Findings Of Fact The Respondent Respondent holds Teaching Certificate No. 75756, covering the areas of physical education, health education and drivers education. The Certificate expires June 30, 1987. At all times material hereto, the School Board of Palm Beach County employed respondent as an assistant principal at Lake Shore Middle School in Belle Glade, Florida. Respondent was first hired by the School Board in 1956, as a physical education instructor at East Lake Junior High School, in Belle Glade. During the ensuing years, he served as athletic director, football coach, basketball coach, baseball coach and drivers' education teacher at three Belle Glade schools (East Lake Junior High, Lake Shore High School and Glade Central High School) until his transfer in 1971 to Lake Shore Middle School as Dean of Boys. In 1978 he was promoted to Assistant Principal. In 1982, the School Board suspended respondent on charges of "misconduct and immorality arising out of improper sexual advances made by [him] toward female students at Lake Shore Middle School during the 1981-82 school years." After an evidentiary hearing on October 25-26, 1982, the School Board, by mixed vote, found him guilty of the charges, cancelled his continuing contract (tenure), and terminated his employment. The Department seeks to revoke or otherwise discipline respondent's Teaching Certificate on charges substantially the same as those brought (and sustained) by the School Board. Prior to the complained of conduct, respondent had an unblemished school employment record. By all accounts he was gregarious and outgoing, a competent, caring, and dedicated teacher and administrator. He was popular with students, respected by faculty, relied on by school administrators, and generally considered a "pillar of the community." He had been raised in Belle Glade. Unlike most county school teachers in Belle Glade, who taught there but lived elsewhere, he considered Belle Glade his home. Improper Sexual Remarks or Sexual Advances Toward Female Students Count I: Advances toward T. E. T. E. was 14 years old and a student at Lake Shore Middle School, where respondent was Assistant Principal. On May 17, 1982, she entered his office and asked for a lunch ticket. He could not find an extra lunch ticket in this office so he told her to accompany him to the data processing office where lunch tickets were kept. She complied and they walked together to data processing. He unlocked the door, turned on the lights, and they went in. They both looked around the office, but could not find the lunch tickets. Respondent then told her to return with him to his office and he would give her a temporary lunch pass. As they reached the door of the data processing office, he turned off the lights, put his arm around her shoulder, and asked her for a kiss. She refused. He asked her again, and she again refused. During this exchange he reached down and touched her breast. She felt his touch and was afraid; he was not restraining her though, and she did not think he would try to hold her against her will. They then left data processing. He returned to his office and she began walking to her class. He came back out of his office and told her not to tell anyone about the incident. She agreed. A little later, he found a lunch ticket and gave it to her. Enroute to her class, she began to cry. A student friend asked her what was wrong. T. E. wrote her a note, explaining what had happened. The friend told a teacher, who--along with others--told her to tell her parents. When T. E. arrived home that afternoon, respondent was talking to her grandmother. She heard him say that T. E. had misunderstood something he had done, or said. At 8:15 a.m. the next morning, May 18, 1982, respondent reported to Principal Edward Foley's office for his routine duties. As they were conducting an inspection, respondent asked to see him when they returned to the office, stating he had a "serious problem" to discuss with him. He then told Principal Foley that he (respondent) was being "accused of feeling on a young female student," (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1), and explained his version of the incident. He did not tell the principal that he had twice asked the student for a kiss, and had touched her breast. He said that he had put his arm around her shoulder as they left date processing. Later that day, a conference on the incident was held in the principal's office. The principal, an assistant principal, respondent, T. E., T. E.'s mother and grandmother, and several teachers were present. Shortly after the conference convened, respondent asked for and was given permission to talk to T. E.'s mother and grandmother in a separate office. Once there, respondent told T. E.'s mother that he thought he had done something to upset T. E.; that he was sorry; and that he could understand how the mother felt because he would feel the same if T. E. was his child. He then asked T. E.'s mother to have her daughter say that she made a mistake and that it was simply a misunderstanding. The mother refused. During this short discussion, T. E.'s mother asked him if he had asked T. E. for a kiss: he said, "yes." When asked, "Did you touch her breast?", he replied, "I might have. But . . . I'm sorry, I didn't hurt your daughter." (TR-112) 2/ Count II: Improper Sexual Remarks to C. D. C. D. was a 14 year old female student at Lake Shore Middle School during the 1981-82 school year. On one occasion during that school year, respondent approached her (during school hours) when she was walking to the school cafeteria. He told her she "had big breasts and he wanted to feel one." (TR-33) Count III: Sexual Advances toward C. C. C. C. was a 15 year old female student at Lake Shore Middle School during the 1981-82 school year. On one occasion during that school year, as she was leaving the campus (though still on school grounds) at the end of the school day, respondent, who was walking with her, put his arms around her and asked her for a kiss. Count IV: Improper Sexual Remarks to C. S. C. S. was a 14 or 15 year old female student at Lake Shore Middle School during the 1981-82 school year, when respondent approached her as she was leaving the gym. He remarked, "You have some big breasts." (TR-57) She kept walking. Earlier that year, respondent asked her, "Do you wish things wasn't (sic) the way they are." This remark had, and was intended to have, sexual connotations. (TR-56) Later that school year, respondent, while on campus and during school hours, approached C. S. and asked her "to come in his office and give him a kiss." (TR-57) She left, without complying with his request. Conflicts Resolved Against Respondent Respondent denied having made these improper verbal remarks to, or physical sexual advances toward the four female students. The students' testimony, although containing minor discrepancies, is accepted as more credible than respondent's denial, and conflicts in the testimony are resolved against him. The students showed no hostility toward respondent and, unlike him, had not motive to falsify. Reduced Effectiveness The allegations against respondent, involving these four female students, received widespread notoriety in the area. As a result, his effectiveness as an employee of the School Board has been seriously reduced.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent's teaching certificate be revoked, and that he be declared ineligible for reapplication for three years following revocation. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of August 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 6th day of August 1984.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Schrier holds a Florida teaching certificate, No. 586600, which is valid through June 30, 1992, and covers the areas of drivers education, social studies, history, and physical education. Mr. Schrier was employed as a teacher at Palm Beach Lakes Community High School beginning in 1988 by the School Board of Palm Beach County. On September 29, 1988, a newly registered student was assigned to a world history class taught by Mr. Schrier and was given a note to take to Mr. Schrier explaining that she would be an additional student in the class. Mr. Schrier refused to admit the black female student to his class saying that his class was already too large. The student came back to the school office and she was sent back with another note instructing Mr. Schrier to admit the student, but he once again refused. On the third occasion, the student was accompanied to Mr. Schrier's class by the Vice Principal, Glen Heyward, and once again, Mr. Schrier, in the presence of the student, refused to admit the student to the class on the grounds that he already had too many students and that there were too many black students already in the class. All the students heard these comments, which were wholly inappropriate. Eventually the student was assigned to another class, which was already larger than Mr. Schrier's class. His comments had made it untenable for that student to be assigned to Mr. Schrier's class. As the result of the incident, Mr. Schrier received a written reprimand from the Principal of Palm Beach Lakes Community High School on October 10, 1988. Mr. Schrier had a history of difficulty in controlling the conduct of students in his class. It was common for students to be eating, talking or engaged in other acts of misbehavior while he was attempting to teach. On about October 31, 1990, during Mr. Schrier's second period world history class, a number of students were failing to pay attention or otherwise misbehaving and, in general, the class was loud and unruly. In the course of attempting to restore order, Mr. Schrier said to this integrated class that the black students should act like white students. All students had been unruly and it was simply not true that the black students were the only students misbehaving. This comment upset both the black students and the white students and they began to wad paper and throw it at him and to yell at him, which caused him to panic and to push a buzzer to summon the deans from the school office. The deans attempted to restore order and Mr. Schrier was unable to complete that class. Parents of both black and white students learned of the incident and objected to their children being taught by Mr. Schrier on account of his inappropriate racial remark. Black students in his class were both embarrassed and angry about his disparaging comment. As a result of disciplinary action taken against him by the School Board of Palm Beach County, Mr. Schrier's actions became generally known in the community through a story which appeared in the Palm Beach Post. It is inappropriate for a teacher to tell black students to act like white students. Discipline is imposed on the basis of misconduct, not on the basis of race. Mr. Schrier's statement embarrassed and disparaged the students and created a poor learning environment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Richard Schrier, be found guilty of violating Section 231.28(1)(h), Florida Statutes, and Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a) and 6B- 1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code. It is further recommended that the Education Practices Commission issue a letter of reprimand to the Respondent, impose an administrative fine of $500 and that the Respondent shall be placed on two years probation with the Education Practices Commission. The terms of the probation shall include the requirement that the Respondent: Shall immediately contact the Education Practices Commission upon any reemployment in the teaching profession within the State of Florida, indicating the name and address of the school at which he is employed, as well as the name, address and telephone number of his immediate supervisor. Shall make arrangements for his immediate supervisor to provide the Education Practices Commission with quarterly reports of his performance, including, but not limited to, compliance with school rules and school district regulations and any disciplinary actions imposed upon the Respondent. Shall make arrangements for his immediate supervisor to provide the Education Practices Commission with a true and accurate copy of each written performance evaluation prepared by his supervisor, within ten days of its issuance. Shall satisfactorily perform his assigned duties in a competent professional manner. Shall violate no law and shall fully comply with all district and school board regulations, school rules, and State Board of Education Rule 6B-1.006. During the period of probation shall successfully complete two college courses or the equivalent in- service training courses in the areas of cultural awareness and classroom management, with progress and completion to be monitored by the Education Practices Commission. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 5th day of June 1992. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of June 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Margaret E. O'Sullivan, Esquire Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Mr. Richard E. Schrier Apartment 116 500 North Congress Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Karen Barr Wilde Executive Director 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Sydney H. McKenzie General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues as alluded to in the Statement of Preliminary Matters and as will be more completely described in the course of this Recommended Order concern the question of whether the Respondent has committed offenses as a tenured instructor with the Petitioner, Daytona Beach Community College, which would cause disciplinary action to be taken against her, to include termination?
Findings Of Fact Background Facts Petitioner, Daytona Beach Community College, is an educational institution within the State of Florida charged with the responsibility of providing post-secondary education. To that end, it operates in accordance with the rules of the State Board of Education and State Board of Community Colleges and such rules, procedures and policies as its board of trustees would deem appropriate. Among the responsibilities of that board of trustees would be the hiring and firing of employees, to include instructional staff. See Section 240.319, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Amanda Leavitt, is an employee of the Daytona Beach Community College. She is a tenured faculty member. She holds the position of instructor and has been in a continuing contract position since August 17, 1981. Respondent, in addition to being an instructor, is the program manager in the Dental Assisting Program within the Division of Health, Human and Public Service Occupations of the Daytona Beach Community College. She had been an active member of the faculty until October 8, 1987, when she was suspended based upon the allegations that form the basis of this dispute. That suspension has remained in effect pending the outcome of the proceedings involving the charges at issue. The description of the procedural events that brought about the hearing in this case as set forth in the preliminary matters statement within this Recommended Order are incorporated as facts. The Petitioner, through its charges of October 12 and 23, 1987, has given sufficient notice to the Respondent to allow her to prepare and defend against those accusations. Respondent made a timely request for formal hearing in this case. This case began following complaints made by a number of students undergoing training in the Dental Assisting Program in the academic year 1986- 1987. Specifically, on June 11, 1987, these students, approximately twelve in number, met with the chairman of the Allied Health Department and program manager for the Respiratory Therapy Program, Charles Carroll, to describe their sense of dissatisfaction with certain circumstances within the Dental Assisting Program. Out of that conference, Carroll pursued the matter with Respondent Leavitt, and the Petitioner employed the offices of its internal auditor, Tom Root, to ascertain information about the contentions made by the students. Among other matters being examined by the auditor, was a question concerning the collection of money from the students within the Dental Assisting Program in that academic year, unrelated to the normal fee collections associated with enrollment at the Daytona Beach Community College. In furtherance of his task, the auditor prepared Internal Audit #83, which is constituted of the majority of Petitioner's exhibits. The audit was concluded on September 24, 1987, and contained twelve specific findings. Those findings, which were not favorable to the Respondent, formed the basis of her suspension on October 8, 1987, and underlie the five charges dating from October 12, 1987. Further investigation was done by the auditor subsequent to September 24, 1987, and that continuing investigation and certain conduct by the Respondent which the Petitioner regarded as actionable led to the two supplemental charges of October 23, 1987. Mr. Carroll had given the Respondent certain instructions concerning the allegations made by the students in which he sought the Respondent's assistance in clarifying what had occurred within the program and rectifying any problems that might exist. He was not satisfied with her response, as to the timeliness or the comprehensiveness of her reply to his instructions. The internal auditor in the face of Respondent's remarks about the funding dispute related to the payment of monies by the students sought to verify those observations by the Respondent by contact with members of the Dental Assisting Class in the academic year 1986-1987 and met with a considerable difference of opinion between those students and the Respondent. This led the auditor to believe that the Respondent was being less than candid in her relation of vents, so much so that the audit critical of the Respondent ensued. There is now related a discussion of the specific charges made against the Respondent: Charges 1 and 2 (October 12, 1987) Misconduct in office in the form of collecting and allowing those under your supervision to collect funds from students under false pretenses (i.e. claiming that these funds were lab fees) also the sale by you and those under your supervision of college program supplies, class handouts, and textbooks during the 1985-86, and 1986-87 school years. These collections were in violation of college policies and procedures and also violated the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida, principle one, concerning instructor's responsibilities for dealing justly and considerately with each student and avoiding exploitation of professional relationships with students. Misconduct in office in the form of the existence of a cash shortage of approximately $400.00 together with a total lack of records as to the disposition of these funds which were collected from dental students during the Fall semester 1986-87 and the improper depositing of some of these funds in an off-campus account during the Fall semester 1986-87. The academic year 1986-1987 was constituted of the Fall semester in 1986, the Winter semester in 1987 and a shortened semester described as a Spring semester in 1987. In that school year Respondent was issued contracts for the period August 18, 1986 through May 1, 1987 and May 5, 1987 through June 29, 1987. This included approximately one week of employment prior to the students coming on campus in the Fall 1986 and two weeks beyond the time of their final exams in the Spring term of 1987. The 1986-1987 Daytona Beach Community College Catalog describing the Dental Assisting Program had a reference to an estimated cost for a "lab kit" as being $50. This was the first time that any such reference had been made in the college catalog. In addition, within the Dental Assisting Student Handbook related to the Dental Assisting Program published for the Fall of 1986, there was a similar reference to the "lab kit .....$50" fee. This had not been referenced in the student handbook for the academic year 1985-1986. The reference for "lab kit.....$50," was again stated in the student handbook for the Winter term 1987. These remarks in the publications concerning the "lab kit $50. " were placed under the auspices of the Respondent. The origins of the reference to the $50 amount came about when the Respondent and another employee of the Daytona Beach Community College, Sharon Mathes, had visited Santa Fe Community College in Gainesville, Florida, and observed that the students in a similar dental assisting program to that of the Daytona Beach Community College program had individual laboratory kits. Respondent and Mathes then discussed that it might be beneficial to have individual laboratory kits for the students in the Daytona Beach Community College program. This individual disbursement in their mind might assist in the preservation of the school's property and teach responsibility on the part of the students. The materials that were to be placed in the kit for the academic year 1986-1987 were purchased through the ordinary purchase order process for the provision of supplies for the Dental Assisting Program at school expense. This was a process in which an inventory check was made and necessary implements to fill out kits for an anticipated student enrollment of 25 participants were purchased. In this planning, a discussion was entered into between Respondent and Mathes concerning the question of whether the students should repurchase those materials that had been paid for through the ordinary expenditures associated with the program. Specifically, Respondent had made mention of the fact of the students buying the contents. However, it was never decided that they would buy those materials based upon a decision made between the Respondent and Mathes. Mathes surmises that it was not decided because the cost of those materials would be in excess of $70-75, an amount which exceeded the "lab kit. $50." The students did purchase the container or art box into which the materials were placed. This purchase was made from the campus bookstore and was not part of the $50 fee. At the commencement of the academic year 1986-1987, their uncertainty remained as to the use of any $50 amount to be collected from each student, reference the "lab kit." Respondent and Mathes had discussed the fact that, if the students returned laboratory kit items and some were missing or broken, that some of the money that had been gained from the students might be used to replace those items and avoid having to issue further purchase orders to be paid for by the Daytona Beach Community College for the replacement of those items that were no longer available for use. It was also discussed that the money might be used to offset other expenses such as costs of graduation, to send a student to a seminar, or possibly establishing a fund for students that may become financially stricken and might not be able to complete the program without financial assistance directed toward their tuition. There had also been discussion of reimbursement of monies not used for these general purposes, but no amount was arrived at concerning reimbursement. In the final analysis, the impression that Mathes was given out of these discussions was that the money would be used in the program and dispensed however it might be needed. In any event, it was determined by the Respondent and Mathes that $50 additional money over and above other fees authorized by the Daytona Beach Community College would be collected for each student participating in the Dental Assisting Program in the 1986-1987 academic year. It was explained to the students the $50 additional cost, a product of the Respondent and Mathes unrelated to authorized collections through the Daytona Beach Community College, was an additional cost item. The students were told that if it were a fee that was too much, they would have the opportunity to drop out of the program. Thus, the fee was presented as a mandatory fee. At the orientation at the beginning of in the academic year 1986-1987, Respondent, and Mathes, participated in the explanation about the $50 charge. The presentation by the Respondent and Mathes pointed out to the students that the $50 extra cost described as "lab kit-$50" was related to materials such as plaster that the students would employ in their course work and to defray expenses associated with graduation. The impression given to the students was that the materials were being rented or leased. The explanation given was that the $50 amount must be paid before graduation. In furtherance of this purpose, Respondent and Mathes continued to pursue the collection of this $50 amount from the students throughout the Fall term 1986. Laboratory fee amounts were collected from 16 students. Nine students paid the amount by check and seven through cash payments. The checks totalling $450 and cash in the amount of $50 was deposited in an off-campus bank account, unauthorized by the Daytona Beach Community College. This account was described with the Sun Bank of Volusia County, Daytona Beach, Florida, as DBCC Student Dental Assistants' Association. Checks by the students were made over to the Dental Assisting Program of DBCC or Daytona Beach Community College. There were $300 in funds collected from the students which had not been deposited into the bank account, and the exact whereabouts of those funds has not been established. The money collected and deposited and that which is unaccounted for had been held in an area of the physical plant related to the Dental Assisting Program to which faculty and students had easy access. Placement of the $50 fees on the grounds of the Daytona Beach Community College included placement in a cigar box in a file drawer and one $50 cash payment was kept or maintained separately in Respondent's desk drawer for what is described on the receipt given to that student as "...for cash." That student was Susan Woodstock. That $50 was part of the $300 which has not been explained in terms of its ultimate disposition. Respondent has contended that these $50 collections were in the way of club dues similar to those that had been collected in years previous for students participating in the Dental Assisting Program, as recently as the academic year 1985- 1986. In that year and other years as well which predate 1986- 1987, the students had paid incremental dues, usually $5 per month, for participation in a club. On the occasion of the academic year 1986-1987, collections for participation in a student club were not made. Therefore, the $50 amounts paid were unrelated to club dues. Having considered the facts in this case, it is evident that the Respondent was aware that the $50 collections from the 16 students were not associated with club dues. Respondent also participated in and condoned the unauthorized sale of X-ray film and pencils to the students in the academic year 1986-1987 and in other school years. These monies were collected in the way of petty cash maintained in envelopes in the Respondent's desk or in a cigar box maintained in another area. No receipts were given concerning the collection of these monies and no records were maintained. Mary Reep, a dental assisting student at Daytona Beach Community College in the academic year 1985-1986 paid $5 for the student handbook associated with that coursework. This handbook should have been provided without paying her program instructors. The payment was made to the Respondent and Mathes who were participating in the sale of the handbook. Reep also observed other people purchase the student handbook in that year. Mathes participated in other sales of handbooks than the transaction with Reep in the academic year 1985-1986, Fall semester. On this occasion, Respondent remarked to Mathes that if the community college knew of this collection of $5 for the handbooks, Respondent would be "fired." This practice of the sale of the handbooks continued in the academic year 1986-1987, at which time a number of students purchased the Fall 1986 student handbook from the Respondent and Mathes. During the time that Mathes had been working in the Dental Assisting Program, this had been the common practice, i.e. the collection of funds for the student handbook. On every occasion, the students had been entitled to be provided a student handbook without charges beyond those authorized by the Daytona Beach Community College. The community college had not allowed for additional charges by faculty placed against the students when distributing the student handbooks. Charge 3 (October 12, 1987) Misconduct in office for your intentional overpayment of assistants for work not performed by them during December 1985 and January 1986. On August 28, 1985, Respondent wrote to Charles Carroll, her supervisor, and asked, among other things, that two instructors be hired to help manage and oversee 24 students. This related to making available two persons who had a familiarity with the University of Florida's dental school, at which the students would be involved in an externship program commencing in January, 1986, or the Winter term of the academic year 1985-1986. In turn, Carroll referred this to his superior, Dr. Lynn O'Hara, describing the transport and involvement in the Winter term. This memo to Carroll from O'Hara is of September 9, 1985. On September 16, 1985, O'Hara wrote a memo to Carroll in which it was indicated that one position could be approved to be shared by two persons, if the hiring did not commence during the Fall term. Nonetheless, Respondent arranged for and took Denise Dorne and Kim Rockey to the dental school in Gainesville, Florida on December 18, 1985, during the Fall semester. No indication was made in the Respondent's request for leave that she would intend to take Dorne and Rockey. Respondent followed this trip by including eleven hours of paid time for the December 18, 1985 trip for Dorne and Rockey on their initial pay request for the month of January, 1986, which was signed by the Respondent. In effect, these two individuals had, contrary to the instructions of the Respondent's superior, been allowed to undertake activities at a time which they were not authorized to participate as employees in the Dental Assisting Program at Daytona Beach Community College. Dorne and Rockey were paid for eight trips made for class participation in the Winter term of 1986 in the externship at the dental school in Gainesville, Florida, as shown in pay requests that were signed and submitted by the Respondent for the benefit of those employees. This action by the Respondent was taken knowing that the two individuals had not attended one of the sessions in Gainesville. This circumstance is mitigated by the fact that the Respondent had the two individuals undertake other assignments of equal value to make up for the nonattendance at the externship session. Charge 4 (October 12, 1987) Willful neglect of duty and misconduct in office for your absence without authorized leave and failure to perform your duties on January 23, 1986 for which you received pay; your failure to teach all classes as indicated on your Load Letter as your teaching responsibility during the Fall semester 1986; and Absence without Leave and failure to fulfill prescribed duties for the period of June 22 through June 29, 1987, for which you received pay. On January 15, 1986, Respondent made request for annual leave for January 24 and 27, 1986, which was approved. She also determined to take leave and was absent on January 23, 1986, without authorization. On January 23, 1986, she was on a ski trip in North Carolina. The fact of her being away from the Daytona Beach Community College is acknowledged in a slip found within the Petitioner's Exhibit 32 in which she says, "I had leave on 1/23/86." This references the reason why she is not seeking to collect money for participation in the externship at the dental school in Gainesville, Florida on that date as discussed in Petitioner's Exhibit 32. Related to this nonattendance, Respondent has been less than forthcoming. Only when confronted with details by way of evidence demonstrating her whereabouts on January 23, 1986, that is, Bannerelk, North Carolina, did she reluctantly acknowledge not being at her job on January 23, 1986. The impression given is that she deliberately took time off from her employment on January 23, 1986 without permission. An item referred to as a Load Letter forms the basis of describing the requirement of an instructor with the Daytona Beach Community College to teach the number of hours and the courses, at the prescribed times as set out in that document. This is the bargain which the instructor makes with the community college. The Fall semester 1986 Load Letter indicates that the Respondent was to teach Class #1671 on Monday morning at 11:00 to 11:53 and Class #1669 on Monday afternoon from 1:00 to 4:53. Contrary to her obligation, Respondent did not teach those classes. Instead, she used Sharon Mathes to teach Class #1671 (dental anatomy) on Wednesday morning and Class #1669 (biomedical sciences) on Monday afternoon at its scheduled time. The reason for changing the dental anatomy class slot was to accommodate the students by not causing them to be confronted with too much in the way of difficult material on Monday, and which would have also placed them in the position of not being prepared for a Tuesday afternoon laboratory which needed a lecture class by way of predicate. Sharon Mathes was paid as an instructor in the Fall 1986 term in her dental materials class, taught on Monday morning. She received a different classification of pay at a lesser rate for the classes taught which had appeared on the Respondent's Load Letter, Class #1671 and Class #1669. Respondent was also paid as the instructor teaching those classes listed on Respondent's Load Letter. The student evaluations forms related to Class #1671 and Class #1669 taught by Mathes in the Fall term 1986 show the Respondent's name as the instructor providing contact hours with the students in those two classes. Moreover, in a part-time instructional monthly report and salary voucher related to Class #1671, Respondent indicates that she taught this course on Monday morning, when in fact it was taught on Wednesday morning by Sharon Mathes. This part-time instructional report relates to an overload payment beyond the basic salary structure associated with Respondent's duties under contract, which are to teach a load of 15 hours. The first 15 hours of that 17 hours tame under her normal salary structure and included Class #1669. Respondent's protestations that this arrangement in the Fall of 1986 in which Mathes taught classes on the Respondent's Load Letter, Mathes was paid at a rate not commensurate with service as an instructor, evaluations were made by students related to an instructor who did not teach them, Respondent was paid for her normal teaching load and an overload for classes not taught were items contemplated by an accreditation arrangement with the American Dental Association and countenanced by the Daytona Beach Community College are unavailing. These arrangements which Respondent made concerning her responsibilities for teaching in the Fall 1986 were misleading, unauthorized and contrary to her employment agreement with the community college. Charge 5 (October 12, 1987) Gross insubordination for your failure to comply with DBCC Procedure #1091 which requires your cooperation with the College as it attempted to determine the accuracy of the various allegations made against you by the students and the additional matters described above which were discovered by the College Administration during its investigation. In the afore-mentioned meeting of June 11, 1987 between students in the Dental Assisting Program and Charles Carroll, a discussion was entered into concerning the payment of the $50 fees which has been described as the "lab kit- $50." Other complaints were aired as well, leading Carroll to focus on the overall program and the "lab kit" cost in particular. To this end, Carroll contacted the Respondent on the same date and discussed his concerns with her. Following that meeting, among the instructions given by his memorandum of June 15, 1987, Carroll told Respondent to immediately dissolve the student association and to provide a detailed accounting of the disposition of club assets as he had had those described to him by the Respondent. He informed the Respondent that she should operate student club activities under the guidelines established by the Student Government Association on campus. In addition, he asked the Respondent to meet with him before the school year concluded, that is the school year 1986-1987, so that they might review the student handbook and grading policies. Respondent was instructed to bring copies of those materials for his records. Related to the checking account which was associated with the Sun Bank, Respondent explained to Carroll in the June 11, 1987 meeting that checks were outstanding and although she did not indicate that checks would have to be written to conclude other expenses within the academic year, she did describe that those expenses were forthcoming. This discussion about expenses pertains to a check written to K-Mart on June 9, 1987 in the amount of $19.89 for Cross pens for two dentists associated with the Dental Assisting Program in recognition of that association; a check written in the amount of $52.30 to the Belleview Florist on June 9, 1987 for flowers for the graduation dinner for the students in the 1986-1987 class, and a check that would be written to Marker 32 in the amount of $155.35 for costs of the graduation dinners, that check being written on June 12, 1987. The checks of June 9, 1987 cleared the bank on June 11, 1987, and the June 12, 1987 check cleared the bank on June 16, 1987. Ultimately, a balance was left in the account of $127.18. Following the June 11, 1987 meeting, Respondent informed Carroll that she was waiting for the last bank statement before closing out the account. Petitioner's Exhibit 115 is the last bank statement rendered with an ending balance of $130.18 from which $3 was deducted, leaving the balance at $127.18. The ending balance reflects the date June 30, 1987. Prior to the rendering of this bank statement, on June 23, 1987, Carroll had written to the Respondent and told her that it was unacceptable for her to wait for the normal statement of ending balance and expressed his belief that the bank would provide a final accounting upon closure of the account. In this case, the proof is missing on whether the bank would have provided an accounting at the closure of the account following the clearing of the last check on June 16, 1987. As of June 30, 1987, when the account ending balance was established, Respondent was between school years and not under active employment by the Petitioner. She did not take any action to close the account in June and July, 1987. Nor did the Respondent provide a copy of the student handbook; instead, she excerpted three pages from that handbook and gave those to Carroll. Carroll was unable to find the Respondent on campus during the work week June 22 through June 25, 1987, and wrote a memorandum on June 29, 1987 referring to the fact that he had made several attempts to contact her and noting that she was unavailable in her office and not subject to contact at her home. He admonished her about not being in attendance or on authorized leave, and by his remarks referred to the need to discuss urgent matters. In fact, Respondent, as alluded to in Charge 4, was not at her work place June 22 through June 25, 1987 and had not been granted permission to miss that time. On July 15, 1987, beyond the contract year, Respondent was written by Carroll in which he references his correspondence of June 15 and 23, 1987, and complains about the failure to provide evidence that the Student Dental Assisting Association has been dissolved, and that an accounting has been made related to what he refers to as "club assets." He also indicates that he did not feel that the Respondent was cooperating in providing requested information. On July 23, 1987, Charles R. Mojock wrote to the Respondent referring to the fact that he did not believe that the bank account related to the Student Dental Assisting Association was legal, and that he believed it was contrary to State statute and to community college policy, based upon his discussion with others in the administration at the community college. As a consequence, he reminded the Respondent that, the sooner the funds were removed from that account, the easier it would be to settle the matter. He recounts in this memorandum what he believed to be a problem with the Respondent's compliance with the requests related to the account. The memorandum is basically conciliatory indicating that it was not intended to make accusations, but to resolve the problem. Eventually on August 3, 1987, Respondent wrote to Tom Root, the auditor at the community college, and apprised him of her willingness to provide information that he sought upon his return from leave. This return to his job was supposed to occur on August 12, 1987. On August 13, 1987, the Respondent turned over to Root the balance of the funds in the Sun Bank account by cashier's check which was credited to the Community College Foundation account and a receipt given to the Respondent. Those funds were left to be used for the benefit of needy dental assisting students. The amount of cash found within the instructional area of the Dental Assisting Program, was $15.08. Respondent also provided the auditor with an item dated August 3, 1987, on stationary of the Daytona Beach Community College, referred to as a Student Dental Assistant 1986-1987, listing officers and the comment that dues were collected in the amount of $5 per month as the source of revenue. This reference too $5 dues as already found is false. It goes on to state that no fund-raising had been undertaken. It states, "I do not think there were any fund-raising activities." This is taken to mean what the Respondent asserted, according to this document. Under "expenditures," there is a reference to open house refreshments, Halloween party, buffet lunch, gifts for speakers, flowers and cards for classmates, reference books from the book rack, donation of a magnifying glass, graduation flowers and dinners. On August 18, 1987, the internal auditor wrote to the Respondent requesting additional information related to receipts for the funds paid by the students in the 1986-1987 year and bank statements. He opines in this memorandum that the Respondent either was misunderstanding his request or was misrepresenting the way the funds were collected. Respondent replied to the memorandum of August 18, 1987 by a memorandum of August 20, 1987 and through a phone conversation with the auditor. In the memorandum by the Respondent, she indicates that she was unaware that funds were collected by Mathes until after the fact, meaning the $50 collection and that the students had been misled about the intent of the funds in their student account. This contention in the memorandum of August 20, 1987 is patently false and is seen as thwarting the efforts on the part of the auditor to discern the true facts of the matter. Respondent was aware of the $50 fee collection. Other suggestions within the memorandum refer to the fact that she had been told that part of the funds were to be used for replacement of lost items in the lab kit pertaining to the students, and from there came the phrase "lab kit rental." She talks in terms of the fact that the students were aware that the money was being used for name tags, open house, doctor's gifts and graduation. She states that this strongly suggests that the dues were mandatory. She goes on to describe that Ms. Mathes, once she left, had no records of who had or had not paid, and no effort was made to collect unpaid dues, and the fact that this was the obligation of the student treasurer. All of these comments were apparently designed to deflect the attention away from the true status of the matter, which included the fact that no student dues were collected in the amount of $5, that the Respondent was thoroughly acquainted with the collection of the $50 fee amounts for use of laboratory materials and graduation, and that the student treasurer had no part to play in the collection of these $50 fees or the deposit of those sums. By contrast, Respondent had been involved in the collection of fees and the endorsement of checks and payment of those fees which were deposited. Furthermore, her disclaimer of having knowledge of what was on the front of the checks she endorsed in terms of the reason for the $50 checks being written, five in number and that she only endorsed the backs without a knowledge of the reason for the checks is incredulous. The facts of this case lead to the conclusion that Respondent did know what those five checks were for. The Respondent was also in possession of Exhibit 42 offered by her at the hearing which showed a list of student signatures reflecting both those who had not paid and subsequent dates of when the students had paid. This exhibit was not revealed to the auditor during his investigation, though such information was sought by the auditor. It only became a matter within his knowledge on February 8, 1988. The memorandum of August 20, 1987 by the Respondent indicates having discussions with the students concerning ways to use the money that had been given for the laboratory kits or fee and the fact that it was decided that a certain workbook referred to as a Core Packet should not be assigned, meaning in the future, but be used as a reference in the future. This Core Packet had been purchased by the students for course work in the amount of approximately $40 and ordered from an off-campus bookstore. Additional copies remained from the order that had been placed with that bookstore, and these were purchased from that store known as the Campus Bookrack, six Core packets in all at the expense of $178.08 taken from the Student Dental Assisting account at the Sun Bank. Contrary to the memorandum and her testimony, the students had no knowledge of this purchase and did not condone it. Neither did the students condone the purchase of a magnifying glass to be used for the sharpening of dental instruments in one of the classes related to this program. The memorandum says the students agreed that a lighted magnifying glass would help them in sharpening instruments, and discussion between Respondent and the students led to the students donating that magnifying glass. No discussion of this nature was held with the students as outlined in the memorandum of August 20, 1987, and described in testimony by the Respondent at hearing. Respondent did spend $47.20 in the purchase of the magnifying light. In summary, Respondent had been involved with the establishment of the $50 extra fee as listed in the 1986-1987 college catalog and in the Fall 1986 and Winter 1987 student handbooks, but she failed to advise the auditor about this or that she was present while it was being discussed with the students at orientation in the Fall of 1986 or that she had endorsed checks comprising the initial deposit of the $50 collections in the bank account. This together with other items as described greatly impeded the efforts of the college at determining the reason for the $50 charge, who was responsible for placing the charge and who among the students had paid the money. The principal manifestation of the impediment was experienced by the internal auditor when all sixteen students who paid the $50 fee held a different and generally consistent viewpoint from that of Respondent concerning the fee and its usage. This lead to additional effort by the auditor in ascertaining the true facts. Charge 6 (October 23, 1987) Gross Insubordination for your willfully altering information related to the College's investigation, which is in violation of DBCC procedure #1091. In support of this charge, the following witnesses; Mr. Robert Schreiber, Mr. Charles Carroll, Mr. Tom Root, Ms. April Pulcrano, and Mr. Charles R. Mojock will testify that they were present (or in telephone contact) during the discussion regarding the possibility of your tendering your resignation. They will refute your statement that you were informed that if you did not resign, "the case would be turned over to the State Attorney for a theft prosecution." They will further refute that you were told "that this was extremely important so that the College could cover the alleged fund shortage from detection by state auditors." On October 8, 1987, counsel for the Respondent wrote to the Board of Trustees of the Daytona Beach Community College and discussed his interest in reconciling the differences between the parties amicably. In that correspondence, there is found the following reference "...Early in the school year, Mrs. Leavitt was notified by several of her superiors that, if she did not resign, her case would be turned over to the State Attorney for a theft prosecution. In addition, she was told that this was extremely important so that the college could cover the alleged fund shortage from detection by state auditors." This is an attorney's attempt to state his client's position and from this event the prosecution seeks to have the Respondent found insubordinate. Having considered the testimony of Charles Carroll, Robert Schreiber and Chuck Mojock, together with the Respondent, there is clearly a difference of opinion about what was said in various meetings between the Respondent and administration officials within the community college. On balance, the exact facts may not be found which describe insubordination for remarks found within correspondence by counsel for the Respondent attributable to his client. Charge 7 (October 23, 1987) Misconduct in office for your use of part- time employees and a student teacher to teach a substantial portion of your assigned instructional load during the Winter of 1987. Specifically, the College will show that the externship program (Section 1667) with local dentists' offices, was conducted totally by Ms. Elizabeth Switch and Ms. April Pulcrano. In addition, Ms. Switch taught Practice Management (Section 1664) and Ms. Pulcrano taught Preventive Dentistry and Nutrition (Section 1665). Ms. Pulcrano will testify (and students enrolled in the Externship course will confirm this fact) that only she and Ms. Switch made visits to the local externship sites, and that Ms. Pulcrano had responsibility for writing up the reports, meeting with students, and assigning grades for this course. Ms. Pulcrano will further testify that you approached her during the first week of the Fall term in this academic year and asked her to teach the Dental Anatomy and Physiology course, but to be paid at the staff assistant pay rate instead of the appropriate adjunct instructional pay rate. The numbers of hours on the Load Sheet pertaining to the Respondent for the Winter term 1987 showed 14 semester hours for which courses are set out. Respondent routinely taught only one of those classes, Chairside Assisting II, on Fridays from 10:00 a.m. until noon. This was two lecture hours and two hours of contact. The remaining four contact hours for laboratory, which equated to two semester hours of the four total hours associated with Chairside Assisting II, Course #1666, were not done by the Respondent. As the Load Letter contemplates, the laboratory was done by an adjunct instructor. On the Load Letter for Winter 1987 and in keeping with the continuing contract entered into on August 17, 1981 and at subsequent times Respondent should have taught the remaining courses reflected on her Load Letter for the Winter semester 1987. One of those courses was Course #1664, Practice Management, a course for which she was entitled to receive an overload payment, according to the Load Letter. Respondent turned in the overload pay sheet for that course certifying that she had taught the class, when in fact Elizabeth Switch, a part- time instructor, taught that class and was paid for her work. In this same term, Winter 1987, April Pulcrano, a student from the University of Central Florida, served as a student teacher in the Dental Assisting Program. She was hired by the Respondent to teach Chairside II laboratories on Monday afternoon and on Wednesday afternoon. She also was made responsible for the externship of students during the Winter semester consisting of her visitations to dental offices where the students had been placed to gain clinical experience as part of their studies at' the community college. Pulcrano's involvement in the externship included administrative paperwork, involving forms of evaluation which the dental offices made of the performance of students who were externed. She summarized and provided grades to the externship students in this program. These activities by Pulcrano were done on a routine basis in which she was primarily responsible for the externship program with assistance one day a week on the part of Elizabeth Switch. The externship program involving six semester hours and 12 contact hours per week in Course #1667 was the responsibility of the Respondent, according to her Load Letter in the Winter term 1987. Respondent had initial contact with this responsibility on the first day that the students were dispatched to various dental offices throughout Volusia County, Florida, and some occasional contact beyond that point. This involvement by the Respondent did not approach the kind of responsibility contemplated by the assignment in her Load Letter. A course on the Load Letter of Winter 1987 related to the Respondent was what is referred to as Prevention and Nutrition, Course #1665. This is a two hour course with two contact hours. This course was taught by Pulcrano and not the Respondent. Respondent did not assist Pulcrano in the laboratory portion of a Chairside Assisting II class, and the Respondent placed Pulcrano into the class without introduction or explanation. As with the circumstance related in Charge 4, the failure to teach courses on the Load Letter pertaining to the Fall semester 1986, Respondent had not been relieved of the necessity to teach her courses reflected in the Load Letter pertaining to the Winter semester 1987.
Recommendation Based upon the full consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered terminating Amanda Leavitt's employment with the Daytona Beach Community College and providing for the forfeiture of her pay received for January 23, 1986 and January 22, 1987 through January 29, 1987. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of April, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of April, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4937 Petitioner has offered fact finding in its proposed recommended order. Respondent gave argument but declined to offer fact proposals. Petitioner's facts have been used as subordinate facts with the exception of the following which are rejected for reasons described: Charges 1 and 2: Paragraph 9 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 17 is rejected because the evidence was not sufficient to find violations in the years contemplated in Charge 1. Paragraph 18 describes facts which are not contemplated within the charging documents. Charge 6: Paragraphs 3-7 are contrary to facts found. Charge 7: Paragraph 1 is not relevant. Paragraph 3 is not relevant. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Dana Fogle, Esquire FOGLE & FOGLE, P.A. Post Office Box 817 DeLand, Florida 32721-0817 Jason G. Reynolds, Esquire COBLE, BARRIN, ROTHERT, GORDON, MORRIS, LEWIS & REYNOLDS, P.A. 1020 Volusia Avenue Post Office Drawer 9670 Daytona Beach, Florida 32020 Dr. Charles Polk, President Daytona Beach Community College Post Office Box 1111 Daytona Beach, Florida 32015 Board of Trustees Daytona Beach Community College c/o J. Dana Fogle, Esquire FOGLE & FOGLE, P.A. Post Office Box 817 DeLand, Florida 32721-0817
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Palm-Miami Beach Academy of Beauty Culture, Inc. (school), is licensed to operate a cosmetology school at 634 Belvedere Road, West Palm Beach, Florida. Official agency records reflect that respondent was assigned license number CT 0000333 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Cosmetology (DPR or Board) effective August 14, 1987. The school's owner and president is Hasan Shihada, who has operated another licensed cosmetology school, Miami Beach Unisex Beauty School, Inc., in Miami Beach, Florida for almost ten years. Shihada purchased the school in 1987 from Ena Salup, who previously operated the school under the name of Ena's Beauty School. Shihada considers the school to be a division of his Miami Beach facility although he understands that each school must be operated as a separate entity with its own license. After being advised that a license number had been assigned to respondent, a DPR investigator, Jean Robinson, made an initial inspection of the facility on September 24, 1987. She returned several times that fall but never found the school open. After checking with the Board's office in Tallahassee to ascertain if the school had actually opened, Robinson learned that the school had sent the Board average daily attendance reports for the months of November and December, 1987. These reports reflected that twelve and five students, respectively, had attended the school during those two months. Robinson thereafter telephoned Shihada and made an appointment to meet him at the school on Tuesday, January 12, 1988. The purpose of the visit was to review the school's records and to otherwise verify that the licensee was in conformity with all Board regulations. On January 12, 1988 Robinson met Shihada at the school. The school was closed but Shihada gave her access to the premises. Upon entering the premises, Robinson saw no students, cosmetology supplies or other evidence of an active operation. She also observed that the license of only one instructor was on the wall even though Board rules require that the school have two licensed instructors in its employ during the first year of operation. When Robinson asked to see the student records, Shihada called Salup, who had an office in an adjacent building. After Salup came to the school, she and Shihada retrieved a handful of 5x7 file cards which contained the names and addresses of a few students and the apparent payments made by them to the school. Only three of the names matched up with the names previously sent by respondent to the Board's Tallahassee office. There were also no student attendance records, executed student enrollment contracts or monthly statements of student hours. These records are required to be maintained by the licensee for all active students. When Robinson asked where the other student records were, Shihada and Salup spoke in Spanish and then Shihada advised Robinson that all files were at Salup's home. Robinson instructed Shihada to bring the student files to the DPR district office the following Monday. Before she left, Robinson gave Shihada a copy of the Board's rules and discussed the recordkeeping requirements imposed on a licensee. When Shihada did not appear at the DPR offices the following Monday, Robinson telephoned Shihada. He told her that a robbery had occurred at his office and that all files had been stolen. He also stated he did not report the robbery to local police. At hearing, Shihada denied telling this to Robinson and maintained instead that the files were simply missing from his unlocked office. Both explanations are rejected as not being credible. On May 24, 1988 Robinson returned to respondent's establishment to conduct a follow-up inspection. At that time, she reviewed the student records and found all files to be complete, although the school had only one full-time student. There was only one instructor on the premises, Angenorai Mathews, but the license of a second instructor, Earl Threats, was on the wall. At hearing Shihada contended that, although he purchased the school in 1987, he authorized Ena Salup to continue operating the school until January, 1988. According to Shihada, he did not open the school for business until that month but still had no students. He attributed this to a lack of financial aid for potential students. As to the records mailed to Tallahassee in November and December, 1987, Shihada explained that Salup's employees had mailed these, and that the students reflected thereon were actually Salup's students who were permitted by Shihada to finish their courses without charge. As to the lack of records on January 12, 1988, Shihada contended that (a) the records were missing from his office, and (b) in any event, he had no students in January and therefore there was no need to maintain any records. Shihada claimed also that the school had three licensed instructors in January, 1988. However, there were no records to corroborate this assertion. Finally, he denied that Robinson ever requested to see the student files on her January 12, 1988 visit. This contention is rejected as not being credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating Rule 21F- 21.003(1), Florida Administrative Code (1987), and Subsection 477.029(1)(i), Florida Statutes (1987), and that all other charges be dismissed. It is further recommended respondent pay a $500 fine within 30 days of date of Final Order. DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of August, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of August, 1988.
Findings Of Fact The School Board of Broward County, Florida, is an "agency" as defined in Section 120.52(1), Florida Statutes, and is charged by law with direction and control of grades Kindergarten through 12 for all public schools in Broward County, Florida. As of September, 1980, there were approximately 130,000 students enrolled in the Broward County School System, which makes that system one of the largest in the country. Respondent is required by statute to promulgate rules and regulations that establish attendance zones for grades Kindergarten through 12. During late 1980 and early 1981 the School Board engaged in its annual review of existing attendance boundaries to determine whether changes should be made for the 1981- 82 school year. In performing such reviews and in making necessary recommendations, it is the School Board's policy to consider the following factors: existing overcrowded schools; proper utilization of existing physical facilities; maintaining a unitary school system; student safety; student feeder patterns; transportation costs; establishment of new schools; consolidation of small school attendance areas; and community involvement. The dispute in this proceeding arises from the School Board's rezoning decision as it relates to four north area high schools: Coral Springs; Ely; Pompano Beach; and J. P. Taravella. In reaching its rezoning decision for these four high schools, the School Board was concerned primarily with the existence of overcrowded schools, underutilized physical facilities and the problem of racial composition in the various schools. In order to fully understand the import of the School Board's ultimate decision, and the magnitude of the problem which the Board faced, some historical perspective is necessary. Prior to 1970, the school system in Broward County was operated on a dual, biracial basis, with separate school facilities for black and white students. In 1970 litigation was commenced in Federal District Court which resulted in the School Board being ordered to commence efforts to establish a "unitary" school system. The Board's proposal to close Dillard High School in Fort Lauderdale and Ely High School in Pompano Beach, both of which were predominantly black, was rejected by the Federal Court. Instead, the School Board was ordered to redraw attendance zones in such a fashion as to assure the operation of these schools as racially integrated facilities. Although Ely High School was closed for a time due to inadequate physical facilities, it was later reopened. The Federal District Court subsequently relinquished jurisdiction in the desegregation litigation on July 31, 1979. In an attempt to continue compliance with the Federal Court directive to maintain a "unitary" school system, the School Board has prudently determined, to the maximum extent possible, to maintain approximately the same percentage of minority enrollment in its high schools as existed at the time the Federal Court relinquished jurisdiction in 1979. The School Board's policy in this regard is based on the assumption that the "unitary" status of the school system as it existed in 1979 met with Federal Court approval, as evidenced by the order relinquishing jurisdiction. The dynamic growth of Broward County over the last several years has, however, to some extent complicated the Board's efforts to maintain a "unitary" system. The primary problem in this regard has been a change in the demographic makeup of the school-age population in Broward County. Over the last several years the location of the high-school-age population in Broward County has shifted from the eastern portion of the county to the west. Because the bulk of the high-school-age population has historically resided in the eastern portion of the county, the majority of physical plant facilities had been constructed there. In recent years, however, the western portion of the county has developed rapidly to such an extent that those physical facilities located in that portion of the county are now seriously overcrowded, and the older facilities located in the eastern portion of the county have become "underenrolled," and, therefore, "underutilized." For example, Coral Springs High School, which is located in the western portion of the county, had a student enrollment of 2,168 for the 1976-77 school year; 2,994 students for the 1977-78 school year; 3,406 for the 1978-79 school year; 3,704 for the 1979-80 school year; and, 3,764 students for the 1980-81 school year. The physical plant at Coral Springs High School has a student capacity of 2,283, thereby requiring the School Board to operate Coral Springs High School on double sessions. As a result of overcrowding at Coral Springs High School, the School Board determined to build a new facility, J. P. Taravella High School, which opened in August, 1981. This new high school, with a student capacity of 1,829, opened in August, 1981, with a total enrollment of 1,228 students, all but seven of whom were reassigned from Coral Springs High School. Taravella High opened under its design capacity because the Board determined not to require students to change schools for their senior year, so that Taravella presently serves only grades 9 through 11. As a result of the construction and opening of J. P. Taravella High School, Coral Springs High School is no longer on double session. In addition, the percentage of black students attending Coral Springs High School as the result of the reassignment of students to J. P. Taravella High School will actually rise from six percent during the 1980-81 school year to nine percent during the 1981-82 school year. A complicating factor in the School Board's rezoning decision as it relates to these high schools was the problem of underenrollment at Ely High School and Pompano Beach High School. Ely High School has a physical plant capacity of 1,857, and Pompano Beach High School has a physical plant capacity of 1,921. During the 1979-80 school year, there were 1,172 students enrolled at Ely High School, and 1,793 enrolled at Pompano Beach High School. For the 1980- 81 school year there were 1,430 students enrolled at Ely and 1,634 students enrolled at Pompano Beach High School. During the 1980-81 school year, the student population of Ely High School was 53 percent black, and, under the rule being challenged in this cause, that percentage remained the same for the 1981-82 school year. Blacks comprised 14 percent of the student population at Pompano Beach High School during the 1980-81 school year, and that percentage fell only one percent under the school attendance zones being challenged in this proceeding. As previously indicated the population of the western portion of Broward County has markedly increased over the last several years. Most of the increase in school-age population in the western portion of the county is composed predominantly of white students. The black population in Broward County is concentrated in the eastern portion of Broward County. Consequently, in order to maintain the desired racial composition in the county schools, relieve overcrowded conditions in some of its schools, and, at the same time efficiently utilize the physical facilities of all its schools, it became necessary for the Board to make some extremely difficult policy choices. The choice ultimately made by the Board is reflected in the rule here being challenged. Petitioners Barton, Mascolo and Tripodi are each residents of the Sunflower-Heathgate section of the City of Tamarac, with children who, under the rule here in dispute, are assigned to Ely High School. Ely High School is located approximately 10-12 miles from the City of Tamarac, while the recently opened J. P. Taravella High School is approximately one and one-half to two miles away. Petitioners object to their children being assigned to Ely High School when they could more conveniently attend the newly opened J. P. Taravella High School, which is located much closer to their residences. Petitioners object to their children being subjected to a lengthy bus ride twice daily to and from Ely High School, and further assert that the children are unable to participate in after-school extracurricular activities because of the distances from their homes to their assigned schools. Although the School Board furnishes transportation in the form of an "activity bus," Petitioners assert that this mode of transportation is at best unreliable, and is, therefore, an unacceptable substitute for what they consider a more appropriate school assignment. The record reflects that the Tamarac area in which all Petitioners' residences are located has been zoned to attend Ely High School since approximately 1977. Consequently, the rule being challenged in this proceeding does not change the school assignments for these families from that which has been in existence for several years. However, J. P. Taravella High School has been in the planning stages for several years, and Petitioners' families had anticipated that upon completion of the new high school their children would no longer have to be bused to attend high school. In the process of adopting the rule challenged in this proceeding the Board conducted a series of public meetings which were well publicized and, as far as can be determined from the record, properly advertised in accordance with Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Petitioners submitted no evidence to indicate either any serious insufficiency in the notice procedures utilized by the Board, or any prejudice suffered by Petitioners in this regard. Finally, prior to adopting the challenged rule, the Board prepared an economic impact statement that, on its face, addressed all the requirements of Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. Although Petitioners disagree with the conclusions contained in the statute, there is no evidence in this record to ever suggest that the methodology used or the conclusions reached in the statement are in any way inaccurate.
The Issue Whether Respondent has committed an unlawful employment practice in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, and if so, what remedy should be ordered?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Caucasian male born December 30, 1952. At present he is 54 years old. Petitioner holds a bachelor's degree in criminology from Florida State University, which he obtained in 1976. He also holds a juris doctorate from Florida Coastal School of Law, obtained in December 1999. In between these two degrees, Petitioner's employment history, included with his application for employment with the School District, indicates that in 1976 he worked at Graham's Dairy farm; from 1979-1980, he worked in telephone communications doing telephone installation, repair, and telephone cable splicing for an unknown employer; and in 1981 he worked for GTE of Florida performing telephone installation and repair. In 1985 Petitioner was the operations manager for Ocala Mack Sales, handling small claims and tag and title work. In 1989, he returned to the telephone industry, splicing cable. There is no indication of the time frame or duration of each job. No credible explanation was given for the significant gaps in his work history, or the reasons for leaving the various jobs listed. Beginning in 1993, Petitioner substituted for a three- month period at Fort King Middle School in Ocala, Florida. This three-month period is the only experience in the education field that Petitioner possesses. That same year, Petitioner began taking additional classes at the community college level part time in an effort to go to medical school. He also stayed home caring for his children. When he was unsuccessful in getting admitted to medical school, he turned his efforts to law school. Beginning in 2001, after graduating from law school and passing the bar exam, Petitioner worked as an attorney for the Department of Children and Families. In April 2004, he resigned in lieu of termination.1/ After an eight-month period of unemployment, he was hired in November 2004 as a corrections officer with the Florida Department of Corrections, and remains in that position today. In 2004, Petitioner began applying for teaching positions in Marion County. To that end, he has applied for and received Statements of Status of Eligibility from the Florida Department of Education indicating that he is eligible for a temporary certificate in the areas of chemistry and biology, grades 6-12, for the period June 22, 2004, through June 22, 2007. The job description for a teaching position in the School District indicates that a candidate must have a bachelor's degree from an accredited institution and be certified by the State of Florida or have district vocational certification. School District Policy 6.10 requires that all personnel be appointed as prescribed by Florida Statutes and applicable rules of the School Board and the State Board of Education. The job description also lists the following in terms of required knowledge, skills and abilities: Knowledge of child growth and development, especially of characteristics of children in the age group assigned. Knowledge of prescribed curriculum. Knowledge of current educational research. Basic understanding and knowledge of use of current technology. Knowledge of learning styles and skill in using varied teaching methods to address student learning styles. Skill in oral and written communication with students, parents, and others. Ability to plan and implement activities for maximum effectiveness. Ability to effectively assess levels of student achievement, analyze test results, and prescribe actions for improvement. Ability to maintain appropriate student supervision so that students have a safe and orderly environment in which to learn. Ability to work effectively with peers, administrators, and others. Certification by the Department of Education in the subject matter to be taught is generally required. The School District may waive certification in a particular area only when there is a critical need for teachers in that area and there are no certified teachers available. Even in that instance, the School District usually looks for a closely related certification area. For example, when trying to fill special education positions, the School District will look first for applicants certified in reading if no one certified in special education is available. In addition to certification for individual subject areas, a teacher may obtain what is referred to as a middle grades integrated certification. Someone with this certification is preferred over other applicants in a middle school setting, because they can teach science, social studies, language arts and math, giving principals more flexibility in filling positions that might include teaching in more than one area. Petitioner does not hold a middle grades integrated certification. Petitioner has applied for 32 science teaching positions, two biology positions and one chemistry position in the School District. In addition to these 35 science-related positions, Petitioner has applied for 47 additional teaching positions in the reading and exceptional education, areas for which he understands there is a critical need, and in criminology and legal systems, areas where he believes he has practical experience. Because he is not certified in these areas, they would be considered out-of-field. Petitioner could only be considered for those positions in the event that there was no qualified and appropriately certified candidate available. He has also applied for approximately 50 other positions for which he is not certified. Petitioner has received five interviews for positions within the Marion County School District. He has received no offers of employment. The School District fills vacancies for teachers in several different ways. A person already working as a teacher in the School District may request a transfer, for example, to a different subject area for which they are qualified or to a different school. Under the teachers' collective bargaining agreement with the School District, that teacher is automatically considered as the preferred candidate for any vacancy consistent with their request, unless the principal at the hiring school presents a compelling reason why they should not be hired. Under these circumstances, no vacancy would be advertised. The School District also encourages applicants to participate at an annual district-wide Job Fair. At that Job Fair, principals at different levels (high school, middle school, elementary school) are available to conduct interviews. Candidates do not necessarily interview for particular positions; they interview with whatever principals are available. Finally, applicants may be called to interview with principals for openings at individual schools, should there not be a qualified applicant requesting a transfer or under "conditional contract" with the District. Conditional contracts will be discussed in more detail below. During interviews at the Job Fair, principals use standardized interview questions that have been approved by the School District. The standardized interview questions have eight categories of questions based upon qualities one would expect to find in a teacher: 1) likes kids; 2) dependable; 3) content knowledge; 4) ability to manage; 5) motivation; 6) positive attitude; 7) team player; and 8) communication. The interviewer selects a question from each category to ask the applicant, and awards one to three points per question, based on whether the answer exceeds expectations, meets expectations or does not meet expectations. The highest total score an applicant can receive based on his or her answers to these questions is 24. Principals may only choose from the questions provided. They may clarify a question should an applicant ask them to, but they may not ask other questions. If the principal is favorably impressed by an applicant and has a vacancy at his or her school in the area for which the applicant is certified, the principal may offer that applicant a position at the interview. If they have no such position available but think the candidate would be a good hire for the School District, they may offer what is referred to as a conditional contract. A conditional contract does not entitle the applicant to a job. However, as vacancies arise within the School District, if there are individuals with conditional contracts that are qualified for the vacancies, those individuals are referred to the hiring principal for consideration. The hiring principal chooses from among those candidates with conditional contracts, and if there is only one such candidate, he or she would, absent extraordinary circumstances, get the job. Petitioner participated in the School District's Job Fair in June 2006. He was interviewed by Lisa Krysalka, the principal at Belleview Middle School. When Petitioner appeared for his interview at the Job Fair, he was not wearing a suit and did not bring a resume. Ms. Krysalka's notes reflect that he did tell her he had served as a substitute 10 years before. Based on his answers to the standardized questions, Ms. Krysalka gave Petitioner an overall score of nine. She ranked his answers as not meeting expectations for eight out of nine questions. Her scoring was reasonable in light of the answers he gave. For example, when asked to describe his classroom management plan, Petitioner indicated that he had no plan because he did not have problems with discipline. When Petitioner was asked how he would get his students excited about entering the classroom, he stated that most kids are excited already, and he would have a plan (although unspecified) and stick to it. Other answers he gave were either not responsive to the questions asked or did not relate to a school setting or to work with children. Ms. Krysalka felt some of Petitioner's responses were unrealistic and showed that he was unprepared to teach middle school in today's climate. Ms. Krysalka's assessment is reasonable. Petitioner's answers to these standardized questions do not demonstrate that he possessed the knowledge, skills and abilities required to perform as a teacher in the Marion County School District. Petitioner interviewed at individual schools outside the purview of the Job Fair. None of those interviews resulted in offers for a teaching position. While Petitioner testified that he has applied for dozens of positions, he presented evidence regarding only seven of those positions. The qualifications for the successful candidates for the positions are listed below. Petitioner admitted at hearing that he had no personal knowledge as to the qualifications of any of these candidates. He simply felt that, given the number of positions for which he applied, the only reasonable explanation for his not getting a teaching position was his age. Matthew Bates was born in 1981, and is younger than Petitioner. He has a B.A. in history and is working on his master's degree in educational leadership. He has passed the M/J Integrated Certification exam. Bates was originally hired in September 2005 at Dunellen Middle School for a "split" position, teaching both seventh grade science and language arts. Mr. Bates requested and was granted a transfer within the School District under the collective bargaining agreement to fill a vacant seventh grade science position at the same school. Consistent with the School District's collective bargaining agreement, no other candidate was considered or interviewed. Petitioner has not established that he is equally qualified or more qualified than Mr. Bates for the position sought. Ronald Long was born in February 1981, and is younger than Petitioner. Mr. Long was selected for a science position at Forest High School. He holds a B.S. degree in biology; served as a substitute teacher for the School District during the 2003-2004 school year, and was an assistant and junior varsity basketball coach at Trinity Catholic High School during that time. Mr. Long's resume also indicates that he has worked with the Boy Scouts and several basketball teams at both the high school and college level. Based on his interview and experience, Milford Lankford, the principal at Forest High School, believed Long to be the better qualified candidate. Petitioner was interviewed for the position at Forest High School. At the time of his interview, Mr. Lankford was filling two positions in the science department. The first position was filled by Mr. Downs, who was 63 years old at the time he was hired. However, based on his interview, Mr. Lankford did not feel that Petitioner had the skills necessary to be successful in the classroom. His impression was confirmed after Petitioner interviewed with his assistant principal, Ms. Bounds. Mr. Lankford had eliminated Petitioner from consideration by the time he offered the second position to Mr. Long. In any event, his determination that Mr. Long was better qualified for the position is reasonable. David Mahfood, was born in 1983 and is younger than Petitioner. He was selected for a physics position at one of the high schools in the School District. The position required that the applicant be highly qualified in and certified to teach physics, and Mr. Mahfood met those qualifications. Petitioner is not certified in physics, as required for this position. Bret Mills, born in 1982, is also younger than Petitioner. He has a middle grades integrated certification. Mr. Mills holds a B.S. in animal biology and while his resume does not reflect any teaching experience, it does reflect experience working with children in church and little league, as well as working as a literacy program leader while at the University of Florida. Mr. Mills' certification was preferable for the position being advertised. Petitioner did not establish that he was equally or more qualified than the successful candidate for this position. Michael Orloff was hired for a seventh grade science position at West Port Middle School. Mr. Orloff was born in 1958, and is four years younger than Petitioner. He has a B.S. in marketing with a minor in chemistry. He was interviewed by Greg Dudley, the principal of West Port Middle School during the Job Fair. Based upon a favorable interview, he was offered a position at that school in accordance with School District policy. There is no evidence that Mr. Dudley even knew of Toms' application at the time that he offered Mr. Orloff the job. Mr. Richard Williams was born in 1971, and is younger than Petitioner. He was offered a position teaching science at Howard Middle School. Mr. Williams holds a B.S. degree in biology and a master's degree in environmental management. He also has experience as a resource teacher with Eckerd's Youth Alternatives and served in the Peace Corps as a forestry extension agent. Mr. Williams originally worked beginning in September 2005 as a substitute teacher at Howard Middle School. He participated in the 2006 Job Fair and interviewed with the incoming principal at Howard Middle School. Based on his outstanding scores on the Job Fair Interview, he was offered a job immediately. Petitioner was not a candidate brought to the attention of the hiring principal at the time of the Job Fair. As previously indicated, Petitioner's interview scores at the same Job Fair were not impressive. Unlike Petitioner, Mr. Williams' degrees and experience are in fields related to the area he was hired to teach. Mr. Williams was the more qualified candidate for the position for which he was hired. Finally, Kristen Wood was born in 1982 and is younger than Petitioner. She was hired to teach agriculture and biology. Ms. Wood graduated from the University of Florida with a major in agricultural education and had a teaching internship in agriculture. She was also certified to teach in both biology and agriculture, and had significant experience with the Florida Future Farmers of America Association. Petitioner is not certified in agriculture and had less experience related to education. Ms. Wood was the more qualified applicant for the position sought.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing Petitioner's complaint and denying Respondent's request for attorney's fees and costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of August, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of August, 2007.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(g) and (1)(j), Florida Statutes (2017), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(c)4.; and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses who testified, the evidence admitted in the record at the final hearing, and the documents officially recognized, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner is the agency head of the Florida Department of Education. Petitioner is responsible for investigating allegations of misconduct against individuals holding Florida educator certificates. Upon a finding of probable cause, Petitioner is responsible for filing an administrative complaint, and prosecuting the case in an administrative hearing pursuant to chapter 120, Florida Statutes, if the educator disputes the allegations. Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 878903, covering the areas of Athletic Coaching and Physical Education, which is valid through June 30, 2025. At the time of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as the athletic director at Evans High School (Evans) in the Orange County School District (District). Respondent was first employed by the District from 2004 to 2008, when he worked at Evans as a basketball coach and physical education teacher. He was re-employed by the District from 2014 until late in the 2017-2018 school year. He worked at Freedom High School (Freedom) as a physical education teacher and assistant athletic director through the end of the 2016-2017 school year. He then was employed at Evans as athletic director for most of the 2017-2018 school year. He resigned on April 5, 2018, pursuant to a settlement agreement with the School Board of Orange County (School Board), which is the District's governing body. Rolando Bailey was the assistant principal at Evans when Respondent was first employed there, and Mr. Bailey was the principal at Freedom when Respondent worked there through the end of the 2016-2017 school year. Mr. Bailey acknowledged "situations" during Respondent's earlier time at Evans and while at Freedom that involved "conflict" and "communications" issues with Respondent and required administrative intervention, but these problems were handled without involving the Employee Relations office (now called the Employee Standards office) to impose discipline. Mr. Bailey left Freedom to become principal at Evans beginning in the 2017-2018 school year. He thought Respondent would be a good candidate for the athletic director position at Evans, because Respondent was familiar with the community and Mr. Bailey thought he would be good at program building, which is what Mr. Bailey thought the athletic department needed. When Mr. Bailey made the move from Freedom to Evans, he brought not only Respondent with him, but also, at least 15 other administrators and teachers. This set a bit of an "us against them" tone between the existing faculty and staff at Evans and the Freedom transplants. Respondent and Mr. Bailey had a close working relationship. The perception among Evans personnel, based on observed interactions between Respondent and Mr. Bailey, was that they were also close personal friends. At the hearing, Mr. Bailey and Respondent both denied being close personal friends, but they were alumni of the same college, members of the same fraternity, and would frequently meet after regular school working hours. Mr. Bailey acknowledged these frequent meetings, although he said that they were work-related: "The role itself gave us the opportunity to talk outside of hours." (Tr. 200-01). These meetings did nothing to dispel the perception among Evans personnel that Mr. Bailey and Respondent were close personal friends. Evans presented challenges for Mr. Bailey as incoming principal. The school had not been performing well academically, with a "D" rating by the state, and he was intent on improving that performance. As for the athletic department, Mr. Bailey saw the need for "program building," noting that facilities were in disrepair and resources such as uniforms and equipment were scarce, resulting in a lack of school pride. Respondent's objective was to turn the Evans sports teams into winning programs. Respondent's charge was to "lead and direct" the athletic department and allow Mr. Bailey to focus on academics. However, Mr. Bailey made a commitment to the Evans coaches who were already in place when Mr. Bailey came over from Freedom. Mr. Bailey told the Evans coaches that the 2017- 2018 school year would be an evaluative year, and there would not be any changes made until after the end of the year. Mr. Bailey committed to personally participating in each coach's evaluation at year-end, along with Respondent, and Mr. Bailey would make the decision then regarding whether changes were needed to move in a different direction. Mr. Bailey was of the view that certain changes would be needed after the evaluative year. For example, he noted that several coaches held more than one head coaching position, which he generally disagreed with except for certain "related" sports, such as cross-country and track, which had separate seasons so one individual could be head coach of both. Mr. Bailey also was of the view that an individual should probably not serve as both a head coach and an administrative dean, although exceptions could be allowed and Mr. Bailey was willing to wait and see if individuals at Evans were handling it well.2 For the 2017-2018 "evaluative" school year, Mr. Bailey was willing— and had committed—to not make changes to conform the staffing to his views, and instead, to await year-end evaluations to make these decisions. Respondent expressed a different view, stating that if it had been up to him, he would have terminated all existing coaches when he started at Evans and he would have made them all reapply. But it was not up to Respondent, and Mr. Bailey's commitment stood. Respondent started working at Evans during the last few days of July 2017. He immediately implemented some changes in how the athletic 2 For example, Mr. Thompson was an administrative dean and head football coach at Evans for years before Mr. Bailey became principal and he remained in both positions after Mr. Bailey became principal. department was run. One change involved employing Ms. Woodard, who came over from Freedom with Mr. Bailey and the others, as assistant athletic director with the responsibility for inputting team roster information, including documenting compliant physicals and grade point averages (GPAs) for the students on the roster. This apparently had the effect of revealing students who were disqualified because they did not meet the minimum requirement of a 2.0 GPA. Previously, coaches were responsible for inputting their own team rosters. The claim asserted at hearing was that coaches were "padding" their rosters with disqualified students3 or inactive students.4 The motive suggested for "padding" a roster would be that for "minor" sports like cross-country, track, swimming, golf, and others, higher roster numbers could result in supplements being authorized for assistant coaching positions. A reduction in roster numbers could mean a reduction or loss of supplements, which could mean that assistant coaches would have to coach on a volunteer basis, or a head coach might have to do without, or without as many, assistant coaches. There was no competent credible evidence proving specific instances of wrongful or inappropriate roster padding.5 3 Respondent explained how students without qualifying GPAs might have been mistakenly listed on rosters showing qualifying GPAs. He acknowledged that coaches did not have access to detailed GPA data, and instead, might input a student's cumulative GPA as shown on the prior year's report card. However, that GPA might include grades for classes that were not eligible for purposes of meeting the minimum GPA required to participate in sports. 4 Ms. Bellamy, the girls' basketball head coach, said she discouraged "her" girls from going out for cross-country, because they "probably" would not be allowed to compete in meets. Her comments were more suggestive of a turf war than credible evidence of roster padding. 5 Several witnesses who were not at Evans until 2017-2018 offered their belief that roster padding occurred before the 2017-2018 school year. The credible testimony established only that when rosters were prepared or updated under Respondent's system beginning in August 2017, inputting updated GPAs resulted in some students being disqualified. Ms. Woodard, who implemented the new system, admitted she was not sure how many supplements were lost or in which sport. She thought cross-country may have lost supplements, but then said the sport previously had four or six supplements and that it had four supplements after she updated the rosters. Whitney Poole claimed that rosters had been padded the previous year, but she did not explain how she could have known that, since she was not at Evans before August 2017, and then was only a math teacher. She did not have any position in the athletic department before January 2018 when she became an assistant coach. In general, Ms. Poole was not a credible witness, and with one exception, her testimony was not credited. Sheree Carter Sheree Carter was a coach and administrative dean at Evans in 2017- 2018, when Mr. Bailey, Respondent, and others came to Evans from Freedom. She had been employed at Evans since 2012. She remains employed at Evans to this day. During the 2016-2017 school year, Ms. Carter held the following positions at Evans: administrative dean over attendance; head coach of girls' cross-country and girls' track; and assistant coach for girls' weightlifting. Ms. Carter was slated for those same positions headed into the 2017-2018 school year. Ms. Carter took comfort from Mr. Bailey's assurance that no changes would be made until he made the decisions after personally participating in the year-end evaluations. Ms. Carter testified that she met Respondent at the end of July, during the two-week pre-planning period before classes started. Within a week or two after they met, Respondent started saying things to let her know that he was interested in her. He made her uncomfortable, and she rebuffed his advances. But rather than discouraging his comments, the intensity and frequency of Respondent's advances escalated. Ms. Carter testified that Respondent would walk by her office, which was at the back of the front office, and he would poke his head in to see if anyone else was with her. Respondent never came into her office if someone else was with her; he waited until she was alone, and then he would come in. His conversation opener was that he was recently divorced and was trying to get his feet wet getting back into the dating game. She responded by saying okay, cool, good luck with that. Respondent then started coming by Ms. Carter's office to ask if she wanted to grab lunch together or come eat lunch in his office. She declined each time he asked. After the rebuffed lunch offers, Respondent started asking Ms. Carter if she wanted to go to the movies with him or grab drinks after work. Again, she turned him down each time. Respondent's next approach was to let Ms. Carter know that he had a sofa in his office, followed by repeated invitations to Ms. Carter to hang out and chill with him on the sofa in his office. These invitations were conveyed with a personal, intimate air. Ms. Carter always turned down these advances and let Respondent know she was uncomfortable with what he was asking. Respondent approached Ms. Carter with these advances not only when she was alone in her office, but also, on the practice fields and in the hallways or courtyard, if she was alone. Respondent only approached Ms. Carter to make these advances when no one else was around.6 Ms. Carter described it as "creepy," like "in a stalking type of way. Like he would just wait for that right moment to approach you when you're by yourself and then throw these advances at me." (Tr. 74). Respondent's stalking-type behavior and frequent approaches affected Ms. Carter's ability to do her job. She delayed or avoided communicating with Respondent about coaching matters, despite needing to communicate with the athletic director. She would check hallways before freely moving around to make sure Respondent was not present, and she took to closing her office door to give the impression she was not there. Ms. Carter's testimony was credible and clear. Her demeanor was earnest and believable. In contrast, Respondent's testimony regarding the advances claimed by Ms. Carter lacked credibility. Respondent was evasive. He frequently avoiding a direct answer to the question, as illustrated by the following: Q: And did you invite her to your office to chill? A: I was hardly ever in the office. I mean, so, it's very hard to chill in there. I was very, very on the go. I was very, very on the go. You know, Mr. Bailey was big on the look and appearance. So there was stuff always that needed to be done with the field and 6 Mr. Bailey testified that he never observed Respondent engage in sexual harassment, but conceded that sexual harassment is not normally something that he sees people doing out in the open. with the cosmetics. So I was hardly ever in the office. The only time I was in the office if I had to be [sic]. But I was hardly ever in the office, so I definitely couldn't be there just to chill because it was just too much work to do. (Tr. 324). * * * Q: Did you ever invite her to eat lunch in your office? A: I never ate lunch. It's hard for me to eat lunch because I had lunch duty and we had three lunches. So, when am I going to eat lunch when I'm constantly being fussed at by Mr. Bailey about not answering e-mails. Because I was never in my office so my e-mails were forwarded to Ms. Woodard so I didn't have to hear from him about why I don't answer e-mails. So I never ate lunch during the day. (Tr. 327). Respondent avoided answering the questions posed—whether he ever invited Ms. Carter to chill or eat lunch in his office. Respondent danced around the subject, never denying or refuting Ms. Carter's clear testimony that he had, in fact, invited her multiple times to eat lunch in his office and to chill on the sofa in his office, but she turned him down each time. Respondent did deny that he had asked Ms. Carter to go to the movies7 or out for drinks with him, but he offered weak explanations, which were not persuasive, for why he would not have extended these invitations. When asked if he ever asked Ms. Carter to go to the movies with him, he responded: "No. I was too busy to be trying to go to the movies and live in a whole different county and try to work. You know, Evans was an hour and 20 minutes away. Freedom was 38. So there's no time to go to the movies. Especially with a person you don't know, you know." (Tr. 325-26). And when 7 Ms. Poole, a witness for Respondent who generally went out of her way attempting to testify favorably for Respondent, said that she had been friendly with Ms. Carter at the beginning of the 2017-2018 school year. Ms. Poole admitted that during this time, Ms. Carter told Ms. Poole that Respondent had asked her out to the movies. To that extent, Ms. Poole's testimony was credible, and it corroborated Ms. Carter's testimony. asked if he ever asked Ms. Carter out for a drink, he said: "No, because I don't drink. … I just never had a drink, never smoked. So I don't drink. And because I don't drink, I'm not going to invite somebody out to watch them drink. So." (Tr. 326-27). Respondent's testimony on these points was less credible than Ms. Carter's testimony, and her testimony is credited. Ms. Carter testified that her discomfort with Respondent's advances came to a head at a soccer game, when he approached her and once again asked her out for drinks, and she got upset. She said that she blew up, emphatically reiterating (punctuated with curse words) that she had told him before she was not interested and expressing her frustration that he had not yet accepted the message that she wanted him to stop making advances at her. This was on a weeknight during the week of December 4, 2017. On Friday, December 8, 2017, Respondent went to Ms. Carter's office and told her: (1) that she was immediately removed, mid-season, from the assistant coach position for weightlifting, though she could keep the supplement; (2) that they would be moving in a different direction and she would no longer be head coach for girls' cross-country (which had ended its season one month earlier); and (3) that they would evaluate her position as head coach for girl's track after the spring. Respondent told Ms. Carter that he and Mr. Bailey had made these decisions because Mr. Bailey did not want her coaching and serving as an administrative dean at the same time.8 Ms. Carter was very upset because she loves coaching. She broke down crying and was so distraught, she was unable to perform her job duties to supervise during either lunch periods that day. Ms. Carter believed that 8 Respondent admitted to delivering this news to Ms. Carter, although he said it was in a routine meeting in his office that he had scheduled to give Ms. Carter her end-of-season evaluation for coaching girls' cross-country (conflicting with Mr. Bailey's clear testimony that he always participated in evaluations, which were done at the end of the year). Curiously, Respondent testified that his evaluation had no meaning, and its only purpose was to give coaches something for possible future employers wanting to see evaluations. Respondent failed to explain, if the meeting was only to address a meaningless end-of-season evaluation for one sport, why he used the occasion to deliver meaningful consequences or why he addressed more than that one sport. Respondent took this action to retaliate against her because she had rebuffed his advances, particularly after her strong rebuke of him earlier that week. Up to this point, Ms. Carter had confided in two different colleagues regarding Respondent's advances and her discomfort with them, but she had not lodged a formal complaint against Respondent with Mr. Bailey. She was concerned that Mr. Bailey would take Respondent's side in a dispute because of their longstanding relationship and apparent close personal friendship. Previously, when she had confided in Mr. Thompson, he had told her she should talk to Respondent regarding her discomfort, but she had tried that repeatedly. When she confided again in Mr. Thompson upon being reduced to tears on December 8, 2017, this time he told her she should not be talking with colleagues rather than going through proper channels, and he urged her to file a complaint. Ms. Carter followed that advice, submitting a complaint in an email to Mr. Bailey, which she sent to him just after midnight, very early on Monday morning, December 11, 2017. She asked if she could meet with Mr. Bailey to discuss what Respondent had told her regarding her coaching responsibilities and her concern that Respondent had taken this action because she had turned down his advances. Directly contradicting Respondent's claim, Mr. Bailey testified that he did not make the decision to remove Ms. Carter from her coaching duties during the 2017-2018 school year, nor did he direct Respondent to tell Ms. Carter in December—in the middle of the "evaluative year"—that she could not remain as coach and administrative dean.9 Instead, as he had committed to do at the beginning of the year, Mr. Bailey waited until the end of the school year to have the conversation with Ms. Carter about changes going forward. At that time, he informed her that he did not want her to continue in the dual roles of coaching and administrative dean in the 2018- 9 When Mr. Bailey found out that Respondent had that conversation with Ms. Carter on December 8, 2017, he had a meeting with Respondent to find out why he did that. 2019 school year. Ms. Carter wanted to remain in coaching to continue building her programs. With Mr. Bailey's agreement, she gave up the administrative dean position and returned to classroom teaching the next school year so she could continue coaching. Mr. Bailey was a witness for Respondent and he attempted to be supportive of Respondent in his testimony. However, Mr. Bailey clearly and directly contradicted Respondent's claim that he had instructed Respondent to remove Ms. Carter from coaching on December 8, 2017. Mr. Bailey was surprised by Ms. Carter's email reporting that Respondent had done so and had attributed the decision to Mr. Bailey. After meeting with Ms. Carter, Mr. Bailey reported Ms. Carter's complaint to the Employee Relations office for investigation.10 In contrast to the "situations" involving Respondent when he was first at Evans and again while at Freedom, which were handled by administrative interventions without involving Employee Relations, this time Mr. Bailey found it necessary to involve Employee Relations. Jamila Mitchell Jamila Mitchell, Ph.D., also provided testimony regarding inappropriate statements and conduct by Respondent that made her feel very uncomfortable and that interfered with her doing her job. Dr. Mitchell has been working at Evans since 2014. Her doctorate degree is in computer science. She has been the computer science instructor at Evans and the sports media sponsor. She held those two positions during the 2017-2018 school year. She was not a coach or assistant coach. As sports media sponsor, Dr. Mitchell is involved in all sports-related media, including film, photography, social media, and the school's website. 10 Two separate investigations were initiated: the first addressed alleged sexual harassment and retaliation by Respondent, pursuant to the District's responsibilities under civil rights laws as Ms. Carter's employer not to commit unlawful employment practices. When that investigation was completed with a finding of probable cause to believe there was sexual harassment, Mr. Ganio, then-manager of the District's Employee Relations office, completed an investigation into whether Respondent had engaged in misconduct, which would provide just cause for the School Board to take action against him as a District employee. Her responsibilities include managing sports-related website content and ensuring information is disseminated for all sports-related events. She must keep up with schedules, rosters, college recruiting activities, and events such as college scholarship signing days and awards banquets. Frequent communications with the Evans athletic director are essential to her job duties, at least by the time sports activities are in full swing after the first couple of weeks of each school year. Dr. Mitchell testified that beginning in September 2017, when her job required her to be in frequent communications with Respondent, he started saying and doing things that made Dr. Mitchell uncomfortable. On several occasions, Respondent referred to Dr. Mitchell as his "little Mexican." Dr. Mitchell is not Mexican. Respondent would say this when passing her in the hallway, if they were both at a game or event, or when he came to her classroom. Sometimes she was alone when he said this, but sometimes other people overheard what Respondent said. She was offended by Respondent's words, and also, uncomfortable having to explain to others who heard Respondent call her his little Mexican that she was not Mexican, but was biracial. Despite taking offense, she tried to ignore it or laugh it off. Respondent frequently came by Dr. Mitchell's classroom during her planning period when she was the only one there. At least initially, they would discuss sports media matters. But then the conversations would turn to Respondent telling Dr. Mitchell that he "liked the way her butt looked" in the pants she was wearing that day, or how whatever she was wearing accentuated some part of her body. She tried to change the subject back to work, but his comments made her feel weird and "creeped out." Respondent's frequent comments about her clothing and body impeded communications regarding sports media issues. Respondent's comments also caused Dr. Mitchell to stop wearing form-fitting clothing, pants that were a little bit tight, or shirts cut a little bit low.11 She began wearing loose clothing and when Respondent came by her classroom, she stayed seated behind her desk so he would not comment on "how her butt looked." Her discomfort and worries distracted from needed communications and interfered with getting the job done. It got to the point where Dr. Mitchell avoided communicating in person with Respondent, resorting to communicating by text or phone call. Dr. Mitchell described the "tipping point" for her was when she was walking through a courtyard to go to the front office and Respondent was coming out of the front office. Dr. Mitchell was wearing her hair down (loose), which she rarely did. When they passed in the courtyard, Respondent commented that he liked it when she wore her hair down because it gave him something to grab onto. There were other people in the courtyard—teachers and students—and Dr. Mitchell testified that she just prayed that nobody heard what Respondent said to her. She was highly embarrassed by what she reasonably interpreted as a sexual reference. Dr. Mitchell did not immediately complain about Respondent's inappropriate conduct, in part because she was embarrassed, but also, because she did not know to whom she could complain. She had seen how Mr. Bailey interacted with Respondent, and observed that they seemed to have a very friendly, personal relationship. She was concerned that if she said anything, it would be her job on the line. But when she was contacted by an investigator looking into Sheree Carter's complaint, who had been told that Respondent may have also harassed Dr. Mitchell, she spoke with the 11 Respondent suggested in his PRO that Dr. Mitchell should be faulted for her choice of attire in a school "full of hormonal high school students that most likely has a dress code, stated or implied, for teachers." (Resp. PRO at 28). No credible evidence supports a finding that Dr. Mitchell's attire was provocative, inappropriate, or contrary to any dress code, and none was cited. Respondent's argument is, in effect, that Dr. Mitchell "asked for it"—a classic means to deflect blame and excuse inappropriate sexual conduct, which is, or should be, a relic of the past. Respondent's veiled hint that Dr. Mitchell asked for it is tantamount to a concession that "it" occurred, necessitating an excuse for his behavior. There is no excuse. investigator and provided the same information about Respondent's offensive conduct to which she testified at the hearing. Dr. Mitchell was very credible and genuinely distraught as she described these uncomfortable encounters with Respondent. As with Ms. Carter's specific complaints, Respondent denied (or gave evasive, less-than-clear answers) that he said or did the things described by Dr. Mitchell.12 Respondent's testimony was not as credible as Dr. Mitchell's testimony. Dr. Mitchell's testimony is credited. Jessica Kendrick Jessica Kendrick was the head swim coach at Evans, coaching both the boys' and girls' swim teams, from 2013 through the 2018-2019 school year. Her testimony was fairly narrow in scope, but clear and to the point: when Respondent was the head of the athletics department in the 2017-2018 school year, he made her uncomfortable by standing very close whenever they talked with no one else nearby—that is, when there were no witnesses. Ms. Kendrick is five feet, eight inches in height. Respondent is six feet, one inch tall. He used his height advantage to intimidate Ms. Kendrick, making her feel like he was towering over her when he stood very close and looked down at her. Ms. Kendrick's vivid description was that Respondent would be standing so close to her that she could tell what he had for lunch. Ms. Kendrick's reaction to these close encounters was to back up to create space between Respondent and herself. But Respondent would quickly move forward to close the space she had created. She would inch back again; he would inch toward her to close the gap again. Respondent made Ms. Kendrick feel very uncomfortable. 12 In contrast, the investigative summary of the District's investigation into Ms. Carter's sexual harassment complaint reported that Respondent stated he "does not recall if he made inappropriate comments to [Dr.] Mitchell." (Pet. Ex. 14, Bates p. 35). Although statements of non-party witnesses reported in the investigative summary are hearsay, and thereby limited in use to supplementing or explaining competent evidence, Respondent's statements reported in the investigative summary that was offered against him are party admissions, excepted from hearsay, and admissible for all purposes. See § 90.803(18)(a), Fla. Stat. Ms. Kendrick had been the head swim head coach at Evans for four years before Respondent became athletic director. He made her so uncomfortable when they spoke in person that she went out of her way to avoid him. She told the two assistant swim coaches, Mr. Rivers and Mr. Ross, about her discomfort with Respondent. She asked her assistants to take her place for in-person meetings or discussions with Respondent so she could avoid any more uncomfortable close encounters with Respondent. It affected her job; communications with the athletic director were necessary for her to function effectively as head coach. Ms. Kendrick testified that rather than having to interact with Respondent, if Respondent had continued on as athletic director at Evans, she would have given up the head coaching position. Instead, Respondent resigned, and Ms. Kendrick decided to remain head swim coach at Evans for the 2018-2019 school year. Respondent testified that he had no idea what Ms. Kendrick was talking about. Ms. Kendrick's testimony was more credible than Respondent's and is credited. At the hearing, Respondent made the blanket statement that all the witnesses testifying against him were lying. He claimed that Ms. Carter and Ms. Kendrick were lying to get back at him for changing the procedures to prevent roster padding and costing them coaching supplements.13 He claimed that their colleagues, in whom they had confided and who corroborated their testimony, were also lying. Respondent's attempted attacks on the credibility 13 Ironically, the suggestion that Ms. Carter was mad because she lost supplements as a result of the changed roster procedures was contradicted by Respondent's own testimony. As for her head coaching positions, Respondent testified that head coaches receive supplemental pay irrespective of roster numbers. Ms. Carter might have lost those supplements as a result of Respondent's unauthorized attempt to remove Ms. Carter from cross-country head coach and to threaten removal from track, had those actions stood, but they were reversed by Mr. Bailey. As for the supplement Ms. Carter received as assistant weightlifting coach, Respondent admitted that when he told Ms. Carter she was relieved of her assistant coaching duties mid-season, he told her she could retain the supplement. Respondent's actions had nothing to do with supplements or rosters; Respondent acted to retaliate against Ms. Carter for rebuffing his repeated advances. of the witnesses testifying against him were not persuasive and did not undermine their clear, credible testimony. Most notably, although Respondent claimed some witnesses had a motive to lie to get back at him because of lost coaching supplements, no such motive was or could be attributed to Dr. Mitchell. Dr. Mitchell was not a coach or an assistant coach. Respondent offered no cogent theory to explain why Dr. Mitchell would fabricate her testimony. Respondent's accusation that Dr. Mitchell's testimony was invented does not square with her display of emotions at the hearing. She was visibly shaken and crying when she described her embarrassment with Respondent's sexual innuendos, and when she explained why she did not complain about Respondent at the time. Ulunda Frazier The pattern of behavior evident from the complaints of Ms. Carter, Dr. Mitchell, and Ms. Kendrick is further buttressed, at least generally, by court records regarding Ulunda Frazier and Respondent. Ms. Frazier is a teacher. At the time pertinent to this case, she taught at Oak Ridge High School (Oak Ridge), within the District. At the hearing, Respondent described Ms. Frazier as a longtime personal friend he has known for 15 or 16 years. He said Ms. Frazier used to babysit for Respondent's 15-year-old son when the teenager was an infant and toddler. Respondent admitted that his personal relationship with Ms. Frazier had turned "toxic." He did not offer any details to explain in what way the relationship turned toxic. Instead, alluding to a close intimate relationship gone bad, he said only that his relationship with Ms. Frazier "had become toxic and out of control that was actually birthed out of both of our pains. We -- she was going through an ugly divorce and I was going through my treatments and stuff. And so the relationship had just got toxic and it had -- it was no longer a friendly environment." (Tr. 351). Court records in Frazier v. Crawford, Case No. 48-2018-DR-000923-O, in the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County, Florida, were officially recognized. The records reflect that on January 24, 2018, Ms. Frazier filed a Petition for Injunction Against Stalking under section 784.0485, Florida Statutes, seeking to enjoin Respondent from stalking her. That same day, the court issued a Temporary Injunction for Protection Against Stalking. On January 25, 2018, the Polk County Sheriff's Office served the Temporary Injunction, Ms. Frazier's Petition, and a Notice of Hearing on Respondent at his residence. The hearing was scheduled for February 6, 2018, and was held as noticed. Both Ms. Frazier and Respondent attended. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court issued a Final Judgment of Injunction for Protection Against Stalking (Stalking Injunction). Respondent received a copy by hand delivery in open court, as acknowledged by his signature on the Stalking Injunction. He is therefore "deemed to have knowledge of and to be bound by all matters occurring at the hearing and on the face of" the Stalking Injunction. (Pet. Ex. 18, Bates p. 51-52). The Stalking Injunction contains the following finding: "After hearing the testimony of each party present and of any witnesses, or upon consent of Respondent, the Court finds, based on the specific facts of this case, that Petitioner is a victim of stalking."14 (Pet. Ex. 18, Bates p. 47). On that basis, the Stalking Injunction ordered as follows: "Respondent shall not commit, or cause any other person to commit, any acts of stalking against Petitioner, including stalking, cyberstalking, aggravated stalking, or any criminal offense resulting in physical injury or death. Respondent shall not commit any other violation of the injunction through an intentional unlawful threat, word or act to do violence to Petitioner." (Pet. Ex. 18, Bates p. 50). The Stalking Injunction is in effect until February 26, 2021. 14 "A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree[.]" § 784.048(2), Fla. Stat. (2017). Section 784.0485 creates a cause of action for a person who is a victim of stalking to obtain an injunction for protection against stalking. The Administrative Complaint alleged that the Stalking Injunction "reduced Respondent's effectiveness as an athletic director because it limited his ability to travel to that school and perform his duties." The terms of the Stalking Injunction do not support this allegation. While the Stalking Injunction generally and broadly prohibited Respondent from having any contact with Ms. Frazier, including at Oak Ridge where she worked and at her residence (both of which were in Orlando), there is an express exception to the no-contact prohibition, as follows: "The Respondent may go to Oakridge [sic] High School only for a valid business reason. If any contact occurs, it shall be non-hostile contact." (Pet. Ex. 18, Bates p. 49). In several respects, however, the Stalking Injunction contradicts Respondent's testimony. Respondent denied that he would have made advances on Ms. Carter because he was married and had been married to the same woman since 2010. Yet his close personal relationship with Ms. Frazier predated his marriage by five or six years. Respondent testified that Ms. Frazier babysat for Respondent's 15-year-old son when the teenager was an infant. The fact that Respondent got married to someone else five years later did not prevent Respondent from engaging in a first "friendly" and then "toxic" close relationship with Ms. Frazier, or from stalking Ms. Frazier before the Stalking Injunction was issued against him on February 6, 2018. Whatever the details may be regarding Respondent's stalking of Ms. Frazier, it is noteworthy that she lived and worked in Orlando. This belies Respondent's claim that he could not have harassed Ms. Carter with the repeated advances she described, because he would not have had time to go to the movies or out for drinks near where he worked in Orange County. He attempted to paint the picture that he spent every moment in Orange County working or commuting to and from his home in distant Polk County. The Stalking Injunction stands as evidence that, contrary to Respondent's claim, in addition to working at Evans and commuting to and from Polk County, Respondent found time to have a first friendly, then toxic relationship with Ms. Frazier and to stalk Ms. Frazier where she lived and worked in Orange County. Respondent's Separation from the District The investigation into Ms. Carter's complaint identified individuals who were potential witnesses with relevant information or possible victims. After conducting interviews, the District held a pre-determination meeting on March 7, 2018, to share with Respondent the information learned during the investigation and give him an opportunity to respond. Respondent appeared with a union representative, who instructed him not to respond. On March 27, 2018, Respondent was suspended from work with pay while the District completed its investigation. This "Relief of Duty" status is employed when warranted by the seriousness of the allegations. "Relief of Duty" included an immediate suspension of network access, including email. During the process of completing the investigation, the District discovered a new allegation of inappropriate conduct by Respondent. The District learned of Ms. Frazier's Petition and the resulting Stalking Injunction. It held a second pre-determination meeting on April 3, 2018, to inform Respondent that it had learned about the Stalking Injunction. Again, Respondent was given the chance to respond, but again, he refused to say anything on advice of his union representative. On the same day as the second pre-determination meeting, Barbara Jenkins, the District Superintendent, issued a memorandum to the School Board, transmitting a complaint charging Respondent with misconduct in office and conduct unbecoming a public employee, and recommending that Respondent be terminated from employment for the charged violations. Immediately after the complaint and recommendation for termination were released, Respondent negotiated and finalized a Settlement Agreement and General Release (Agreement) with the School Board. The Agreement expressly stated that it was not to be construed as an admission by Respondent or the District of any wrongdoing. Nonetheless, pursuant to the Agreement, Respondent was required to resign as of April 5, 2018, and to tender a written letter of resignation. Pursuant to the Agreement, Respondent agreed "he will not reapply for or accept employment [at a District school] at any time in the future." Respondent also acknowledged that the District would be submitting its investigation into Respondent's alleged misconduct to the Department of Education Professional Practices Commission, as required by section 1012.796(1)(d), Florida Statutes. In form and substance, the Agreement is a common vehicle utilized for resignation of an employee in lieu of the employee having to answer to charges and face the prospect of termination. Respondent attempted to suggest that his resignation was purely voluntary, based on his decision that he did not want to work in a place where people would lie about him. His claim was not credible. Respondent fully understood when he took the position at Evans, along with at least 15 others brought over from Freedom by Mr. Bailey, that there would be an "us against them" air that he would have to overcome. Mr. Bailey attempted to set the stage for developing good relationships with existing Evans coaches and other staff, by deeming the first year an "evaluative year" in which there would not be any position changes until the evaluative year was discussed with Mr. Bailey, Respondent, and the coach at the end of the year. Respondent knew that Evans had challenging problems to overcome, with scarce resources in terms of facilities, equipment, and uniforms, and that he was expected to build winning programs and instill school pride. He knew he was expected to put in place the systems, policies, and procedures that would allow for program building, and he was well aware that his changes would be unpopular with some. It defies logic and credibility for Respondent to suggest that he chose to walk away from his commitment before completing one school year only because existing Evans coaches and assistant coaches were lying about him. Mr. Bailey acknowledged that, as principal, he was compelled to let the investigation process be carried out. As he put it: "[W]hat I performed is my role as a principal. That when there's conduct that's unbecoming of an employee, or an employee feeling as if they have been, in this case, harassed, I'm going to follow the guidance that has been presented to me in my role as the leader of the school." (Tr. 209). He acknowledged that at the culmination of that process, when it was reported to him, he followed the guidance that he was supposed to follow, and as a result, Respondent was no longer at his school.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission issue a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating section 1012.795(1)(j) through a violation of rule 6A-10.081(2)(c)4., and imposing the following as penalties: suspension of Respondent's educator's certificate for a period of three years from the date of the final order; probation for a period of three years after the suspension, with conditions to be determined by the Education Practices Commission, which should include a requirement that Respondent take two college level courses, one in professional ethics for educators and one related to women's rights in the workplace; and payment of a $750.00 fine. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of January, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Carol R. Buxton, Esquire Florida Education Association 1516 East Hillcrest Street, Suite 109 Orlando, Florida 32803 Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of January, 2021. Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Lisa M. Forbess, Interim Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's tentative decision to attempt to negotiate with Intervenor a contract for services as a construction manager at risk is contrary to statutes, rules, policies, or the request for qualifications, in violation of Section 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact In 2001, Respondent began to investigate various options for the construction of Jensen Beach High School and reconstruction of Port Salerno Elementary School. The recent, sudden departure of Respondent's Director of Facilities and several of his employees left Respondent with few employees sufficiently experienced to deal with a general contractor constructing substantial projects, such as the construction of these two schools. Respondent thus considered the use of a construction manager and construction manager at risk (CMAR) contract. Under these types of contracts, Respondent would hire a construction manager to serve as its representative in entering into contracts with subcontractors and suppliers. Although not relevant to this case, the CMAR contract imposes upon the construction manager greater risks for increased construction costs. Initially, Superintendent Wilcox and School Board Attorney Griffin investigated the CMAR form of contract. After they had decided to recommend the use of a CMAR, on January 14, 2002, Respondent hired Rodger Osborne as the new Director of Facilities, and Mr. Osborne assumed from them the primary responsibility for investigating and later implementing the CMAR procurement in this case. Immediately prior to his employment with Respondent, Mr. Osborne had been the Director of Maintenance and Operations for the Charlotte County School District. In this capacity, Mr. Osborne managed construction, maintenance, and operations for the school district. Among his duties was the procurement of construction contracts. The Charlotte County School District has used the CMAR form of contract seven or eight times. Managing the process, Mr. Osborne borrowed provisions and procedures from various sources, including state statutes and provisions used by Sarasota County. Four days after Mr. Osborne began employment with Respondent, Mr. Griffin submitted a memorandum to the Martin County School Board in which he recommended that it approve the use of a CMAR for the construction of Jensen Beach High School and Port Salerno Elementary School. Eight days after Mr. Osborne began employment with Respondent, the Martin County School Board approved Mr. Griffin's recommendation and authorized Respondent to advertise for applicants to serve as the CMAR for these projects. Mr. Osborne's first task as Director of Facilities was to prepare the legal advertisement. On January 28, 2002--two weeks after Mr. Osborne had started working for Respondent--a local newspaper published the first of three legal advertisements for submittals from interested parties. The advertisement states: MARTIN COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS will select a qualified Construction Manager at Risk under the Consultants' Competitive Negotiation Act to provide preconstruction and construction services for the Port Salerno Elementary Replacement School and Jensen Beach High School. The School District will award both projects to a single Construction Manager at Risk. Firms interested in being considered are requested to submit a letter of interest, resumes of key personnel who would be used on the project, proof of professional liability insurability as required by Martin County Public Schools and a copy of Florida Registration Certification. Each applicant must submit a completed Professional Qualification Supplement (PQS). Copies of the PQS Format and project information are available through the Facilities Department by calling [telephone number omitted]. All data must be current as of date of submission and received no later than 4 P.M. February 15, 2002. Submissions to be received by: Director of Facilities Martin County Public Schools 500 East Ocean Stuart, Fl. 34994 Anticipated award date is, March 19, 2002, with work to begin immediately. Estimated construction cost of $43,500,000. In accordance with School Board Rule 6Gx43-8.01, the Professional Services Selection Committee will rank the top three (3) firms and submit the ranking of firms to the Superintendent and School Board. MARTIN COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Dr. Sara Wilcox, Superintendent Fifteen potential applicants timely submitted responses to the advertisement. Mr. Osborne supplied each of these applicants a package consisting of another copy of the advertisement and "Guidelines for Selection of Construction Manager at Risk for Martin County Schools" (Guidelines). The Guidelines state: Complete all items of the Professional Qualifications Statement (PQS) for Construction Manager at Risk. Submit not less than three copies of the PQS along with any supporting information to Director of Facilities, Martin County Public Schools, 500 East Ocean, Stuart, Fl 34994. SHORT LIST Within approximately seven (7) days after the submission date of 4 P.M. February 15, 2002, for the purpose of reducing the number of applicants qualifying for interviews to no more than six (6), a short list committee will be formed. The Short List Committee will include one School Board Member, one Superintendent's designee, one representative from Operation Services, one Program Staff Member, the Director of Facilities and Supervisor of Construction. The Director of Facilities will serve as chairperson. The following criteria and point values will be used to determine a number rating for each applicant: Letter of Interest 0 points [PQS] 0 points Certified Minority Business 5 points Location 1-5 points Current Work Load 0-10 points Capability 0-10 points Professional Accomplishments 0-10 points Up to six (6) firms with the highest rankings will be interviewed by the Professional Services Selection (Ranking) Committee. The package supplied to potential applicants contained blank scoring sheets with specific points assigned to different factual scenarios. The package also contained a fact sheet describing each of the schools to be constructed and a set of forms seeking specific information; the forms were part of the Professional Qualification Statement for Construction Manager At Risk (PQS). PQS Paragraph E states: RELATED EXPERIENCE List the three (3) projects in the last five (5) years for which your firm has provided/is providing construction management and/or general contracting services which are most similar in scope to this project. In determining which projects are more related, consider: related size and complexity; how many members of the proposed team worked on the listed project; and how recently the project was completed. List the projects in priority order, with the most related project listed first. The PQS form provides one box that asks for specific information about the three listed projects, such as the size, type of construction, and construction cost. The PQS form supplies another box for a "detailed description of projects." PQS Paragraph F requires the disclosure, for each of the three projects, the owner budget, final budget, schedule status, and impact of firm on the final results. PQS Paragraph G states: PROPOSED TEAM Describe your proposed organization structure for this program indicating key personnel and their relationship to this project and other team members. Give brief resumes of key persons to be assigned to the program. The PQS form provides one box for office staff and one box for onsite staff. Each box asks for specific information about the listed key personnel, such as the percentage of time they will be assigned fulltime to the subject projects; their experience in terms of "types of projects, size of projects, [and] project responsibilities"; and "other experience and qualifications relevant to this project." Mentioned in the legal advertisement, although not included in the package, Respondent's Rule 6Gx43-8.01 provides: FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS 6Gx43-8.01 Professional Services Professional Service Contracts between the Board and architects, engineers and surveyors shall follow the following procedures if the basic construction cost for the project is estimated to be greater than $120,000 or if the fee for professional service for planning or study is estimated to exceed $8,500 (except valid emergencies so certified by the Superintendent of Schools): Publicly announce each project indicating: general project description how interested parties can apply Certify firms or individuals wishing to provide professional services while considering: General Services Administration Forms 254 and 255. Past performance Willingness to meet requirements of: time budget availability--planning-- construction ability to furnish required service Firm's workload in relation to job under construction. Volume of work previously awarded to the firm. A committee, comprised of the Superintendent of Schools and/or his/her designee, appropriate staff members, and an annually appointed School Board Members [sic] shall recommend to the School Board a minimum of three (3) "certified" firms or individuals which shall be recommended in order of preference 1, 2, and 3, with the object of effecting an equitable distribution of contracts, providing the selection of the most highly qualified firm is not violated. The School Board, or its designee, shall negotiate a contract with the most qualified firm for professional services at compensation which the School Board, or its designee, determines if fair, competitive, and reasonable. In making such determination, a detailed analysis of the cost of professional services shall be conducted in addition to considering the scope and complexity of the services required for the project. Should the School Board, or its designee, be unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract with the firm considered to be the most qualified at a price the School Board, or its designee, determines to be fair, competitive and reasonable, negotiation with that firm shall be formally terminated. Negotiations shall then be undertaken with the second most qualified firm. Failing accord with the second most qualified firm, negotiations shall be undertaken with the third most qualified firm. If unable to negotiate with any of the selected firms, three more firms shall be selected in the order of preference and negotiations will be continued until an agreement is reached. For professional services when the basic construction cost for the project is estimated to be less than $120,000 or planning or study fees estimated to be less than $8,500, the procedure shall be as follows: Follow steps B, C, and D outlined under preceding 1 for purpose of selecting the agency best to accomplish the project. The use of a continuing contract may be approved provided the following provisions are met. A continuing contract is for professional services for projects in which construction costs do not exceed $500,000; or for study activity, the fee for which professional service does not exceed $25,000; or for work of a specified nature as outlined in the contract required by the School Board, or its designee. The contract requires no time limitation but shall provide a termination clause. Footnote: All professional firms are encourage [sic] to submit their statements of qualifications and performance data using Govt. Service Adm. Forms 254 and 255. The submission will be valid for one year beginning July 1. A reminder for this purpose will be made in the form of an annual public announcement. Superintendent Wilcox selected a Short List Committee, whose task was to score the submittals and, based on these scores, select the five applicants that would make presentations to the Professional Services Selection Committee. The Short List Committee comprised Mr. Osborne, chair; Bob Sanborn, Supervisor of Operations; Darrel Miller, Director of Educational Technology; Dr. David Anderson, School Board chair; Tracey Miller, principal of Port Salerno Elementary School; and John Dilworth, Supervisor of Construction. The Short List Committee met on February 21, 2002. After examining the submittals of the applicants in response to the Guidelines, the Short List Committee scored the submittal of each applicant. The highest-ranking applicant received 185 points. Intervenor was ranked third with 160 points, and Petitioner was ranked fourth with 158 points. The Short List Committee selected five applicants to make presentations to the Professional Services Selection Committee. By letter dated February 22, 2002, Mr. Osborne supplied each of the five short-listed applicants with a document entitled, "Interview and Selection for Construction Manager At Risk" (Selection Criteria). The Selection Criteria states that the Professional Services Selection Committee will use the following criteria to "reduc[e] the number of qualified applicants to three . . .": 1. Letter of Interest 0 points 2. Professional Qualification Supplement forms 0 points 3. Certified minority business 5 points 4. Location 0-5 points 5. Current work load 0-10 points 6. Capability 0-10 points 7. Professional accomplishments 0-10 points 8. Schedule & budget 0-10 points 9. Approach and methods 0-10 points 10. Understanding of project 0-10 points 11. Previous work for MCSD 0-10 points 12. Progressive use of technology 0-10 points 13. Warranty period 0-10 points 14. Construction administration 0-10 points The Selection Criteria states: "The Professional Services Selection Committee will present to the Superintendent for approval and presentation to the Board a ranked list of the top three qualifying firms." Separate pages of the Selection Criteria detail the scoring guidelines for each of the scored criteria. For example, the Selection Criteria states under Professional Services Evaluation: "Current and past records of those projects successfully completed which are similar in scope to project(s) under consideration. References listed and check [sic]. Review PQS form." Ratings of 9 and 10 are for "extremely qualified for project"; ratings of 7 and 8 are for "very qualified for project"; ratings of 5 and 6 are for "qualified--experienced with project type"; ratings of 2, 3, and 4 are for "not very qualified--questionable abilities for project"; and ratings of 0 and 1 are for "unqualified--no experience with project type." After sending the February 22 letter, Mr. Osborne called each of the applicants to confirm that each had received the letter. During these conversations, Mr. Osborne informed each applicant that only the applicant ranked first by the Professional Services Selection Committee would make a presentation to the School Board. As Mr. Osborne understood the selection process, the Board would have the final decision whether to accept the top-ranked applicant. If it did so, the School Board would then try to negotiate a CMAR contract with the top-ranked applicant. If the parties could not reach an agreement, the School Board could then try to negotiate a contract with the applicant ranked second by the Professional Services Selection Committee. Superintendent Wilcox, with Mr. Osborne's assistance, selected the Professional Services Selection Committee. The Professional Services Selection Committee comprised Leighton O'Connor, Executive Director of Operations Services and immediate supervisor of Mr. Osborne; Hank Salzler, Assistant Superintendent and designee of Superintendent Wilcox; Ms. Miller; Mr. Dilworth; Dr. Anderson; and Mr. Osborne. On March 5, 2002, Mr. Osborne informed the members of the Professional Services Selection Committee that they would rank the applicants and the top-ranked applicant would make a presentation to the School Board. No member of the committee voiced an objection to the process. After Mr. Osborne had addressed the Professional Services Selection Committee, the representatives of the five short-listed applicants made their presentations. Based on these presentations and the earlier submittals, the Professional Services Selection Committee, on March 5, 2002, ranked Petitioner first with 513 points and Intervenor second with 487 points. Immediately after the meeting of the Professional Services Selection Committee, Assistant Superintendent Salzler visited Superintendent Wilcox and told her that Mr. Osborne had told the committee members that only the top-ranked applicant would make a presentation to the School Board. For professional services contracts, the top three-ranked applicants customarily made presentations to the Board, which would then select the applicant that the Board felt was most qualified. Superintendent Wilcox had thought that the same process would apply to the selection of the applicant with which to negotiate the CMAR contract. Superintendent Wilcox immediately visited Mr. Osborne and informed him that the School Board would want the top three applicants to make presentations. Mr. Osborne replied that he had told the applicants that only the top-ranked applicant would make a presentation to the Board. Superintendent Wilcox told him to telephone the top three applicants and tell them that all of them would be making presentations to the Board, so that the Board could make the final ranking. Later the same day, Mr. Osborne telephoned the top three applicants and informed them of the new procedure. Dr. Anderson had had to leave the meeting of the Professional Services Selection Committee before it was finished, so, later the same day, he telephoned Mr. O'Connor to learn the results of the voting. Mr. O'Connor informed Dr. Anderson of the three top-ranked applicants and expressed his opinion that the key criterion was not the general ranking that resulted from the guidelines and criteria that Mr. Osborne had developed, but the quality of the personnel who would manage the actual construction. Acknowledging that the School Board would not have adequate time to view the applicants' presentations and evaluate their submittals, Mr. O'Connor asked Dr. Anderson if Mr. O'Connor should undertake an analysis for use by the School Board. Dr. Anderson agreed that such an analysis would be helpful and asked him to prepare one. Mr. O'Connor prepared a 24-page document entitled "Construction Manger [sic] at Risk Finalist Comparisons" (O'Connor Finalist Comparisons). Mr. O'Connor provided the O'Connor Finalist Comparisons to each School Board member prior to the March 19 meeting. The O'Connor Finalist Comparisons introduces a new element to the procurement criteria--cost. The document advises the School Board members that the "number of team members and percentage of time devoted to the project may impact the cost of services." The document also relates, in an unspecified manner, "pre-construction services" to "cost saving alternative." The O'Connor Finalist Comparisons emphasizes some published selection criteria at the expense of others--without regard to their relative point value. Admittedly reflecting only Mr. O'Connor's opinion, the O'Connor Finalist Comparisons states that the "key consideration [sic] for this project" are "pre-construction services," "onsite construction service," and "experiences of assigned project staff." The document adds: "Our architect indicated that the Project Superintendent was the most important team member." The O'Connor Finalist Comparisons analyzes the proposals of the three applicants in terms of two criteria-- "credentials" and experience of selected members of the onsite project team in school construction. The emphasis upon school--construction experience also reflects Mr. O'Connor's opinion--this time clearly without the smallest support in the Guidelines or Selection Criteria, which ask for experience of similar scope, not merely school-construction experience. For Intervenor and Petitioner, the O'Connor Finalist Comparisons compares two employees per job site. For the high school, Intervenor's two employees have handled six school- construction projects, and their credentials consist of one bachelor's of arts degree in business administration. For the elementary school, Intervenor's two employees have handled 12 school-construction projects, and their credentials consist of one of them holding a bachelor's of science degree and master's degree in civil engineering. For the high school, Petitioner's two employees have handled one school, and their credentials consist of one bachelor's of science degree in business administration. For the elementary school, Petitioner's two employees have handled 11 school-construction projects, and their credentials consist of no four-year degrees. In this part of his analysis, Mr. O'Connor does not disclose his rationale for excluding from his analysis other key team members assigned 100 percent to the school projects, such as the two assistant project superintendents for the Jensen Beach High School project. These two persons have handled a total of seven school-construction projects. Interestingly, Mr. O'Connor included a third member of the third applicant's high-school team, and this person was an assistant superintendent. Mr. O'Connor fails to explain why he omitted analysis of project engineers assigned fulltime to the sites. From his charts, Intervenor did not assign such a person to either site, Petitioner assigned one to the elementary school and two to the high school, and the third applicant assigned one to each site. Petitioner's project engineer for the elementary school has handled two school-construction projects, and the sole person identified by name as a project engineer for the high school has handled one school-construction project. Again without explanation, Mr. O'Connor identifies Petitioner's project manager for the high school as someone other than the person whom Petitioner named in its proposal. The person identified by Mr. O'Connor has handled only one school-construction project. Although it is possible that Petitioner had had to change assigned personnel in the month since it first named its anticipated key personnel, nothing in the record indicates that such a change in personnel actually took place. Sometime after March 5, Superintendent Wilcox, Dr. Anderson, and Mr. Osborne informed each of the top three applicants that each of them would make a 20-minute presentation to the School Board and that the Board would use the Selection Criteria for ranking the applicants. On March 19, 2002, at a regularly scheduled School Board meeting, each of the top three applicants made its 20-minute presentation, interrupted by few, if any, questions from Board members. Petitioner's presentation covered the 14 criteria stated in the Selection Criteria. Petitioner complains that its presentation occurred at the end of the evening, long after the presentations of Intervenor and the third applicant, but this occurrence did not confer competitive advantage or disadvantage. Equally without meaning is the contention of Respondent and Intervenor that Petitioner never objected to any change in the procurement criteria. Nothing in the record suggests that Petitioner was ever aware, prior to the March 19 meeting, of the O'Connor Finalist Comparisons. Nothing in the record suggests that Respondent gave Petitioner a point of entry to challenge the changes that Respondent made during the course of this procurement. At no time during the March 19 meeting did anyone present the School Board with the rankings of the Professional Services Selection Committee. At no time during the March 19 meeting did anyone move that the School Board try to negotiate a contract with Petitioner. At the end of the meeting, without any public discussion, each School Board member voted his or her first, second, and third preference. Intervenor received three first-place votes, one second-place vote, and one third-place vote. Petitioner received two first-place votes and three second-place votes. Dr. Anderson, who ranked Intervenor first, announced that the vote was a tie, but that Intervenor should be declared the winner because it received more first-place votes. In response, another Board member moved to rank Intervenor first, Petitioner second, and the third applicant third and authorize Respondent to commence negotiations with Intervenor. The School Board unanimously passed the motion. The procurement documents are unambiguous, although they are less then comprehensive in their treatment of the procurement procedure. Rule 6Gx43-8.01.c provides that a committee shall recommend, in order of preference, three applicants to the School Board, which shall negotiate a contract with the most "qualified" applicant. The legal advertisement states only that the Professional Services Selection Committee shall rank the top three applicants and submit them to the Superintendent and School Board. The Selection Criteria states that the Professional Services Selection Committee will present to the Superintendent for approval and presentation to the School Board a ranked list of the top three "qualifying" applicants. Citing past practices--although none involves the procurement of a CMAR--Intervenor and Respondent contend that the School Board was authorized to re-rank the applicants and begin negotiations with any of the three applicants submitted to the Board. Citing the reference in the Selection Criteria that the Professional Services Selection Committee ranks the top three "qualifying" applicants and the language in the other documents requiring the School Board to negotiate first with the most "qualified" applicant, Petitioner contends that the Board has no right to change the ranking of the Professional Services Selection Committee, but must deal first with the top-ranked applicant. Due to the interpretation of Mr. Osborne, Respondent's interpretation of its rules and procurement documents is clearly erroneous and arbitrary. Until the telephone calls from Mr. Osborne to the applicants on March 5 after Superintendent Wilcox told Mr. Osborne that all three top-ranked applicants would make presentations to the Board, the applicants perceived correctly that Mr. Osborne was in charge of implementing the procedures for this procurement. And, from the start through his meeting with Superintendent Wilcox on March 5, Mr. Osborne consistently understood that the Professional Services Selection Committee would rank the top three applicants, and a committee member or the Superintendent would present to the School Board only the top-ranked applicant, which would then make a presentation to the Board. As Mr. Osborne envisioned the process, the Board could reject the top-ranked applicant and proceed to the second- ranked applicant, although this was unlikely, but the Board could not re-rank the top three applicants, without ever formally rejecting the applicant ranked first by the Professional Services Selection Committee. Mr. Osborne consistently communicated his understanding of the procurement process to the applicants. Mr. Osborne's understanding of the procurement process is the correct interpretation of the procurement documents. Among other things, Mr. Osborne's interpretation of the procurement documents lends meaning to the task of the Professional Services Selection Committee in ranking the top three applicants. Under Respondent's interpretation, the Professional Services Selection Committee performs a useless act when, in addition to naming the top three applicants, it ranks them. Respondent's departure from this procedure at the moment of decision clearly violates the standards governing this procurement. Exacerbating the situation is the O'Connor Finalist Comparisons. This document distorts the Selection Criteria by omitting many criteria, reassigning weights among other criteria, and adding two criteria--cost and school-construction experience. This document distorts Petitioner's qualifications by its arbitrary selection of personnel for comparison purposes. Presumably, Respondent and Intervenor resist the inference that the O'Connor Finalist Comparisons influenced any of the School Board members. The administrative law judge infers that the document influenced one or more members; given the close outcome of the vote, the administrative law judge infers that the document was a material factor in the selection of Intervenor. These inferences are supported by numerous facts, including the following. The School Board chair, Dr. Anderson, endorsed the preparation of the document. Dr. Anderson preferred Intervenor over Petitioner. The O'Connor Finalist Comparisons appears to be the only document presented to School Board members that was not part of the formal procurement process. The School Board members did not extensively discuss at the meeting the merits of the three applicants before voting. Petitioner tried to elicit testimony from the School Board members, but at Respondent's request, the administrative law judge entered a prehearing order denying Petitioner the opportunity to compel testimony from any of them except Dr. Anderson, who had served on the Professional Services Selection Committee. The inference of materiality is eased by the magnitude of the distortions contained in the O'Connor Finalist Comparisons as to the Selection Criteria and Petitioner's qualifications and the closeness of the Board vote; the extensive distortion contained in the O'Connor Finalist Comparisons means that it was material if it had even the slightest influence on one of the School Board members. Under these facts, Petitioner proved that Respondent's selection of Intervenor was contrary to Respondent's rule, Respondent's policies (as stated by Mr. Osborne), and the other procurement documents. Under these facts, Petitioner proved that the deviations from Respondent's rule, Respondent's policies, and the other procurement documents rendered the selection of Intervenor clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, and arbitrary. As a remedy, Petitioner contends that Respondent should commence negotiations with Petitioner. However, by the time Respondent issues a final order, six months will have passed since each applicant submitted a proposal. The ability of applicants to meet various criteria, such as the availability of key personnel, may have changed dramatically. Also, contrary to Petitioner's contention, this procurement is not fundamentally flawed due to bad faith or favoritism. The change in procurement procedures was indisputably due to an innocent, mutual mistake among Respondent's employees. The newly hired Mr. Osborne intended to handle the procurement his way, and Dr. Anderson, Superintendent Wilcox, and District staff intended Mr. Osborne to handle the procurement their way. Nothing in the record suggests that the O'Connor Finalist Comparisons is anything more than Mr. O'Connor, as Mr. Osborne's supervisor, injecting himself into a process that was not going as smoothly as Mr. O'Connor would have liked. Relying on the advice of an architect, Mr. O'Connor belatedly rewrote the procurement criteria to emphasize school-construction experience and cost; it is easy to indulge the presumption that Mr. O'Connor was motivated by a desire to help Respondent, not an applicant. Absent other evidence in the record, Mr. O'Connor's distortion of Petitioner's qualifications, which was not of the same magnitude as his distortion of the procurement criteria themselves, may presumably be attributed to haste or carelessness, rather than favoritism toward Intervenor.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Martin County School Board enter a final order setting aside the proposed decision to enter into negotiations with Intervenor to provide services as a construction manager at risk in the construction of the Jensen Beach High School and Port Salerno Elementary Replacement School and restart the procurement process, if Respondent still seeks to proceed with these projects under this construction method through a competitive procurement. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Sara Wilcox, Superintendent Martin County School Board 500 East Ocean Boulevard Stuart, Florida 34994-2578 Honorable Charlie Crist Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Gary M. Dunkel, Esquire Susan Fleischner Kornspan, Esquire Greenburg Traurig, P.A. 777 South Flagler Drive, Suite 300 East West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Douglas G. Griffin, Esquire School Board of Martin County 500 East Ocean Boulevard Stuart, Florida 34994 Joseph Ianno, Jr., Esquire Michael Winston, Esquire Carlton Fields, P.A. Post Office Box 150 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-0150
Findings Of Fact Respondent Eloisa Sacerio has been employed by Petitioner as a classroom teacher for approximately 20 years pursuant to a continuing contract. Respondent is certified to teach Spanish in kindergarten through 12th grade, elementary education, English for Speakers of Other Languages, English, and middle school. Respondent has primarily taught Spanish. During that 20 years of service, she has been assigned to approximately 11 different work sites due to Respondent being "surplused" from site to site. Surplusing is a contractual procedure that arises when there are not enough students to fill a class for an elective subject. Spanish is an elective subject. Respondent's first five years of service were at the elementary school level. During these first five years, her performance was satisfactory. During the following 13 years, Respondent taught at three different middle schools. Her performance at the middle school level was "mixed" in that she had some performance problems at two of those schools. Respondent experienced some difficulties in her teaching performance during the 1987-88 school year and a portion of the 1988-89 school year when she was teaching at McMillan Middle School. Although she brought her teaching skills up to an acceptable level thereafter, she was surplused from McMillan at the end of the 1991-92 school year because not enough students signed up for her classes. She was assigned to the elementary school level for the 1992-93 school year since she was trained and certified to teach at the elementary school level and had taught at that level without difficulty. For the next two years, Respondent was assigned to Coral Reef Elementary School and Howard Drive Elementary School as a teacher of Spanish as a Second Language (Spanish SL) and Spanish for Spanish Speakers (Spanish S). A teacher assigned to two schools is an itinerant teacher. One of those schools is designated as the teacher's home school, the one primarily responsible for evaluating the teaching performance of an itinerant teacher such as Respondent. Coral Reef was the home school for Respondent. It is not unusual for a Spanish teacher to be an itinerant teacher. At the beginning of the 1992-93 school year, Respondent attended a faculty meeting at Coral Reef. At that meeting, she received a faculty handbook which contained School Board rules, policies, procedures and labor contract provisions. Howard Drive also gave Respondent its faculty handbook at the beginning of the school year. Just prior to the 1992-93 school year, Hurricane Andrew struck Dade County. Its aftermath impacted both Coral Reef and Howard Drive, affecting scheduling for the schools and the teachers. Coral Reef started the school year operating on double shifts paired with Perrine Elementary School. Many schedule adjustments were made until well into the school year. Respondent was given half as much planning time as the other Spanish teachers at Coral Reef since she taught there only half of the school day. Respondent filed a grievance alleging insufficient planning time. The grievance was resolved during a meeting between the administration of Coral Reef and members of the teacher's union to which Respondent belongs. The schedule Respondent had grieved was no longer in place and had been revised prior to that meeting. Respondent's performance in the classroom during the 1992-93 and 1993- 94 school years was evaluated utilizing the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS). TADS is an objective instrument used to observe minimal teaching behaviors. The categories of teaching behaviors evaluated by TADS are preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relations, and assessment techniques. These six categories are evaluated during a formal class observation of the classroom teacher. A seventh category, professional responsibility, reflects the duties and responsibilities of a teacher in complying with School Board rules, contractual provisions, statutes and regulations, site directives and the policies and procedures that deal with record keeping and attendance. The union filed grievances on behalf of Respondent with the TADS Monitoring Committee (TMC) for ten or eleven formal observations of Respondent's teaching during the 1992-93 and 1993-94 school years. The TMC was established by contractual stipulation between the union and the School Board. The committee was set up to monitor the TADS process for procedural irregularities, by reviewing only the records and the paper process resulting from a formal observation. It does not review the judgment of the observers who conducted the formal observation. Even after Respondent utilized the TMC process to scrutinize the formal observations of her, she was still found to be unacceptable in classroom management and techniques of instruction for both the 1992-93 and 1993-94 school years. On October 27, 1992, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom and rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction by Joe Carbia, principal of Coral Reef. The students in the class did not appear to possess the preliminary skills or background to be successful in the lesson being taught and did not understand the material. The lesson observed had no beginning and no closure. It ended simply by Respondent telling the students to do their homework. The entire class period was spent trying to elicit answers to questions taken from the workbook although none of the students were able to answer the questions presented by Respondent. Respondent was prescribed activities to help her overcome her deficiencies in her techniques of instruction. She was to observe two other Spanish SL teachers as scheduled by the assistant principal Valerie Swanson in order to give Respondent an opportunity to observe good instructional techniques. She was to read, discuss and implement guidelines from the TADS Prescription Manual. She was to meet with Swanson to receive assistance on the materials that dealt with teaching techniques. Carbia held a post-observation conference with Respondent and discussed the deficiencies observed and the prescribed activities. Prescriptive activities are directives. Swanson met with Respondent to offer support and to discuss the various prescriptive activities assigned to Respondent as a result of the October 27, 1992, observation. Specifically, Swanson met with Respondent on November 1, 10, 16, 18 and 25, 1992. Swanson answered any questions posed by Respondent. On November 14, 1992, Respondent was present at Coral Reef but failed to appear to teach one of her regularly-scheduled classes. Principal Carbia taught the class in Respondent's place. Elective teachers are required to check in with the classroom teacher at the beginning of the class period. Respondent did not check in as she was required to do. Respondent's explanation was that when she went to her prior class, she was told by that classroom teacher that the students were watching a closed circuit television program so Respondent did not have to teach that class that day. Respondent concluded that her next class would also be watching the program. Respondent never asked anyone if that were the case. Respondent's assumption was incorrect. Carbia informed Respondent that the class rules she sent home to students' parents were inappropriate for elementary school students. These rules were the same class rules Respondent used when she taught middle school. Respondent was directed not to send the parents any communication without prior administrative approval. Respondent sent subsequent communications to parents without prior approval. Parents complained to the administrators at Coral Reef about Respondent's teaching, both orally and in writing. Some children did not like Respondent's Spanish class and did not want to go to school because they were in Respondent's class. Those children were crying, getting stomachaches and going home upset. When advised by administrators of these complaints, Respondent replied that the students were spoiled and not used to studying. She accepted no responsibility for the problems the children experienced. Conferences were held with complaining parents, Respondent, and the administration at Coral Reef concerning Respondent's grading policy. In these conferences, Respondent was unable to explain the grades she had given students. Carbia changed some students' grades because Respondent's gradebook did not justify the grades she had given the students. On November 12, 1992, Carbia held a conference-for-the-record with Respondent to address the parental complaints received by the Coral Reef administration regarding Respondent. Carbia gave Respondent copies of several written complaints he had received. The parents complained about Respondent's instruction, inappropriate grade level homework, and the manner in which Respondent dealt with the children. Respondent admitted that she screamed at the children. On November 25, 1992, Swanson held an informal conference with Respondent. She gave Respondent suggestions on how to organize her gradebook in a manner that would substantiate the grades Respondent gave her students. Conduct, class work, homework, and tests were to be specifically and clearly labeled in the gradebook for each student. On December 4, 1992, Respondent was absent. Respondent failed to comply with the directive contained in the Coral Reef Faculty Handbook to have emergency lesson plans on file in the main office at Coral Reef. Respondent is required by Petitioner and state law to have emergency lesson plans on hand. On December 10, 1992, Respondent was again formally observed in the classroom by Carbia and was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because the lesson was taught at one cognitive level, i.e., the students were merely involved in recall activities. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because twenty-five minutes of the thirty-minute class time was devoted to Respondent attempting to elicit responses from the students. The students could not give Respondent the correct answers, and she made no attempt to give feedback to the students. Respondent made no provision for closure to the lesson. The students exhibited a great deal of confusion regarding the activity and repeatedly requested clarification. Respondent offered no clarification. She only gave reprimands. Respondent was prescribed activities to help her in overcoming her deficiencies in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. She was directed to read, discuss and implement guidelines for improvement found in the TADS Prescription Manual. She was directed to observe two other classroom teachers' techniques of instruction. She was to meet with Swanson to receive assistance in understanding the reading materials and to discuss any questions she had regarding her observations of the other teachers. On or about December 17, 1992, a conference-for-the-record was held. Respondent was placed on prescription for Category VII of TADS, professional responsibilities. There was also a review of her performance on the formal observations of October 27 and December 10, 1992. Respondent was rated unacceptable in Category VII, because she failed to obey the directive to observe Ms. Navarro's Spanish SL class (she observed only part of the class), failed to attend her regularly-scheduled Spanish S class, sent home communications without prior administrative approval, did not maintain gradebooks which could be used to substantiate the grades she gave students, and did not have emergency lesson plans available in the office. Respondent was prescribed activities to help her overcome these professional responsibility deficiencies. Respondent was to read and review the Code of Ethics of the Educational Profession in Florida. Swanson continued to assist Respondent with her gradebook and emergency substitute folder. Respondent was to observe a master Spanish teacher, Rebecca Sosa at Kendale Elementary School. On February 8, 1993, Respondent was again formally observed by Carbia and was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, and techniques of instruction. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because the lesson plan objective was not an instructional objective for Spanish SL but was only a listing of activities. No attempt was made by the teacher to make the lesson meaningful to the students. The only involvement of the students in the activity was limited to filling in blank items on two xeroxed worksheets. Respondent was prescribed activities to help her overcome her deficiencies in preparation and planning. Under the direction of Swanson, Respondent was to read and discuss the preparation and planning unit in the TADS Prescription Manual. Respondent was to review samples of other teachers' lesson plans. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because the entire instruction was at one cognitive level, i.e., recall and responses. Respondent was prescribed activities to help her overcome her deficiencies in knowledge of subject matter. She was to read, discuss and implement the guidelines for improvement found in the TADS Prescription Manual. Respondent was also to observe other Spanish SL teachers and regular classroom teachers, as scheduled by Swanson. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because there was no variety in her instruction. The materials used in the lesson were merely two xeroxed sheets with fill-in-the-blank recall items. The activities were not related to the instructional objectives. Several students in the class were confused by Respondent's instructions, but Respondent made no attempt to clarify. Respondent was prescribed activities to help her overcome her deficiencies in techniques of instruction. Respondent was to read and discuss the guidelines for improvement found in the TADS Prescription Manual. Swanson assisted Respondent in those prescriptive activities and was available for conferences regarding those activities. Carbia held a post-observation conference with Respondent to go over the prescription. Respondent was still exhibiting the same deficiencies as before. At the conference, Respondent gave no explanation for her failure to improve her performance. Respondent was told that she had not incorporated in her teaching the prescriptions previously given to her. On March 15, 1993, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent. Although Respondent had been provided assistance to help her overcome the deficiencies in her gradebook, her gradebook remained unacceptable. Respondent was placed on prescription for Category VII and was prescribed activities to assist her. Respondent was to submit her gradebooks to Swanson on a weekly basis for review. She was also provided with samples of good gradebooks. On March 16, 1993, Respondent was formally observed by Swanson and Wally Lyshkov, a foreign language supervisor. That formal observation was an external review. In an external review, there are two certified observers: one from the school site and the other from outside the school site. The observers complete the TADS observation forms independently. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because there was no logical sequencing of the material presented in the observed lesson. The lesson was based on furniture vocabulary. There was no attempt made by Respondent to contextualize the vocabulary. The lesson was at one cognitive level, i.e., simple choral repetition. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction and assessment techniques because the lesson lacked sequence and was inappropriate for that grade level. Although the students were confused by Respondent's instruction, she provided no clarification to the confused students. Further, there was no evidence of formal assessment of the students in her gradebook or work folders. Respondent was prescribed activities. She was directed to read and discuss certain materials. A post-observation conference was held with Respondent to discuss the prescriptive activities. Thereafter, Swanson met with Respondent on numerous occasions to assist her with these prescriptive activities. On May 4, 1993, Respondent was formally observed by Florine Curtis, the principal of Howard Drive, and Diana Urbizu, an outside observer. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management during that external review because the class was chaotic. Respondent appeared unaware that several students were off-task while she taught the lesson. The students were not properly instructed because of the lack of classroom management. After the observation, Urbizu and Curtis discussed the types of activities that would assist Respondent to improve her performance. Curtis wrote the prescription to help Respondent overcome her deficiencies. Respondent was directed to read certain materials, to complete a specified activity and submit the activity to Curtis, to observe the other Spanish teacher at Howard Drive conduct a Spanish SL class, to write a brief summary of her observation, and to develop a plan for effective classroom management with suitable consequences and submit the plan to Curtis for review. Curtis held a post-observation conference with Respondent and discussed with her all of the prescribed activities and areas of deficiency. Respondent was given the opportunity to explain her performance. Curtis submitted the rough draft of the TADS observation form to Dr. Joyce Annunziata to review. Annunziata reviewed the form to assure that all the deficiencies were procedurally correct and faxed it back to Curtis with her notations. Annunziata did not make any substantive changes to the evaluation. Curtis worked informally with Respondent at Howard Drive to help Respondent improve her performance. Respondent could not be placed on a second formal prescription at Howard Drive since she was on prescription at Coral Reef, Respondent's home school. Spanish teachers at both schools are not assigned a classroom. Since elementary school students remain in the same classroom, these teachers travel from classroom to classroom and conduct a thirty-minute lesson. Respondent wanted the classroom teachers to manage the classroom while she conducted the Spanish lesson. Classroom management is always the responsibility of the teacher conducting the lesson. It does not matter whether the teacher travels to the classroom to conduct the lesson or whether the students travel to the teacher. On May 28, 1993, a conference-for-the-record was held to notify Respondent of her unacceptable annual evaluation for the 1992-93 school year and to remind Respondent of the negative implications for her future employment with Petitioner if she failed to remediate her deficiencies. Respondent indicated in the conference that the prescriptions had been a waste of time. She indicated that her only motivation for getting off prescription was to transfer to another school since she never wanted to teach at Coral Reef. During the 1992-93 school year, Swanson, while performing her routine duties, informally observed Respondent in the classroom. During these occasions, Respondent was observed yelling at the students and using a negative approach to teaching. Respondent would demean children, make derogatory remarks, and call them stupid. Curtis informally observed Respondent in the classroom during the 1992-93 school year. During these occasions, Respondent was observed to lack classroom management skills and to use inappropriate methods of instruction. Respondent's classroom was always noisy. Her method of instruction was to "teach to a test" rather than to teach the objective of the lesson. Respondent spent the week going over material that would be on the Friday test. Curtis held numerous informal conferences with Respondent to help Respondent improve her performance. Curtis suggested specific classroom management skills and techniques of instruction. She also suggested that Respondent properly maintain her gradebook by labeling the entries. Aida Helbig, the Bilingual Supervisor for Foreign Language Skills, visited Respondent at Coral Reef and Howard Drive in order to help Respondent improve her performance. During the 1992-93 and 1993-94 school years she met with Respondent nine times. Helbig informally observed Respondent to be unsatisfactory in classroom management and techniques of instruction. Audrey Dillaman taught third grade at Coral Reef during the 1992-93 school year. Respondent taught Spanish SL to Dillaman's class. Respondent's instruction was composed of primarily worksheets and conjugating verbs which was inappropriate for the grade level. The students and parents became frustrated, and the parents withdrew their children from Respondent's class. Only seven of Dillaman's students remained in Respondent's class at the end of the second grading period although 18 had started out at the beginning of the year. Respondent wrote in cursive on the blackboard for third grade students who had not yet learned to read or write cursive. Respondent expected first grade students who had not learned to read English, to read Spanish words from the blackboard and charts. The goal of teaching Spanish to elementary school students is to expose them to a foreign language. The emphasis is on an oral program. The sequence of learning a language is oral, reading, and then writing. Respondent's emphasis was on a written program. Respondent required second- grade students to have a Spanish/English dictionary although the district curriculum does not. In September of 1993, Swanson had a discussion with Respondent concerning written communications sent home to parents. Swanson suggested methods Respondent could use to communicate with parents. Swanson even typed a sample letter for Respondent which explained Respondent's classwork to parents. On October 1, 1993, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Carbia and rated unacceptable in classroom management and techniques of instruction. Respondent was unacceptable in classroom management because more than fifty percent of the class period was spent passing out and collecting an assignment, with much confusion and disorder. Sixty to seventy percent of the students were off-task, and Respondent did not redirect those off-task students. Instead, Respondent used verbal threats to address inappropriate behavior. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because the only instructional material used was a xeroxed sheet. The only instructional methodology used was a game of questions and answers among students. During the game, the students were not clear about what team they were on. There was a great deal of inattention, stumbling, and wrong answers during the game. Respondent did not attempt to clarify the students' confusion. Respondent was prescribed activities to help her overcome her deficiencies in classroom management and techniques of instruction. Respondent was to visit other Spanish SL classes at Coral Reef and Kendale Elementary School. Respondent was to review appropriate TADS prescriptive activities with Swanson. Coral Reef and Howard Drive continued to receive parental complaints about Respondent's performance. At Coral Reef students dropped Respondent's classes, and parents requested that their children be switched to another Spanish teacher. Respondent's gradebook continued to be a problem. These concerns were discussed at a November 1, 1993, conference-for-the-record. On November 2, 1993, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Swanson and rated unacceptable in classroom management and techniques of instruction. She failed to obey the directive to post her classroom behavior rules during the class time and failed to refer to her classroom rules until just prior to the end of the class time. Students were off-task and Respondent failed to redirect them. The students attended to Respondent only when individually asked a specific question. During the lesson Respondent did not mention the strengths and weaknesses of the students. The majority of the lesson was devoted to one-on-one teacher-to-student dialogue while the rest of the students were inattentive. There were no opportunities for the students to contribute ideas, make comments, or ask questions of the Respondent. Respondent was prescribed activities to help her overcome her deficiencies in classroom management and techniques of instruction. She was to visit other Spanish SL classes at Coral Reef and at Kendale Elementary School. Respondent was to review appropriate TADS prescriptive activities with Swanson. Swanson provided Respondent with the Competency Based Curriculum (CBC). During the 1993-94 school year, Petitioner began phasing in its CBC. The phasing in of this curriculum is not a factor that would effect the evaluation and assessment of teaching competency under TADS. In November 1993, Swanson discussed with her Respondent's gradebook. Swanson gave Respondent written instructions on how to set up her gradebook and class rules. However, Respondent's gradebook remained unacceptable throughout the 1993-94 school year. On December 2, 1993, Respondent was formally observed by Jean Moeller, assistant principal at Howard Drive, and was rated unacceptable in classroom management and techniques of instruction. Respondent was unacceptable in classroom management because she did not use non-verbal techniques to obtain the students' attention from the beginning of the lesson. During the first fifteen minutes of the lesson, i.e., half of the class period, students were off-task. Several of the students were involved in activities other than Spanish. There was no attempt by Respondent to redirect off-task behavior. Respondent was unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she used inappropriate teaching materials. Respondent had two xeroxed sheets in Spanish that were incorrectly utilized. She wrote English on the chalkboard and the students were required to copy English responses to some of the Spanish phrases on the xeroxed papers. The Spanish SL objectives avoid English translation activities. This is stated in the teacher's guide. At this level, children should be responding primarily in Spanish. Respondent was prescribed activities to help her overcome her deficiencies. Respondent was required to read the TADS Prescription Manual on classroom management. She was to make a list of non-verbal techniques that could be implemented in her class to effectively increase on-task behavior and submit the list to Moeller. She was to discuss her reading with Moeller. Respondent was to turn in her daily lesson plans to Moeller a week in advance from December 8, 1993, to January 12, 1994, on Wednesdays. Moeller recommended both Spanish teacher Grijalva and Spanish SL specialist Helbig as resources to assist Respondent in overcoming her deficiencies. Respondent was to observe Grijalva in the classroom. Grijalva is an excellent Spanish teacher who has good classroom management skills and techniques of instruction. Grijalva also knows the curriculum and utilizes appropriate assessment techniques. Grijalva is a specialist in CBC and has trained teachers in CBC. Grijalva provided assistance to help Respondent improve her performance. Respondent observed Grijalva playing a tic-tac-toe game with her students. Respondent attempted to play the same game with her students. However, the game as Respondent structured it resulted in the brighter students repeatedly asking difficult questions of the same student that was least likely to know the answers to the questions. When that student did not know the answers, Respondent made demeaning comments to the student. The student put her head down and cried. On December 8, 1993, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent to address her performance, the continuing parental complaints about her performance, and her future employment with Petitioner. Respondent was reminded that she had been on prescription since October 1992 and continued to be unacceptable in classroom management and techniques of instruction. Respondent was given an opportunity to address all the concerns noted. Respondent's written explanation was not responsive to any of the concerns that came up at the conference. On January 27, 1994, Respondent was formally observed at Howard Drive by Principal Curtis and Mercedes Toural, an outside observer. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management and techniques of instruction. Respondent did not have control of the classroom. The children appeared to be in control, and Respondent did not use strategies to prevent, identify, or redirect off-task behavior. Further, the lesson involved having an answer to a test item as opposed to being a lesson with an objective, an activity, and a means of assessment. Respondent was prescribed activities to help her overcome her deficiencies. Respondent was to read the TADS manual, complete written activities, and observe Grijalva. That external review was the second formal observation by Curtis. It occurred almost a year after the first formal observation done by Curtis. Respondent's performance continued to be deficient despite the guidance and assistance provided during that time. At Howard Drive, Respondent used food to reward and punish students in her class. The use of food to reward good behavior and/or to punish inappropriate behavior is a poor teaching technique. After the observation of January 27, 1994, Curtis met with Respondent informally on numerous occasions. Respondent remained deficient in classroom management and techniques of instruction for the 1993-94 school year. There was no improvement in her performance at Howard Drive. On April 29, 1994, there was an external review observation done by Margarita Alemany and by Carbia at Coral Reef Elementary. Carbia rated Respondent unacceptable in classroom management and techniques of instruction. Alemany rated Respondent unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. Respondent was unacceptable in classroom management because a substantial number of students were off-task at different times, and students were inattentive. Respondent used no verbal techniques to redirect the students who were off-task and no techniques to maintain the attention of the students. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because the only instructional material used was a xeroxed sheet entitled "First Grade Vocabulary of April 25." None of the students were able to read the sheet and provide correct responses. Respondent was prescribed activities to assist her in overcoming her deficiencies. Respondent, under the direction of Swanson, was to read, discuss, and implement guidelines for improvement found in the TADS Prescription Manual. On June 6, 1994, a conference-for-the-record was held at Coral Reef to review the annual evaluation and its consequences. Respondent over the two school years, 1992-93 and 1993-94, had numerous classroom observations and four external reviews. Respondent had been provided assistance to improve her performance by both the administration of Howard Drive and that of Coral Reef. Yet, Respondent remained unacceptable in classroom management and techniques of instruction for the 1993-94 annual evaluation. Respondent failed to turn in her gradebooks for the 1992-93 and the 1993-94 school years. Respondent was required to turn in her gradebooks from both school locations to the individual school at the end of each school year. This is required by School Board policy and was addressed in the end-of-the-year directives. Respondent kept the gradebooks in her possession until they were given to Petitioner on February 16, 1995. By that date, the gradebooks had been altered to include labeling and more grades which were not in the gradebooks when they were formally evaluated. During the 1992-93 and 1993-94 school years, many students withdrew from the Respondent's Spanish classes. Classroom teachers complained to the administrators of Howard Drive and Coral Reef concerning Respondent's rapport with the students, her classroom management techniques, and her methods of instruction. Respondent exhibited a negative approach to teaching that did not change over the two-year period. Her approach negatively impacted the Spanish program at both schools because students chose not to take Spanish if Respondent was their teacher. Respondent did not accept responsibility for any problems and deficiencies she had in the classroom. She always blamed others. Although Respondent completed all the prescribed activities, she did not incorporate what she learned into her performance. Petitioner provided substantial assistance to Respondent to help her improve her performance. She received assistance from the administrators of two schools and from other teachers and district personnel. For 1993-94 Respondent was assigned to teach the same grade levels as the prior year to allow her to build on her experiences from 1992-93. All the Spanish teachers at Coral Reef had the same planning time during 1993-94 in order to make it convenient for Respondent to get assistance from them. Yet, Respondent failed to communicate with and relate to her students to such an extent that she deprived them of a minimum educational experience. She also taught inefficiently and ineffectively and failed to comply with Petitioner's prescribed course of study using appropriate materials and methods.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in Petitioner's Amended Notice of Specific Charges as Corrected, sustaining Respondent's suspension without pay, and dismissing her from her employment. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of October, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of October, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 94-4316 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2, 4-23, and 25-117 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 1 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting a conclusion of law. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 3 and 24 have been rejected as being subordinate to the issues herein. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 16 has been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 13 and 17 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 5, 8-12, 15, and 18 have been rejected as being subordinate to the issues herein. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 4, 6, 7, 14, and 19-22 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the competent evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Twila Hargrove Payne, Esquire Patricia D. Bass, Esquire Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 301 Miami, Florida 33132 Ronald S. Lieberman, Esquire NationsBank Building, Penthouse 2 9350 South Dixie Highway Miami, Florida 33156 Mr. Octavio J. Visiedo Superintendent of Dade County School Board Suite 403 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132-1308 Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
