Findings Of Fact Respondent and the Alternative Learning Center Respondent In 1974, at 22 years of age, Respondent earned his Bachelor of Science degree in social studies from Florida Memorial College, an historically black college in Miami. In his freshman year, he was named the Outstanding Freshman from Southwest Florida attending historically black colleges. At various times during his last three years of college, Respondent worked in inner-city ministries in St. Louis and New Orleans. For about five years following graduation, Florida Memorial College employed Respondent, first as Associate Director of Admissions and then as Director of Alumni-Church Relations, assistant basketball coach, head baseball coach, and head volleyball coach. After moving from Miami to Lee County, Respondent worked for a short time outside of education. At the start of the 1986- 87 school year, Respondent returned to education by accepting employment with the Lee County School District (District) as a social studies teacher at Cypress Lake High School, where he remained for two years. While at Cypress Lake High School, Respondent also served as head girls' basketball coach, head girls' track coach, assistant volleyball coach, and assistant baseball coach. While employed by the District, Respondent helped with the fathers' program at LAMP, which is an educational program operated by the District at the New Directions Center. The LAMP program provides high-school instruction for teenage mothers. Respondent also headed the District's first mentor program, which finds mentors, without regard to race, to encourage minority students to excel in an academic setting, such as in gifted and honors courses. In 1988, Respondent earned his Master of Science degree in educational leadership from Nova University. Then-Superintendent Engle named Respondent to serve as principal-on-assignment for the 1988-89 school year to recruit minority teachers for the District. Respondent was the second minority person assigned to an administrative position in the District. At the time, a federal court had entered a desegregation order against the District. In the ten years prior to Respondent's new assignment, the District had hired about a dozen minority teachers. In one summer, Respondent recruited 30 minority teachers. After completing his assignment in minority teacher recruitment, Respondent returned to Cape Coral High School as Dean of Students. He served in this position for the 1989-90 school year. Following the 1989-90 school year, Respondent was appointed the Coordinator of Educational Equity and Reassignments, in which capacity Respondent served for five years. When he assumed the job, he received a $5000 raise to about $40,000 annually. A coordinator is the lowest level of management in the District office. Coordinators are subordinate to assistant directors or, if none, directors. Directors are subordinate to assistant and associate superintendents, who are subordinate to the Superintendent. The Superintendent is appointed by the Lee County School Board. As Coordinator of Educational Equity and Reassignments, Respondent monitored the district's desegregation efforts. Due to the nature of his responsibilities, Respondent, even though only a coordinator, had direct access to the Superintendent and School Board attorney. Working closely with then-Superintendent Adams, who became Respondent's mentor, Respondent helped redraw school- attendance zones to desegregate schools. Respondent also handled racially based complaints from staff, including teachers, and generally tried to assure that poorer schools received the same resources as those enjoyed by wealthier schools. Respondent became the focus of considerable controversy while Coordinator of Educational Equity and Reassignments. One day, his young daughter answered the phone at home and heard an unidentified caller threaten, "Your nigger father is a dead man." Shortly after the murder of Superintendent Adams, Petitioner, then serving as Interim Superintendent, informed Respondent that she was removing him from his coordinator position. She created a new position for Respondent as Director of Adult Education and Dropout Prevention. Respondent received a raise from $48,000 to $55,000 annually and assumed his new duties in November 1994. Petitioner disclosed that she made the change based on concerns for Respondent's safety and complaints that she had received from the School Board and parents related to Respondent's rezoning decisions. Three months after Petitioner created Respondent's new position, she eliminated it and suggested that Respondent apply for other administrative positions with the District. Respondent and Petitioner discussed an opening at the New Directions Center. The New Directions Center occupies a three-year old facility owned and operated by the Lee County School Board. The New Directions Center comprises three separate programs: the LAMP program, the Academy, and the Alternative Learning Center (ALC). The Academy, which includes the Employment Skills Program, provides alternative education by offering its students different types of teaching strategies than are typically available at conventional schools. Academy students are not behaviorally much different from students attending regular schools in the District. Prior to the 1995-96 school year, each program at the New Directions Center had an assistant principal, and a supervisory principal was in charge of the entire New Directions Center. When she mentioned the opening at the ALC, Petitioner informed Respondent that she intended to appoint a separate principal for each of the three programs starting the 1995-96 school year. In May 1995, Petitioner appointed Respondent to serve as the new ALC Principal, starting July 1. As ALC Principal, Respondent was also the head District administrator at the juvenile detention center, Price Halfway House, and Lee County boot camp. At the time of assuming his new responsibilities, Respondent had served nine years in the Lee County School system: two years in the classroom, one year in administration at a school, over five years in administration involving minority matters at the District office, and less than one year in Adult Education and Dropout Prevention. Respondent received no training in preparation for his new assignment as a school principal. As of February 19, 1996, Respondent's District personnel file contained nothing negative, aside from some isolated suggestions recorded on classroom observation sheets. This was the file that Respondent and his attorney examined after giving the District three days' notice of their intent to examine and copy Respondent's personnel file. Discussed below is Petitioner's contention that two missing items should have been included in the file. Respondent's evaluation for his first year of teaching notes: "Excellent start as a beginning teacher in Lee County." This 1987 evaluation states: "Outstanding teacher. Should be considered for advancement to administration as soon as possible." The 1988 evaluation reports: "Excellent year-- Promoted to dean of students, Cape Coral H.S." The first administrative evaluation of Respondent is in 1989 and covers his work in minority-teacher recruitment. The 1989 evaluation states that Respondent is "an asset to our team." The 1990 evaluation, which addresses Respondent's year as Dean of Students, reports: "Charles has demonstrated his concern for young people and has spent many hours above and beyond the call of duty working with and for kids." For the first year in which Respondent was responsible for desegregation efforts, the 1991 evaluation notes that Respondent has only partially achieved a goal--namely, learning desegregation issues. However, the 1991 evaluation, which was prepared by Dr. Mary Nell Gunter, states: "Charles Daily [sic] demonstrates talent and skill in dealing with people. He is eager to do a good job and I appreciate his professional outlook." A memorandum from Dr. Gunter commends Respondent for his "positive attitude" and work in specific programs. The memorandum suggests, though, that Respondent needs to develop his skills in "facilitative leadership," which he demonstrates in "many instances," but perhaps insufficiently when dealing with "principals and school-based people." Respondent's evaluation for the 1991-92 school year is missing from Respondent Exhibit 13, which is his District personnel file. The missing evaluation apparently was completed with no remarkable comments. Respondent's evaluation for the 1992-93 school year is noteworthy because it was prepared by Petitioner, who was not yet Superintendent. This 1993 evaluation finds that Respondent has fully achieved all of his goals, one of which is: To establish effective communication to the public that would assist in dealing with the increasing cultural, demographic and social change effecting [sic] our students and community. Petitioner's narrative comments on the 1993 evaluation are: Charles Dailey is an extremely valued and important member of the Division of Administrative Operations. He has demonstrated outstanding leadership during the Desegregation process. He is a role model for every administrator in his work ethic, committment [sic], teamwork and educational values. Petitioner found that Respondent reached an effective level of performance (the only satisfactory rating offered on the evaluation form) in all categories. Categories include judgment issues, including making good decisions based on law and policy, and sensitivity issues, including tact, effective dealing with people over emotional issues, exhibiting a positive professional attitude, and perceiving the needs and concerns of other persons. Petitioner concluded the 1993 evaluation as follows: Charles must work under stress everyday in his office due to our desegregation process. He has handled this in an outstanding manner. The evaluation for the 1993-94 school year should have been performed by Dr. James Browder, who is now principal of Cypress Lake High School. Dr. Adams was murdered on February 7, 1994. Another administrator was responsible for Respondent's evaluation until April or May of 1994. Given the understandable disruption resulting from the sudden death of Dr. Adams and the administration reorganization that followed, Respondent's evaluation for the 1993-94 school year was never prepared. However, Dr. Browder testified that he had perceived no problems with Respondent of sufficient seriousness to document in an evaluation. The evaluation for the 1994-95 school year should have been performed by Assistant Superintendent Dr. Mary Santini. She assumed that position in January 1995 and may have felt unable to evaluate Respondent by the time the evaluations are due in May. Respondent has been recognized repeatedly in the educational community. The past three years, Respondent was a finalist for the Ida S. Baker award, which is given to the outstanding minority educator in Florida. Respondent was named in 1995 the administrator of the year for the southeastern United States by the Southeast Desegregation Assistance Center. During this period, Respondent has been serving as a consultant and expert witness in the Rockford (IL) School District desegregation case. The ALC In general, the ALC is the District's last-chance school for students whose disciplinary problems have resulted in their removal from their geographical schools. ALC students are the most difficult to manage in the District. Nearly all ALC students are enrolled in the ALC as an alternative to expulsion from the Lee County School System. A few students are assigned to the ALC through the juvenile justice system. Almost all of the ALC students have had serious problems with criminal activity, seriously disruptive behavior in school, and school attendance. At any given time, roughly 10-20 students attending the ALC have been convicted of felonies. On a cumulative basis for the 1995-96 school year, excluding exceptional student education (ESE) students, 80 students enrolled in the ALC sometime during the 1995-96 school year were guilty of felonies, 91 were guilty of the possession of drugs or drug paraphernalia, 29 were guilty of armed burglary or grand theft, 36 were guilty of assault or battery against a teacher or administrator, 68 were guilty of fighting with other students, 38 were guilty of possession of weapons, and numerous others were guilty of other offenses ranging from "sexual misconduct" (7) to "peeing in a bottle" (1). (Some of these students were guilty of more than one offense, and some students entered the ALC more than once during the school year, so their offenses would be counted more than once in each category.) Prior to the 1995-96 school year, the Supervisory Principal of the New Directions Center was Jeananne Folaros. The ALC Assistant Principal was Richard Hagy. The LAMP Assistant Principal was Carolyn McCollum. And the Academy Assistant Principal was John Wortham. For the 1995-96 school year, Ms. McCollum and Mr. Wortham retained their prior positions except they became principals, and Mr. Hagy and Ms. Folaros were reassigned. Respondent and the ALC When Respondent arrived at the ALC, student behavior and academics were both in need of improvement. Perhaps the most dramatic indicator of the situation was that in the prior school year Mr. Hagy had twice required hospital treatment for injuries he had received from being struck by ALC students. The school was the scene of frequent fights with students wandering in the halls and often in possession of drugs, making it hard for motivated students to work. In an effort to reduce the number of suspensions, the ALC had retained some extremely disruptive students, who sometimes threatened even the teachers. Frightened by these students, some teachers had resorted to a policy of appeasement, allowing difficult students to sleep or play cards in the classroom with academic activity going on around them, or sending these students to a separate timeout room, where they slept and played cards without the distraction of academic activity going on around them. When Respondent was first appointed as ALC Principal, he spoke with middle- and high-school principals and learned of their concerns that the ALC was a "revolving-door" program. They said that the ALC disrupted regular academic programs at their schools and inadequately served the needs of the students assigned to the ALC. District principals and ALC teachers and students reported that the ALC offered a poor educational program where students could easily avoid academic challenge. One of Respondent's first moves was to select Beth Smith as the assistant principal for the ALC. Respondent recognized that their strengths and weaknesses were complementary. She was a curriculum specialist, and he was an effective disciplinarian. After hiring Ms. Smith, Respondent formed a curriculum team consisting of her, a guidance counselor, a school psychologist, and a peer-counseling teacher to address curriculum changes. Respondent reimplemented the 45 good-day policy. This policy meant that the ALC would not return a student to his geographical school until he had 45 days of punctual attendance, good behavior, and successful academics. Respondent developed and enforced a dress code, prohibited sleeping and card games in class, and required teachers to stiffen their academic requirements. Respondent's disciplinary plan eliminated the separate timeout room, where misbehaving students had enjoyed freedom from academics. Respondent instead introduced a multi-step intervention system where the teacher first warned the misbehaving student in the classroom, then warned the student in the hallway, then placed the student in timeout in the classroom, and then sent him to Respondent, who would warn the student, assign cafeteria duty, or suspend him, depending on the seriousness of the offense. In all senses of the word, Respondent was a "hands-on" principal. Sondra Saldana, an ALC guidance counselor, best described Respondent's style when she testified that he meets students where they are. Undoubtedly, Respondent models good behavior in numerous ways. But he does not stop there. With passionate intensity, Respondent readily reveals his love and expectations for each student and satisfaction or dissatisfaction with each student's behavior. Respondent is direct and frank, not oblique or diplomatic. He demands the respect of all of his students, and he earns the respect of nearly all of them because they see that he cares about them in a vital and effective way. Many of the ALC students probably would not have responded to Respondent's disciplinary innovations without clear evidence of Respondent's belief in their academic potential. More than anything else, Respondent wanted "to keep turning on lights for students," according to his favorite expression. Refusing to allow ALC students to think of themselves or be treated like academic or cultural outcasts, Respondent made the ALC more like a regular school, not so that he could have the experience of running a regular school, but so that the ALC students could have the experience of attending and succeeding at a regular school. In giving ALC students more positive opportunities than they had had in the past, Respondent introduced to the ALC student assemblies, a literary magazine, school plays, and other activities typical of regular schools. Respondent ordered the physical education teacher to make the ALC students play sports besides basketball, just like the physical education students were doing at the regular schools. (After hearing the concerns of the physical education teacher about placing bats in the hands of certain students, Respondent agreed to drop softball.) Respondent personally conducted entrance interviews, so he could explain the rules and purpose of the ALC to each new student and any parents or guardians accompanying him. Respondent made the exit process--merely an exercise in paperwork in prior years--an experience that would bring some closure to the ALC experience and prepare the student for a more successful reentry into his geographical school. There is no doubt that Respondent was markedly successful in improving the atmosphere at the ALC. Respondent's immediate supervisor, Herbert Wiseman, the District Director of Secondary Operations, twice during the fall of 1995 complimented Respondent on how well run the ALC was. The latter compliment took place on December 15, 1995, when Mr. Wiseman, with whom Respondent had a good relationship, told Respondent that he was running the ALC well. Mariner High School Principal Michael McNerney described in detail a visit he made to the ALC in November 1995. He was greeted quickly and professionally at the office, rather than allowed merely to walk into the school. Respondent took him to 8-10 classrooms where Respondent and students spoke freely. Respondent knew each of his students and which of them were from Mariner High School. He even knew when each student was due to return to his geographical high school. Jill Culligan, an ALC teacher who was disaffected with Respondent, noted the positive changes in writing on December 5, 1995: Under [Respondent's] system of discipline interventions and sensitivity to individual student needs, the students appear to be exhibiting the better behavior expected of them. Fights are no longer tolerated. More opportunities for assemblies are getting them ready for re-entry into the regular schools. But Respondent always balanced his academic innovations with disciplinary innovations, recognizing that behavior and academic achievement among ALC students are inextricably linked. Respondent personally led the effort to restore and maintain order at the ALC. It was a considerable, ongoing effort, made more difficult by the fact that the most troublesome students were no longer warehoused in the timeout room or banished from school by suspension. A key element of Respondent's relationship with the most difficult of these most difficult students is that he literally was not afraid to touch a student. Respondent was unafraid to place an arm around such students and hug them close to his body. The hug conveyed affection and physical constraint. While holding the child firmly, Respondent would then typically say that he had to calm down. In many instances, this approach was successful; in some instances--disproportionately represented in the next section--this approach was not. There were always clear limits to Respondent's disciplinary efforts. As noted below, he did not believe in striking students, and never did so except one time at the behest of a parent, who sought to avoid the more burdensome punishment of a suspension. Respondent scrupulously tried to get all significant information before taking any disciplinary action. Though a strong believer in discipline, Respondent was never inflexible. To the contrary, it appears he was always willing to fashion the most appropriate penalty under the circumstances--such as pushups or cafeteria duty--and was often willing to modify a penalty upon request of a parent or guardian or even the student himself. During Respondent's tenure, which ended with his suspension on January 11, 1996, there was a fight every three weeks among students. After his suspension, there was a fight everyday. During Respondent's tenure, the police were present at school every other week. After his suspension, the police were present every other day. Despite Respondent's success at the ALC, he encountered some resistance and engendered some resentment among staff. Clearly, disgruntled staff was the source of many of Respondent's problems, causing management problems at school and, more importantly, conveying misinformation to the District office. In general, at least two-thirds of the ALC staff supported Respondent even after he was suspended. Some staffmembers were neutral. Among staffmembers vocally opposed to Respondent, some were doubtlessly put off by Respondent's assertive personality. But there were other reasons for the vocal disaffection of some staffmembers, and some of these reasons have a material bearing on the credibility of these persons as witnesses and the weight accorded their testimony. In some cases, the source of staff disaffection may have been professional, such as when Respondent selected Ms. Smith over Jim Nassiff, an ALC teacher, for the position of assistant principal. Mr. Nassiff was unhappy with Respondent for choosing Ms. Smith over him. Most disaffected staffmembers had job-performance problems, which were exacerbated by the demands that Respondent placed upon them in terms of academics and discipline. Teachers in this category included Kenneth Vitale, Pamela Minton, Cheryl Gruenefeld, and Ms. Culligan. To varying degrees, teachers in this category manifested an unwillingness or inability to adapt to the changes implemented by Respondent. The sources of disaffection of Mr. Vitale and Ms. Culligan are described in connection with incidents involving them. However, two staffmembers were involved in a number of incidents. Lisa Krucher, a security guard, was notable for the extent of her dissatisfaction with Respondent and her inability to perform her job. She defied Respondent's efforts to ban smoking from the ALC building. She was unable to break up fights and lax in enforcing discipline. She eventually became the eyes and ears of Petitioner by daily reporting incidents to Mr. Wortham, who passed them on to Dr. Santini. Her job-related deficiencies were such that--despite her loyalty--Ms. Krucher was transferred to the Academy after Respondent's suspension. Ms. Smith offered a more balanced perspective on Respondent than did Ms. Krucher, and the source of Ms. Smith's disaffection with Respondent is more professional. Previously a guidance counselor in a middle school and dropout prevention program, Ms. Smith is an articulate exponent of the modern disciplinary theories of positive reinforcement and behavior modification. She deemphasizes more traditional, coercive methods of discipline, such as punishment for wrongs-- which of course awaits those ALC students who, having already failed to take their behavioral cues in the setting of the regular schools, continue misbehaving until they encounter the criminal justice system. Respondent does not advocate the more traditional, coercive disciplinary method of punishment for wrongs to the exclusion of more modern techniques of behavior modification. However, his more intense style of personal involvement with misbehaving students bore little resemblance to Ms. Smith's more restrained style. Ms. Smith was disturbed by her perception of how Respondent handled certain misbehaving ALC students. The record is less clear in revealing her methods of modifying the behavior of such students. In any event, her reactions to the misbehavior and Respondent's attempts to correct it were entirely sincere. She was frustrated to the point of tears at times, believing at times that students who continued to misbehave simply had not been exposed to sufficient positive reinforcement. The problem is that Ms. Smith lacked experience with the kinds of students who can be found at the ALC. She was still developing effective means of handling the most dangerous and disruptive of these students when Respondent was suspended. At that time, Ms. Smith still had nothing approaching Respondent's experience in dealing with young persons who, with little if any warning or provocation, explode into a violent frenzy, seriously injuring anyone in their immediate vicinity. Following Respondent's suspension, Petitioner appointed Ms. Smith as Acting ALC Principal. On February 20, 1996, Petitioner replaced Ms. Smith with Mr. Hagy as Acting ALC Principal. Respondent and Students Spring 1995 Visits to ALC: Paragraphs 33 and 35 At the urging of Petitioner, Respondent visited the ALC shortly after Petitioner named him the new principal. He visited the school three times in the spring of 1995 before assuming his duties there on July 1, 1995. On his first visit, Respondent met briefly with Mr. Hagy and discussed how the school operates. On this visit, Respondent saw students loitering in the halls and cursing loudly. Respondent saw the timeout room, where staff had hung plastic to cover the holes that students had punched in the walls. Respondent saw students were sleeping rather than studying. Respondent and Mr. Hagy came across a student who was walking out of the class during the school day very upset, using abusive language. Mr. Hagy asked him to stop, but he ignored Mr. Hagy and walked out. In another class, taught by James Nassiff, Respondent found the class watching an entertainment movie. Mr. Hagy escorted Respondent into several classrooms. These visits were brief. Respondent later made a second visit, without Mr. Hagy, to observe the classes in session. These visits were somewhat longer. In each classroom during the second visit, Respondent introduced himself as the new ALC principal. He warned the students that things would be changing. He promised that he would suspend any student who talked back to a teacher, swore, or fought. Respondent ordered the students not to call male teachers "man" and female teachers "woman"; teachers would be called "Mr." and "Mrs." Respondent told the students that he would not tolerate sleeping or card playing in class. In a lighter tone, Respondent added that the students should tell their friends and family that there was a new sheriff in town and the ALC was going to be about education. Respondent then flashed his badge. The badge is a small shiny badge that designates Respondent as an Honorary Deputy Sheriff for the term of Sheriff McDougal, who remains in office. Respondent understands that the badge confers on him no special power to arrest persons. He has never tried to arrest anyone using the badge, and he has never displayed the badge on the occasions that he has actually summoned law enforcement officers. In Ms. Gruenefeld's class, Respondent found students sleeping. He approached one student who had his head down on the desk and did not look up when Respondent entered the room. Respondent told him to look at Respondent when he was speaking, or Respondent would suspend the student. Ms. Gruenefeld tried to justify the student's behavior on the grounds that he was a good student and had been working very hard. She believed that the student, who was Hispanic, did not engage in eye contact for cultural reasons. Nothing in the record supports the assertion that Hispanics disfavor eye contact. Absent an undisclosed medical condition, the student should have been able to raise his head off the desk and make eye contact with the new principal, who had entered the classroom to introduce himself to the students. There is no indication that Respondent's first or second visits to the ALC destroyed any instructional momentum in the classrooms. Obviously, the students were off-task for the time that Respondent was in the classroom, in most cases due to Respondent's presence. However, the students did not remain off-task for long and soon returned to whatever they were doing before Respondent entered the classroom. At most, Respondent's comments about changes at the ALC might have caused some harmless confusion among those students who were about to be returned to their geographical schools. There is no evidence that students were intimidated by Respondent's announcement or his display of a badge. Some students laughed after Respondent's announcement. Some responded more seriously, wanting to know if he were really going to be the new principal. In general, the students listened thoughtfully to Respondent's statement. Respondent made a third visit to meet with the faculty at the request of an ALC guidance counselor, who had called Respondent and told him that the faculty wanted to meet him. In this meeting, Respondent repeated the ground rules that he had given the students a few days earlier. Respondent invited each teacher to prepare a wish list for the ALC and a list of any concerns that he or she may have. Ending a positive meeting, Respondent introduced the teachers to his favorite expression, "We need to turn lights on for kids." Following Respondent's visits, Ms. Folaros telephoned Respondent and asked him what had taken place. He explained that he wanted to meet the students at that time because summer school would start before he assumed the role of principal. Respondent added that he wanted the students whom he met to tell other students that he would not tolerate students sleeping and misbehaving, as they had been doing in the past. Other Incidents of Flashing the Badge: Paragraph 33 In September or October, 1995, M. P. enrolled at the ALC. M. P. is a 14 year-old ninth grader, who started the year at Lehigh High School. M. P. was sent to the ALC after he urinated in the middle of class into a glue bottle because his teacher had refused him permission to use the bathroom. M. P. was accompanied by his mother and sister on the day that he enrolled--a process that took about 20 minutes. During the entrance interview, Respondent informed M.P. of the rules of the school. They discussed the dress code, the prohibition of drugs on campus, and M. P.'s misbehavior at Lehigh High School. During the conversation, Respondent flashed his badge and warned M. P. not to do anything wrong. M. P. testified that he was scared at the sight of the badge. This testimony is discredited. It takes more than a badge to frighten M. P.. M. P.'s mother saw Respondent flash the badge, and she decided, based on this meeting, that Respondent would be a good role model for her son. Respondent flashed the badge on other occasions. One time, four middle-school girls assaulted another student in the cafeteria. They ignored Respondent when he tried to talk to them, so he flashed the badge and warned them that he could have them arrested. They took him more seriously and listened after that. Another time, Respondent displayed the badge to a boy who was misbehaving in Respondent's office. Again, Respondent warned that he could have the student arrested. Respondent displayed the badge several other times and warned misbehaving students that he could have them arrested. Some of the students took him seriously; others did not. The ability of Respondent to have students arrested did not depend on his possession of the badge, and ALC students understood that. Flashing the badge unlikely intimidated anyone. M. P.'s Other Incident: Paragraph 29 After the entrance interview, M. P.'s mother spoke privately with Respondent about M. P. She described him as emotionally troubled over her recent divorce. She warned that he was quick to anger and especially intolerant of females because he blamed the divorce on his mother. He also resented females because of a gender issue in the family and the teacher who had refused him permission to go to the bathroom at Lehigh High School was a female. While in April Pepin's class, M. P. walked out of the classroom without permission. Ms. Pepin sent him to Ms. Smith's office. Talking to Ms. Smith, M. P. denied that he had left the classroom without permission and gave Ms. Smith trouble. Ms. Smith determined that he had misbehaved in Ms. Pepin's class, decided to suspend M. P. for one day, and called M. P.'s mother. M. P.'s mother asked Ms. Smith to have Respondent reinforce the point with M. P. Ms. Smith preceded M. P. to Respondent's office and explained the situation to Respondent, stating that M. P.'s mother wanted Respondent to talk to her son and that Ms. Smith was having trouble dealing with him. Respondent summoned M.P. into the office, leaned over his desk toward M. P., and raised his voice in an authoritative manner. Respondent warned M. P. that he could not act up at Respondent's school and that, if Ms. Smith told him something, it was like Respondent telling him something. M. P. elected not to listen to Respondent either and tried to walk out of his office. When he turned to walk around the chair, Respondent stopped him by grabbing his arm. Respondent was worried that he might be going after Ms. Smith. Respondent was also intent on not allowing M. P. to disobey Ms. Smith and Respondent by coming and going as he pleased, especially after his mother had asked repeatedly for Respondent's help in dealing with her son. After grabbing M.P.'s arm, Respondent told him to go up against the wall for a search, and, when he did not do so, forced him up against the wall. When Respondent tried to pat down M. P. for weapons, M.P. lost his composure and began to fight with Respondent. M.P. brought his arms down hard on Respondent and struck him. Respondent wrestled M. P. down to the floor and shouted for someone to call the police. Arriving a few minutes later, the police officers had to bind M.P. by the ankles and drag him to the police car, where he tried to kick out the car window. M. P.'s mother then had M. P. admitted to Charter Glades Hospital, a psychiatric treatment facility. M. P. remained hospitalized for ten days and remained on homebound instruction for two months. Charter Glades treated M. P. for an anger disorder. M. P.'s mother blames Respondent for M. P.'s hospitalization. She is understandably worried about her son, but the evidence does not in any way suggest that Respondent initiated, and the greater weight of the evidence does not prove that Respondent exacerbated or unreasonably triggered, M. P.'s obvious behavior disorder, which had manifested itself before his assignment to the ALC. Ms. Smith felt that Respondent overreacted to the situation, but she was unaware of the details or extent of M.P.'s behavior disorder prior to the incident. Under the circumstances, Respondent was justified in reacting quickly to prevent M. P. from leaving the office and precluding the possibility that the student might strike Ms. Smith. Pushups: Paragraphs 20 and 21 Respondent sometimes gave the option of pushups to male students whose misbehavior otherwise warranted suspension. (For female and other male students, Respondent would sometimes offer cafeteria duty.) On at least two occasions, students chose to do the pushups. Respondent demanded 50 pushups and sometimes called out the count himself, starting fast and ending slow. If a student could not do 50 pushups, Respondent allowed him to do as many as he could; in no event would Respondent suspend him for failing to reach 50. On one occasion, three students were doing their pushups in Respondent's office when a faculty meeting was about to start. The teachers were supportive of the students, cheering them on. When finished, the students, taking the matter in good humor, thanked Respondent for not suspending them. There is absolutely no evidence that any of the students choosing to do pushups were humiliated, injured, or exposed to a risk of injury. Presumably, as alleged by Petitioner, their arms shook and, for the white boys, their faces reddened. These things happen with pushups. Spankings: Paragraphs 18 and 19 There were two student spankings during the fall of 1995. One of them took place in October 1995 and involved O. B., who is 13 years old. O. B. lied to Respondent about not being involved in a fight. Based on O. B.'s word, Respondent was about to suspend another boy. After discovering the truth, Respondent went down to O.B.'s classroom and found the class watching a movie. Respondent said, loud enough for the teacher, Mr. Vitale, and other students to hear, "Son, you've lied to me. You've lied to me." O. B. answered, "Man, I don't know what you're talking about." Respondent then grasped O. B. firmly by the back of the neck and walked him down to Respondent's office. In the office, Respondent suspended O. for five days, called O. B.'s father (his biological grandfather who had adopted O. B.), and told him that he needed to pick up his son. O. B.'s classmates already knew that O. B. had lied about the incident. O. B. was not embarrassed by the manner in which Respondent removed him from class, nor was he hurt by the grasp of Respondent. When O. B.'s father arrived, he said to Respondent that O. B. had just been suspended and had been out of school more than he had been in. The father asked Respondent if there were another alternative, like a spanking, and suggested that Respondent spank the child. Respondent said he did not like to spank students. The father asked if he could, in order to avoid another suspension. Respondent said that was acceptable to him, so the father took his belt and applied it to O. B.'s buttocks five or six times. O. B. cried a little, so Respondent suggested that the father take him home for the rest of the day, rather than return to the classroom after having cried. The father did that. Respondent, O. B., and O. B.'s father were the only persons present during the spanking. The blinds were drawn in Respondent's office during the spanking. The other spanking involved J. N., who is also 13 years old. One day, J. N. repeatedly misbehaved. His teacher, Mr. Nassiff, talked to him several times without effect. J. N. got angry at another student and was about to get into a fight. Another teacher told him to be quiet and he refused. School Resource Officer Fred Jackson and Ms. Krucher also intervened, but failed to calm J. N. J. N. demanded to talk to Respondent. After a brief discussion, Respondent said that he was going to have to suspend J. N. if he misbehaved again that day. Respondent allowed J. N. to return to his class. J. N. returned to class and immediately caused trouble by getting into an argument with another student. Mr. Nassiff sent him back to the office. Respondent called J. N.'s mother and said that he was being suspended. J. N.'s mother asked Respondent to spank her child instead. She explained that she could not afford to arrange for someone to care for J. N. while he was out of school. He had just finished a suspension two or three weeks earlier, and his mother lacked the funds to hire another babysitter. After expressing some reluctance, Respondent agreed to the spanking, but required J. N.'s mother to come to the office to serve as the witness. She did, and Respondent, behind closed blinds and a closed door, hit J. N. six times with a belt on the buttocks. The spanking did not hurt and J. N. did not cry out. Lee County School Board Policy 5.16 addresses corporal punishment as follows: Subject to the provisions of law, if a teacher or school administrator feels that corporal punishment is necessary, at least the following procedures shall be followed: Reasonable alternatives have been used and documented. Written permission has been obtained from the student's parent or guardian at the beginning of each school year, and a call to the parent or guardian for each specific incident involved prior to using corporal punishment. The use of corporal punishment shall be approved by the principal or designee before it is used. The use of corporal punishment shall be administered only in the presence of the principal, another administrator, or a teacher. The principal, other administrator, or teacher shall, in the presence of the student, be informed of the reason for the punishment before it is administered. A principal, or designee who has administered corporal punishment shall, upon request, provide the student's parent or guardian with written explanation of the reason for the punishment and the name of the administrator or teacher who was present. Policy 5.16 is inapplicable to the O. B. spanking because O. B.'s father, not an employee of the District, spanked the child. Policy 5.16 is inapplicable to the J. N. spanking because--consistent with his disciplinary philosophy--Respondent never determined that corporal punishment was necessary. Such a determination is the precondition stated in the flush language of Policy 5.16 for the remaining conditions to apply. Respondent had determined to suspend J. N. Policy 5.16 governs spankings initiated by District employees, not by parents. Respondent merely acceded to the mother's requests that he substitute for suspension the lesser punishment of a mild spanking and that Respondent perform the spanking for her, in her presence--in effect as her agent and not an agent of the School Board. Violation of Dress Code: Paragraph 31 In September 1995, Respondent noticed an unidentified female student exiting a school bus on her way to class at the ALC. She was wearing a top that exposed her midriff, in violation of the ALC dress code. In the presence of District Transportation Coordinator Janet Harris, Respondent told the girl, "Get your ass into my office and call your mother. We don't allow those kinds of tops." Petitioner did not call the improperly clad student as a witness. There was no sexual content to Respondent's ill- chosen word, voiced in the presence of a female employee of the School Board who was a stranger to Respondent. Ms. Harris was not so startled by the comment as to report it at the time to anyone. She first mentioned it the next month to Mr. Wortham. Absent additional proof of the circumstances surrounding Respondent's isolated remark, including the student's reaction, Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent's momentary lapse disparaged and embarrassed the student. C. L. Incident: Paragraph 22 C. L. was a 200-pound female student at the ALC with a history of violent outbursts where she would leave school and not return home for a couple of days. C. L.'s mother asked Respondent, when he became principal, not to allow C. L. to continue to leave school whenever she wanted. Previously, if she were resolved to leave school, no one would try to stop her. One day at school in September or October 1995, C. L. was out of control, trying to leave the school. Gerald Gilmore, a security guard, was trying to stop her when Respondent approached. Respondent took one of C. L.'s arms, and she suddenly dropped on him. Respondent and Mr. Gilmore each took an arm and walked her to the office, talking to her the whole way in an attempt to calm her. Respondent summoned Officer Jackson to help calm C. L. In the office, Respondent and Mr. Gilmore placed C. L. in a chair. Each time she popped out of the chair, they returned her to the chair. Eventually, C. L. calmed down, and they let her return to class. D. C. Incident: Paragraph 26 One morning in October 1995, Respondent saw D.C. smoking marijuana off-campus before school. When D. C. entered the school, Respondent asked him to come down to the office. D. C. was belligerent. Respondent placed his right arm around the back of the D. C., who was about Respondent's height, and grabbed his right arm, while holding his left arm close to the boy's side. Respondent then walked D.C. down the hall, side-by-side, to the office. Respondent frequently used this hold on students who were noncompliant. It does not hurt the student, but gives Respondent control over the student's movements. In particular, Respondent can sense immediately if a student is going for a weapon. Respondent's use of this hold and his readiness to search students (which is also part of his effort to keep drugs off campus) are prompted by Respondent's justified concerns for the safety of students and staff. The ALC has no metal detector and weapons are a constant worry. In the fall of 1995, Respondent found one student at school carrying a .25 caliber pistol with 18 rounds of ammunition in it. Once in the office, D. C. voluntarily leaned against the wall in Respondent's office so Respondent could search him with an electronic beeper. Respondent did not find any marijuana, but found a tobacco cigarette with half of the tobacco removed from the cigarette. Students smoking marijuana often removed part of the tobacco from a tobacco cigarette and replaced it with marijuana to avoid detection. Respondent suspended D. C. from school and contacted D.C.'s probation officer. D. C. subsequently violated the conditions of his probation and is now missing. ESE Student and Housing Project: Paragraph 32 In November 1995, Respondent spoke to an unidentified female student who was repeatedly being suspended for disciplinary reasons. The student lived in a public housing project. Respondent warned the student that, if she continued to get suspended, stay home, and cause trouble around the project during school hours, she and her mother could be evicted from the project. The student calmed down and behaved appropriately after that. Respondent was a commissioner of public housing for the City of Fort Myers at the time. He understood the rules of the housing projects, which permit the eviction of tenants whose unsupervised school-age children cause trouble in a project during school hours. Slightly Built Child: Paragraph 25 Petitioner presented no significant evidence on this allegation. It probably refers to another incident, such as the S. P. incident discussed below. M. B. Incident: Paragraph 28 In November 1995, M. B. was involved in a fight in the classroom. Respondent gave him the option of a suspension or working in the cafeteria, where he would clean up trays and take out the trash. He chose cafeteria duty. Shortly after arriving in the cafeteria, M. B. so infuriated the cafeteria manager that he called Respondent and told him that M. B. was the most arrogant boy he had ever seen, and he did not want the student back in the cafeteria again. Respondent left his office to retrieve M. B. and found him walking toward the office. Respondent said, "Son, come here." M. B. approached Respondent, who asked him what was his problem. M. B. said that he refused to empty any "God damned" trash. Respondent placed his arm around M. B.'s back and escorted him to the office. M. B. wanted to go straight home, and Respondent would not allow him. Respondent asked him to lean against the wall so Respondent could check him for weapons and drugs. M. B. did so. Respondent then called M. B.'s grandmother and warned her that, if M. B. continued to fight, he could be expelled for two years. She asked him not to suspend him. Respondent agreed not to suspend him, and M.B. completed the school day without further incident. L. S. P. Incident: Paragraph 23 S. P. is a 12 year-old male. He is about five feet one inch tall and is slightly built. He fights constantly. S.P. was sent to the ALC last year for fighting and insubordination. He was transferred from the ALC to his geographical school last Christmas, but, by the time of the final hearing in the present case four months later, he was back at the ALC. On the day of his testimony, S. P. had a black eye from fighting. On his first day at the ALC, S. P. got into a fight. He had not even reached his classroom when he started fighting with another student while still in the office. Respondent saw the fight and put his arm around the child's back, grasped the student's right arm, and hugged the boy close to Respondent. Respondent tried to calm him, warning that he did not want to have to suspend S. P. before he was even enrolled. S. P. tried to escape Respondent's grasp, but Respondent would not release him until S. P. said that Respondent was choking him. Respondent released him then, even though he was not choking the student. When S. P. remained noncompliant, Respondent grasped him again in the same manner as before. Respondent warned S. P., as he hugged him close to Respondent, "Son, you can't continue to fight. You're going to force me to suspend you." However, S. P. swore at Respondent, who replied that S. P. was suspended for the day. After telling S. P. that he was suspended, Respondent walked S. P. to the bench outside Respondent's office and sat him down. S. P. was upset and, after Respondent walked away, began crying. M. T. R. Incident: Paragraph 27 J. B. is an 18 year-old female who attended the ALC in the fall of 1995. From the third day of her attendance at the ALC through the remainder of the fall term, she was sexually harassed and physically threatened by T. R., who is another student at the ALC. On three occasions, J. B. complained of the harassment and threats, including actual touching, to Ms. Krucher, who did nothing about J. B.'s complaints. The first two complaints were early in the fall term and the last complaint was in January 1996. The day after her last complaint to Ms. Krucher had resulted in no action, J. B. complained directly to Respondent. After interviewing J. B., Respondent sent her back to class and summoned T. R. from his class. Terry Smith, a security guard, escorted T. R. to the office. Respondent told T. R. that he should not talk to or look at J. B. If he saw her walking down the hall, he should go in a different direction. Above all, T. R. was not to touch her anymore. T. R. denied any knowledge of who J. B. was. Respondent sent for J. B., who came to Respondent's office and stood in the doorway. When T. R. was told this is who was complaining about him, he jumped up, screaming to J. B., "What the hell are you doing telling people I did this?" He then lunged toward a visibly frightened J. B. Ms. Krucher pushed J. B. safely out of the doorway and escorted her back to the classroom. Respondent got to T. R. before he got to J. B. and pinned him against the wall. T. R. struggled, hitting Respondent while he tried to control T. R.'s arms. Mr. Smith assisted Respondent, who had T. R.'s upper body, by grabbing T. R.'s legs, and the two men wrestled T. R. to the floor. Ms. Krucher returned, and Respondent told her to call the school resource officer, so T. R. could be removed from the campus. In the meantime, Respondent and Mr. Smith tried to calm T. R. by talking quietly to him. Before the school resource officer arrived, T. R. calmed down and pleaded with Respondent not to send him to jail. T. R.'s girlfriend was pregnant, and he had criminal sex abuse charges pending. Respondent agreed to suspend T. R. for the rest of the day and not have him arrested. Respondent and Teachers Culligan Incident: Paragraph 41 At a faculty meeting early in the 1995-96 school year, Ms. Culligan addressed Respondent's decision to eliminate the timeout room. Ms. Culligan endorsed the previous policy where a teacher sent a student to the timeout room for a short period the first time, a longer period the second time, and the remainder of the day the third time on the same day. She said that she typically would not have to send a student back a second or third time. Respondent answered that that was not what the records showed. He implied that teachers had routinely sent students to the timeout room for long periods of time. He did not state that Ms. Culligan had resorted to the timeout room more than did the rest of the teachers, although she likely had. Respondent had considerable difficulty with Ms. Culligan. At the start of the 1995-96 school year, Ms. Culligan sent more students to the office for minor offenses than did other teachers. By memorandum dated September 21, 1995, Respondent directed Ms. Culligan to follow the interventions that "have been explained to you countless times." The memorandum reviews the intervention plan in detail and concludes: Failure to follow this directive violates the rights of the student in the academic setting when it has been clearly stated in writing, that this school will follow that particular policy. This is the third occasion that I've had the opportunity to address this particular policy with you and am therefore directing you to follow this policy to the letter. If I can be of assistance, please feel free to contact me. After receiving this memorandum and the assistance of Ms. Smith in improving her cultural sensitivity, Ms. Culligan reduced her office referrals to an acceptable level. But her claims of humiliation and embarrassment over Respondent's informative reply at the faculty meeting, as well as her testimony concerning other incidents, are largely the product of the early difficulties that Ms. Culligan experienced with Respondent's new, more demanding discipline plan. Nassiff Incident: Paragraph 41 During another faculty meeting, Respondent was discussing an assembly that was to take place in the next day or two. The assembly, which featured drug-detecting dogs from the Port Authority, would be attended by ALC students. This was to be the first assembly ever for ALC students. Respondent was discussing the logistical aspects of moving the students into and out of the assembly and explaining how the assembly was part of the academic rehabilitation of ALC students. Suddenly, Mr. Nassiff raised his hand and asked who would be responsible for watching his students. They were in physical education at the time of the assembly, and Mr. Nassiff thought that the physical-education teacher should continue to watch Mr. Nassiff's students during what was Mr. Nassiff's planning period. Respondent had told the teachers that they could leave school early that day to make up for their lost planning time. Upon hearing Mr. Nassiff's question, some teachers groaned audibly. Respondent replied by asking Mr. Nassiff, "You're an administrator-in-training. How would you respond to that question?" Mr. Nassiff answered Respondent's question by saying, "I'd give me my planning period." Respondent replied, "That's not an appropriate answer. If you want to be an administrator, you wouldn't ask a question like this. Let me see you after the meeting." After the meeting, Respondent explained to Mr. Nassiff the importance of teamwork. Mr. Nassiff conceded that he had said the wrong thing and knew it the moment he had said it. Respondent first gave Mr. Nassiff an opportunity to extricate himself gracefully from the awkward situation created by his question. When Mr. Nassiff persisted, Respondent answered him, directly but not in a hostile tone. Most teachers found nothing inappropriate in Respondent's handling of this situation. Mr. Nassiff and the few teachers who felt otherwise evidently preferred that Respondent handle privately an issue that Mr. Nassiff raised publicly. But Mr. Nassiff invited a public response, and Respondent's handling of the matter was entirely suitable. Announcement Incident: Paragraph 39 One day early in the 1995-96 school year, the students misbehaved badly. The next morning, during the morning announcements, Respondent stated that he expected students to act appropriately in an academic setting. He noted that too many students were coming down to his office and that they needed to do what teachers tell them to do. Respondent added words to the effect that teachers would continue to follow the intervention plan. The effect of such an announcement, nominally addressed to the teachers, was to notify the students that their teachers had no choice but to follow the intervention plan and, if the students objected to the plan, their problem was with Respondent, not with individual teachers. By this comment, Respondent was trying to take some of the pressure off the teachers for enforcing the new intervention plan, which, as noted above, imposed greater burdens on teachers than the previous policy with its excessive reliance on the timeout room and suspension. The meaning of Respondent's announcement does not lend itself to contrary interpretations. Two of the three witnesses who testified that the announcement demeaned the teachers testified about a number of incidents. The testimony of these witnesses--Ms. Culligan and Ms. Minton--must be doubted based in part on the fact that their claimed reaction to Respondent's announcement appears disingenuous. Holzborne Incidents: Paragraphs 36 and 37 Kathleen Holzborne is the lead communications teacher at the Academy. One school day, Ms. Holzborne saw Respondent opening classroom doors in the Academy looking for someone. This was innocuous. Respondent was likely looking for someone or checking on nearby classrooms after a disturbance. Another school day, Ms. Holzborne saw Respondent admitting drug dogs and their handlers into Academy classrooms while Mr. Wortham was elsewhere in the building. Respondent was doing this under the authority of Mr. Wiseman, who was also in the building. Another school day, Respondent and Ms. Holzborne were in the cafeteria while the Academy students were eating lunch. Respondent said she did not need to stay, adding, "Daughter, everything will be fine here." Respondent is from a family of ministers. He sometimes speaks of persons as sons and daughters, meaning they are sons and daughters of God. He used "daughter" in speaking to Ms. Holzborne in a personal, nonsexual manner not intended to intimidate or offend. Had she objected, he would have apologized and explained his innocent use of the word. However, Ms. Holzborne did not complain to Respondent or anyone else until, months later, she mentioned the comment during Petitioner's investigation. Testifying, Ms. Holzborne seemed much more upset over Respondent's alleged failure to return promptly a piece of a tripod, but Petitioner has not charged Respondent with this omission. Intimidation Incident(s): Paragraph 38 Respondent did not intimidate his teachers or staff. To the contrary, he was supportive of teachers and staff, although he demanded that they work hard and smart. At the time of Respondent's suspension, faculty morale was good. A small number of teachers were dissatisfied with Respondent, but not many. The greater part of the faculty got along with each other and Respondent. A reliable portrayal of Respondent's supportiveness comes from Lisa McKeever, an ALC teacher who displayed an unusual degree of independence for a witness in this controversial case. She testified to tell the truth, unaffected by any fear of retribution from Petitioner or Dr. Santini or from the community of supporters of Respondent. Answering a question about whether she supported the Charles Dailey Foundation, which was organized to help pay Respondent's legal fees, she testified that, if she had money to give away, she would first give it to her children and then to literary or musical organizations before she would give it to the Dailey Foundation or any political organization. On two occasions, students threatened Ms. McKeever while she was seven months pregnant. In one case, a boy pushed her up against a chalkboard. Respondent asked Ms. McKeever what she wanted him to do about it. Ms. McKeever did not want him suspended, so Respondent dealt with him, but did not suspend him. In another case, a girl approached her with a clenched fist, threatening Ms. McKeever by saying, "You stupid flat-assed white bitch. Get out of my fucking face." Ms. McKeever was frightened by this assault, and Respondent expelled the student, who that night was arrested after attacking family members with a knife. Respondent and Administrators, Law Enforcement Officers, Guardians, and School Board Policies A. Overenrollment: Paragraph 51 The overenrollment issue arose at the start of Respondent's tenure as ALC Principal. Dr. Santini arranged a meeting on June 20, 1995, among the three new principals at the New Directions Center. The purpose of the meeting was to divide responsibilities among the principals. Ominously, Dr. Santini testified that she had had lots of experience with Respondent not cooperating. It is not entirely clear what specific ALC enrollment policies were advocated by Dr. Santini and Respondent at the June 20 meeting, or even that either of them advocated a specific policy. Dr. Santini stated that the ALC was a short-term program. Respondent wanted the same flexibility that the ALC administrators had had in the past in deciding when to return students to their geographical schools. The ALC enrollment policy from the preceding school year had been the 45 good-day policy described above. In general, Dr. Santini wanted to limit enrollments due to safety considerations. Overcrowding at the ALC became a bigger problem once the new school year got underway due to the introduction of more students from regular schools, as a result of a new zero-tolerance policy in the regular schools, and increased referrals from the juvenile detention center. Respondent's argument for greater enrollment flexibility was based on behavioral and academic factors. Behaviorally, an ALC student might need more than 45 days before he is ready to return to his geographical school. Academically, an ALC student might have difficulty returning to his geographical school due to the differences in the calendars at the ALC and regular schools. The high schools are on a seven-period daily schedule, and the ALC is on an 18- day modular schedule where one class is taught for 18 days. A behaving, attending ALC student could only take two and one-half classes in 45 school days, so that, when returned to his geographical school, he would be behind his classmates in most of his classes. After the meeting, Dr. Santini spoke with Respondent privately and told him that his behavior during the meeting had bordered on the insubordinate. Respondent countered that Dr. Santini was discriminating against him on the basis of race. Respondent's continued implementation of the 45 good- day policy at the start of the 1995-96 school year did not violate any directive that Dr. Santini had given him. Their disagreement during the June 20 meeting was probably limited to a disagreement over general philosophy. Most likely, Dr. Santini had decided to see the effect on ALC enrollment levels of Respondent's implementation of the 45 good-day policy. On October 20, 1995, Dr. Santini conducted another meeting concerning ALC enrollments. This time she met with Respondent and Mr. Wiseman. She called the meeting after receiving a telephone call that a student had remained at the ALC since April 1995. She was also concerned with current ALC enrollment levels under Respondent's approach. During this meeting, Dr. Santini told Respondent that the ALC building was designed for a maximum of 270 students. She told him to cap enrollment at 250 students. Dr. Santini testified that she told Respondent that she approved of the 45 good-day policy. She also testified that Respondent was angry at the meeting. If Dr. Santini approved the 45 good-day policy at the October 20 meeting, the only reason why Respondent would have angered at the meeting would have been a disagreement over the application of the policy; after all, Respondent wanted the 45 good-day policy. Perhaps, Dr. Santini believed that she was approving the 45 good-day policy, but in fact she was not, as evidenced by their closing comments and her October 25 memorandum, described below. At the end of the October 20 meeting, Dr. Santini promised written guidelines and asked Respondent if he wanted any input. Dr. Santini testified that Respondent said that the only thing that he disagreed with was, if a student must be returned to his geographical school at the end of 45 days, ready or not, that those schools would be prepared to help him in the transition. Mr. Wiseman promised to adopt or modify the PASS program to help with this transition. The significance of Respondent's comment, as recounted by Dr. Santini, is as additional proof that Dr. Santini had not approved the continuation of the 45 good-day policy and Respondent was resigned to following her new enrollment policy. The comment tends to prove the elimination of the 45 good-day policy because, if the ALC were permitted to retain students until they were ready to return to their geographical school, there would be little need for the geographical school to help with the transition. The comment proves the obedience of Respondent because he had disagreed was more than the issue of the preparedness of the geographical school to help the former ALC student. Respondent had tried and failed to win Dr. Santini's approval for the 45 good-day policy, so that the ALC students returning to their geographical schools would not need any special assistance from the geographical schools in the transition. But this comment proves that he was giving up on the 45 good-day policy. Dr. Santini sent a memorandum dated October 25, 1996, to Respondent with copies to Petitioner, Mr. Wiseman, and all principals in the District. The memorandum largely memorialized what Dr. Santini had said at the meeting five days earlier. Dr. Santini testified that the only change between the October 25 memorandum and what she had said at the October 20 meeting was that she had eliminated the 45 good-day policy. She explained that she did not want Respondent to be the sole person to decide what good days were. However, the omission of the 45 good-day provision from the memorandum is strong proof that Dr. Santini never approved the 45 good-day policy at the October 20 meeting. There were less drastic means of eliminating Respondent's discretion in applying the 45 good-day policy, without eliminating the policy itself. Dr. Santini could have reserved such authority for these decisions to Mr. Wiseman, herself, the principal of the geographical school, or some combination of the above. The October 25 memorandum states in its entirety: The following plan is to be implemented immedi- ately as a result of our meeting on Friday, October 20, 1995. High school, middle school and ESE students will be returned to their home schools at the end of a quarter after approximately 45 days at the Alternative Learning Center (ALC). In most cases, those students entering the ALC during the first three weeks of a quarter would be eligible for return at the end of that quarter. Those students entering after the first three weeks of a quarter would remain at the ALC until the end of the following quarter. In rare cases a student may be returned to a different high school when recommended by the home school principal and agreed to by the receiving principal. All high school principals have agreed to alter their PASS program to accommodate an orderly reentry of students into the high schools. The ALC will not exceed 250 students. When full capacity is reached the student who has made the most progress will be returned to his/her home school when a new student arrives at the ALC. The above procedures would not prohibit a principal from requesting an earlier return or an extended stay at the ALC. The ALC will continue to function in its capacity as a special center serving the high schools, middle schools and special schools with an ongoing influx and reflux of students. It is understood that the school principals and the ALC principal will main- tain open and direct communication in a spirit of cooperation to best help students. Ultimately, the length of a student's stay at the ALC is dependent upon the nature of the original offense and the sound judgment of the principals involved. There are two possible interpretations of the October 25 memorandum. Either it is a consistent expression of an inflexible enrollment cap with the final sentence as a general surplusage to other, more detailed provisions to the contrary. Or, if the last sentence is to be given real effect, the memorandum is contradictory and meaningless. Paragraph 1 of the October 25 memorandum states clearly that the duration of a student's enrollment at the ALC is 45 days. As mentioned above, there is no requirement that these be good days. The word "approximately" does not restore any discretion to the ALC principal or anyone else; rather, like Paragraph 2, the word "approximately" allows for some minor flexibility in shortening or lengthening the 45-day enrollment based on the end of the academic quarter. More importantly, Paragraph 5 of the October 25 memorandum unconditionally limits the enrollment of the ALC to 250 students and supplies a simple procedure for the release of students when the enrollment exceeds 250 students. The student making the most progress when enrollment exceeds 250 students is returned to his geographical school. The returned student is not necessarily prepared for the transfer; he is only the most prepared among the ALC students. Paragraph 6 grants some discretion to the principal of the geographical school, not the ALC, to shorten or extend the stay of a student at the ALC. But the provision gives no guidance as to when stays should be lengthened. Nothing in this provision conflicts with the preceding provisions of the October 25 memorandum. The last sentence of the flush language at the end of the October 25 memorandum seems to ignore the preceding, more- detailed provisions of the memorandum. The last sentence abruptly introduces some discretion to the ALC and geographical school principals as to the length of a student's stay at the ALC. Respondent could not afford to read his supervisor's memorandum as contradictory and meaningless. His reading of the memorandum was guided by what Dr. Santini had told him at the October 20 meeting, which was that the 45 good- day policy was no longer in effect. When enrollment reached 250 students, Respondent had to return the students who had made the most progress. As promised, Mr. Wiseman sent a memorandum dated November 1, 1995, to the eight high school principals stating: Please send to me immediately, above your signature, a statement that you will provide the opportunity for returning students from the ALC to make up their work, and not be denied the chance to pass their classes. Return your memo to me by Wednesday, November 8, 1995. The principals did so. Shortly after receiving the October 25 memorandum, in compliance with her directive, Respondent returned 75-80 students to their geographical schools. Included in this number was A.B., whom Respondent returned to Mariner High School. Respondent had serious reservations as to A. B.'s readiness to return to a less-structured school setting. Even the student shared these misgivings. When he learned he was to be returned to Mariner High School, A. B. told Respondent that he was worried that he was not ready to return to a regular school. He had been apprehended with drugs or drug paraphernalia twice previously and was undergoing counseling. Three weeks after he was returned to Mariner High School, A. B. was apprehended with marijuana. On December 13, 1995, a Board-appointed hearing officer conducted A. B.'s formal expulsion hearing. Witnesses at the hearing, including Respondent, were sworn to tell the truth and subject to cross examination. Petitioner was represented by counsel, and A.B. was represented by his father, who has been a law enforcement officer for 21 years and is currently employed with the Cape Coral Police Department. Petitioner charged that A. B. had been in possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia on November 28, 1995, and was a repeat offender. Petitioner sought to expel A. B. for the remainder of the 1995-96 school year and the following year-- evidently, the maximum penalty allowed by law. A. B. had attended the ALC on at least two occasions. His more recent ALC enrollment was from April 17, 1995, through November 6, 1995. In his opening statement at the expulsion hearing, A.B.'s father admitted that A. B. had been caught possessing marijuana and stated: But the point of the issue too is that he was sent back to Mariner. He was in the ALC. He was flourishing in ALC for the first time. Whatever Mr. Dailey sparked in him was the first time since he's ever been in school. He was bringing books home and everything else, which is not heard of from ALC. When he was alerted to come back to Mariner, he went to Mr. Dailey and told him he wasn't mentally or physically ready to go back. Because the other problem that if he's offered a joint, he can't say no. And Mr. Dailey agreed and that's when that fell apart less than four weeks later. The hearing officer asked A. B.'s father if he wanted A. B. to return to the ALC. The father responded by saying, "Yes, sir. I never wanted him to leave. . . . And the result of this too which I wish people would take into consideration, the night that this happened, because of this, my wife tried to commit suicide." A. B.'s father continued in his opening statement: In ALC Dailey sparked four point something and he was studying. He was getting high grades. His grade point average went up. He didn't want to leave. He did not have the problem. Four weeks--it wasn't even four weeks after he was back that this happened. .... I'm not totally blaming [Mariner High School]. A[.] is at fault with that too. And that's what we are addressing through the counseling. But to put him out in the street or expel him I don't think is the answer either. Especially since for the first time in his life he showed an interest in school. Petitioner's second witness in the expulsion hearing was an assistant principal at Mariner High School. He testified in response to a question directed toward the propriety of the handling of A. B. at Mariner High School: Our position there is that Mr. Dailey is a competent expert, that he handles the people and when he recommends for us to come--for someone to come back, we take that individual. . . . Answering the question whether he would have handled A.B. differently if he had known that he had not successfully completed the ALC program, the assistant principal testified: . . . You know, we have to accord him his rights like all the kids who complete the program at the Alternative Learning Center. Once he's paid his debt and satisfied them that he's capable, then they send him to us. I don't know of any students they send to us that they don't feel like has made the improvement that the school was set up to start with. Do you understand what I'm saying? So when they come to us, their staffing to exit over there is telling us that they feel like they had--now the kid has shown improvement and he's now corrected what it is and he's ready to return. Petitioner's last witness at the expulsion hearing, John Hennebery, who is the District Director of Student Services, testified that the ALC Principal determines when the student is to be returned to his geographical school. A. B.'s father called Respondent as his sole witness. In response to a question as to A. B.'s progress at the ALC, Respondent testified: . . . I noticed, number one, he tends to be completely honest and tells the truth. That's the experience I have had with him. He is begin- ning to come around in terms of when he feels someone is making up evidence or getting to that point, he would seek out--attempt to seek out in terms of trying to find some assistance rather than jumping in first. But that again is a kind of structured environment that we have at the Alternative Learning School. Q: In your professional opinion, do you believe that [A.] at this point in time still needs that structure of school? A: I most certainly do. Q: At the time when he was requested from the School Board to go back to Mariner, did [A.] approach you in reference to this? A: Yes, he did. Q: And in what aspect did he? A: The usual policy of the district was that on a first offense there was a 45 good day policy. That means that the student has the responsi- bility of spending 45 good days there, good days, which are defined as attendance, punctu- ality, academic and discipline. And on the second offense it's a ninety day offense. Q: Uh-huh. A: Then this year the rules are changed. In the middle of the semester. I was given a directive from the Assistant Superintendent, along with other Principals were informed of it; that the students were called by numbers. At the Alternative Learning School were addi- tional programs of juvenile justice, programs dealing with the number of felons that we were having come into school; that our numbers were getting too large and we had to--I had to send students back. [A.] was one of the students that had been there a period of time and that based on the period of--on the time that he had spent there, that we have to send him back to Mariner. [A.] had some concern about that and spoke with me in great detail about going back and being under those pressures. Now my conversation with [A.] was that because if he had done well at the Alternative Learning School, that my expectations with [A.] would be that he would go over there and do well and make good decisions at Mariner High School. So that in terms of that's the type of conversa- tion that we had and that's where it led. Now did [A.] complete his stay? No, he did not. And he is not one that I would have automatically sent back to Mariner because I was not yet convinced of his ability to deal with the pressures that he was going to have to face at Mariner High School. * * * Q: But your general concerns that the peer pressure is basically--or the pressures in the school itself that he couldn't handle was also [A.]'s concerns too when he came to speak to you about going back? A: Yes, those were [A.]'s concerns but those would be anyone's concerns as relates to going back to the regular school once you have been at the Alternative for a long period of time. You get the anxiety of going back and wanting to do well. So it's not out of the ordinary for students, I might say, to be excited. I have students right now that actually do something wrong so they won't have to go back. So [A.]'s concern or his emotions that he expressed were not unordinary. I felt at that time that because I was given a directive, that it was my responsibility as a Principal to assist him in moving in that direction and I had all the confi- dence in the world in the Mariner staff that they would assist him in moving in that direction. There is an issue that I must be very honest is that the decisions that [A.] makes is [sic] [A.]'s decisions and once in fact--and this is what we teach them at the Alternative School; that once in fact you see that kind of situation present, then you must not go to the situation. You must remove yourself from the situation. And, you know, I'm one that's trying to be very fair and equitable in this hearing and in telling you that this is a situation that, yes, he should have known not to go near that, should have backed off from it. Q: Did he? A: No, sir, he didn't. Was I ready to release him? No, I wasn't. I'd like to concur with Mr. McNerney. I'd like to see [A.] back at the Alternative Learning School for ninety days with the approval of the-- with some kind of documentation showing that he has completed his drug testing and after that, then backing up Mr. McNerney's decision in attendance at the school. And I'm being very honest. The preceding excerpts from the transcript represent all of Respondent's material testimony. Petitioner conducted limited cross examination, devoted to an exposition of the District's drug policy. A. B.'s father introduced into evidence a letter dated December 12, 1995, from Licensed Mental Health Counselor Beverly Barbato, Ph.D., stating that it is in A. B.'s best interest to return to the structure of the ALC. On December 18, 1995--working without a transcript in the interest of time--the hearing officer summarized the testimony of the witnesses, commending each of them for some aspect of their participation in the hearing. As to Respondent, the hearing officer stated: "Mr. Dailey should certainly be commended for his honesty and his ability to assess the situation in a very diplomatic manner." Acknowledging that Petitioner sought expulsion for the maximum time permitted by law, the hearing officer stated that he "sense[d] that both Mr. Hennebery and Mr. McNerney felt that reinstatement should occur in the 1996-1997 school year or upon [A.] completing a successful drug rehabilitation program pursuant to Florida Statutes." Never mentioning old or new enrollment policies at the ALC in his discussion, the hearing officer accepted the recommendations of Respondent, A. B.'s father, the treating health care professional, and A. B. that A. B. be placed on probation for the remainder of the 1995-96 school year at the ALC, subject to additional conditions. In no way did the hearing officer's recommendation rely on Respondent's brief testimony about the transfer of A. B. under the new ALC enrollment policy. The court reporter finished the transcript on December 26, 1995. In Exceptions filed January 8, 1996, Petitioner requested that A. B. be expelled at least for the remainder of the 1995-96 school year. The record does not indicate what action the School Board took on the hearing officer's recommendation. The expulsion transcript reveals that the Assistant Principal at Mariner High School construed the ALC enrollment policy to ensure that students would not be returned to their geographical schools until they were ready to return. The Director of Student Services shared this misinterpretation, at least to the extent of thinking that the transfer decision was made by the ALC principal. The expulsion transcript reveals that Respondent told the truth that B. had come to Respondent and said he was afraid he was not ready to return. Respondent told the truth that he too shared these concerns. And Respondent told the truth that the current policy was that he had no choice but to return unprepared students when ALC enrollments reached the cap. In one respect, Respondent's testimony may have reflected a misunderstanding of a portion of Dr. Santini's policy. He testified that the new policy meant that "the students were called by numbers." Numbers triggered the necessity to return some students. But the new policy did not require that students be returned on a first in, first out basis. Rather, the students to be returned were to be those most prepared to be returned. Respondent's testimony seems to indicate that he interpreted the new policy as providing that he return students on a first in, first out basis. He implied that he selected for transfer the students who had been enrolled the longest at the ALC. In his next sentence, Respondent mentioned "numbers" in connection with the enrollment at the ALC getting too high as trigger for the need to transfer some ALC students. This suggests that his reference to "numbers" was not to the determination of who to return to their geographical schools. But in his next sentence, Respondent implied that the decision to return A. B. was based strictly on how long he had been at the ALC. However, two sentences later, Respondent recounted how A. B. had done well at the ALC, implying that he had at least made some progress, although without any mention of his progress relative to the progress of the other ALC students. Close analysis of Respondent's testimony does not reveal the basis on which he selected the students to be transferred. However, even if Respondent returned A. B. on a first in, first out basis, this action, although not consistent with the better reading of the October 25 memorandum, would have been consistent with Paragraphs 1 and 2, which imply that the sole criterion of enrollment duration is the length of the student's enrollment. Although close scrutiny of the October 25 memorandum permits a reconciliation of Paragraphs 1, 2, and 5--though not also the last sentence of the flush language-- Respondent cannot be expected to perform such textual analysis to discern meaning from such careless wording. In any event, Respondent's testimony at the expulsion hearing did not dwell on the inflexible enrollment cap ordered by Dr. Santini. He mentioned it briefly, then proceeded to describe, almost as briefly, his application of the policy in A.B.'s case. He cast his testimony in a light favorable to Petitioner by explaining that many ALC students are worried about their ability to survive in a regular school, A. B. had made some progress at the ALC, Respondent had encouraged A. B. to behave at Mariner High School, and A. B. must bear final responsibility for his poor choices. After receiving Dr. Santini's memorandum, Respondent was doing the best he could to implement the new enrollment policy. Probably unknown to Dr. Santini at the time, Respondent called Mr. Wiseman around Christmas vacation and asked if he should transfer 112 students then or wait until the end of the semester in January. Mr. Wiseman told Respondent to retain the students until the semester break. Dr. Santini never tried to clarify her confusing memorandum to Respondent or assist him in its implementation. In response to questioning during a School Board meeting from a School Board member concerning the conflict between Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the October 25 memorandum, Dr. Santini issued a memorandum of clarification dated January 5, 199[6.] The January 5 memorandum was issued to all middle- and high-school principals. The first four paragraphs are identical to the October 25 memorandum, except for the addition of a sentence to the fourth paragraph mentioning some new software to facilitate the transition of students back to their geographical schools. The new fifth paragraph states: The ALC will not exceed 250 students unless there are special circumstances with individual students that may warrant extended time. The principal of the geo-school will discuss these circumstances with the ALC principal. When extended time is recommended, the ALC principal will then compile a short report to the Secondary Operations Director that includes the following: the time already spent at ALC by that student, the original offense committed by that student, and any other justification that may warrant extended time (i.e., parent request). The Secondary Operations Director will consider all above factors and then give approval or disapproval on any requested extended time. Dr. Santini also revised the last sentence of the October 25 memorandum to reflect that the length of a student's assignment to the ALC is dependent on the nature of the original offense and the sound judgment of the principals and-- now--Director of Secondary Operations. The overenrollment issue did not end here. Dr. Santini conducted a meeting with Respondent and Mr. Wiseman on January 9, 1996, but this is addressed below in connection with another issue. However, one more fact has a bearing on the issue of overenrollment itself. Respondent never violated the ALC enrollment policy as Dr. Santini applied it to Respondent's immediate successors, Ms. Smith and Mr. Hagy. During the 77 days of Respondent's tenure, the average student enrollment was 265 students. During the 73 days of his successors' tenure, the average student enrollment was 253 students. After adjusting for actual attendance, there were 184 students present on average under Respondent's tenure and 189 students present on average under his successors' tenure. Improper Voluntary Enrollment and ESE Procedures: Paragraph 52 At the end of July 1995, Respondent called Mr. Hennebery and asked if he could voluntarily enroll two students. Mr. Hennebery explained that ALC administrators had made voluntary enrollments before deciding to discontinue the practice one or two school years ago. Since that time, Dr. Santini or Mr. Wiseman had approved all voluntary enrollments. Mr. Hennebery was not Respondent's direct or indirect supervisor. Mr. Hennebery lacked the authority to accept voluntary enrollments, or to make policy on this issue. At no time did Respondent's direct supervisors, Dr. Santini or Mr. Wiseman, instruct Respondent as to voluntary enrollments. The issue of voluntary enrollments is not, in any event, of major importance. Of the hundreds of students enrolled at the ALC during Respondent's tenure, not more than 18 of them were voluntarily enrolled. Most if not all of the students whom Respondent voluntarily enrolled were exceptional cases who were ineligible to return to their geographical schools or enter the Academy. During Respondent's tenure, six ESE students were transferred from the ALC without individual educational plans. Respondent relied on Mr. Vitale, who was the ESE department head, and Ms. Smith to handle ESE paperwork, as Respondent candidly admitted at the hearing that he was unknowledgeable about ESE procedures. Five of the six students left the ALC and entered Adult Education. These were obviously older students for whom an individual educational plan is of less importance than it would be for students with many more years in the educational system. Ultimate responsibility for ensuring compliance with ESE procedures at the ALC rests with Respondent. However, the circumstances suggest only an innocent mistake on Respondent's part, not incompetency, misconduct in office, or gross insubordination. Student Visits to Hi Tech Center Central: Paragraph 55 One day in late November 1995, Ms. Saldana had arranged for two students to visit the District's High Tech Center Central, which is a vocational school. When they returned, they told her that, at the end of the day, the counselor at High Tech Center Central had refused to talk to them because they were ALC students. Ms. Saldana called High Tech Center Central Director Ron Pentiuk, who confirmed that he would not allow ALC students to enroll directly from the ALC or even to visit his campus while still enrolled at the ALC. He said that this had been his agreement with Ms. Folaros. Ms. Saldana explained that, in the case of three to five students, they could not first return to their geographical schools because they were graduating early. If they could not enroll in High Tech Center Central directly from the ALC, they could not attend the vocational school. Mr. Pentiuk refused to consider the request, insisting the students still had to spend six to nine weeks at their geographical schools before they could enroll at the vocational school. He said someone in the District office told him not to accept any more ALC students. By letter to Respondent dated December 19, 1995, with copies to Dr. Santini, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Wortham, and others, Mr. Pentiuk restated his position: "no ALC students will have direct access to High Tech Central programs. . . . [A]ll visitations shall come from the student[']s geo school and not ALC directly." The letter cites as authority for this policy a meeting that took place at the start of the 1994-95 school year between representatives of High Tech Center Central and the New Directions Center. The implicit reason for this policy is that Mr. Pentiuk wanted someplace to send a student if he failed to perform at High Tech Center Central. By memorandum dated January 10, 1996, to Mr. Pentiuk, Respondent memorialized a discussion at a principals' meeting earlier that day. The agreement appears to allow ALC students who are ready to be returned to their geographical schools, but have not yet been returned, to visit the High Tech Center Central. The record reveals only that Respondent tried to send ALC students to the High Tech Center Central for visits. When they were treated rudely by Center personnel, Respondent and Ms. Saldana discovered an unreasonable policy that emanated not from the District office, but from an understanding reached by Mr. Pentiuk and Respondent's predecessor. This agreement had little logic to commend it. It delayed and, in some cases, denied ALC students access to important vocational training. Mr. Pentiuk explained that he could not deal directly with ALC students because he needed to have a place to which to return them if they misbehaved. However, his concern does not address the aspect of the policy prohibiting even campus visits by ALC students. And his concern fails even to address the remainder of the policy, as the record does not explain why Mr. Pentiuk could not expel students back to the ALC as easily as to their geographical schools. In any event, Respondent and Ms. Saldana rectified the situation, achieving a much-improved policy than the one that preceded Respondent's involvement. Refusal to Reenroll J. M.: Paragraph 50 In September 1995, Respondent refused to reenroll J.M. when his grandmother brought him back to school after an unexcused absence. J. M.'s father had called Respondent and complained that his mother was interfering with J. M., her grandson. The boy was skipping school with the father's brother, who was also of school age. J.M. asked Respondent not to let the grandmother return the boy to school or supply a legal excuse for his absence. When J. M.'s grandmother brought the boy back to school one day, Respondent did as the father had directed him. Respondent told the grandmother, "Ma'am, you can't bring your child back. I got a call from your son, and he is the legal guardian. Call your son and get it straight with him. I shouldn't even be talking to you about J. M." E. Arrest of W. S.: Paragraph 49 On November 1, 1995, W. S. tried to leave the cafeteria without permission. She has a history of violent outbursts. Riley Ware, a teacher, tried to stop her. W. S. asked him who he thought he was with that crooked gold tooth. Mr. Ware responded by telling her to sit her "big-lipped" self down. (Respondent later reprimanded Mr. Ware for this comment.) W. S. swore at Mr. Ware, calling him, among other things, a "black bitch." Teacher Christine Peete then intervened. She said, "Young lady, you've been very inappropriate." Gently placing her arm on W. S.'s shoulder, Ms. Peete added, "Come with me until you cool off." W. S. angrily responded by slinging Ms. Peete's arm off of her shoulder. She shouted, "Get your hands off me, bitch. I'll dip on [beat up] all of you. Ms. Peete had to return to her class, so she asked Ms. Krucher to escort W. S. to the office. Ms. Peete found Respondent in the middle-school area and told him that he needed to deal with W. S. Respondent returned to his office to find W. S. leaving. He greeted her by saying, "Well, daughter, Ms. Peete tells me that you called her a bitch." S. said she called Mr. Ware a bitch, but she did not call "that bitch" (Ms. Peete) a bitch. Respondent told her she was suspended for five days, and W. S. replied, "I don't give a fuck about five days." Respondent raised the suspension to seven days, and W. S. lunged toward Respondent and Ms. Peete, who was standing next to him. W. S.'s initial lunge threw Respondent, herself, and a computer to the floor. Respondent wrestled his way to the top, and W. S. demanded that he get his "big belly" off her. She scratched him or snapped his suspenders, causing his chin to bleed. She grabbed his tie and choked him. She tried to bite and kick him. Respondent ordered a nearby staffperson to call the police. Officer Garrett Kusienski of the Fort Myers Police Department responded to the call and arrived at the school in a three or four minutes. When he arrived at the ALC office, Respondent and W. S. had just gotten off the floor, and Respondent and several male staffmembers were escorting her into the office. Respondent approached Officer Kusienski and asked him to arrest W. S. Officer Kusienski asked why, and Respondent directed him to handcuff and remove her. Officer Kusienski refused to do so until Respondent explained why. Officer Kusienski's police report, which is credited, states Respondent answered that, if Officer Kusienski were not going to do his job, "I needed to get off his campus." Officer Kusienski asked again what happened, and Respondent "stated that he would give all the details to Chief Hart when he was contacted, to get the hell off his campus if I wasn't going to arrest anyone." Officer Kusienski left the building, but returned a few minutes later, spoke with W. S. and possibly others, and took her into custody. The police report notes that another officer, who had arrived on the scene as backup, took statements from witnesses. At the hearing, Officer Kusienski testified that Respondent said, "If I'm not going to do my fucking job to get the fuck off this campus." Officer Kusienski did not explain at the hearing why he deleted one "fuck" entirely and replaced another with "hell" in his police report. It is unlikely that Officer Kusienski was graciously sparing Respondent any embarrassment in the report because he also noted that Respondent became "very disorderly toward me." The only other evidence that Respondent said "fuck" is Ms. Krucher, who testified that Respondent said it to Officer Kusienski once, not twice as Officer Kusienski testified. However, her testimony is contradicted by numerous other witnesses, who testified that she was not there and they did not hear Respondent say "fuck" to the officer or otherwise during the incident. Ms. Krucher's testimony has not generally been credited on grounds, among others, that she harbored considerable ill-will toward Respondent. The testimony of Officer Kusienski is countered by the testimony of Officer Jackson, also of the Fort Myers Police Department. Officer Jackson testified that Respondent did not use foul language toward Officer Kusienski. There is no preponderance of the evidence as to what Respondent said to Officer Kusienski. Respondent Late to Work: Paragraph 54 On November 16, 1995, the parent of a student at Cape Coral High School called Respondent and asked him to attend a meeting for the purpose of determining whether to transfer the parent's child to the ALC. The parent did not want the child transferred to the ALC and asked for Respondent's help at the meeting. Seeing a chance to help control the ALC enrollment, Respondent agreed to attend the meeting, which was scheduled for 7:00 a.m., and try to help the student remain at his geographical school. Respondent's intent was to speak first and then drive back to the ALC, which was about 20-30 minutes away at that time of day. Respondent reasonably expected that he would arrive at the ALC between 7:30 a.m. and 7:45 a.m. Respondent typically arrived at school at 7:30 a.m. and took cafeteria duty until school starts at 8:00 a.m. The evening of November 16, Respondent called Mr. Ware and told him to cover the cafeteria the following morning in case Respondent was late. Ms. Smith was on personal leave on November 17. However, Respondent and LAMP principal McCollum had an agreement that, if one of them was absent from the campus, the other would serve as acting administrator to be called upon by teachers or staff as needed. Their agreement--which was a necessity for Ms. McCollum because she lacked an assistant principal--did not require that either give the other advance notice of his absence. Unfortunately, Respondent did not get to speak first at the meeting, which ran longer than Respondent had expected because the student had been charged with drug possession, not merely disrespect to a teacher, as Respondent had been told. From the meeting at Cape Coral High School, Respondent called someone--probably Mr. Ware--and told him that he would be later than he had anticipated the prior night. Respondent returned to the ALC between 8:30 a.m. and 8:45 a.m. When Respondent did not appear at school by 8:00 a.m., Ms. Krucher told Mr. Wortham that Respondent had left the ALC without an administrator. Mr. Wortham called Dr. Santini and told her. The same afternoon, Dr. Santini or her designee called Respondent and asked him where he had been that morning. Dr. Santini and Mr. Wiseman met with Respondent on November 20 to discuss Respondent's tardiness on November 17. This meeting is described in the following section. By memorandum to Respondent dated November 28, 1995, with copies to Petitioner and Mr. Wiseman, but not to Respondent's personnel file, Dr. Santini concluded as to the incident: As per our conversation of November 20, 1995, I am reminding you that I consider the fact that you were not in school on November 17, 1995 until 8:45 A.M. with no assistant present, a serious offense. The students at ALC need constant monitoring and supervision and to have the school unstaffed by any administrator, even for forty minutes, could lead to a catastrophe. I do not expect this to happen again. By letter dated December 8, 1995, to Dr. Santini, with copies to Petitioner and Mr. Wiseman, Respondent acknowledged receipt of her November 28 "letter relating to your concerns of me not being present in my building without an assistant." The letter explains that, once at the Cape Coral High School meeting, Respondent learned that the student had not only threatened a teacher, but had also used drugs. The letter states that Respondent had previously covered for Mr. Wortham and Ms. McCollum. Respondent's letter concludes: This is not to say that I don't concur with you. I most certainly agree with you whole heartedly that not only in ALC but all schools, we must have an administrator on duty. An administrator was on duty, as I had informed you verbally. Mrs. McCollum and I had total agreement relating to coverage without any problems. Your letter gives the perception that I was purposely avoiding my responsibility and was irresponsible in fulfilling my duty as a principal. I would like the record to show that I was fulfilling my duty as an educator, as a principal and as a community leader. Through my efforts, I was able to at least save the life of a young man that we could have possibly lost to drugs. This is one I don't have to look over and he not look back. Thank you for your concern and I accept your letter of concern and would vow that I will continue to work with you and to make the ALC the best learning environment that I can. Dr. Santini's November 28 letter is not a letter of reprimand, nor did she intend for a copy of the letter to be included in Respondent's personnel file. Her intent is inferred from the absence of the letter from Respondent's personnel file in mid-February, the omission from the letter of any express notation of copies to Respondent's personnel file (as contrasted to the January 2 letter described below), and the failure of Dr. Santini to respond to Respondent's subsequent characterization of the letter in his letter of December 8. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent violated any policy of the District in effect on November 17. The record reveals no prohibition against having another administrator, such as Ms. McCollum, cover for Respondent for a short time, even in the absence of advance notice. November 20, 1995, Meeting: Paragraph 42 Three days after Respondent was late to work due to the meeting at Cape Coral High School, Dr. Santini and Mr. Wiseman visited Respondent to discuss the incident, as well as charges of heavy-handed dealing with students, yelling at teachers, and leaving campus early. Dr. Santini and Mr. Wiseman dismissed as unfounded all charges except for Respondent's tardiness on November 17. Around this time, Ms. Krucher, who had been talking to Mr. Wortham daily, began contacting Dr. Santini and possibly Petitioner, whom Dr. Santini testified that she had suggested Ms. Krucher call. The purpose of these calls was to supply, on a confidential basis, unfavorable information about Respondent. If the information resembled her testimony, nearly all of it was unreliable. One incident illustrates the lengths to which unidentified persons would go to fabricate evidence unfavorable to Respondent. By two-page, handwritten letter dated February 17, 1996, from Ms. Pepin to Ms. Minton, Ms. Pepin objected to a statement attributed to Ms. Minton in the newspaper to the effect that she spoke for all of the ALC staff when she criticized Respondent. In her letter, which is entirely supportive of Respondent, Ms. Pepin admitted that, last June, she had not much liked Respondent entering her classroom and giving his "new sheriff in town" speech. But the letter continues to state that she now understands the effectiveness of Respondent's style. Someone--not in the office of Petitioner's counsel-- fraudulently altered Ms. Pepin's letter and sent it to Petitioner's counsel. By careful folding, whiting out, and photocopying, this person reduced the two-page letter to five and one-half lines and moved Ms. Pepin's signature beneath these lines, so as to make the letter look like a short note objecting to the "new sheriff" speech. This person then passed the counterfeit note as a gross distortion of Ms. Pepin's views-- literally out of context. It is highly unlikely that such fraud would be perpetrated by someone in the District office. The record does not reveal who had access to the letter after it was received by Ms. Minton. But the incident reveals indisputably the unreliability of at least some of the information that Dr. Santini and Petitioner received about Respondent. In any event, toward the end of the November 20 meeting, Respondent demanded that Dr. Santini tell him who had made the allegations against him. The request was not unreasonable given the inaccuracy of most of the charges. Dr. Santini refused to divulge the name or names of these persons. She explained reasonably that, if she were going to do something about the charges, she would tell him, but she was not going to do anything about them. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent was rude in the November 20 meeting. Dr. Santini's November 28 memorandum makes no mention of any rudeness. Petitioner's counsel did not inquire of Mr. Wiseman as to Respondent's behavior at the November 20 meeting. Dr. Santini's testimony was not detailed in its description of Respondent's behavior at the November 20 meeting. On direct, she testified only that Respondent exhibited an "insubordinate attitude," and "we couldn't talk to him for his continuing to talk to us." Dr. Santini did not use the word "shout" or "yell" to describe Respondent's manner of speaking. On cross, Dr. Santini added only that Respondent was "insubordinate, rude, and unreceptive." Gate Incident: Paragraph 43 Immediately after school on December 12, 1995, a boy hit a girl near the front gate of the New Directions campus. Respondent, Mr. Ware, Mr. Gilmore, Mr. Smith, Ms. Krucher, Mr. Nassiff, Mr. Wortham, and other adults immediately went to the scene. At first, the two students refused to tell Respondent what had happened. A group of boys outside of the gate had seen the altercation. Respondent motioned them to enter the school grounds, but, before he could talk to them, Mr. Nassiff told Respondent that he had seen the altercation. Not needing to speak to the group of boys, Respondent motioned them to go back. However, two or three of them were already inside the gate. A security guard was in the process of locking the two front gates, so Respondent told Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith to escort the two or three boys off campus through the back gate, which was closer to their homes. Unknown to Respondent, the remaining boys from the group had just told Mr. Wortham that they were going to beat up the next student whom they saw. Respondent, the two students involved in the altercation, and other staff, except for Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith, walked toward the ALC where Respondent could deal with the two students. Respondent saw Mr. Wortham signalling to Ms. Krucher, and Respondent asked her what he wanted. She replied that he wanted her to close the back gate. Respondent told her not to close the back gate because he had just sent Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith with some students to let them out the back gate. He reminded her that he, not Mr. Wortham, was her boss. At the time, Respondent was unaware that some Academy students were preparing Christmas decorations inside the back gate, which typically remained open before and after school for deliveries. Respondent was also unaware that Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith had not gone to the back gate because they had been able to get the students through one of the front gates before it had been locked. After Respondent returned to the ALC building, the group of students walked around the side the school to the back gate, where one or more of them beat up an Academy student so badly that he required hospitalization. As soon as Respondent learned of the incident in the back, Respondent called Mr. Wortham, who said he was angry and had some concerns. Respondent invited him to discuss them, but he declined, saying he would instead call Dr. Santini. Respondent suggested that he take his concerns directly to Petitioner in that event. Respondent then found out from Mr. Nassiff and Ms. Krucher what had happened. Respondent asked Mr. Nassiff to explain to Mr. Wortham that Respondent had not known that there were students in the back inside the gate and that Respondent had sent two teachers back there to escort students out of the campus. Shortly after that, Respondent went to the Academy building to speak to Mr. Wortham. Respondent explained what had happened from his perspective, and Mr. Wortham acknowledged that he had later found that out, but, by that time, he had already called Dr. Santini. Petitioner did not call Mr. Wortham to testify about the gate incident, even though Petitioner claims it was his order that Respondent countermanded. Under the circumstances reasonably known to him at the time, Respondent behaved responsibly throughout the gate incident. He did not know he lacked crucial information when he told Ms. Krucher not to go to the back gate. But he reasonably assumed that he had more information than did Mr. Wortham. He knew that he had already sent two men to the back. Even had he known that the boys wanted to beat someone up and that an Academy student was in the back, Respondent would reasonably have relied on Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith to prevent the attack. When Respondent told Ms. Krucher that he, not Mr. Wortham, was her boss, he was merely emphasizing his direction that she not close the back gate. He was not stating the cause for the direction. The cause was that he had sent two men to the back gate. Respondent's comment about who was Ms. Krucher's boss was thus not an act of insubordination or lack of cooperation. I. Respondent's Police Interview About Gate Incident: Paragraph 48 Mr. Nassiff witnessed the police interview of Respondent concerning the gate incident. In the interview, Respondent did not state that he countermanded Mr. Wortham's order to Ms. Krucher to go lock the back gate. Respondent did not withhold material information from the police, who were investigating the beating of the Academy student, not Respondent. The direction that Respondent gave Ms. Krucher was entirely appropriate under the circumstances as reasonably understood by Respondent at the time that he told her not to close the back gate. There was no reason for Respondent to mention this minor point to the police. J. January 9, 1996, Meeting: Paragraph 44 Three days after the gate incident, Dr. Santini asked Respondent to come to her office that day. He said that he was helping students deliver Christmas food baskets to the needy and could not, so they set up a 7:00 a.m. appointment for the following Monday, December 18. When Respondent arrived at the meeting, expecting it to be between him and Dr. Santini, he found Mr. Wiseman and Mr. Wortham, who had prepared a written statement. Dr. Santini said she wanted to hear both sides of the gate incident. Respondent objected that the meeting was unfair because he had not had the chance to prepare a statement. Dr. Santini replied that she had not asked Mr. Wortham to prepare a statement, and Respondent said that at least he had known what the meeting was about. Mr. Wortham and Respondent each stated what happened. Mr. Wiseman asked Mr. Wortham if he had disclosed to Respondent the threat by the group of boys in the front, and Mr. Wortham admitted that he had not. Dr. Santini said that she would speak to Ms. Krucher to obtain a statement, but refused Respondent's request that she also speak to Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith. Respondent was worried that he was being set up and informed Dr. Santini that he would be requesting a meeting with Petitioner to complain about the discriminatory treatment that he was receiving. Respondent contacted Petitioner's office to set up a meeting. Petitioner contacted Respondent during Christmas break, and, at her request, the two of them met for two hours on December 28 at a local restaurant. They discussed the ALC enrollment policy, Respondent's testimony at the expulsion hearing, Respondent's claims of harassment by Dr. Santini, Dr. Santini's practice of invariably bringing Mr. Wiseman with her on visits with Respondent, Respondent's good relationship with Mr. Wiseman whenever he was separated from Dr. Santini, and the gate incident. Petitioner told Respondent that he needed to return to school after Christmas break and work more closely with his supervisors, as well as Ms. McCollum and Mr. Wortham. Petitioner promised to set up a meeting among her, Respondent, and Dr. Santini. This meeting was later scheduled for January 9, 1996, at 3:00 p.m. By letter to Respondent dated January 2, 1996, with copies to Petitioner, Mr. Wiseman, and Respondent's personnel file, Dr. Santini stated that she had completed her investigation into the gate incident and had spoken with Respondent, Mr. Wortham, and Ms. Krucher following the meeting of December Dr. Santini concluded: the key issue is the fact that after Mr. Wortham asked your security guard, Lisa Krucher, to run to the back of the school and lock the gate because he felt the boys who were threatening to harm someone would come in through the back gate, you instructed Lisa Krucher not to lock the gate because she worked for you and not Mr. Wortham. I consider this action on your part a poor judgment call and a lack of cooperation with other adminis- trators on campus. * * * I am directing you from this point on, to work together with Mr. Wortham for the benefit of the children in the school. The attitude that employees work for one principal and not another is an attitude that can cause disruption and, as we have seen with regard to this incident, harm to a student. Dr. Santini's letter misstates an important fact. Respondent did not redirect Ms. Krucher "because she worked for you and not Mr. Wortham." He redirected her because he had sent two able staffpersons to the back gate, and there was no need to send a third person. Dr. Santini evidently discredited an important element of Respondent's version of the gate incident. She could not have determined that Respondent countermanded Ms. Wortham's order for the sole reason of showing Ms. Krucher who was her boss, unless Dr. Santini had eliminated the possibility that Respondent countermanded the order because he had already sent two men back there. Whether Respondent sent the two men to the back or not is a difficult fact question. Although Dr. Santini might reasonably have concluded that Respondent, Mr. Ware, and Mr. Smith were lying, her factual determination is deficient as long as she refused to talk to Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith. Respondent was reasonably concerned with Dr. Santini's fairness when she talked to Mr. Wortham's corroborating witness, but refused even to talk to Respondent's corroborating witnesses. On January 5, 1996, which was the date that Dr. Santini issued her letter clarifying the October 25 memorandum on the ALC enrollment policy, Dr. Santini contacted Respondent's office to set up a meeting for January 8, which was the day prior to their meeting with Petitioner. She had by now seen the transcript of the expulsion hearing and wanted to discuss this matter with Respondent. Taking the advice of Dr. Cecil Carter, an administrator in the District, Respondent called Dr. Santini's office back and asked the purpose of the meeting. Dr. Santini relayed the information through someone in her office that they were going to discuss Respondent's "deposition." The only deposition with which Respondent was familiar was in connection with his testimony in the Rockford, Illinois desegregation case. Dr. Santini inadvertently used "deposition" to mean Respondent's testimony at the A. B. expulsion hearing. However, Respondent assumed that she was going to discuss some aspect of desegregation with him. Around 2:00 p.m. on January 8, Respondent told his secretary to call Dr. Santini's office and cancel the meeting. He told his secretary that he was ill and going home directly after school, but told her to tell Dr. Santini that she could call Respondent at home and they could at least talk on the phone. Dr. Santini did not call Respondent at home. Instead, she and Mr. Wiseman appeared, without prior notice, in Respondent's office between 8:00 and 8:30 a.m. on January 9, 1996, which was the day of the meeting with Petitioner. Respondent said he was busy with school duties, and they waited until he could see them. In a few minutes, Respondent, Dr. Santini, and Mr. Wiseman met. Dr. Santini started the meeting by saying, "Charles, I'm going to talk to you about this deposition." She showed him the transcript of the A. B. expulsion hearing. She stated, "The way this looks, I'm going to have to write you up." Understandably worried that Dr. Santini had already made her decision to discipline him, Respondent asked for permission for his secretary to attend the meeting as a witness. Dr. Santini said no. Respondent then asked to tape the meeting. Dr. Santini agreed. As Respondent left to find a tape recorder, Mr. Wiseman said, "Mary, you're going to have to give him a chance to tell his side of the story." Unable to find a tape recorder, Respondent returned to the meeting. Dr. Santini pointed to a page of the transcript and, without discussing the testimony directly, declared that Respondent had testified that numbers were more important than students. Respondent tried to interrupt, but Dr. Santini would not allow him. Respondent stated, "You can't accuse me of things and expect me not to respond." Dr. Santini replied, "You are going to listen to me." Dr. Santini accused Respondent of talking to A. B.'s father. In fact, Respondent had told him to work with Mr. Hennebery's office. Suddenly, Respondent told her that the meeting was over until we meet Petitioner. Dr. Santini slammed a book and told Respondent that he had "disrespected me and Mr. Wiseman." Respondent answered, "My dear friend, how have I disrespected you?" Dr. Santini stated, "That's it." She turned and walked out the door. Mr. Wiseman was still seated when she left. He then jumped up, shook Respondent's hand, and said, "See you later, baby boy." Alone among the key participants in this case, Mr. Wiseman appears to have maintained his sense of humor. During this brief meeting, for example, Mr. Wiseman was the only person not to have raised his voice. Later on the day of January 9, the meeting with Petitioner took place with Respondent, Dr. Santini, Mr. Wiseman, Dr. Carter, Dr. Counsel, and an administrative assistant in attendance. Respondent began the meeting by reading a letter from him to Petitioner dated January 8, 1996. The letter reviews the condition of the ALC when he was appointed principal, the changes that he has made, and the problems posed by the ALC enrollment policy stated in the October 25 memorandum. The participants discussed the ALC enrollment policy. Respondent objected that it appeared that they had met with other principals and not him. Mr. Wiseman admitted that they had met and had excluded Respondent because he had threatened another principal. There is no evidence of such a threat. After the discussion about ALC enrollments ended, Petitioner said that she was out of time and everyone would have to return to finish their discussion. Petitioner told Respondent that she had sent Dr. Santini and Mr. Wiseman to see him, and she did not want him calling off meetings with her staffmembers, such as he had done that morning. Respondent understood that he should not do that. Respondent complained that he had thought that he was doing an outstanding job and could not understand what the problem was with his job performance. Dr. Santini disagreed with him about the job he was doing. Respondent stated that no one had ever sufficiently spelled out a problem so that he could address it. He asked who was complaining about what. He asked Dr. Santini directly if she had any complaints. Dr. Santini said she had one complaint, but would not disclose it to Respondent, even after being urged to do so by all of the other participants, except the administrative assistant. Dr. Santini said that the attorneys had told her that she did not have to disclose it. She then said to Petitioner, "Bobbie, the problem is he will listen to you, not me." Respondent and Dr. Santini began to argue about the meeting earlier in the day. In anger, Respondent said he would not follow Dr. Santini's directions, but go directly to Petitioner. He also admitted that he was afraid of Dr. Santini. Petitioner closed the meeting by promising to check with the attorneys and see if she could supply Respondent with a copy of the complaint to which Dr. Santini had referred. Two days later, on January 11, Petitioner sent a letter to Respondent suspending him with pay due to "your conduct in a meeting with Mr. Herb Wiseman . . . and Dr. Mary Santini on January 9, 1996." The letter adds: "you should know that other allegations have been made against you that are currently being investigated by the District." V. Conclusion Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, or immorality. Petitioner never trained Respondent to serve as a school principal. Respondent's previous administrative roles provided valuable experience, but they had also permitted Respondent to become accustomed to serving in a close relationship with a Superintendent who was also a mentor, working outside the normal hierarchical channels of the District office, and alienating numbers of parents, teachers, and administrators in making tough rezoning and equity decisions. But Respondent's qualifications were obvious. As Petitioner wrote in one evaluation, Respondent was a "role model" for other administrators in, among other things, teamwork. Despite the gaps in his experience, Respondent employed vast stores of energy, enthusiasm, and commitment to make the ALC work for its students. He intelligently assessed the situation at the ALC and devised strategies for exploiting the available resources. Fully aware of his own limitations, for instance, he hired Ms. Smith for her knowledge of curriculum. In a short time, he had produced dramatic results at the ALC. Respondent complied with Dr. Santini's directives, although before adoption he argued with those of them with which he disagreed. The October 25 memorandum, as well as the October 20 meeting, set an enrollment cap. Respondent acceded to Dr. Santini's decision. He closed the October 20 meeting with a plea that geographical schools be prepared to finish the job that the ALC would not have time to finish. He transferred 75-80 students out by early November. He asked Mr. Wiseman around Christmas break if he should transfer another 112 students back to their geographical schools. And his average enrollment exceeded the enrollment of his successors by 13 students--while his average actual attendance was five students less than the average actual attendance of his successors. By mid-December, Dr. Santini, misinformed by unreliable information from Ms. Krucher and possibly other informants at the ALC, was concerned about whether Respondent would work out as the ALC Principal. This concern may have influenced her gate investigation and reaction to Respondent's testimony at the expulsion hearing. The situation rapidly deteriorated when Dr. Santini visited Respondent, unannounced, on the morning of the day that they had a meeting with Petitioner and began the meeting by saying that she would probably have to write up Respondent for his testimony. A supervisor should always be able to conduct a meeting with a subordinate. Respondent should not have abruptly terminated the meeting with Dr. Santini. Supervisors terminate meetings, not subordinates. However, this was an isolated action by Respondent, who had never before terminated a meeting with a supervisor. Respondent had understandably felt that Dr. Santini had treated him unfairly in the gate incident, heard her announce at the start of this meeting what looked like a decision, and decided to deal with all of this at the meeting with Petitioner later that day. Under the circumstances, Respondent's imprudent decision to end the meeting did not rise to gross insubordination. In the final analysis, as Petitioner testified, it is good practice to document problems with employees before terminating them. And, as Petitioner testified, her staff did not do so here. Clearly, Respondent and Dr. Santini have a serious communications problem, for which each bears some responsibility, even though, by the nature of things, a communications problem is typically a bigger problem for the subordinate employee than it is for his boss. But as Dr. Council and Dr. Gunter testified, there was no reason for this case to proceed this far. And the case would not have come this far if District staff had tried to help Respondent or even treated this case as a performance case--where, under the law, District staff would have had to identify Respondent's deficiencies and help him eliminate them.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Lee County enter a final order dismissing the Petition, reinstating Respondent, and awarding him back pay as provided by law. ENTERED on June 28, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 28, 1996. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1: adopted or adopted in substance except as to date of initial employment. 2-3: adopted or adopted in substance. 4: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, to the extent of the implication that these behaviors were more than isolated or represented significant problems. 5: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 6-7: adopted or adopted in substance. 8-9: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 10 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance, as to the back of the neck. 10 (remainder)-12: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 13 (through "end"): adopted or adopted in substance. (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (through "classroom"): adopted or adopted in substance, except as to throwing C. L. into the chair. (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (through "credited"): adopted or adopted in substance. 16 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 17: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 18 (first sentence): rejected as subordinate. 18 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 19: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 20: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that O. B. complied with Respondent, who did not apply force to move him. 21: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. The testimony of Ms. Culligan is not credible. 22 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 22 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 23: rejected as subordinate. 24: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 25: adopted or adopted in substance, except that Ms. Krucher did not witness the entire incident. 26: adopted or adopted in substance, except that Ms. Krucher did not step between J. B. and T. R., nor did she witness the rest of the incident. She prevaricated the portion of the incident that she missed while returning J. B. to her classroom, J. B. testified that Ms. Krucher returned her to her classroom. J. B. also testified that Ms. Krucher even tried to convince her than T. R. had not lunged at J. B. Ms. Krucher's credibility as a witness is very poor. 27: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that T. R.'s testimony was stricken after several vacillations demonstrated that, as to this incident, he could not distinguish between the truth and fiction. 28: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 29 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. 30 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 31: Respondent's testimony that he feared M. P. was on drugs is not credited, at least to the extent of attempting to create a well-founded fear in Respondent's mind that the mental state of M. P. was so altered as to render him dangerous. However, Respondent intervened with M. P. to stop him from leaving and preclude the possibility that this student, who obviously is afflicted with a serious behavior disorder, might strike Ms. Smith. The remainder of this proposed finding is rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 32 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (except last sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. There is no need to resort to Ms. Keel's testimony about the "rat's ass" remark. 33 (last sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 34: adopted or adopted in substance, except as to crediting Ms. Krucher's testimony and as to any harm to the student's mental health. 35 (except last sentence): adopted or adopted in substance, except that the displaying of the badge never frightened or intimidated anyone and no student believed that Respondent had extraordinary arrest powers by virtue of the badge. When Respondent spoke to the class, they presumably were off-task, but he did not destroy any instructional momentum. 35 (last sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 36: adopted or adopted in substance, except that Respondent did not badger the student or mistreat him in any way. 37: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 38: adopted or adopted in substance, although Respondent appropriately dealt with the student, who should have raised his head to meet the new principal. 39: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that Respondent threatened the student with suspension if he did not make eye contact and listen to him. 40 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. 40 (third sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 40 (fourth sentence): rejected as irrelevant and unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 41: rejected as recitation of evidence and unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 42: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that on rare occasions Respondent opened doors to Academy classrooms. 43-45: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 46: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except to the extent of findings in the recommended order. 47-48 (except last sentence): adopted or adopted in substance, except Respondent did not say, "her record." (last sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 49 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 50-51 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 51 (remainder)-52: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 53: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 54 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 54 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Respondent had not made a prior arrangement with Ms. McCollum, but Petitioner failed to prove that he was required to. 55: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 56 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. 56 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 57: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 58: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that Respondent terminated the meeting. The behavior was inappropriate, but did not constitute either insubordination or, more to the point, gross insubordination. 59 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. 59 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 60: adopted or adopted in substance. 61: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, as to no reason to arrest W. S. at the time. However, the altercation had ceased, and Respondent should have answered the reasonably inquiry of the officer. But his behavior did not constitute misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetency, or immorality. 62: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Petitioner never accounted adequately for Officer Kusienski's omission of the word "fuck" from his police report or, less importantly, the discrepancy between Ms. Krucher and Officer Kusienski as to the number of times that Respondent uttered the expletive. Another problem for Petitioner was the contrary testimony of another officer of the Fort Myers Police Department. 63: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 64 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance, at least as to the effect that the grandmother could not serve as the legal guardian of J. M. because she was not. 64 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence and hearsay. 65-66: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 67 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 67 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that Respondent voluntarily admitted up to 18 students. 68: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 69 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 69 (second sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 69 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, as to Respondent's role in the failure to obtain individual educational plans constituting misconduct in office, incompetency, or gross insubordination. 70-71: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-13: adopted or adopted in substance, although there is some uncertainty as to the dates of Respondent's early employment with the District. The findings in the recommended order are guided by the dates and job descriptions contained in the evaluations. 13A: rejected as irrelevant. 14-15: adopted or adopted in substance, except that M. P. was not fearful. 16-29: adopted or adopted in substance. 30: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. The incident did occur. 30A-43: adopted or adopted in substance. 44: adopted or adopted in substance, but Respondent's brief conversation with Ms. Krucher more closely resembled the version in the recommended order, rather than the more elaborate version in the proposed finding. 45-46: adopted or adopted in substance. 47 (first sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Dr. Santini never reviewed several lines of the testimony. She focused only on one phrase. (remainder)-48 (through "Wiseman"): adopted or adopted in substance. (remainder): adopted or adopted in substance, although it is unclear the extent to which they discussed the January 5 memorandum itself, as opposed to the ALC overenrollment issue generally. 49-55: adopted or adopted in substance. 56-57: rejected as subordinate, except to the extent described in the recommended order. 58-62: adopted or adopted in substance, although the fact that Respondent's enrollments were no higher than the enrollments of his successors suggests that Respondent's enrollments did not exceed the cap or the cap as applied. 63: rejected as subordinate. 64-68: adopted or adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Superintendent Bobbi D'Allessandro The School District of Lee County 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3988 John M. Hament Kunkel, Miller and Hament 1800 Second Street, Suite 882 Sarasota, Florida 34236 Harry A. Blair Blair & Blair, P.A. 2138-40 Hoople Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901 The Honorable Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner may terminate Respondent’s employment as an instructional employee under a professional services contract either for failure to timely correct alleged performance deficiencies pursuant to Subsection 1012.34(3), Florida Statutes (2008),1 or for just cause, within the meaning of Subsection 1012.33(1)(a).
Findings Of Fact The School Board employed Respondent as a resource teacher at Village Oaks Elementary School (Village Oaks) from the start of the 2003-2004 school year until January 15, 2009. Ms. Dorcas Howard was the principal at Village Oaks during Respondent’s employment. Ms. Howard served as principal for 20 years and was responsible for evaluating teachers, including Respondent. Respondent’s duties as a resource teacher at Village Oaks included working with elementary school students who were not proficient in reading and math. Some of the students that Respondent taught read and spoke English as a second language. Respondent typically met with students in breakout sessions comprised of groups of five. Classroom teachers determined which students were to attend Respondent’s breakout sessions on the basis of the individual needs of each student. Respondent typically spent 30 minutes with each group. The Notice of Termination dated December 8, 2008, provides, in relevant part, that the School Board is relying on two statutory grounds for the termination of Respondent’s employment contract. One ground is that Respondent allegedly failed to correct performance deficiencies in violation of Subsection 1012.34(3). The second ground alleges that just cause, defined in Subsection 1012.33(1)(a), exists to terminate Respondent’s employment. For reasons stated hereinafter, a preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding that the alleged performance deficiencies violate Subsection 1012.34(3). However, a preponderance of evidence does support a finding that just cause exists to terminate Respondent’s employment pursuant to Subsection 1012.33(1)(a). The alleged violation of Subsection 1012.34(3) is based on an evaluation system known as the Collier Teacher Assessment System (CTAS). CTAS consists of 12 educator practices that are evaluated as inadequate, developing, and professional/accomplished. The CTAS evaluation of Respondent for the 2007-2008 school year resulted in developing marks in four practice areas: assessment, communication, learning environment, and planning. Assessment, planning, role of the teacher, and communication are integrated concepts. Respondent was often late in picking up students from regular classrooms for breakout sessions. On those occasions, Respondent did not provide 30 minutes of instruction to that group of students. Respondent was often unprepared. Respondent routinely did not explain the goals of the session. Respondent did not provide timely assessments to regular classroom teachers, and Respondent did not provide students with directions before reading and did not review the subject matter of the specific class. Respondent routinely did not review tests or prepare test results. Respondent frequently could not answer questions from the principal and other teachers about how students performed on tests. Respondent had no individualized lesson plans. Students often informed her where they were in a given text. Respondent often gave students inappropriate assignments. A professional services contract instructional employee who receives three or more developing marks is placed on a probationary status identified in the record as “Strand 3.” As a consequence of receiving four developing marks, Respondent was placed on Strand 3. Ms. Deborah Terry, director of staffing for Human Resources, Recruitment and Retention, notified Respondent that Respondent had been placed on Strand 3. Respondent had 90 days from the beginning of probation to correct identified deficiencies. A professional assistance team at Village Oaks was organized to assist Respondent. The principal directed Respondent to focus on non-proficient, third grade students. Throughout the probationary period, Ms. Howard observed that Respondent did not engage students in class. Respondent exhibited poor planning, and Respondent lacked adequate class preparation in reading. A high percentage of students were second language students, and Respondent did not have appropriate English Language Learners (ELL) strategies in place. Nor did Respondent have appropriate vocabulary instruction and developmental plans for her students. Respondent allowed students to engage in round robin reading in which remedial, struggling readers read one-after- the-other. Respondent did not discuss or prepare the students for what they were to read. Respondent did not use word follow up. Respondent did not engage students in discussion, and Respondent did not introduce word drill or word-attack skills to students. Respondent did not provide individualized, differentiated instruction or lesson planning for students. The students in Respondent’s sessions were not gaining academically. The principal and other members of the professional assistance team discussed their concerns with Respondent individually and in group sessions. Respondent did not provide regular classroom teachers with test results or assessments of students. The failure to provide regular test results and assessments was problematic. Resource intervention grades were important to each student’s overall grade. Resource intervention grades were averaged in to overall grades. The failure to receive grades created a gap in the reporting for intervention instructional time. During the professional assistance team meeting conducted on September 24, 2008, the team reviewed with Respondent the team concerns that lesson plans turned in were not used for instruction, follow up activities were inconsistent, daily activities were not based on the academic needs of the children, no formal assessments or reviews of student performance were prepared, and Respondent was continually late in picking up her students. Ms. Olwen Stewart-Bell, a team member, provided Respondent with a timer to assist Respondent in picking up students in a timely manner. In many instances, however, Respondent forgot to turn on the timer. By the end of September 2008, there was no indication of student progress. In addition, regular classroom teachers had become reluctant to send their students to Respondent for instruction. By the end of October 2008, Respondent had not responded to advice and assistance and had not improved. There were several times that Respondent was on the phone when she should have been teaching students. Respondent fell asleep in class, and Respondent was abusive to low-achieving students. At the meeting on October 30, 2008, it was evident students were not improving under Respondent’s tutelage. Planning remained poor, assessments did not drive instruction, no differentiated instruction was being provided, and regular classroom teachers did not want Respondent teaching their students. At the end of the probationary period, the principal determined that of the 12 educator accomplished practice areas, Respondent should receive inadequate marks in assessment, communication, planning, and the role of the teacher. Respondent was still developing in three other areas: continuous improvement, learning environment, and knowledge of subject matter. Ms. Howard informed Respondent of the evaluation. The evaluation fell below appropriate standards provided for in CTAS and set forth in Article 5.03 of the CBA. Article 5.03(f)(4)(vi) of the CBA provides, in relevant part: [T]en or more EAP areas must be rated at the professional level and no EAP may be at the inadequate level. Employees not meeting these criteria will be recommended for termination. As a consequence of Respondent’s failure to correct identified deficiencies and meeting acceptable standards, the principal recommended to the superintendent that Respondent be terminated from her employment. The evaluation of Respondent under Subsection 1012.34(3) was not based primarily on standardized testing data showing that students of Respondent performed poorly on standardized tests. The students that Respondent worked with were those most at risk of failing the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT). However, the School Board submitted no evidence that any of the students under Respondent’s tutelage performed poorly on standardized tests, including the FCAT. Assuming arguendo that any of the students under Respondent’s instruction performed poorly on standardized tests, such as the FCAT, Petitioner submitted no evidence of a nexus showing that Respondent’s instruction caused the poor performance on annual standardized testing. A preponderance of evidence supports a finding of just cause to terminate Respondent’s professional services contract pursuant to Subsection 1012.33(1)(a). Respondent demonstrated an inability to discharge her educational duties by repeatedly failing to perform her educational duties and by repeatedly failing to communicate and relate to children in her classroom. Respondent deprived children in her classroom of a minimal educational experience.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Collier County School Board enter a final order terminating Respondent’s professional services contract as an instructional employee for just cause defined in Subsection 1012.33(1)(a). DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of September, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 2nd day of September, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence presented at hearing, the following facts are determined: Curtis Stephen Pope, a 12-year-old student, attends seventh grade in the public schools of Dade County. He lives with his grandmother, Mrs. Joyce Robinson, at 11352 Southwest 214 Street, Goulds, Florida. Until January, 1981, he attended seventh grade at nearby Mays Junior High School. (Testimony of J. Robinson, McPhaul.) In December, 1980, the vice principal of Mays Junior High recommended that Curtis be administratively reassigned to the Opportunity School South because of repeated disruptive behavior affecting the learning opportunity of others creating an unsafe learning environment. The school principal subsequently joined in that recommendation and on January 26, 1981, Curtis was reassigned to an educational alternative program at Youth Opportunity School South, 6135 Southwest 66th Street, Miami, Florida--a school located approximately 15 miles from Curtis' residence. It is that reassignment which is the subject of this proceeding. (Testimony of McPhaul; P-3). From September, 1980, through January 1981, Curtis repeatedly disrupted classes at Mays Junior High. His behavior adversely affected the learning environment and interfered with the educational process of other students, as well as his own. He was frequently referred to the assistant principal for disciplinary action. Twice he was suspended from school for ten-day periods: on October 20, 1980, for disrespect and defiance to the assistant principal and principal, and on November 12, 1980, for fighting with another student. Mrs. Robinson was contacted by Curtis' teachers as well as the school's administrators in an attempt to define the nature of Curtis' problem and take remedial action. However, despite these good-faith efforts, his classroom behavioral difficulties continued. (Testimony of McPhaul, J. Robinson; P-2). Specifically, Curtis' disruptive classroom behavior is described below: 2/ CLASS CURTIS' BEHAVIOR Reading Highly disruptive; fails to bring classroom materials or pay attention; easily distracted; plays during class and frequently tardy or absent. Math Disturbs class by talking, walking, and bothering other students; beats on desk, makes loud noises, and runs in and out of classroom; frequently tardy or absent. Intuitive Math Plays and walks about class; fails to follow directions; disturbs class and leaves without permission. Physical Education Disinterested n class; fails to participate in activities with other children. Science Rarely cooperates; fails to remain in seat, and leaves room without permission; unprepared for class; excessive tardiness. Civics Engages in fights and horse- play with other students; makes loud noises and refuses to stop; leaves room without permission; excessive absences. (Testimony of Herrman, Smith, Delvalle, Nicholson, Rochfort, Fields; P-2). At this time, Curtis requires individualized and special educational instruction which is unavailable at Mays Junior High--where classroom enrollment ranges from 25 to 30 students. On the few occasions when Curtis has received individualized instruction at Mays, his interest increased and his academic performance improved. Such individualized attention is available, on a routine basis, at the Youth Opportunity School South's educational alternative program-- where there is one teacher for every ten students. If Curtis makes the progress which can reasonably be expected of him in such a learning environment, he should eventually be able to return to regular school programs. Whether Curtis profits from and takes advantage of the greater instructional opportunities at Youth Opportunity School--and eventually returns to regular school programs--is wholly dependent on his own attitude and choice. (Testimony of J. Robinson, C. Robinson, Smith, Herrman, Delvalle, Nicholson, Rochfort, Fields; P-4). Mrs. Robinson opposes Curtis' reassignment primarily because of her belief that several neighborhood boys who attended the school later became involved in crime. But the fact that some students' behavioral problems persisted despite the educational opportunities offered at the Youth Opportunity School do not negate those opportunities or make them less real. Given positive support and encouragement at home--coupled with the educational environment available at the Youth Opportunity School South--Curtis will be given the opportunity to learn and achieve his potential; whether he--in--fact--does so will depend on him. (Testimony of J. Robinson, C. Robinson, McPhaul).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Superintendent's action in placing Curtis Stephen Pope in the educational alternative program offered at Youth Opportunity School South be upheld and confirmed. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 20th day of May, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. 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 20th day of May, 1981.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether just cause exists to terminate Respondent's employment with Petitioner based on alleged incompetence under section 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2011),1/ as defined by Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056; and/or whether termination of employment is warranted because Respondent failed to correct performance deficiencies under section 1012.34(3).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence and testimony presented at final hearing, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Board is responsible for hiring, firing, and overseeing all employees at Bayside, Lockmar, and other schools in Brevard County. At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was an art teacher in the Brevard County school system. Respondent worked at several different schools in Brevard County, including Bayside, Lockmar, Sea Park Elementary, Endeavor Elementary, and Indialantic Elementary. He taught at Bayside from 2003 until 2010, and then was transferred to Lockmar for the 2010-2011 school year. Respondent was given an annual evaluation each year at the school where he was teaching. Annual evaluations are used for the purpose of reviewing and critiquing a teacher's performance in the classroom. An annual review determines whether the teacher is "effective," "needs improvement," or "unsatisfactory" for the school year at issue. While at Bayside, Respondent's annual evaluations were generally "effective," meaning he was teaching in a fashion deemed satisfactory by the administrators. Mr. Tuttle, the principal, considered him an effective teacher, but he did not personally perform Respondent's evaluations. The evaluation for school year 2007-2008 was somewhat restrained in nature, describing Respondent as "an effective art teacher who satisfies all teacher competencies" and that he "demonstrates an acceptable level of knowledge of the subject matter." In the 2008-2009 school year at Bayside, the new principal, Mr. Novelli, began to have doubts about Respondent's teaching abilities and also about his mental health. Several incidents were reported to Novelli concerning Respondent that made Novelli very concerned. As a result, Novelli began to keep an eye on Respondent and did more frequent "walk-throughs" of Respondent's classroom. Walk-throughs by administrators are an accepted means of gathering information about the teacher and his or her teaching practices. At the end of the 2008-2009 school year, Respondent was given an evaluation that deemed him "effective" as to his overall performance as a teacher. The evaluation describes Respondent in exactly the same words used in the prior year's evaluation form. The effective evaluation was issued despite an incident that occurred at the end of the school year, to wit: The parent of a student contacted Novelli and reported that Respondent had kept the student's art project, refusing to return it to the student. Respondent told Novelli that he kept the project because the student had failed to pay for a canvas; Novelli found that excuse to be inaccurate. The parent said Respondent had asked the female student to pose for him after school and had given the student his cell phone number. Novelli ordered Respondent to return the art project, which he did. Respondent then allegedly began asking other students if the art student was pregnant. When Novelli asked Respondent about the student, Respondent became "very hostile, very loud, very emotional, and [he] started yelling, 'I'm not a pedophile; I don't sleep with my students; I don't do drugs, you can call the American Fence Company and ask them. I've had a drug test with them.'" These unsolicited, random comments by Respondent caused Novelli even greater concern about Respondent's mental well-being. The next school year, 2009-2010, Novelli did an interim evaluation of Respondent. Interim evaluations are done when administration believes a teacher is struggling or having serious issues which impede his or her performance. The interim evaluation was done at the end of October 2009 and indicated several areas of unsatisfactory performance by Respondent, including: Planning; Instructional Organization and Development; Presentation of Subject Matter; Responsibilities; and Student Evaluation. Respondent refused to sign the evaluation form, even though a signature does not equate to acceptance of the evaluation, it simply acknowledges that the evaluation has been discussed with the teacher (which it had been). Principal Novelli observed Respondent's classroom on several occasions and found the activities going on to be inconsistent with the lesson plans for that day. Respondent explained that the words he had written on the white board (in one case, the words "Van Gogh") were his lesson plan for the day. That was not acceptable, because lesson plans should be sufficient for another teacher to utilize to teach the class in the regular teacher's absence. Some of the problems in the area of responsibilities noted in the interim evaluation were: failing to timely provide administration with a list of students who could be identified as advanced placement candidates; failing to provide acceptable contributions of his students' art work for a poster design contest; and failing to submit art work for a proposed field trip timely and appropriately. Respondent was found to have a difficult time communicating with school administrators, guidance personnel, and fellow teachers. It became abundantly clear at final hearing that Respondent would be as uncooperative and recalcitrant as possible when talking to people he did not like. His demeanor demonstrated a strong resentment of his principal and others from Bayside. In the area of student evaluations, Respondent was found to have failed to provide daily participation grades to his students, despite saying he would do so in his course outline. All of his students received an "A" grade for one nine-week period. Novelli found those grades to be inconsistent with the observations he had made in the classroom. As for instructional organization, Novelli observed no substantive instruction going on during his classroom visits. Respondent explained that students were free to stay busy working on projects discussed in prior classes, so it might appear to an outside observer that they were not being instructed. However, there was insufficient evidence produced to substantiate Respondent's position in that regard. A Professional Development Assistance Plan (PDAP) was created for each of the areas of concern set forth in the interim evaluation. PDAPs are tools used to assist struggling teachers to find a way to overcome their shortcomings and improve in the areas of concern. On January 7, 2010, Novelli met with Respondent to go over the PDAPs and discuss Respondent's progress. Respondent refused to sign the PDAP forms. Thereafter, although he was given additional time to comply with the PDAPs' requirements, Respondent failed to follow all of the recommendations set out in the plans. For example, one of the recommendations for assistance involved Respondent going to observe another art teacher in their classroom. Novelli wanted Respondent to observe an art teacher selected by the district resource teacher, but Respondent preferred to observe a teacher (Leah Andritz) with whom he already had a friendship. Novelli felt that Respondent's observing his friend teach would not be as helpful as watching someone Respondent did not know. Novelli offered Respondent paid time off to observe the school-chosen art teacher. Ultimately, Respondent went to observe Andritz on his own time, rather than accept Novelli's offer. Respondent's annual evaluation was completed on February 12, 2010. Three areas (also called "strands") were graded as unsatisfactory: Instructional Organization and Development; Presentation of Subject Matter; and Student Response. The evaluation also graded Respondent as Needs Improvement in the areas of Planning and Responsibilities. The overall evaluation was unsatisfactory. A meeting was set for February 18, 2010, to discuss the evaluation. Assistant Principal Capalbo, whom Respondent trusted, was sent to escort Respondent to Novelli's office for the meeting. On the way from Respondent's classroom to the principal's office--which took three or four times longer than usual, because Respondent was making phone calls along the way--Respondent called and spoke to his union representative. The representative then came to the meeting as well. Respondent made numerous derogatory remarks and complaints about Novelli on the way to the meeting. He said Novelli had tried to have him arrested, had vandalized his car, and had attempted to engage in sexual relations with a married teacher.3/ There is no credible evidence that any of the allegations were true, but they made Capalbo wonder if Respondent was having mental issues. At the meeting, Respondent accused Novelli of recording a prior meeting by way of a USB pen. Respondent angrily threatened to file a lawsuit against Novelli and report him to the superintendent of schools. Each of the attendees at the meeting who testified at final hearing said Respondent became very agitated and angry. The union representative (who did not testify at final hearing) was ultimately able to get Respondent under control and persuaded him to leave the meeting. No credible evidence was provided to prove the existence of a USB pen or that meetings had been recorded. Respondent again refused to sign the evaluation form. As a result of Respondent's conduct at the meeting, Novelli placed him on paid administrative leave pending a review of his mental health and fitness for duty. He was on leave for about one week and returned after undergoing a psychological evaluation. A significant dispute arose between Respondent and Novelli concerning an event known as National Portfolio Day. The event was a special opportunity for art students that allowed them to have their art reviewed and to speak with representatives from several colleges and art schools. Respondent had taken students to the event in prior years. In the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent requested permission to take a number of his students and students from other schools to the event. His request was preliminarily approved by administration, pending several details being worked out. However, the permission was ultimately withdrawn, and no students from Bayside were allowed to attend. Respondent claims that the event was a valuable tool for students and had allowed many students to obtain significant scholarships to colleges in prior years. Novelli found out that the students from other schools who were going to the event were Advanced Placement (AP) students. Bayside did not have an AP program or any AP students.4/ Novelli asked Respondent to put together portfolios for the students he wanted to attend, and Novelli would get the artwork examined by an expert to see if the students were viable candidates for the event, even if they were not technically AP students. Respondent was given a deadline to get the student art portfolios to Novelli so they could be taken to the district office by a date certain. Respondent missed the deadline. Instead, Respondent personally hand-delivered the portfolios to the district office on the day they were due. The artwork was reviewed by an art expert who deemed the work to be inadequate for inclusion in the National Portfolio Day event. She rated the art at the lowest level of a five-tiered rating system. As a result of the art expert's review, Respondent was advised that no students from Bayside would be going to the event. Notwithstanding that decision being communicated to Respondent, he continued to act as if Bayside students would still be attending. He continued making transportation arrangements and notifying students' parents of the impending event. There were several unexplained emails admitted in evidence that show some continuing dialogue about the portfolio trip. The emails addressing this issue create some confusion as to whether Bayside students would be able to attend, but ultimately none attended. At the end of the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent was transferred to Lockmar. Although he had requested a transfer from Bayside, Respondent was extremely upset about the transfer. According to Respondent, he wanted to go to another high school where his former principal, Tuttle, was now the principal. The director of Human Relations Services, however, was told by Respondent's union representative that Respondent wanted to go to an elementary school. Tuttle said that his school's position had already been filled anyway. The principal at Lockmar (Hostetler) did not know at the time of the transfer that Respondent had received an unsatisfactory performance evaluation for his last year at Bayside. When she found out, she issued a memorandum (dated August 5, 2010) informing Respondent that he was on probation for a period of 90 days. The probation status, also called performance review, is essentially the same thing as a procedure called NEAT, except that a performance review is supposed to be completed within 90 days. That is, the teacher has 90 days to show improvement in the delineated areas of concern. It is not uncommon for a teacher to be placed on performance review following an unsatisfactory annual evaluation. As part of the performance review process, Hostetler frequently went into Respondent's classroom to observe his teaching style. Her visits would last the majority of the class period. She would visit classes of different grade levels and students in order to see how Respondent handled various age groups. After approximately eight weeks of reviewing Respondent, Hostetler issued an interim evaluation. That evaluation rated Respondent unsatisfactory in four areas and needs improvement in another area. Once again, Respondent was deemed to have unsatisfactory lesson plans. His instructional organization and development was again deemed deficient, as well as his presentation of subject matter. Further, he was found to be unsatisfactory in the area of responsibilities under the professionalism strand. The overall evaluation for Respondent was unsatisfactory. The evaluation was reviewed with Respondent on October 1, 2010, but he refused to sign it. On that same date, a number of PDAPs were created to help Respondent address his deficiencies. Respondent was given until December 10, 2010, to take steps to improve in the various areas. Later, when it became clear that he would not be able to meet that deadline, the PDAPs were extended to February 18, 2011, then to March 18, 2011, and then extended again to March 23, 2011. At least one of the extensions was done because Respondent was preparing his classes for an upcoming art show. On March 23, 2011, Hostetler completed Respondent's annual evaluation. It included three unsatisfactory scores and two scores of needs improvement. The overall evaluation was unsatisfactory, his second unsatisfactory evaluation in two years. Once again, Respondent refused to sign the evaluation form. There was considerable testimony and evidence presented at the final hearing concerning Respondent's tenure at Indialantic Elementary School from 1998-2002, some ten years prior to the final hearing. In his last performance evaluation at Indialantic, Principal Strong had given Respondent an overall unsatisfactory ranking. Although Respondent's performance at a different school so many years prior to the instant allegations may not be dispositive of anything in this case, it is noted that Respondent's administrators at that time had many of the same concerns as those raised by Novelli and Hostetler years later. Besides the on-going issues with less than satisfactory performance ratings, Hostetler had other concerns about Respondent as well. One issue had to do with Respondent sending children outside the classroom and instructing them to "look for dinosaurs." His intention was to keep the children from disrupting the class by their bad behavior. The instruction to look for dinosaurs was just a way of making the student sit and contemplate their behavior. Respondent claims to have learned the technique during training he took through a program called Sun Coast Area Teacher Training. Respondent maintains that he kept visual surveillance of the children when they were outside; the teacher in the adjoining classroom said he could not really do that and maintain contact with his other students. Nonetheless, it does appear that the children were belittled by their peers when they were sent outside to look for dinosaurs. Lockmar had been asked to take part in a contest sponsored by the local police department. Students were to draw pictures within certain parameters that would allow the pictures, if chosen, to be converted to magnets or other items. Respondent was supposed to have the children draw pictures related to a theme of policemen as peace keepers, then select appropriate pictures to submit for consideration by the judges of the contest. Respondent did have his children make drawings, but almost all of them failed to meet the stated size and content parameters. He then asked personnel in the front office to voice their opinion as to which drawings he should submit. Feeling uncomfortable making a decision such as that, the staff handed the drawings over to Hostetler. She ultimately found only three or four worthy of submission for the contest. Hostetler received complaints from other teachers that their students were not ready to leave the art classroom in a timely fashion. They complained that Respondent did not have them ready to go when the art period ended. Hostetler issued a memorandum to Respondent about addressing that issue appropriately. During the period of time Respondent was under performance review and addressing the PDAPs, he was assigned a peer mentor teacher, John Hays, to assist him deal with deficiencies. Hays worked with Respondent from September 2010 through May 2011, including approximately 15 on-site visits to the classroom and one visit with Respondent to another school's art classroom. Respondent made a few improvements during the time Hays worked with him, including upgrading the kiln, putting student drawings in the front office, and becoming more cooperative with others. However, Hays found that the classroom, as managed by Respondent, was not conducive to learning. The lesson plans did not comport with what was going on in the classroom, even though Respondent usually had an explanation for that, e.g., a special project was coming up and students needed to pay more attention to it than to what the lesson plan described. Hays seemed to doubt whether Respondent's reasons or explanations were entirely truthful. All in all, Hays did not see significant improvement by Respondent in most of the problem areas that were being addressed.5/ When Respondent left Lockmar, he was given the opportunity to retrieve all his personal property. At the beginning of the next school year, the new teacher in the art room discovered several pictures belonging to Respondent in the pod (office area) adjacent to the classroom. Some of the pictures were somewhat disturbing to the new teacher, so she turned them over to her principal, who turned them over to the School Board security office. The pictures depicted a person who looked much like Respondent and contained words and images that were not appropriate for elementary school-aged children (and possibly not even high school-aged children). Respondent testified that some of his high school students had made the drawings, but he would not say that the pictures were supposed to depict him (despite one being labeled "The Mighty O." Respondent was often referred to by students and teachers as "O.") Respondent admitted that the drawings were not appropriate for viewing by young children. There is, however, no evidence that any elementary school children ever saw or had access to the pictures. Respondent made some extremely unusual allegations about his prior principals, Strong and Novelli. He said Strong was responsible for Respondent's girlfriend having a miscarriage, that Strong had intentionally caused that to happen, and that he was afraid Strong may do the same thing to someone else. He said Strong had tried to poison him by placing contaminated mulch around his portable classroom building. He said Novelli had caused him to be arrested by sabotaging Respondent's car so that he would be pulled over by police and illegally searched. He made the allegation about Novelli secretly recording meetings. He alleged that Novelli was involved in either killing or damaging the careers of teachers he did not like. Respondent requested leave to pursue a doctorate degree, but the leave was denied. Immediately thereafter, Respondent re-filed his leave request, citing medical issues. He said he used the leave to, in part, pursue his doctorate, but did not adequately explain the suspicious request for medical leave. The leave request was supported by a note from a chiropractor indicating Respondent had back problems. The note did not verify Respondent's allegation that Strong was poisoning him at Indialantic (a claim raised in Respondent's deposition and final hearing testimony). There was no credible evidence to support the various claims Respondent made against his administrators, leaving the impression that the allegations are baseless. However, there was no direct showing by the School Board as to how these incredible stories directly affected Respondent's capabilities as a teacher. Respondent showed that he could be evasive and obstinate concerning the admission of even the least significant facts. He seemed reluctant to engage in conversation that was not full of innuendo, suggestion, or intrigue. For example, when asked whether he really believed his principal would vandalize his car (as Respondent had alleged), Respondent answered, "Because other teachers in the district, you know the Greek mythology Cassandra, how Cassandra would foretell the future? Other teachers in the district, as the Greek mythologist Cassandra, would forewarn me of Mr. Novelli's prior actions." When asked repeatedly if he believed another principal was interfering with his purchase of a building, Respondent replied, "I was very cautious with the information." When asked what that meant, he said, "It was worth investigating and finding out more." When asked if Principal Strong was responsible for Respondent's girlfriend losing her baby, he responded, "My answer to that is it's an unfortunate situation" and "I have a child that I wish was born and because of the politics, it is not here." Other than Tuttle's restrained endorsement of Respondent, no fellow teachers or administrators were presented to prove or suggest that Respondent could work well with others. Hays said Respondent was cordial to him, but he was not a co-worker or administrator. Respondent seems to be very eager to assist his students as they prepare for life after grade school. He seems to enjoy teaching and wants to return to the classroom. At least two parents of his former high school students endorsed Respondent as an important reason for their child's success. Respondent said he had helped some students obtain scholarships to assist with their college education, although there was no substantive proof of that fact. In his written response to the 2009-2010 evaluation, Respondent stated he would "produce over $300,000 . . . in independent scholarships for [his] students." Although he testified several times about the scholarships he could generate for his students, there was no credible evidence to support his assertion. (The response to his evaluation was well written and rational. It was not comparable to Respondent's way of orally expressing himself, at least as evidenced by his testimony at the final hearing.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Brevard County School Board, terminating the employment of Respondent, Mark Ostermeier, for just cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of June, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of June, 2012.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner may terminate Respondent's contract for immorality, in violation of Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-4.009, Florida Administrative Code; misconduct in office, in violation of Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-4.009(3), Florida Administrative Code; and incompetency, in violation of Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-4.009(1), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Respondent came to the United States from British Guyana in 1977. In 1988, Respondent obtained an educator's certificate and began teaching in Dade County. Petitioner hired him in 1992 and assigned him to Silver Lakes Middle School. For several years, Respondent taught language arts, which is the area in which he is certified, to all grades. Petitioner later assigned Respondent to teach students in the dropout prevention program at Silver Lakes Middle School. The students in the dropout prevention program typically represent greater academic challenges to a teacher than do their counterparts in regular education. For the past five or six years, Respondent taught dropout prevention at Silver Lakes Middle School. His teaching approach is to try to develop rapport with the students during the first nine weeks of the school year while, at the same time, identify specific areas of weakness within each student that may require attention during the school year. On October 17, 2001, Respondent administered a diagnostic test to identify areas in which students needed work. Unable to answer some of the questions, some students asked Respondent for help. Respondent declined to help because his assistance would destroy the purpose of the test. Some of the students began to misbehave. After several attempts by Respondent to control these students, they threatened to go to the office and complain about Respondent. Respondent invited the students to go to the office and complain about him. He wrote passes for several students, and several more students joined the others to visit the office, rather than take the test, and complain to an administrator about Respondent. The principal received the students in her office and listened to their complaints, which appear to have been the source of the allegations in this case. The principal took statements from the students and then returned with them to Respondent's classroom. While in the classroom, the principal helped the students with the diagnostic test that Respondent had been administering. Recognizing that the diagnostic value of his test was lost, Respondent then joined the principal in helping the students with their diagnostic test. Prominent among the students' complaints to the principal was that Respondent had struck a student, J. H. Petitioner produced little direct evidence supporting this allegation. Twice, J. H. ignored subpoenas to testify in this case. Respondent testified that J. H. later admitted to him that other boys in the class made him lie and say that Respondent hit him. J. H.'s failure to comply with subpoenas is consistent with Respondent's testimony. Absent J. H.'s testimony, it is difficult to determine exactly what, if anything, happened with him and Respondent. The most likely scenario is that J. H. succumbed to the pressures of other students in the class and lied that Respondent had hit him, knowing that the only contact that had taken place between Respondent and J. H. was incidental contact during a minor incident of horseplay. Three of the four student witnesses whom Petitioner called to substantiate the charges were unconvincing. The fourth--J. G.--was vague and unable or unwilling to supply evidence against Respondent, whom he described as "the nicest man." Student D. S. testified at the hearing that Respondent ignored the students' questions in class about classroom material, called J. H. "peanut head," called "Jarvis" "bumbleclot," told D. S. that he lacked motivation and was lazy, and told other students that they came to school looking like a "bum." "Bumbleclot" appears to be a derogatory term in a Jamaican patois, although the record does not establish the intended or actual effect that any use of the word would have in Respondent's class. When handed a previous statement, D. S. added to his complaints that Respondent often said "bloody" in class and would . . . like nudge [J. H.], like, hit him in the arm." D. S. also recalled that Respondent said "cock-eyed" in class. D. S. admitted that he never heard Respondent threaten to "pop" a student. Discrepancies exist between D. S.'s testimony and his prior statements. First, he initially omitted the most significant allegation--that Respondent struck J. H.--and, when he later mentioned it, he downplayed it to a "nudge." Likewise, D. S. initially omitted any mention of Respondent's use of "bloody." Also, D. S. never mentioned Respondent's use of "bumbleclot" in his previous statements. D. S.'s testimony establishes the unlikelihood that Respondent actually hit J. H. or that he ever threatened to "pop" a student in class. Student J. P. testified that she heard other students say that Respondent pushed D. V. out the door of the portable classroom after ejecting him from class. Due to J. P.'s admitted failure to have observed the incident, the Administrative Law Judge struck the testimony. However, despite admitting that she did not see this incident, J. P. stated that she went to the office with other students and informed the principal of the incident. J. P. also testified that Respondent often said "bloody" and refused to explain all of an assignment to her after she missed school, which she admitted happened frequently. Lastly, J. P. complained that Respondent issued her a referral for going to the bathroom. In addition to missing school, J. P. was often tardy when returning from various errands, and many times she did not do her work. J. P.'s testimony establishes only that Respondent may have said "bloody" a few times in class. Student J. G. testified that he recalled Respondent using "hell or damn" in class, although, on cross-examination, he denied any recollection of any use of either of these words. J. G. testified that he heard Respondent say something about knocking a student into next week, although he could not recall whether the latter comment was made in jest. J. G. added that he saw Respondent give J. H. "a little hit." Student D. V. testified that he saw Respondent hit J. H., although his description of the conversation accompanying the incident was materially different at the hearing than in a previous statement. D. V. testified that Respondent threatened to "pop" students and told them to "shut [their] bloody mouths." D. V. added that he asked Respondent one time if he could call his mother to bring his medication for attention deficit disorder, and Respondent denied him permission to make the call. D. V. also testified that Respondent, while sitting beside the door, pushed D. V. on the shoulder to get him out of the classroom, and D. V. responded by warning that he would get his sister to "kick [Respondent's] ass." Although D. V.'s testimony is not undermined by the inconsistencies plaguing the testimony of D. S. and J. P., D. V. shares the antipathy of these other two students for Respondent. Each of these students resented Respondent's efforts to discipline and teach them. Each of these students betrayed a desire to act in concert to get Respondent in trouble, as they felt he had gotten them into trouble. Respondent called as a witness one student, W. L., who testified forcefully that she heard the other students coercing J. H. to say falsely that Respondent had hit him. W. L. testified that the only improper word that she heard Respondent use was "bloody" and that Respondent and J. H. engaged in some horseplay in class. Perhaps the most useful witness was an assistant principal at Silver Lakes Middle School. At the end of the 2001-02 school year, the assistant principal completed an evaluation of Respondent in which he assigned him a satisfactory rating, which is the highest, in all categories, including classroom management. It is clear from the testimony of the assistant principal that he gave the complaints of Respondent's students exactly the weight that they deserved. Respondent admitted that he used "bloody" in class, but the record fails to develop the appreciation of his students for the intensity of this word in certain non-American cultures. Respondent admitted that he once used the phrase, "pop you one," but the record fails to develop the context so as to preclude the likelihood that Respondent said these words in jest. Respondent admitted that he used "cock-eyed," "skinny boy," and "bony boy," but, again, the record fails to establish a context as to permit a finding that these terms were abusive or disparaging. Respondent, who is black, mentioned that he had been called "black nugget" and "kiwi," but only as part of an effort to develop tolerance for names among students eager to take offense. Respondent ejected D. V. from the classroom for legitimate reasons. According to D. V. himself, any followup contact was with Respondent in the seated position, so as not likely to have been significant. According to another student, D. V. grabbed Respondent. At most, the record depicts an angry, disruptive student who has stubbornly refused to comply with his teacher's ejection of him from the classroom, so that other students have a chance to learn. Likewise, D. V.'s complaint that Respondent denied him the chance to call his mother for his attention deficit medication suffers for the lack of context. Undoubtedly, D. V. joined in ongoing efforts to disrupt the class and avoid receiving instruction. The only context for this request provided by the record is that D. V. asked for permission immediately after returning from lunch, when he would have had ample opportunity to call his mother. Although it is possible that D. V. first thought of the missing medication after lunch, it is at least as likely that he thought of the missing medication as a convenient excuse to extend his mid-day respite from learning. For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent was guilty of misconduct in office, incompetency, or immorality.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 2nd day of April, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Franklin L. Till, Jr. Superintendent Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-3125 Honorable Jim Horne Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel 325 West Gaines Street 1244 Turlington Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Carmen M. Rodriguez Law Offices of Carmen Rodriguez, P.A. 9245 Southwest 157th Street Suite 209 Miami, Florida 33157 Mark F. Kelly Kelly & McKee, P.A. 1718 East 7th Avenue Suite 301 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Eric Delucia (Respondent or Mr. Delucia) violated sections 1012.795(1)(c), (g), or (j), Florida Statutes, and implementing administrative rules, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The Commissioner is the state agent responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding educator certificates. At all times relevant to the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint, Mr. Delucia held Florida Educator's Certificate 915677, covering the areas of English, English for Speakers of Other Languages, Business Education, and Marketing, which is valid through June 30, 2019. At all times relevant to the Amended Administrative Complaint, Mr. Delucia was employed as a language arts teacher in the Broward County School District. Mr. Delucia stored the documents listed in Petitioner's Exhibit P-2 on his computer, as stipulated by the parties. Mr. Delucia was employed at Cooper City High School during the 2011/2012 school year. Ms. Doll was the principal. Principal Doll testified that Mr. Delucia was in the initial stages of a cycle of assistance during that year. He received a memo outlining expectations and concerns, and was observed by several people. Principal Doll indicated she believed that he had deficiencies in instructional planning, classroom management, lesson plan presentation, and lesson plan delivery. However, Principal Doll confirmed that Mr. Delucia's Instructional Practice Score was a 2.954 for the period January 2012 through May 2012 at Cooper City High School, which was within the "effective" range. Principal Doll stated that there were concerns about his performance based on observations that were done earlier that warranted an outside observer, but those observations were not used for the evaluation. He was never placed on a Professional Development Plan while at Cooper City High School. Respondent requested a hardship transfer and was moved to Ramblewood for the following school year. On January 1, 2013, Mr. Delucia was admitted to the hospital following a series of strokes. Respondent received "effective" scores in both the Student Growth and Instructional Practice components, as well as his overall Final Evaluation for the 2012/2013 school year at Ramblewood. Respondent was subsequently on medical leave of absence during the 2013/2014 school year. On July 1, 2014, Ms. Smith became the principal at Ramblewood. On August 11, 2014, Mr. Delucia returned to Ramblewood from medical leave. On August 14, 2014, Principal Smith was inspecting all of the classrooms at Ramblewood to ensure that they were prepared for the first day of school. She felt that Mr. Delucia's classroom was not ready for students, because it needed a little bit of "warmth." On August 28, 2014, Principal Smith conducted a formal evaluation in Mr. Delucia's classroom. She concluded that the lesson had no clear focus and that it was not on the appropriate grade level for the students he was teaching. In early September, there was a complaint that Mr. Delucia was putting up students' grades on a board in his room. However, Mr. Delucia testified that he posted the grades only by student number, not by name. There was no competent evidence to the contrary. On October 30, 2014, in introducing the genre of mythology to his students, Mr. Delucia made the comment that "[t]he gods viewed humans as pets or sexual toys." While not an appropriate comment for middle school students, there was no suggestion that Mr. Delucia elaborated or pursued this statement further, and this incident did not constitute ineffective teaching. There was no evidence that it caused students embarrassment or harmed students' mental health. There was testimony that on October 30, 2014, Mr. Delucia also spent class time explaining that the fact that a Star Wars' character had no father would have been taboo in 1976 and discussing that the episodes of that movie series were released out of the chronological order of the story. While the discussion may have gotten a bit off track, it was not clearly shown that discussion of fiction was unrelated to the concept of mythology, might not have enhanced students' understanding of the topic, or was ineffective teaching. While it was clearly shown that Mr. Delucia made the statement, "These kids have the memories of gnats," it was clear that this was said when no students were present and in defense of his actions in discussing fantasy and fables. On December 2, 2014, Respondent said to a student in an angry and loud voice, "Don't you even piss me off." This warning, given in response to the student's statement that the student did not understand something, was inappropriate in language and tone, harmful to learning, and harmful to the student's mental health. Mr. Delucia's statement that he was not visibly angry or speaking in a loud voice on this occasion is not credited. On December 8, 2014, Mr. Delucia met with Ms. Poindexter, his new peer reviewer. At one point in their conversation, he talked about his former principal, Ms. Doll, referring to her battle with cancer. He stated, "She will kick the bucket soon because she has cancer and no one will care when she is gone." He stated, "She's the devil." Mr. Delucia also referred to his current principal, Ms. Smith, as "the devil." He stated, "My motivation is to destroy her with everything I have" and that he "wished the ground would open up and swallow her." Mr. Delucia also referred to the administrative staff as "assholes" and used multiple profanities, stating, "They do not know who they are messing with, but they will find out soon." Student A.F. testified that he heard Mr. Delucia tell Student C.D. that he should jump off of a bridge with a bungee cord wrapped around his neck; tell Student C.D. that if he was a speed bump, he (Mr. Delucia) would run over him; and tell Student C.D. to kill himself a couple of times. However, Student A.F. provided no detail or context for these alleged statements, some of which seemed to involve an incident involving an entirely different student who he testified was not even in his class. He was not a credible witness. On January 8, 2015, Ms. Sheffield observed Mr. Delucia using a four-page packet to teach punctuation to his seventh- grade language arts class. Ms. Sheffield told Mr. Delucia that this was not really part of the seventh-grade curriculum. Mr. Delucia made a statement to the effect of "these students don't know anything, not even the basics, so we have to start somewhere." There was no allegation that this comment was made in front of the students. From the period August 21, 2014, through December 3, 2014, Mr. Delucia's Instructional Practice Score was 1.916, and he was placed on a 90-day Professional Development Plan. Numerous observations by Dr. Jones and Principal Smith followed through the remainder of the school year. Mr. Delucia's Instructional Practice Score improved slightly, but was still less than effective. On January 12, 2015, Ms. Sheffield noticed that one of the vocabulary words written on Mr. Delucia's board for his students was "retard." Ms. Sheffield said she assumed that Mr. Delucia meant the slang term sometimes used as a noun to refer to persons with mental disabilities. Such use of the term, as a shortened form of the word "retarded," would be offensive and disparaging. Ms. Sheffield said that they talked about the fact that it is not appropriate to use the word "retard" as a noun as a reference to the disabled. She testified that he did not respond. At hearing, Mr. Delucia admitted using "retard" as a vocabulary word, but testified that he included the word as a verb, meaning to slow down or delay. Ms. Sheffield testified she did not hear him speak the term, or say anything about it, and there was no other testimony regarding this event. Mr. Delucia admitted that he often said, "If your writing looks like garbage and smells like garbage, then it is garbage." Ms. Sheffield stated that she told Mr. Delucia he might try to find another way to encourage students to write neatly in their journals that was a more positive comment or allowed students to take pride in their writing. On January 26, 2015, Ms. Sheffield testified that when a student returned late from lunch, Mr. Delucia and the student began arguing. Ms. Sheffield credibly testified that Mr. Delucia screamed at the student, "This isn't going to end up good for you. Just shut up." On February 4, 2015, Student A.W. had come in late to Mr. Delucia's class and was acting out in the back of the classroom. When asked why, her response was that other people also did it. Mr. Delucia responded, "If other people jump off of a bridge, would you jump off a bridge, too?" Student A.W., after a moment of silence, retorted, "Yeah, if you give me a bungee cord." Mr. Delucia replied, "If there is a bungee cord, you should wrap it around your neck before you jump." The class started laughing. Student A.W. replied, "You just told me to kill myself, I am telling the office." Mr. Delucia then asked Student A.W. to leave the classroom. While Student A.W. had a disrespectful attitude, Respondent's caustic comments to her were intentionally made in a spirit of mocking humor to subject Student A.W. to embarrassment in front of the class. A class grade graph prepared during the third quarter of the 2014/2015 school year documented that 68 percent of his students were failing at that time. No similar graph for any other quarter of that year, or for other years, was submitted in evidence. On April 7, 2015, the students in Mr. Delucia's class were supposed to be studying Latin and Greek roots of words, but one student did not have a packet and asked Mr. Delucia for one. After Mr. Delucia handed him the packet, the student said, "There is a footprint on this." Mr. Delucia responded, "Get working on studying or else I will call your father." The student replied, "Please don't." Mr. Delucia then said, "Why, because you don't want to get a footprint on your face?" Ms. Sheffield testified that during her observations, she never saw Mr. Delucia standing up interacting with his students. She said she never saw him deliver a lesson to students. For the 2014/2015 school year, Mr. Delucia's score for the instructional practice component on his evaluation was 2.002, a "needs improvement" rating, while his score for both the deliberate practice/growth plans and student data components was recorded as exactly 3.0. The final evaluation for Mr. Delucia in 2014/2015, computed by combining these unequally weighted scores, was 2.511, an "effective" rating.1/ Mr. Delucia was transferred to Piper High School for the 2015/2016 school year. The administration there did not place Mr. Delucia on a Professional Development Plan. Mr. Delucia has not been subjected to disciplinary action during his time at Piper High School, and he has exhibited positive rapport with his students and colleagues. Mr. Delucia's weighted overall evaluation score for the 2015/2016 school year at Piper High School was 2.831, "effective." Mr. Delucia's demeanor at hearing was defiant. His testimony was sometimes evasive and defensive.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Eric Delucia in violation of section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a), (3)(e), and (5)(e); imposing a fine of $3,000.00; placing him on probation under conditions specified by the Commission for a period of two years; and imposing costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of November, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 20th day of November, 2017.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and if so, what penalties should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the head of the state agency responsible for certifying and regulating public school teachers in the State of Florida. At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent has been licensed in the fields of elementary education and exceptional student education. Her Florida education certificate number is 840291. Her certificate expires on June 30, 2010. Respondent was employed by the Bradford County School District from 1994 to 1996, from 1998 to 2001, and finally from 2004 to 2007. She has worked as a substitute teacher, a parent specialist, and a teacher of varying exceptionalities. At the time of the events alleged in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was the principal and teacher at Believer's School of Learning (Believer's School) in Bradford County School District. Believer's School was a charter school, for grades K-3, meant to give alternatives to traditional public school. Charter schools fulfill various purposes such as improving student learning and increasing learning opportunities. With respect to the Believer's School, a special emphasis was placed on low- performing students and reading. An "exceptional student" is defined by Section 1003.01(3)(a), Florida Statutes, as: ny student who has been determined eligible for a special program in accordance with rules of the State Board of Education. The term includes students who are gifted and students with disabilities who have an intellectual disability; autism spectrum disorder; a speech impairment; a language impairment; an orthopedic impairment; an other health impairment; traumatic brain injury; a visual impairment; an emotional or behavioral disability; or a specific learning disability, including, but not limited to, dyslexia, dyscalculia, or developmental aphasia; students who are deaf or hard of hearing or dual sensory impaired; students who are hospitalized or homebound; children with developmental delays ages birth through 5 years, or children, ages birth through 2 years, with established conditions that are identified in State Board of Education rules pursuant to s. 1003.21(1)(e). Respondent had Exceptional Student Education (ESE) students in her school. Believer’s School was required to follow federal and state guidelines with respect to ESE students. Those requirements include keeping complete, current and accurate records with respect to exceptional education students. These recordkeeping requirements are required by federal and state law and are necessary for the school system of Bradford County, of which Believer's School was a part, to remain eligible for federal and state funds allocated to pay costs associated with educating exceptional students. In accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A- 6.03028(3), Respondent was required to prepare an Individual Education Plan (IEP) for each ESE student attending Believer's school. Rule 6A-6.03028(3) states: (3) IEP Requirements. An IEP or individual family support plan (IFSP) must be developed, reviewed, and revised for each eligible student or child with a disability served by a school district, or other state agency that provides special education and related services either directly, by contract, or through other arrangements, in accordance with this rule. Parents are partners with schools and school district personnel in developing, reviewing, and revising the IEP for their student. An IEP is necessary to evaluate the student's educational level, to establish short and long-term educational objectives, to develop alternative ways to accomplish those objectives, and to record the progress of the plan and establish a means for review of the student's educational progress. The proper preparation and maintenance of an IEP is a basic responsibility of the Respondent for exceptional education students at Believer's School. An improperly prepared IEP is potentially harmful to the learning of an ESE student because services and accommodations must be listed on the student's IEP before they can be provided. IEP’s are created by an IEP Team during a meeting involving the parties as set out in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-6.03028(3)(c) as follows: (c) IEP Team participants. The IEP Team, with a reasonable number of participants, shall include: The parents of the student; Not less than one (1) regular education teacher of a student with a disability... Not less than one (1) special education teacher of the student, or where appropriate, not less than one special education provider of the student; A representative of the school district who is qualified to provide or supervise the provision of specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of students with disabilities, is knowledgeable about the general curriculum, and is knowledgeable about the availability of resources of the school district. . . An individual who can interpret the instructional implications of evaluation results who may be a member of the IEP Team as described in subparagraphs (3)(c)3., or (3)(c)4., of this rule;. . . Upon completion, the IEP is signed by the regular education teacher, the ESE teacher, the local education agency (LEA), and the parent or guardian of the student. The LEA is ultimately responsible for what goes into the IEP. If something is in the IEP it is because the LEA determined that it was feasible to carry out. The ESE teacher examines the psycho-educational reports and the specialized needs of the student. He or she often provides strategies to the regular education teacher to use with the ESE student. The regular education teacher is the most familiar with the curriculum being used for the student’s grade level. He or she provides insight as to how that curriculum can be adapted for the ESE student. Members of the IEP Team for an ESE student are supposed to be teachers and individuals associated with the student’s current grade level and involved in the student's education, in order to provide accurate curriculum and services for the student. The IEP Team is supposed to review the child’s test scores or have access to the child, know about the curriculum being used, and what types of accommodations an ESE student of the particular grade level would need. By signing the IEP, the individual team members are stating they met to discuss the ESE student, to develop goals and objectives and services for the student, and that they will follow up on making sure those goals and objectives are met. IEP's are updated on an annual basis. The annual IEP conference is mandatory, and failure to provide such a conference is a violation of federal, state, and School Board rules and policies. Failure to hold such a conference deprives the parents of the exceptional student any meaningful participation in determining the student's educational goals and may deprive the child of the assistance to which he or she is entitled. It also jeopardizes continued state and federal funding of the School Board's exceptional education program. Respondent was instructed, as were other teachers of exceptional students in the school district, that every IEP must be reviewed at least once a year through an annual IEP conference. Respondent was trained in how to prepare IEPs by the Bradford County School District on July 19, 20, and 21, 2005. Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-6.03028(3)(b) requires that the school notify parents of an ESE student that an IEP meeting is scheduled prior to the IEP Team Meeting taking place. This notification is more than a formality; it is meant to insure meaningful participation by parents or guardians in the IEP process. Rule 6A-6.03028(3)(b) states as follows: (b) Parental participation in meetings. Each school district shall establish procedures that provide the opportunity for one or both of the student’s parents to participate in meetings and decisions concerning the IEP for the student. Parents of each student with a disability must be members of any group that makes decisions on the educational placement of their student. Procedures to ensure participation in meetings shall include the following: Notifying parents of the meeting early enough to ensure that they will have an opportunity to attend; and Scheduling the meeting at a mutually agreed on time and place. A written notice of the meeting must be provided to the parents and must indicate the purpose, time, and location of the meeting, and who, by title or position, will be attending. . . . * * * A meeting may be conducted without a parent in attendance if the school district is unable to obtain the attendance of the parents. In this case, the district must have a record of its attempts to arrange a mutually agreed on time and place, such as: Detailed records of telephone calls made or attempted and the results of those calls; Copies of correspondence sent to the parents and any responses received; and Detailed records of visits made to the parents’ home or place of employment and the results of those visits. To comply with Rule 6A-6.03028(3)(b), it is Bradford County School District’s policy to send out a Parent Notification Form 10 days prior to an IEP team meeting. A few days after the first notification was sent, a second notification is sent to the parent. After the two written notifications are sent, a phone call is made to the parent of the ESE student. Student S.B. began school in the Bradford County School District when she was in pre-K. She was identified as a student with developmental disabilities. In 2005, she was living in Richmond, Virginia, and found to be eligible for exceptional education services as a student with a developmental disability. Upon return to Florida, S.B. was enrolled in Southside Elementary on March 17, 2005. In May 2005, an IEP team met, determined that S.B. was a student with specific learning disabilities, and developed an IEP outlining the services required for S.B. Without those services, S.B. would not receive a free appropriate public education as contemplated under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), or Florida law regarding the provision of exceptional education. IEPs for exceptional education students are required to be completed every year before the prior year’s IEP expires. S.B.’s next IEP was due on May 17, 2006. On February 13, 2006, S.B. enrolled in Respondent’s charter school, Believer's School of Learning, approximately three months before S.B.’s next IEP was due. There was apparently some delay in providing S.B.'s May 2005 IEP to Respondent, but the length of the delay is unclear. In order for a school district to receive the extra funding for its ESE students all the ESE students’ IEP’s must be current by "FTE week." FTE week is when the schools determine a final head count of all the students that are in attendance. The FTE week for Bradford County School District in 2006 was October 13, 2006. All the ESE students within the school district had to have their IEPs in by that date or the schools would not receive the extra funding associated with that student. If S.B.’s IEP was not turned in before October 13, 2006, Believer's School would have only received its normal funding only instead of the additional ESE funding. As of the last week of September 2006, Respondent had not completed the IEP for S.B. In late September, Respondent called Verdell Long, and asked for some assistance in preparing an IEP for a third grader. On September 28, 2006, Respondent met with Verdell Long, at Bradford County High School, during Ms. Long’s lunch break, for assistance with preparing an IEP for a third grader at her charter school. Verdell Long was a high school teacher at Bradford County High School who had worked with ESE students, with a focus on mental retardation from grades K-12. She had assisted Respondent with IEPs in the past. She understood that she was assisting with a “sample” IEP to be used as a model. However, it was Respondent’s intention to use the product created as an IEP for the student S.B. The day of the meeting Verdell Long’s computer was not working so she could not access the IEPs she had on file. She asked another high school teacher, Dr. Vivian Haynes to assist in the meeting. Dr. Haynes was an ESE teacher at Bradford County High School in September 2006. She was very experienced with preparing and writing IEPs, having just completed a doctoral dissertation which included copies of third and fifth grade IEPs. Dr. Haynes had not previously met Respondent. Dr. Haynes brought several blank “dummy” IEPs with her to the meeting in order to have examples to show Respondent. The IEP prepared at the meeting included the various components of an IEP, such as the measurable goals and objectives for a third grader, but did not include the demographic information on any student. The document prepared at the meeting did not have a student’s name or test scores on it anywhere. Respondent did not bring the student S.B. or her test scores with her to the meeting. However, neither Ms. Long nor Dr. Haynes expected to see individualized information because they did not understand that an IEP for an actual child was being prepared. Verdell Long signed the IEP as the ESE teacher, Dr. Vivian Haynes signed as the LEA, and Respondent signed as the regular education teacher. Neither Verdell Long nor Dr. Vivian Haynes was contracted with Believer's School by the Bradford County School District to provide services as an LEA representative or an ESE teacher. Both Verdell Long and Dr. Vivian Haynes believed the purpose of the meeting was to construct a model IEP in order to assist Respondent with properly preparing an IEP for an ESE student. Neither expected the document created at their meeting to be submitted as an actual IEP for S.B., or any other student, and neither considered the meeting to be an IEP team meeting. Neither Verdell Long nor Dr. Vivian Haynes was shown a Parent Notification Form indicating that their meeting was to be an IEP team meeting. Neither would have signed the IEP if they had seen such a form because they did not believe that an IEP team meeting was being conducted. After the meeting on September 28, 2006, Respondent took the IEP form prepared with the help of Ms. Long and Dr. Haynes, and inserted information specific to S.B. She then submitted the form as S.B.’s IEP and turned in to the Bradford County School District. Submitted with the IEP form was a document which purported to be the Notification of Meeting Form for the IEP team meeting. Only one notification is referenced. The form was dated September 15, 2006, and identified Dr. Vivian Haynes and Verdell Long as participants in the meeting, notwithstanding Respondent's acknowledgement that she did not meet Dr. Haynes until September 28, 2006, and did not know until that time that Dr. Haynes would be participating in the meeting. The form also indicated that the IEP meeting would take place at the Believer's School, as opposed to the Bradford County High School, where the meeting between Respondent, Ms. Long and Dr. Haynes took place. There is no other indication of other attempts of notification. The signature line reserved for a parent or legal guardian is signed by a Rudolph Williams and dated September 29, 2006, the day after the meeting took place. Respondent claims that Mr. Williams is S.B.'s stepfather. However, there is nothing in the Bradford County School District's records to indicate that Mr. Williams is a parent or legal guardian of S.B., and school district officials were not aware of anyone by that name living in the home. By her own admission, Respondent did not keep "official records" for any of her students, including ESE students. She was not particularly concerned with who signed the IEP, because she apparently considered it to be simply a matter of paperwork to be filed with the School District. In her view, the person responsible for ensuring that a child is receiving the appropriate education is her teacher, regardless of the directives in the IEP. She felt that some of the things identified as required simply could not be done at a school her size. She did not consider the role of the LEA and the ESE teacher on the IEP to be all that important. To her, the real responsibility for the child's education lay with the teacher who worked with her on a daily basis. S.B. was later withdrawn from Believer's School and now attends Starke Elementary School. Believer's School has since closed and is no longer operating as a charter school.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Respondent to be guilty of the violations alleged in Counts Two through Seven and dismissing Count One of the Administrative Complaint; imposing a fine of $500; suspending her certificate for one year and placing Respondent on probation for a period of three years. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of October, 2009.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Lawrence Brennan, holds Florida teaching certificate number 250648, issued by the State Department of Education. The Respondent is certified in the area of English and his certificate is valid through June 30, 1988. The Respondent is a tenured teacher in the Duval County School System in which he has taught since September 8, 1969. The Respondent has taught at Paxon Junior High School since 1984-84, and has taught compensatory education in Paxon Junior High School during school years 1984-85 and 1985-86. Compensatory education is a special program for children with low test scores. Many of the students also have disciplinary problems. The Respondent received satisfactory evaluations for the last three full years of his employment, to include his years at Paxon. The Respondent was removed from the classroom and Paxon Junior High School following the altercation with a student on February 27, 1986, which gave rise to these charges. The Respondent is currently assigned to one of the media centers of the Department of Education in Duval County. The Respondent was informed in writing of the various requirements and responsibilities of teachers in the Duval County School System. Bresha Woods was a student of the Respondent's in November 1985. Ms. Woods had received six to eight referrals to the Principal's office through November 1985 for disrupting class and for not performing assigned duties. Subsequent to the incident described here, Woods was suspended and transferred to the Darnell Cookman Alternative School in March of the 1985-86 school year. On November 7, 1985, the Respondent told Woods to take her things and to go to the Principal's office for not doing her work and disrupting class. Woods delayed, slowly gathering her books, purse and other belongings. The Respondent approached Woods from the rear as she was at her desk, grasped her by the shoulders, pulled her to her feet alongside the desk, turned her toward the door of the classroom and told her to go to the school office. Woods' statement that she was "marked up" is not credible and the fact that she visited a physician on March 29, 1987, is not relevant because of the passage of time. No report of the physician's findings was offered. Woods' report to Atkinson that Respondent had choked her was contrary to Woods' sworn testimony. Atkinson accepted Woods' version of events as opposed to the explanation of Respondent. See T 179, 180. In January 1986, Delilah Elliott, a new student at Paxon, was late for class and cut across a grassy area between the wings of the classroom building which was closed to walking students. Between classes the Respondent was performing monitoring duties outside the classroom as do many of the teachers and staff and observed Ms. Elliott crossing the prohibited area. The Respondent called for Elliott to stop. Although Elliott heard the Respondent call for her to stop, she ignored him, attempting to go to her next class. The Respondent approached her, grabbed her by the shoulders to restrain her, and pushed her toward the sidewalk. She attempted to walk around him and continue on to her class. Elliott refused to tell the Respondent her name. The Respondent herded Elliott to the Principal's office, sometimes pushing her in the back when she stopped walking. Ms. Atkinson, the Assistant Principal in charge of disciplining girls, having seen the incident, followed the Respondent to the office. Atkinson told the Respondent not to be so physical with the children. The Respondent advised Atkinson that he knew what the rules were. Atkinson advised the Respondent that she would take care of the problem, and that he should return to class. Atkinson took no action against Elliott because, according to Atkinson, walking on the grass was not a referral offense. As the Respondent exited the office, Atkinson heard the Respondent say to Elliott, "You little tramp." The Respondent was frequently in physical contact with students in his class. Craig Monasco and Frank Lane were students in the Respondent's class. The Respondent grabbed their buttocks on several occasions when they were leaning over getting books. This practice, called "scooping" by the students, was a form of horse play engaged in by the students. The students were embarrassed by this. On other occasions, the Respondent pulled students out of their seats in the process of disciplining them within the classroom. Leopolean Spikes was a 13 year old black student in the Respondent's 7th grade comp. ed. English class. Spikes had a history of disruptive behavior in class and had been sent to the Principal's office several times during the school year. On February 26, 1986, Spikes was disruptive in class and the Respondent escorted him to the Principal's office. On this occasion, Spikes had refused to accept the referral, and Spikes said he was going to have his father come out and talk with the Respondent. The Respondent added Spikes' additional comments to the referral regarding Spikes' behavior and escorted Spikes to the Principal's office. Upon re-entering the class, the Respondent stated to the class that had Spikes hit him, the Respondent would have knocked him through the wall. The Principal gave Spikes an in-school suspension for his conduct of February 26, 1986. However, based upon the general school policy, a child with the number of referrals that Spikes had had would have been subject to general suspension. On February 27, 1986, Spikes reported to the Respondent's first period comp. ed. class. Spikes exhibited additional disruptive behavior during the class period of approximately 50 minutes in length. During this time, the Respondent warned Spikes on several occasions that he was going to refer him again if his behavior did not change. Shortly before the class was over, Spikes' continued disruptive conduct caused the Respondent to write a referral of Spikes to the Principal. The Respondent told Spikes to go to the Principal's office. Spikes delayed in getting his personal effects together to go to the Principal's office, and the Respondent went over to Spikes and told him to hurry up and leave the class. Spikes told the Respondent that he would not go to the Principal's office. At this point, a conflict exists in testimony regarding what occurred next. The one non-involved adult observer, Ms. Morkin, the co-teacher, stated that she observed six "acts" to the incident: (1) Spikes stood around reading the referral and not doing anything; (2) Respondent guided Spikes to the door by the shoulder; (3) Spikes ran around her desk to his own desk by the windows and wall; (4) Books were thrown in the direction of her desk from the vicinity of Spikes' desk; and (5) A struggle ensued between Spikes and Respondent, which came to an end with the Respondent kneeling next to Spikes and restraining Spikes on the floor. The various student witnesses had more dramatic versions of the incident, but one can trace the activity by its location. Their versions began with: (1) Spikes refused to go and told Respondent that he was not going to the office at or around Spikes' desk; (2) Spikes or Respondent threw books; (3) Spikes and Respondent fought in the area of the desk; (4) Spikes threatened Respondent with a desk; (5) Spikes and Respondent fought in the area of the wall and Spikes' head hit against the wall; and (6) The fight ended with Respondent pinning Spikes to the floor. The following findings are based upon a most credible evidence and testimony presented: The Respondent was standing in the aisle alongside Spikes' desk and between Spikes' desk and the front of the room where Ms. Morkin's desk was located. Spikes, when confronted by the Respondent and told to hurry, told Respondent he refused to go, and threw his books at Respondent, who was standing between Spikes and Morkin. Spikes adopted a combative stance and the Respondent grabbed Spikes' arms, fearing that Spikes was going to strike him. Spikes began to struggle and both Spikes and the Respondent fell to the floor. Respondent let go of Spikes and regained his feet and Spikes pulled himself to his feet using the back of a school desk which he raised in front of him and advanced toward the Respondent saying, "I'm going to hit you with this desk. See T-70. The Respondent pushed the desk out of the way, grabbed the writing portion of the desk, then grabbed Spikes and a second struggle ensued, during which Spikes hit the Respondent, who grabbed Spikes in a bear hug. Spikes and the Respondent were by the windowed wall of the classroom, and the Respondent attempted to pin Spikes against the windowed wall to stop his struggling and prevent Spikes from hitting him. In doing so, Spikes' head was banged against the window once. Spikes continued to hit the Respondent all this time. The Respondent and Spikes again fell to the floor where Spikes ceased fighting after Respondent pinned him down. After the struggle ceased, Ms. Morkin left to seek assistance as the Respondent requested. After he was at the office, a knot came up on Spikes' head. Spikes parents were called and they took Spikes to the emergency room where he underwent a complete examination, to include X-rays of his head. This examination revealed no abnormal findings except tenderness and swelling in the left occipital area of the head. Subsequent medical problems which Spikes has suffered were related to an injury to the right occipital area. No evidence of such an injury was revealed in the examination or reported by Spikes. See Petitioner's Exhibit The Respondent is approximately 6' tall and weighs approximately 200 pounds. Spikes is approximately 4'6" tall and weighs 72 pounds. Mr. Randolph and Ms. Atkinson, the persons in charge of disciplining children at the school, gave their opinions concerning the appropriateness of the Respondent's actions. In their opinion, the Respondent's actions were inappropriate. The record reflects that both Atkinson and Randolph had failed to apply the requisite disciplinary standards to students by taking action to remove them from the school system permanently, based upon continued disciplinary problems. Atkinson, who observed the Elliott incident, described the Respondent as "striking the student" and was of the opinion that a person who touches another person with their hand is striking the person. Mr. Larry Paulk, Assistant Superintendent for Administrative Affairs for the Duval County Schools, interviewed the Respondent after the altercation. To Paulk, the Respondent appeared hostile and was sarcastic in his dealings and approach to students. Paulk offered his opinion that the Respondent's conduct regarding discipline and leadership was inappropriate. The Respondent has attended psychiatric counseling for the past year to deal with his hostility and to improve his effectiveness as a teacher. There is no evidence of the Respondent receiving progressive discipline for prior acts involving physical contact with students, although he received several written reprimands for inappropriate conduct towards students to include physical conduct, language, and attitude. Mr. Randolph, the principal in charge of boys, advised that the school's solution for the removal of an unwilling child from class was to call the Principal. The Principal would come to the room and ask the student to come out of the classroom and, if the student refused, the Principal would then call a uniformed policeman who would arrest the child for trespassing. In Randolph's experience they had never had to take the final step of calling for a uniformed policeman.
The Issue Whether Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent committed the offense(s) charged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The undersigned makes the following findings of relevant and material facts: Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 1091499, covering the areas of Elementary Education, English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), Exceptional Student Education, and Autism Spectrum Disorder, which is valid through June 30, 2016. The Commissioner of Education is responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding a Florida Educator's Certificate. Respondent is an experienced teacher, having taught for 22 years, the last ten in Florida. Respondent has a post- bachelor's degree in Special Education, and a second bachelor's degree in English, and a master's degree in Special Education. Respondent began his career teaching emotional behavioral students, and did that for a few years. He later worked at a residential school, then transferred to teaching those with intellectual disabilities, and later focused his time and professional efforts on autistic students. Respondent decided to teach Special Education students because he had himself been a Special Education student. The incidents complained of in the Amended Administrative Complaint are alleged to have taken place over a three-month period at Olympic Heights High School in Boca Raton, Florida, where Respondent was employed as the emotional behavioral teacher and provided math support. Respondent testified that students with emotional behavioral disorders that interfere with their learning, need a support system to help them learn how to better handle their emotional and behavioral states in order to learn. His job was to oversee that system and to direct a classroom where he could teach them those skills. In addition to his special needs classes, Respondent would "push into" math classes, to teach Special Education students that were in the general education community. In this case, Petitioner outlined several rule and statutory violations by Respondent in its Amended Administrative Complaint including: Violations of the Principles of Professional Conduct. Failing to make a reasonable effort to protect a student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental health and/or physical health and/or safety. Unreasonably restraining a student from independent action in pursuit of learning. Intentionally exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. The factual allegations underlying these violations were as follows: During the 2014-2015 school year, Respondent improperly and aggressively handled T.C., an eighteen year old, male student with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ADF). On or about January 27, 2015, when T.C. grabbed Respondent's coffee cup, Respondent improperly restrained T.C. by placing T.C. in a headlock. On three (3) other occasions during the 2014/2015 school year, Respondent pulled T.C. to the floor, squeezed his cheeks and yelled at him. Respondent would often put his hands on a student when unnecessary and yell at them calling them names. Further, in November of 2014, the Respondent left a student, P.M., unattended in the classroom for twenty (20) minutes while he used the bathroom facilities. Facts Regarding Aggressive Handling and Improper Restraint of T.C. Nicole Ben-Hamo was a speech pathologist doing contract work for the Palm Beach County School District at Olympic Heights High School, in Boca Raton, Florida. She testified that on January 15, 2015, she observed an incident between Respondent and T.C., a student. The incident occurred in what she described as "an amazing small classroom" (referring to its physical size). The classroom was full of other staff members who were in a position, she felt, to observe what she observed. Ben-Hamo saw what she described as "a little wrestle," when student T.C. "grabbed" Respondent's coffee cup. T.C. was tall, heavy, and a big guy. She observed Respondent move forward from behind T.C. to try to reclaim his coffee cup. She claimed that Respondent was standing up behind T.C. and both had their feet on the floor. Respondent reached over the shoulder of T.C. and around him as he tried to take back the coffee cup. Ben-Hamo later wrote a statement in which she claimed that Respondent's arm was around T.C. in a "headlock." Pet. Ex. 2. In her hearing testimony, she described the action as Respondent reaching with one hand to reach the coffee cup, and reaching around T.C. to restrain him with the other hand. In her prior deposition testimony, she noted that it was probably not the right terminology to say a "headlock," but said that Respondent was holding the student's head in a restraint while reaching for the cup. She conceded that she was not familiar with wrestling moves or any kind of move that would be called a "headlock." She testified that she does not know if that is what the move is called, or if it was intended to be a headlock.1/ Ben-Hamo tried to clarify that what she actually observed was Respondent's arm extending from T.C.'s clavicle to his neck area. She could not tell if Respondent was squeezing T.C. In both her deposition testimony and at the hearing, she indicated that she could not imagine that he was squeezing or trying to hurt T.C. In her written statement, given a day or so after the event, Ben-Hamo wrote that she did not believe that Respondent's actions constituted intentional abuse. Pet. Ex. 2. In an effort to further clarify what she thought she saw, Ben-Hamo explained that she did not think that she had witnessed intentional abuse. She felt that Respondent was trying to get the coffee cup back and calm the student.2/ Pet. Ex. 2. Ben-Hamo testified that the entire incident took a "short time" and that none of the other adults who were present intervened. Because she felt that the incident was not "proper interaction," she reported it to an assistant principal. Sarah Borah, the assistant principal; Sharon Dix-Stark, the ESE coordinator; and David Clark, the principal, all were called to testify by Petitioner.3/ Mary Beth Hall, who was present in the room, reported that Respondent sat next to T.C., as he often did. This was done to keep T.C. from jumping up to be disruptive or grab the food of others. While they were seated, she saw T.C. grab Respondent's coffee cup off the table. In turn, Respondent took T.C.'s hat, telling T.C. that "if you take something of mine; I'll take something of yours." Hall reported that nothing she saw about the interaction was extraordinary. She felt that by the time an investigator was called in "things had been kind of blown out of proportion" and the incident between T.C. and Respondent was more a matter of "perception." She felt Respondent worked well with the students. He was more "hands on" with T.C., with whom he got along well. Respondent served as a needed male role model to T.C. Hall recalled that Respondent and T.C. remained seated throughout the incident. Contrary to the testimony of Ben-Hamo, Hall never saw T.C. or Respondent stand during the incident. Hall gave a statement months later in which she used the term "chokehold." Pet. Ex. 3. However, she unequivocally explained at the hearing that she did not see Respondent actually choking T.C., using a chokehold on T.C., or restraining T.C. Hall testified, instead, that the two were "wrestling with their arms" over the items (the cup and hat) and reaching over and around each other, as would two children tussling for the same toy. They both remained seated during the incident and their respective desks never moved or were jostled out of position. Respondent never stood behind T.C. during the incident. According to Hall, the entire incident was two people sitting next to each other and wrestling with their arms. She used the term "wrestling" to indicate two people reaching around each other. Hall testified that she saw Respondent's actions as a means for him to teach T.C. not to grab something that did not belong to him and belonged to someone else. After what she described as a very quick incident, Hall reflected that Respondent got his coffee mug, T.C. got his hat back, and they both seemed happy after the incident concluded. Hall did not find it necessary to intervene in the incident, as there was no violence between Respondent and T.C. Hall observed several paraprofessionals in the room. None intervened, or put down their cell phones during the incident. According to Hall, T.C. was not harmed in any way. Hall testified that no noises or sounds were made by T.C. during the incident that indicated he was in any pain, distress, or discomfort. Hall never saw Respondent mistreat T.C. in any way. Respondent appeared to treat all children respectfully and attentively, and she never saw him use his hands improperly on any student in the classroom. Respondent testified on his own behalf. He felt he had a "wonderful" relationship with T.C. He described T.C. as a physically 18-year-old adult, who was large and strong. However, his emotional development was at the pre-kindergarten level. T.C. was over six feet tall, and weighed 250 to 260 pounds. T.C. was obsessive compulsive and had a short attention span. He had certain behavioral problems, which were accentuated because he never learned proper replacement behaviors for his maladaptive kindergarten behaviors. These behaviors were not appropriate for an 18-year-old. T.C. always needed to be escorted because he liked to run, look, investigate, and discover. Whether it was in front of a car or whether it was a trash can, he just always wanted to do things. For safety reasons, an adult was always required to be with him. Assistance was provided to help steer T.C. to more appropriate behavior and activities. Occasionally, T.C. would put Respondent's hand on his shoulder for Respondent to rub his shoulder. It was a method that Respondent used to soothe T.C., which they called "tickles." On the day of the incident, Respondent sat down next to T.C., who had finished lunch. Respondent placed his coffee cup on the dining table some three feet away. Without warning, T.C. lunged across Respondent to grab Respondent's coffee cup. He did not reach it the first time. Respondent began massaging T.C.'s arm and said, "Do you want tickles, or do you want the coffee cup?" T.C. calmed for a time, and then reached for the cup again. T.C. reached and got his hand on Respondent's cup. While doing this, he was leaning into or on Respondent's lap. He eventually reached and grabbed Respondent's cup. Respondent took T.C.'s hat from the windowsill, and asked if T.C. wanted his hat given back. T.C. reached for his hat with his other hand. As the incident unfolded, T.C. held the cup and reached over Respondent trying to grab his hat back from Respondent. The two were right next to each other, reaching back and forth. Respondent extended his hand out, so that T.C. would see that he was waiting for his cup to be exchanged. Eventually T.C. got bored of the cup and gave it back to Respondent. When T.C. gave Respondent the cup, Respondent gave him back his hat. The more persuasive and credible testimony regarding the classroom incident was that T.C. impulsively grabbed Respondent's cup while they were seated next to each other. Respondent then attempted to make a teaching point with T.C. about not taking the things of another, by taking his hat. In the process, T.C. and Respondent reached over and around the other in an effort to retrieve their item from the other. There was physical contact between the two, but it was not inappropriate, or unduly rough.4/ There was no credible proof that Respondent intended to harm, restrain, or injure T.C. Ben-Hamo's testimony and conclusions regarding the extent, type and nature of the contact and interaction between T.C. and Respondent is rejected as unpersuasive and implausible.5/ The undersigned finds that Respondent did not place or restrain T.C. in a "chokehold," "headlock," or other improper restraint. Based on this record and the circumstances, there was no clear and convincing evidence to support Petitioner's allegation that Respondent violated any statute, policy, or rule in the incident with T.C. regarding the coffee cup. Allegations Reported by Shannon Lewis Shannon Lewis, a paraprofessional, testified by deposition. Pet. Ex. 11. She described T.C. as being 6'5" tall and weighing 250 to 280 pounds. She noted that he had very little impulse control, and that when he saw something of interest, he impulsively went to get it. Lewis testified that one day when Respondent took T.C. to physical education class, T.C. wanted to put his tooth on the doorway when he exited the gymnasium.6/ According to Lewis, Respondent grabbed T.C. by one arm, then pulled him away and yanked him. She testified that Respondent put his foot behind T.C.'s foot, so that T.C. would have to go to the ground. According to Lewis, Respondent did that three times before he would relent.7/ Lewis testified that the students in the physical education class and two paraprofessionals, including Pedro St. Jacques and Illiana Girtman, were present when the incident occurred and saw it. She testified that St. Jacques was the aide assigned to T.C. Lewis testified that while T.C. was on the ground, Respondent squeezed his face and made his lips pucker and yelled, "No, T. No." No student or other teacher testified that they saw or witnessed the actions described by Lewis. St. Jacques executed an affidavit admitted into evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 3.8/ Resp. Ex. 3. However, he never witnessed anything inappropriate between Respondent and any students, including T.C. St. Jacques never witnessed Respondent throw T.C. to the ground and never saw him treat T.C. badly.9/ St. Jacques testified that sometimes it was necessary to approach T.C. in a different manner because of his size and to prevent him from getting hurt. It was sometimes necessary to physically guide T.C. away from whatever activity he became fixated on. St. Jacques never observed Respondent use any unnecessary or questionable force on T.C. in those instances. He knew that Respondent was working with T.C. to have him stop biting the door frames as he walked through the halls. He heard Respondent tell T.C. not to bite them and saw him maneuver T.C. away from them. No undue force was used by Respondent. Girtman was also present during this incident, according to Lewis. She was a paraprofessional with Respondent at Olympic Heights High School. She never saw Respondent touch a student in a way that she thought was unnecessary or improper. Respondent was always gentle with T.C. She never saw Respondent squeeze T.C.'s face or yell at him. Another paraprofessional, Alvaro Rodriguez testified. He was also identified by Lewis as being present during the door- biting incident. He never saw Respondent use physical methods or force on T.C. in a way that he thought was improper. He never saw Respondent pull T.C. down to the floor. He never saw Respondent squeeze T.C. by the cheeks or yell at him. Respondent denied that the hallway incident occurred, as described by Lewis. He testified that the banging of T.C.'s teeth on a piece of metal was part of his obsessive-compulsive disorder.10/ Respondent was not big enough to pull T.C. down to the floor, and never did so. When T.C. was agitated or running around, Respondent would ask him to sit, but he never pulled him to the floor. Respondent explained that sometimes T.C. needed gentle pressure on his arm or something to reinforce what it means to go down or to go in one direction or the other. Respondent denied that he yelled into T.C.'s face or yelled at him, and that T.C. did not respond to yelling, he only responded to quiet talking. Respondent testified that he never grabbed T.C. by the cheeks and squeezed. Respondent's testimony concerning this incident, and the testimony from St. Jacques, Girtman, and Rodriquez was more persuasive and credible. There simply was no clear and convincing evidence that Respondent improperly, violently, or forcefully threw or took T.C. to the ground, yelled at him, squeezed his cheeks or handled him in an inappropriate way. Further, the proof was insufficient to prove any unreasonable restraint was used by Respondent during this incident with T.C. Incident Involving P.M. Lewis described P.M. as a non-verbal and out of control student, who destroyed his home and wiped feces everywhere. Lewis claimed that Respondent decided to work with P.M. in his classroom one-on-one during lunch.11/ One day Lewis walked into Respondent's classroom and saw P.M. sitting on a yoga ball with no teacher in sight.12/ She then heard the toilet flush, and Respondent walked out of the bathroom. The aides were instructed that no student should ever be left alone. St. Jacques' statement indicates he (St. Jacques) was always assigned to supervise P.M. when Respondent was at the school, and that he (St. Jacques) was supposed to be with P.M. on the day in question. Apparently, P.M. was another student who needed full-time supervision. Evidently, P.M. liked to walk around the classrooms and would walk into Respondent's classroom on occasion. St. Jacques would always redirect him. When P.M. wandered into Respondent's classroom, it would only be for about 30 seconds. There was never a time that Respondent was responsible to supervise P.M. during his planning period, or at any other time. It was always the responsibility of the paraprofessional to supervise and attend to P.M. Even if Respondent was working with P.M., St. Jacques was responsible to be with him. Respondent testified, consistent with St. Jacques, that he never worked with P.M. without the aide present. He was never assigned to supervise P.M. in lieu of the aide, because that would have changed P.M.'s Individualized Education Program. Students were not allowed in Respondent's classroom during his planning period, except to be escorted to use the bathroom. Respondent testified that there were times that he would transition back from a class and P.M. would be in his room using his sensory equipment, but he would always be with St. Jacques. One time when he came out of the bathroom during his planning period, he observed P.M. in his room with Lewis, who sometimes covered for St. Jacques during the other paraprofessional's break. During the period of time that Respondent was in the bathroom, he was not assigned or supposed to be supervising P.M. He was surprised to see P.M. when he came out of the bathroom during his planning period. The allegation that Respondent failed to properly supervise P.M. and left him alone while Respondent used the bathroom was not proven by clear and convincing evidence. The more persuasive evidence at the hearing indicated that Respondent was not assigned to supervise P.M. at the time of this particular incident. The testimony of St. Jacques supports Respondent's version and this finding. Whatever Lewis saw, or thought she saw, was not persuasive or sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent left P.M. unattended in his classroom for 20 minutes or failed to supervise a student assigned to him. Exposing a Student to Unnecessary Embarrassment or Disparagement Lewis further testified that there was an incident involving students who wanted to use calculators during math class. J.M. wanted to use the calculator, but Respondent would not let her use it. The student had to be taken from the room because she screamed and carried on when not permitted to use the calculator. Apparently, Respondent wanted her to learn to do math without a calculator. There were two other students who Respondent also did not allow to use the calculator. In response to the various requests, Respondent commented, "This is ridiculous. You guys are stupid if you can't do this without a calculator. You need to have life skills in order for you to be successful outside of the classroom." There was not a shred of proof offered or adduced at the hearing that Respondent "put his hands on" any of these students.13/ Furthermore, there was no clear and convincing proof that Respondent intended to expose these math students to unnecessary embarrassment. See Langston v. Jamerson, 653 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Respondent denied that he ever called any of the students a derogatory name or called any of them "stupid." Lewis agreed that it was Respondent's role as the teacher to determine whether a calculator was used. She claimed that St. Jacques was in the room when Respondent called the girls stupid and heard him say it. St. Jacques' attested in his written statement in a contrary manner. Resp. Ex. 3. He said that he never witnessed anything inappropriate between Respondent and any students, including the girls involved in the calculator incident, J.M. and Rebecca. St. Jacques never witnessed Respondent mistreat the math students referred to by Lewis. Respondent was always respectful to the students and he never saw Respondent embarrass or ridicule any of them. Respondent testified that he treated the students in general with compassion and respect. He denied he ever called them names other than their own and never embarrassed any student or called them names because they wanted to use the calculators. Based upon the more persuasive and credible evidence adduced at the hearing, the allegations of belittling the math students and calling them "stupid" were not proven by clear and convincing evidence. There was insufficient proof to establish that Respondent intended to unnecessarily ridicule, demean, or belittle any particular student The testimony of St. Jacques bolsters Respondent's testimony on this point. The undersigned credits Respondent's testimony and finds it more persuasive. The undersigned finds that there was no clear or convincing evidence to conclude that Respondent's actions or statements to the girls regarding the use of the calculator, constituted a violation of any statute, policy, or rule.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint against Jeffrey Voner. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 2018.
Findings Of Fact Richard L. Gryte holds Florida Teacher's Certificate Number 323641, issued on January 4, 1983, covering the areas of elementary education, early childhood education, emotionally disturbed education and Junior College. Until his resignation on March 13, 1984, Gryte was employed by the Seminole County School Board as a teacher of emotionally handicapped students at the Milwee Middle School located in Longwood, Seminole County, Florida. Gryte was initially hired by Douglas Smith, assistant principal at Milwee, in the summer of 1981, to serve as an emotionally handicapped (herein referred to as EH) resource teacher. This was based on Gryte's prior work history, as well as his educational background; including a master's degree in exceptional education. As a resource teacher, Gryte did not have academic responsibilities, but was used as a counselor who would work with students for a period during the day. These students would be assigned to the resource room by their regular classroom teachers, primarily if they had problems regarding behavior. As a teacher involved with emotionally handicapped students, it was necessary for Gryte to prepare forms known as Individual Educational Plans (hereinafter referred to as IEP's). The IEP's were required by Federal and State law and were necessary in order for the school district to obtain funding. From the beginning of his employment and assignment at Milwee Middle School, Gryte had difficulty performing administrative duties regarding documentation and other paperwork. Gryte recognizes that correct documentation is the responsibility of a good teacher, but also acknowledges his weakness in that area. When this problem was brought to the attention of Douglas Smith, assistant principal, he immediately sent memos and spoke with Gryte regarding the problem. During the 1981-82 year, out of the 22 IEP's necessary for Gryte to complete, at least 12 were incomplete or not done. The IEP's that were done were incomplete in that they lacked objectives, goals and other qualitative methods by which to determine the progress of the child. Even as a resource teacher, Gryte failed to prepare lesson plans which were required of all teachers. In fact, Respondent failed to prepare lesson plans for the entire 1981-82 school term, despite being counseled and informed about the necessity of preparing and submitting lesson plans. Overall, Gryte's teaching performance for the 1981-82 school term was not in keeping with minimum standards required of his profession. In addition to the paperwork and other administrative tasks, Gryte had a problem maintaining classroom discipline and control and would violate school rules by leaving the class unattended. During the 1982-83 school term, Mr. Willie G. Holt became the principal at the school. He first became concerned regarding Gryte's performance because of safety concerns he had for student's in Gryte's resource class. Due to the nature of these children and their behavioral problems, it was a policy of the school that children would not be left alone and unattended. Gryte knew of this policy. During the 1982-83 school year, Gryte would periodically leave his class unattended. On two occasions in the spring of 1983, a female student was involved with and performed sexual acts including masturbation and oral sex in the presence of two male students. These acts occurred when Gryte left his class unattended. Gryte recognized that it was wrong to leave the class unattended, but felt he could trust the boys involved and was only gone for a brief period of time. Due to concern for the safety and welfare of the students entrusted to Gryte and because of a need to relieve the previous self-contained teacher, Mr. Holt, school principal, and Mr. Smith, assistant principal in charge of the exceptional education program, decided to place Gryte in the self-contained EH class for the 1983-84 school year. This was thought to be appropriate since the self-contained class had a full-time aide, Betty Manly, who would always be present in the event Gryte would leave the class unattended. Gryte objected to this assignment, but based on his certification and education, he was qualified to be in the self- contained classroom and he was so assigned. Gryte's teaching performance in the self-contained classroom during the 1983-1984 school term was extremely unsatisfactory in all aspects. As in previous years, Gryte was required to submit weekly lesson plans. This was a requirement of all teachers. As in prior years, Gryte was derelict in preparing his lesson plans. From the beginning of the school term until January, 1984, he submitted lesson plans for the first five weeks, but failed to submit any lesson plans thereafter. He next submitted lesson plans for two weeks during the weeks of January 20 and 27, 1984. Thereafter, he did not submit any additional lesson plans until the date of his resignation in March, 1984. The assistant principals, Gordon Hathaway and Douglas Smith, repeatedly instructed Gryte to submit lesson plans timely, but he failed to do so. Even the lesson plans which were submitted were not proper in that they were too generalized and did not serve the proper function. In addition, for the 1983-84 school term, Gryte still had problems completing his IEP's timely and in a proper manner. It was a concern of the school officials that if they were ever audited, they would lose funding. Gryte was counseled by Dr. Daniel Scinto and Dr. Robert Carlton regarding the preparation of IEP's, as well as class management, but little improvement occurred. Gryte's classroom was extremely noisy, unruly and out of control. Dr. Carlton worked with Gryte on several occasions regarding implementation of behavioral management techniques. However, no improvement was noted. The excessive noise from Gryte's classroom was disturbing to the adjoining classes. Mr. Holt started receiving complaints from other teachers. Mrs. Poole indicated that students in her classroom actually complained about the noise from Respondent's class, as did she. The teacher's aide, Betty Manly, observed that Gryte did not assert control. He allowed the students to do as they pleased and demonstrated an apparent lack of classroom control. Gryte himself recognized that there was an excessive amount of noise in his class which was disturbing to other teachers. Some of the noise was due to Gryte's policy of allowing students to use curse words and engage in verbal altercations, which at times led to physical violence. He would permit the students to use "damn", "hell", and other similar curse words. On occasion, fights would break out among the students because Gryte would allow an argument to become too heated and would not assert control. He thought it was necessary for the children to have the freedom to release their anger in this manner. He ultimately hoped to be able to work with the students and this was part of his counseling therapy. Gryte often imposed corporal punishment as a means of discipline with the students. However, he frequently imposed the punishment in violation of State law and School Board policy. The School Board policy, as set forth in the student disciplinary code, requires that all corporal punishment be administered in the presence of another adult and not administered in the presence of other students. On numerous occasions, Gryte paddled a student in the classroom without the presence of another teacher or administrator as a witness and also while in the presence of other students. This practice was against direct orders of the principal. In addition, students were embarrassed by punishment being administered in front of other children. Further, the practice is not appropriate when dealing with any student, but even less so when dealing with emotionally handicapped students. On one occasion, Gryte lined the entire class up for "licks." The noise of the paddling and the student's yelling brought an adjoining teacher to see what had occurred. When she arrived, a student was lying on the floor and his leg was shaking and the student was grimacing and in pain. The teacher advised Gryte not to administer any more punishment, because it was in violation of the school policy. During the first nine weeks of the 1983-84 school year, Gryte failed to provide grades for the students in his class. He was unable to give grades because students had not performed a sufficient amount of work in order for Gryte to evaluate their progress and to assign a competent grade. This was in violation of the school policy as well as the State law, and was upsetting to the administration. The school was required to send blank report cards, with the exception of P.E. grades. Gryte was told to produce his grade book and test papers which had been performed by the students. A review of the grade book showed tests and work had not been required or performed or recorded in order to evaluate the students. What papers were produced by Gryte were not of sufficient quality or quantity to effectively grade the students. The policy of the school was to assign enough work each week to allow the students to receive periodic grades. Gryte recognizes his duty to maintain paperwork and other documentation. He understands this is part of being a competent and effective teacher, even though he would place greater emphasis on the students. Jeanette Burgess was a female student in Gryte's self- contained classroom his last year at Milwee. Gryte had a propensity to touch Jeanette in an inappropriate and unprofessional manner. He would periodically touch her on her face, ears and buttocks. This was embarrassing to Jeanette. On one evening, Gryte called Jeanette's home to speak with her. Her mother, Diana Oliver, answered the phone and inquired as to the nature of the call. Gryte indicated it was a private matter and he needed to speak with Jeanette personally. This offended the mother and she refused to allow him to speak with her daughter and advised him that any matters pertaining to Jeanette in school should be discussed with her. In addition, in the mother's opinion, Gryte had been drinking. She formed this opinion based on slurred speech and other mannerisms. On another occasion, Betty Manly entered the classroom and discovered Gryte standing extremely close to Jeanette and, in Ms. Manly's opinion, touching Jeanette inappropriately. Jeanette was forced back against Ms. Manly's desk and was obviously embarrassed by the situation. Gryte had dismissed the other students to attend P.E. class and was left in the room alone with Jeanette. The situation was upsetting to Jeanette, because she dropped her head and started crying when she was questioned about what had occurred between Gryte and her. Following the telephone incident, Gryte, the principal, and Jeanette's mother had a conference and Gryte was directed not to administer corporal punishment or otherwise touch Jeanette for any reason. Gryte violated this direct order in that he did subsequently administer corporal punishment to Jeanette. Another student in Gryte's self-contained class was a child by the name of Kelly Owens who had self-destructive tendencies and frequently would injure herself. On one occasion, Gryte sent her to the office alone and on the way, she took a piece of glass and cut her wrist and neck, not severely enough to cause death, but enough to result in extensive bleeding. Gryte had been specifically advised not to leave this child unattended. On one occasion, he gave her a pass to leave the school and go to an area known as the "swamp". This is an area off campus where students gather to smoke marijuana and allegedly participate in other similar activities. This occurred after a conference with the child's parents which Gryte attended and in which it was emphasized that the child needed close supervision. On another occasion, Gryte actually left the child in the classroom asleep. This was at the end of the school day. Another teacher came by and found the child sleeping in the class by herself. Gryte indicated he was unaware that Kelly was still in the classroom. In addition to the incident involving the telephone conversation with Jeanette Burgess' mother, Gryte appeared at an open house held on the school campus in the beginning of the 1983-84 school term. It was apparent that Gryte had been drinking. Those teachers present were definitely under the·impression that he had been drinking too much due to his slurred speech and demeanor. When confronted by Mr. Holt, Gryte admitted he had been drinking, but stated he only had one drink prior to the meeting. Based on Gryte's conduct and performance at Milwee, the principal and assistant principal felt he was neither effective nor competent and would not employ Respondent in a teaching position. Respondent recognizes he is not qualified and competent to teach certain areas of his certification. He basically desires to be a counselor and not a teacher.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order revoking the teaching certificate of Richard L. Gryte for a period of three years, subject to reinstatement thereafter pursuant to Section 231.28(4)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of April, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of April, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: L.Haldane Taylor, Esquire 331 East Union Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Richard L. Gryte 7703 Meadowglen Drive Orlando, Florida 32810 Karen B. Wilde Executive Director Department of Education Education Practices Commission Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ms. Marlene Greenfield, Administrator Professional Practice Service 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following constitutes any specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact of Petitioner Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-31 are all adopted in substance. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact of Respondent Respondent filed no Proposed Findings of Fact.
