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 Whether Respondent's teaching certificate should be revoked or otherwise disciplined on grounds that he violated Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes (1979), as alleged, by making sexual advances toward his female students on four separate occasions.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence presented at hearing, including consideration of the validity and demeanor of witnesses, the following facts are determined: Respondent, Lawrence Longenecker ("LONGENECKER"), at all times material hereto held a Florida teacher's certificate: Certificate No. 283801, Post Graduate, Rank II, valid through June 30, 1986, covering the areas of secondary biology, junior high science, guidance, and junior college. (Joint Exhibit 1.) LONGENECKER was employed as a science teacher at Madeira Beach Middle School, a public school in Pinellas County, Florida, during the 1976-1977 and 1977-1978 school years, until his resignation in January, 1978. (Joint Exhibit 1.) I. Longenecker's Sexual Advances Toward Three Female Students The COUNCIL alleged, and has established that LONGENECKER made sexual advances toward three (3) female students on four separate occasions. The first incident occurred during the early morning of January 1, 1977. Robin Hamilton, an eighth grade student of LONGENECKER's at Madeira Beach Middle School, had just finished babysitting for LONGENECKER on the evening of December 31, 1976. While driving her home, LONGENECKER stopped behind a Publix Supermarket across from Madeira Beach Middle School, and asked her if he could "take her up on her offer", referring to his missing a chance to kiss her during a friendly mistletoe Christmas celebration at school earlier in the day. Thinking little of it, she said "okay"; he then kissed her. Five minutes later, he said, "What about one for the good luck of next year--in ninth grade?", and kissed her again. She let him. He then continued driving her home, but took a longer route than required. She told him, "This isn't the right way" home, and he answered, "Don't worry about it, I'll take you home." He then kissed her on the lips, again, putting his arms around her and pulling her closer. She became scared, and insisted he take her home, which he then did. She reported the incident to her parents the next day, and they insisted she tell the school principal; she then reported the incident to John Larson, the assistant principal. LONGENECKER denies having made these advances toward Miss Hamilton. However, her demeanor was direct and detached; she evinced no bias, interest, or motive to falsify, and her testimony is accepted as persuasive. (Testimony of Hamilton.) The second incident involved LONGENECKER and Elizabeth Karen James, another eighth grade student at Madeira Beach Middle School. He taught science, and she was his student assistant who helped prepare the laboratory, grade papers, and take roll. During January or February, 1977, she was working alone in the back room of the science laboratory; she had her face toward the wall and was leaning against a table. LONGENECKER, while attempting to show her something, leaned heavily against her--the lower part of his body pressing against her lower back side--and placed his hands on her shoulders. The continued pressure of his body against hers--for 2 to 3 minutes--made her scared. While this was going on, he continued to instruct her on preparing the lab for the next day. She waited until he was through and then quickly left the room. Later, she reported the incident to her parents. Approximately 2 to 3 weeks later, the third incident occurred when she was, again, working in the laboratory, and standing two feet from the door. She was leaning against the counter; he came up behind her and leaned heavily against her, in the same manner as he had done previously. She became scared, turned around, and tried to leave. He took her hand, and asked her to remain because he wanted to show her something else. LONGENECKER denies having made sexual advances toward Miss James. However, her testimony was not tainted by bias, intent, or motive to falsify; she evidenced no ill-will or hostility toward LONGENECKER, and her testimony is accepted as persuasive. (Testimony of James.) In February or March, 1977, Miss Hamilton and Miss James separately reported the above incidents, involving LONGENECKER, to John Larson, the school's assistant principal. Larson spoke with Dr. Robert Moore, the principal, and they both met with LONGENECKER to discuss the complaints. Dr. Moore expressed his concern over the alleged behavior and explicitly warned LONGENECKER that such conduct was unethical and jeopardized his teaching position. LONGENECKER neither admitted or denied the accusations, but listened, quietly. (Testimony of Moore, Larson, Longenecker.) The fourth incident occurred approximately nine (9) months later, on or about December 3, 1977, and involved Sharon O'Connell, a ninth grade student at Madeira Beach Middle School. LONGENECKER was her science teacher; she was a good student and liked him as a teacher. On the evening of December 3, 1977, Miss O'Connell was babysitting for LONGENECKER. LONGENECKER and his wife returned home at approximately 12:30 a.m., and he drove her home. Instead of taking her directly home, he took her to Madeira Beach Middle School, ostensibly to "pick up something." (Tr. 87.) When they arrived, he took her on a tour of new buildings that were being constructed at the school. It was a cold evening, and he put his arm around her, as if to keep her warm. He moved closer to her, as she was leaning against a wall, and pressed his lower body against her buttocks area. At the same time, he put his hands underneath her arms and rubbed her breasts. She tried to tighten her arms, and became scared; he acted like nothing out of the ordinary was occurring, and continued to talk of the construction work. They then walked to another area of the school, where he leaned her against a door, and repeated his earlier conduct--pressing his lower front against her buttocks and fondling her breasts. He was breathing heavily, and Miss O'Connell was embarrassed and scared. She then pulled away, and asked him to take her home. After several requests, he complied. She reported this incident to her parents, who immediately contacted the Superintendent of Schools. LONGENECKER denies having engaged in this conduct toward Miss O'Connell. Her testimony is, however, accepted as persuasive; she was visibly embarrassed by having to describe this incident, but expressed no hostility toward LONGENECKER; indeed, she indicated sympathy for his plight. (Testimony of O'Connell.) II. Effect of Incidents Upon Longenecker's Effectiveness as a School Board Employee After the incident involving Miss O'Connell was reported, LONGENECKER was called to Dr. Moore's office and confronted with the accusation. LONGENECKER neither admitted, nor clearly denied, the accusation. He was asked to resign immediately, which he did. Since that time, he has held several jobs in commercial establishments, and his efforts to find work as a teacher have been unsuccessful. (Testimony of Moore, Larson, Longenecker.) LONGENECKER's complained-of actions toward the three female students seriously reduces his effectiveness as a teacher at Madeira Beach Middle School and the immediate area. His misconduct has become generally known to faculty members, students, and their families, and his reemployment as a teacher at Madeira Beach would be opposed by parents and students. (Testimony of Moore.)
Conclusions Respondent is guilty, as alleged, of violating Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes (1979). Due to the repetitive nature of his misconduct and the prior practice of the Board of Education in cases such as this, Respondent's teaching certificate should be permanently revoked.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Lawrence LONGENECKER's teaching certificate No. 283801 be permanently revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of November, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
The Issue Whether the Petitioner committed the violations alleged in the Respondent's Petition dated June 11, 2008, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duties of operating, controlling, and supervising all free public schools within the School District of Palm Beach County, Florida. Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. (2008).1 Specifically, the School Board has the authority to discipline employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Ms. Scott has been employed as a teacher with the School Board since 1986. She is a member of the Palm Beach County Classroom Teachers Association and is subject to the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement Between the School District of Palm Beach County, Florida, and the Palm Beach County Classroom Teachers Association ("Collective Bargaining Agreement"). At the times material to this proceeding, Ms. Scott taught business classes at Palm Beach Central High School ("Palm Beach Central"). In 2006, Ms. Scott was charged with shutting a student into a windowless, unventilated closet and leaving him there "for a time estimated to be between ten (10) minutes by you and fifty (50) minutes by the student and other witnesses."2 The superintendent of schools recommended to the School Board that Ms. Scott be suspended without pay and her employment terminated. The termination was subsequently rescinded, and Ms. Scott's discipline for this incident was reduced to a 38-day suspension without pay. During fourth period on February 1, 2008, Ms. Scott was teaching a course in computing for colleges and careers. While she was taking attendance, several students were causing their computers to "beep." As a result, Ms. Scott sent a few students outside the classroom, into the hallway. She sent another student to the storage room that connected her classroom to the classroom next to hers and told the student to step inside and shut the door. The student was a male who was 17 years of age at the time of the final hearing. The storage room was approximately 10 feet wide and 15 feel long. The student remained in the storage room for approximately 10 minutes, during which time the lights in the storage room were off. The storage room had two doors, neither of which had windows, and Ms. Scott could not see the student while he was in the storage room. After approximately 10 minutes, Ms. Scott opened the storage room door and told the student he could leave the storage room.3 The student did not consider his being sent into the dark storage room a "big deal," and he did not report the incident to his parents, to another teacher, or to the school administration.4 On February 15, 2008, a student reported the incident to a teacher, who reported it to an assistant principal, who reported it to another assistant principal, who reported it to the principal, Burley Mondy. Mr. Mondy reported the matter to the School Board police and requested that a formal investigation be initiated. Mr. Mondy also removed Ms. Scott from the Palm Beach Central campus on February 15, 2008, and she was given an alternate assignment in the Palm Beach County School District's office. After the investigation was completed, the matter was subject to an administrative review; a pre-disciplinary meeting was held with Ms. Scott in attendance; and the matter was reviewed by the School Board's Employee Investigation Committee. Based upon the recommendation of the Employee Investigation Committee, the superintendent of schools recommended to the School Board that Ms. Scott be suspended without pay and that proceedings be initiated to terminate her employment. The School Board approved this recommendation at its June 4, 2008, meeting. The evidence presented by the School Board is sufficient to establish that, by sending a student into a dark storage room for approximately 10 minutes, Ms. Scott exercised extremely poor professional judgment and that her actions posed a potential risk to the student's physical and mental health and safety. The School Board failed to present any evidence to establish that Ms. Scott's sending several students into the hall during class constituted poor professional judgment or posed a potential risk to the students' physical and mental health and safety. The School Board also failed to present any evidence to establish that Ms. Scott's effectiveness in the school system was impaired by the incident at issue, and it is not reasonable to infer from Ms. Scott's conduct that her effectiveness was impaired.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board enter a final order dismissing the Petition filed against Rutha Scott, immediately reinstating her, and awarding her back pay for the period of her suspension, as provided in Section 1012.33(6)(a), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA M. HART 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 16th day of February, 2009.
Findings Of Fact A Backdrop to the Charges At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Tom F. Brewer, was a teacher at Crestwood Middle School (CMS) in Royal Palm Beach, Florida. He is employed by petitioner, The School Board of Palm Beach County (Board). Respondent, who is now fifty-four years old, is certified as a middle school teacher with a specialty in the area of mathematics. He has taught in the Palm Beach County school system since August, 1973 and has consistently received satisfactory evaluations. Most recently, he was assigned to CMS to teach mathematics to seventh and eighth graders. Since CMS is ten miles from his home, Brewer left for work each school day around 7:50 a.m. and returned around 4:20 p.m. In addition, until September, 1985 he spent two weekends a month at National Guard drills where he was the unit first sergeant. From November, 1982 until March, 1984 he worked on his other weekends as a security guard at a local country club. Forest Estates Drive in West Palm Beach, Florida is the focal point of this proceeding. In November, 1978 respondent moved into a home in the 300 block on Forest Estates Drive. Other residents on the street at that time were James H. Williams, Sandra Cownden and her daughter, Tina Luciano (Tina), Margaret Hill and her daughter and stepdaughter, Robin Mahoney (Robin) and Kim McKenna (Kim), and Hilda Barrett. Shortly after Brewer moved into the neighborhood, the Pecks moved in next door. Mr. Peck is a uniformed deputy sheriff with a marked patrol car. In 1982, Helen Happ moved with her family into a home on the same block. In 1985, Stephen Erickson moved into the home previously occupied by Hilda Barrett and which was directly across the street from Brewer. All of the above neighbors testified at final hearing or gave deposition testimony and are a part of this neighborhood drama. Some lived there only part of the time since 1978 while a few were neighbors for the entire nine year period. Respondent is divorced and lives by himself at his home on Forest Estates Drive. He has three grown children, a girl and two boys, living in the West Palm Beach area. The children, who are now 28, 26 and 25 years of age, regularly visited Brewer several times a week during the years in question. As might be expected, Brewer became reasonably acquainted with all of his neighbors since moving to Forest Estates Drive almost ten years ago. They became aware of the fact that he was a school teacher. The principal prosecution witness is Tina, who lived with her divorced mother two houses away from Brewer. Tina, who was born on March 16, 1969, was not bashful or shy, and at the age of nine, began going to Brewer's house when he first moved in the neighborhood. As she frequently did with other neighbors, Tina asked Brewer for money and favors. Brewer responded by giving Tina odd jobs to do around his house such as washing his car, mowing the yard or cleaning windows. Therefore, over the years it was not unusual to see Tina going to and from Brewer's house. As she grew older, Tina began using Brewer's telephone to call friends and to watch Brewer's widescreen television set which was wired for cable. It should be noted here that Tina has a reputation as being an untruthful person. Against this backdrop, respondent was arrested by the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office in March, 1987 for contributing to the delinquency of a seventeen year old minor (Tina), a misdemeanor charge. He was subsequently acquitted after a three day jury trial in March, 1988. After learning that respondent had been arrested, the Board suspended Brewer without pay on November 17, 1987. This action was formalized by a petition for dismissal issued on December 3, 1987. Respondent has remained suspended without pay pending the outcome of this proceeding. As amended, the petition for dismissal alleges that on January 1, 1987 respondent "allowed two females, then 16 and 17 years old, to visit him at his home," that he "supplied and/or permitted the females to consume liquor in his home," and that he "requested and received back rubs from both females and requested sex from the 16 year old." In addition, the amended petition charges that respondent allowed "other males and females in the neighborhood" to visit his home "on a regular basis for the past nine (9) years" and "to drink alcohol in his presence," and that he "regularly loaned money to the neighborhood children and gave them rides to various locations in the vicinity," all without the knowledge or consent of the parents. Finally, it is alleged that in June, 1987 respondent "used profanity in the presence of a minor . . . and engaged in other inappropriate conversation." These allegations will be examined separately hereinafter in the order in which they are raised in the petition. The Criminal Arrest and Attendant Notoriety In March, 1987 respondent was arrested and charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor, a misdemeanor. The charges stemmed from an incident that allegedly occurred on January 1, 1987 at Brewer's home and involved Tina, then seventeen years old, and her sixteen year old friend, Angie. After school resumed in January, 1987 Brewer reported to his principal that he was involved in a "run in with the law" on New Year's Day. This information was conveyed to the deputy Superintendent who advised that no action should be taken until "something official happened." For some reason, the school either failed to learn of Brewer's arrest in March or did nothing at that time. In any event, the arrest was eventually reported in articles published in a local newspaper on November 8 and 19, 1987. Brewer's three day trial in March, 1988 received even more widespread newspaper and television coverage. After the articles appeared in the local newspaper in November, 1987, the superintendent of schools was contacted by one parent whose child was a student in respondent's classroom. Other than this one contact, the Superintendent had no other personal knowledge of any parent concern over respondent's arrest. However, based upon his review of the matter, and having assumed the charges herein to be true, the superintendent concluded that the resulting notoriety attendant to respondent's arrest impaired his effectiveness as a teacher. He further opined that respondent is now vulnerable to accusations of similar improper behavior in the future, and he believes that parents would object if respondent was reassigned to the classroom. Also believing the charges to be true, several neighbors reported that they were concerned with respondent's behavior, and they did not wish their children to be around him. Finally, after the arrest became public, one witness in this proceeding was contacted by several CMS students inquiring about the charges. The January 1, 1987 Incident Angela (Angie) is a girlfriend of Tina who had just turned sixteen on December 18, 1986. At that time she was enrolled as a student at a local high school but was not attending classes. She was also on probation for burglary and grand theft and has a reputation of being an untruthful person. She stayed overnight with Tina on December 31, 1986 to celebrate the holiday, and the two spent New Year's Eve partying with friends until dawn. During the course of the evening Angela consumed a great deal of whiskey and got very drunk. The whiskey was bought for Angie by an undisclosed third party. On January 1, 1987 Tina and Angie spent most of the day at Tina's house with Tina's mother and grandparents. Around 5:00 or 5:30 p.m., the two went to Brewer's house so that Tina could use his telephone to call her boyfriend, Matt. Angie, who was recuperating from a substantial hangover, just wanted to stretch out on Brewer's couch. They found Brewer watching the football bowl games on television. Tina made several calls, including one to Matt, and another to Tommy, who had just broken up with Angie. After the calls were completed, Tina returned to her house to eat dinner. Angie remained on Brewer's couch, still nursing her hangover. After finishing her meal, Tina returned to Brewer's house. Angie then departed to Tina's house to shower and change clothes. Tina also returned to her home a short while later to see what was taking Angie so long. The two eventually returned to Brewer's house around 7:00 or 7:30 p.m. Tina then asked Brewer for a ride to pick up Matt and bring him back to her house. Brewer agreed and the two left leaving Angie watching television. When Tina, Brewer and Matt returned to Brewer's house around 8:00 p.m., they found Angie gone. According to Tina's mother, Angie returned to Tina's house while Tina and Brewer were gone and had left with two male friends. Not knowing this, Tina and Matt left Brewer's house to find Angie but returned about twenty minutes later, by now Brewer's twenty-six year old son, Chuck, had arrived to watch the Orange Bowl football game with his father. A while later, two male friends of Matt showed up at the doorstep and were invited in to watch television. Tina, Matt and his two friends stayed for about 45 minutes watching the football game and then left. Around 10:30 p.m. that evening, a disturbance occurred in the street in front of Tina's house. Brewer's next door neighbor, George Peck, III, who happens to be a uniformed deputy sheriff, observed a girl "screaming and crying" in the middle of the street. The girl (Angie) was with a young man. When the two would not tell him what was the matter, the deputy told the two to leave the neighborhood. In contrast to the testimony of both Tina and Angie that Angie was intoxicated that evening, the deputy did not detect any odor of alcohol on Angie's breath and she did not appear to be intoxicated. Further, the deputy's testimony that the above event occurred around 10:30 p.m. is accepted as being more credible than Angie's testimony that Peck spoke with her some two and one- half hours earlier. Another disturbance occurred in front of Tina's house around midnight involving Tina, Angie and several male teenagers. The police were called and an investigation was begun. As a result of accusations by Tina and Angie, Brewer was later arrested and charged with contributing to Tina's delinquency. At no time during the day or evening of January 1, 1987 did Brewer offer or furnish alcoholic beverages to Tina and Angela nor did the two girls consume alcoholic beverages at his home. He did not ask the girls to give him a back rub, engage in a sexual activity or make any improper overtures towards the girls. Testimony by Tina and Angela to the contrary is rejected as not being credible. Neighborhood Saint or Sinner? The amended complaint alleges that Tina, "along with other males and females in the neighborhood, under the age of 18, have visited Respondent at his home on a regular basis for the past nine (9) years," and that such minors were unchaperoned and consumed alcoholic beverages in his home. As to this allegation, the Board has stipulated that none of the minors were students from Crestwood Middle School. There were numerous confirmed visits by Tina to Brewer's house over the years. She was accompanied on several visits by Robin, who once lived on the street and later lived with Tina for a short time in 1984, and by Angie. In addition, Tina would sometimes bring a boyfriend or another girlfriend, including Theresa, Diane or Kim, who either lived for brief periods of time with Tina or who happened to be in the neighborhood to visit her. Neighbors on the street observed Tina and other similarly aged females visiting Brewer's house from time to time. Except for Robin, the neighbors could not identify the girls and were nonspecific as to the dates and frequency of such visits. None of the neighbors knew the purpose of the visits or what occurred once the visitors entered his home. Most did not know if the guest might be Brewer's daughter, a teenager during part of this period, and who visited him several times a week. While they suspected sinister motives on the part of Brewer, none had any proof of this. There is no competent, credible evidence that Brewer ever furnished alcoholic beverages to minors or allowed them to consume the same at his house. At hearing both Angie and Tina claimed that Brewer often either purchased beer for or gave it to their friend, Rob. However, this assertion was denied by Rob, and his testimony is deemed to be the most credible. Angie claimed that during the last few months of 1986 Brewer would frequently furnish her and Tina with wine coolers or beer. However, she later testified that, except for the January 1, 1987 incident, she never drank an alcoholic beverage at Brewer's home. Her testimony is not deemed to be credible. There was further testimony by neighbor Erickson that he saw a girl (who he did not know) leaving Brewer's house one day during the summer of 1986 carrying what he thought was a can of beer. He thought the girl carrying the can was accompanied by Tina. Erickson also occasionally saw persons of Tina's age leaving Brewer's house carrying brown paper bags. He did not know what the bags contained. Neighbor Barrett reported that in 1978, when she was thirteen, she frequently saw Tina and Robin, then nine years old or so, with sacks of beer and cigarettes after leaving Brewer's house. This testimony is rejected as being incredible. Neighbor Happ reported seeing Tina and a friend leaving Brewer's house around 7:30 a.m. one day and assumed they had spent the night. However, other testimony revealed that the two had actually spent the night at Tina's home before going to Brewer's house that morning. All other testimony in favor of the allegation has either been rejected as not being credible or has been disregarded since it is based solely on hearsay and rumor. Robin is one year older than Tina and once lived in Forest Estates Drive. She also lived with Tina for a few months in 1984. To avoid honoring a subpoena compelling her attendance at this hearing, Robin temporarily left the State of Florida. However, over objection of respondent, her deposition was received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit 5. According to Robin's deposition, she and Tina visited Brewer's home when Robin was around fourteen or fifteen years of age and would drink beer given to them by Brewer. Claiming a lack of recollection, she was unable to give any other details concerning these incidents. Other allegations made by Robin were even more vague and distant. Tina's mother stated that around midnight one evening in 1985 she drove her car to Brewer's house (two doors away) to pick up Robin. Robin's statement as to why she needed a ride is either irrelevant to the charges or discredited. Robin's testimony was contradicted by Brewer who acknowledged that Robin and Tina came over a number of times in 1984 when Robin lived with Tina but only to watch cable TV. This testimony is accepted as being the most credible. It is accordingly found that at no time did Brewer ever offer or furnish alcoholic beverages to Robin or allow her to bring them into his home for consumption. Tina's many visits to Brewer's home are confirmed in the record. Indeed, she regularly visited Brewer's house from the time he moved into the neighborhood in 1978 through 1986. While Tina's mother permitted Tina and her friends to drink in her own home, testimony by Tina that she occasionally drank a beer or wine cooler at Brewer's home is rejected as not being credible. Giving Money and Rides to Neighborhood Children It is alleged that Brewer "regularly loaned money to the neighborhood children and gave them rides to various locations in the vicinity." Much of the testimony relating to this allegation comes from Tina who had a reputation for approaching any and all neighbors for "loans" or "rides." Indeed, practically every neighbor was aware of Tina's habits, and each had been approached by her for favors at one time or another. The other "neighborhood children" are not identified in the petition, but Brewer acknowledged that he occasionally transported not only Tina but also some of her friends. Except for Brewer's voluntary admission that he gave approximately $20 to Kim, a friend of Tina, during the last year, there is no evidence of any other "neighborhood children" receiving loans from Brewer. As to Kim, she is not a resident of the neighborhood, and her age and address are unknown. Brewer readily acknowledged that during recent years, he occasionally gave Tina a few dollars and bought her meals since he felt sorry for her, and she always appeared to be hungry and broke. Prior to that, he had also given her money for odd jobs around his house. He readily acknowledged that he gave her rides to or from various places since she had no transportation. This was because her mother refused to provide transportation once she dropped out of school. There were no sinister motives in providing this assistance since he thought of her as a daughter who had a very troubled childhood. Finally, while the mothers of both Tina and Robin disapproved of Brewer and instructed their daughters not to see him, they knew what Brewer was doing but never personally told Brewer to stop allowing their daughters into his home or, in the case of Tina, to stop giving her rides or occasional financial assistance. Using Profanity in the Presence of a Minor The amended complaint alleges that Brewer used profanity in the presence of a minor and engaged in "other inappropriate conversation." This charge stems from a visit by Tina to Brewer's home in June, 1987. Tina admitted that Brewer never used profanity in her presence prior to that visit. However, by June 25, 1987 Brewer had been charged with a misdemeanor and was extremely upset at Tina, who was responsible in part for police filing charges against him after the January 1, 1987 On incident. June 25 Tina briefly visited Brewer's home where the two discussed the criminal charges. Tina was told by Brewer that their conversation was being taped. A transcription of the conversation has been received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit 4. Brewer proceeded to question Tina about the January 1 incident. During the course of the conversation Brewer used the words "bullshit," "dammit," "damn," and "shit." However, Tina was then an adult (eighteen years of age) and was not a student since, according to her mother, she had not "officially" attended school since she was thirteen. Miscellaneous Despite Tina's continued truancy from school, Brewer attempted to persuade Tina to stay in school and to obtain an education. However, if he spoke with her for any length of time on this subject, she would simply leave the room. She ignored all of his advice. Tina was observed driving Brewer's car around the block on one occasion when she was fifteen years old which was prior to her receiving a driver's license. However, it was done without Brewer's knowledge and consent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the amended petition for dismissal filed against respondent be dismissed, with prejudice, and that respondent be reinstated retroactive to November 17, 1987 with all attendant back pay. DONE AND ORDERED this 5th day of July, 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 5th day of July, 1988.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Nicholas DiLorenzo be expelled from schools within the jurisdiction of the Palm Beach County school system through the 1984 - 1985 school year. RECOMMENDED this 15 day of October, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of October, 1984.
The Issue Whether Respondent's teaching certificate should be revoked or otherwise disciplined on charges that he violated Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-1.06, Florida Administrative Code, the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Teaching Certificate No. 234479 issued by the Florida Department of Education and covering the area of Physical Education. (Request for Admissions, dated December 10, 1985.) At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent 1 was employed as a teacher and basketball coach at Vero Beach Senior High School in Vero Beach, Florida. (Request for Admissions, dated December 10, 1985.) During the 1984-85 school year, Respondent was assigned an early morning duty station on the grounds of Vero Beach Senior High School. P.K., a senior at the school, became acquainted with him by passing him each morning as she rode her bicycle to school. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, p. ll) P.K. attended Vero Beach High School for the eleventh and twelfth grades. She participated in various extra curricular school activities such as the Spanish Club, French Club, Latin Club, Junior Classical League and Future Business Leaders of America. She was a member of the Track and Soccer Teams, and captained the Cross-Country Team. She also worked at various part-time jobs after school. In June 1985, she graduated with a "B" average. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, p.7) During her attendance at Vero Beach High School, P.K. did not attend any courses taught by the Respondent or participate in any sports which he coached. She became acquainted with him in December 1984. During lunch time she helped him keep statistics for the high school basketball team, which he coached. In January 1985, she would routinely spend her lunch hour in his office, visiting with him and keeping basketball statistics. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, p. l3) By the first week of February 1985, her relationship with the Respondent had changed and become more intimate. In lieu of her attending track practice after school, the Respondent picked her up at school and drove her to his apartment, where they had sexual intercourse. Respondent then drove her back to school where she retrieved her bicycle. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, p. 15 ) During February and March 1985, Respondent and P.K. engaged in sexual intercourse at his apartment on 10 to 15 different occasions. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, p. l6) On most of these occasions, Respondent drove P.K. from the high school to his apartment, had sexual intercourse with her, then returned her to school to retrieve her bicycle. When this occurred, she would skip track or cross country practice. On one or two occasions he picked her up at her place of part- time after-school employment, took her to his apartment and had sexual intercourse. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, p.l6) On Valentines Day in 1985, Respondent sent her an arrangement of roses which were delivered to the office at Vero Beach High School. (Request for Admissions, dated December 10, 1985: Petitioner's Exhibit 1, p. 19) Toward the end of March 1985, P.K. told her mother about her relationship with Respondent. During the two months in which Respondent repeatedly engaged in sexual intercourse with P.K., he told her that he loved her. During the Summer of 1985, he asked her if she would marry him, and she agreed. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, p. 22) During the period of time in which they were sexually intimate, Respondent told her that she should find a method of birth control and use it. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, p. 22) On one occasion in February 1985, Respondent and P.K. visited the local beach after school. There were other students from the high school present on the beach at the time. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, p.24: Tr. p.ll) After P.K. told her mother about her sexual relations with Respondent, school officials were contacted and advised of the situation. The Superintendent of Schools for the Indian River County School District immediately initiated an investigation into the matter. During the course of the investigation, school officials interviewed P.K. and questioned her extensively concerning the contents, furnishings and physical layout of Respondent's apartment in an attempt to either confirm or disprove her allegations. After obtaining from her a detailed description of Respondent's apartment and furnishings, Assistant Principal Gregory Smith and Personnel Director Douglas King visited Respondent's apartment. They found that her description was accurate, including her description of quilts located on the floor in Respondent's bedroom closet and a bag of frozen clams in his freezer. (Tr. pp. 36-39) When school officials interviewed Respondent, he told them that during the evening of March 22, 1985--when P.K. had indicated that she and the Respondent were together--he was with John Wyatt, a friend, until approximately 11 or 12 o'clock. Although he and Mr. Wyatt were together on the evening of March 22, 1985, watching an NCAA basketball game, Respondent drove Mr. Wyatt home at approximately 9 p.m., at which time he told Mr. Wyatt that he was going to pick up P.K. at Gringo's Restaurant, where she worked after school. (Tr. p. 14,40) During the course of the School Board's investigation, the local news media learned of the matter and began providing extensive coverage of the allegations and investigation. The three newspapers serving the Vero Beach area, as well as local radio and television stations, provided extensive coverage of the incident. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2 Tr. pp. l9,28) As a result of the extensive coverage by the news media, allegations against Respondent became well known among students, faculty and staff at Vero Beach High School. As a result of the notoriety, P.K. suffered embarrassment and disparagement. Her friends avoided her for several weeks. A member of the school basketball team confronted her on more than one occasion because he was upset over Respondent's resignation. (The basketball player felt that this ruined his chance of going to college Respondent had been helping him in that effort.) On another occasion, a student pointed out P.K. to a reporter who was on campus gathering information about the incident. P.K. was so upset and embarrassed that the Principal recommended that she leave school for a day or so. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, pp. 40, 41 Tr. pp.l7, 28, 30) In addition to the embarrassment and disparagement which P.K. suffered as a result of the notoriety surrounding the incident, her grades suffered. (Tr. pp.23,24) P.K. had a good reputation for truth and veracity at Vero Beach Senior High School. (Tr. pp.24,28) P.K. received mental health counseling to help her deal with mental and emotional problems resulting from her relationship with Respondent and the notoriety surrounding the incident. (Tr. pp.43,44) Prior to her involvement with Respondent, P.K. planned to attend college. Her relationship with Respondent and its after effects contributed, at least in part, to her subsequent decision to forego college. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, pp. 45,46) Respondent's sexual involvement with a female high school student, recognized by administrators, teachers and students as improper conduct, has seriously diminished his effectiveness as a teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's Florida teaching certificate be permanently revoked for violating Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, and rules of the State Board of Education. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of April, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of April, 1986.
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
