The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The Broward County School Board (School Board) is responsible for the operation, control and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Broward County, Florida (including, among others, Meadowbrook Elementary School (Meadowbrook), Tropical Elementary School (Tropical), and Everglades Elementary School (Everglades)), and for otherwise providing public instruction to school-aged children in the county. For five years, beginning in 2004, Joseph Tamburino was the area coordinator of student services for the School Board's South Central Office (SCO), overseeing the activities of the office's five-person secretarial staff, as well as the approximately 70 "itinerant" school psychologists and school social workers assigned to work at schools within the SCO's service area. Among these schools were Meadowbrook, Tropical, and Everglades. Respondent has been employed by the School Board as a school social worker since September 2000. She presently holds a professional services contract. From 2004 until August 2009, Respondent worked out of the SCO under the immediate supervision of Mr. Tamburino. During this time, she never received less than a satisfactory annual performance appraisal from Mr. Tamburino; however, in the "comments" section of the last appraisal he gave Respondent (for the 2008-2009 school year), Mr. Tamburino did write, "Jessica should work on improving absenteeism and performance issues such as task completion, timelines and adhering to work hours." During the 2006-2007 school year, Mr. Tamburino "beg[a]n to have problems" with Respondent's being where she was supposed to be during the school day. These "problems" persisted, despite Mr. Tamburino's efforts to address them at meetings with Respondent and in written correspondence he sent her. Following the end of the 2006-2007 school year, Mr. Tamburino issued Respondent a "Letter of Reprimand," dated August 14, 2007, which read as follows: This correspondence is submitted as a formal reprimand for your failure to follow office procedures. This is the second occasion that I have had to meet with you regarding not being present at your assigned schools for the full workday. We met on February 1, 2007 because you were not in your assigned schools for the full workday (7.5 hours) over a period of five days. Furthermore, we met on June 1, 2007, because you were not in your assigned schools during the hours you were required to be present on May 4 and May 24, 2007. Know and understand that this behavior cannot and will not be tolerated by this administration. You are hereby directed from this point forward, to comply with all administrative directives. Failure to comply will result in further disciplinary action such as a referral to Professional Standards and the Special Investigative Unit, suspension or termination. Your signature evidences receipt of and an understanding of this document. This letter of reprimand is being placed in your personnel file within the Records Department of the School Board of Broward County. Ten days after evidence of your knowledge of this correspondence, it will become public record. Respondent signed this "Letter of Reprimand" on August 14, 2007, signifying that she had "read and underst[ood] [its] contents." Less than four months later, Mr. Tamburino issued Respondent another "Letter of Reprimand," which was dated December 7, 2007, and read as follows: This letter is submitted as a formal reprimand for your continued failure to follow office procedure and falsification of records. On November 8, 2007 you were not in your assigned school for 7.5 hours. You called the South Central Student Services office and reported that you were leaving New River Middle School at 4:00 p.m. However, you were seen at a store at a shopping plaza at 3:00 p.m. Although you did not work a full day on November 8, 2007, you falsely reported to a Student Services secretary that you finished your workday after 7.5 hours. This is the second written reprimand that you have received within the last four months for failure to follow office procedures and falsification of records. This behavior cannot and will not be tolerated. You are directed to comply with office procedures, work your full 7.5 hour day, and sign in and out with accurate times. Failure to comply will result in further disciplinary action. Your signature evidences receipt of and an understanding of this document. This letter of reprimand is being placed in your personnel file within the Records Department of the School Board of Broward County. Ten days after evidence of your knowledge of this correspondence, it will become public record. Respondent signed this "Letter of Reprimand" on December 17, 2007, signifying that she had "read and underst[ood] [its] contents." Respondent did not file a grievance "specifically challenging" either the August 14, 2007, "Letter of Reprimand," or the December 7, 2007, "Letter of Reprimand." On March 17, 2008, Dr. Tamburino sent a memorandum to Respondent, which read, in pertinent part, as follows: As you are aware, we have had two recent meetings that have included discussions of following office procedures, the provision of social work services and collaboration with the community liaison and other personnel. On February 1, 2008 we had a meeting with Jerrod Neal from BTU and Ellen Williams, the Social Work BTU Steward. We examined possible discrepancies between dates listed for home visits on a log at New River and your November mileage voucher. Although there were L-panel entries to verify the home visits, there was inconsistent documentation of the addresses on the mileage voucher. However, you decided to withdraw your request for mileage reimbursement. Suggestions to improve your work performance were discussed. These include the following: * * * - Specific time of the home visits, including leaving and returning to campus, need to be documented. During the 2008-2009 school year, Respondent was assigned to provide school social work services at three schools: Meadowbrook, Tropical, and Everglades. She was supposed to be at Meadowbrook on Mondays, Tropical on Wednesdays, and Everglades on Thursdays. On Tuesdays, she went to whichever of the three assigned schools "need[ed] [her]," and she also did "home visits." Fridays were designated as "office days." On these "office days," Respondent was expected to do "paperwork" that needed to be completed. Respondent was allowed to use office space at Meadowbrook as her "Friday office" instead of going to the SCO (which was farther from her residence than was Meadowbrook). Respondent missed a considerable amount of work during the 2008-2009 school year due to her daughter's, as well as her own, health-related issues, "exhaust[ing] her sick leave" before the year was half over. (By December, she "didn't have any sick days" left.) Respondent and the other school social workers and school psychologists working out of the SCO were required to notify the office's secretarial staff, by telephone (or in person, if at the SCO), of their whereabouts whenever they arrived at or left a work-related destination during the school day (Call In Office Procedure). It was the duty and routine practice of the secretarial staff, upon receiving such a call, to enter the information provided by the caller concerning the caller's location (as well as the date and time the call was received) on an "online call-in log" (Call Log) maintained by the SCO so as to have a record of these calls. The Call In Office Procedure and other "[o]ffice [p]rocedures" were discussed in a document entitled, "Office Procedures: 2008-2009 School Year," which Mr. Tamburino provided "[a]ll the South Central Office . . . [p]ersonnel," including Respondent, at the very beginning of the 2008-2009 school year. The document read, in pertinent part, as follows: Attendance is reported daily by Joyce [Doe] (social workers) . . . to the payroll department. You must call Joyce . . . prior to taking any leave (e.g., personal, sick, other.) You must call each day you are taking sick leave (unless otherwise arranged with the Area Coordinator [Mr. Tamburino]). Call the office twice daily, when you arrive at your location and before you leave for the day (for example, for most elementary schools by 7:30 AM, and 3:00 PM). You should call from a school telephone. If you do not call in, you may be considered absent. You are expected to be in your assigned school 7.5 hours (same work hours as the teachers). If you leave a school for another destination, be sure to inform personnel at school and one of the secretaries in our office. When you are at the Area Office, please be sure that our secretaries log you in. A schedule of team meetings is provided at the beginning of each year. Attendance at all scheduled team meetings is mandatory. A planning day is a 7.5 hour workday. * * * Mileage vouchers must be submitted within 30 days after the end of the month per the Superintendent. Use the exact mileage to schools listed in SCA mileage chart. Requests for more than one month may not be approved. * * * You must request and obtain an approved TDA [Temporary Duty Authorization] from the Area Coordinator when performing duties in a different location other than your regular assignment. TDA request forms should be completed 10 days prior to the workshop/event. Return to the office at least once a week to handle office duties. The Area Coordinator monitors the quality of your work and evaluates your performance at least annually. The Area Coordinator makes all school assignments. In addition to having to follow these SCO "[o]ffice [p]rocedures," Respondent and her fellow "itinerant" workers, when they were at their assigned schools, were "under [the] direction" of the school's principal and had to do what the principal "dictated." During the 2008-2009 school year, the principal of Meadowbrook "wanted her ['itinerant'] employees to sign in/sign out when they came on [and when they left] campus," and there was a "sign in/sign out" sheet posted at the school for "itinerant" employees to sign, date, and note their "time in" and "time out." Respondent "knew" of Meadowbrook's "sign in/sign out" "procedure," and routinely complied with it (when she was actually at the school that school year). Respondent was not present, and therefore did not "sign in," at Meadowbrook on any of the following dates: Friday, October 3, 2008; Friday, October 31, 2008; Friday, January 9, 2009; Friday, February 6, 2009; Friday, February 13, 2009; Friday, February 20, 2009; and Monday, February 23, 2009. Nonetheless, she telephonically reported to the SCO secretarial staff that she was at Meadowbrook on each of these days (as reflected by the entries made on the Call Log), obviously knowing this information to be false.4 February 4, 2009, was a Wednesday, the day Respondent was supposed to be at Tropical. On that day, Respondent telephoned the SCO secretarial staff at 8:05 a.m. to report she was at Tropical, and called back at 5:56 p.m. to advise that she was leaving the school (as reflected by the entries made on the Call Log). In fact, Respondent was not at Tropical during the school day on February 4, 2009.5 Her reporting otherwise was a knowingly-made false misrepresentation. March 20, 2009, was a Friday and thus an "office day" for Respondent. Respondent had made arrangements to attend a conference that day. In accordance with the "Office Procedures: 2008-2009 School Year" that Mr. Tamburino had handed out at the start of the school year, Respondent had "request[ed] [on February 25, 2009] and subsequently obtain[ed] [on March 16, 2009] an approved TDA" from Mr. Tamburino to go to the conference (instead of doing the work she was "regular[ly] assign[ed]"). Respondent, however, did not go to the March 20, 2009, conference.6 Nonetheless, at 8:40 a.m. on March 20, 2009, she falsely and deceptively reported to the SCO secretarial staff over the telephone that she was on her "temporary duty" assignment (at the conference). At no time that day did Respondent advise the SCO secretarial staff that she was at her regular "Friday office" location, Meadowbrook,7 or that she was leaving that location (to pick up her sick daughter at school, or for any other reason). Furthermore, Respondent's leave records reveal that she did not take any type of leave that day. (Had she taken leave to care for her sick daughter that day, it would had to have been unpaid leave because she had no paid leave time left.)8 To receive reimbursement for non-commuting "travel expenses [she claimed she incurred] in the performance of [her] official duties" as a school social worker (that is, for mileage in excess of the 22.6 miles from her home to her office (at Meadowbrook) and back, reimbursed at a rate of 55 cents per mile, plus parking and tolls), Respondent had to submit mileage vouchers (on School Board Form 3042, Revised 09/05) to Mr. Tamburino for his approval.9 Respondent certified, by her signature on the forms, that her "claim[s] [were] true and correct" and that the "expenses [claimed] were actually incurred by [her]." Among the mileage vouchers she submitted were those covering the months of January 2009 (January Voucher) and February 2009 (February Voucher). There were entries on both the January and February Vouchers that were inconsistent with what Respondent had telephonically reported to the SCO secretarial staff concerning her whereabouts on the dates for which these entries were made (as reflected by the entries made on the Call Log). On the January Voucher, for Tuesday, January 6, under "Places Visited," Respondent put, "Home to SCAO [SCO] to Home" (a trip of 10.6 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"); however, on the day in question, January 6, 2009, she had telephonically reported to the SCO secretarial staff that she was first at Meadowbrook, then at the SCO, and finally on a home visit. On the January Voucher, for Friday, January 9, under "Places Visited," Respondent put, "Home to Meadowbrook" (a trip of 0 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"), "Meadowbrook to KCW [School Board headquarters]" (a trip of 5.3 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"), "KCW to Everglades" (a trip of 17.7 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"), and "Everglades to Home (a trip of 14.3 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"); however, on the day in question, January 9, 2009, she had not reported to the SCO secretarial staff that she was at Everglades any time that day. (She had only reported being at School Board headquarters and at Meadowbrook.) On the January Voucher, for Tuesday, January 20, under "Places Visited," Respondent put, "Home to Everglades to Home" (a trip of 28.6 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"); however, on the day in question, January 20, 2009, she had reported to the SCO secretarial staff that she was first on a home visit and then at Everglades. On the February Voucher, for Tuesday, February 3, under "Places Visited," Respondent put, "Home to Everglades to Home" (a trip of 28.6 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"); however, on the day in question, February 3, 2009, she had not reported to the SCO secretarial staff that she was at Everglades any time that day. (She had only reported being at Meadowbrook and on a home visit.) On the February Voucher, for Friday, February 6, under "Places Visited," Respondent put, "Home to SCAO [SCO] to Home" (a trip of 10.6 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"); however, on the day in question, February 6, 2009, she had reported to the SCO secretarial staff that she was first on a home visit, then at Meadowbrook, and finally at the SCO. On the February Voucher, for Friday, February 13, under "Places Visited," Respondent put, "Home to SCAO [SCO] to Home" (a trip of 10.6 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"); however, on the day in question, February 13, 2009, she had not reported to the SCO secretarial staff that she was at the SCO any time that day. (She had only reported being on a home visit and at Meadowbrook.10) On the February Voucher, for Wednesday, February 4, under "Places Visited," Respondent put, "Home to Tropical to Home" (a trip of 9.8 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"). Unlike the other entries on the January and February Vouchers discussed above, this entry was entirely consistent with what Respondent had telephonically reported to the SCO secretarial staff concerning her whereabouts on that day; however, as noted above, she had not been truthful in making such a telephonic report to the SCO secretarial staff. It was Mr. Tamburino's responsibility to check all of his subordinates' mileage vouchers, including Respondent's, "for accuracy" before approving them. Because "there [were] discrepanc[ies] between what was on the [January and February] [V]oucher[s] and what was on the [C]all [L]og," Mr. Tamburino did not approve these vouchers. Instead, he "forward[ed] the mileage voucher issue to the [School Board's Office of Professional Standards and Special Investigative Unit] for investigation."11 On or about April 23, 2009, Respondent was provided a Notice of Investigation (dated April 17, 2008), which read as follows: This correspondence is provided as formal notice of investigation into a complaint received in this office regarding allegations that you falsified records. You will be contacted in the near future for the purpose of giving a statement. You have the right to representation through all phases of this investigation. You are directed not to engage the complainant, or any student witness, or any other witness in any conversation regarding the matter under investigation. A violation of this directive could result in disciplinary action for insubordination. Questions regarding the status of this investigation are to be directed to Joe Melita, Executive Director of Professional Standards & Special Investigative Unit at (754)321-0735. This is your notice pursuant to Florida Statute 1012.31 that the material contained in the investigative file will be part of your personnel file and will be public record and it will become available for inspection by the public ten (10) days after completion of the investigative process. Investigator Johanna Davidson was the School Board employee in the Office of Professional Standards and Special Investigative Unit who conducted the investigation. As part of her investigation, Investigator Davidson took a sworn statement from Respondent on June 4, 2009.12 In her sworn statement, Respondent told Investigator Davidson, among other things, that she arrived at Meadowbrook at "around 8:00" a.m. on March 20, 2009, and stayed there "all day"13; that she "knew that [signing-in] was the procedure" at Meadowbrook; that this "procedure" had been in place for the past year and a half; that she signed in at Meadowbrook "99 percent of the time"; that she "may have missed one or two sign-ins" at Meadowbrook, but she did not "think [she] had"; and that she is "a very procedure and policy oriented person," so it would have been "odd" had she not signed in at Meadowbrook, even during the time, from January to April 2009, when she had been "on crutches."14 When asked by Investigator Davidson "what happened that day, February 4, 2009," Respondent made no mention of having been in the teacher's lounge at Tropical (where, in her testimony at the final hearing, she falsely claimed she had been the entire school day on February 4, 2009, leaving only once to go to the bathroom across the hall). Rather, in response to Investigator Davidson's inquiry, she suggested that this day (February 4, 2009) might have been one of the many days that school year that she had "taken off" because of health-related issues and that she had not "communicated properly" concerning her having "taken off" that day. Investigator Davidson completed her investigation and issued an Investigative Report detailing her findings in late June 2009. Investigator Davidson's Investigative Report contained a section entitled, "Summary of Investigation," the first paragraph of which read as follows: A Personnel Investigation Request pertaining to School Social Worker Jessica Harrison was received in the Office of Professional Standards & Special Investigative Unit. Ms. Harrison was accused of Falsification of Records stemming from the following alleged incidents: Ms. Harrison allegedly submitted a Temporary Duty Authorization (TDA) request to attend a conference but did not attend the conference, and allegedly reported to the South Central Area Student Services office that she was in attendance. Two of Ms. Harrison's assigned schools reported that Ms. Harrison was not in attendance on several days. Ms. Harrison allegedly did not report her absences to the South Central Area Student Services office. Ms. Harrison allegedly falsified mileage vouchers. The information that Investigator Davidson had obtained supporting these allegations was detailed in succeeding paragraphs of this section. (It was this information upon which the "[s]pecific [c]harges" in the instant Administrative Complaint were based.) The School Board's Professional Standards Committee met on September 9, 2009, to consider the results of Investigator Davidson's investigation and "found probable cause of falsification of records" warranting Respondent's termination. On September 16, 2009, Craig Kowalski, the Acting Executive Director of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards and Special Investigative Unit, sent Respondent a letter, which read as follows: The Professional Standards Committee met on September 9, 2009, and found probable cause of falsification of records. The Committee has recommended termination. Please be advised by way of this correspondence that you have been scheduled for a pre-disciplinary conference on Monday, October 5, 2009, at 11:00 a.m. in my office, which is located on the third floor of the Technical Support Services Center, 7720 West Oakland Park Boulevard, Sunrise, Florida. You have the right to representation at this conference. If for some reason you are unable to be present at this conference you must contact my office by 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 1, 2009. You have previously been furnished with a full report. You are not to disseminate these documents to the public and/or media since it may contain protected information. If you have a representative, it is your responsibility to furnish him/her with copies of your documentation. Your failure or refusal to appear at this conference will be considered a waiver of this procedural requirement. A copy of the Special Investigative Unit report and this letter are being forwarded to the Professional Practices Department of the State Department of Education to determine if certificate disciplinary action is warranted. This letter of reprimand is being placed in your personnel file within the Records Department of the School Board of Broward County. This is your notice pursuant to Florida Statute 1012.31 that the material contained in the investigative file is now a part of your personnel file and is a public record and it will become available for inspection by the public ten (10) days from receipt of this letter. Any request made by the public for the documentation referred to above will be provided in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. Questions regarding this correspondence are to be directed to my office (754)321-0735. The "pre-disciplinary conference" was held on October 5, 2009, as scheduled. Present at the conference were Mr. Kowalski; Carmen Rodriguez, Esquire (on behalf of the School Board); Respondent; and Jerrod Neal of the Broward Teachers Union, whom Respondent had asked to speak on her behalf. Prior to the conference, Respondent had received, and had had the opportunity to review, Investigator Davidson's Investigative Report. During the conference, Respondent affirmatively adopted the admission made by her representative at the meeting, Mr. Neal, that she had engaged in the "falsification" of which she was being accused (as described in the Investigative Report). The following is a verbatim recitation of what was said at the October 5, 2009, "pre-disciplinary conference": MR. KOWALSKI: This is a pre-disciplinary hearing for School Board employee Jessica Harrison. We are here pursuant to an investigative report dated June 30th, 2009. This investigation was based upon allegations of falsification of records. The Professional Standards Committee has reviewed this matter and has made a recommendation for disciplinary action. The disciplinary action is for termination. Have you received a copy of the investigative report? MS. HARRISON: Yes. MR. KOWALSKI: The purpose of this pre- disciplinary conference is to give you the opportunity to bring forward any additional matters that you believe should be considered before final decision as to disciplinary action is reached. Such matters include any additional evidence, witnesses or any matter that you believe should be considered. This is also an opportunity to say anything which you believe should be considered on your behalf. I am going to ask you if you identify additional witnesses, please identify what you believe the witness knows or would testify to or what the witness can contribute to this investigation. Do you understand the purpose of this meeting? MS. HARRISON: Um-hm. Yes. MR. KOWALSKI: Is there anything you wish to say, do you have any additional matters that you believe should be considered.? MR. NEAL: Let me speak on her behalf, because I think Ms. Harrison has pretty much said a lot of things at the Professional Standards Committee meeting. Since we've talked, since the information that was gathered during the investigation, I have really had a chance to look over it, I was really surprised by the recommendation of termination. Not eliminating what happened, because what happened as far as falsification of records, it was done. But circumstances surrounding it, I don't think it really warrants termination, considering that it is not an easy thing when you're going through a lot of personal problems. Once again, it doesn't justify what was done. But I think under the circumstances, decisions were made with not a lot of clear thought, and I really believe that Ms. Harrison's intention, from what I have known over the last couple of years, have always been good. I just think it's a matter of the things that she was actually going through. She should have brought them to the forefront earlier so there could have been a better understanding of what was going on, not an excuse for it, but a better understanding for what was going on. And you know, I would not be in my duty if I don't mention the fact that there has been so much, or so many other things that have been done through the district that should have warranted termination and people were not terminated. And I just think this is a situation where termination is to the extreme. Whereas some sort of punishment should happen, but termination is just way too much for this situation, because I think in her state of mind as she is now, I don't think these mistakes will be made again. MR. KOWALSKI: Okay. Do you want to add anything Ms. Harrison? MS: HARRISON: I think he summed it up. MR. KOWALSKI: Okay. Thank you. We'll let you know the outcome. MR. Neal: Okay. About how long will that be. And he will let you know, so that means you will have to let me know once they let you know. MR. KOWALSKI: I have to meet with the Superintendent, and so within two weeks. MR. NEAL: Okay. Until then you just go back to doing what you have been doing. MS. HARRISON: Okay. MR. NEAL: All right. Appreciate it. Ms. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. Mr. NEAL: Thank you. (emphasis supplied).15 The plea for leniency that Mr. Neal made on behalf of Respondent proved to be unsuccessful. On October 30, 2009, Broward County Superintendent of Schools Notter issued an Administrative Complaint recommending that Respondent be terminated for the "falsification" of attendance records and mileage vouchers described in Investigator Davidson's Investigative Report (conduct that Respondent had admitted, at the October 5, 2009, "pre-disciplinary conference," she had engaged in).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board issue a final order terminating Respondent's employment as a professional service contract school social worker with the School Board for the reasons set forth above. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of November, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 2010.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, the Nassau County School Board, has just cause to terminate the employment of Respondent, D. Lynn Owen, a teacher on a professional services contract.
Findings Of Fact The School Board employs Respondent D. Lynn Owen as a teacher. Dr. Owen holds a professional service contract with the School Board pursuant to section 1012.33, Florida Statutes.2/ During the 2011-2012 school year, Dr. Owen taught at West Nassau High School ("West Nassau") in Callahan. Fall 2011-2012 Debate 4 class During the 2011-2012 school year, West Nassau operated on a four-period block schedule rather than the six-period schedule followed by most Florida public schools. Under the block schedule, the school year consisted of two semesters, fall and spring. Students took four classes per day, each class lasting 90 minutes. Students received a full credit per semester for each of the four classes. In addition to her qualifications as an English teacher, Dr. Owen is a nationally ranked speech and debate coach. During the 2010-2011 school year, Dr. Owen started a debate team at West Nassau. She taught Debate 3 during the 2010-2011 school year with a class consisting largely of freshmen recruited from her honors English class. The debate team enjoyed some success in debate competitions and the students wanted to continue taking a debate class in the 2011-2012 school year. West Nassau Principal Ronald Booker was amenable to establishing a Debate 4 class, but was concerned that Dr. Owen's other duties would preclude her teaching the class given the limits of a four-period school day. After some discussion, Dr. Owen volunteered to teach Debate 4 class as a "fifth-period" class to be held after the close of the regular school day. The regular school day began at 9:05 a.m. and ended at 3:25 p.m. Thus, during the Fall Semester of the 2011-2012 school year, Dr. Owen taught Debate 4 as an elective honors class that convened daily from 3:30 until 4:15. In the block schedule system, this class was referred to as a "skinny" block. Unlike the regular block courses, a skinny block met every day for 45 minutes for the full 180 days of the school year. The skinny block class was graded in quarters rather than semesters, and a full credit was earned only if the student remained in the class for the entire school year. Because the Debate 4 class was taught outside of regular school hours, Dr. Owen was not paid to teach the course. West Nassau had several "zero-period" classes that met before the start of the regular school day. Mr. Booker testified that Debate 4 was the only fifth-period class he knew of at the start of the 2011-2012 school year. He testified that he only learned about another fifth-period class, Band 2, after the school year began. William Eason, the band director at West Nassau, testified that he taught Band 2 as a fifth period class during the Fall Semester of the 2011-2012 school year. Mr. Eason testified that Mr. Booker approved the class for credit during the summer before the start of the school year. Mr. Eason stated that he was paid for the class, receiving a stipend for after- school instruction. Mr. Eason's testimony regarding the provenance of the Band 2 class is credited. Both Mr. Eason and Mr. Booker appeared to be testifying honestly, but Mr. Booker's recollection on this point was imprecise. Mr. Booker clearly recalled his approval of Debate 4 but was fuzzy as to when Band 2 came about, though he recalled discussions about the need for the class. Mr. Eason taught the class and naturally had a more specific recollection of the approval process than did the principal. Band 2 met daily at 3:45 p.m. until roughly 5:00 p.m. This was the time during which the marching band rehearsed for its appearances at West Nassau football games and for band competitions. Mr. Eason testified that he had no attendance problems with his Band 2 students. He took regular attendance at the start of the class. Also, if a student were missing, the hole in the marching band formation would be obvious. Three students, A.H., L.C., and C.P., were enrolled in Dr. Owen's Debate 4 class and in Mr. Eason's Band 2 class. It fell to Dr. Owen to fashion a solution to this conflict because it was critical that these students attend band practice every day after school, particularly A.H., who was the band's drum major. No flexibility could come from the Band 2 side of the conflict. Mr. Booker asked Dr. Owen to "work with" these students to provide a way for them to make up missed class time in Debate 4. If they had to miss two days because of band, then Dr. Owen should meet with them for a longer class period on the remaining three days to make sure they met the seat time requirement.3/ Dr. Owen testified that she understood Mr. Booker's instruction to mean that she should be flexible regarding regular class attendance for her Debate 4 students, provided they put in the time required to receive credit for the course. Eight students were in the course at the start of the year, and three dropped out. Dr. Owen stated that the five who remained in Debate 4 met their seat time requirement for the 2011-2012 school year. C.P., now a tenth grader at West Nassau, was in the marching band during Fall Semester of the 2011-2012 school year. He was enrolled in Band 2 and stated that the marching band practiced every day at 4:00 p.m., except for Thursdays when band practice convened at 4:30. C.P. enrolled in Debate 4 during September 2011, on Dr. Owen's recommendation, creating a conflict with his attendance at Band 2. On a few occasions, C.P. split his time at Band 2 and Debate 4. On most days, he would attend Debate 4 from 3:30 until 4:00 p.m. and then go to band practice. If there was no band practice, he would stay in Debate 4 until 5:00 p.m. On Thursdays he was able to stay in Debate 4 for a full hour, but on Fridays during the football season he was not able to attend Debate 4 at all due to his band commitments. C.P. testified that Dr. Owen allowed him to make up the missed time by coming in early in the morning, before first- period began at 9:05 a.m. In this way, C.P. was able to put in at least 30 minutes daily on his Debate 4 assignments. C.P. estimated that 95 percent of his class time was spent performing research on debate topics with his debate partner, which facilitated working independently of the regular class period. C.P. testified that his grade in Debate 4 was based on class participation, including debate practice once a week, and that there were no term papers or written assignments in the conventional sense. Dr. Owen testified that sixty percent of the grade for Debate 4 was based on class work, twenty percent was based on writing, and twenty percent was based on her assessments of the students. She stated that C.P. was not doing things that he would normally do in an English class for "writing," but that she graded the students based on their research, their notes, and their debate outlines, all of which are components of "writing" under the Sunshine State Standards. Her assessments were based on weekly practice debates. C.P. stated that his classmates A.H. and L.C. eventually dropped out of Debate 4 because they were unable to keep up with the requirements of the class in addition to their Band 2 commitments. The School Board has alleged that although C.P., A.H., and L.C. attended fifth-period band practice virtually every day during the Fall Semester of the 2011-2012 school year, and although band practice directly conflicted with Dr. Owen's fifth period Debate 4, those students were marked "present" in the Debate 4 class when they were not present. In fact, the fifth-period classes overlapped but did not conflict at all points. Mr. Eason testified that the band class began at 3:45, but C.P. testified that in practice the class did not commence until 4:00 p.m. C.P. was able to attend debate for thirty minutes, from 3:30 until 4:00 p.m., and then attend the band class starting at 4:00 p.m. C.P.'s testimony was entirely credible on this point. The evidence establishes that it was possible for the three students enrolled in both classes to attend at least portions of both classes. Assuming that the "flexibility" urged by Mr. Booker included the ability for students to make up class time at other times of the day, it was possible for C.P., A.H., and L.C. to meet the seat time requirements for Debate 4 while also maintaining their attendance at the fifth-period Band 2 class. A.H. and L.C. dropped out of Debate 4 halfway through the school year, each receiving a half-credit for the class. C.P. remained in Debate 4 for the entire school year. C.P. testified that A.H. and L.C. dropped the debate class because they were unable to put in the time to meet the seat requirements for the class while maintaining their level of participation in band. Dr. Owen's handwritten attendance sheets for August 29 through October 13, 2011, indicate a total of 16 absences from Debate 4, including five absences for A.H., the band's drum major. However, the attendance records submitted by Dr. Owen for the school's official records show no absences at all from Debate 4 until October 19, 2011. Dr. Owen did not have an adequate explanation for this discrepancy. In response to a direct question as to whether she had marked the students absent on the official attendance sheet, Dr. Owen said, "I don't know. Probably not." Because Dr. Owen was teaching the Debate 4 class voluntarily, without pay, the school would not pay for a substitute teacher. Therefore, Dr. Owen did not have a substitute teacher to fill in for her when she missed Debate 4. Records produced at the hearing indicated that Dr. Owen was absent from the West Nassau campus on September 14 and 23, October 4, November 9, December 8 and 9, and December 14 through 16, 2011. However, Dr. Owen's handwritten attendance sheets show that on September 14, when Dr. Owen was at the hospital for her husband's surgery, four students spent the entire class period in Debate 4 and four others at least checked in with Dr. Owen. The attendance sheets show that on September 23, when Dr. Owen was attending a conference in Baltimore, three students spent the entire fifth-period in Debate 4, three other students checked in, and two were absent. Dr. Owen had no adequate explanation for these discrepancies. On October 4, Dr. Owen was out of school for AVID professional training. Dr. Owen was the AVID coordinator for West Nassau. AVID, or Advancement Via Individual Determination, is the curriculum component of GEAR UP (Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs), a grant program established by the U.S. Department of Education to increase the number of low income students who are prepared to enter and succeed in postsecondary education. West Nassau was part of a three-year GEAR UP grant. Dr. Owen's handwritten attendance sheets for October 4 indicate that six students were present for the entire class period and two others checked in with Dr. Owen. In this instance, Dr. Owen explained that the AVID training session in Jacksonville concluded at the end of the school day and that she immediately drove to Callahan to be there for the Debate 4 class. As to Dr. Owen's other listed absences, the record contains no handwritten attendance sheets with which to compare them. In her deposition, Dr. Owen testified that she kept handwritten attendance sheets for the entire school year, but that during its initial investigation the School Board asked only for her attendance sheets for the first quarter of the 2011-2012 school year. She was subsequently suspended and barred from the West Nassau campus and therefore unable to provide the rest of the attendance sheets in response to the School Board's discovery request. West Nassau also generated a daily "subsequent period absentee report." The first-period teacher would take the roll of the students in her class and send the results to the school office. The office would then generate a report of absent students that would be distributed the next day to teachers of subsequent classes. Those teachers would check their own attendance record against the report and mark whether the students were present or absent for their classes. The subsequent period absentee reports for November 9, and December 14 and 15, 2011, each indicate that A.H. was marked absent for her first period class but was marked "present" for Debate 4. On all three of these dates, Dr. Owen was not present at the school. West Nassau maintains a "teacher sign-in sheet for payroll" that is treated as the official record of when a teacher comes into and leaves the school every day. Several of these sheets for the 2011-2012 school year were submitted into evidence. The sheets indicate that on most days, Dr. Owen worked well in excess of eight hours, often well into the evening hours. However, the sheets also indicate several days during the Fall semester on which Dr. Owen signed out of the school at 3:30 p.m. or before, indicating that she could not have been present to teach Debate 4: August 16, September 1, October 26 and 27, and November 2, 2011. There were also a few dates on which Dr. Owen left school after 3:30 but before the 4:15 dismissal time for Debate 4: September 20, October 25, and November 3, 2011. The handwritten attendance sheets for Debate 4 indicate that the class convened on August 16 and September 1, 2011, despite the fact that Dr. Owen had signed out of the school at 3:30 p.m. The evidence indicated that on at least two occasions Dr. Owen chaired meetings of the West Nassau AVID teachers at 3:45 p.m., in conflict with Debate 4. Dr. Owen testified that the AVID meetings occurred 15 minutes after the start of Debate 4, and that she was able to take roll and get the class started on independent work before the AVID meeting started. The AVID meetings were in the same connected suite of classrooms in which Dr. Owen conducted her classes, so that she was at all times within earshot of the Debate 4 class. She could not, however, state with certainty that the students were in the class and working during the class period. The School Board has also alleged that Dr. Owen did not establish or follow any discernible academic standards for the Debate 4 class. The School Board offered little evidence to support this allegation.4/ Dr. Owen provided a detailed course syllabus that included cognitive and behavioral objectives, targets for subject matter mastery, and the specific Sunshine State Standards met by the course. She also provided the students with a classroom management plan with clear rules for the functioning of the classroom and a set of student, parent and teacher expectations requiring the signatures of all parties. Regarding the lack of traditional writing assignments in the Debate 4 class, Dr. Owen testified as follows: If I had any less experience, maybe I would have to have a piece of paper for every single thing that they did. But I didn’t have to have that because I have been trained to assess everything a student has learned in ten minutes or less. And the minute they start talking, whether it's a national competition or in my classroom, in ten minutes or less I can tell you whether they've done any or all of the work that they have been given to do. It's part of knowing how to judge and coach debate. Dr. Owen's testimony on this point is credible. Debate 4 was a performing arts class, and as such did not fit the profile of a standard academic classroom course. To prepare for debates, students were required to perform extensive research and to demonstrate complete mastery of the materials they compiled. At the suggestion of the West Nassau principal, Dr. Owen provided the students some flexibility in making up their seat time due to the recognized conflict during the fifth-period. C.P., for example, made up his seat time by coming in early in the mornings and staying past 4:15 on afternoons when he could be in the class. Dr. Owen estimated that C.P. put in 130 hours of seat time during fourth quarter alone as he prepared for a national competition, when only 135 hours were required to obtain credit for the entire school year. Dr. Owen's clear mastery of the subject matter entitled her to some deference as to the extent to which the students were able to work independently of her. However, on this point, Superintendent of Schools John Ruis testified persuasively that regardless of how much independent study the student is responsible for, there is an expectation that instruction will occur in the classroom and that the students will be under the supervision of the teacher who is responsible for them. Dr. Ruis believed that some arrangement should have been made for supervision of the class in Dr. Owen's absence, regardless of the time the class convened. In summary, as to the allegations regarding the Debate 4 class, the School Board failed to demonstrate that Dr. Owen did not establish or follow any discernible academic standards for the class during the Fall Semester of the 2011-2012 school year. The School Board did demonstrate that Dr. Owen falsified records pertaining to the fifth-period Debate 4 class. It is understood that "falsification" carries a connotation of intentional action. Based on all the evidence, there is simply no way to find that Dr. Owen's actions constituted anything other than an intentional misreporting of student attendance in her Debate 4 class. Dr. Owen submitted attendance reports that were clearly incorrect, showing students present for classes that could not have taken place because Dr. Owen was not present on the West Nassau campus at the time in question.5/ When she filled out the attendance reports, Dr. Owen had to know that she was submitting inaccurate records. Spring 2011-2012 Speech 1 class During the Spring Semester of the 2011-2012 school year, Dr. Owen taught an AVID Speech 1 class at West Nassau. As noted above, AVID is the curriculum component of the federal GEAR UP grant program, the purpose of which is to increase the number of low-income students who are prepared to succeed in postsecondary education. The program's emphasis is on students who show the potential to do college work but who lack the financial and family resources to prepare in the manner available to their more well-to-do classmates. The elective AVID program aims to nurture these students and inculcate in them a desire to succeed in college.6/ The final exam for the Spring Semester AVID Speech 1 class consisted of four parts, each worth 200 points. The 800-point final exam counted for roughly one quarter of the student's grade for the nine-week period.7/ One of the 200-point segments of the final exam was a written essay test. The exam's instructions provided as follows: Please choose ONE (1) essay question. Your essay response should be a minimum of three (3) pages, and a maximum of four (4) pages. Please include an introduction, body, and conclusion. Your response is based off of your own experiences, not just the class's as a whole. Write your responses on a separate sheet of notebook paper. There followed a list of five essay questions: Compare and contrast your 1st semester at WNHS to your 2nd semester. What has changed? How have you improved, and what can you do to continue to improve? What recommendations would you give to the freshman class next year to prepare them for high school? Describe your experience with your first AP/Honors class. What do you think you could have done differently to help your grade? How do you think you could have been prepared in 8th grade, to be ready to go, when the class started? Describe what you think your life is to be like in 15 years. Where do you see yourself? Be as descriptive as possible. Do you believe that a person is born with individual determination, or is it acquired over time? What makes individual determination such a good thing but also a very bad thing? Give examples. Twenty-two students took the essay test. Twenty-one of the students received the same grade, 186 points out of a possible 200. The remaining student received a grade of 160.8/ Dr. Owen made no marks on any of the exams, most of which were replete with spelling errors, grammatical errors and sentence fragments. Three of the essays did not meet the three page minimum, and one of the essays was five and one-half pages long, in excess of the four-page maximum. In explaining her actions, Dr. Owen testified that some of the students were very concerned about their grades as they approached the written essay portion of the exam. Two parts of the final exam had been completed and were "non-negotiable as far as AVID was concerned," in Dr. Owen's words. One of these was the Tutorial Request Form, which Dr. Owen described as a "very stylized Socratic methodology form that they have to use Costa's higher-level order of thinking in order to put together.9/ And that is a killer sheet that they had to do twice a week all year." The second "non-negotiable" part of the final exam was a grade for the binders that the students were required to keep all year. Dr. Owen testified that some of the students had not done well on these two portions of the final exam, for which the AVID program allowed her no leeway to adjust the grades. She testified that these students "needed something to mitigate the damage that had been done in . . . the other two parts of the exam." Some of the students were further concerned that they could not write three pages on the essay test. Therefore, she orally amended the exam instructions, telling the class, "I will look at your essays to determine if you have addressed the prompt and if you have reflected on what you're doing. And if you've worked the whole period and you're working hard and I can tell, then I don't think anyone will be disappointed with their grades." Dr. Owen testified that she had taken this essay test, including the instructions, from an AVID website. She stated that she had never written an exam that called for a minimum or maximum number of pages, and that she did not believe that such a requirement should be strictly enforced. Dr. Owen noted that she had one student whose handwriting became larger and larger as she became more nervous, which caused her to fill more than four pages on the essay test. Another student's primary language was Spanish, but he managed to write a page and a half in English that addressed the prompt. In both of these instances, Dr. Owen declined to discount the students' grades for failure to meet the three-page minimum or four-page maximum. Dr. Owen testified that she has been trained as a professional test scorer and did not need to place marks on the papers. She stated that she took notes on a separate note pad to assist her in grading the papers, though she was unable to produce these notes at the hearing. She also knew that this was the last exam before summer break and that the students would not be coming back for the tests. She intended to place the exams in the students' permanent AVID folders to use as part of their first project for the next school year. The project was to involve peer editing, and she did not want the students to be influenced by marks she had placed on the papers. The essay exam was not intended to be "punitive." It was meant to be "reflective," something she could use at the beginning of the next year as a starting point for further study of the students' personal growth. Dr. Owen noted that the essay test was only one-fourth of the AVID Speech 1 final exam. This part of the exam did not change anyone's grade average because it amounted to so little of the total grade. Dr. Owen testified that it is appropriate to give all the students the same grade provided they "put into it what I ask them to put into it." In her deposition, when asked why 21 out of 22 students received the same score, Dr. Owen replied, "Probably because I liked what they wrote and they maintained the rubric."10/ She testified that she read every word of every essay. The fourth part of the final exam, also worth 200 points, was a "mandala autobiography" project. Each student was required to draw a mandala, or circle, containing five symbols that represent unique and varied aspects of the student and/or his life. According to the written rubric for the project, a "very effective" mandala would demonstrate its symbolic purpose, would be visually appealing, and would have a purposeful and unifying connecting design. Accompanying the mandala would be an essay that "thoroughly describes and explains the symbols contained in the mandala. The essay would use "strong sensory details to bring each symbol to life." The "very effective" essay should be well-organized, use "well-crafted transitions to propel the reader forward," contain varied sentence structure and have "few, if any, mechanical errors." All 22 students in the AVID Speech 1 class received a grade of 190 out of 200 on the mandala autobiography project. Dr. Owen made no marks of any kind on any of the project materials submitted by the students. Dr. Owen explained that this project was the culmination of "an entire year's worth of reflection through AVID." As well as writing explanatory essays, the students were required to present the mandalas to the class and explain each symbol and color used in the drawings. Dr. Owen testified that the mandala autobiography was something of a group project, with all of the students working on the rubric together. Again, she did not make marks on the papers because the mandalas were going to be used during the next school year. Dr. Owen testified: [A]t the beginning of this year, we were going to take those mandalas, and we were going to turn that into the second project, which was: over the summer, how have you changed? How have your collages changed? How did the symbols change? Are they still valid? And so I wasn't going to mark on anybody's artwork, and I didn't need to mark on any of them because the students' rubrics and things . . . I had them all together in one place. Dr. Owen conceded that some students produced more materials than others and that some projects appeared to have had more effort put into them, based on the detail of the written materials. Nonetheless, Dr. Owen testified that each one of the students in the class "absolutely" earned the grade he or she received. Dr. Cynthia Grooms, the assistant principal at West Nassau who conducted the initial investigation into the allegations against Dr. Owen, testified that she found it unusual that so many students received the same grades on the essay test and the mandala project, especially because there were no marks on the papers. These facts raised concerns as to whether Dr. Owen reviewed the exams, graded them properly, documented her grading process, and provided feedback to the students. Dr. Ruis also found it "highly irregular" for 22 students in a class to receive an identical grade on a written assignment. Dr. Ruis believed the probability of such an occurrence "would normally be very slim." As to the essay test in particular, Dr. Ruis stated: It would be difficult not to read these essays and make some distinctions between them with regard to quality of the product that the students produced. However, that was not reflected in the scores that they were assigned . . . It suggested that they were not reviewed objectively, that they were not graded in accordance with the guidelines that were issued, and done haphazardly. Even Mr. Booker, the former West Nassau principal who testified on behalf of Dr. Owen, stated that it would be unusual for all 22 students in a class to receive the same grade on a written project. If he were shown 22 written essays, all of which received the identical grade and none of which had a mark on them, Mr. Booker would conclude that the teacher had not graded them. The School Board's allegation is that Dr. Owen "falsified and/or negligently failed to maintain accurate grading records for her fourth period Speech I class." It is found that Dr. Owen did not "falsify" records for the class because there is no evidence that Dr. Owen intended to create inaccurate or misleading grading records. The undersigned finds Dr. Owen to be a dedicated teacher and a sympathetic witness, and has attempted to give her the benefit of every doubt in this proceeding. The AVID Speech 1 class was an elective class designed to encourage potential first-generation college students to pursue higher education. The class was designed more to encourage reflection and self- examination than to exert academic pressure on the students. It is found that, given the nature and goals of the class, Dr. Owen had some measure of discretion to apply a more relaxed grading standard. However, by her own admission, Dr. Owen negotiated with her students the terms of the AVID Speech 1 essay test after the students saw the written instructions to the test, essentially telling them to disregard the instructions and promising them a good grade if she believed they were working hard. She then proceeded to give 21 of 22 students a score of 186 out of 200, or a solid "A," without apparent regard to the manifest differences in quality among the essays. She made no marks on any of the papers, failing to correct for spelling and grammatical errors. Dr. Owen testified that she took notes in a separate note pad that she was unable to produce at the hearing. She stated that the students received the same score because they all wrote according to her undisclosed personal "rubric." The undersigned credits Dr. Owen's testimony that she read every word of every essay, but cannot credit her conclusion that all of these essays were of precisely the same quality meriting precisely the same grade. Based on these facts, it is found that Dr. Owen negligently failed to maintain accurate grading records for her fourth-period Speech I class as to the essay portion of the final exam. As to the mandala autobiography, there are factors apart from those discussed as to the essay test that incline the decision toward Dr. Owen. The mandala project had an objective rubric against which the finished product could be judged. Though each student produced an individual mandala, the overall project was visualized as a group effort, providing some justification for Dr. Owen's decision to award all 22 students with a grade of 190. A reasonable person could disagree with Dr. Owen's method of grading the mandala autobiography project, but her grading decision cannot be found to constitute a negligent failure to maintain accurate grading records. Evidence as to Dr. Owen's fitness and effectiveness Mr. Booker was the principal of West Nassau and Dr. Owen's direct supervisor throughout her tenure at the school. He described Dr. Owen as a "fabulous teacher," a "master" at keeping her students "highly engaged and involved in the educational process." Mr. Booker stated that he had no concerns about Dr. Owen's professionalism and had never known her to neglect any of her duties. His only concern was as follows: I've had concerns about her work ethic, because she works, you know, nonstop pretty much every day, every day, every night, weekends. She's a very dedicated teacher, puts in more hours as one teacher probably than three or four other teachers do. I used to have to try to kick her out of the building. Dr. Owen received the highest score possible on her annual evaluation for the 2011-2012 school year. She received an overall score of 97 out of 100 possible points on her 2010-2011 annual evaluation. She was subject to two evaluations during the 2009-2010 school year, for which she received scores of 94 and 100 out of a possible 100 points. Iris Coleman is a retired teacher and administrator for the School Board. In the 2008-2009 school year, Ms. Coleman was acting principal at the Student Educational Alternative School ("SEAS") at which Dr. Owen was a teacher. Ms. Coleman testified that her performance evaluations of Dr. Owen were very good, and that Dr. Owen was "one of the most competent teachers that I have ever observed." Ms. Coleman never knew Dr. Owen to neglect her duty, stating that, "I have never seen anything but the finest of performance academically, professionally, and socially." Melody Spruell, the former English department head and AP coordinator at West Nassau, testified that she had observed Dr. Owen's Debate 4 class 15 or 16 times and her AVID Speech 1 class about a dozen times. She noted that Dr. Owen's students posted "stellar" scores on the FCAT exam. Dr. Spruell stated that Dr. Owen "makes the rest of us kind of look like, you know, chopped liver." Dr. Spruell testified that if she had ninth- grade children, "my kids would be in her class." Maureen Lullo is an English teacher who shared the same suite of classrooms with Dr. Owen and worked closely with her in the AVID program. Ms. Lullo described Dr. Owen as "a brilliant mind and really one of the best teachers that I have been exposed to in my 24 years of teaching." Dr. Ruis testified as to the factors that led him to recommend Dr. Owen's dismissal: Well, I think to go back to the Code of Ethics of the teaching profession of the State of Florida, teachers have an obligation to present information honestly; they have an obligation to the profession and to the students and to the parents to not produce information that would misrepresent the facts or be submitted fraudulently. I think that's a very serious breach of the Code of Ethics. And my expectation for all of our teachers would be that they perform and that they act in a manner that's of the highest character, as exemplifying the Code of Ethics, because that is certainly something that we need to model for our students. And when that does not happen, I think it -- you know, it reduces the effectiveness of someone in the instructional position with students under their supervision. Dr. Ruis concluded that it would be "very, very difficult" for Dr. Owen to remedy her impaired effectiveness at West Nassau or in the Nassau County School District.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Nassau County School Board enter a final order finding D. Lynn Owen guilty of incompetency and misconduct in office and imposing the sanction of suspension without pay for the 2012-2013 school year. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of February, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 5th day of February, 2013.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact: The Petitioner, Thomas E. Deen, is an employee of Respondent, School Board of Hernando County, Florida. The School Board is an agency of the State of Florida and is charged with responsibility for the operation of the Hernando County public schools. The Petitioner was initially employed by Respondent as an assistant principal for the 1961-62 academic year. He was thereafter employed under successive annual contracts of employment for the academic years 1962-63 and 1963-64. The Petitioner was thereafter granted a continuing contract as assistant principal for that period commencing with the 1964-65 academic year. In 1972, Petitioner was promoted to the position of principal. The Petitioner thereafter served in the position of principal for the 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77 academic years. In the 1976-77 through 1981-82 academic years. Petitioner was assigned to various administrative positions, including Title I Resource Specialist and Adult Education Coordinator. At all times during this period, he was paid at least the administrative base salary in accordance with the salary schedule annually adopted by the School Board. For the 1982-83 academic year, the Petitioner was assigned to the position of adult school director at the Alternative Adult Education Day and Trade School. This school involved day high school students, adult students, a trade school and an alternative program. This school is located in a separate facility. The Petitioner replaced an individual by the name of Lorenzo Hamilton. Mr. Hamilton held the administrative title of principal while he served in that position and was paid as a principal. The duties performed by Mr. Hamilton and Petitioner were identical in all respects. Both Mr. Hamilton and the Petitioner performed many of the duties required of principals by the School Board's job description for the position of principal, including: 1) evaluation of teachers; 2) supervision of teachers; 3) discipline of students; 4) evaluation of students; and, 5) signing numerous documents as principal. However, several duties required of principals were not performed by Mr. Hamilton, or Petitioner. Those duties included: 1) recommending to the superintendent changes and improvements to the school plant, physical equipment and grounds; 2) recommending to the superintendent changes in existing personnel and the hiring of personnel; 3) recommending to the Superintendent major changes in the curriculum of the school; 4) keeping property records on equipment and textbooks and maintaining internal accounts; 5) recommending to the School Board any rentals of the buildings and 6) submitting purchase orders and estimated needs for office supplies, classroom supplies and custodial supplies. Many of the functions of principals which were not performed by Petitioner or Mr. Hamilton were the responsibility of Mr. Goss. Mr. Goss was considered Petitioner's and Mr. Hamilton's supervisor and was employed as a community school coordinator. Generally, principals report directly to the superintendent in the school system's chain of command; Petitioner did not report directly to the superintendent. The Petitioner therafter served as community school director for the 1982-83 school year and the 1983-84 school year. For the 1984-85 school year the Petitioner held the administrative title of principal/community school coordinator. After Petitioner relieved Mr. Lorenzo Hamilton, the title of the administrative position was re-evaluated and it was determined that the position should be a director's position and not a principal's position. In addition, it was determined that the position did not call for a principal's salary. While employed in the position of community school director for the 1982-83 school year, the Petitioner received the administrative base pay of a community school director, a five (5%) per cent enrollment supplement and a three (3%) per cent alternative school supplement. The two (2) supplements which the Petitioner received were also received by Mr. Hamilton when he served in the position during the 1981-82 school year. Further, the School Board of Hernando County supervisory and administrative salary schedule for the 1982-83 school year, admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 4 reflects that those two (2) supplements were paid to principals but were not paid to community school directors. For the 1983-84 school year, the Petitioner was paid the administrative base of a director, however, he continue to receive enrollment and position supplements which were reserved for principals according to the school board's supervisory and administrative salary schedule for the year 1983-84. For the 1984-85 school year the Petitioner was paid 100% of the administrative base. However, the Petitioner did not receive an enrollment supplement nor a position supplement. According to the school board's supervisory and administrative salary schedule for the school year 1984-85, persons occupying the position of principal were entitled to an enrollment supplement and a position supplement. For the 1984-85 school year, the Petitioner's title was changed from community school director to principal. The primary reason for the change in title was to implement the district school board's policy requiring that the person at the school level in charge of the Beginning Teacher Program be titled "principal." The Petitioner was in charge of the Beginning Teacher Program at the Alternative School. The Beginning Teacher Program began in the State of Florida on July 1, 1982. The Petitioner was involved with the Beginning Teacher Program since its inception, but did not have any beginning teachers in 1982-83. The Petitioner did have beginning teachers in his school during the 1983-84 and 1984-85 school years. The Petitioner protested his rate of pay for the 1982- 83 school year to Superintendent Austin. Initially, Petitioner's contract reflected that he would be paid 90% of administrative base with no supplements. After a heated discussion with Mr. Austin, Petitioner's salary was adjusted to include a 5% supplement for the number of students and a 3% supplement for the type of school; Petitioner's administrative base salary was unchanged. During the 1984-85 school year the Petitioner did not report directly to Mr. Austin, the superintendent of schools. Based on the school board's chain of command, a principal will report directly to the office of the superintendent while assistant principals do not report directly to the superintendent. Mr. Austin, the superintendent of schools of Hernando County has never recommended to the school board that a person receive a continuing contract as a principal. Mr. Austin has recommended that certain individuals receive a continuing contract as assistant principal and has made a recommendation that an individual receive a continuing contract in the position of administrator. The school board's supervisory and administrative salary schedule for the 1982-83 school year provided that assistant principals would be paid 100% of the administrative base, or $26,575. Petitioner held a valid continuing contract as an assistant principal during the 1982-83 school year, but was paid an administrative base of $23,917.50. The school board's supervisory and administrative salary schedule for the 1983-84 school year provided that assistant principals would be paid 100% of the administrative base, or $28,967. Petitioner held a valid continuing contract as an assistant principal during the 1983-84 school year, but was paid an administrative base of $26,070. The School Board's supervisory and administrative salary schedule for the 1984-85 school year provided that assistant principals would be paid 100% of the administrative base, or $31,800. Petitioner was paid in accordance with the School Board's salary schedule for the 1984-85 school year. The 1984-85 salary schedule provided that assistant principals and "principal of adult day high school and trade school/community school directors" would receive the same salary, i.e. 100% of administrative base. Petitioner is presently employed, for the 1985-86 school year, in the position of principal of adult day high school and trade school/community school director. Petitioner is currently being paid in accordance with the salary scheduled established by the School Board for the category "principal of adult day high school and trade school/community school director." The Petitioner's agreement of employment with the School Board for each academic year in question consisted of a composite of documents evidencing the total understanding between the parties. Those documents included: (a) an "Intent- to-Return" form submitted by the employee indicating his intent to return to the Hernando County school system the following year; (b) a letter of appointment or re-appointment written by the superintendent and addressed to the District School Board of Hernando County; (c) a letter written by the superintendent addressed to the employee confirming that the appointment or reappointment was approved by the District School Board; (d) an Administrative Salary Statement, with salary and position filled in by the School Board and submitted to the employee for signature; and, (e) a general "Supervisory and Administrative Salary Schedule" applicable to all administrative employees in the school system.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED THAT: The School Board of Hernando County declare and determine that Petitioner does not hold a continuing contract of employment as a principal; The School Board of Hernando County adjust the pay of Petitioner for the 1985-86 academic year to reflect past salary shortages totalling $5,554.50; and that The School Board of Hernando County deny Petitioner's claim for compensatory damages, attorney's fees and costs. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of November, 1985 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MATTHEW STEVENSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (9040 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of November, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: John D. Carlson, Esq. 1030 E. Lafayette Street - #112 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joseph E. Johnston, Jr., Esq. 29 South Brooksville Avenue Brooksville, Florida 33512 Hon. Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Judith Brechner, Esq. General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James K. Austin, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools The School Board of Hernando County, Florida 919 U.S. Highway 41, North Brooksville, Florida 33512-2997 APPENDIX Pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1983) the following is submitted in response to Petitioner's and Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Finding: Ruling: Accepted; see paragraphs 1 & 2, R.O. Accepted, see paragraph 1. Partially accepted; see paragraphs 2, 3 and 14, R.O. Petitioner's proposed finding that his contract "denoted "CC" indicating a continuing contract as a principal" is rejected as a conclusion of law. Petitioner's proposed finding that the "Superintendent and School Board acted on Petitioner's employment as though he held a continuing contract as a principal" is not supported by the evidence. Accepted; see paragraph 3, R.O. Partially accepted; see paragraphs & 5. Facts not included therein are rejected as irrelevant. Partially accepted; see paragraphs 4 and 5 R.O. Facts not included therein are rejected as irrelevant, cumulative or immaterial. Partially accepted; see paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, R.O. Facts not included therein are rejected as irrelevant, cumulative or immaterial. Accepted; see paragraph 11, R.O. Partially accepted; see paragraphs and 11, R.O. Facts not included therein are rejected as cumulative, irrelevant or immaterial. Partially accepted; see paragraph Facts not included therein are rejected as cumulative or immaterial. Partially accepted; see paragraphs 8 and 15. Petitioner's proposed finding that "Under the 1982-83 Salary Schedule an individual holding a contract as . . . an assistant principal and performing the duties of a principal" would have been entitled to administrative base plus supplements is not supported by the evidence. Partially accepted; see paragraphs 9 and 16. Petitioner's proposed finding that "under the 1983-84 salary schedule an individual holding a contract as . . . an assistant principal and performing the duties of a principal" would have been entitled to administrative base plus supplements is not supported by the evidence. (No paragraph 13) Partially accepted; see paragraph 17, R.O. Petitioner's proposed finding that he was entitled to supplements in the same manner as he had received in prior years is rejected as a conclusion of law. Petitioner's proposed finding that "Under the 1983-84 salary schedule an individual holding a contract as . . . an assistant principal and performing the duties of a principal" would have been entitled to administrative base plus supplements is not supported by the evidence. Partially accepted; see paragraph 11 and 17, R.O. Facts not included therein are rejected as immaterial. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. The testimony of Petitioner established that his retirement benefits would be based on the average of his 5 highest paid years. However, there was no evidence as to when Petitioner planned to retire, therefore, any effect on Petitioner's retirement benefit caused by underpayments during the years in question is speculative. Rejected as immaterial. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Finding: Ruling: Accepted; see paragraphs 1 & 2, R.O. Accepted; see paragraph 14, R.O. Accepted; see paragraph 3, R.O. Accepted; see paragraph 15, R.O. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. Accepted; see paragraphs 8 and 9, R.O. Partially accepted; see paragraphs 4 & 5. Respondent's proposed finding that Petitioner's duties were not commensurate with those assigned to principals is partially not supported by the evidence since it was established that many of Petitioner's duties were commensurate with those assigned to principals. Accepted; see paragraphs 15 and 16, R.O. Rejected; see paragraphs 15 and 16, R.O. Partially rejected; Petitioner is currently, 1985-86 school year, being paid the salary of an assistant principal, however, Petitioner seeks to have his salary for 1985-86 adjusted to that of principal.
Conclusions This cause coming on to be heard before THE SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, at its meeting conducted on August 16, 2011, to consider the Recommended Order, entered on June 21, 2011 by the Honorable Claude B. Arrington, Administrative Law Judge of the State of Florida, Division of Administrative Hearings. THE SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, having considered the Recommended Order, to which neither party filed exceptions, and being fully advised in the Premises: IT IS THEREUPON ORDERED AND ADJUDGED BY THE SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: 1. The Recommended Order is adopted in its entirety and incorporated herein by reference; and 2. RACHEL VON HAGEN’S professional service contract with The School Board of Broward County, Florida is terminated. Filed September 13, 2011 8:54 AM Division of Administrative Hearings Broward County School Board vs. Rachel Von Hagen DOAH Case Number: 11-0567 SBBC AGENDA 081611H02-Final Order aa AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida this \ ( aay of hag » 2011. THE SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD Za Aa By: ia iW. Williams, Chair COPIES FURNISHED: CHARLES T. WHITELOCK, ESQ. Charles T. Whitelock, P.A. 300 Southeast 13" Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 MARK HERDMAN, ESQ. Herdman and Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater Florida 33761 STATE OF FLORIDA, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 Broward County Schoo! Board vs. Rachel von Hagen DOAH Case Number: 11-0567 SBBC AGENDA 081611H02-Final Order APPEAL OF FINAL ORDER Pursuant to Section 120.68, Fla. Sta., a party to this proceeding may seek judicial review of this Final Order in the appropriate district court of appeal by filing a notice of appeal with Noemi Gutierrez, Agency Clerk, Official School Board Records, The School Board of Broward County, Florida, 600 Southeast Third Avenue — 2"! Floor, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301, on or before thirty (30) days from the date of this Final Order. A copy of the notice and a copy of this Final Order, together with the appropriate filing fee, must also be filed with the Clerk, Fourth District Court of Appeal, 1525 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-2399. If you fail to file your notice of appeal within the time prescribed by laws and the rules of court, you will lose your right to appeal this Final Order. fritz/allwork/doah/employment/vonhagen Rachel final order-final
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's professional services contract with the Hernando County School Board should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is the agency responsible for the administration of the school system in Hernando County. The School Board has employed Mr. Ellison almost continuously since 1979. In addition to teaching, he has coached students in various sports. Until September 16, 2005, he taught pursuant to a professional services contract at Central High School. On September 15, 2005, Mr. Ellison's 1996 Dodge truck was located at the school's auto shop. Mr. Ellison had driven it there. Students studying automobile repair were to attempt to repair his truck's air conditioner, which was not functioning. Mr. Ellison had provided the truck to the auto shop personally after having made arrangements with the automobile repair teachers the previous day. He was aware that the repair job was to be accomplished by students. Peter Koukos, the vocational instructor, informed Mr. Ellison, that in order to repair the air conditioner the glove box would have to be removed. Mr. Ellison assented to this procedure. While attempting to remove the glove box, students discovered a loaded Power Plus .38 special revolver in it. The students who found it duly reported its presence to Mr. Koukos, who took custody of it. It was eventually delivered to the school resource officer, Deputy Sheriff Debra Ann Miles, who placed it into evidence in accordance with Hernando County Sheriff's Office procedures. It is found as a fact that the revolver was owned by Mr. Ellison and it was he who had placed the weapon in the glove box of the truck and it was he who had driven it onto the Central High School grounds on September 15, 2005. Mr. Ellison had experienced a previous incident with this weapon on January 21, 2002. This incident was precipitated when a citizen reported to the Hernando County Sheriff's Office that a man was standing by a parked pick-up truck in the Fort Dade Cemetery with a handgun in the left front pocket of his jacket. A deputy was dispatched to the cemetery. The deputy stopped a truck as it exited the cemetery. The truck the deputy stopped was being driven by Mr. Ellison and it was the same 1996 Dodge that was involved in the September 15, 2005, incident. On the prior occasion Mr. Ellison related to the deputy that he was having domestic difficulties and the deputy, with Mr. Ellison's permission, seized the weapon which was in his possession. The weapon seized by the deputy was the very same .38 special revolver found at Central High School on September 15, 2005. The weapon was released to Mr. Ellison on February 12, 2002, because his actions with it on January 21, 2002, were completely lawful. He thereafter placed the weapon in the glove box of the 1996 Dodge. He forgot that it was there and if he had thought about it, he would not have left it in the glove box of the truck when he delivered it to the students in the auto repair shop on September 15, 2005. There was no intent to bring the weapon on campus. Mr. Ellison is aware of the harm that can ensue from carelessly leaving weapons in an environment where curious students might retrieve it and harm themselves or others. He has never denied that the gun was his or that anyone other than himself was responsible for the weapon being brought to the campus. Mr. Ellison knew that School Board Policy 3.40(6) provides that no one except law enforcement and security officers may possess any weapon on school property. This was explained to all of the teachers in a pre-school orientation session conducted August 1-5, 2005, which Mr. Ellison attended. Procedures to be followed in the event a gun or other dangerous weapon was found on campus were reviewed during this orientation session. These procedures are contained in the Central High School Blue Book, 2005-06 and Mr. Ellison knew this at the time he drove his truck onto school property. Mr. Ellison was and is familiar with the Code of Ethics and Principles of Professional Conduct that addresses the behavior of teachers. He is aware that he has a duty to make a reasonable effort to protect students from conditions that may be harmful. Ed Poore, now retired, was an employee of the School Board for 31 years. He served in the district office as administrator of personnel and human resources, and specifically, was involved with the administration of discipline and the enforcement of School Board policy. Mr. Poore stated that intent was not a factor in determining whether a violation of School Board Policy 3.40(6) had occurred. He further noted that the Policy does not provide for a sanction for its violation. He testified that in determining a sanction for a violation of this section, he had observed in the past that the School Board had considered the sanction imposed on others in similar situations, the individual person's time and service as a teacher, and any other pertinent mitigating circumstances. Mr. Ellison's character was described by several witnesses as follows: Brent Kalstead, the Athletic Director at Hernando High School, who has been a teacher for 18 years, stated that he had coached with Mr. Ellison and that he had entrusted his son to him so that he could teach him baseball. He said that Mr. Ellison was dedicated to the youth of Hernando County. Marietta Gulino, is Mr. Ellison's girlfriend and a school bus driver. She stated that Mr. Ellison often takes care of children after working hours. Richard Tombrink has been a circuit judge in Hernando County for 17 years. He has known Mr. Ellison for 15 years as a baseball coach and at social events. He said that Mr. Ellison is committed to educating children and has great character. Lynn Tombrink is the wife of Judge Tombrink and is a teacher at Parrott Middle School and has known Mr. Ellison for 20 years. Ten years ago she taught in the room next to him. She would want him to teach her children. Regina Salazo is a housewife. She stated that Mr. Ellison was her son's pitching coach and that he loves children and they love him. Timothy Collins, a disabled man, said that his grandson and Mr. Ellison's grandson play baseball together and that he knows Mr. Ellison to be professional, a no nonsense type of person, and a gentleman. It is his opinion that the School Board needs people like him. Gary Buel stated that Mr. Ellison was his assistant baseball coach and that Mr. Ellison was dedicated and motivated. He described him as selfless. The parties stipulated that if called, the following witnesses would testify that they know Mr. Ellison to be a good, decent, honorable man; that they know him to be a good educator and coach; that they are aware of the circumstances surrounding the gun being in his truck on School Board property; that they do not believe that termination is the appropriate action in this case; and that he would remain an effective teacher: Carole Noble of Ridge Manor; Rob and Vickie Fleisher of Floral City; Vinnie Vitalone of Brooksville; Tim Whatley of Brooksville; Rick Homer of Brooksville; Rob and Candy Taylor of Spring Hill; Robbie Fleisher; Mark Frazier of Brooksville; Miya Barber of Brooksville; Nate Dahmer of Brooksville; Hank Deslaurier of Spring Hill; John and Mary Jo McFarlane of Brooksville; Pete Crawford of Brooksville; Patrick Ryan of Tampa; Ed Bunnell of Spring Hill; and Alan and Cecilia Solomon of Brooksville. It is found as a fact, based on the record of hearing, that Mr. Ellison is an excellent teacher who works well with children and whose character is above reproach. He is not the type of person who would consciously bring a weapon onto school grounds or commit any other purposeful act which might endanger students. Mr. Ellison has not been the subject of prior disciplinary actions.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Final Order imposing a 30-calendar-day suspension without pay be imposed as a penalty in this cause, and that Respondent, Michael Ellison, be reinstated to a teaching status and be awarded back pay and benefits to which he would have otherwise been entitled since November 15, 2005, less the 30-calendar-day suspension without pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER 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 23rd day of February, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Paul Carland, II, Esquire Hernando County School Board 919 North Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34601 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 1244 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Wendy Tellone, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools Hernando County School Board 919 North Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34601-2397
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a classroom teacher on an annual contract basis. Respondent first began working for Petitioner in February 1987, as an elementary teacher at Westview Elementary School. She taught at Westview Elementary School from February 1987 to the end of the 1986-87 school year and at Miami Park Elementary School during the 1987-88 school year. Both Westview Elementary School and Miami Park Elementary School are public school in the Dade County School District. For the 1988-89 school year, Respondent was assigned to teach a first grade class at Westview Elementary School. At the time of the final hearing, Respondent was 29 years of age. Respondent had received training as to Petitioner's disciplinary policies. She was aware of Petitioner's general disciplinary policies and the specific disciplinary procedures in place for Westview Elementary. During the 1988-89 school year there was in place at Westview Elementary an assertive discipline policy which was designed to discipline students without the use of physical punishment and which prohibited the use of physical force by teachers in the discipline of students. Teachers were instructed to remove disruptive students from the classroom by referring them to the administration office. If a student would not willingly go to the administration office, the teachers were to summon an administrator to the classroom to take charge of the disruptive student. In Respondent's classroom at Westview Elementary there was a coat closet that had hooks and shelves for storage. This closet was left without light when the two doors to this closet were closed. S.W., D.C., and D.W. were, during the 1988-89 school year, first grade students in Respondent's class at Westview Elementary. From the beginning of the 1988-89 school year, Respondent disciplined S.W., D.C., and D.W., individually, by placing each of them at various times in the coat closet and by then closing the two doors to the closet. On each occasion, the respective student was left in darkness. Respondent administered this punishment to S.W., a student Respondent characterized as having emotional problems, on seven separate occasions. Respondent administered this punishment to D.C. on at least one occasion and to D.W. on more than one occasion. Respondent knew, or should have known, that this form of discipline was inconsistent with Petitioner's disciplinary policies. During the 1988-89 school year, D.N. and S.M. were first grade students at Westview Elementary School who were assigned to Ms. Ortega's class. On February 14, 1989, Respondent observed D.N. and S.M. fighting while returning to their class from lunch. Ms. Holt, a substitute teacher temporarily assigned to that class while Ms. Ortega was on maternity leave, was the teacher in charge of D.N. and S.M. Respondent did not think that Ms. Holt could manage D.N. and S.M. Instead of referring the two students to the administration office, Respondent, with the permission of Ms. Holt, took D.N. and S.M. to Respondent's classroom to discipline the two students. Respondent had not been asked to assist Ms. Holt in this fashion. Respondent placed D.N. and S.M. in separate corners of the room and instructed them to be quiet. While Respondent attempted to teach her class, D.N. and S.M. continued to misbehave. D.N. began playing with a fire extinguisher and S.M. began writing and drawing on a chalkboard. To discipline D.N., Respondent tied his hands behind his back with a red hair ribbon. While he was still tied, Respondent placed the end of a broom handle under D.N.'s chin, where it remained propped until it fell to the floor. Respondent then placed the fire-extinguisher into D.N.'s tied hands to show him that the heavy fire extinguisher could harm him if it fell on him. These actions took place in Respondent's classroom in the presence of Respondent's class. Respondent frightened D.N. and almost caused him to cry in front of his fellow students. Respondent exposed D.N. to embarrassment and subjected him to ridicule from his fellow students. Respondent knew, or should have known, that this form of discipline was inconsistent with Petitioner's disciplinary policies. To discipline S.M., Respondent placed him in the coat closet. Respondent closed one of the doors and threatened to close the other door if S.M. did not remain still and quiet. After S.M. did not obey her instructions, Respondent closed the other door of the closet which left the closet without light. While S.M. was in the coat closet, Respondent remained stationed by the second door and continued instructing her class. After a brief period of time, Respondent let S.M. out of the dark closet. Respondent knew, or should have known, that this form of discipline was inconsistent with Petitioner's disciplinary policies. D.N. and S.M. remained in Respondent's class until a student sent by Ms. Holt summoned them to the library to participate with the rest of their class in vision and hearing testing. D.N. had to walk from Respondent's class to the library with his hands tied behind his back. This exposed D.N. to further embarrassment and ridicule. Ms. Holt untied D.N.'s hands in the library in the presence of other students. The ribbon which Respondent had used to bind D.N.'s hands behind his back left red marks on D.N.'s wrists. Ms. Holt immediately reported the incident to the principal. During the course of its investigation into the incidents involving D.N. and S.M., Petitioner learned of the prior incidents during which S.W., D.C., and D.W. were punished by being placed in the closet. Following the investigation of the Respondent's disciplinary methods, Petitioner suspended her without pay on May 17, 1989, and instituted proceedings to terminate her annual contract. Respondent timely demanded a formal hearing of the matter and this proceeding followed. The progressive discipline approach used by Petitioner in some cases involving teachers who violate disciplinary procedures usually requires that a reprimand be imposed for the first offense. Subsequent violations by the teacher would result in the imposition of progressively severe sanctions, culminating in dismissal. The progressive discipline approach is not used in a case involving a serious breach of policy such as where an established pattern of violations is established. Respondent's repeated practice of placing students in a darkened closet, which began at the beginning of the school year and continued into February when the incident involving D.N. and S.M. occurred, established a patterned breach of disciplinary procedure. Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher in the school became impaired because of her repeated breaches of discipline policy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County, Florida, enter a final order which finds Katherine R. Santos guilty of misconduct, which affirms her suspension without pay, and which terminates her annual contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-3064 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 1 are adopted in material part by paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 2 are adopted in material part by paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Recommended Order. The students, who are identified by initials, are described as being first grade students rather than as being a specific age. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are adopted in material part by paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 4 are adopted in material part by paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 5 are adopted in part by paragraphs 5 and 9 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact relating to Respondent's having struck a student with a ruler and having twisted the ears and arms of other students are rejected as being contrary to the weight of the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 6 are rejected as being contrary to the weight of the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 7 are adopted in material part by paragraph 6 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 8 are adopted in material part by paragraphs 8, 9, and 10 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 9 are adopted in material part by paragraph 8 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 10 are adopted in material part by paragraph 8 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 11 are adopted in material part by paragraph 12 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 12 are adopted in material part by paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 13 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made in paragraph 13 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 14 are adopted in material part by paragraph 13 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 15 are adopted in material part by paragraph 12 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 16 and 17 are rejected as being the recitation of testimony and as being subordinate to the findings made. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent: The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 1 are adopted in material part by paragraph 2 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 2 are adopted in material part by paragraph 1 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are adopted in material part by paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 4 are adopted in material part by paragraphs 7 and 9 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 5 are adopted in material part by paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Recommended Order. The proposed finding that the ribbon was tied loosely is rejected because of the marks left on the student's wrists. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 6 are rejected as being the recitation of testimony and as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 7 are rejected as being conclusions and as not being findings of fact. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 8 are rejected. A finding that none of the students were struck or hit is rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. A finding that none of the students were abused is rejected as being a conclusion that is unnecessary to the results reached and as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 9 are rejected as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. The greater weight of the evidence is that Respondent had been advised as to Petitioner's disciplinary policies and that she knew or should have known that the forms of punishment she was using violated those policies. The proposed finding of fact in paragraph 10 that the discipline inflicted on these students does not amount to corporal punishment is rejected as being a conclusion that is unnecessary to the results reached and as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. The remaining proposed findings of fact in paragraph 10 are adopted in material part. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire School Board of Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Jaime C. Bovell, Esquire 370 Minorca Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33134 William DuFresne, Esquire 2929 Southwest Third Avenue Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Joseph A. Fernandez Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools Office of Professional Standards 1444 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 215 Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by Petitioner under a continuing contract. The Respondent, Muriel Johnson Krueger, holds Florida teaching certificate number #0367469 issued by the Florida Department of Education covering grades K through 6. The Respondent is also certified in Florida for administration and supervision, grades K through 12. She also holds a Wisconsin teaching certificate. The Respondent taught in Wisconsin for a number of years; she taught in a one-room school house, grades 1 through 5. She began teaching in Florida in 1974 at Brooksville Primary School in Hernando County, where she taught first grade for two years. She next taught first grade at Moton School Center (Moton) also in Hernando County, for four years. She received her continuing contract in 1977. In 1979, the Respondent was appointed primary specialist at Moton; she held that position until August, 1985. As primary specialist, the Respondent was not assigned to a classroom; she worked primarily with teachers and teachers' aides. She was not responsible for drawing up lesson plans, recording grades, or developing pacing schedules, as those procedures are used in the ordinary classroom. The Respondent received favorable evaluations throughout her career in the Hernando County school system, until January, 1986. However, Respondent has never received an evaluation of her performance which would support her dismissal. In March, 1985, the Respondent was diagnosed as having certain physical and psychological problems, including diabetes and atypical psychosis. The Respondent's medical conditions, including the details regarding her psychological illness, were reported to the school system by the Respondent's doctors, Dr. Renee Haney, a psychiatrist and Dr. Joanne Pegg- McNab., a psychologist. In August, 1985, two days prior to the commencement of the school year, the Respondent was notified by the Petitioner that she would be teaching third grade at Spring Hill Elementary School (Spring Hill) during the 1985-86 school year. Previously, the Respondent had been given to understand, based on representations made to her by school administrators, that she would be teaching second grade in 1985-1986. The Respondent had prepared materials for the teaching of second grade, which she was unable to use in teaching third grade. Louise Ross, principal of Spring Hill, was aware that Respondent had not been a classroom teacher for at least four years prior to Respondent coming to Spring Hill in August, 1985. Ross was aware of Respondent's treatment for psychological illness. Prior to the students' return, the Respondent worked one week at Spring Hill. During that period, Respondent attended general meetings, and although Respondent received a packet of material during this period, it did not contain any specific instruction in regard to preparing lesson plans, grading or pacing. Respondent received specific written instruction regarding the recording of grades and pacing at a later date. Respondent did not receive any specific verbal or written instructions from Ross or any other person respecting the procedures in effect at Spring Hill in regard to grading and pacing until the memorandums of September 24, 1985 and November 19, 1985 from Ross concerning grades and pacing, and the December 16, 1985 letter to Respondent from Ross setting forth Ross' concerns about Respondent's procedures in grading, pacing, and lesson plan preparation that were covered in the meeting between Ross and Respondent on December 16, 1985. On September 24, 1985, approximately one month after school opened on August 22, 1985, Ross issued a memorandum regarding the number of grades to be recorded for each subject, and the procedure for recording the grades. On November 19, 1985 Ross issued a memorandum regarding the Ginn Reading Program (pacing student in reading). Both the memorandum and the chart attached pointed out it was a "guide" and that the primary concern was for the student to master the material. There is insufficient evidence to show that Respondent received this memorandum prior to returning to work on December 16, 1985. No documents concerning the pacing in other subjects were issued to Respondent. Pacing involves setting a pace for the teacher and the student to cover the required material in a set time and yet allow the student to master the subject matter. The failure to properly pace a class usually results in the student requiring remediation in the subject matter. Although Ross collected and reviewed Respondent's lesson plan books during the beginning of the school year and prior to Respondent going on sick leave in November, 1985, Ross did not make any suggestions or criticisms concerning pacing because when she checked the lesson plan books Ross found them sufficient. Respondent was aware of the requirement of preparing lesson plans in advance, but at Moton, where she had previously taught, the requirement was to prepare three days of lesson plans in advance, not five days as was required at Spring Hill. Spring Hill required lesson plans to be ready on the Friday immediately prior to week of the lesson plans, but Ross had allowed teachers to prepare lesson plans over the week-end for the following week. Respondent was absent from school beginning November 20, 1985 through December 16, 1985 on approved sick leave. Respondent failed to prepare lesson plans and leave them for her substitute. Respondent's illness prevented her from preparing lesson plans for the period beginning November 25, 1985 and up until Respondent returned on December 16, 1985. However, the lesson plans for November 20, 21 and 22, 1985 should have been prepared prior to Respondent's illness. On December 16, 1985, the day Respondent returned from sick leave, Ross held a meeting with Respondent to advise her of certain changes in performance expected by Ross. The expected changes were the result of Ross reviewing Respondent's grade book and determining that the grades were not recorded in accordance with the September 24, 1985 memorandum, and reviewing Respondent's lesson plan books and determining that Respondent's class (an average class) was ahead of the top class in the third grade in reading and math. Respondent was advised of how to effect the changes and that compliance was expected by the beginning of the second semester. Although Respondent's third grade class was ahead of other third grade classes during the period of school prior to December 16, 1985, the student's mastery of the subject matter covered during this period was within an acceptable range, and remediation was normal. Subsequent to returning to work on December 16, 1987, and up until the Respondent took leave on March 12, 1987, the Respondent's pacing of her students was in accordance with school policy. Respondent's grade books may have shed some light on whether Respondent had properly recorded the student's grades but the grade books were not introduced into evidence. Prior to taking sick leave on November 20, 1985, the Respondent had, in addition to those grades recorded in her grade, recorded grades on sheets of paper in the back of her grade book contrary to the instructions given in the September 24, 1985 memorandum from Ross. However, Ross permitted the Respondent to record these grades in her grade book at a later time. Without knowing that it was against school policy, Respondent allowed her aides to record grades in her grade book. Subsequent to returning to work on December 16, 1987, and up until she took leave on March 12, 1986, the Respondent's recording of grades in her grade books was in substantial compliance with school policy. Although Respondent did not totally comply with the December 16, 1985 memorandum from Ross, her compliance with the memorandum satisfied Sonia Terrelonge, the third grade chairperson, who Ross had assigned the duty of working with Respondent to bring about compliance with the memorandum. Ross did not check Respondent's plan book or grade book on a regular basis as she had indicated in her memorandum of December 16, 1985 but delegated that responsibility to Terrelonge. On March 7, 1986, Respondent escorted her students to Terrelonge's portable classroom to see a movie and, since Respondent had detention duty, she picked up the students from other third grade classes on detention and returned to her portable classroom. At lunch time Respondent returned the students on detention to Terrelonge's portable classroom and escorted her students to lunch. After lunch Respondent escorted her students back to Terrelonge's portable classroom for the balance of the movie; again picked up the students on detention, and returned to her classroom. At the time scheduled for the conclusion of the movie, Respondent returned to Terrelonge's portable classroom to escort her students back to her classroom. Upon arrival at Terrelonge's classroom, Respondent discovered that her students had left earlier with either Maria Wolf or Catherine Winemiller or Jacqueline Mitchie, the other teachers having students at the movie. Although one of these three (3) teachers would have been responsible for supervising the return of Respondent's students to her classroom since Respondent was on detention duty, there is insufficient evidence to show which one had that responsibility. Upon return to her classroom Respondent observed some of her students outside the classroom unsupervised. Some of the students were running around and some were standing on a railing attempting to rescue a shoe from the roof. Respondent summoned her students into the classroom. None of the students were injured in any way. After the movie and the shoe incident the Respondent's children were "hyper". To calm them down, Respondent decided to go to the playground rather than to the scheduled special class. Respondent notified the special class teacher of this change but, without knowledge that she was required to notify Ross, failed to notify Ross of this change. This was the only special class the Respondent's student's missed while under her care during the 1985-86 school year. Other teachers took their students out on unscheduled recess when the children would not settle down. The evidence does not reveal any written policy concerning unscheduled recesses. Respondent kept blank discipline slips and omni passes in an unlocked desk drawer, and that students had on occasions filled out these slips without Respondent's knowledge. There was insufficient evidence to show that the children were under Respondent's supervision at the time the slips were taken out of the drawer and filled out. There were a number of disruptive and behavioral problem students in Respondent's class, but the number of disruptive or behavioral problem children in Respondent's class was not shown to be greater than in any other average third grade class. During the 1985-86 school year, Ross made frequent, unscheduled visits to Respondent's classroom and found Respondent's performance, including her classroom management, satisfactory, except on one (1) occasion, March 12, 1986. As a result of the shoe incident and skipping the special class, Ross called Respondent to a meeting on March 7, 1986 with Edward Poore, Assistant Superintendent, and Cathy Hogeland, Union Representative being present along with Ross and Respondent. As a result of this meeting, Ross advised Respondent to take the rest of that day off, which was Friday, and March 10, 1986 which was Monday. Respondent complied and returned to work on Tuesday, March 11, 1986. On March 11, 1986, the day Ross returned to school her students went on a field trip but Respondent was not allowed to accompany them. During the day Respondent worked on grading, grade books and planning. Also, on March 11, 1986, Ross gave Respondent a handwritten memorandum instructing her in class management, specifically addressing the supervision of students, class discipline, the following of lesson plans and attendance of students at special classes. Additionally, the memorandum instructed Respondent that teachers were not to eat lunch in the classroom and listed those areas where Respondent could eat lunch. On March 12, 1986, around noon, Respondent met with Ross, with Joanne Knight, being present as Union Representative. This meeting occurred as a result of Ross visiting Respondent's classroom and finding the students particularly disruptive and disorderly. When Respondent indicated that she could resume teaching her class that afternoon, Ross informed Respondent that she must take a leave of absence and have a complete physical examination and psychological evaluation or Ross would recommend her termination to the school board. Respondent was also informed by letter from Ross dated April 8, 1986 that her return to work would be based on the psychologist's report which should be submitted no later than May 31, 1986. Due to Ross' demands, Respondent requested leave and signed the necessary papers which had been filled out by the school board office. Respondent was put on leave without pay for the balance of the school year. Respondent resumed seeing Dr. Haney in April, 1986 but due to Dr. Haney's, or Respondent's oversight, an evaluation was not submitted until July 30, 1986. However, on July 1, 1986, Ross had recommended Respondent's dismissal to the superintendent based solely on Respondent's failure to provide the evaluation by May 31, 1986 without any further notice to Respondent other than the letter of April 8, 1986. Respondent learned of Ross's recommendation of dismissal sometime around July 16, 1986 when Ross notified her by letter. The letter also informed Respondent that this recommendation would go to the school board on August 5 1986. During Dr. Haney's treatment of Respondent in 1986, she prescribed medication for her mental condition which had no detrimental side effects on the Respondent. Dr. Haney's report of July 30, 1986 made no recommendation as to Respondent's ability to return to the classroom but left to the school system the interpretation of her findings. Dr. Arturo G. Gonzalez, Respondent's treating psychiatrist, began treating Respondent in October, 1986. Dr. Gonzalez's opinion was that while Respondent does have a mental condition, it is treatable with medication and does not affect Respondent's ability to teach. Dr. Gonzalez prescribes the same medication for Respondent as did Dr. Haney. From his observations, the Respondent takes the medication as prescribed. It was also Dr. Gonzalez's opinion that Respondent understands the need for medication. It was the opinion of Dr. Haney that Respondent better understood the need for medication after her second hospitalization in April 1986 then she had after the first hospitalization in 1985. It was the opinion of both Dr. Haney and Dr. Gonzalez that Respondent's mental condition would not prevent her from being effective in the classroom and that her presence as a teacher would not endanger the welfare of the students. Respondent was a concerned teacher, interested in her student's welfare. There is insufficient competent evidence in the record to show that Respondent had emotional outbursts in the presence of her students. There is insufficient competent evidence in the record to show that, due to Respondent's action, the students in her third grade class were deprived of minimum education experiences. Respondent substantially performed her duties as prescribed by law. There is insufficient competent evidence in the record to show that there was a constant or continuing intentional refusal on the part of Respondent to obey a direct order given by proper authority.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, School Board of Hernando County, enter a Final Order dismissing all charges filed against the Respondent, Muriel Krueger. It is further RECOMMENDED Respondent be restored to her position as a continuing contract employee of the Hernando County School Board, and that she receive back pay for the entire period she has been in a non-pay status because of these charges. Respectfully submitted and entered this 14th day of October, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of October, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2001 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 and 2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 4, and 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10 as clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16 as clarified. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17 as clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17 as clarified. Adopted in Findings of Fact 11 and 12 as clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20 as clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. 11-13. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. There was conflicting testimony in this regard but the more credible evidence was contrary to the facts set forth in paragraphs 11, 12 and 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. There was conflicting testimony in this regard but the more credible evidence was contrary to the facts set forth in paragraph 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23 except for the last clause which is rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. 17-19. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. There was conflicting testimony in this regard but the more credible evidence was contrary to the facts set forth in paragraphs 17, 18 and 19. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record, except for the one occasion on March 12, 1986 which would not be described as a chaotic condition. That classroom management was discussed with Respondent is adopted in Findings of Fact 27 and 29. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. That students took discipline slips and filled them out is adopted in Finding of Fact 24, the balance of paragraph 23 is rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. 24-27. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. There was conflicting testimony in this regard but the more credible evidence was contrary to the facts set forth in paragraphs 24, 25, 26, and 27. Adopted in Findings of Fact 6, 31, 32, 33 and 34. Rejected as not being relevant or material. Rejected as not being relevant or material because that was Dr. Haney's provisional diagnosis which was changed when she made her final diagnosis. The first sentence of paragraph 31 is adopted in Findings of Fact 3 and 4. The balance of paragraph 31 is rejected as not being relevant or material in that although Respondent admitted being acquainted with those school board policies there was credible evidence that Respondent was not aware at the beginning of the school year of Ross' or the Superintendent's specific instruction in regard to maintaining attendance records, grade books, etc. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Findings of Fact 8, 10 and 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17 but clarified. Rejected as not being relevant or material. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Findings of Fact 20 and 21. 20.-21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22 as clarified. Rejected as not being a finding of fact but only a restatement of testimony. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. 25.-26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27 but clarified. Adopted in Findings of Fact 28 and 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30 but clarified. Adopted in Findings of Fact 31 and 32. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. Adopted in Findings of Fact 31 and 33. Adopted in Findings of Fact 34 and 35 but clarified. Rejected as not being relevant or material. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph E. Johnston, Jr., Esquire 29 South Brooksville Avenue Brooksville, Florida 34601 Susan E. Hicks, Esquire Post Office Drawer 520337 Miami, Florida 33152 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32300 James K. Austin, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools Hernando County 919 U.S. Highway 41 North Brooksville, Florida 33512-2997
Findings Of Fact At the administrative hearing which was scheduled for the time and place shown above, Mr. Carlos Viciedo, Sr., father of the minor student named as Respondent herein, announced that his son, Carlos Viciedo, Jr., had been moved to Los Angeles, California, by his Mother. The student, Carlos Viciedo, Jr., has been enrolled in the school system of Los Angeles, and removed from the Dade County School system. The principal at South Miami Junior High School where Carlos Viciedo, Jr., was enrolled prior to the transfer to Douglas MacArthur Senior High School -- South, verified that papers have been received from the Los Angeles, California, school system to demonstrate that the student has requested a transfer from the schools in Dade County to the schools in Los Angeles. Mr. Carlos Viciedo, Sr., plans to join his family in Los Angeles, and the enrollment of his son in the school system there is permanent.
Recommendation On the basis of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County dismiss the proceeding it initiated to effect a transfer of the Respondent, Carlos Viciedo, Jr., from South Miami Junior High School to the Alternative Education Program at Douglas MacArthur Senior High School -- South. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 17th day of February, 1983. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of February, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Neimand, Esquire Suite 300 3000 Executive Plaza 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Carlos Viciedo, Sr. 1122 Southwest 134th Place Miami, Florida 33183 Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public School 1410 Northeast 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Dade County School Board 1410 Northeast 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issue in this case is whether there is just cause to terminate Respondent’s employment.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Overhoff began his employment with the School District on October 20, 2006, as a roofer in the School District’s maintenance department. As a roofer, Mr. Overhoff’s job duties included maintaining and repairing roofs of the School District’s schools and ancillary buildings. His duties also included procuring roofing materials needed on a job, when those materials were not available at the maintenance department’s central warehouse. The School District hired private contracting companies to do major roof repair, and Mr. Overhoff’s duties included meeting with the contractors to discuss the contract work being performed. At all times relevant to this case, Mr. Overhoff was a member of the Support Personnel Association of Lee County (SPALC). During June 27, 2008, through July 11, 2008, Mr. Overhoff resided at 4613 Vinsetta Avenue, North Fort Myers, Florida. Mr. Overhoff’s work hours were from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. with a 30-minute unpaid lunch break and a 15-minute paid break in the morning and a 15-minute paid break in the afternoon. Mr. Overhoff reported to the School District’s maintenance office each morning to receive his work assignments for the day. Each employee was assigned more than eight hours of work to ensure that each employee would have sufficient work for the entire day. After receiving his work assignments, Mr. Overhoff gathered the materials he needed for his jobs that day and traveled to the various locations in the county to work on the School District’s buildings. He was expected to return to the School District’s maintenance office by 3:00 p.m. each day to complete the paper work for the roofing work that had been performed that day and to conference with his supervisors concerning work assignments. Mr. Overhoff was assigned a white pick-up truck owned by the School District and designated as M404. Mr. Overhoff was to use this vehicle to go to his work assignments pursuant to The School Board of Lee County Policy 7.04, which provides that employees who drive School District vehicles “shall [u]se the vehicle strictly for approved District business.” Sometime in April 2008, the School District received a call from a neighbor of Mr. Overhoff, who reported that a School District vehicle was parked in Mr. Overhoff’s driveway during work hours. Donald Easterly, the director of Maintenance Services for the School District, met with Mr. Overhoff in April 2008 to discuss the telephone call. Mr. Easterly made Mr. Overhoff aware that the use of a School District vehicle for personal use was prohibited and that personal business could not be conducted during work hours unless it was during a break. The School Board of Lee County Policy 5.33 prohibits the transaction of personal business on school time and provides: The following rules, regulations and guidelines are to be used to prohibit personal business on school time. No employee of the School District may conduct personal business on school time except for emergencies approved by the principal or Superintendent. No School District equipment or supplies shall be used to conduct personal business or any other activity not connected with the School District. During the time relevant to this case, employees in the maintenance department were allowed to stop at restaurants, convenience stores, and fast food establishments for their lunch and morning and afternoon breaks, if the stops were made while the employees were in transit to a job location. It had also been the practice to allow employees to stop by their bank, if the time was counted as break time, and the stop was while in transit to a job location. It was not permissible for an employee to use a School District vehicle to go to his home unless the employee had permission from his supervisor. In May 2008, the School District began installing Global Positioning Systems (GPS) on some of the vehicles used in the maintenance department. The selection of the vehicles for installation of a GPS was made at random. On June 2, 2008, a GPS was installed on the vehicle M404, which was driven by Mr. Overhoff. The superintendent of the School District has alleged in the Petition for Termination of Employment that Mr. Overhoff used a School District vehicle for his personal use on June 27, June 30, July 1, July 2, July 7, July 8, July 9, July 10, and July 11, 2008. Each day will be discussed individually below. On each day in question, Mr. Overhoff was driving the School District vehicle identified as M404. The locations to which the vehicle traveled and the times of arrivals and departures are based on the information captured by the GPS system installed in vehicle M404 during the relevant time periods. There has been no dispute concerning the accuracy of the information. At the end of each work day, Mr. Overhoff and other employees in the maintenance department were required to complete a daily labor sheet, which identified the work that was performed by work order number, task number, and description of the work; identified the location where the work was performed; and listed the amount of travel time and work hours for each work order. The time was to be listed in 15-minute increments. All locations where work had been performed were to be listed on the daily labor sheet. However, if an employee had to return to the maintenance department during the day, the time spent there was not usually recorded on the daily labor sheet. Mr. Overhoff had never been given any formal instruction on how to complete the daily labor sheet. He understood that the number of hours for travel and work should equal eight hours. His daily labor sheets did not always accurately reflect the locations at which Mr. Overhoff had stopped during the workday and did not always accurately reflect the time that he spent working at School District facilities. Prior to August 2008, the employees in the maintenance department were not required to list their break times on the daily labor sheets, and there was no requirement to list every stop made during the day. After August 2008, the maintenance department employees were required to accurately account for all their time during the day, including break times and stops at the maintenance department on Canal Street. June 27, 2008 On June 27, 2008, vehicle M404 was turned on at 6:29:07 a.m. at the maintenance department located at Canal Street. At 8:01:17 a.m., the vehicle entered the 7-11 store located at Southland Court, and, at 8:12:57 a.m., the vehicle departed the 7-11 store. At 8:31:17 a.m., the vehicle arrived at San Carlos Park Elementary School and remained there until it left at 9:19:27 a.m. The vehicle left San Carlos Park Elementary School and went to a Hess Station/Dunkin Donuts business, where the vehicle remained from 9:22:07 a.m. to 9:39:57 a.m. After leaving the Hess Station, the vehicle arrived at Lexington Middle School at 9:57:57 a.m. The vehicle departed the school at 10:16:17 a.m. and arrived at the Canal Street maintenance department at 10:40 a.m. The vehicle remained at the maintenance department until 11:01 a.m. The next stop for the vehicle was at 11:19:37 a.m. at Mr. Overhoff’s home, where the vehicle remained until 11:28:17 a.m. The vehicle left Mr. Overhoff’s home and went to One Price Optical in Cape Coral, Florida, where it arrived at 11:34:07 a.m. and left at 11:37:07 a.m. At 11:43:47 a.m., the vehicle arrived at Bank of America, and, at 11:44:17 a.m., the vehicle departed from the bank. The vehicle returned to Mr. Overhoff’s home at 11:51:58 a.m. and remained there until 11:53:17 a.m., when it departed for One Price Optical. The vehicle arrived at One Price Optical at 12:00:17 p.m. and left at 12:01:27 p.m. heading for Tanglewood/Riverside Elementary School, where it arrived at 12:22:37 p.m. and left at 12:37:47 p.m. The next stop the vehicle made was at another 7-ll store, where it arrived at 12:53:27 p.m. and left at l:01:57 p.m. The vehicle traveled past Mr. Overhoff’s house and arrived at One Price Optical at 1:18:17 p.m. and remained there until 1:33:47 p.m. From One Price Optical the vehicle proceeded to North Fort Myers High School, where it arrived at 1:38:37 p.m. and left at 1:52:17 p.m. From North Ft. Myers High School, the vehicle proceeded to the Professional Building on Dixie Parkway, arriving at 2:01:37 p.m. The vehicle remained stationary for 16 minutes and 40 seconds, circled the block around the Professional Building, and left at 2:21:37 p.m. From the Professional Building, the vehicle proceeded to Dunbar High School, arriving at 2:30:27 p.m. and leaving at 2:43:47 p.m. From Dunbar High School, the vehicle proceeded to the maintenance department at Canal Street, where it arrived at 2:53:47 p.m. Mr. Overhoff spent a total of 29.5 minutes in the morning at a convenience store and a service station. He spent from 11:01 a.m. to 12:01 p.m. on personal business, including stops at his home, a bank, and an optical business. The total time for his personal business was one hour. He left the maintenance department at 11:01 a.m. and could have taken his personal vehicle to run his personal errands and gone back to the maintenance department when he was finished. The locations where he conducted his personal business were northwest of the maintenance department. The next work assignment after he completed his personal business was located southwest of the maintenance department, which means that the errands that he was running were not on the way to a work assignment. In the afternoon, Mr. Overhoff stopped at another 7-11 store for 8.5 minutes, took a circuitous route by his home, and went back to One Price Optical. The amount of time that elapsed from the time he reached the 7-11 until he left One Price Optical was over 40 minutes. His home and One Price Optical were not located on a route that would have taken him logically to his next work assignment. Mr. Overhoff started his workday at approximately 6:30 a.m. Subtracting Mr. Overhoff’s lunch time and break times, Mr. Overhoff used .6 hours of work time above his allotted break times for his personal business. No evidence was presented to show that Mr. Overhoff took annual or sick leave for this time. Based on his daily labor sheets, Mr. Overhoff recorded eight hours of travel and work time for June 27, 2008. On June 27, 2008, a lens fell out of Mr. Overhoff’s glasses. Mr. Overhoff had permission from his supervisor, Michael Hooks, to go to an optical business to have the lens replaced. Mr. Hooks did not give Mr. Overhoff permission to stop by a Bank of America to conduct his banking business. The stop at the bank was not made while in transit to another job. Mr. Hooks did not give Mr. Overhoff permission to make multiple trips to One Price Optical. Mr. Hook had given Mr. Overhoff permission to stop by his house one time to check on Mr. Overhoff’s son. According to Mr. Overhoff, June 27, 2008, was the date that Mr. Hook had given him permission to stop to check on his son at home. Mr. Hook was not certain of the date that he gave such permission, but it was for one time only. June 30, 2008 Vehicle M404 left the maintenance department at Canal Street at 7:29:27 a.m. and arrived at Dunbar High School at 7:38:17 a.m. The vehicle left Dunbar High School at 7:38:17 a.m. and arrived at Kuhlman Concrete, LLC, at 7:40 a.m. The vehicle left Kuhlman Concrete, LLC, at 7:41 a.m. and arrived at North Fort Myers High School at 7:55:37 a.m. The vehicle left the high school at 8:50:27 a.m. and proceeded to Villas Elementary School, arriving at 9:02:47 a.m. and leaving at 9:31:57 a.m. The vehicle arrived at the James Adams Building at 9:45:37 a.m. and departed at 9:52:57 a.m., proceeding to a Hess Gas Station, where it arrived at 10:15:37 a.m. and left at 10:18:57 a.m. The next stop was at the North Fort Myers Academy of the Arts, where the vehicle arrived at 10:26:47 a.m. and departed at 10:41:17 a.m. The vehicle arrived at Diplomat Middle School at 10:59:27 a.m. and left at 11:35:37 a.m. From the Diplomat Middle School, the vehicle arrived at Mr. Overhoff’s house at 11:46:47 a.m., departed at 11:56:07 a.m., and arrived at North Fort Myers High School at 12:00:57 p.m. The vehicle did not stop at the school, but drove through the school grounds and left at 12:02:57 p.m. The vehicle turned in at Kentucky Fried Chicken at 12:21:57 p.m. and exited at 12:22:37 p.m. The vehicle proceeded to McDonald’s, arriving at 12:36:57 p.m. and leaving at 12:40:27 p.m. At 12:52:17 p.m., the vehicle arrived at Three Oaks Middle School and departed at 1:29:57 p.m. From the middle school, the vehicle proceeded to a Bank of America, arriving at 1:35:37 p.m. and leaving at 1:42:17 p.m. After leaving the bank, the vehicle went to South Fort Myers High School, arriving at 1:54:47 p.m. and leaving at 2:04 p.m. The next stop was Ray V. Pottorf Elementary School, where the vehicle arrived at 2:13:47 p.m. and left at 2:29:27 p.m. The vehicle proceeded to High Tech Central/New Directions, arrived at 2:37:57 p.m., drove through the campus, and exited at 2:44:57 p.m. At 2:54:07 p.m., the vehicle arrived at the maintenance department at Canal Street. Mr. Overhoff stopped at a convenience store for three minutes mid-morning. At lunch time, he stopped at his home for nine minutes. The stop at his home was not authorized and was not in transit to another job location. The travel time to and from his home was eight minutes. He turned into a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant for 40 seconds. According to Mr. Overhoff, he went into the Kentucky Fried Chicken parking lot to take a telephone call or open a work folder. The next stop is a McDonald’s fast food place where he remains for 3.5 minutes. According to Mr. Overhoff, this is another stop to do paperwork. In light of his earlier stop at Kentucky Fried Chicken, Mr. Overhoff’s testimony is not credited. Additionally, Mr. Overhoff’s general assertions that his many stops at convenience stores were to do paperwork is not credible. He was given 30 minutes at the end of each work day for the specific purpose of completing his paperwork. The many inaccuracies in his paperwork do not support his assertion that he was making stops to keep his paperwork accurate and in order. Later in the afternoon, he made a six-minute stop at Bank of America. The side trip to the bank did not appear to be on a logical route to his next work assignment. Thus, four minutes’ travel time is assessed for the bank trip. The total time for his personal business was 33.5 minutes. July 1, 2008 On July 1, 2008, vehicle M404 left the maintenance department on Canal Street at 7:03:37 a.m. and arrived at a gas station/convenience store off Metro Parkway at 7:10 a.m. Leaving the convenience store at 7:14 a.m., the vehicle proceeded to Three Oaks Middle School, arriving at Three Oaks Middle School at 7:39 a.m. and leaving at 8:16 a.m. From the middle school, the vehicle traveled to Ray V. Pottorf Elementary School arriving at 8:36 a.m. and leaving at 8:41 a.m. The vehicle returned to the maintenance department at 8:50 a.m. and remained there until 9:16 a.m. The vehicle proceeded to Bonita Middle School, arrived there at 9:52 a.m., and left at 10:22 a.m. The next stop was Orange River Elementary School, where the vehicle arrived at 11:01:27 a.m. and departed at 11:05:27 a.m. At 11:12 a.m., the vehicle stopped at a restaurant/convenience store and remained there until 11:33 a.m. The vehicle arrived back at the maintenance department at 11:41 a.m. and departed at 12:20 p.m. The vehicle arrived at Trafalgar Middle School at 12:55 p.m. and departed at 1:18 p.m. The next stop was Gulf Middle School, where the vehicle arrived at 1:27 p.m. and left at 1:40 p.m. At 1:48:57 p.m., the vehicle arrived at Bank of America off Skyline Boulevard. The vehicle left the bank at 1:56:07 p.m. From the bank at Skyline Boulevard, the vehicle proceeded to the Bank of America at Viscaya Parkway, arriving at 2:09 p.m. and leaving at 2:19 p.m. At 2:23:07 p.m., the vehicle arrived at One Price Optical. The vehicle left One Price Optical at 2:27:07 p.m. The next stop was the James Adams Building, where the vehicle arrived at 2:44 p.m. and left at 2:46 p.m. At 3:02:57 p.m., the vehicle was parked at the maintenance department. The stop at the convenience store in the morning consumed ten minutes of Mr. Overhoff’s morning break time. The lunch at a restaurant took 21 minutes. In the afternoon, Mr. Overhoff stopped at two banks for a total of 17 minutes. Another stop was made at One Price Optical for four minutes. The stop at One Price Optical was not authorized and, based on the map contained in Petitioner’s Exhibit 7, the trip was not on the route back to the next job location. Thus, the travel time from the last bank stop, four minutes, should be added to the time. The time expended on personal business was 56 minutes. July 2, 2008 On July 2, 2008, vehicle M404 left the maintenance department at 7:04 a.m. and arrived at the James Adams Building at 7:13 a.m. The vehicle left the James Adams Building at 7:56 a.m. and arrived back at the maintenance department at 8:05 a.m. The vehicle left the maintenance department at 8:27 a.m. and arrived at the 7-11 store off Metro Parkway at 8:33 a.m. The vehicle left the 7-11 at 8:37 a.m. and returned to the James Adams Building at 8:50 a.m. At 8:57 a.m., the vehicle left the James Adams Building and returned to the maintenance department at 9:04 a.m., where it remains until 9:26 a.m. The vehicle arrived at Fort Myers High School at 9:41 a.m. and left at 9:56 a.m. Arriving at Orange River Elementary at 10:18 a.m., the vehicle remained until 11:03 a.m. when it proceeded to the Taco Bell off Palm Beach Boulevard. The vehicle reached Taco Bell at 11:05 a.m. and left at 11:38 a.m. At 11:47 a.m., the vehicle arrived at Edgewood Academy, where it left at 11:50 a.m. The vehicle arrived at Dunbar High School at 11:59 a.m. and departed at 12:05 p.m. From Dunbar High School, the vehicle proceeded to Mr. Overhoff’s house, where the vehicle remained from 12:27:17 p.m. to 12:30:07 p.m. At 12:49 p.m., the vehicle arrived at the James Adams Building, where it remained until 12:57 p.m. From the James Adams Building, the vehicle proceeded to a 7-11 store located off Winkler and Colonial Boulevard. The vehicle arrived at the 7-11 at 1:09 p.m. and departed at 1:11 p.m. At 1:17 p.m., the vehicle arrived at Lowe’s Shopping Center off Colonial Boulevard and Ben C. Pratt Parkway. The vehicle left the shopping center at 1:27 p.m. The next stop was Colonial Elementary, where the vehicle arrived at 1:34 p.m. and departed at 1:36 p.m. The vehicle returned to the maintenance department on Canal Street at 1:47 p.m. and remained there. In the morning, Mr. Overhoff went to a convenience store, which was not in route to a job location. The time spent at the convenience store was four minutes and the travel time to and from the convenience store from the maintenance department was 12 minutes for a total of 16 minutes for his morning break. Mr. Overhoff had lunch at Taco Bell for 33 minutes. In the afternoon, Mr. Overhoff stopped at his home for almost three minutes; however, the stop at his home was not on route to any job location. Thus, the travel time to his home and back to the next job should be included in any break time. The travel time for the trip home was 41 minutes, and the total time taken for his trip home was 44 minutes. The stop at his home was not authorized. Mr. Overhoff’s excuse for the stop at his home was to get boots and use the bathroom. His testimony is not credited. Mr. Overhoff testified that he needed his boots to clean off water, but the job in which he had been cleaning off water was before he stopped at his home. In the afternoon, Mr. Overhoff stopped at a convenience store for two minutes and went to Lowe’s for ten minutes. The stop at Lowe’s was not authorized. The stops at the convenience store and at Lowe’s were not in transit to another job location. The travel time should be calculated based on the time it took to get from Lowe’s to his next work location, which was 14 minutes. The total time that Mr. Overhoff spent on personal business was 1.95 hours. Thus, Mr. Overhoff spent .95 hours above his allotted break time for his personal business. No evidence was presented that leave was taken, and his daily labor sheet showed that he worked for eight hours on that day. July 7, 2008 On July 7, 2008, vehicle M404 left the maintenance department on Canal Street at 7:22 a.m. and proceeded to a 7-11 at the corner of Winkler and Colonial Boulevard, arriving there at 7:33 a.m. and leaving at 7:38 a.m. The vehicle arrived at Ray V. Pottorf Elementary at 7:43 a.m. and left at 9:35 a.m. The next stop was Lexington Middle School, where the vehicle arrived at 9:51 a.m. and departed at 10:05 a.m. From Lexington Middle School, the vehicle went to Fort Myers Beach Elementary School, arriving at 10:18 a.m. and leaving at 10:22 a.m. The vehicle arrived at Tanglewood/Riverside Elementary School at 10:46 a.m. and left at 11:04 a.m. At 11:21 a.m., the vehicle returned to the maintenance department at Canal Street. Leaving the maintenance department at 12:04 p.m., the vehicle proceeded to Dunbar High School, arriving at 12:10 p.m. and leaving at 12:23 p.m. At 12:39 p.m., the vehicle arrived at Crowther Roofing and remained there until 12:52 p.m. The vehicle made another stop at One Price Optical at 1:12 p.m. Leaving One Price Optical at 1:21 p.m., the vehicle arrived at Taco Bell off Santa Barbara Boulevard at 1:27 p.m. and left at 1:46 p.m. The vehicle arrived at Mariner High School at 1:53 p.m. and departed at 2:09 p.m. At 2:14 p.m., the vehicle entered the Publix Shopping Center off Santa Barbara Boulevard, departing at 2:17 p.m. From 2:22 p.m. to 2:37 p.m., the vehicle was stopped at a warehouse. At 2:44 p.m., the vehicle arrived at Mr. Overhoff’s house, where it remained until 2:47 p.m. At 3:07 p.m., the vehicle returned to the maintenance department at Canal Street. Mr. Overhoff stopped at a convenience store for five minutes in the morning. In the early afternoon, he made a nine- minute stop at One Price Optical, which was not an authorized stop. He stopped at Taco Bell for 19 minutes. He went to a Publix Shopping Center for three minutes, to a warehouse for 15 minutes, and to his home for three minutes. The stops at the Publix Shopping Center, the warehouse, and Mr. Overhoff’s home were not authorized, were for personal business, and were not in transit to a job location. Thus, the travel time from the shopping center to his home, which totals 12 minutes should be added to the time taken for personal business. The total time for personal business on July 7, 2008, was 65 minutes, which was five minutes above the allotted break times. July 8, 2008 On July 8, 2008, vehicle M404 left the maintenance department at Canal Street at 7:44 a.m., arrived at ALC Central/New Directions at 7:53 a.m., and departed ALC Central/New Directions at 8:23 a.m. The vehicle returned to the maintenance department at 8:28 a.m. and remained there until 8:41 a.m. At 8:58 a.m., the vehicle arrived at Tropic Isles Elementary School and remained there until 9:37 a.m. From the elementary school, the vehicle proceeded to the 7-11 store located off Pondella and Orange Grove. The vehicle arrived at the 7-11 at 9:39 a.m. and left at 9:42 a.m. From the 7-11, the vehicle proceeded to New Directions, arriving at 9:55 a.m. and leaving at 9:57 a.m. The vehicle returned to the maintenance department at Canal Street at 10:03 a.m. and departed at 10:33 a.m. The next stop was Cypress Lake High School, where the vehicle arrived at 10:56 a.m. and left at 11:28 a.m. From Cypress Lake High School, the vehicle traveled to Bank of America off Cypress Lake Drive. The vehicle arrived at the bank at 11:30 a.m. and left at 11:38 a.m. From the bank, the vehicle arrived at the 7-11 store off Metro Parkway at 11:45 a.m. and departed at 11:55 a.m. After leaving the 7-11 store, the vehicle proceeded to South Fort Myers High School, arriving at 11:59 a.m. and departing at 12:31 p.m. The next stop was Roofing Supply Company, where the vehicle stopped at 12:46 p.m. and left at 12:59 p.m. The vehicle proceeded to New Directions and arrived at 1:07 p.m. The vehicle remained at New Directions until 1:53 p.m. From New Directions, the vehicle headed to the maintenance department at Canal Street, where the vehicle arrived at 2:06 p.m. and remained. Mr. Overhoff stopped at a convenience store in the morning for four minutes, at a bank for eight minutes at lunch time, and at a convenience store for ten minutes at lunch time. These stops were made in transit to a job location. July 9, 2008 On July 9, 2008, vehicle M404 left the maintenance department at Canal Street at 7:12 a.m. and arrived at the 7-11 store off Metro Parkway and Colonial at 7:23 a.m. The vehicle remained at the 7-11 store until 7:30 a.m., when it left for Six Mile Cypress School, arriving at 7:42 a.m. and leaving at 7:53 a.m. The next stop for the vehicle was The Sanibel School, where the vehicle arrived at 8:29 a.m. and departed at 9:19 a.m., headed for Bailey’s General Store off Periwinkle Way. The vehicle arrived at Bailey’s General Store at 9:25 a.m. Mr. Overhoff made an authorized purchase of a 6-volt lantern at the store and left the store in the vehicle at 9:35 a.m. to return to The Sanibel School at 9:42 a.m. The vehicle remained at The Sanibel School until 10:29 a.m. At 10:39 a.m., the vehicle arrived at the 7-11 store off Periwinkle Way, where the vehicle remained until 11:02 a.m. From the 7-11, the vehicle traveled to Riverdale High School, where it arrived at 11:53 a.m. The vehicle remained at Riverdale High School until 1:36 p.m. The next stop was a convenience store on Palm Beach Boulevard, where the vehicle arrived at 1:42 p.m. and left at 1:46 p.m. From the convenience store, the vehicle proceeded to Edgewood Elementary School, arriving at 1:59 p.m. and leaving at 2:09 p.m. From Edgewood Elementary School, the vehicle traveled to New Directions/ALC Central, arriving at 2:16 p.m. and leaving at 2:23 p.m. The next stop was Dunbar High School, where the vehicle arrived at 2:28 a.m. and left at 2:56 p.m. The last stop was the maintenance department at Canal Street at 3:00 p.m. Mr. Overhoff stopped at a convenience store early in the morning for six minutes, at another convenience store at mid-morning for 23 minutes, and at a convenience store in the afternoon for four minutes. These stops were in transit to job locations. July 10, 2008 On July 10, 2008, vehicle M404 left the maintenance department at 8:30 a.m. and arrived at the Hess Service Station off River Road at 8:50 a.m. The vehicle remained at the Hess Service Station until 8:53 a.m., when it departed for Lee County Electric Company off Electric Lane. The vehicle arrived at the utility company at 8:56 a.m. and left at 8:59 a.m. The next stop was North Fort Myers Academy of the Arts, where the vehicle arrived at 9:06 a.m. and departed at 9:40 a.m. From North Fort Myers Academy of the Arts, the vehicle proceeded to Hector A. Cafferata, Jr., Elementary School, arrived there at 10:07 a.m. and left at 10:47 a.m. The next stop was Ida S. Baker High School, where the vehicle arrived at 11:05 a.m. and left at 11:26 a.m. At 11:29 a.m., the vehicle arrived at Gulf Middle School and left at 11:45 a.m. From Gulf Middle School, the vehicle traveled to Three Oaks Elementary School arriving at 12:41 p.m. and leaving at 1:11 p.m. The vehicle next arrived at Bonita Springs Elementary School at 1:30 a.m. The vehicle left Bonita Springs Elementary School at 1:55 p.m. and arrived at Lowe’s at Rolfes Road at 2:27 p.m. Mr. Overhoff made an authorized purchase at Lowe’s, and the vehicle left Lowe’s at 2:54 p.m. and arrived at the maintenance department at 3:04 p.m. Mr. Overhoff stopped at a convenience store for three minutes in the early morning and at the electric company for three minutes. The stop at the electric company was not an authorized stop. July 11, 2008 On July 11, 2008, vehicle M404 left the maintenance department at Canal Street at 7:34 a.m. and arrived at the 7-11 store off Lee Boulevard at 8:00 a.m. The vehicle remained at the 7-11 until 8:04 a.m., when it departed for Veteran’s Park Academy, where it arrived at 8:18 a.m. and left at 9:58 a.m. From Veteran’s Park Academy, the vehicle traveled to North Fort Myers High School, where it arrived at 10:45 a.m. and departed at 11:38 a.m. The vehicle returned to the maintenance department at Canal Street at 12:03 p.m., where it remained until 12:24 p.m. From the maintenance department, the vehicle traveled to the 7-11 store off Pondella Road, where it arrived at 12:39 p.m. and left at 12:43 p.m. From the 7-11, the vehicle traveled to Mariner High School, where it stopped at 12:57 p.m. and left at 1:28 p.m. The next stop was Riverdale High School, where the vehicle arrived at 2:07 p.m. and departed at 2:17 p.m. After leaving Riverdale High School, the vehicle went to Bank of America, arriving at 2:20 p.m. and leaving at 2:24 p.m. The vehicle left the bank and headed to Dunbar High School, where it arrived at 2:44 p.m. and left at 2:51 p.m. The last stop for the vehicle was at the maintenance department at Canal Street at 2:56 p.m. Mr. Overhoff stopped at a convenience store for four minutes in the early morning, at a convenience store for three minutes at lunch time, and at a bank in the afternoon for four minutes. The stops were in transit to job locations. The School District initiated an investigation into Mr. Overhoff’s use of a School District vehicle for personal business while on School District time. A predetermination conference was held on September 25, 2008. Mr. Overhoff appeared at the predetermination conference along with a representative of the SPALC. At the conclusion of the investigation, the School District determined that probable cause existed to impose discipline on Mr. Overhoff. On December 18, 2008, Mr. Overhoff was suspended with pay and benefits. By Petition for Termination of Employment, the superintendent for the School District recommended to the School Board that Mr. Overhoff be terminated from his employment. Mr. Overhoff requested an administrative hearing. On February 24, 2009, the School Board suspended Mr. Overhoff without pay and benefits pending the outcome of the administrative hearing. Mr. Overhoff had no prior disciplinary actions taken against him while he has been employed with the School District. Prior to the incidents at issue, Mr. Overhoff had received good performance evaluations. He is regarded by the director of maintenance for the School District as a good roofer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Mr. Overhoff violated The School Board of Lee County Policies 5.02, 5.29, 5.33, and 7.04; finding that Mr. Overhoff willfully neglected his assigned duties; suspending him from employment without pay from February 24, 2009, to September 30, 2009; and placing him on probation for one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of August, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 13th day of August, 2009.
