Respondent meet the mandates of the PDAPs. Respondent’s art students were deprived a minimum educational experience.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Educational Practices Commission enter a final order revoking Respondent's teaching certificate. S DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH 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 30th day of June, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Gretchen K. Brantley, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 (eServed) Robert Charles McClain, Esquire 4910 Flora Drive Melbourne, Florida 32934 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact Mr. Johnny Collins is the Superintendent of the Holmes County School District and has been at all times pertinent hereto. In April of 1981 Superintendent Collins first nominated the Petitioner, Myron Hudson, to be placed in the principalship at Ponce de Leon High School. The School Board rejected the nomination on July 20, 1981. One of the reasons for rejection of the initial nomination for the 1981-82 school year was the Petitioner's lack of a Rank II certificate, as well as an obligation felt by the Board to give the position to another person. The Petitioner took no legal action then, but the Superintendent, Mr. Collins, requested a hearing regarding rejection of his recommendation by the School Board, the School Board denied the request and the cause went to the First District Court of Appeal. The Board's denial of the Superintendent's request for hearing was affirmed per curiam in Collins v. The Holmes County District School Board, Case No. AH-169 (July 1, 1982). A temporary restraining order was issued by the Circuit Court in and for Holmes County restraining Superintendent Collins from interfering with Mr. Gerald Commander's exercise of his duties as Principal of Ponce de Leon High School, Mr. Commander being the School Board's choice for the position after it rejected the initial 1981 recommendation of Mr. Hudson for the job. Along with the rejection of Mr. Hudson's initial recommendation for the principalship for the 1981-82 school year, two other School Board employees, Ms. Saunders and Ms. Carroll, were also rejected. Those matters ultimately came before the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal hearing and those petitioners obtained a favorable recommendation by the Hearing Officers presiding. The School Board adopted the Hearing Officers' recommendations that those two persons be hired in the positions for which Superintendent Collins had recommended them, this in spite of the presence of the restraining order related to all three cases. In any event, the Petitioner, Mr. Hudson, during the interim after his initial rejection, obtained a master's degree and a Rank III teaching certificate, which he possessed before the second recommendation which is the sole subject of thee instant proceeding. In April 1982 Superintendent Collins again recommended Mr. Hudson for the position of principalship of Ponce de Leon High School. By letter the Board rejected the recommendation on April 21, 1982, advising the Petitioner as the reason for that action that: "A. The Superintendent is under restraining order which prohibits him from interfering with Gerald Commander as Principal of Ponce de Leon High School. There is still pending litigation concerning the Superintendent's nomination of you and the Board's rejection of same for the 1981-82 school term. The board has a continuing contract with Gerald Commander as a principal, and as such the board is obligated to place Mr. Commander in a principal's position within the Holmes County School System." The Board, then acting upon its own motion, ordered the subject position filled by Mr. Gerald Commander, the former School Superintendent whom Mr. Collins had defeated in the election. The Petitioner, Myron Hudson, then requested a formal administrative hearing contending that the Board did not have "good cause" to reject Superintendent Collins' nomination. No question was raised concerning Mr. Hudson's qualifications to hold the position for which he was recommended. He is a ten-year classroom veteran who has held a continuing contract of employment as a teacher in the Holmes County School District since 1976. At 30 years of age, he is well above the minimum age required to hold a principalship and his academic qualifications meet or exceed the statutory requirements for a principal's position. Mr. Hudson earned an AA degree from the Chipola Junior College in 1970, a BSA degree from the University of Florida in 1973, and an MA degree from Troy State University in December of 1981. After obtaining his master's degree, the Petitioner applied for and was granted a Rank III teaching certificate by the Florida Board of Education. All these qualifications were earned prior to the principalship recommendation for the 1982-83 school year which has become the subject of this proceeding. There is no dispute that the Petitioner meets the statutory qualifications for the position. There has been no evidence to indicate that he is possessed of other than a favorable moral character, and he enjoys an excellent reputation as a teacher. No reasons other than those quoted above were given in the official communication by the School Board to the Petitioner as reasons for the rejection of his nomination, nor were any other reasons relied upon by the Board at the hearing. Recommendations for employment with the Holmes County District School Board are recommended to be filled, and are filled, on a year-to-year basis. The recommendations are made by the Superintendent in April of each year for the positions which must be filled in the fall of the school year. Unrefuted testimony by witnesses for the Petitioner and Respondent establishes that the restraining order, as well as the "litigation" referred to in the written reasons for the Petitioner's rejection, was related to the issue raised by Superintendent Collins' first nomination of Petitioner Hudson, which occurred in April 1981. The restraining order and court proceedings do not relate to the subject matter of the current dispute which is the sole subject of this proceeding, that is, the April 1982 recommendation of Petitioner Hudson for the principalship for the 1982-83 school year. There is no dispute that other cases involving Petitioners Saunders and Carroll (DOAH Cause Nos. 81-2013 and 81-2190) also were in4olved in and subject to the same restraining order entered by the Circuit Judge. Both of those cases have gone to recommended order by the Hearing Officers presiding, both petitioners received favorable recommendations, and the School Board adopted the recommended orders and hired the two petitioners without apparent concern for the restraining order. Both Petitioners Saunders and Carroll in those cases were named parties to the restraining order which the Board relied upon in part as "cause" in this proceeding. Mr. Gerald Commander was hired by the School Board for the principalship of Ponce de Leon High School. Mr. Commander holds a continuing contract dating back to 1962, which is specifically a continuing contract as a principal. Mr. Commander did not, however, work continuously as a principal under that contract. When he was defeated by Mr. Collins in the 1980 election for the position of School Superintendent, he drafted a memorandum after the election and while he was still filling his unexpired term, recommending himself for an administrative position in the County School Board office. The Board accepted his recommendation and hired Mr. Commander in an administrative position in the county office starting in January 1981 until the end of that school year. During that period of time, several principalships came open, but Mr. Commander did not express an interest in any of them. He did not seek a principalship position until July of 1981 when he sought the position at Ponce de Leon High School for which Petitioner Hudson had been recommended in April 1981. In July 1981 the Board rejected the recommendation for Petitioner Hudson. Although it has been the Board's position in this proceeding that if the recommendation of Superintendent Collins had been accepted, that there would be no position in which to place Mr. Commander, it has been established by the evidence that, indeed, the Board had a vacant principalship in the School District after the Petitioner was rejected for the principalship, which it filled, although it did not place Mr. Commander in that position.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of counsel, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Holmes County accept the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools of that county to place Myron Hudson in the position of Principal of Ponce de Leon High School. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of August, 1982, at Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 13th day of August, 1982.
