Findings Of Fact Respondent, Carolyn T. Smith, holds teaching certificate number 105319, issued by the State of Florida, Department of Education. Respondent is certified to teach French and Spanish through the junior college level. Respondent has been employed as a French and Spanish teacher by Petitioner, School Board of Dade County (School Board) since 1961. From 1961 to 1966, Respondent taught at Mays Junior High School, and from 1966 through 1976 at Southwest Miami Senior High School. During the 1976-77 and 1977-78 school years Respondent was on a leave of absence. In 1978 Respondent resumed her teaching career and was assigned to Palmetto Senior High School (Palmetto). Respondent taught at Palmetto until her suspension from teaching at the conclusion of the 1982-83 school year. Respondent's annual evaluations extending from the 1961-62 school year through the 1978-79 school year were acceptable. It is Respondent's performance from the 1979-80 through 1982-83 school years which is at issue in these proceedings. During the 1979-80 school year the normal work day at Palmetto was 7:20 a.m. to 2:40 p.m. Due to personal hardship, however, Respondent was granted permission to alter her schedule to an 8:10 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. work day. Despite the accommodation afforded Respondent, on at least seven occasions between September 7, 1979 and February 21, 1980, Respondent was from five minutes to one hour and ten minutes late to work. Not only was Respondent late to her first class, she occasionally missed the class entirely as well as the beginning of her next class. On February 21, 1980 Respondent was formally observed by Elaine Kenzel, assistant principal at Palmetto. Ms. Kenzel's observation specifically apprised Respondent that she had been rated unacceptable in professional responsibility because of her tardiness. Ms. Kenzel's observation noted several other areas of performance in which Respondent was unacceptable or needed improvement. These matters were reviewed at conferences with Respondent on February 26 and 28, 1980. Portions of the conferences were attended by Francis Wargo, the principal at Palmetto. Among the topics broached at the conferences were Respondent's failure to properly maintain her grade book, her failure to follow proper grading procedures, her failure to properly assess each student's progress, her failure to use assessment techniques which motivate and enable students to learn, and lack of teacher-student rapport. Respondent's grade book for the 1979-80 school year was messy and, in large measure, incomprehensible to anyone other than Respondent. The grade book failed to indicate the grading period, failed to specify the grade source, failed to weight the grades for various tasks, and was uncoded. It depicted a poor professional image and failed to fulfill its basic purpose--to enable students, parents, replacement teachers and other authorized persons to review a student's achievement. Despite repeated critiques, Respondent's grade books showed little improvement during her tenure at Palmetto. Ms. Kenzel also counseled Respondent about her obligation to maintain a representative sampling of each student's work in her student folders. These samples were necessary to assess student progress, and should include graded tests, homework, classwork and reports. At the time of Ms. Kenzel's observation, six months into the 1979-80 school year, there were few samples of any student's work. What did exist were, in large measure, short quizzes of a vocabulary nature. The student folders were inadequate to assess a student's progress. Finally, Ms. Kenzel critiqued Respondent's instructional technique. Ms. Kenzel suggested that Respondent's students should not be simply repeating lessons in rote fashion, but should be involved in a variety of activities. This would improve student attention and enthusiasm, which Ms. Kenzel perceived was lacking. Final examinations for the 1979-80 school year were scheduled to commence at 7:30 a.m., June 9, 1980. The scheduling of examinations required a rearrangement of the normal class schedule. Fifth period, which normally began at 1:30 p.m., was scheduled for 7:30 a.m. This change required that Respondent report at 7:20 a.m. on June 9, instead of 8:10 a.m. The examination schedule was published, and discussed with Respondent at a faculty meeting. On June 9, 1980, Respondent failed to report for work until 8:15 a.m., 45 minutes after her fifth period examination was scheduled to commence. Respondent's tardiness created a poor testing atmosphere and was a cause of anxiety and frustration for her students. Respondent offered no explanation for her tardiness. On June 11, 1980, a conference for the record was held between Mr. Wargo and Respondent. Respondent's tardiness of June 9, 1980 was discussed, and she was reminded that her work day for the next year would be the same as other teachers, 7:20 a.m.-2:40 p.m. Respondent was told that disciplinary action would be recommended if she failed to observe the prescribed working hours. Respondent was also reminded that school policy forbade a teacher to permit a student to hand-carry any part of an examination to the office for duplication. Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1979-80 school year recommended Respondent for continued employment, but found her unacceptable in classroom management and teacher-student relationships. It is worthy of note that this evaluation was dated June 2, 1980, and therefore predated Respondent's tardiness of June 9, 1980 and the conference for the record held June 11, 1980. The 1980- School Year The 1980-81 school year produced few observations of Respondent's performance. During that year a massive rebuilding project was underway and the administration's attention was directed toward that project and coping with the upheaval it caused. Normal classroom assignments and instruction were often disrupted. Teachers were often moved in and out of classrooms on one day's notice. Consequently, a great deal of latitude was afforded all teachers, and all were rated acceptable. That is not to say Respondent's performance was unblemished. The evidence established two definite areas of deficiency again were present. Respondent's tardiness to school and to class continued, and Respondent was again deficient in her student assessments. In November 1981, Ms. Mona Sowers visited Respondent's class to discuss the progress of her daughter, Carolyn Ann. She was concerned because conversations she had overheard between her daughter and friends left her with the impression they were not being tested. Respondent's grade book demonstrated that no testing or grades were present for Carolyn Ann. Although she inquired of her daughter's progress, Ms. Sowers was not shown any papers, or any other work, which would objectively demonstrate her daughter's progress. Respondent's sole explanation was that she tested her students orally. There were no grades in the grade book for oral or written tests, however, and Respondent was unable to recognize Ms. Sowers' daughter as one of her students until prompted by Ms. Sowers. For the 1981-82 school year, Respondent was again scheduled to work the normal 7:20 a.m. to 2:40 p.m. work day. On the first day of class Respondent was 20 minutes late. During much of the 1981-82 school year Respondent was tardy in arriving, from two to five occasions each week. Teacher tardiness impacts directly on the quantum of education offered the students. While first period is scheduled to begin at 7:30 a.m., adherence to the 7:20 a.m. arrival time is essential if the teacher is to be prepared to start class promptly. Otherwise, 5-10 minutes of class time are wasted by the teacher in organizing herself for that day's lesson. Promptness is particularly crucial for first period since daily announcements, which can occupy up to five minutes of the period, are given at that time. Since each class period is 55 minutes in duration, a loss of only 10 minutes per day equates to a loss of one day of instruction each week. Respondent's tardiness deprived her students of valuable instructional time, and left them unsupervised--a condition not helpful to their safety. Respondent was formally observed on six separate occasions during the 1981-82 school year. Mr. Wargo's observations of September 25, 1981 and November 5, 1982, and Ms. Kenzel's observation of October 12, 1981, rated Respondent overall acceptable, but each noted some areas of unacceptable performance. The deficiencies noted in these three observations were similar to those observed in preceding years. Respondent was unacceptable in classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships and professional responsibility. Respondent wasted up to 20 minutes of class time on extraneous matters, failed to establish or enforce classroom policies on decorum or procedure, and her instruction evidenced a lack of planning. Respondent's classroom was messy and disorganized. Her tardiness continued. Each of these observations was critiqued with Respondent and suggestions to improve her performance were made. She was advised to start classes promptly, establish classroom policies and enforce them, vary her methods of instruction, and visit other classes and observe other teachers' performance. Respondent was reminded that her contract work day was 7:20 a.m. to 2:40 p.m. On February 2, 1982, Mr. Wargo stopped two students leaving Respondent's room. He discovered they had been visiting other students in Respondent's classroom, and that she was unaware of their presence. Respondent was observed passing out papers during a movie, and her students were talking and walking about. This occasioned Respondent's next formal observation. On February 4-5, 1982, Mr. Wargo formally observed Respondent's classes. He rated her overall unacceptable, and unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships and professional responsibility. Apart from Respondent's continuing tardiness, which accounted for her unacceptable rating in professional responsibility, the gravamen of her unacceptable rating in the other areas was basically inadequate planning and variety. Respondent's class was dull, her voice a monotone. Students responded in rote fashion to Respondent's singular questions. There was no variety of instruction or student feedback. Mr. Wargo directed Respondent to use the prescribed lesson plan form that had been developed at Palmetto. It was his opinion that if Respondent prepared a detailed lesson plan her classroom management would improve, student confusion would be avoided, and a more stimulating and organized presentation achieved. On February 9, 1982 Mr. Wargo held a conference with Respondent, Ms. Kenzel and Ms. Patrylo, Respondent's department head, to discuss the unacceptable observation of February 4-5, 1982, the incident of February 2, 1982, and ways to improve Respondent's techniques of instruction. During the course of that meeting, Respondent was advised that Ms. Wally Lyshkov, foreign language supervisor for Dade County Schools, would observe her class on February 19, 1982. On February 19, 1982 Respondent was formally observed by Ms. Lyshkov. While she rated Respondent overall acceptable, Ms. Lyshkov was of the opinion that Respondent's presentation was "staged" for her benefit. Her opinion was formed as a result of student comments that they did not usually do what they were doing, and by the lack of smoothness that results when activities are routine. Although "staged," Respondent's presentation indicates she knows how to teach effectively if she chooses to do so. Respondent had a very detailed lesson plan for the day Ms. Lyshkov observed her. Ms. Lyshkov reviewed Respondent's prior plans and found them to be sketchy. She recommended that Respondent continue to formulate detailed lesson plans, since Respondent's success that day proved their effectiveness. Respondent's last formal observation for the 1981-82 school year occurred on March 2, 1982. Mr. Wargo observed her classes for periods 1 and 2, and Ms. Kenzel observed for a portion of the same classes. Respondent was rated overall acceptable. The results of these observations establish that Respondent is capable of presenting a good lesson when she chooses to prepare herself. The 1981-82 school year evidenced other indications of Respondent's disposition. She was late turning in emergency lesson plans, lesson plans, course outlines and grade sheets. She was late to departmental meetings and to teacher workdays. She occasionally left her classes unsupervised. Despite her previous warning, Respondent continued to permit students to hand-carry examinations to the xerox room for copying. In May 1982 Mr. Wargo issued Respondent a letter of reprimand for unprofessional conduct in calling a student "trash." During the 1982-83 school year Respondent was heard to call various students "cabbage head," "stupid," "dumb," "disgusting," "fools," and "disgusting little creature." On May 27, 1982 Mr. Wargo completed Respondent's annual evaluation and recommended her for continued employment. While Mr. Wargo rated Respondent unacceptable in teacher-student relationships, he was apparently satisfied that she was improving her other areas of deficiency. Subsequent to the annual evaluation a significant number of serious problems surfaced which reflected on Respondent's performance and which caused Mr. Wargo to seriously question his recommendation for continued employment. Respondent was absent, without satisfactory excuse or authorization, from school during the final examination period of June 14 through June 17, 1982. According to Respondent it was not until 2:00 p.m. the preceding Friday that she first learned she would have to take her son, a 12-year-old junior high school student, to Talladega College, Talladega, Alabama, to enroll him in a "Super Stars" summer program she had selected. According to Respondent, her husband could not take their son because he was "on call" at his work. Respondent's explanation for abandoning her obligations is unpersuasive. Respondent had at least four weeks' notice that her son had been accepted for the program. Ms. Patrylo, Respondent's department head, was at school the Friday before exams until 2:45-3:00 p.m. At no time during the preceding four weeks, or on the Friday preceding exams, did Respondent advise the administration or her department head that she would need to be absent that week. Instead, Respondent "fulfilled" her obligations by "informing" the principal's and assistant principal's secretaries late Friday afternoon that she would be absent and left her final examinations in the office. Ms. Patrylo did not become aware of Respondent's absence until the morning of June 14, 1982. During the course of administering the French I final examination to Respondent's first period class Ms. Patrylo discovered a number of significant problems which reflected adversely on Respondent's competence. Respondent's French I examination was a travesty. It was not a French I examination but a French II placement test the department had previously prepared to gauge at what level an incoming student should be placed. Respondent had simply taken a copy of the placement test and written "French I Final" on it. Respondent had been previously instructed that the examination was to be thorough and cover a significant amount of the year's course content. Essay questions were to be included. The French II placement test which Respondent proposed to give her students was composed of 47 questions; no essay questions - were included. Over 50 percent of the test, 25 questions, dealt with the passe' compose', yet that grammatical structure had not been extensively taught. Twenty-five percent of the examination dealt with verbs in the past tense, yet Respondent's students had not studied the past tense. Moreover, the test only required the "bubbling in" of answers on a computer card and did not require any writing. While two hours were allotted for the examination, this exam could be completed in ten minutes. Respondent's classroom was in disarray. Maps valued at $300 were abused. Respondent's closet contained flash cards, audio visual materials, food and other materials haphazardly thrown about. The room was completely disorganized. Respondent left no instructions for completing her book inventory. Consequently, 56 of her textbooks, valued at $11.00 each, were never accounted for. When school started the next year the class was short of books. On June 18, 1982, the last day of school, Respondent was due at school at 8:00 a.m. She failed to arrive until 8:45 a.m. Because of Respondent's tardiness three members of her department had to record grades for four of her classes in order to assure timely delivery of the grade sheets to the computer center. In working with Respondent's grade book to establish final grades, these teachers noted several shortcomings. Respondent's grade book contained no code for weighting of grades, it was impossible to tell which student absences were excused or unexcused, and on some lines two students' names appeared, rendering it impossible to decipher which grades belonged to which student. On June 23, 1982 a conference for the record was held to discuss the shortcomings of Respondent's performance, which were revealed during the last days of the school year. During this conference Mr. Wargo addressed Respondent's historical and current problems in record keeping, tardiness, following district, area and school policies, and classroom management. Mr. Wargo advised Respondent, by memorandum dated June 28, 1982, that he would not recommend Respondent for continued employment for the 1983-84 school year unless she showed marked improvement during the 1982-83 school year in the following areas: Accuracy and completeness of required record keeping. Strict adherence to contracted working hours of 7:20 a.m.-2:40 p.m. You will be expected to be in your classroom no later than 7:25 a.m. Compliance with district, area, and school level directives and policies. Improved classroom management procedures to insure the following: Classroom organized and neat; Attendance and tardy procedures enforced. Seating charts available and up-to-date. Rules and procedures consistently applied. Teacher-student relationships resulting in mutual respect. Consistent classroom performance resulting in continuous acceptable ratings. Respondent agreed to follow Mr. Wargo's suggestions to improve her performance, and to cooperate with the department chairperson. She stated that she would work very diligently the next year, and promised that Mr. Wargo would see considerable improvement. The observations, evaluations, conferences and suggestions made over the preceding three years, and Respondent's commitment to improve her performance and cooperation during the 1982-83 school year, proved futile. From September 1982 through April 1983, Respondent's teaching was observed on one or more occasions by her principal and assistant principal, an area director of the Dade County public schools, and the foreign language supervisor of the Dade County public schools. Each concurs that Respondent's performance was unacceptable in preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques; the same reasons she was found unacceptable in previous years. The root of Respondent's poor performance was indolence. Although proficient in her languages, Respondent demonstrated an unwillingness to change her methods or to plan, deliver and critique her lessons. Throughout the 1982-83 school year, despite numerous conferences, prescriptions, and requests, Respondent's lesson plans were submitted late and evidenced no continuity of purpose. At best, they were sketchy, disorganized and unduly repetitive. At worst, they were incomprehensible and illegible. Their content and appearance compel the conclusion they were hastily prepared to superficially comply with the requirement that she have lesson plans, but without any attention to their content or purpose. Respondent's classroom management was unacceptable throughout the school year. Frequently, less than one-half of available class time was devoted to foreign language instruction. Students were often unruly and undisciplined. They were permitted, without censure, to read novels, listen to radios, gossip, and apparently sleep during Respondent's classes. Respondent's inability or failure to manage her classroom was in large measure a product of her failure to prepare her lessons. Because of the low cognitive level at which Respondent taught, her classes were dull and conducive to student disruption. Her techniques of instruction were unacceptable. Respondent emphasized memorization, recall and drill on a purely audio-lingual basis and ignored the variety and repetitive reinforcement benefits that could be derived from reading and writing a foreign language. Respondent's assessment techniques were unacceptable. After three months into the 1982-83 school year, Respondent's grade book reflected only one written test and her student folders contained no assessment of her students' reading and writing skills. This situation did not improve over the course of the year. At no time during the course of the final hearing did Respondent concede she needed improvement in her techniques. The evidence, however, renders it painfully apparent that a serious problem did exist. Respondent testified that she practiced the audio- lingual method of foreign language instruction, which emphasizes listening and speaking, through level III of a foreign language. Repetition, she says, is essential. Accordingly, Respondent concludes, the presence of repetition in her lesson plans was essential, and the absence of many written tests in her grade book, or student papers reflecting reading and writing skills in the student folders, not unusual. Respondent's explanation ignores some very salient factors, to which she was privy. The Dade County curriculum requires that the four skills-- listening, speaking, reading and writing--be taught at each level of foreign language instruction. Further, Respondent had received unsatisfactory ratings in student assessments during the preceding three years because of her failure to properly test and her failure to document her students' progress in the student folders. By her own testimony Respondent concedes she did not teach the prescribed curriculum. Because of that failure she was unable to assess her students' skills in reading and writing since she had not developed them. By neglecting the reading and writing skills, Respondent not only deprived her students of the skills themselves, but also of the stimulation such variety in technique would have brought to her classroom, the reinforcement that would have been achieved by developing those skills, and the positive impact it would have had on class management. Respondent's attendance history during the 1982-83 school year was poor. As early as September 1982 Respondent was admonished by her principal for her failure to observe the 7:20 a.m. to 2:40 p.m work day, yet she subsequently arrived, on a number of occasions, after 7:30 a.m. During the second semester her tardiness took a new twist. During this time period, while Respondent would apparently arrive at school by the mandated 7:20 a.m. deadline, she would not open her classroom door until 7:30 a.m. While apparently in her classroom at 7:20 a.m., Respondent would not turn on any lights and, consequently, neither student nor administrator could assure her presence. Ms. Patrylo, Respondent's department head, asked Respondent to leave a light on in the room so that Respondent's students would know she was there, and so Ms. Patrylo would not have to be concerned about her absence and the need to unlock the door to admit Respondent's students. Respondent refused Ms. Patrylo's request because "she did not want to run up the electric bill for the Dade County schools." Respondent's response to Ms. Patrylo is not indicative of a cooperative attitude. It is, however, indicative of a plan to frustrate the administration in its attempt to monitor Respondent's compliance with the contracted work hours. The evidence establishes, however, that Respondent failed to adhere to her contracted work hours for the 1982-83 school year. The administration of Palmetto Senior High School, and the School Board, went to considerable lengths in the 1982-83 school year to rehabilitate Respondent. Their efforts were, however, met by little or no effort by Respondent to improve herself. Respondent asserts, rather incongruously since she acknowledges no imperfection in her teaching techniques, that the cause of her failure to improve was caused by the observations and prescriptions themselves and because she had four preparations that school year. Respondent's assertions are unpersuasive. At no time during the 1982-83 school year did Respondent render any such objections. The number of preparations Respondent had was not excessive. Respondent could have obviated the necessity of any prescriptions, and most observations, by abiding the commitment she had given Mr. Wargo at the close of the 1981-82 school year--to improve her performance in these same areas. In short, Respondent's attempt to excuse her "failures," because of the administration's statutorily and contractually mandated efforts to assist her, lacks substance. While occasional improvement in Respondent's performance was seen over the course of the 1982-83 school year, it was sporadic and short-lived. Despite counseling, prescriptions, and workshops, Respondent continued to perform at an unsatisfactory level in the same areas as previous years. It was the consensus of opinion of the professional educators and experts who observed Respondent's classroom performance that she repeatedly failed to teach effectively and faithfully as required by Rule 6Gx 13-4A-1.21V, School Board of Dade County, and failed to communicate with and relate to the children in her classroom to such an extent that they were deprived of a minimum educational experience. The evidence compels the same conclusion. Respondent's tardiness further deprived her students of the minimum educational experience to which they were entitled and her frequent absences from the classroom could have placed her students in physical jeopardy. At the conclusion of the 1982-83 school year Respondent was suspended from her position as a classroom teacher in the Dade County school system.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED That: Petitioner, School Board of Dade County, enter a Final Order in Case No. 83-3067, sustaining Respondent's suspension from her employment, and dismissing Respondent as an employee of the School Board of Dade County; and Petitioner, Ralph D. Turlington, as Commisioner of Education, enter a Final Order in Case No. 84-0149 revoking the teacher's certificate of Respondent, Carolyn T. Smith, for two (2) years. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 1985, at Tallahassee Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Craig R. Wilson, Esquire The Law Building Suite 204 315 Third Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Ellen L. Leesfield, Esquire DuFresne and Bradley, P.A. 2929 S.W. 3rd Avenue Miami, Florida 33129 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Prior to May 18, 1977, the Respondent was employed by the School Board as a driver education teacher and head football coach at Miami South Ridge High School. At approximately 3:00 A.M. on May 15, 1977, the Respondent left his home in Miami, Florida, and drove to the back of a business located at 7211 S. W. 40th Street in Miami, Florida. John F. Allen operates a boat, motor, and trailer sales, service, and repair business at that location. In the back of the building there is a work area that is surrounded by a chain link fence. Customers' boats and motors are stored in this area while work is done on them in the shop. The Respondent walked down an alleyway along the fenced area, and climbed over the fence. He removed an outboard motor from a boat, and pulled it away from the boat toward the fence. The Respondent did not work in the boat yard, and he was not authorized to be there after regular business hours. There was no direct evidence as to the Respondent's intentions. The circumstance of his being in the fenced in portion of the boat yard at between 3:00 A.M. and 4:00 A.M. and the circumstance of his removing an outboard motor from a boat, and carrying it toward the fence, lead inescapably to the conclusion that the Respondent was seeking to steal the engine. The Respondent did not remove the engine from the boat yard. For unknown reasons, he abandoned his effort to steal the engine and left the boat yard. The Respondent was not armed with any weapon, and no other person was in the boat yard while he was there. The outboard engine which the Respondent was attempting to steal was a 40 horsepower Johnson outboard engine. The weight of the engine is approximately 140 pounds. The engine has a wholesale value of approximately $250. Even if the engine were in the worst possible operating condition, it would still be worth approximately $150. While the Respondent was in the boat yard, two police officers employed by the Dade County Public Safety Department were undertaking a routine patrol of the area in an unmarked car. They observed the Respondent's automobile parked adjacent to the boat yard. One of the officers walked along the chain link fence in back of the boat yard and observed the Respondent inside the yard holding an engine. There was heavy vegetation along the fence, but the police officer was able to see through it at one point. The officer went back to his car, and told his partner what he had witnessed. Shortly thereafter the Respondent came out of the alley, got into his car, and drove away. The police officers turned on a flashing light in their car, pulled up behind the Respondent's car, and stopped him. The Respondent was placed under arrest. The police officer read the Respondent his rights from a "Miranda card". During interrogation after the arrest the Respondent pointed out the motor that he had removed from the boat, and told the officers were he had gotten it. The Respondent was then taken to a police station where he was fingerprinted, and later released on bail. A criminal action is now pending against the Respondent in the courts in Dade County. Tools of a sort which could have been used in perpetration of a burglary were found in the Respondent's pockets and on the floor of the Respondent's automobile by the police after they stopped him. There was no evidence presented that these tools were used by the Respondent in breaking into the boat yard or in removing the outboard engine from the boat. There was no evidence that the Respondent intended to use the tools for these purposes. There was evidence presented that the tools were put in the automobile by a friend of the Respondent's wife. There is insufficient evidence from which it could be concluded that the Respondent intended to use the tools to commit any trespass or burglary. The School Board acted promptly to suspend the Respondent from his position at South Ridge High School. The instant proceeding ensued.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The Broward County School Board (School Board) is responsible for the operation, control and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Broward County, Florida (including, among others, Meadowbrook Elementary School (Meadowbrook), Tropical Elementary School (Tropical), and Everglades Elementary School (Everglades)), and for otherwise providing public instruction to school-aged children in the county. For five years, beginning in 2004, Joseph Tamburino was the area coordinator of student services for the School Board's South Central Office (SCO), overseeing the activities of the office's five-person secretarial staff, as well as the approximately 70 "itinerant" school psychologists and school social workers assigned to work at schools within the SCO's service area. Among these schools were Meadowbrook, Tropical, and Everglades. Respondent has been employed by the School Board as a school social worker since September 2000. She presently holds a professional services contract. From 2004 until August 2009, Respondent worked out of the SCO under the immediate supervision of Mr. Tamburino. During this time, she never received less than a satisfactory annual performance appraisal from Mr. Tamburino; however, in the "comments" section of the last appraisal he gave Respondent (for the 2008-2009 school year), Mr. Tamburino did write, "Jessica should work on improving absenteeism and performance issues such as task completion, timelines and adhering to work hours." During the 2006-2007 school year, Mr. Tamburino "beg[a]n to have problems" with Respondent's being where she was supposed to be during the school day. These "problems" persisted, despite Mr. Tamburino's efforts to address them at meetings with Respondent and in written correspondence he sent her. Following the end of the 2006-2007 school year, Mr. Tamburino issued Respondent a "Letter of Reprimand," dated August 14, 2007, which read as follows: This correspondence is submitted as a formal reprimand for your failure to follow office procedures. This is the second occasion that I have had to meet with you regarding not being present at your assigned schools for the full workday. We met on February 1, 2007 because you were not in your assigned schools for the full workday (7.5 hours) over a period of five days. Furthermore, we met on June 1, 2007, because you were not in your assigned schools during the hours you were required to be present on May 4 and May 24, 2007. Know and understand that this behavior cannot and will not be tolerated by this administration. You are hereby directed from this point forward, to comply with all administrative directives. Failure to comply will result in further disciplinary action such as a referral to Professional Standards and the Special Investigative Unit, suspension or termination. Your signature evidences receipt of and an understanding of this document. This letter of reprimand is being placed in your personnel file within the Records Department of the School Board of Broward County. Ten days after evidence of your knowledge of this correspondence, it will become public record. Respondent signed this "Letter of Reprimand" on August 14, 2007, signifying that she had "read and underst[ood] [its] contents." Less than four months later, Mr. Tamburino issued Respondent another "Letter of Reprimand," which was dated December 7, 2007, and read as follows: This letter is submitted as a formal reprimand for your continued failure to follow office procedure and falsification of records. On November 8, 2007 you were not in your assigned school for 7.5 hours. You called the South Central Student Services office and reported that you were leaving New River Middle School at 4:00 p.m. However, you were seen at a store at a shopping plaza at 3:00 p.m. Although you did not work a full day on November 8, 2007, you falsely reported to a Student Services secretary that you finished your workday after 7.5 hours. This is the second written reprimand that you have received within the last four months for failure to follow office procedures and falsification of records. This behavior cannot and will not be tolerated. You are directed to comply with office procedures, work your full 7.5 hour day, and sign in and out with accurate times. Failure to comply will result in further disciplinary action. Your signature evidences receipt of and an understanding of this document. This letter of reprimand is being placed in your personnel file within the Records Department of the School Board of Broward County. Ten days after evidence of your knowledge of this correspondence, it will become public record. Respondent signed this "Letter of Reprimand" on December 17, 2007, signifying that she had "read and underst[ood] [its] contents." Respondent did not file a grievance "specifically challenging" either the August 14, 2007, "Letter of Reprimand," or the December 7, 2007, "Letter of Reprimand." On March 17, 2008, Dr. Tamburino sent a memorandum to Respondent, which read, in pertinent part, as follows: As you are aware, we have had two recent meetings that have included discussions of following office procedures, the provision of social work services and collaboration with the community liaison and other personnel. On February 1, 2008 we had a meeting with Jerrod Neal from BTU and Ellen Williams, the Social Work BTU Steward. We examined possible discrepancies between dates listed for home visits on a log at New River and your November mileage voucher. Although there were L-panel entries to verify the home visits, there was inconsistent documentation of the addresses on the mileage voucher. However, you decided to withdraw your request for mileage reimbursement. Suggestions to improve your work performance were discussed. These include the following: * * * - Specific time of the home visits, including leaving and returning to campus, need to be documented. During the 2008-2009 school year, Respondent was assigned to provide school social work services at three schools: Meadowbrook, Tropical, and Everglades. She was supposed to be at Meadowbrook on Mondays, Tropical on Wednesdays, and Everglades on Thursdays. On Tuesdays, she went to whichever of the three assigned schools "need[ed] [her]," and she also did "home visits." Fridays were designated as "office days." On these "office days," Respondent was expected to do "paperwork" that needed to be completed. Respondent was allowed to use office space at Meadowbrook as her "Friday office" instead of going to the SCO (which was farther from her residence than was Meadowbrook). Respondent missed a considerable amount of work during the 2008-2009 school year due to her daughter's, as well as her own, health-related issues, "exhaust[ing] her sick leave" before the year was half over. (By December, she "didn't have any sick days" left.) Respondent and the other school social workers and school psychologists working out of the SCO were required to notify the office's secretarial staff, by telephone (or in person, if at the SCO), of their whereabouts whenever they arrived at or left a work-related destination during the school day (Call In Office Procedure). It was the duty and routine practice of the secretarial staff, upon receiving such a call, to enter the information provided by the caller concerning the caller's location (as well as the date and time the call was received) on an "online call-in log" (Call Log) maintained by the SCO so as to have a record of these calls. The Call In Office Procedure and other "[o]ffice [p]rocedures" were discussed in a document entitled, "Office Procedures: 2008-2009 School Year," which Mr. Tamburino provided "[a]ll the South Central Office . . . [p]ersonnel," including Respondent, at the very beginning of the 2008-2009 school year. The document read, in pertinent part, as follows: Attendance is reported daily by Joyce [Doe] (social workers) . . . to the payroll department. You must call Joyce . . . prior to taking any leave (e.g., personal, sick, other.) You must call each day you are taking sick leave (unless otherwise arranged with the Area Coordinator [Mr. Tamburino]). Call the office twice daily, when you arrive at your location and before you leave for the day (for example, for most elementary schools by 7:30 AM, and 3:00 PM). You should call from a school telephone. If you do not call in, you may be considered absent. You are expected to be in your assigned school 7.5 hours (same work hours as the teachers). If you leave a school for another destination, be sure to inform personnel at school and one of the secretaries in our office. When you are at the Area Office, please be sure that our secretaries log you in. A schedule of team meetings is provided at the beginning of each year. Attendance at all scheduled team meetings is mandatory. A planning day is a 7.5 hour workday. * * * Mileage vouchers must be submitted within 30 days after the end of the month per the Superintendent. Use the exact mileage to schools listed in SCA mileage chart. Requests for more than one month may not be approved. * * * You must request and obtain an approved TDA [Temporary Duty Authorization] from the Area Coordinator when performing duties in a different location other than your regular assignment. TDA request forms should be completed 10 days prior to the workshop/event. Return to the office at least once a week to handle office duties. The Area Coordinator monitors the quality of your work and evaluates your performance at least annually. The Area Coordinator makes all school assignments. In addition to having to follow these SCO "[o]ffice [p]rocedures," Respondent and her fellow "itinerant" workers, when they were at their assigned schools, were "under [the] direction" of the school's principal and had to do what the principal "dictated." During the 2008-2009 school year, the principal of Meadowbrook "wanted her ['itinerant'] employees to sign in/sign out when they came on [and when they left] campus," and there was a "sign in/sign out" sheet posted at the school for "itinerant" employees to sign, date, and note their "time in" and "time out." Respondent "knew" of Meadowbrook's "sign in/sign out" "procedure," and routinely complied with it (when she was actually at the school that school year). Respondent was not present, and therefore did not "sign in," at Meadowbrook on any of the following dates: Friday, October 3, 2008; Friday, October 31, 2008; Friday, January 9, 2009; Friday, February 6, 2009; Friday, February 13, 2009; Friday, February 20, 2009; and Monday, February 23, 2009. Nonetheless, she telephonically reported to the SCO secretarial staff that she was at Meadowbrook on each of these days (as reflected by the entries made on the Call Log), obviously knowing this information to be false.4 February 4, 2009, was a Wednesday, the day Respondent was supposed to be at Tropical. On that day, Respondent telephoned the SCO secretarial staff at 8:05 a.m. to report she was at Tropical, and called back at 5:56 p.m. to advise that she was leaving the school (as reflected by the entries made on the Call Log). In fact, Respondent was not at Tropical during the school day on February 4, 2009.5 Her reporting otherwise was a knowingly-made false misrepresentation. March 20, 2009, was a Friday and thus an "office day" for Respondent. Respondent had made arrangements to attend a conference that day. In accordance with the "Office Procedures: 2008-2009 School Year" that Mr. Tamburino had handed out at the start of the school year, Respondent had "request[ed] [on February 25, 2009] and subsequently obtain[ed] [on March 16, 2009] an approved TDA" from Mr. Tamburino to go to the conference (instead of doing the work she was "regular[ly] assign[ed]"). Respondent, however, did not go to the March 20, 2009, conference.6 Nonetheless, at 8:40 a.m. on March 20, 2009, she falsely and deceptively reported to the SCO secretarial staff over the telephone that she was on her "temporary duty" assignment (at the conference). At no time that day did Respondent advise the SCO secretarial staff that she was at her regular "Friday office" location, Meadowbrook,7 or that she was leaving that location (to pick up her sick daughter at school, or for any other reason). Furthermore, Respondent's leave records reveal that she did not take any type of leave that day. (Had she taken leave to care for her sick daughter that day, it would had to have been unpaid leave because she had no paid leave time left.)8 To receive reimbursement for non-commuting "travel expenses [she claimed she incurred] in the performance of [her] official duties" as a school social worker (that is, for mileage in excess of the 22.6 miles from her home to her office (at Meadowbrook) and back, reimbursed at a rate of 55 cents per mile, plus parking and tolls), Respondent had to submit mileage vouchers (on School Board Form 3042, Revised 09/05) to Mr. Tamburino for his approval.9 Respondent certified, by her signature on the forms, that her "claim[s] [were] true and correct" and that the "expenses [claimed] were actually incurred by [her]." Among the mileage vouchers she submitted were those covering the months of January 2009 (January Voucher) and February 2009 (February Voucher). There were entries on both the January and February Vouchers that were inconsistent with what Respondent had telephonically reported to the SCO secretarial staff concerning her whereabouts on the dates for which these entries were made (as reflected by the entries made on the Call Log). On the January Voucher, for Tuesday, January 6, under "Places Visited," Respondent put, "Home to SCAO [SCO] to Home" (a trip of 10.6 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"); however, on the day in question, January 6, 2009, she had telephonically reported to the SCO secretarial staff that she was first at Meadowbrook, then at the SCO, and finally on a home visit. On the January Voucher, for Friday, January 9, under "Places Visited," Respondent put, "Home to Meadowbrook" (a trip of 0 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"), "Meadowbrook to KCW [School Board headquarters]" (a trip of 5.3 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"), "KCW to Everglades" (a trip of 17.7 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"), and "Everglades to Home (a trip of 14.3 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"); however, on the day in question, January 9, 2009, she had not reported to the SCO secretarial staff that she was at Everglades any time that day. (She had only reported being at School Board headquarters and at Meadowbrook.) On the January Voucher, for Tuesday, January 20, under "Places Visited," Respondent put, "Home to Everglades to Home" (a trip of 28.6 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"); however, on the day in question, January 20, 2009, she had reported to the SCO secretarial staff that she was first on a home visit and then at Everglades. On the February Voucher, for Tuesday, February 3, under "Places Visited," Respondent put, "Home to Everglades to Home" (a trip of 28.6 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"); however, on the day in question, February 3, 2009, she had not reported to the SCO secretarial staff that she was at Everglades any time that day. (She had only reported being at Meadowbrook and on a home visit.) On the February Voucher, for Friday, February 6, under "Places Visited," Respondent put, "Home to SCAO [SCO] to Home" (a trip of 10.6 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"); however, on the day in question, February 6, 2009, she had reported to the SCO secretarial staff that she was first on a home visit, then at Meadowbrook, and finally at the SCO. On the February Voucher, for Friday, February 13, under "Places Visited," Respondent put, "Home to SCAO [SCO] to Home" (a trip of 10.6 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"); however, on the day in question, February 13, 2009, she had not reported to the SCO secretarial staff that she was at the SCO any time that day. (She had only reported being on a home visit and at Meadowbrook.10) On the February Voucher, for Wednesday, February 4, under "Places Visited," Respondent put, "Home to Tropical to Home" (a trip of 9.8 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"). Unlike the other entries on the January and February Vouchers discussed above, this entry was entirely consistent with what Respondent had telephonically reported to the SCO secretarial staff concerning her whereabouts on that day; however, as noted above, she had not been truthful in making such a telephonic report to the SCO secretarial staff. It was Mr. Tamburino's responsibility to check all of his subordinates' mileage vouchers, including Respondent's, "for accuracy" before approving them. Because "there [were] discrepanc[ies] between what was on the [January and February] [V]oucher[s] and what was on the [C]all [L]og," Mr. Tamburino did not approve these vouchers. Instead, he "forward[ed] the mileage voucher issue to the [School Board's Office of Professional Standards and Special Investigative Unit] for investigation."11 On or about April 23, 2009, Respondent was provided a Notice of Investigation (dated April 17, 2008), which read as follows: This correspondence is provided as formal notice of investigation into a complaint received in this office regarding allegations that you falsified records. You will be contacted in the near future for the purpose of giving a statement. You have the right to representation through all phases of this investigation. You are directed not to engage the complainant, or any student witness, or any other witness in any conversation regarding the matter under investigation. A violation of this directive could result in disciplinary action for insubordination. Questions regarding the status of this investigation are to be directed to Joe Melita, Executive Director of Professional Standards & Special Investigative Unit at (754)321-0735. This is your notice pursuant to Florida Statute 1012.31 that the material contained in the investigative file will be part of your personnel file and will be public record and it will become available for inspection by the public ten (10) days after completion of the investigative process. Investigator Johanna Davidson was the School Board employee in the Office of Professional Standards and Special Investigative Unit who conducted the investigation. As part of her investigation, Investigator Davidson took a sworn statement from Respondent on June 4, 2009.12 In her sworn statement, Respondent told Investigator Davidson, among other things, that she arrived at Meadowbrook at "around 8:00" a.m. on March 20, 2009, and stayed there "all day"13; that she "knew that [signing-in] was the procedure" at Meadowbrook; that this "procedure" had been in place for the past year and a half; that she signed in at Meadowbrook "99 percent of the time"; that she "may have missed one or two sign-ins" at Meadowbrook, but she did not "think [she] had"; and that she is "a very procedure and policy oriented person," so it would have been "odd" had she not signed in at Meadowbrook, even during the time, from January to April 2009, when she had been "on crutches."14 When asked by Investigator Davidson "what happened that day, February 4, 2009," Respondent made no mention of having been in the teacher's lounge at Tropical (where, in her testimony at the final hearing, she falsely claimed she had been the entire school day on February 4, 2009, leaving only once to go to the bathroom across the hall). Rather, in response to Investigator Davidson's inquiry, she suggested that this day (February 4, 2009) might have been one of the many days that school year that she had "taken off" because of health-related issues and that she had not "communicated properly" concerning her having "taken off" that day. Investigator Davidson completed her investigation and issued an Investigative Report detailing her findings in late June 2009. Investigator Davidson's Investigative Report contained a section entitled, "Summary of Investigation," the first paragraph of which read as follows: A Personnel Investigation Request pertaining to School Social Worker Jessica Harrison was received in the Office of Professional Standards & Special Investigative Unit. Ms. Harrison was accused of Falsification of Records stemming from the following alleged incidents: Ms. Harrison allegedly submitted a Temporary Duty Authorization (TDA) request to attend a conference but did not attend the conference, and allegedly reported to the South Central Area Student Services office that she was in attendance. Two of Ms. Harrison's assigned schools reported that Ms. Harrison was not in attendance on several days. Ms. Harrison allegedly did not report her absences to the South Central Area Student Services office. Ms. Harrison allegedly falsified mileage vouchers. The information that Investigator Davidson had obtained supporting these allegations was detailed in succeeding paragraphs of this section. (It was this information upon which the "[s]pecific [c]harges" in the instant Administrative Complaint were based.) The School Board's Professional Standards Committee met on September 9, 2009, to consider the results of Investigator Davidson's investigation and "found probable cause of falsification of records" warranting Respondent's termination. On September 16, 2009, Craig Kowalski, the Acting Executive Director of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards and Special Investigative Unit, sent Respondent a letter, which read as follows: The Professional Standards Committee met on September 9, 2009, and found probable cause of falsification of records. The Committee has recommended termination. Please be advised by way of this correspondence that you have been scheduled for a pre-disciplinary conference on Monday, October 5, 2009, at 11:00 a.m. in my office, which is located on the third floor of the Technical Support Services Center, 7720 West Oakland Park Boulevard, Sunrise, Florida. You have the right to representation at this conference. If for some reason you are unable to be present at this conference you must contact my office by 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 1, 2009. You have previously been furnished with a full report. You are not to disseminate these documents to the public and/or media since it may contain protected information. If you have a representative, it is your responsibility to furnish him/her with copies of your documentation. Your failure or refusal to appear at this conference will be considered a waiver of this procedural requirement. A copy of the Special Investigative Unit report and this letter are being forwarded to the Professional Practices Department of the State Department of Education to determine if certificate disciplinary action is warranted. This letter of reprimand is being placed in your personnel file within the Records Department of the School Board of Broward County. This is your notice pursuant to Florida Statute 1012.31 that the material contained in the investigative file is now a part of your personnel file and is a public record and it will become available for inspection by the public ten (10) days from receipt of this letter. Any request made by the public for the documentation referred to above will be provided in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. Questions regarding this correspondence are to be directed to my office (754)321-0735. The "pre-disciplinary conference" was held on October 5, 2009, as scheduled. Present at the conference were Mr. Kowalski; Carmen Rodriguez, Esquire (on behalf of the School Board); Respondent; and Jerrod Neal of the Broward Teachers Union, whom Respondent had asked to speak on her behalf. Prior to the conference, Respondent had received, and had had the opportunity to review, Investigator Davidson's Investigative Report. During the conference, Respondent affirmatively adopted the admission made by her representative at the meeting, Mr. Neal, that she had engaged in the "falsification" of which she was being accused (as described in the Investigative Report). The following is a verbatim recitation of what was said at the October 5, 2009, "pre-disciplinary conference": MR. KOWALSKI: This is a pre-disciplinary hearing for School Board employee Jessica Harrison. We are here pursuant to an investigative report dated June 30th, 2009. This investigation was based upon allegations of falsification of records. The Professional Standards Committee has reviewed this matter and has made a recommendation for disciplinary action. The disciplinary action is for termination. Have you received a copy of the investigative report? MS. HARRISON: Yes. MR. KOWALSKI: The purpose of this pre- disciplinary conference is to give you the opportunity to bring forward any additional matters that you believe should be considered before final decision as to disciplinary action is reached. Such matters include any additional evidence, witnesses or any matter that you believe should be considered. This is also an opportunity to say anything which you believe should be considered on your behalf. I am going to ask you if you identify additional witnesses, please identify what you believe the witness knows or would testify to or what the witness can contribute to this investigation. Do you understand the purpose of this meeting? MS. HARRISON: Um-hm. Yes. MR. KOWALSKI: Is there anything you wish to say, do you have any additional matters that you believe should be considered.? MR. NEAL: Let me speak on her behalf, because I think Ms. Harrison has pretty much said a lot of things at the Professional Standards Committee meeting. Since we've talked, since the information that was gathered during the investigation, I have really had a chance to look over it, I was really surprised by the recommendation of termination. Not eliminating what happened, because what happened as far as falsification of records, it was done. But circumstances surrounding it, I don't think it really warrants termination, considering that it is not an easy thing when you're going through a lot of personal problems. Once again, it doesn't justify what was done. But I think under the circumstances, decisions were made with not a lot of clear thought, and I really believe that Ms. Harrison's intention, from what I have known over the last couple of years, have always been good. I just think it's a matter of the things that she was actually going through. She should have brought them to the forefront earlier so there could have been a better understanding of what was going on, not an excuse for it, but a better understanding for what was going on. And you know, I would not be in my duty if I don't mention the fact that there has been so much, or so many other things that have been done through the district that should have warranted termination and people were not terminated. And I just think this is a situation where termination is to the extreme. Whereas some sort of punishment should happen, but termination is just way too much for this situation, because I think in her state of mind as she is now, I don't think these mistakes will be made again. MR. KOWALSKI: Okay. Do you want to add anything Ms. Harrison? MS: HARRISON: I think he summed it up. MR. KOWALSKI: Okay. Thank you. We'll let you know the outcome. MR. Neal: Okay. About how long will that be. And he will let you know, so that means you will have to let me know once they let you know. MR. KOWALSKI: I have to meet with the Superintendent, and so within two weeks. MR. NEAL: Okay. Until then you just go back to doing what you have been doing. MS. HARRISON: Okay. MR. NEAL: All right. Appreciate it. Ms. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. Mr. NEAL: Thank you. (emphasis supplied).15 The plea for leniency that Mr. Neal made on behalf of Respondent proved to be unsuccessful. On October 30, 2009, Broward County Superintendent of Schools Notter issued an Administrative Complaint recommending that Respondent be terminated for the "falsification" of attendance records and mileage vouchers described in Investigator Davidson's Investigative Report (conduct that Respondent had admitted, at the October 5, 2009, "pre-disciplinary conference," she had engaged in).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board issue a final order terminating Respondent's employment as a professional service contract school social worker with the School Board for the reasons set forth above. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of November, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 2010.
The Issue Whether there was “just cause” for the termination of Respondent’s employment, as that term is referred to in section of the Policies and Procedures Manual of the School Board of Manatee County, Florida, by: Respondent’s using school district property for personal gain, by working on tasks related to a student-based educational European trip through Education First (EF) during her district duty hours in the spring of 2009. Respondent’s consuming excessive alcoholic beverages in the presence of students and parents of Buffalo Creek Middle School (BCMS) during an EF trip in the summer of 2009. Respondent’s reporting to BCMS on August 14, 2009, in order to collect her personal belongings, and appearing to be inebriated Respondent’s contacting witnesses to the investigation to discuss details of the investigation. Respondent’s coming on school grounds on December 7, 2009, while under the influence of alcoholic beverages.
Findings Of Fact The School Board of Manatee County, Florida, is the duly-authorized entity responsible for providing public education in Manatee County, Florida. Respondent, Tammy M. Johnson, has been employed with the School District of Manatee County since February 8, 2000. She was most recently employed as the senior secretary at BCMS. As the senior secretary to the principal of BCMS, Respondent served as the point person for the principal of the school, working hand-in-hand with the principal. Her duties included screening the principal’s mail and phone calls, handling substitute teachers, performing payroll duties, handling leave forms, coordinating clerical office staff, and handling emergency situations as they arose within the school. Respondent was exposed to confidential school information on a regular basis, such as complaints regarding faculty and staff and policy changes being considered within the district. Respondent was employed on an annual contract basis, which was renewed from year to year. Her employment contract was for a term of 11 months and lasted typically from early August to June of the following year. While employed full-time as the senior secretary, in the fall of 2008 and the spring of 2009, Respondent organized a trip to Europe through the student-based educational travel company EF. Respondent sought to recruit BCMS students and their family members to sign up for the trip by placing fliers on campus, posting a sign-up board at the incoming students’ open house, and placing a notice about the trip in the school newsletter. Respondent routinely included a signature line in her school-assigned email address that identified her not only as a Senior Secretary but as an EF tour guide in every email that she sent from her school account. Announcements about informational meetings related to the EF trip were made over the school intercom and these meetings occurred on school property in the evenings. Respondent made fliers at BCMS advertising the EF trip on at least two occasions using school equipment. On one occasion, she made 750 fliers using school paper. During the time Respondent was conducting these activities, her principal was Scott Cooper. Cooper knew of Respondent’s activities in promoting the trip, and that she was using school resources to accomplish it. He did not object or tell Respondent to stop doing so; in fact, he encouraged such trips. Respondent ultimately recruited 10 student participants for the EF trip, all of whom were students at BCMS. The trip also included 15 adult participants, all of whom were family members of BCMS students. In exchange for her work organizing, promoting and chaperoning the EF European trip, Respondent was to receive, and did receive a free spot on the trip to Europe. Respondent served as the group leader for the EF group of BCMS students and parents. Three other BCMS teachers became involved in the EF trip as chaperones: Joseph Baker, Malissa Baker and Jessica Vieira. They also used school resources to promote the trip. The EF trip to Europe took place from June 22, 2009, to July 1, 2009. On June 17, 2009, the Office of Professional Standards (OPS) received a complaint that Respondent was misusing school resources for personal gain. OPS opened an investigation into these allegations. Shortly before Respondent left for Europe, Scott Cooper was replaced as principal. The newly-appointed BCMS Principal Matt Gruhl, met with Respondent to discuss his concern that she included an EF tagline in the signature block of all of her school emails. Gruhl asked Respondent to remove the EF tagline from her email, take the EF poster off of her door, make any necessary copies at a non-school location, and pay standard rates in the future for any advertising done in the school newsletter. Respondent complied with the directive. On June 22, 2009, the flight for the EF trip left from Tampa. Prior to the flight’s departure, Respondent purchased several small bottles of vodka in the airport duty-free shop. Several students observed Respondent doing so. Respondent drank two vodka-and-cranberry drinks on the flight to Europe in the presence of BCMS students and parents. Upon arrival in London, Respondent went with several other parents to a pub across the street from the hotel. While there, Respondent had too much to drink that evening and became intoxicated. Several BCMS students said that Respondent was speaking so loudly that they were able to hear her all the way across the street and up to the fifth story of the hotel. These students were upset by Respondent’s behavior. Respondent was very loud when she returned from the pub. BCMS parents had to help Respondent into the lobby, as she was falling over and laughing loudly. The adults tried to persuade Respondent to go to bed, but she insisted on ordering another drink in the lobby. Respondent was finally coaxed to go upstairs to bed, and she began banging on all the doors to the hotel rooms in the hallway. Respondent had to be physically restrained from banging on the doors. On more than four occasions Respondent was observed mixing vodka-and-cranberry juice drinks in a Styrofoam to-go cup before leaving the hotel with students for the day. The BCMS students on the EF trip commented on multiple occasions about Respondent’s drinking on the trip. The students did not want to go off alone with Respondent because they did not feel safe with her. The students also made observations that Respondent was drunk and stumbling around. On the return plane ride from Europe to Tampa, Respondent again was drinking alcoholic beverages to excess and exhibiting loud and boisterous behavior. While Respondent was in Europe with the EF trip, she had received a text message notifying her that she may be under an OPS investigation. Shortly after Respondent returned, she approached Gruhl and asked him whether there was an investigation concerning her being conducted by OPS. When Gruhl declined to comment on any pending OPS investigations, Respondent then called Debra Horne, specialist in the Office of Professional Standards, and asked whether there was an investigation being conducted. Horne confirmed that there was an open investigation and told Respondent that it might not be resolved until after school started because it involved students and parents. After speaking to Horne, on or about July 20, 2009, and being made aware that she was involved in an open investigation, Respondent called Vieira and told her that they needed to get their stories straight. Respondent also left messages for Joe and Malissa Baker stating that she heard that there was an OPS investigation and wanted to know if they had any information or had heard anything about the investigation. Respondent was only partially aware of a School Board rule which prohibited contacting potential witnesses during an investigation, although she was aware that she was expected to abide by all School Board rules. Gruhl spoke to Horne and reported Vieira and Malissa Baker’s concerns. Horne expanded her open investigation to include the allegations about Respondent’s behavior on the trip. Effective August 3, 2009, Respondent was removed from her position and placed on administrative leave with pay pending the completion of an investigation of her conduct by the Petitioner’s Office of Professional Standards. During the time of paid leave she was required to report daily to her principal and could not travel outside the country without permission. After Respondent was placed on paid administrative leave, she came to the BCMS campus on August 14, 2009, to pick up her belongings from her office. She met Gruhl and Assistant Principal Nancy Breiding at the school. Gruhl observed that Respondent smelled strongly of alcohol. She had difficulty keeping her balance and ran into walls, ran into doorways and almost fell when she tried to adjust her flip-flop. Respondent also had great difficulty following the line of conversation when she was speaking with Gruhl and repeated herself numerous times. Concerned, Gruhl permitted Respondent to leave campus after observing that her husband was driving her. He did not seek to send her for drug or alcohol testing, as provided in school board rules. Respondent testified that she had “just one” vodka and grapefruit drink at lunch earlier that day. She denied that Gruhl’s observations were accurate, but also alleged that she was on a prescription medication, Cymbalta, and stated that it caused her to be increasingly emotional and somewhat dizzy. However, she testified that she was completely unaware that combining the medication with alcoholic beverages would have an adverse effect on her. Respondent’s testimony in this regard is not credible. Gruhl’s observations of Respondent’s behavior on August 14, 2009, were incorporated into the OPS investigation. Horne interviewed Respondent on August 20, 2009, regarding the allegations made prior to the trip and the allegations made concerning her behavior on the EF trip. On September 1, 2009, the results of the OPS investigation was presented within the chain-of-command, who recommended to Superintendant Tim McGonegal that Respondent’s employment be terminated. The Superintendant concurred with their recommendation, and on September 21, 2009, the Superintendant notified Respondent that he intended to seek termination of her employment, or, should she request an administrative hearing, suspension without pay pending the outcome of that hearing. Respondent requested an administrative hearing. At their meeting on October 13, 2009, the School Board suspended Respondent without pay. While on unpaid suspension, Respondent had no duties, was not required to report to anyone, and was not limited in her ability to travel. However, she was still a School District employee. On December 7, 2009, while on suspension without pay, Respondent returned by car to the BCMS campus while school was in session to check her son out early for a doctor’s appointment. Aware that she was under investigation for excessive drinking, Respondent admitted that she nonetheless had a drink at lunchtime before going to pick up her son from school around 2 p.m. While on campus, Respondent’s eyes were glassy, she smelled of alcohol, and she was unkempt, which was out of keeping with her usual appearance. When Gruhl learned of the incident on December 7, 2009, he recommended to the Superintendant that Johnson not be permitted to return to the BCMS campus On December 7, 2009, the OPS opened an addendum investigatory file on Respondent concerning the events of December 7, 2009. The addendum OPS investigation alleged that, on December 7, 2009, Johnson entered the BCMS campus while under the influence of alcohol. The testimony of Horne, Keefer, Vieira, Hosier and Gruhl is credible. Respondent’s testimony is found to be unreliable.
The Issue The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not the Respondent, Alfreda Grady, should be terminated from her employment as an instructional employee with the Broward County school system.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, post-hearing memoranda and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact. By its six count Petition for Dismissal, Petitioner, through the person of its Superintendent of Schools, William T. McFatter, seeks to uphold its recommendation that Respondent, Alfreda Grady, be dismissed from employment in the Broward County school system. Respondent, Alfreda Grady, was an instructional employee at the School Board of Broward County until she was suspended with pay from her duties at the close of the workday on January 27, 1983. Respondent holds a continuing contract of employment and holds teaching certificates in both guidance and elementary education. During the course of the 1982-83 school year, Respondent was assigned to the position of guidance counselor at Attucks Middle School. This assignment was made by Mr. Thomas Wilson, Assistant to the south area Superintendent of the Broward County School Board. Ms. Grady was later assigned to teach sixth grade orientation and social studies. On January 27, 1983, Respondent was placed on emergency suspension and a PETITION FOR DISMISSAL from the Broward County school system was filed based on charges of incompetency, misconduct in office, immorality and gross insubordination. A request was made for a formal evidentiary hearing pursuant to Chapter 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The matter was thereafter assigned to the undersigned hearing officer to conduct the instant hearing. On August 19, 1982, Respondent was assigned the position of guidance counselor at Attucks Middle School. Prior to this assignment, the position of guidance counselor had been assigned to Ms. Ricci Mandell, a teacher previously employed at Attucks. This assignment was made by Taft Green, principal at Attucks Middle School. Both Ms. Grady and Ms. Mandell were retained in the Guidance Department. Approximately two weeks into the school year, Respondent was assigned to teach one sixth grade orientation class. It is not unusual for a teacher to be assigned teaching duties in more than one subject area. (TR Volume 1, p. 193) By letter dated September 1, 1982, Mr. Green informed Respondent that she would begin teaching the orientation class on September 7, 1982. Respondent was also informed by Mr. Green that Ms. Friedman, a reading teacher at Attucks, would supply the necessary material and a course syllabus. Ms. Friedman had previously taught the orientation course during the 1981-82 school year. Respondent was advised that principal Green and the other instructional employees were available to assist her, as needed. Although Respondent never contacted Ms. Friedman for either assistance or to obtain the material, Ms. Friedman supplied the Respondent with a variety of materials to be used in teaching the orientation course including the course guide for middle school orientation and two instructional television books. (TR Volume 1, p. 166) Respondent refused to teach the orientation course. The class was used as either a study hall or the students watched programs such as "The Today Show" and "Good Morning America." On September 15, 1982, Respondent was assigned to teach two sixth grade social studies classes. A memo reflecting this assignment was sent both to Respondent and Ms. Mandell, dividing the guidance position between them and assigning them each three classes. (Petitioner's Exhibit P) Mr. Green divided the counselor duties between Respondent and Ms. Mandell based on budgetary considerations. That is, Attucks could not afford three guidance counselors and instead of terminating one instructional employee, the guidance counselor assignments were divided. (TP Volume 1, pp. 204 - 205) On November 3, 1982, Mr. Green began, via a memo, to change Respondent from a guidance position to a teaching position reciting in the memo that the change was based on a report from Rod Sasse, an educational guidance specialist for the Petitioner. Mr. Sasse conducted a study of the Attucks Guidance Department and determined that the Department needed to be restructured. He determined that two full-time counselors were more effective than one full-time and two part- time guidance counselors. Thus, Respondent was assigned a teaching position without any counseling duties. Respondent has refused to perform her assigned duties by Mr. Taft Green citing, inter alia, that the course materials provided her were inadequate or incomplete; that she was not educationally trained and therefore unqualified to teach the assigned duties; that she received no help or assistance from other instructional employees at Attucks and that she was not interested in taking the needed steps to either become qualified or otherwise competent to teach the assigned social studies and orientation classes. Prior to her November 10, 1982 assignment by principal Taft Green, Respondent was afforded one (1) week to prepare for the assigned classes. Additionally, she was given two TDA's (temporary duty assignments) to prepare for the social studies classes. Additionally, Respondent received a course syllabus and other material from other faculty and staff and offers of help from supervisory employees. (Testimony of Green; Carole Fischer, Social Studies Department Head; Mark Thomas, author of the course guide for middle school orientation and Dr. Benjamin Stephenson, Associate Superintendent for Personnel) Respondent made repeated statements, oral and written, to students, other instructional employees, supervisors, principal Green and the press evidencing her lack of interest in performing the assigned duties of teaching social studies and/or orientation. Respondent also cited as one of the reasons of her inability to teach the assigned classes was due to the fact that her students were not functioning at the same level of achievement and therefore it was impossible for her to teach students who are functioning at different progress levels. It is hereby found that it is indeed normal for students to function at varying progress levels and that teachers who are at all interested in performing the duties of an instructional employee, readily adjust to the varying progress levels of students and welcome the challenge of such an adjustment. As stated, Respondent repeatedly refused to perform her assigned duties as an instructional employee for the orientation and social studies classes. Based on this refusal to teach, Respondent assigned 148 out of 150 students a grade of incomplete or "I." Respondent was repeatedly directed to provide grades for her students by principal Green including written demands on January 19, 20, 21 and 25, 1983. On the last two demands on January 21 and 25, 1983, Respondent was further advised that her failure to assign grades to students would be regarded as gross insubordination. Respondent would not and, in fact, refused to teach her students any of the subject areas to which she was assigned by principal Taft Green. A typical day spent in the Respondent's classroom consisted primarily of the students either performing independent work which usually was in the form of preparing for other classes or doing homework which was assigned by other instructional staff or in the case of the orientation class, students would watch programs such as "Good Morning America" and "The Today Show." Respondent performed some minimal teaching including map and globe assignments. However, in the normal day, Respondent would permit students to perform either independent work or repeatedly view film strips. As a result of such repetition, students became bored. A number of Respondent's students expressed a desire to learn skills in the social studies classes which they were attending. It is also found that the Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher has been severely damaged due to the wide notoriety that this case has received, the public statements and/or admissions by the Respondent denoting her lack of interest in teaching the assigned classes and the expressed concern of other staff and parents concerned about entrusting their children to Respondent's class in view of her admitted lack of care and disregard for the educational and social welfare of the students in her class.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, School Board of Broward County, enter a Final Order dismissing the Respondent, Alfreda Grady, from employment with the Broward County school system. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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 17th day of November, 1983.
Findings Of Fact This matter comes on before the undersigned for consideration following an Administrative Complaint brought by Ralph D. Turlington, Commissioner of Education for the State of Florida, against Robert J. Browne, Respondent. No genuine factual issue is in dispute because no communication, including an election of rights or an appearance from the Respondent, has ever been received. Pursuant to the above-cited rule, the matter was required to proceed to hearing before the undersigned for the presentation of a prima facie case by the Petitioner, regarding the establishment of the reputed facts alleged in the Administrative Complaint upon which the Petitioner seeks revocation of the Respondent's Certificate. The Administrative Complaint is dated July 1, 1981. After the Administrative Complaint was filed, various efforts were made to achieve service of the same on the Respondent. The Respondent never responded to the Administrative Complaint. Diligent search and inquiry failed to locate the Respondent, or a means or location whereby he might be served with the Complaint. Attempts to serve him at his last-known forwarding address resulted in the certi- fied mail being returned unclaimed and unforwardable. The undersigned attempted to serve notice of this proceeding itself upon the Respondent at the last known address with the same result. Service by publication of the Administrative Complaint was achieved by the Petitioner. The Respondent holds Florida Teaching Certificate Number 440435, Post Graduate, Rank II, which expires on June 30, 1998, authorizing him to engage in the profession of teaching in the areas of mental retardation, junior college, administration, and supervision. At all times pertinent hereto, he was employed at the Exceptional Student Educational Center in Broward County, Florida, at Eastside Elementary School. The Respondent's position was that of administrator or assistant principal at the school. The Respondent was employed at the school during the summer of 1980. Mrs. Annie Turner was employed at the school as the custodian during that same summer. She worked from the hours of 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. in the evening. She often took her son Ronnie, who was the youngest of seven children, to the school with her during her working hours. She did this in order for him to assist her in her job duties. On an early visit to the school, Ronnie met the Respondent, Mr. Browne. They met on frequent occasions thereafter, when Ronnie was at the school with his mother and talked of sports and other things of interest to Ronnie, and they ultimately struck up a friendship. Mrs. Turner began noticing that her son would go to a distant bathroom in the school and stay an inordinate period of time. This happened on a number of occasions and she noticed that Mr. Browne would follow her son into the mens' bathroom while she was engaged in cleaning another room nearby in the school. She did not feel anything was amiss until this happened on a regular basis. Finally, on a Thursday evening (she does not remember the date), in the summer of 1980, Mr. Browne and Ronnie entered the bathroom and stayed so long she opened the door to check on her son and observed the Respondent on his knees committing a homosexual act on the person of her son. She was not observed by Mr. Browne. She ultimately informed-the County Superintendent and Mr. Browne was confronted with the subject accusation by his superiors. Sometime thereafter the Respondent resigned his position at the school. Mrs. Turner no longer respects Mr. Browne and would not want one of her children in a school where he was principal or a teacher due to her apprehension regarding their physical and emotional welfare. The testimony of Ronnie Turner corroborates that of his mother, Annie Turner, and in addition, establishes that the homosexual act observed by Mrs. Turner occurred on three (3) other occasions in a substantially similar fashion and location. The occasion when Annie Turner discovered the Respondent committing a homosexual act on her son was the fourth and last of those occasions, all of which occurred during a three-week period during the summer of 1980. Ronnie Turner sougnt on several occasions to avoid association with the Respondent during this time after he became aware of the Respondent's intentions. He would not want to attend a school at which the Respondent was employed and fears that the same fate will befall other children at any school at which the Respondent should be employed. Ronnie Turner was fourteen years of age at the time the pertinent events occurred. After the Respondent resigned from his position with the Broward County School System, there ultimately ensued an Administrative Complaint brought by Ralph Turlington, Commissioner of Education of the State of Florida, seeking revocation of the Respondent's Florida Teacher's Certificate.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence in the record and the pleadings and arguments of counsel for the Petitioner, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, Robert J. Browne, have his Teacher's Certificate in and for the State of Florida revoked permanently. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of March, 1982, 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 March, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire BERG AND HOLDER 203-B South Monroe Street Post Office Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mr. Robert J. Browne 1771 Northeast 12th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a school teacher under a continuing contract of employment. At all times material hereto, Petitioner was a duly constituted School Board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public school system for Dade County, Florida. Little River Elementary School (Little River) is one of the schools in the Dade County public school system. Respondent began working as a classroom teacher for Petitioner during the 1968-69 school year. She has been employed pursuant to a continuing contract since the 1971-72 school year. Throughout her employment with Petitioner, Respondent was frequently absent from her teaching position without approved leave. During the 1981-82 school year Allen Starke was the principal of North Hialeah Elementary School and Respondent was a classroom teacher at that school. Respondent was counseled about her absenteeism on multiple occasions by Mr. Starke during the 1981-82 school year. Mr. Starke observed that Respondent lacked planning and that her class lacked control because of her frequent absences. For the school year 1982-83, Mr. Starke moved Respondent from her regular classroom to a Chapter One class with fewer students. This move was an effort to cut down the number of Respondent's absences. During the school year 1982-83, Respondent took a leave of absence that lasted more than one year. Mr. Starke had no further contact with Respondent after she took her leave of absence. Margaree Raiford became the principal of Little River, which is an inner city school, in January 1990. Respondent was a classroom teacher at Little River when Ms. Raiford came to the school. Ms. Raiford observed that Respondent's behavior was erratic and that she was frequently absent from school. Ms. Raiford was of the opinion that Respondent had become ineffective as a teacher. Because she had come to Little River after the school year was half completed, Ms. Raiford gave Respondent an acceptable evaluation for the 1989-90 school year. On March 28, 1991, Ms. Raiford wrote the following memorandum to Respondent on the subject of excessive absences: Please be advised that you have been absent from the worksite during the 90-91 school year since February 4th for illness. Since your absence from duties adversely impact the educational environment, academic progress of the students and continuity of instruction, you are herein issued the following directives concerning future absences: Absences for illness must be documented by your treating physician and a written medical note presented to this principal upon your return to the site. Upon return to the worksite, you must provide an unconditional medical release to return to full duties. If it is determined that future absences are imminent, leave must be requested and procedures for Board approved leave implemented. (Emphasis in the original.) These directives are in effect upon receipt of this notice and are necessary to prevent adverse impact to students and their academic progress and to ensure continuity of the educational program. Enclosed is a copy of Request for Leave form. You must process the leave papers within forty-eight hours upon receipt of this memorandum. Noncompliance with these directives will necessitate review by the Office of Professional Standards for the imposition of disciplinary measures. Ms. Raiford signed an evaluation form for Respondent on May 30, 1991, that covered the 1990-91 school year. She left the evaluation portion of the form blank because Respondent was not at the school site when Ms. Raiford made her formal observation that is part of the evaluation process. Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards was notified of Respondent's absences without leave. On April 17, 1991, Joyce Annunziata, Director of Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards, advised Respondent to schedule a conference with her prior to returning to Little River. The conference was to address Respondent's medical fitness to perform full classroom duties and her future employment status with Petitioner. On May 16, 1991, Respondent was temporarily assigned to the regional office pending her clearance to return to the worksite by the Office of Professional Standards. A conference on the record scheduled for May 21, 1991, did not occur because Respondent broke her foot in an accident outside the regional office on May 20, 1991. Following Respondent's recuperation from her foot injury, the conference on the record that had been scheduled for May 21 was rescheduled for September 21, 1991. Because of a scheduling conflict, the conference for the record was not held until September 23, 1991. The following attended the conference for the record on September 23, 1991: Respondent, Yvonne Perez (a representative of the teacher's union), Ms. Raiford, Dr. Annunziata, and Robert Thomas (the director of the regional office). It was decided that Respondent should undergo medical evaluation to include psychiatric and psychological testing. Respondent was assigned to an alternative work location pending her fitness evaluation. Respondent was examined by Dr. Stephen Kahn, M.D., on October 15, 1991. It was decided that further testing was appropriate and Respondent was referred to Ronald L. Bergman, Ph.D., a clinical and consulting psychologist. Dr. Bergman examined Respondent on November 21 and 22, 1991. Dr. Bergman's report was forwarded to the Office of Professional Standards. Dr. Waldo Ellison, a psychiatrist, began treating Respondent on November 10, 1991, and was still treating her on a regular basis as of April 28, 1993, the date he gave his deposition in this proceeding. Dr. Ellison testified as to the Respondent's psychiatric history, her diagnosis, and her treatment plan. The record failed to establish that Respondent's mental or physical health prevented her from complying with Petitioner's rules and explicit instructions pertaining to taking leave of absence. A report was received from Dr. Bergman and the recommendations that Respondent be transferred was considered. On December 13, 1991, Dr. Annunziata wrote Respondent a memorandum on the subject of her return to teaching. This memorandum provided, in pertinent part, as follows: . . . Please be advised that your alternative assignment is hereby terminated as of December 20, 1991. Region IV has determined that you will return to Little River Elementary School on January 6, 1992, as no other site is available for your transfer. The recommendations stipulated in the report [from Dr. Bergman] are herein made conditions of your employment as follows: Involvement with the recommended program of therapy is to be monitored by district's referral agency. Acceptable attendance at the worksite must be maintained. Site procedures for provision of lesson plans and materials for substitute teacher when absent must be adhered to in the event of any absence from the site. If it is determined future absences are imminent, leave must be requested and procedures for Board approved leave implemented. Your compliance with the aforementioned directives will be monitored by the Office of Professional Standards as the directives are considered conditions of employment with Dade County Public Schools. Respondent returned to the school site from her temporary assignment following the conference for the record in January 1992. Ms. Raiford had the occasion to issue a written reprimand to Respondent on February 11, 1992, about an incident that is not at issue in this proceeding. Pertinent to this proceeding, the memorandum advised Respondent as follows: "Further incidents of defiance or refusal to comply with a school directive will result in the initiation of disciplinary actions for the record for insubordination." Respondent worked at Little River until March 6, 1992, when she went on unauthorized leave that lasted the balance of the school year. Respondent was absent during the time Ms. Raiford wanted to schedule the observation that is part of the evaluation process. Consequently, Ms. Raiford noted that she was unable to complete the formal evaluation, but recommended that Respondent not be re-employed. On May 19, 1992, Ms. Raiford wrote Respondent the following memorandum on the subject of unauthorized absences from the worksite: Please be advised that to date you have been absent from the worksite since March 6, 1992 for 46 consecutive days. You have not contacted this administrator since April 19, 1992 nor sought Board approved leave. The UTD Contract states: "An employee shall be deemed to be absent-without-leave whenever he/she is absent and has not given prior notice to the appropriate administrator that accrued sick or personal leave is to be used or other leave has been appropriately applied for and approved. Any member of the unit who is willfully absent from duty without leave shall forfeit compensation for the time of such absence and be subject to dismissal." The employment stipulations given to you from the Office of Professional Standards have not been met in regards to acceptable attendance, notification of absence, providing lesson plans, and processing leave. Based on your neglect of duty, failure to adhere to UTD/DCPS contractual obligations, and violation of employment stipulations, I am submitting a recommendation for termination of your employment. In September 1992, the Office of Professional Standards received reports from Dr. Ellison that Respondent was medically released to return to work. Dr. Ellison believed that teaching at Little River exacerbated Respondent's condition, and he made the request on behalf of Respondent that she be transferred to another school. Dr. Ellison thought she could teach in a more orderly, structured school setting where there is better rapport and less stress. Dr. Ellison wanted Respondent assigned to a site other than Little River, but there was no evidence that Respondent could not teach at Little River because of her medical or mental condition. Because of Hurricane Andrew, Petitioner found it difficult to accommodate Respondent's request that she be assigned to another school site, and Respondent was reassigned to teach at Little River. Dr. Annunziata requested that the principal make sure that Respondent's classroom was cleaned and that the air conditioner filter was changed. Respondent returned to Little River in October 1992. She taught approximately one week and then went on unauthorized leave. She did not leave lesson plans when she left, and she did not obtain approved leave. Respondent did not return to Little River. On November 20, 1992, Dr. Annunziata instructed Respondent to schedule a conference for the record. Respondent did not comply with this directive. On November 30, 1992, Ida D. Whipple, Executive Director of the Office of Professional Standards, advised Respondent that the School Board would take steps to terminate her employment due to her unauthorized leave. On February 17, 1993, the School Board voted to suspend Respondent's employment and to initiate the instant proceedings to terminate her employment. Petitioner established that it had repeatedly instructed Respondent of the necessity to comply with leave procedures and that Respondent repeatedly failed to comply with those procedures. Although Respondent may have had legitimate reasons for being absent from school, she did not establish any reasonable grounds for her repeated failure to obtain authorized leave prior to taking these extended absences. Because Respondent did not obtain approved leave, Petitioner's policies prevented the principal from placing a permanent substitute teacher in Respondent's class. As a result, a series of substitute teachers taught Respondent's class. Petitioner also established that Respondent consistently failed to leave lesson plans during her absences. As a consequence of Respondent's repeated absences, the Petitioner's inability to staff her class with a permanent substitute teacher, and her failure to provide lesson plans, there was no continuity of education in her classroom to the detriment of the students. Petitioner established that Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher had been impaired. Petitioner established it returned Respondent to the classroom after she had been given medical clearance to return to work. Respondent thereafter went on unauthorized leave, which triggered Petitioner's decision to terminate her employment. Respondent's contention that the School Board's action on February 17, 1993, was in retaliation for worker compensation claims that Respondent had filed against the School Board is rejected as being unsubstantiated by the record. Respondent failed to fulfill the terms and conditions of her continuing contract, specifically section 3, which provides, in pertinent part as follows: 3. The teacher agrees to teach the full period of service for which this contract is made, in no event to be absent from duty without leave . . . Respondent repeatedly and intentionally refused to obey the School Board Rules and the explicit instructions that had been given to her to request approval for leave and to provide lesson plans. The instructions were reasonable in nature and given by and with proper authority.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order which sustains the suspension of Respondent's employment without pay on February 17, 1993, and which terminates her continuing contract. DONE AND ORDERED this 24th day of August, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 24th day of August, 1993.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Robert P. Sulcer, as principal of Riverland Elementary School, is guilty of "incompetency, and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty" as charged in a 28-count "Amended Petition for Dismissal from Broward County School System," filed September 6, 1984, and should be dismissed from employment with the Petitioner, Broward County School Board.
Findings Of Fact RESPONDENT: BACKGROUND AND PAST PERFORMANCE In 1955, Respondent received a Master's Degree in Education, Supervision, and Administration from Southern Illinois University. He moved to Broward County in 1957 and was first employed by the School Board as a teacher at McNab Elementary School. He has been employed as a principal for 25 years. In 1960, he became the principal of McNab Elementary and continued as a principal in various elementary schools until 1971 or 1972, when he became a principal at Pompano Beach Middle School for seven years. He was assigned the principalship at Lake Forest Elementary School for 5 years, then became principal of Riverland Elementary School in 1982. When he was suspended without pay on August 2, 1984, based on the charges which are the subject of this proceeding, he had a continuing contract (as principal) with the School Board. His supervisors evaluated (in writing) his performance as a principal during each of the 25 years he was a principal, including the 1982-83 and 1983- 84 school years. All evaluations were positive and described his performance as satisfactory. There were no negative comments. II COUNTS 1 AND 2: CONSISTENT DISCIPLINE PLAN Count 1 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish and/or maintain and/or formally present consistent rules and/or regulations regarding student discipline and/or student behavior for the staff and student body at Riverland Elementary School for the 1982-83 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 2 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish and/or maintain and/or formally present consistent rules and/or regulations regarding student discipline and/or student behavior for the staff and student body at Riverland Elementary School for the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Counts 1 and 2 center on the "development of a consistent disciplinary plan" at Riverland Elementary School, including rules and regulations for the 1982-83 and 1983-84 school years. To sustain these charges the School Board must demonstrate that there was no consistent disciplinary plan including rules and regulations in effect at Riverland Elementary School for the years 1982-1983 and 1983-84 and that such omission constituted incompetency, misconduct in office or willful neglect of duty. The evidence not only fails to substantiate these two charges but affirmatively establishes that a consistent formal disciplinary plan and procedure was in effect at Riverland Elementary School during the 1982-83 and 1983-84 school years. A. 1982-83 During the 1982-83 school year, the Student Conduct and Discipline Code ("Discipline Code") for Broward County was in effect and fully utilized. Riverland Elementary School received its accreditation at the conclusion of that year and there was no reference to an inconsistent or non-existent disciplinary plan. There were no reports of a non-existent or inappropriate disciplinary system at Riverland Elementary School during 1982-83 made to School Board administrators at any time prior to the lodging of initial charges in March 1984. (R-2; TR-IV, p.467; TR-V, p.712; TR-XI, pp.42,108) The Discipline Code delineated the teachers' responsibilities for student discipline as well as the consequences for student misconduct. During school year 1982-83, Respondent utilized the disciplinary referral system and handled student discipline problems in a manner consistent with the Discipline Code. (Conversely, there is no evidence demonstrating that Respondent failed to follow the Student Discipline Code in any instance, whatsoever during the year 1982-83.) He made sure (that parents, teachers, and students were aware of the Discipline Code. When he became principal of Riverland he discussed discipline with the students during an orientation assembly. He met with the grade level chairpersons on a daily basis and discussed discipline with them. They, in turn, were instructed to direct the teachers under their jurisdiction to review the contents of the Discipline Code with their students and ensure that students took the Code pamphlets home to be signed by their parents. In connection with the SACS review process, a student assembly was held to discuss discipline. Because of the type of children in the school and the age of the majority of the students, however, school-wide assemblies to discuss discipline proved to be less effective than small group discussions. Respondent's preferred use of small group settings and his utilization of the Discipline Code was deemed acceptable by his immediate supervisor. Other teachers followed a similar practice without objection. (TR-III, p.372; TR-IX, p.40, TR-X, p.83, TR-XIII, p.77, TR-XV, pp.38 169,2,192-193; TR-XVI, pp.8-9,16,48-49) B. 1983-84 During school year 1983-84, the Discipline Code remained in effect. Respondent continued to utilize it as the foundation for the disciplinary process in place at Riverland Elementary School. Indeed, use of the Discipline Code, as adopted by the School Board of Broward County, was mandated. Although several teachers testified that there should be a school-wide code which overlaps or supercedes the official county-wide Discipline Code, there is no showing that a school-wide code, other than the Discipline Code, was required or even customarily used in the school system (TR-I, pp.89,90, TR-II, p.201; TR- IV, p.467, TR-V, p.712; TR-IX, p.38; TR-XI, p.108; TR-XV, p.16) Several teachers critical of Respondent's performance testified that he should have adopted a code listing infractions which would automatically lead to specific consequences. To comply with this request, Respondent would have had to enact a code inconsistent with the Discipline Code mandated by the School Board. Page 6 of the Code sets forth the criteria to be used by a principal or his designee in meting out discipline. The Code attempts to match specific conse- quences with specific behavior. The numbers in brackets which follow each rule refer to consequences which may be used if misbehavior occurs. With the exception of Attendance, consequences are listed on page 24. Under certain circumstances, specification is mandatory and is so identified by an asterisk (*). When discipline problems occur in the pres- ence of a teachers it is the responsibility of the teacher to handle the situation until all strategies available to the teacher according to the School Board Policy have been exhausted. School personnel are encouraged to employ realistic and appropriate methods of disci- pline not necessarily outlined in this Code. For example, cleaning desk tops is an appro- priate consequence for writing on them. When determining the consequences, the fol- lowing circumstances should be taken into consideration: age and/or grade level of student; frequency of misconduct; seriousness of particular misconduct; attitude of student; student records; any other relevant factors including but not limited to, handicapped students who are governed by provi- sions outlined in School Board Policy 5006.1. (e.s.) Under this disciplinary scheme, a principal administers discipline not only to punish students but to encourage behavior modification. To accomplish the latter a principal is given alternatives and combinations of alternatives for use based on the unique circumstances of each situation. Factors to be taken into account include the number of prior referrals, the seriousness of the situation, the child's previous disciplinary record, the age of the child, the intellectual level of the child, the emotional level of the child, and any learning disabilities that might be associated with the child. Respondent followed the Discipline Code and administered discipline based upon the referrals he received from teachers. There was no showing that he failed to follow the student Discipline Code. If the charge is that the Discipline Code, itself, lacks "consistent rules and regulations," or fails to conform to "consistent rules and regulations" such charge is more appropriately directed at the School Boards which adopted the Coded than Respondent who merely implemented it. (TR-XV, pp.38-39, 54; TR-XVI, p.31) At the outset of the 1983-84 school year, Respondent again directed his grade level chairpersons to disseminate the Code to teachers and instruct them to teach the Code to their students. The teachers were instructed to use the Discipline Code in conjunction with I.T.V. programs during the first week or two of school. The teachers carried out these instructions. Students were taught the Code, and their understanding of the Code was reinforced throughout the year. (R,4, TR-II, pp.184, 189,201; TR-V, pp.638,640; TR-X, p.126; TR-XVI, pp.48-49,5-6) In addition to the grade level chairpersons' meetings, Respondent disseminated various bulletins dealing with discipline, specifically Bulletin 83-9, which set forth the steps the teachers were to utilize in the disciplinary process. He issued Bulletin 83-9 because some teachers were not following the Discipline Code and meting out the appropriate discipline in the classrooms (per the Code) before sending students to his office. This bulletin was intended to reinforce the Code's recognition that teachers are primarily responsible for discipline in the classroom. The Code recognizes that classroom management is an integral part, if not the most important component, in the disciplinary process: When discipline problems occur in the pres- ence of a teacher, it is the responsibility of the teacher to handle the situation until all strategies available to the teacher according to the School Board Policy have been exhausted. (R-4; TR-III, P.394; TR-V, p.708)(R-2, p.6, TR-XV, p.31) COUNTS 3 AND 4: INCONSISTENT METING OUT OF DISCIPLINE Count 3 You are hereby charged with failing to admin- ister discipline consistently and/or effec- tively for students referred to you by staff members during the 1982-83 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 4 You are hereby charged with failing to admin- ister discipline consistently and/or effec- tively for students referred to you by staff members during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. These charges allege inconsistency in the meting out of discipline by Respondent as opposed to the failure to establish or maintain consistent disciplinary rules alleged in Counts 1 and 2. Although inconsistent discipline was alleged, none has been shown. The only evidence offered to support these charges was innuendo and vague, elusive accusations or perceptions by several teachers, most of which were based on hearsay consisting of generalizations uttered by others. The record is devoid of specific, concrete examples of "inconsistent" disciplinary action by Respondent. The complete lack of specific evidence is not due to want of records. Detailed records of every disciplinary action taken by Respondent during 1983-84 were available for analysis. (743 discipline referral slips covering school year 1983-84 were retained by Respondent and available for review.) There is no evidence, however, that anyone critical of Respondent's meting out of discipline ever took the time to, or went to the trouble of, reviewing them. Indeed, no one on behalf of the School Board even asked to see them.) It was Respondent who offered all referral slips (identifying details of each infraction and Respondent's action) into evidence. Some teachers testified that there were too many steps in the referral process although how this complaint relates to inconsistency was not shown. Others testified that they had to go through every single disciplinary step in order to refer a child to Respondent for discipline. The opposite was proven to be true. If a situation was serious enough, the disciplinary steps prescribed by Respondent (which were essentially the same steps as those prescribed by the Discipline Code) could be short, circuited and an immediate referral made. When serious disciplinary problems occurred, teachers brought students directly to Respondent's office and he handled the situation. (TR-II, p.219; TR-III, p.425; TR-IV, p.475; TR-X, p.15; TR-XI, P.24) Respondent made an effort to insure that the disciplinary process at Riverland was rational, and known to and followed by all. In addition to Bulletin 83-9 (delineating the steps in the process), Respondent disseminated numerous other bulletins and materials dealing with assertive discipline as part of the Faculty Handbook. He met with the faculty and discussed the disciplinary process. He insisted they use the detailed referral process which he established. The referral slips themselves show that he used all of the allowable disciplinary consequences--individually or in combination--including, but not limited to, student conferences, verbal reprimands written punishments, parental contacts, internal suspensions, corporal punishments, and external suspensions based upon the unique circumstances of each case. (TR-III, P.427; TR-XVI, pp.15,31; R-1; R-2) A. 1982-83 Count 3 alleges that Respondent failed to administer discipline in a consistent manner for the school year 1982-83. There was no meaningful evidence of any inconsistent discipline administered in 1982-83. There was no testimony or documentation of one specific incident which Respondent could cross-examine or refute. 2/ Indeed the record supports an inference that discipline was meted out consistently during 1982-83. There was a detailed Discipline Code in effect, known to all, and he insisted that it be followed. The SACS Report, prepared by the teachers at Riverland, and the grant of accreditation do not reflect that discipline was being inconsistently administered. Ms. Swilley, the Department of Education's competence reviewer, doesn't find inconsistent discipline; she refers to materials appended to her report, and then states the referrals reflect the teacher "concerns." The appended material only contains referrals from 1983-84 gathered together by Ms. Elmore, one of Respondent's harshest critics. The official Broward County School Board Progress Reports for Riverland Elementary School during 1982-83 and 1983-84, reflect teachers', students', and parents', attitudes, all of which are extremely high. (Teachers- -86 percent, parent--92 percent, and students--88 percent) There is no evidence that this alleged deficiency was ever complained of or mentioned in any memoranda, read-react-and-return memo, grade level chairperson minutes, faculty minutes, correspondence to Respondent's supervisor or Board administrators, notes or minutes of the P.T.A., parents advisory group, Respondent's performance evaluation, or any other document. (R-4; Appendix 14; P-4; P-3; R-19) B 1983-84 Similarly, no factual basis has been shown for the charge that Respondent inconsistently administered discipline during the 1983-84 school year. This charge, too, is unsubstantiated. No systematic analysis of the 1983-84 disciplinary records of particular students was done to demonstrate that students were disciplined differently when the facts indicate they should have been disciplined the same. Although some witnesses generally testified that Respondent disciplined students inconsistently during 1983-84, their conclusions were not substantiated. Although one teacher, Ms. Ordway, claimed inconsistency in the meting out of discipline, she could not give one specific example. Similar negative conclusions by Ms. Ross, another teacher, were based on "what the [other] teachers would say." The testimony of Ms. Kasmarik, another teacher, supports the opposite conclusion: Q. (By Mr. Panza) Ms. Kasmarik, let me ask you do you know what--can you give me specific instances that Mr. Sulcer treated two children with disparate consequences for the same act? Can you give me an example? A. That I personally saw it or that I heard about it? Q. No. You are the witness. What you saw, personally were involved in. A. With the referrals that he wrote up, Mr. Sulcer--The only referrals I wrote up were for fighting. That's the only referrals I wrote up, and when I got the response from that, Mr. Sulcer had used corporal punishment on both children. Q. So they were consistent as it goes to your personal observations? A. As my personal observations, it was consistent, yes. (e.s.) (TR-VI, p.826, TR-X, p.147) Likewise, Ms. Bullock, another teacher critical of Respondent's performance, testified: A. I would say that the punishment was consistent. Now, the problem is I didn't feel it was severe enough because it didn't prevent them from repeating the same incidents. (TR-XI, p.23) Mr. Dandy, Respondent's supervisor throughout, and the person who initially pressed him to correct alleged deficiencies, was unable to recall any specific instance of inconsistent discipline being meted out; rather, his criticism of Respondent only reflected the "teachers' perceptions." The unsubstantiated "perceptions" of other teachers based on nothing more than generalized complaint or hearsay are patently insufficient to sustain the charge. (TR-XIII, pp.82- 83,92,97) Respondent followed a set procedure in disciplining students. Before referral the child would describe, in writing, the misbehavior so that the child would understand the significance and inappropriateness of the conduct. On referral to the principal the child would bring with him or her the written description of the incident. Respondent would discuss the situation with the child review any prior disciplinary problems, and then determine the appropriate consequence based on the Discipline Code. He often gave verbal reprimands arranged for parent conferences, or wrote letters to parents. (TR- XVI, pp.10,11,20,31) Witnesses who complained of Respondent's disciplinary actions at hearing never stated what they expected him to do other than to formulate an additional code specifying an automatic consequence for every conceivable infraction. Such a rigidly defined code is neither required nor customary in Broward County. Moreover, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to construct a code with such mathematical precision. The effective disciplining of students is an art, not a science, involving many human variables. It requires flexibility and the exercise of professional judgment. A rigid code which precludes a principal from taking into account the unique circumstances of each case would be inconsistent with the Discipline Code adopted by the Board. COUNTS 5 AND 6: DETERRENCE OF CHRONIC BEHAVIOR OFFENDERS Count 5 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish adequate deterrent as a result of your action of causing or allowing students to become chronic or serious behavior offenders as a result of your inadequately disciplining said, students referred to you by teachers during the 1982-83 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 6 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish adequate deterrent as a result of your action causing or allowing students to become chronic or serious behavior offenders as a result of your inadequately disciplining said students referred to you by teachers during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Here, the Board charges that Respondent failed to establish adequate deterrents and, as a result, he allowed or caused students to become chronic or serious behavior offenders during school year 1982-83. A. 1982-83 The Board has not shown what a "chronic behavior offender" 3/ is or how many students, out of the total student population of approximately 600, fit this category. Neither was it shown that there were a significant number of chronic offenders that "were caused" by Respondent's disciplinary actions. There was student misbehavior at Riverland Elementary School while Respondent was principal, as there was prior to his arrival and after his departure. It has not been shown that the misbehavior was caused by Respondent's efforts to enforce the Student Discipline Code. Many of the children at Riverland came from poor families. These children had little respect for authority and had attitude problems stemming from background and upbringing. Many came from single-parent homes. Many of the children who had behavior problems at school came from homes where discipline was lax or nonexistent. The student population was transient--students were constantly checking in or out of the school. Some students had repeated at least two grade levels so there were several children 13 or 14 years old. Some children had learning disabilities and could be disciplined only in accordance with their prescribed plans. (TR-II, pp.193,222; TR-X, pp.39, 40, 131; TR-XI, p.27; TR-XV, pp.39, 44, 46) Given the diversity and nature of this student body, it has not been shown how the repetitive misbehavior of five to ten of the students can be fairly or logically imputed to Respondent's action or inaction. These students, which the Board (at least for the purpose of this proceeding) classifies as "chronic offenders," were not identified, neither was each incident of misbehavior together with Respondent's disciplinary action, analyzed, compared and critiqued by qualified witnesses. Finally, though some students were referred numerous times, it has not been shown that there was an inordinate number of such students, given the nature and diversity of the student population. Neither does it appear that such repetitive referrals became a problem of serious concern to teachers. The SACS Report, prepared by the teachers at Riverland, does not indicate that a "chronic offender" problem existed at the school. (R-13) B. 1983-84 The nature of students at Riverland Elementary School during 1983-84 was similar to that of the previous year and the Board's failure of proof is, likewise, the same. Respondent applied the district-wide Discipline Code in disciplining the students. The teachers were responsible for the teaching of the Code to students, and for the management of students in their classrooms. All acknowledged that the proper disciplining of students is a joint or cooperative effort by teachers, administrators, and principals. The evidence fails to show that there was an inordinate number of repetitive referrals, neither does it disclose the identity of these children (including their particular acts of misbehavior and the discipline administered) or how Respondent's action was deficient. To the extent some children were repeatedly referred for misbehavior, it has not been shown that Respondent's disciplinary action was the cause. It may well be that the teachers of these children failed to properly control and prevent their misbehavior, or the misbehavior may be due more to the unique personality and family context of each child. (R-2) Indeed, the parents of some of these children tried, without success, to modify their behavior. There were occasions when Respondent would have two or three parental conferences concerning a child's misbehavior, yet--a few weeks later--the child would revert to inappropriate conduct. Several teachers who testified were critical of the effectiveness of Respondent's disciplinary action, but failed to indicate action that would have been more effective. Some teachers favored more use of external suspensions, but under School Board policy external suspensions are to be used only as the last resort. Respondent did suspend some students and the referral slips for 1983-84 showed he used corporal punishment extensively. (R-66) As with school year 1982-83, the record does not establish the identity and number of the "chronic or serious behavior offenders". A reasonable estimate would be that there were between five and ten children (out of 600 students) who had repetitive disciplinary referrals. There is no basis to conclude that this is an inappropriate or unusually high number. In a student population of this nature and diversity, it is perhaps unavoidable that there will be some students who will be repetitively referred for disciplinary action. This condition existed before Respondent arrived at Riverland--and has persisted since he left. COUNTS 7 AND 8 VERBAL AGREEMENTS-1982-83 AND 1983-84 Count 7 You are hereby charged with repeatedly ac- cepting or entering into verbal agreements with students who are repeat offenders that they will not repeat said negative behav- ior/offense in lieu of providing appropriate discipline which has resulted in a negative impact on student behavior and/or student discipline at Riverland Elementary School during the 1982-83 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 8 You are hereby charged with repeatedly ac- cepting or entering into verbal agreements with students who are repeat offenders that they will not repeat said negative behav- ior/offense in lieu of providing appropriate discipline which has resulted in a negative impact on student behavior and/or student discipline at Riverland Elementary School during the 1983-84 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. A. 1982-83 In order to substantiate this charge, it was incumbent on the Board to identify those "repeat offender" students with whom Respondent entered into verbal agreements not to engage in the same conduct to specify the circumstances surrounding the infraction and to show that such verbal agreements were inappropriate. The appropriateness of a disciplinary action (otherwise authorized) cannot be determined without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The Board has failed to substantiate its charges with concrete and specific evidence. Indeed the record is devoid of evidence establishing that Respondent even entered into verbal agreements with students during 1982-83, under any circumstances. (The Board apparently assumed that he entered into verbal agreements with children who were repeat offenders, that such agreements were "in lieu of providing any appropriate discipline," and that such action had a negative impact on student behavior and student discipline at Riverland Elementary School.) It was not shown that Respondent inappropriately used the Student Discipline Code in any instance when he "counseled" with students concerning inappropriate conduct. 4/ To determine appropriate discipline for an individual student, all of the factors contained on page 6 of the Discipline Code would have to be considered in light of the specific infraction. Because of the flexibility and discretion given school principals, any analysis less definitive would be incomplete. (R-2) B. 1983-84 In 1983-84, Respondent--who continued to use the Student Discipline Code--entered into verbal agreements with students, whereby the students agreed not to engage in further inappropriate conduct. It has not been shown that he entered such verbal agreements in lieu of any other more appropriate discipline, or that, in any particular case, the verbal agreement was inappropriate. "Repeat offenders" were not identified nor Respondent's action in any particular incident shown to be improper. As already mentioned, the Board has not demonstrated that Respondent failed to follow the Student Discipline Code in the meting out of discipline. Under this Code, the use of verbal agreements, as part of the overall discipline process, is appropriate. Thus the critical factor is not the entering into of verbal agreements (because verbal agreements are permitted), but rather whether he did so in lieu of other more appropriate discipline. But disciplinary action--otherwise permissible--cannot be found inappropriate without knowing the specific facts of an incident. Such facts have not been shown. COUNTS 9 AND 10 RAMPANT DISRESPECT AND VERBAL ABUSE Count 9 You are hereby charged with unacceptable performance in administering the school discipline program during the 1982-83 school year and said performance has led to rampant disrespect by students toward teachers through verbal abuse and defiance of teacher instructions, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 10 You are hereby charged with unacceptable performance in administering the school discipline program during the 1983-84 school year and said performance has led to rampant disrespect by students toward teachers through verbal abuse and defiance of teacher instructions, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. A. 1982-83 Here the Board charges Respondent with "unacceptable performance" in administering the school discipline program during school year 1982-83. Respondent's discipline program was based on the Student Discipline Code and it was not shown that he ever violated that Code. The Board further charges that Respondent's disciplinary performance led to "rampant disrespect" by students towards teachers through verbal abuse and defiance of teachers' instructions. The evidence is insufficient to sustain a finding of rampant disrespect for teachers by students. 5/ Neither was it shown that any specific incident of disrespect was attributable to Respondent's implementation of the Student Discipline Code. Once again, this charge rests on supposition and generalization and lacks a factual foundation. Assuming, arguendo, that a student verbally defies a teacher's instructions, the question becomes whether the defiance is attributable to a principal's conduct. There are several plausible reasons as for defiance of a teacher's instructions, many of them unrelated to a principal's actions or inactions. Teachers may fail in managing their classrooms and earning the respect of their students, parents may have neglected to teach their children to respect and obey teachers. Here, the Board has not established a causal relationship between Respondent's conduct and any defiance of teachers by students. Speculation or generalization cannot substitute for specific and concrete evidence. (TR-X, pp. 100,101) B. 1983-84 For similar reasons, the charge relating to school year 1983-84 is unsubstantiated. Rampant disrespect for teachers has not been shown. (TR-X, pp.9,10,16,17) It has not been shown that Respondent violated the Discipline Coded the foundation of his disciplinary process, during 1982-83 or 1983-84. Neither has rampant disrespect for teachers been shown. The SACS Report completed by the teachers at the conclusion of the 1983 school year, makes no mention of it. Neither do any memoranda, documents, or other school records support this claim. If student disrespect and defiance had been so widespread, it is likely that it would have been brought to the attention of School Board officials long before Mr. Dandy came to Riverland to listen to teachers' grievances on February 17, 1984. (R-13) COUNTS 11 AND 12 CONTRIBUTING TO SERIOUS DISCIPLINE AND/OR BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS WHEREIN STUDENTS EXHIBITED DEFIANCE Count 11 You are hereby charged with contributing to the serious discipline and/or student behav- ior problems which occurred at Riverland Elementary School during the 1982-83 school year, wherein students exhibited defiance and disrespect toward authority figures and toward fellow students which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 12 You are hereby charged with contributing to the serious discipline and/or student behav- ior problems which occurred at Riverland Elementary School during the 1982-83 school year, wherein students exhibited defiance and disrespect toward authority figures and toward, fellow students which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Counts 11 and 12, virtually identical to Counts 9 and 10, are, likewise, unsubstantiated by the evidence. The record is inadequate to support a conclusion that Respondent contributed to serious discipline or student behavior exhibiting defiance and disrespect toward teachers and fellow students. It is likely that student disrespect for or defiance of teachers occurs, at least occasionally, in every elementary school. Relevant questions are what was the frequency and magnitude of the defiance and disrespect; who were the offenders, and what factors or combination of factors caused or contributed to it? The evidence offered by the Board is non-specific and incapable of supplying answers to these questions. Count 13 THE LOCKING OF THE BATHROOMS BECAUSE OF VANDALISM Count 13 You are hereby charged with failing to di- rect, administer and maintain a program to foster proper student behavior in the halls to such an extent that during the 1983-84 school year one set of bathrooms had to be locked because of fights among students and vandalism of bathrooms during the school day, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon- duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Here, alleged student misbehavior (establishing Respondent's incompetence and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty) was so bad that one set of bathrooms had to be locked because of fights among students and vandalism. This charge is unsubstantiated by concrete factually meaningful evidence; it is based, in the main, on hearsay and the unsupported conclusions of several teachers. It was not shown that vandalism in the bathrooms at Riverland Elementary increased or was at an unacceptably high level during 1983-84, or that any property damage was attributable to Respondent's performance of his duties. An occasional act of vandalism or damage to school property cannot, by itself and without more, support a conclusion that a principal is guilty of incompetency, misconduct in officer or willful neglect of duty. Neither was it shown that there were students fights in the bathrooms, or that fights occurred with such frequency that Respondent was forced to close the bathrooms. Rather, students would gather in the bathrooms prior to school starting and get into mischief. Mary Jo Sluder a teacher who was also Safety Patrol Director and supervised the school hallways, complained to Respondent that she was having problems watching both sets of bathrooms before school started. Respondent asked if it would help if one set of bathrooms remained locked until the second bell at 8:15 a.m., signaling the start of school. Ms. Sluder replied that it would be helpful and the plan was implemented. So one set of bathrooms remained locked for approximately 15 minutes, between 8:00 a.m. and 8:15 a.m., while children were at school. At 8:15 a.m., it was opened. (TR- XVI, pp.41,42; TR-IV, p.452) This was an acceptable strategy used by other principals under similar circumstances, and violated no rule or policy of the School Board. Between the first (8:00 a.m.) and second (8:15 a.m.) bells, bathrooms were always accessible to students. Respondent's action was a rational measured response to a problem perceived by the Safety Patrol Director and it obtained positive results without imposing a hardship on anyone. The danger of relying on hearsay and generalized conclusions of others is illustrated by the testimony offered to support this charge. Mr. Dandy, Respondent's immediate Area Supervisor and an individual who identified Respondent's action as deficient, admitted that he had no specific facts to support this charge; he had only talked to teachers and had reviewed no vandalism records at the school. Of the teachers who testified, one did not know if vandalism had increased during Respondent's tenure over that which had occurred under his predecessor; one did not know how long the bathrooms were closed. Although one teacher testified that it was common knowledge that the bathroom was locked because of vandalism--and this was the extent of her knowledge--vandalism was not discussed at the faculty meetings. Teachers would sometimes stop in the girls' and boys' bathrooms, to tell them to quit playing around. One teacher who complained of vandalism never witnessed conditions inside the bathrooms, never wrote disciplinary referrals for students who congregated in them, and never sent them to Respondent's office. (TR-V, pp. 578,774, TR-II, pp.242, 243, 245, 324; TR-IV, pp. 433, 451; TR-VI, pp. 871,872; TR-X, p.150) COUNTS 14 AND 15: TOO MUCH TIME OFF-CAMPUS AND NOT ENOUGH ON-CAMPUS VISIBILITY Count 14 You are hereby charged with spending too much or inordinate amounts of time in your office and/or off campus and not making yourself visible enough among students which has contributed to poor student disci- pline/behavior problems at Riverland Elemen- tary School during the 1982-83 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon- duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 15 You are hereby charged with spending too much or inordinate amounts of time in your office and/or off campus and not making yourself visible enough among students which has contributed to poor student disci- pline/behavior problems at Riverland Elemen, tary School during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon, duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. These charges accuse Respondent of spending too much time off-campus or in his officer and not making himself "visible enough" among students, thus contributing to poor student disciplinary behavior. Once again, as with the other charges, there is no evidence that Respondent, during 1982-83, spent too much time or an inordinate amount of time in his office or off-campus. This was not identified as a problem by the SACS Report or documented by any exhibit in evidence. A principal is evaluated based on his or her performance. Respondent's evaluations for the years 1982-83 and 1983-84 were totally acceptable. Neither indicates Respondent spent inordinate amounts of time in his office or off-campus, or that he did not make himself "visible enough." Respondent, charged with the responsibility of administering an entire school, attended numerous off-campus functions such as county directed meetings, parent conferences, visitations, professional meetings, and community service projects relating to Riverland Elementary School. His attendance was legitimate and, in most instances, required. (TR-I, p.74; TR-VIII, pp.40,42; TR-XIII, pp.14,16,20; TR-XV, p.46, R-45) It was not shown (nor was it alleged) that Respondent was unlawfully or inappropriately engaging in personal activities off campus. The charges focus on the frequency of his absences, not his whereabouts. The school district official who prepared this charge had no independent knowledge of Respondent's absences, and did no analysis to determine the extent of his absences from campus. Rather, he simply relied on and reiterated vague conclusions offered by several teachers dissatisfied with Respondent's performance. (TR-II, p.246; TR-IV, p.888; TR-VIII, pp.23, 24, 143) Mr. Stephenson, the school district official who helped prepare the charge, never asked Respondent about his alleged excessive absenteeism from campus because (according to Stephenson) that would be a normal routine matter discussed between a principal and his Area Superintendent (Mr. Dandy). But Mr. Dandy never asked Respondent about alleged excessive absenteeism either. (TR- XIII, p.140) The evidence is insufficient to support a conclusion that Respondent was absent from campus for an inordinate amount of time. The only evidence in support of the accusation is sporadic hearsay, or conclusions by others lacking a factual basis. Rather, the evidence establishes that Respondent's presence on campus was sufficient and that, if he left campus, he handled any disciplinary problems (that arose in his absence) upon his return. His secretary always knew where he was. A teacher could find out where he was by simply asking his secretary. (TR-I, p.75; TR-X, p.32) As to Respondent's alleged poor visibility among students, there is no specific factual information pertaining to 1982-83, so this charge is unsubstantiated. As for 1983-84, the evidence was also insufficient to support a conclusion that Respondent was not "visible enough." No standard of visibility was established against which Respondent's conduct could be measured. There is no evidence in the record that anyone (teachers, parents, or administrators) complained to Respondent about his visibility or asked that he become more visible on campus. (TR-VIII, p.91) Testimony by several teachers on this subject was inconsistent and contradictory. Some offered critical opinions, but their conclusions lacked factual support, they simply had a feeling that he should have been more visible. In contrast, some teachers felt that Respondent was "sufficiently visible;" Ms. Kasmarik testified that he was always around the campus and always walking down the halls: CROSS-EXAMINATION Q. (By Mr. Panza) Ms. Kasmarik, isn't it a fact that it's your opinion that you're better off with discipline when Mr. Sulcer was there than you are right now with the new principal? Isn't that a fact? Isn't that what you just said within the last couple of weeks? A. We have the same kinds of problems that we had when Mr. Sulcer was there. Q. Same kinds of problems with the new principal, is that right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Are those same kinds of problems based upon the type of children, in your opinion, that are in that school? A. Yes. Q. Now, you mentioned--Just kind of working backwards a little bit--that visibility was a problem or--not was a problem, is not a problem. You said Mr. Sulcer was walking the hall? A. Yes. Q. Mr. Sulcer went into classrooms, is that correct? A. Yes. He was in and out of the classroom all the time. Q. So teachers could see him around the school. He wasn't--he was there physically in the school? A. Yes. (TR-X, pp.121-122) Ms. Bullock, another teacher critical of Respondent's performance, admitted that he had been visible and had visited her classroom 15 to 20 times: DIRECT-EXAMINATION Q. (By Mr. Montante) Did you ever tell him it was necessary to come down [to observe her class? A. No. Q. Did you ever tell him it was necessary to become visible? A. No. Q. Did he ever offer to become visible to you? A. No. I felt he was visible. Q. Several times a year? A. Yes. Q. How long is the school year, ma'am? A. From August until June. Q. August until June? A. Yes. Q. That's a period of 11 months. A. Ten months. The school year is ten months. Q. He came down to the classroom several times: A. Several times. Q. Three times in 11 months. A. I didn't say three times. Several. How many is several? A. Ten, 15, 20. (e.s.) (TR-XI, pp.61,62) Although Ms. Ross, another teachers claimed that his visibility was almost non- existent, her location in the library (where she worked) was such that she would not have known when he was out of his office or in it. Ms. Bullock, another teacher, never asked him to come to her room because it wasn't necessary. (TR- VI, pp. 823,828; TR-XI, p.61) The vague and indefinite charge of not "enough visibility" must be based on more then the subjective, unsubstantiated judgment of a critical teacher. To be meaningful, the charge must be put in a factual context. In a letter to Dr. Stephenson, the district administrator involved in preferring the charges, Respondent's counsel asked for specific information on the charge so that Respondent could comply with Mr. Dandy's March 21, 1984 directive requiring improvement in this area: 4. Monitor hallways frequently through- out the school day (in an attempt to assist in undesirable behavior on the part of students (Effective immediately) Mr. Sulcer will, as he always has, monitor the hallways. As I am certain you are well aware, it is impossible to be in the hallway all day if one is expected to be a Principal of a school. Once again, I would request specific instances of when Mr. Sulcer was negligent in his monitoring of the hallways which allowed undesirable behavior to take place. I would also like to have the specif- ic set of circumstances that the administra- tion of the School Board can demonstrate that there was undesirable behavior on the part of students because of Mr. Sulcer's conduct. I would like to know the exact amount of time required by Mr. Dandy so Bob Sulcer can comply. If Mr. Dandy is going to evaluate Bob Sulcer in this area, he (Dandy) must know exactly how much time he expects Sulcer to spend. (R-50) This letter went unanswered. COUNTS 16 AND 17 SUPPLIES Count 16 You are hereby charged with failing to supply teachers with basic materials and supplies such as paper, crayons, scissors, etc., thus depriving student [sic] from essential mate- rials necessary for optimum instructions during the 1982-83 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 17 You are hereby charged with failing to supply teachers with basic materials and supplies such as paper, crayons, scissors, etc., thus depriving student [sic] from essential mate- rials necessary for optimum instructions during the 1983-84 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. There were no records of any kind, type or description, offered in evidence to support the allegations that school supplies were inadequate during 1982-83. One team chairperson during 1982-83 and 1983-84 never heard a complaint about lack of supplies. Dr. Stephenson, the school district administrator who helped prepare this charge, became aware of the alleged budget problem through information he received in writing from Ms. Elmore, a teacher critical of Respondent's performance. Based on Ms. Elmore's submittal, he concluded that there was a lack of materials and supplies at Riverland, a situation which should not have existed because adequate funds were available. He never independently investigated to determine if Ms. Elmore's statements were correct. (TR-XI, p.19; TR-VIII, pp.11,151) Ms. Elmore, a Faculty Chairperson at Riverland, had been told by the school bookkeeper that there was a freeze on supplies in 1983-84. She never personally asked Respondent for supplies, and he never told her that funds were unavailable. She felt that it was unnecessary to bother Respondent "with things that minor." (TR-V, pp.771,776) Ms. Ross, a grade level chairperson responsible for coordinating the ordering of supplies for teachers under her control, had no difficulty ordering supplies or books except that, when the funds were frozen, she "couldn't spend the money in my budget for awhile." (TR-VI, p.819) (She never asked Respondent if the budget was frozen.) She had all materials needed to currently teach her students. (Funds were temporarily unavailable only while the F.T.E. count was underway, a situation which was not unusual in the school district). When told the budget was frozen during F.T.E. count, she simply delayed ordering until the count was completed, she "had enough (supplies) to carry (her) over past the F.T.E. count." (TR-VI, p.865) After the count, she was allowed to order whatever she needed. (TR-VI, pp.819, 862, 864, 865) Ms. Ordway, a fifth grade teacher, who had switched to kindergarten, testified that she was unable to get necessary books and supplies for her kindergarten class. However, Ms. Callender, her Faculty Grade Level Chairperson, testified that Ms. Ordway as well as the rest of her grade group, had supplies the entire year. Ms. Callender also testified that Ms. Ordway was given permission to go to the A.B.C. Store to purchase whatever supplies she needed. Ms. Callender's testimony, more precise and less emotional than Ms. Ordway's, is accepted as persuasive. (TR-X, pp.28,48) Respondent did not turn down any supply order for materials that were needed for classes during 1982-83 and 1983- 84. The charge that teachers lacked supplies in 1983-84 is unsubstantiated by the evidence. (TR-XVI, pp.57,58,61) Finally, Ms. Elmore, one of the teachers most critical of Respondent's performances testified that she did not have enough supplies for 1982-83 and 1983-84. Her testimony was conclusory and is rejected as lacking in credibility. Finally, the SACS Report does not mention any problem with supplies at Riverland Elementary School for 1982-83. It is likely that if there was a supply problem of the magnitude alleged, it would have been mentioned in the SACS Report. The evidence does not establish that any children at Riverland were denied instructional materials due to lack of supplies. These charges are unsubstantiated. (TR-V, p.580; R-13) COUNTS 18 AND 19: SECOND IN COMMAND Count 18 You are hereby charged with failing to desig- nate a teacher as second in command and/or failing to inform the faculty which teacher would be in charge during your absence during the 1982-83 school year, thereby leaving the school unsupervised during your absences from campus, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office/and or willful neglect or duty. Count 19 You are hereby charged with failing to desig- nate a teacher as second in command and/or failing to inform the faculty which teacher would be in charge during your absence until approximately January 1984 of the 1983-84 school year, thereby leaving the school unsupervised during your absences from cam- pus, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Respondent appointed a second in command or designee at Riverland Elementary School for years 1982-83 and 1983-84. For 1982-83, Respondent appointed Polly Jones as his second in command or designee. There was no requirement to identify the second in command by posting a notice. However, Mr. Dandy, the Area Superintendent, required principals within his area to advise him of the name of the second in command at the commencement of the school year. Respondent notified him in accordance with this requirement. (TR-I, p.32; TR- VII, p.92; TR-XVI, p.7) During 1982-83, Ms. Jones handled discipline referrals during Respondent's absence and signed as designee. Teachers who were unaware of who the second in command needed only to ask. Respondent's secretary, the office personnel, and administrative staff were informed that Ms. Jones was the appointed second in command. (TR-XVI, pp.7,104) The contention that problems resulted from some teachers not knowing who was second in command during 1982-83, is unsupported by the evidence. No teacher asked Respondent who was second in command--either in person (at grade level chairperson meetings, faculty meetings, in the halls, at SACS Committee Meetings) or by memorandum. Ms. Elmore who was Faculty Chairperson during 1982- 83, never placed the question of who was second in command on the faculty agendas though she had the authority to do so. Although she testified that she did not know who was second in command in 1982-83, she did not ask Respondent or her grade/level chairperson who, ironically, was Ms. Jones, the second in command. In any case, most teachers at Riverland knew Polly Jones handled disciplinary problems in Respondent's absences and expected her to do so. (TR- V, pp.598, 763) For school year 1983-84, Respondent designated Elaine Callender as his second in command. Again, he informed Mr. Dandy of his action at the beginning of the school year. Although most teachers knew that she was the second in command, they did not hear it officially from Respondent. They knew that Ms. Callender could, and did, administer corporal punishment in Respondent's absence. Finally, teachers in 1983-84 knew, or should have known, that Ms. Callender was the second in command because she signed referral slips above the signature line marked "Designee": copies of the completed slip are normally returned to the referring teacher. (TR-I, pp.34,35; TR-X, p.5, TR-XVI, p. 175) These charges must fail since Respondent did, in fact, appoint a designee, and the teachers knew or could have known by simply asking him. Although it was suggested (through hearsay testimony) that students were disciplined by secretaries, there is no substantial evidence to support that implication. When the issue of who was second in command surfaced up at the faculty meeting on November 15, 1983 (as part of 12 identified concerns) would it not have seemed reasonable at the time for someone to ask Respondent who was second in command? The Faculty Council, after it was organized and operational in the early part of January, did ask Respondent, stating that some teachers claimed they did not know who was second in command and wanted this information posted. Respondent posted his second in command that very day. (Mr. Dandy's testimony that the second in command was not posted until mid-February is rejected as clearly erroneous.) (TR-XII, p.87; TR-XIII, p.123) COUNTS 20 AND 21: MORALE Count 20 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish and maintain positive lines of communi- cation with the faculty and students during the 1982-83 school year at Riverland Elemen- tary regarding student discipline which has contributed to the decline of faculty morale toward the principal relative to student discipline, which constitutes incompetency, and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 21 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish and maintain positive lines of communi- cation with the faculty and students during the 1983-84 school year at Riverland Elemen- tary regarding student discipline which has contributed to the decline of faculty morale toward the principal relative to student discipline, which constitutes incompetency. These two Counts center on the issue of faculty morale as it related to student discipline caused allegedly by Respondent's failure to maintain positive lines of communication with faculty and students during schools years 1982-83 and 1983, 84. Morales a somewhat amorphous term, is defined in the American Heritage Dictionary as "the state of the spirits of an individual or group as shown in willingness to perform assigned tasks, confidence, cheerfulness, and discipline." Although affected by many variables, morale is not a subject incapable of measurement. Instead of utilizing an objective or standard method to determine the level of morale at Riverland the School Board presented the testimony of selected teachers, for the most part, the same teachers who were on the ad hoc disciplinary committee and among Respondent's most avid critics. Their testimony lacks credibility and fails to support a conclusion that morale was lowered due to Respondent's handling of discipline problems. They were the teachers who complained most about morale. They gave secret testimony to Dr. Stephenson, the ranking administrator, who developed the charges against Respondent and they were, generally, unwilling to cooperate with Respondent and other teachers (led by the Faculty Council), who were attempting (between November, 1983 and March 1984) to develop ways to improve discipline at Riverland. 6/ No systematic evaluation of faculty morale, using any acceptable and reliable method, was ever undertaken. A poll was conducted at Riverland Elementary in connection with the Official Progress Report of the School Board. The poll indicated that 86 percent of the teachers thought that Riverland was a good school. Ninety-two percent of the parents with children at Riverland responded, "this is a good school." (TR-IV 34 p.461) These results detract from the weight to be given the adverse opinions of the several teachers (testifying at hearing) most critical of Respondent's performance. (TR-IV, p.461; R-19) COUNT 22 FAILING TO DISCIPLINE A STUDENT Count 22 You are hereby charged with failing to disci- pline a student who said to a teacher's aided "Fuck You," during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon- duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. On one occasion during the 1983-84 school year, a child cursed at a teacher's aide, Ms. Williams, who promptly referred the student to Respondent's office. Respondent asked the student for an explanation and the child admitted that he had said the disrespectful words and was ready to be spanked. Respondent asked Ms. Williams (the aide that was cursed at) to enter the office and witness the corporal punishment. After she entered, the child refused to submit to the spanking and constantly moved around, putting his hands across his buttocks and fidgeting making it difficult for Respondent to administer corporal punishment without injuring him. Under these circumstances, Respondent decided not to administer the corporal punishment for fear of injuring the child's hands. Instead, he telephoned the child's parents and told them the child refused the spanking. The parents told him they would punish the child, by using a belt. (TR-XVI, pp.53-54; TR-X, pp.67-68,85) This particular child did not have any further behavior problems at Riverland Elementary. Respondent did not ignore, dismiss, or fail to discipline this child. His handling of this incident of disrespect toward an aide was appropriate and consistent with the Discipline Code. (Although the Board faults him for not reporting the incident to the Department of Internal Affairs, Board Policy 4018, reasonably construed, does not require the reporting of every instance of student disrespect toward a teacher.) Since Respondent properly disciplined the child, the charge must fail. COUNT 23 RAT-INFESTED ROOM Count 23 You are hereby charged with failing to take appropriate action to remove kindergarten students at the request of the teacher from a rat infested room after being informed by the teacher that rats were prevalent in the area, subjecting kindergarten students to rat poison which had been placed by custodial personnel in the students' classroom, and refusing from approximately February 28, 1984, to March 7, 1984, to relocate said kindergarten students from said classroom to an empty portable on the school site which action had been formerly requested by the complaining kindergarten teachers which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. On March 1, 1984, Ms. Ordway, a kindergarten teacher at Riverland Elementary, complained to Respondent about a mouse she had seen in her classroom. He told her that he would get the custodian on it right away, which he did on that same day. The custodian set out traps that night, Respondent also went to Ms. Ordway's classroom that night to make sure that the traps were placed so that there would be no danger to the children. He continued to periodically check the room after school throughout the week, he looked for evidence of mice, but found none. Meanwhile, Ms. Ordway did not ask to have her class moved and her class remained at its regular location. (TR-XVI, pp.71- 73,87,155,254) On Thursday, March 8, 1984, approximately one week after Ms. Ordway had complained of a mouse, Mr. Dandy telephoned Respondent and told him of a complaint he had received (presumably from Ms. Ordway) concerning the mice situation. Respondent immediately called the Area Maintenance Office and requested assistance, then contacted Omni Pest Control and asked them to come out that day. (Respondent had not called the exterminator prior to this because neither he nor the custodian had found evidence of mice, and the custodian was actively addressing the complaint.) (TR-XVI, pp.72,154,157) Omni Pest Control came out on Monday, March 12, 1984, around noontime. Respondent immediately relocated Ms. Ordway's class since he assumed that the exterminator might use chemicals hazardous to children. The exterminator treated the classroom and returned two days later to do a follow- up. At 7:30 a.m. on March 19, 1984, the exterminator returned to check the classroom. Respondent, unavailable to talk to him at that time, called him later to check on the classroom's condition. The exterminator, having found no evidence of mice, told him that the mouse sighting "must have been a fluke." (TR-XVI, pp.72-73,86,88,155,157,159) The evidence does not support a conclusion that Ms. Ordway's classroom was infested with mice or rats. She is the only person who sighted one, and her testimony about what she saw, and the frequency of her sighting's, was inconsistent. No other mice were sighted and no evidence of mice was found by those who investigated and responded to her complaint: Respondent, a Health Department inspector, the school custodian, and the professional exterminator. Respondent reacted to Ms. Ordway's complaint in a reasonable and timely manner. The school custodian was the person who would normally investigate and handle such a complaint. When Respondent received a second complaint, he immediately contacted a professional exterminator despite the fact that he and others had found no evidence of mice in the classroom. This charge is based on the exaggerated complaint of Ms. Ordway, a teacher who, seemingly, Respondent could not mollify. COUNTS 24 AND 25 FAILING TO COOPERATE Count 24 You are hereby charged with failing to util- ize the suggestions of parents and teachers and/or work cooperatively with said groups to improve the declining [sic] student disci- pline/behavior problems at Riverland Elemen- tary during the 1982-83 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 25 You are hereby charged with failing to util- ize the suggestions of parents and teachers and/or work cooperatively with said groups to improve the increasing student disci- pline/behavior problems at Riverland Elemen- tary during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. The School Board failed to substantiate its charge that during 1982-83 or 1983-84, Respondent failed to utilize the suggestions of parents and work with them to improve student discipline at Riverland Elementary. Indeed, there is no evidence that any parents made specific suggestions to Respondent concerning ways to improve student discipline. Even if, arguendo, suggestions were submitted, there was no showing that Respondent was obliged to follow theme irrespective of their merit. Although the School Board also charges Respondent with failing to utilize the suggestions of, and work with, teachers, the opposite was shown. Respondent relied on the teachers of Riverland. He routinely asked them to address problems, and suggest specific changes, usually he implemented their suggestions. One of his management techniques to maximize participation was to set up committees of teachers to address problems and make recommendations. His conviction was that since teachers were a vital part of the school, they should have a say in how it was run--and what changes should be made. He respected their views and welcomed their comments. For example, in late 1983 and early 1984, he encouraged the Faculty Council to devise ways to improve student discipline. When the Council presented him with a School Wide Disciplinary Plan (suggesting numerous changes to improve student discipline) he promised to implement it. (In contrast, some teachers refused to cooperate with either the Faculty Council or Respondent, and were determined to leave student discipline problems to Respondent--alone--to solve.) Another example was his formation of a Cafeteria Committee (of teachers) to address student misbehavior in the cafeteria--a focal point of student "horseplay" in most elementary schools. The Committee met and formulated a plan, which Respondent approved and implemented. Both charges must be dismissed for failure of proof. (TR-III, p.387; TR-V, p.708; TR-VI, p.819; TR-XI, pp. 143,149,150,162; TR-XV, pp.59,110; TR-XVI, p.76) COUNT 26 THE CAFETERIA Count 26 You are hereby charged with failing to prop- erly maintain student control and discipline in the cafeteria and/or inadequately super- vising and/or providing inadequate supervi- sion of students which has resulted in chaos throughout the 1982-83 school year and has continued through the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon- duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. The School Board has not established a standard against which the adequacy of the supervision and control of students in school cafeterias can be judged. Elementary school students abound with energy and will sometimes run in cafeterias. Such running occurred prior to Respondent's arrival at Riverland, and continues, even now. As one witness summed it up, "Every child runs." . . . [and] "Kids are kids." (TR-X, p.78) These cafeterias are noisy, relatively unstructured places where children, within limits, are free to be themselves. No evidence was presented showing that, on a comparative basis, student behavior in the Riverland cafeteria was any worse than that prevalent in the other elementary schools. Indeed, Dr. Gail Daly (an experienced elementary school principal and chosen by the School Board to investigate Respondent's performance at Riverland) visited the school's cafeteria and found student behavior acceptable. (TR-XV, p.59) Although some teachers were critical of Respondent's visibility in the student cafeteria, they rarely ate their own lunches there (to help maintain order)-- even though they could leave school a half-hour early for doing so. Since most teachers did not eat their lunches with the students, supervision of student behavior in the cafeteria was left, for the most part, to teachers' aides. This was an acceptable practice in the various elementary schools. Any student misbehavior which may have existed in the cafeteria was not serious enough to warrant being brought to Respondent's attention, either by the group of teachers who identified "12 concerns" at Riverland or to Mr. Dandy, the Area Supervisor who responded to them. The teachers "12 concerns" do not mention misbehavior in the cafeteria, neither do Mr. Dandy's letters of February 24, and March 1, 1984 (which identify deficiencies in Respondent's performance and require corrective action). This charge must fail for lack of proof. (P-5, P-6, R-2) COUNT 27 FAILURE TO PERFORM DUTIES AS ALLEGED IN COUNTS 1-26 Count 27 You are hereby charged with failing to ade- quately perform your duties as principal with respect to student discipline/behavior as enumerated in the above counts during the 1982-83 and 1983-84 school years to such an extent that your effectiveness as a principal in this area has been impaired serious enough to warrant your dismissal as principal for "good and sufficient reasons, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. The efficacy of this charge depends on a positive finding that Respondent failed to adequately perform his duties as principal with respect to student discipline during 1982-83 and 1983-84, as alleged in the foregoing counts, Nos. 1 through 26. Since these counts were not sustained by the evidence, the charge fails. COUNT 28 SWILLEY REPORT Count 28 You are hereby charged with failing to demon- strate competent performance as an adminis- trator in one or more of the following areas: the administrative and supervisory require- ments and/or communication skills and/or management techniques and/or exercise learn- ing and goal achievement and/or human and interpersonal relationships for the school year (or any part thereof) 1983-84, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Dr. Stephenson, then Associate Superintendent of Personnel, requested a review of Respondent on April 3, 1984, for the purpose of determining his competence. The Department of Education selected Henrietta Swilley (from Bay County) to conduct the competency review. She visited Riverland Elementary from May 1, 1984, to May 3, 1984, (2 1/2 days) one-half day short of the three-day observation required by 6B-5.02(12) Florida Administrative Code. On or about July, 1984, she sent to the School Board her undated and unsigned report. This report was placed in evidence by the School Board as an attachment to a deposition taken of Respondent. Neither Ms. Swilley nor any School Board official testified about the contents of this report, or vouched for its accuracy. Consequently, Respondent's ability to challenge the accuracy of its opinions and conclusions, or examine those who developed or relied on it, was limited. The report, however, is hearsay which, though admissible, can be used only to explain or corroborate other evidence, it cannot, in itself, support a finding of fact. See, 120.58(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Apart from this limitation on its use, the report is replete with factual errors, misstatements, and inconsistencies. It appends materials which do not correspond to references in the report. These errors detract from the weight which might otherwise be given to the report, and place in doubt the credibility of its assertions and conclusions. Several examples should suffice. On pages 4 and 5 of the report, Ms. Swilley reviews teacher observations and evaluations. Of the eight teachers listed, the evaluations of only four were included in the appendix. She indicates that Respondent held conferences with all eight teachers on the same day, May 17, 1983. The four evaluations appended, however, show that the conferences were held on March 3, 16, and April 12 and 15, 1983. On page 5, she faults Respondent of using similar or "patterned" comments on seven of the eight teachers evaluated. But she does not show how this violated any rule or standard of practice. (Mr. Dandy, Area Supervisor, using a similar form, includes no comments, whatsoever, on his evaluations of principals, a practice which, in his views was perfectly acceptable. (TR-XII, p.43).) On page 6, she states: From studying the 1983 evaluations of Ms. Elayna Cross and Ms. Catherine Phoenix it was unclear to this reviewer as to how much time Mr. Sulcer spent observing these teachers. Yet, the time Respondent spent in observing Ms. Phoenix (9:15 to 10:15 on March 3, 1983) is shown on the top of her evaluation contained in the appendix. On page 6, Ms. Swilley further states: If the sampling of evaluations studied is an indication of administrative progress in the area of assessment, all other continuing contract employees on staff would have to be evaluated within 25 days from my visit in order to stay within the confines of the negotiated contract [which prohibited princi- pals from conducting evaluations during the last week of school]. But the evaluations in her sampling were completed, and applied only to the prior school year--1982-83, not 1983-84. Thus her conclusion lacks support. (In fact, Respondent had approximately ten teachers left to evaluate after Ms. Swilley's visit in May, 1984 [TR-XVI, p.77].) Finally, on pages 6,7, Ms. Swilley questions whether Respondent acted as an instructional leader at Riverland. She opines as to what Respondent would have observed if he had visited the classrooms, and includes the results of her interviews with an unknown number of teachers. Among those teachers were Ms. Ross, Ms. Sluder and Ms. Elmore. (These were Respondent's most vociferous critics and members of the original ad hoc faculty committee which identified "12 concerns" at Riverland.) The assertions of Ms. Ross and Ms. Sluder--hearsay, once removed--concerning Respondent's alleged failure to visit or observe their classes are rejected in favor of Respondent's more persuasive testimony to the contrary. (TR-X, p.121; TR-XVI, pp.46-47) The School Board has not shown, by independent evidence, that Respondent failed to demonstrate competence in any of she areas described in this charge. Thus the Swilley Report, even if internally consistent, cannot support a finding of incompetence. This charge must also fail. FAILURE OF SCHOOL SYSTEM TO FOLLOW PROCEDURAL RULES In recommending the suspension and dismissal of Respondent, the Superintendent of Schools failed to follow procedures governing dismissal. Rule 6B-4.08, entitled, "Criteria for Dismissal Procedures," provides: 6B-4.08 Criteria for Dismissal Procedures. When an action or other matter appears to exist which may possibly result in the future dismissal of any employee, the immedi- ate supervisor of the individual should take appropriate action to advise the employee of the matter and the potential consequence if not corrected. Every possible helpful effort should be made by the immediate supervisor to aid the employee to correct the matter which could cause his or her dismissal if not corrected. Except in extremely serious circum- stances, the employee should be given suffi- cient time, following notification, for improvement. Any charges of undesirable traits or practices should be bona fide, verifiable, and clearly stated to the employee in writ- ing. Any employee thus charged should have a fair opportunity to explain or otherwise defend himself or herself, as provided in Section 231.36, Florida Statutes. These criteria mandate that an employee be advised of deficiencies which may result in his dismissals and that he be given sufficient time, following notice, to improve or correct the deficiencies. Here, Mr. Dandy, as Area Supervisor, routinely evaluated Respondent on January 31, 1984, and found him satisfactory when judged against all performance criteria. On February 17, 1984, approximately two weeks later, Mr. Dandy--at the invitation of Ms. Elmore or Ms. Sluder--came to Riverland Elementary and met with some teachers who had gathered to complain to him about lack of student discipline. After hearing the complaints of several teachers, Mr. Dandy--precipitously--told them he was now in control, that they should hence forth come directly to him. Some teachers were intimated by his manner and aggressiveness. Instead of asking individual teachers about any perceived problems, he asked, "Do you feel the rest of the teachers feel . . . is a problem?" or words to that effect. On February 21, 1984, three days later, Mr. Dandy met with the teachers again and, this time, invited Respondent to attend. Respondent, though genuinely surprised by this turn of events, came to the meeting and responded to each of the complaints or concerns raised by the teachers. On February 24, 1984, three days later, Mr. Dandy wrote Respondent outlining the teachers' complaints or concerns and asked for a written response by March 1, 1984. Respondent complied, submitting a timely response addressing, as specifically as possible, each of the concerns. Mr. Dandy responded with a second letter on March 21, 1984, directing Respondent to take eight corrective actions (Mr. Dandy never subsequently evaluated Respondent to determine if those directives were satisfactorily carried out, though he admits improvements were being made.) On March 22, 1984, one day after receiving Mr. Dandy's eight directives, the Superintendent filed the charges against Respondent which later (with one added count) became the basis for Respondent's dismissal. (P-5; P-6; P-19; TR-XII, p.47; TR-XIII, pp. 14, 47, 72, 128, 129) The complaint about Respondent's performance voiced by some teachers to Mr. Dandy were never thoroughly, and conscientiously, investigated or verified by Mr. Dandy prior to his undermining Respondent's authority and, to some extent, taking control of the school away from him. When Respondent was finally informed of the complaints he responded to each in a professional and meaningful way. He was then given "directives," quickly followed by charges, without being given a fair opportunity to take corrective action and effectively respond to the complaints. In their hasty action, school board officials disregarded or were oblivious to the requirements of Rule 6B-4.08. This is all the more perplexing in light of the fact that Mr. Dandy, the Area Supervisor and Respondent's immediate supervisor, never recommended--then or now--that Respondent be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That all charges against Respondent be dismissed, that he be reinstated with full back-pay and emoluments of employment; and that he be awarded reasonable attorney's fees which he actually expended in his defense or which he has legal duty to pay. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of November, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 14th day of November, 1985.
The Issue Whether just cause exists to sustain Respondent’s dismissal from employment with the Miami-Dade County School Board.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a duly-constituted district school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within Miami-Dade County, Florida. Article IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const. In 2010, Whitley started working for the School Board as a school security monitor. During the 2016-2017 school year, Whitley was assigned to Thomas Jefferson Middle School (“Thomas Jefferson”) as a security monitor. He remains employed in that role at Thomas Jefferson presently. Whitley’s job duties and responsibilities include, but are not limited to, maintaining the safety of the children, ensuring the children make it to class on time, assisting with any problems that may be going on in the school, and monitoring the security cameras. At all times relevant to the proceeding, Respondent has been employed by the School Board pursuant to a continuing contract. The incident giving rise to this proceeding occurred on February 6, 2017. On February 6, 2017, Whitley was patrolling his assigned hall and noticed that M.G., a 13-year-old sixth grader, was out of class and sitting at Respondent’s desk in the hallway. Whitley requested that M.G. get out of the chair, and M.G. refused to get out of the desk. According to M.G., after M.G. refused, Whitley flipped the desk while he was seated, which caused M.G. to fall and hit his head on the floor. There is conflicting evidence as to what happened when Whitley approached the desk (“incident”). At hearing, M.G. credibly testified that he reported the incident to Principal Robin Atkins the same day and that he also got an ice pack for his head. Almost a month later, the Office of Professional Standards opened an investigation regarding the incident. Afterward, Respondent was notified that M.G. accused him of flipping the desk that he was sitting in and causing him to hit his head as a result. In 2017, law enforcement interviewed Respondent. The matter was ultimately turned over to the School Board's General Investigative Unit (“GIU”). The investigation took approximately two years to conclude. Even though Thomas Jefferson maintained security footage and recorded videos of the hallway where the incident occurred, no video footage existed for anyone to review regarding the incident. Based on its investigation, on or about May 30, 2019, GIU determined that there was probable cause to support the allegation that Respondent had violated School Board Policy 4210, Standards of Ethical Conduct; 4210.01, Code of Ethics; and 4213, Student Supervision and Welfare. Respondent learned about the determination soon thereafter. After summer break, when Respondent returned to work, on or about August 27, 2019, Carlos Diaz, the district director of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards conducted a conference-for-the-record (“CFR”) meeting to discuss the pending allegations from the GIU case. Respondent was present at the CFR with his union representative. Following the CFR, the Disciplinary Review Team (“DRT”) met. DRT considered Respondent’s repeated and similar conduct for inappropriate contact with students and Respondent’s prior directives in its decision to discipline Respondent. DRT recommended that Respondent be terminated. The recommendation was adopted by the School Board. Prior Disciplinary History During his employment with the School Board, Whitley has been disciplined twice regarding inappropriate touching of students prior to the incident. The School Board kept a record of Respondent’s discipline in Whitley’s personnel file. On or about April 16, 2013, Whitley received a written reprimand after an investigation concluded that he shoved and touched a student’s shoulder repeatedly. Whitley’s reprimand directed Respondent to “[r]efrain from any physical touching of students.” In November 2013, Whitley was suspended for 12 workdays without pay after an investigation concluded that Respondent inappropriately picked up and dropped a student to the ground. The CFR memorandum regarding Respondent’s November 2013 occurrence directed Whitley to: “adhere to School Board Policies 4210, Standards of Ethical Conduct; 4210.01, Code of Ethics; and 4213, Student Supervision and Welfare”; “refrain from inappropriate communications with students”; and “refrain from inappropriate physical contact with students.” Hearing At the final hearing, M.G. provided persuasive credible testimony regarding the incident. He testified that he was sitting in Whitley’s chair in the hall. M.G. also admitted that he refused to move and told Respondent “no” when told to move. Whitley testified that M.G. “jumped” out of the chair. The undersigned does not credit Whitley’s testimony based on his contradictory statements about the incident, which diminish the trustworthiness of his testimony.1 Findings of Ultimate Fact Accordingly, the undersigned finds that M.G.’s credible testimony established that Whitley initiated contact with M.G., grabbed the desk to lean in, and flipped M.G., who was seated, out of the desk. As a result of Whitley’s actions, M.G. landed in a manner where his “hand hit the ground,” head hit the concrete floor, and, by doing so, jeopardized M.G.’s health, safety, and welfare.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order: finding Respondent in violation of rules 6A-5.056(2) and (4), 6A-10.081, and School Board Policies 4210, 4210.01, and 4213 as charged; and upholding Respondent's termination from employment for just cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of October, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY 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 29th day of October, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher J. La Piano, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132 (eServed) Branden M. Vicari, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761 (eServed) Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
