Findings Of Fact Respondent, Moses Green, holds Florida Teaching Certificate No. 232099, Graduate, Rank II. He served as dean of students at Boca Ciega School during the 1976-1977 school year. Thereafter he was reassigned as one of three deans of students at Pinellas Park High School, and he served in this capacity during the 1978-1979 school year. Moses Green has been in the field of education since his graduation from Florida A & M University more than 21 years ago. After teaching several years in South Carolina and Georgia he came to Boca Ciega High School in Pinellas County in 1964 where he started as a teacher. He served as dean of students at Boca Ciega High School from 1974 until 1977 when he was transferred to Pinellas Park High School as a dean of students. In October 1976 enroute from his home to school in a vehicle described both as a van and a motor home, Respondent stopped to give a ride to Jacqueline Blackshear and Stephanie Bellamy, two ninth grade students at Boca Ciega High School. When they entered the van Jackie sat on the housing covering the engine between the two front seats facing the rear of the van and Stephanie sat in the front right-hand passenger's seat. Enroute to school Respondent commented that Jackie was growing up and placed his hand on the inside of Jackie's thigh. At the time, Jackie was enroute to school for cheerleader practice and was wearing shorts. Jackie looked and moved towards Stephanie and Respondent removed his hand. Before arriving at school Respondent again placed his hand on Jackie's thigh and removed it when she moved. Upon arrival at school Respondent told Stephanie to get out as he wanted to talk to Jackie. When Stephanie left the van, Respondent was standing facing Jackie whose back was to the closed door. Respondent grabbed Jackie and attempted to kiss her. She pushed away, opened the door and left the van. When she left the van, Jackie was upset and Stephanie suggested she tell her parent. Near noontime Jackiie went to Gail Weston, a physical education teacher at Boca Ciega High School and told her about the incident in Respondent's van. Stephanie accompanied Jackie on this visit. Ms. Weston described Jackie as nervous and upset. After a few minutes of conversation Ms. Weston realized that it was not something she could handle and she told Jackie and Stephanie that they needed to tell their story at the Dean's office and she took them to Jean Johnson, a dean of students at Boca Ciega High School. There both girls told their story to Ms. Johnson who prepared a statement for them to sign. The story repeated to Ms. Johnson was essentially the same told to Ms. Weston. After typing up their statements, Ms. Johnson told Mr. Demps, the principal. He had the girls brought to him, where the story was again repeated. Demps called Respondent in and confronted him with the story. He also advised his area superintendent and the director of personnel, who investigated the allegations made by these two girls. Demps also arranged for a meeting with Jackie's and Stephanie's parents the following day. Following the investigation, Green, on October 19, 1976 was issued a letter of reprimand (Exhibit 1) for his role in the events that had come to the school's attention regarding the two girls noted above and warned that a recurrence of such conduct would result in dismissal. By letter dated 9 November 1976 Respondent was sent another letter (Exhibit 2) regarding a reported and inappropriate remark made by Green to another female student, which Respondent had denied, and the letter suggested Respondent and the girl take lie detector tests. By letter dated December 29, 1976 (Exhibit 3) the Superintendent of Schools advised Respondent that the results of the polygraph test he had voluntarily taken indicated his answers were deceptive, while the girl's polygraph test indicated her responses were honest. Respondent was placed on probation for the remainder of the 1976-1977 school year and for all of the 1977-1978 school year. Although his principal at Boca Ciega High School, Mr. Demps, considered Respondent's effectiveness at Boca Ciega High School seriously impaired by the notoriety given to the events involving Respondent in 1976, he remained at Boca Ciega High School for the remainder of that school year. For the school year 1977-1978 Respondent was transferred to Pinellas Park High School as dean of students. Upon his transfer to Pinellas Park High School, Demps gave Respondent a good evaluation report. During Respondent's first year at Pinellas Park High School, no incidents were reported to form the basis of any of the charges here considered. This school year 1977-1978 included the probation period set by Exhibit 3. The school year 1978-1979, while Respondent was dean of students at Pinellas Park High School, produced the majority of complaints and testimony at this hearing regarding improper comments made to female students by Respondent, improper contact of a sexual nature with female students by Respondent, and corroboration of this testimony by other witnesses. Ten female students who attended Pinellas Park High School during school year 1978-1979 testified against Respondent regarding incidents between Respondent and these students of a sexual nature. Some of these incidents involved contact or attempted contact such as hugging, kissing or attempting to kiss, touching breasts or attempting to do so, and rubbing the front of his body against students' backsides when passing them when adequate room for passing without contact existed. Several testified to improper comments made to them by Respondent such as "You have a nice set of tits," "I'd like to get in your pants," "You have a nice pair of legs," "Why don't we go to a motel," "You drive an old man crazy," "You have a nice butt and look good in those pants," "One of these days it's going to be you and me," and similar comments regarding female students' anatomy. Much of this testimony was corroborated by other witnesses who overheard the remarks or observed the bodily contact. Additionally, some of the witnesses had complained to their parents or to other faculty members shortly after the incidents. Others first came forward with their complaints when they learned the police were investigating Green's conduct at the school and they became convinced their isolated incidents wouldn't appear unbelievable. Some of these students tolerated and perhaps encouraged the comments to provide them leverage to insure a cover-up for numerous "skips" of classes. Some of these witnesses skipped classes without punishment due to Respondent's position as dean and to whom their infractions were referred. Respondent denied each and every testimonial utterance of misconduct on his part while admitting the situation described by the witnesses, in which the improper actions of Respondent were said to have occurred, were real. During his testimony Respondent referred to school records which would corroborate his testimony, but he made no effort to produce these records or to account for their non-production. Respondent was subjected to three criminal trials on charges stemming from allegations of fact similar to those testified to in these proceedings. He was acquitted on charges alleging battery and false imprisonment and convicted of the offense of attempting to contribute to the delinquency of a minor. Those trials resulted in considerable publicity and the allegations became well-known throughout the Pinellas County School System. Several witnesses testified that Respondent's effectiveness in the Pinellas County School System was totally destroyed by virtue of the notoriety gained by Respondent due to this adverse publicity.
The Issue Did Respondent Siebelts commit the offenses set forth in the petition for dismissal (Case No. 88-4697) and the amended administrative complaint (Case No. 89-0189) filed against her? If so, what discipline should she receive?
Findings Of Fact Based on the record evidence, the Hearing Officer makes the following Findings of Fact: Karen Siebelts has held a State of Florida teaching certificate since 1976. Her current certificate was issued May 1, 1986, and covers the areas of elementary education, elementary and secondary reading, and secondary social studies and psychology. For the past thirteen years Siebelts has been employed by the School Board of Broward County as a classroom teacher. During the early stages of her employment, she taught at Melrose Park Middle School. She then moved to Perry Middle School, where she taught a class of emotionally disturbed sixth graders. Her performance at these two schools was rated as acceptable. In November, 1979, Siebelts was assigned to teach at Charles Drew Elementary School, a neighborhood school located in the predominantly black Collier city area of Pompano Beach. The charges lodged against Siebelts are based on specific acts she allegedly committed while she was a Chapter I Reading/Math and Computer teacher at Charles Drew providing remedial instruction to students whose test scores reflected a need for such special assistance. On January 22, 1985, while seated with her fifth grade students at a table during a reading lesson, Siebelts inadvertently kicked one of the students in the shin. The incident occurred as Siebelts was moving her legs to a more comfortable position. The force involved was minimal and produced no visible injuries. The student immediately demanded an apology from Siebelts. Siebelts responded to this demand with silence. She neither apologized nor said anything to suggest that she had intended to kick the student. Earlier in the lesson, Siebelts had directed the student to stop talking. The student had defied the directive and continued to talk. It was not until approximately three minutes after the student's initial defiance of the directive, however, that the kicking incident occurred. Nonetheless, the student suspected that Siebelts had intentionally kicked her because of her failure to obey Siebelts' order that she not talk. When the student came home from school that day she told her mother that Siebelts had intentionally kicked her during class. The mother immediately reported the incident to the principal of the school, Hubert Lee. The matter was referred to the School Board's Internal Affairs Unit for investigation. The requested investigation was conducted. Following the completion of the investigation, a written report of the investigator's findings was submitted to the administration. No further action was taken regarding this incident until approximately three and a half years later when the instant petition for dismissal was issued. Siebelts was annoyed when she learned that the student and her mother had accused her of wrongdoing in connection with the January 22, 1985, kicking incident. On February 19, 1985, she expressed her annoyance in front of her fifth grade class and in their presence threatened to take legal action against those students and parents who had made libelous or slanderous statements about her or had otherwise verbally abused her. She told the students that they and their parents would be subpoenaed to court and if they did not appear they would be incarcerated. The principal of the school was informed of these remarks shortly after they were made, but it was not until the instant petition for dismissal was issued on August 22, 1988, that Siebelts was first formally charged with having made the remarks. Before coming to work on January 28 1986, Siebelts took a codeine pain medication that her physician had prescribed. When classes started that morning she was still under the influence of the medication. She was listless and drowsy. Her speech was slurred and she appeared incoherent at times. She also had difficulty maintaining her balance when she walked. Because Siebelts had been taking this medication "on and off" since 1979, she had been aware of these potential side effects of the medication when ingesting it on this particular occasion. A teacher's aide in Siebelts' classroom concerned about Siebelts' condition summoned the principal, Hubert Lee, to the classroom. When he arrived, Lee observed Siebelts seated at her desk. She was just staring and seemed "to be almost falling asleep." The students were out of control. They were laughing and making fun of Siebelts. After questioning Siebelts and receiving an answer that was not at all responsive to the question he had asked, Lee instructed Siebelts to come to his office. Siebelts complied, displaying an unsteady gait as she walked to Lee's office. In Lee's office, Siebelts insisted that she was fine, but conceded that she was "on" prescribed pain medication. Throughout their conversation, Siebelts continued to slur her words and it was difficult for Lee to understand her. Pursuant to Lee's request, Dr. Lorette David, Lee's immediate supervisor, and Nat Stokes, a School Board investigator, came to Lee's office to observe and assess Siebelts' condition. A determination was thereafter made that Siebelts was not capable of performing her instructional duties that day, which was an accurate assessment. She therefore was sent home for the day. Because of her impaired condition, rather than driving herself home, she was driven to her residence by Dr. David. Although she believed that she was not suffering from any impairment, Siebelts did not protest the decision to relieve her of her duties because she felt that any such protest would have fallen on deaf ears. Following this incident, Siebelts was issued a letter of reprimand by Lee. She also was referred to the School Board's Employee Assistance Program because it was felt that she might have a substance abuse problem. Siebelts agreed to participate in the program and received counselling. At no time subsequent to January 28, 1986, did Siebelts report to work under the influence of her pain medication or any other drug. During the 1987-1988 school year, Siebelts and two other Chapter I teachers, Rosa Moses and Mary Cooper, occupied space in Charles Drew's Chapter I reading and math laboratory. Their classrooms were located in the same large room and were separated by makeshift partitions. Siebelts is white. Moses and Cooper, as well as the aides who were assigned to the laboratory during that school year, are black. In October, 1987, Moses complained to Principal Lee that Siebelts was not teaching her students, but rather was constantly engaging in loud verbal confrontations with them that disrupted Moses' lessons. Lee had received similar complaints about Siebelts from others. He therefore asked Moses to advise him in writing of any future classroom misconduct on Siebelts' part. Siebelts continued to engage in conduct in her classroom which Moses deemed inappropriate and disruptive. On November 4, 1987, for the last five minutes of one of her classes, she loudly exchanged verbal barbs with her students. Her yelling made it difficult for Moses and Cooper to teach their lessons. On November 5, 1987, throughout an entire 45-minute class period, Siebelts was embroiled in a verbal battle with a student during which she made derogatory remarks about the student's size. She called the student "fat" and told her that she "shake[d] like jelly." The student, in turn, called Siebelts "fruity" and likened her to a "scarecrow." On that same day during a later class period, Siebelts took a student by the arm and, following a tussle with the student, placed him in his seat. Thereafter, she made belittling remarks to the other students in the class. She said that they were "stupid" and "belonged in a freak show." She also referred to them as "imbeciles." Siebelts further told her students that their "mothers eat dog food." On November 25, 1987, Siebelts commented to the students in one of her classes that they would be able to move around the classroom with greater ease if they were not so fat. As she had been asked to do, Moses provided Lee with a written account of these November, 1987, encounters between Siebelts and her students, but Lee did not take any immediate action to initiate disciplinary action against Siebelts. Although she did not so indicate in her report, Moses believed that the unflattering remarks that Siebelts had made to the students on these occasions constituted racial slurs inasmuch as all of the students to whom the remarks had been addressed were black and in addressing these remarks to the students as a group she had referred to them as "you people." Moses thought that "you people" had meant black people in general, whereas Siebelts had intended the phrase to refer to just the students in the classroom. At no time during any of these reported incidents did Siebelts make specific reference to the students' race, nor did she specifically attack black people in general. The target of her demeaning and insulting remarks were those of her students whose unruly and disrespectful behavior she was unable to control. Her efforts to maintain discipline and promote learning in the classroom had failed. She had become frustrated with the situation and verbally lashed out at her students. Unfortunately, these outbursts only served to further reduce her effectiveness as a teacher. On March 1, 1988, Siebelts was involved in an incident similar to the one which had occurred more than three years earlier on January 22, 1985. As on the prior occasion, Siebelts was sitting at a classroom table with her students. Her legs were crossed. When she repositioned her legs, her foot inadvertently came in contact with the top of the head of a student who was crawling under the table to retrieve a pencil the student had dropped. The student had been told by Siebelts not to go under the table but had disobeyed the instruction. She had been under the table for approximately a minute and a half before being struck by Siebelts foot. The blow to the student's head was a light one and produced only a slight bump. Nonetheless, after getting up from under the table, the student, a brash fourth grader who had had confrontations with Siebelts in the past, threatened to physically retaliate against Siebelts. Siebelts did not say anything to the student and the class ended without the student following through on her threat. Following this incident, Siebelts telephoned the student's mother at home to discuss the student's classroom behavior. The call was placed sometime before 9:00 p.m. The conversation between Siebelts and the mother soon degenerated into an argument. They terminated the discussion without settling their differences. Lee subsequently met with the mother. He suggested that a meeting with Siebelts at the school be arranged. The mother indicated to Lee that she would not attend such a meeting unless school security was present. She explained that she was so angry at Siebelts that she was afraid that she would lose her composure and physically attack Siebelts if they were in the same room together.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission issue a final order suspending Karen Siebelts' teaching certificate for two years and that the School Board of Broward County issue a final order suspending Siebelts until the reinstatement of her teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of June, 1989. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NOS. 88-4687 AND 89-0189 The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties: Commisioner of Education's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted and incorporated in substance in the Findings of Fact portion of this Recommended Order. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Siebelts was not charged with having made threatening remarks the day after the January 22, 1985, kicking incident. These threats were allegedly made, according to the charging documents, on February 19, 1985. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Insofar as it asserts that Siebelts engaged in name-calling on dates other than those specfied in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint otherwise, it is accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Furthermore, the witness whose testimony is recited in this proposed finding later clarified her testimony and conceded that Siebelts did not use the precise words quoted in this proposed finding. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence to the extent that it suggests that Siebelts made "racial comments" on the dates specified in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint. Insofar as it states that such comments were made on other occasions, it is rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. According to the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint, Siebelts threatened her students with legal action on February 19, 1985. This proposed finding, however, relates to alleged threats of legal action made by Siebelts during the 1987-1988 school year. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Siebelts' Proposed Findings of Fact First unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; sixth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Second unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Accepted and :incorporated in substance; sixth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; ninth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Third unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as subordinate; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as unnecessary; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; sixth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; ninth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Fourth unnumbered paragraph: Rejected as more in the nature of a statement of opposing parties' position than a finding of fact; second sentence: Rejected as subordinate; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; sixth sentence: Rejected as subordinate; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Fifth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; sixth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; seventh sentence: Rejected as subordinate; eighth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; ninth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; tenth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; eleventh sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; twelfth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Sixth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; sixth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Seventh unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony (The exculpatory testimony of Siebelts which is summarized in the first three sentences of this paragraph has not been credited because it is contrary to the more credible testimony of other witnesses) fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Eighth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; third sentence: Rejected as subordinate; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Rejected as subordinate; sixth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Rejected as subordinate; ninth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Ninth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Tenth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Superintendent of School's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted and incorporated in substance, except for the fourth sentence, which has been rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted and incorporated in substance except to the extent that it asserts that Siebelts "advised the students that they and their parents would be placed in jail because of the lies and the slander." The preponderance of the evidence reveals that she actually told them that they and their parents would be incarcerated if they did not appear in court when summoned. First sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Rejected as subordinate. Accepted and incorporated in substance. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Second and third sentences: Rejected as more in the nature of argument concerning relatively insignificant matters than findings of fact addressing necessary and vital issues. Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent that it suggests that Siebelts had alcohol on her breath. Any such suggestion has been rejected because it is contrary to the testimony of Investigator Stokes. Stokes, who has been employed by the School Board as an investigator for the past 20 years, testified that he was standing one or two feet away from Siebelts and did not detect the odor of alcohol on her breath. In view of his experience regarding the investigation of these matters, his testimony has been credited. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Accepted and incorporated in substance. To the extent that this proposed finding states that Siebelts made inappropriate remarks regarding the students' clothing or other matters on dates other than those specified in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint, it has been rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Insofar as it asserts that Siebelts made derogatory remarks about black people in general on the dates specified in these charging documents, it has been rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. To the extent that this proposed finding indicates that Siebelts otherwise insulted the students in her class on the dates specified in the charging documents, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. The "disparaging remarks" which are the subject of this proposed finding were purportedly made during the 1984-1985 school year. The "disparaging remarks" referenced in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint were allegedly made, according to these charging documents, during the 1987-1988 school year, more specifically, on November 4, 5, and 25, 1987. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. The "critical" remarks referred to in this proposed finding were allegedly made prior to the 1987-1988 school year. First sentence: Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial to the extent it references reactions to "disparaging" and "critical" remarks that were purportedly made prior to the 1987-1988 school year. Otherwise, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of the testimony of Siebelts' former students and colleagues rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent that it reflects that Moses actively monitored Siebelts classroom conduct "through December of 1987." The preponderance of the evidence establishes that such active monitoring actually ceased November 25, 1987; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent it indicates that Noses heard Siebelts tell her students that they "were dirty and needed baths." This comment was purportedly overheard, not by Moses, but by Margaret Cameron, a teacher's aide who had left Charles Drew prior to the commencement of the 1987- 1988 school year; fourth and fifth sentences: Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. These proposed findings are based on Cameron's testimony regarding offensive comments she had allegedly overheard while an aide in Siebelts' classroom. These pre-1987-1988 school year comments, however, are not mentioned in either the petition for dismissal or the amended administrative complaint. First sentence: As this proposed finding correctly points out, Siebelts' insulting comments only served to heighten the students' hostility and anger toward her. There is no persuasive competent substantial evidence, though, to support the further finding that these comments "resulted in several physical altercations between the students;" second sentence: Rejected inasmuch as there no persuasive competent substantial evidence that there was any "heated verbal exchange" on November 5, 1987, between Siebelts and the student which preceded their "altercation." The preponderance of the evidence establishes that the verbal battle with her students occurred immediately after this incident; third sentence: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Although she may used physical force during her encounter with this student, it is unlikely that she actually "tossed" him into his seat. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected inasmuch as there is no persuasive competent substantial evidence to support a finding that Siebelts telephoned the student's mother as a result of the incident near the air-conditioner. The preponderance of the evidence does establish that Siebelts did telephone the mother on a subsequent occasion, but there is no indication that Siebelts threatened the mother or otherwise acted inappropriately during this telephone conversation. Although the mother asked to have security personnel present during a parent-teacher conference with Siebelts, the preponderance of the evidence reveals that this request was not the product of any threats that Siebelts had made against the mother. First sentence: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Siebelts' testimony that the contact was unintentional is plausible and has been credited. The circumstantial evidence presented by Petitioners (including evidence of prior confrontations between Siebelts and the student) raises some questions regarding the veracity of Siebelts' testimony on this point, but such evidence is not sufficiently compelling to warrant the discrediting this testimony. Given her penchant for verbalizing to her students her thoughts about them, had Siebelts intended to kick the student as a disciplinary measure, she undoubtedly would have made this known to the student, rather than remain silent as she did; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent that it suggests that immediately after kicking the student, Siebelts had a "smirk on her face." To this limited extent, this proposed finding is not supported by any persuasive competent substantial evidence; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. First sentence: Rejected as not supported by any persuasive competent substantial evidence; second, third, fourth and fifth sentences: Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. To the extent that this proposed finding suggests that Siebelts' behavior at school on January 28, 1986, and her verbal attack of her students on November 4, 5, and 25, 198', reduced her effectiveness as a teacher, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. Insofar as it indicates that other conduct in which she engaged resulted in a reduction or loss of effectiveness, it has been rejected as either contrary to the greater weight of the evidence (other conduct specified in charging documents) or beyond the scope of the charges (other conduct not specified in charging documents). COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Whitelock, Esquire 1311 S.E. 2nd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Edward J. Marko, Esquire Suite 322, Bayview Building 4,1040 Bayview Drive Post Office Box 4369 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33338 Virgil L. Morgan, Superintendent Broward County School Board 1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Thomas P. Johnson, Ed.D. Associate Superintendent Human Resources Broward County School Board 1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Craig R. Wilson, Esquire Suite 315 1201 U.S. Highway One North Palm Beach, Florida 33408-3581 Karen B. Wilde Robert F. McRee, Esquire Executive Director Post Office Box 75638 Education Practices Commission Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent, Cornell Lamont Steward (Respondent or Mr. Steward), violated sections 1012.795(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2012), or sections 1012.795(1)(g) or (j), Florida Statutes (2011),1/ and implementing administrative rules, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint,2/ and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction?
Findings Of Fact The Commissioner is the state officer responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding educator certificates. At all times relevant to the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint, Mr. Steward held Florida Educator Certificate 1156507, covering the areas of biology and earth- space science, and was employed as a science teacher at Miami Carol City Senior High School in the Miami-Dade County School District. Mr. Steward’s certificate expired on June 30, 2013. On September 7, 2011, Mr. Steward was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs with resulting damage to property or another person in Broward County, Florida. As Mr. Steward admitted, on April 3, 2013, he was found guilty by a jury on this charge. On December 6, 2011, there was an altercation between a 15-year-old male student, A.C., and Mr. Steward in his classroom at Miami Carol City Senior High School. The Commissioner offered no competent evidence regarding this event other than pre-hearing admissions of Mr. Steward and his testimony at hearing. Mr. Steward testified that he was teaching in his fifth- period class, which was a ninth-grade science class consisting of about 21 students, when there was a knock on the classroom door. A.C., who was a student with behavior and attendance problems, had moved to a seat near the door and offered to see who was there. Mr. Steward at first agreed, but then changed his mind and asked A.C. to remain seated, while Mr. Steward answered the door himself. At the door were three unknown students. A.C. then got out of his seat, stating that the unknown students were his brothers, and moved to the door to greet them. Mr. Steward testified that the students at the door caused a great amount of disruption in the classroom, and he turned around to quiet his students. He testified that as he turned his back to the door, he felt A.C. “violently” press his groin against Mr. Steward’s buttocks, which startled and frightened Mr. Steward, so he had to “remove [A.C.] from [his] personal space.” Mr. Steward testified that A.C. then positioned himself between Mr. Steward and his desk, which had the telephone. According to Mr. Steward, A.C. then stepped forward in a “violent motion” and threatening manner with his fists balled up and “chin checked” Mr. Steward. Detective Marin testified that “chin checking” was slang to describe a tap or touch on the chin primarily as a challenge, used to instigate a confrontation, but was not itself a punch. Mr. Steward testified that he “removed [A.C.] from [his] presence.” Mr. Steward said that then, A.C. moved toward him again with a threatening motion, and Mr. Steward responded: With my left hand I grabbed his right shoulder. With my left hand I grabbed his right shoulder and with my right hand I grabbed his left shoulder. With using his momentum I placed him on the ground, I did not throw him, I did not slam him, I placed him on the ground. He’s a very small person. As soon as I did that, I, I checked for my students who were in attendance to locate security. One or two of them left the class and then there began to be a stampede out of the classroom. From that moment on–-oh, oh, while I was holding him on the ground, A.C. began to violently struggle and make motions towards me. Then also the three other students began to grab and pull at me and grab, pull and push at me. Then for my own safety I didn’t know if these children were armed. I didn’t know anything, I let A.C. go and he and the three other students fled the classroom. Later that day, Principal Dunn was told that Mr. Steward had been in an altercation with a student. He asked the school resource officer, Tracy Moore, to investigate. The following morning, December 7, 2011, Principal Dunn called Mr. Steward to his office to discuss the incident. But for the meeting in Mr. Dunn’s office, Mr. Steward would have reported to his classroom. At the meeting, Mr. Steward’s behavior was a bit erratic. He was laughing, loudly and inappropriately, at the events of the previous day. Principal Dunn noticed that Mr. Steward’s eyes were glassy. Principal Dunn suspected that Mr. Steward was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Mr. Steward stated that his eyes were glassy and swollen because he was up the night before thinking about the incident with A.C. Principal Dunn called the region director and the Office of Professional Standards for advice on how to proceed. He kept Mr. Steward in his “custody,” so that Principal Dunn or the school would not be responsible if anything occurred. Principal Dunn completed a Reasonable Suspicion Form, noting that Mr. Steward had slow or inappropriate reactions, glassy and swollen eyes, and inappropriate laughter. He determined that there was probable cause to send Mr. Steward for a drug and alcohol screen. Mr. Steward was tested by LabCorp on December 7, 2011. The results were positive for marijuana. Mr. Steward’s exhibit offered to show that the lab sample which was tested was actually obtained on another day is not persuasive, and his argument that the test results should not be admitted is completely rejected. On January 5, 2012, a Conference for the Record was held with Mr. Steward, Mr. Dunn, Ms. Sherri Daniels of United Teachers of Dade, and Ms. Joyce Castro, district director. The events of December 7, 2011, and the test results were reviewed with Mr. Steward. He was given an opportunity to respond, but declined that opportunity. He was advised that a second positive drug test, refusal to submit to future drug tests, or failure to abide with rehabilitation directions could result in additional action, including dismissal. Mr. Dunn testified that the incidents had an effect upon Mr. Steward’s effectiveness as a teacher.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Respondent, Cornell Lamont Steward, in violation of section 1012.795(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2012), and section 1012.795(1)(g), Florida Statutes (2011). It is further recommended that the Commission impose upon Cornell Lamont Steward a fine of $3,000.00 and revoke his educator certificate for a period of three years, at the expiration of which time he may receive a new certificate by meeting all certification requirements of the state board current at the time of his application, subject to terms and conditions determined by the Education Practices Commission to be reasonably necessary to ensure that there will be no threat to students and that he will be capable of resuming the responsibilities of an educator. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of November, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of November, 2015.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Notice of Specific Charges filed against him, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been employed by Petitioner as a high school teacher assigned to Miami Norland Senior High School. Respondent holds a continuing contract. Respondent began teaching for the Dade County Public Schools during the 1968-69 school year. During that school year, the annual evaluation form utilized by Petitioner provided that a score of below 3.5 indicated unsatisfactory work. During that, his first year of teaching, Respondent received a score of 3.2 on his annual evaluation. For the next 15 years thereafter, Respondent was rated as being acceptable on his annual evaluations for each and every year. During the 1984 summer session, an incident occurred between Respondent and one of his students. As a result of Petitioner's investigation into the allegation that Respondent had committed a battery on that student, conferences were held between Respondent and administrative personnel. Respondent requested a leave of absence for the 1984-85 school year due to personal reasons, and his request for leave of absence was granted. Respondent was required, however, to undergo a psychological evaluation prior to returning to his duties as a classroom teacher. During that school year while Respondent was on leave of absence, he was evaluated by Dr. Gail D. Wainger, a psychiatrist to whom he was referred by Petitioner. Respondent thereafter saw Dr. Albert C. Jaslow, a private psychiatrist, on two occasions. Dr. Jaslow submitted two reports which contained, inter alia, a recommendation that Respondent be transferred to a different school. Dr. Wainger reviewed Dr. Jaslow's reports and her own earlier report and, on May 21, 1985, submitted a report to Petitioner stating, inter alia, that there was no barrier to Respondent's being reinstated into active teaching. Based upon that evaluation, Petitioner permitted Respondent to return to the same teaching position previously held by him for the 1985-86 school year. At the conclusion of that school year, Respondent was rated as being acceptable on his annual evaluation. Respondent again received acceptable annual evaluations for the following two years, i.e., the 1986-87 and the 1987- 88 school years. On his annual evaluation for the 1988-89 school year Respondent was rated as being unacceptable in the area of classroom management, one of the six categories of classroom performance. Pursuant to the rules governing the TADS evaluation system, a rating of unacceptable in any of the categories covered by the annual evaluation instrument requires an overall rating of unacceptable. On his annual evaluation for the 1989-90 school year Respondent was rated as being acceptable in all six categories of classroom performance, including the area of classroom management. It was specifically noted on his annual evaluation form that Respondent had performed satisfactorily during both of the official observations made of his classroom performance. However, Respondent was rated as unacceptable in the non-classroom category entitled professional responsibility. That rating of unacceptable in that one category required that Respondent's overall rating be unacceptable. The basis for the unacceptable rating in the area of professional responsibility involved the determination that Respondent had been disrespectful to students on two separate occasions. On April 16, 1990, one of Respondent's students called another of his students who had an unusual skin pigmentation condition "two-toned." Respondent immediately told the offending student, "do not call the girl two-toned." A conference for the record was conducted with Respondent on April 30, 1990, and Respondent was given a supervisory referral to the Employee Assistance Program. During the week of May 7, 1990, one of Respondent's students was being verbally abusive to the other students, and Respondent told him to stop. That student thereupon began being verbally abusive toward Respondent and using profanity. Respondent then said to that student, "you should talk. You look like Mr. Spock from Star Trek." A conference for the record was conducted with Respondent, and he was issued a formal reprimand. The summary of the conference for the record dated June 1, 1990, prepared by the principal of Miami Norland Senior High School states that the student involved has physically-deformed ears. On his annual evaluation for the 1990-91 school year Respondent was rated as being unacceptable in the areas of classroom management, techniques of instruction, and professional responsibility. Accordingly, he received an overall evaluation of unacceptable. During the 1990-91 school year there were no reported incidents of Respondent allegedly making disrespectful remarks to students. That basis for being rated unacceptable in the area of professional responsibility during the prior academic year was cured. The rating of unacceptable in the area of classroom management was based upon a number of observations of Respondent during the school year wherein the observers noted a lack of control in the classroom, Respondent's failure or inability to re-direct students who were off-task, Respondent's failure or inability to enforce classroom rules, and Respondent's failure or inability to deal with students who were tardy in coming to his class. As to his techniques of instruction, observers during that school year noted that Respondent was teaching from sub-standard books (without noting whether that was a matter within Respondent's control), that the students were confused by Respondent's directions on several occasions, that the students did not understand the lessons being taught, and that on several occasions Respondent made errors in math when writing examples on the board. Some of the observers also noted that Respondent spent too much time on some of the lessons that he was teaching. Numerous prescriptions were given to Respondent during that school year to improve his instruction and to manage his classroom, such as reading sections of the TADS manual and observing other teachers. Respondent complied with each and every prescription given to him. As to being unacceptable in the area of professional responsibility, Respondent failed to properly maintain student folders reflecting their work to justify grades being given to the students, and there were errors in Respondent's gradebook. It also became apparent that Respondent was not making parental contact for students that were performing unsatisfactorily. By March of the 1990-91 school year Respondent was directed in writing to make parental contact as required by Dade County Public School policy. By memorandum dated June 3, 1991, Respondent was notified that he was required to produce within 48 hours a complete up-to-date gradebook, a parent contact log substantiating parent contacts for the entire school year, and all student folders substantiating Respondent's gradebook. He was advised that if he did not do so, he would receive an unsatisfactory rating in the area of professional responsibility. The principal and assistant principal understood the directive to mean that Respondent must produce those documents by noon on June 6, and Respondent understood the directive to mean that he was to produce the documents on June 6. At noon, the principal was not available to Respondent. Respondent did produce many of the documents later that day. There was, of course, no parental log for the entire year since one did not exist. At the end of the 1990-91 school year a recommendation for dismissal was made. Based upon that recommendation, the School Board of Dade County, Florida, suspended Respondent from his employment effective at the close of the workday on July 25, 1991, for incompetency and gross insubordination. In 1984 Respondent filed a grievance against Assistant Principal Wessel and Principal Fowler at Miami Norland Senior High School. The subject of the grievance was that Assistant Principal Wessel had in a loud voice and in a demeaning manner criticized Respondent's lesson plans in front of other teachers, staff and students. The grievance was also filed against Principal Fowler to enlist his assistance in making Wessel refrain from repeated conduct of that nature. The Union considered the grievance to be valid and processed it through the grievance procedures. Thereafter, Respondent was advised by Fowler and Wessel that he had made a big mistake and he would be sorry for having filed that grievance. Respondent began to believe that he had lost the support of the administration and that his job was in jeopardy. When Respondent returned to his teaching duties after his leave of absence during the 1984-85 school year he was moved to a classroom directly across from the main office. Respondent considered that action to be demeaning. He still achieved acceptable evaluations for that year and the following year. During the next school year, in the middle of February, the administration moved Respondent to an old metal shop room and gave his classroom to a new teacher. He still achieved an acceptable annual evaluation that year. For the following school year the administrators assigned Respondent to teach five low-level math classes using five different classrooms. For the last three years of his teaching career, the ones during which he received unacceptable ratings in different categories, Respondent was required to teach all low-level math classes. Although administrative personnel testified that some teachers like low-level classes, Respondent repeatedly made it clear that he did not want that assignment. Further, there is a specific contract provision between the Dade County Schools and the teachers' union prohibiting teachers from being locked into low-level classes year after year, as Respondent was. During the last several years while Respondent was achieving unsatisfactory ratings in some categories, while he was being switched from classroom to classroom, and while he was being required to teach only low-level classes year after year, the administrative staff actively undermined Respondent's authority and demeaned him in front of students and other teachers. They told teachers and students that they were trying to get rid of Respondent and that Respondent was a bad teacher. When Respondent referred disruptive students to the office, the administrative staff laughed or simply refused to take any follow-up action. On one occasion when Respondent referred a student to the office for throwing an eraser at another student, an assistant principal told the misbehaving student that he should have thrown the eraser at Respondent instead. Respondent "lost face" around the school. It became known that the students could misbehave in Respondent's classes with impunity. Even the students understood that Respondent was assigned only the most difficult of students. Although there was a new principal at Miami Norland Senior High School during Respondent's last year of teaching, the new principal, coincidentally, had been the principal for the 1984 summer session at Parkway Junior High School where Respondent had been involved in an incident with a student prior to taking his year's leave of absence from teaching. Under the new principal's administration, Respondent was retained in his assignment of five low-level math classes and was moved to the classroom directly across from the office. No evidence was offered that the new principal understood that efforts had been made to keep Respondent's authority undermined and to make him quit. It is clear, however, that no steps were taken to stop or reverse the damage to Respondent's reputation and ability to teach. In response to Respondent's referral to the Employee Assistance Program, Respondent did make the contact required of him. In fact, there were numerous contacts between Respondent and the personnel involved in that program. Additionally, Respondent was seen by Dr. Goldin, a mental health professional, on four occasions between April and June of 1990. Between June and September of 1990, he also saw an associate of Dr. Goldin eight times in individual sessions and four times in joint sessions with his wife. Respondent repeatedly requested transfers from his teaching assignment at Miami Norland Senior High School. Some of the requests were made to his principals and some of them were sent to the Office of Professional Standards. From the time that Respondent returned to his teaching duties after his leave of absence during the 1984-85 school year, he requested transfers each and every year. He requested a transfer at least twice during his last year of teaching. Some of the requests for transfer were hardship requests and others were normal requests. Additionally, both Dr. Jaslow in 1985 and Dr. Goldin in 1990 recommended to the Office of Professional Standards that Respondent be transferred to a different school. All requests for transfer were ignored. During the last years of Respondent's teaching career, in addition to the stress placed upon him by the administrative staff's efforts to undermine and ridicule him, he experienced additional stress as a result of his wife's serious illness. He told a number of the administrative staff about the problem at home. The difficulty under which that placed him was part of the reason for the referral to the Employee Assistance Program. During those last years, during conferences with administrative staff regarding his performance, Respondent exhibited anxiety and showed signs of stress. He accused the administration of undermining him and of treating him unfairly. He even attributed some of the problems he was experiencing in the classroom to the administrators. Their reaction to Respondent's accusations was to accuse Respondent of being paranoid.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered suspending Respondent without pay for the 1990-91 school year and reinstating him as a full-time classroom teacher thereafter at a school other than Miami Norland Senior High School. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of January, 1992, 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 27th day of January, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 91-4936 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 4, 33, 35-37, 65, 67, 68, 72, and 74 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2, 3, 8, 11, 19, 32, 38, 58, 71, 75, and 77 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 5-7, 9, 10, 12-18, 20-31, 39-57, 59-64, 66, 69, 70, 73, and 76 have been rejected as being unnecessary in determining the issues involved in this proceeding. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 34 has been rejected as being contrary to the weight of the evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 4-11, 13, and 14 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 2, 3, 12, and 15 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. Copies furnished: Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Octavio J. Visiedo Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire 1450 N.E. Second Avenue, Suite 301 Miami, Florida 33132 William Du Fresne, Esquire Du Fresne and Bradley, P.A. 2929 S.W. Third Avenue, Suite One Miami, Florida 33129
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent should be dismissed from his position of employment as a School Monitor on the basis of conduct which is alleged to constitute conduct unbecoming an employee, willful neglect of duty, and misconduct in office.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent, Hector Valdez, was employed by the School Board as a School Monitor and was assigned to work at Hialeah Miami Lakes Senior High School. At all times material to this case, Michael Bowers (who is not a party to this proceeding) was also employed as a School Monitor and was assigned to work at Hialeah Miami Lakes Senior High School. The Respondent and Michael Bowers were coworkers; neither was supervisor over the other. On September 25, 1991, for the first time ever, the Respondent gave Bowers a ride in the Respondent's car after work. First they went to the union office. Bowers' beeper went off and Bowers asked the Respondent to drive him to Bowers' mother's house. The Respondent complied. While the two men were at the residence of Bowers' mother, Bowers' beeper went off again. Bowers told the Respondent that the last beeper call was from a runaway girl or from a girl who had been thrown out of the house by her mother. Bowers went on to explain that he needed to meet the girl to talk to her and try to convince her to go home. To that end, Bowers asked the Respondent to drive him to one of the Metro stations. The Respondent complied with Bowers' request. At the Metro station Bowers met two girls. The Respondent had never seen either of the two girls before. From their age and appearance, they looked like they might be students, but the Respondent did not know whether they were students. The oldest of the two girls appeared to be pregnant. Bowers explained to the Respondent that he (Bowers) needed to go somewhere to talk to the girls and try to convince them to go home. Purportedly to that end, Bowers asked the Respondent to drive him and the two girls to a motel. The Respondent complied with the request. When they arrived at the motel, Bowers and the girls went into the motel and Bowers obtained a motel room. The Respondent remained in his automobile and played no part in obtaining the motel room. A few minutes later, Bowers asked the Respondent to take him to buy a pizza. The Respondent drove Bowers to a pizza shop and then drove Bowers and the pizza back to the motel. The Respondent left Bowers at the motel and did not see Bowers or the two girls again until the next morning at work. The Respondent did not know that Bowers intended to spend the night at the motel with the two girls, nor was he aware that Bowers intended to engage in any other form of improper conduct with either of the two girls. On September 26, 1991, when Bowers reported to work at Hialeah Miami Lakes Senior High School, he brought with him the same two girls who had been with him at the motel the previous day. The Respondent did not play any role in transporting the two girls from the motel to the high school on September 26, 1991, and did not find out until several days later that Bower had spent the night at the motel with the two girls and had brought them to the school. 1/ On September 26, 1991, after the Respondent reported to work at Hialeah Miami Lakes Senior High School, he saw the two girls who had been with Bowers at the motel the previous evening. The girls were on the school campus and the Respondent knew they were not supposed to be there because they were not students at Hialeah Miami Lakes Senior High School. 2/ As soon as he saw the two girls on September 26, 1992, the Respondent went looking for Bowers. When the Respondent found Bowers he told him the girls were on campus, reminded him that the girls weren't supposed to be there, and told him that he (Bowers) needed to do something about it. Bowers assured the Respondent that he would so something to take care of the matter. Bowers did not do anything effective to take care of the matter, because the two girls remained at Hialeah Miami Lakes Senior High School all day on September 26, 1991. The Respondent knew that Bowers had not taken care of the matter because he saw the two girls on the school campus several times during the day on September 26, 1991. On September 26, 1991, the Respondent did not report to the school administrators of Hialeah Miami Lakes Senior High School that the two girls who had been with Bowers at the motel were on the school campus. The Respondent's duties as a School Monitor required that he make a report to the school administrators of any trespassers on the school campus. The Respondent was aware of his duty to report trespassers on the school campus. At the hearing the Respondent candidly admitted that he failed to follow proper procedure on September 26, 1991, by failing to report the presence on campus of the two girls who had been with Bowers the previous evening.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the School Board issue a Final Order in this proceeding to the following effect: Dismissing all charges against the Respondent and restoring him to his former position of employment with back pay from the date of his suspension. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of July 1992. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SC 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of July 1992.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent, Glover E. Jones, was licensed as a teacher in the State of Florida holding certificate number 556798, covering the area of mathematics, and was employed by the Madison County School Board as an adjunct instructor at Madison County High School, Madison, Florida. The uncontroverted facts in this case show that Pamela Ann Hale, the alleged recipient of the remarks in question here, was born on August 28, 1969. As of the date of the hearing, she was living with her mother in Live Oak, Florida, attending the 10th grade at Suwannee High School there. At the time of the alleged incident here, she was living with her father in Madison and attended Madison County High School. Her mother and father are divorced. While attending Madison County High School, Hale had the Respondent as her math teacher during the third period of the school day during the month of September 1984, at the beginning of the 1984-1985 school year. She did not have him for any other subjects nor did she know him prior to the beginning of the school year. This class was made up of students who required extra assistance and consisted of approximately 15 to 16 students in remedial math. On the day in question, Hale was selling candy during the class period to raise money for a school organization. She sold candy not only to her fellow students but also to the Respondent. At this point the stories told by Ms. Hale and by the Respondent begin to diverge. Ms. Hale contends that when she approached Jones on the date in question to buy candy he advised her to come back after class and she could sell him some. She contends, also, that she came back after the other students left even though she had another class (health) to attend, sat down at a student desk, and Respondent sat down facing her approximately three or four feet away. It is at this point that, she says, he asked her simple questions about herself and her family. When she answered, he then allegedly asked her if she had ever "fucked" a black man before. He allegedly told her she looked sexy that day. She says he asked her if she noticed that he "had a hard on" and touched himself in the genital area, asking her if she thought she could handle that. At no time, however, did Respondent ever touch the witness. She says he asked her if she had ever "fucked" anyone while someone else was in the room. She replied that she had not. He allegedly asked her if she had a boyfriend and when she said she did, he is alleged to have responded, "I'll bet you fuck him because he's not black." This conversation went on until about 10 or 15 minutes before the fourth period was over. As was stated previously, the witness had health the fourth period and cut the class because, as she tells it, Respondent asked her to stay. While she was in the room with Jones alone, a Mr. Alexander, also a math teacher, entered, along with two other students. While in the room, Alexander asked Respondent if the witness was having any trouble with her work to which Respondent replied that she was, but indicated he would take care of it. Alexander verifies this with the exception that according to his testimony, when he came into the room, Respondent was seated at his desk writing a note and Hale was standing in front of him. This is not a significant difference. After Alexander left, Respondent asked the witness several questions about her siblings including her sister who formerly went to Madison High, but who quit when she had difficulty with some black students the previous year. He asked her if she was going to go to the ball game the following Thursday and, when she replied that she was, she says he suggested that perhaps they could get together that night. Ms. Hale contends she was amazed that Respondent talked to her in this fashion but she also contends she did not leave because she was afraid of him, though he made no threats, either verbal or physical, toward her and made no effort to prevent her from leaving. She also made no comment to Alexander when he and the other students came into the room even though these suggestive statements had already been made. She finally terminated the conversation toward the end of the fourth period by stating she had to go to her next class. Before she left, she asked Respondent for a note, which he gave her and asked her not to repeat the conversation they had had. During fifth period, Hale had lunch scheduled and during lunch with Loretta Sealy, she related in general terms, to Sealy, what had happened. After lunch, she went to the remainder of her classes and went home but even that night, she failed to tell her father of the incident because she was afraid he might do something as a result of his hot temper. Sealy indicates that when she first saw Hale after the incident, when Hale came into the ladies' room, she appeared nervous, upset, and near tears. She said that Respondent had said things which upset her--in essence propositioning her. At first, Hale did not want to report the incident because she felt nobody would believe her. However, Sealy finally convinced her to do so and the two girls went to see the assistant principal, Ms. Miller, two days after the incident took place. Hale told Ms. Miller what had happened and signed the first of several written statements which was prepared for her signature by Miller based on the report given. Later on, she agreed to take a polygraph examination regarding her story. No evidence was presented as to whether the exam was given or not. Ms. Hale attended class with the Respondent during the several days between the time of the alleged incident and the report to Ms. Miller, but once the story came into the open, she was removed from his class. She talked with Miller rather than the principal because she had known Ms. Miller from her prior school. The fact that she did not talk with the principal had nothing to do with the fact that he is black. Respondent's version of the story differs from that of Hale in that he contends that at the end of the class period on the day in question, Hale asked him if she could stay after class. He contends that her remaining had nothing to do with buying candy because he bought candy from her when she came to class. He also claims that she did her homework during this fourth period when she and he were the only people in the room. While she was working, he was behind his desk and she was sitting at a student desk off to his left. Respondent contends that it was Hale who made the first non-business statement by asking him if she could go smoke. He told her that she could not since smoking was not allowed on campus. She responded that another teacher, Mr. Hendrix, had allowed her to smoke in the school building and then went on to indicate that she had "messed" with guys in their twenties when she was twelve. This statement, which came immediately after the comments about Mr. Hendrix and smoking, shocked him. The only reason he did not ask her to leave was because she appeared to have a problem and he thought he might be able to help her. During the course of the conversation she indicated that some blacks had attacked her sister the previous year on campus which had caused her sister to leave school and that, in general, all black students at Madison High were wild. Though Ms. Hale, in her testimony, indicated that when asked by Respondent if she had ever fucked a black man, she responded by asking him if he'd ever fucked a white woman, Respondent denies that Hale ever asked him this question nor did she mention drugs to him in any fashion. He denies making any of the comments attributed to him by Hale or any of the suggestive movements she claimed he made, though in the letter he submitted to the principal the morning after being confronted by the accusations against him, denials were not so strong or so widespread. In fact, in that written statement, he commented, "I'm not saying that the statement made is totally wrong, but there are two things that trouble me most about it." He then goes on to list these two troublesome areas as the statement makes it appear as though he is the culprit and that some things in it are either false or turned around. He then goes on to list the several things Hale is supposed to have said to him that were not included in her statement, such as her sexual activity and her obvious antipathy toward black men. When Hale finally went to see Miller, she appeared to be quite upset though she was not crying. She was somewhat reluctant to talk to Ms. Miller until finally Miller released Sealy to go back to class and after Sealy left, Hale told Miller her entire story. Once Hale had completed her version of the story, Miller asked her to wait and went to talk with the principal who returned to the office with her to talk with Hale. After discussing with the resource officer how to take a statement, Miller returned to the office and took a detailed statement from Hale a second time in the form suggested to her and had it signed by Hale and notarized. Later that morning, Ms. Miller, the principal, Mr. Yanessy, the resource officer, and Mr. Buchanan called Respondent into the principal's office and showed him a copy of Hale's signed statement. Respondent read it, handed it back, and said that the statement was not "exactly" true--that Hale had twisted a lot of things around. He contended that in reality it was Hale who asked a lot of the questions, not him, and that he would do anything to clear his name. Respondent contended he had no interest in either Hale or any other young girl. At this point the investigating group advised him that they would talk with him later and take a statement from him. About two hours later they did meet again and at this time, Respondent repeated his comments made earlier in the day to the extent that while a conversation took place, it did not happen as Hale said it did. At this point, though the school officials wanted to take Respondent's statement, Respondent did not want to speak on the record then. The following morning he gave the principal the letter which was referred to above. Based on an evaluation of the testimony of Ms. Hale, Ms. Sealy, the Respondent, and Ms. Miller, all of which bears on the credibility of the Respondent vis-a-vis his accuser, it becomes clear, and it is so found, that a conversation did take place in the classroom during the fourth period on September 10, 1984, between Respondent and Ms. Hale when the two of them were the only persons in the room. It most likely will never be determined exactly as to who said what to whom. There is no doubt, however, that the Respondent permitted a student who he knew had a class to attend, to remain in his classroom with him at the expense of her absence from that succeeding class. Though Respondent advised Mr. Alexander that he was helping Hale with her school work, there is no other evidence that he did so. Ms. Hale contends he did not and he admits he did not stating only that she did her homework while in the room with him. Whatever the conversation was, it is clear that it was sexually oriented and Respondent used extremely poor judgment in allowing the situation to develop as far as it did. The evidence establishes that Ms. Hale's background is not without cloud. At the age of sixteen she is admittedly sexually experienced and has experimented with various controlled substances such as marijuana and cocaine. Ms. Miller indicated that her academic background was marginal--that while she can do her work and can be an average student, she has, nonetheless, failed. The nature of her testimony on the stand was not so clear as to give a certain picture as to what happened. It is most likely that Ms. Hale herself does not recall the incident with certainty. What is clear is that aside from her discussion with Ms. Sealy over lunch, she failed to make any complaint to anyone with authority to do something about it until several days after the incident took place and then only upon the urging of her friend. In substance then, it is obvious that the truth no doubt lies somewhere between the two stories. When Respondent found out that Ms. Hale had no legitimate reason to be in his classroom, he allowed her to remain and engaged in a conversation with her that should not have taken place. While the exact words are in question, the subject matter is not. It was sexually oriented and the parties were a twenty-five-year-old male teacher and a fifteen- year-old female student. His judgment in allowing that to happen is abysmal and his professionalism in that instance was nonexistent especially in light of the fact that he was warned twice at the beginning of his employment with the school system by his principal, to be very careful of his conduct in dealing with female students. Mr. Ray, the principal, indicates that if the allegations against the Respondent are true, it would seriously reduce his effectiveness as a classroom teacher because of the need for a teacher to observe the strictest propriety in his relationships with students. Such conduct as alleged here would undoubtedly be harmful to the learning process and would create an embarrassment to the student. If the allegations are true he would not want Respondent back working for him. In his opinion, for a situation such as this, if established, there are no less drastic remedies than termination. He believes that there is no place in Madison County for a teacher guilty of these allegations and in addition to termination, revocation of the teaching certificate would be appropriate. On the other hand, if it were to be established that the allegation was not true, then Respondent's effectiveness would not be diminished and the credibility of the student would be damaged. However, in his experience it is very unusual for female students to make sexual advances toward teachers. While it could occur, in his opinion it is not likely and over the 19 years he has been in education, it has never happened to him. Mr. Buchanan, who has been in place as Superintendent of Schools in Madison County for over 8 years, is familiar with the allegations in this case and Respondent's denial. His analysis of the case resulted in his recommendation that the School Board suspend the Respondent from his teaching position and in addition, he reported Respondent to the Education Practices Commission. He took this step because he felt an obligation to report substandard conduct of an educator. Assuming that the allegations are true, in his view, the effectiveness of the Respondent is reduced because in a case like this the teacher loses credibility with his students. He feels that if true, Respondent's conduct would be harmful to the learning process and embarrassing to the student and would have an adverse impact on the relationship between the parents and the school system. Viewing the evidence in its totality and weighing the credibility of all witnesses, as alluded to before, it becomes clear that a one on one conversation took place between the Respondent and Ms. Hale. It is most likely that Respondent did not prompt the conversation and did not request that Ms. Hale remain after class. To the contrary, it would appear that she requested to remain after class. No doubt improper comments were made by both Ms. Hale and the Respondent and it makes no difference whether Ms. Hale or the Respondent initiated the colloquy. It is quite clear that subject matter improper for a conversation between a student and a teacher of opposite sexes, involving sexually suggestive comments took place and that both Respondent and Ms. Hale used language of this nature.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether respondent committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Raymond M. Dunn, date of birth January 29, 1951, currently holds Florida teaching certificate number 346978, covering the areas of social studies and administration and supervision, which is valid through June 30, 1996. Respondent is currently employed by the Dade County Public School System, and was so employed at all times pertinent to these proceedings. During the school years of 1977 through 1984, respondent was employed as a social studies teacher at Palmetto Junior High School, and during such time met and cultivated an intimate affair with a student, Marcey Altman (Marcey), date of birth March 19, 1965. 1/ The relationship that was to develop between respondent and Marcey had its genesis during the 1978-79 school year, when Marcey was an eighth grade student at Palmetto Junior High School. 2/ During the first semester of that year, Marcey, then thirteen years of age, was assigned to respondent's social studies class. She likewise participated in student government over the course of that year which was sponsored by respondent, and spent much time after regular school hours working with respondent and other students in this endeavor. In Marcey's words, he was her "favorite teacher," and she shared the opinion of other minor coeds that respondent, then twenty-seven years of age, was a "real cute teacher." During the course of her after school activities that school year, Marcey was introduced to respondent's wife Genie and his daughter Ginger, then one year old. As a consequence of these meetings, and the affection and maturity Marcey exhibited in caring for Ginger, she was ultimately invited to baby-sit Ginger, and accepted. This baby-sitting arrangement was to endure, with increasing degrees of frequency, during the course of her junior and high school career, as well as the intervening summers. The 1979-80 school year found Marcey, then fourteen years old, in the ninth grade at Palmetto Junior High School. She continued to participate in student government, and was regularly in respondent's company after normal school hours with regard to such endeavors, and was assigned to respondent's social studies class during her second semester. As a consequence of such frequent contact, as well as her baby-sitting at respondent's household, she began to develop a familiar relationship with respondent and his family, which was reflected by a feeling of fondness and admiration for respondent. As Marcey's relationship with respondent's family began to develop that year, respondent began, by word and deed, to express a more personal interest in her development. Respondent began paying special attention to Marcey at school, and commented on how pretty, well-endowed and what a nice figure she had. Such comments both flattered and made Marcey uncomfortable, considering the relationship existent with respondent and his family. As the school year progressed, respondent continued to lavish personal attention on Marcey, and ultimately expressed his love for her. 3/ In turn, Marcey slowly became emotionally dependent upon respondent, and his physical contact with her slowly progressed from touching her face and hands to kissing her, and partially unbuttoning her shirt and touching her breast. Throughout the ensuing summer, and the 1980-81 school year, which found Marcey, then 15 and in the tenth grade at Palmetto Senior High School, their intimate relationship continued to flourish. Marcey, although now in senior high school, continued to visit respondent almost daily in his classroom after the school day, and he often drove her home as he did when she finished baby- sitting for his daughter. 4/ During this period, and the following summer, their physical relationship evolved from the respondent routinely kissing Marcey and foundling her breasts and genital area to Marcey fondling the respondent, and ultimately Marcey performing oral sex upon the respondent in his automobile, as well as his classroom. The 1981-82 school year again found Marcey at Palmetto Senior High School, and, at the age of sixteen, in the eleventh grade. During the course of that school year and the following summer, their intimacies continued, and progressed to the point of sexual intercourse. These intimacies occurred in numerous places, including the respondent's home, and continued through Marcey's senior year at Palmetto Senior High School, and into the following summer where, on July 11, 1983, while respondent's wife was hospitalized with the birth of his son, the respondent and Marcey again engaged in sexual intercourse at respondent's home. In the fall of 1983, Marcey left Miami to attend Elan College in North Carolina, which she attended until the end of 1984, when she returned to Miami to again reside with her parents. During this period, respondent maintained contact with Marcey through a post office box he had rented to receive her letters, and through frequent telephone conversations. Additionally, during the year of 1984, respondent invited Marcey to join him in Tampa, Fernandina Beach and Washington, D.C., while he was involved in education-related activities, and there they continued their intimacies. Following Marcey's return to Miami, respondent again invited her out of town while he was engaged in education-related activities. The first occurred in January 1985, when respondent again went to Washington, D.C., and the last occurred in February 1986, when respondent went to Orlando, Florida. Marcey joined respondent on both trips, and their sexual intimacies continued. Thereafter, Marcey, becoming emotionally stressed by the duplicity of their affair, terminated their physical relationship in the summer of 1986. She continued, however, to maintain contact with respondent and his family. At the commencement of the 1986-87 school year, respondent was appointed assistant principal of North Miami Junior High School, and in the fall of that year informed Marcey of a position open at that school as a Project Hope Coordinator. In part, due to respondent's influence, Marcey was hired to fill such position. While employed at North Miami Junior High School, respondent would question Marcey regarding her current relationships, discuss their prior relationship, and express his interest in reviving their relationship. Such pressures, coupled with the emotional stress occasioned by their long, enduring relationship, were apparently too debilitating for Marcey for in April 1987 she suffered a nervous breakdown, quit her employment and commenced long-term psychotherapy. Concerning Marcey's psychotherapy, the proof demonstrates that she started psychotherapy on April 28, 1987, and that such treatment was both extensive and beneficial. As of the date of hearing she was well-functioning in the opinion of her psychotherapist, which is credited, although still somewhat dysfunctional and developmentally delayed as a consequence of her intimate relationship with respondent. Currently, Marcey is a full-time student at Barry University, and her visits to her psychotherapist have been reduced to once a month. Such improvement does not, however, diminish the impropriety of respondent's conduct or the devastating impact such systematic seduction and clandestine relationship had on Marcey's life. In the opinion of Marcey's treating psychologist, which is credited, Marcey suffered from Dysthymia (depression) and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as a consequence of the systematic seduction respondent perpetrated upon her while she was a student in the Dade County Public School System and the clandestine sexual relationship that ensured. Such actions on respondent's part breached the fiduciary relationship which existed between teacher and student in that he, as an educator, stood in loco parentis with the child, and was obligated to protect, educate and dedicate his best interest to the growth and development of the younger and more vulnerable person. Here, Marcey, considering the teacher-student relationship that existed, as well as the dichotomy in age, experience, knowledge, social power, credibility and prerogatives that existed between the two, could not have freely consented to the sexual relationship that developed between them any more than a child could with a parent or a patient could with a physician. In sum, respondent's act of seducing Marcey while she was a student in the public school system was a base and ignoble act.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that a final order be rendered which permanently revokes respondent's teaching certificate. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 17th day of March 1992. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 17th day of March 1992.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Maynard has a Bachelor of Science degree in Education (K-6) and a Master of Arts degree in Teaching (Special Education). Her prior teaching experience includes teaching in the United States, Korea, and Japan. Ms. Maynard began her employment with the School Board as a substitute teacher. She was a substitute teacher for approximately six years. In the Summer of 2004, Ms. Maynard was hired to teach at the Pompano Beach Elementary School (Pompano Beach Elementary). However, Pompano Beach Elementary had over-hired, and she was surplused-out to Cypress Elementary School (Cypress Elementary). For the 2004-2005 school year, Ms. Maynard began at Cypress Elementary as a kindergarten teacher. For the 2005-2006 school year, Ms. Maynard was reassigned as an elementary teacher at Cypress Elementary. The parties agree that the relevant time period in the instant case is the 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 school years. No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, Ms. Maynard was an instructional employee, a third grade teacher, with the School Board at Cypress Elementary. On April 7, 2006, Ms. Maynard received a written reprimand from Cypress Elementary's Assistant Principal, Barbara Castiglione (now, Barbara Castiglione-Rothman). The basis for the disciplinary action was Ms. Maynard's failure, twice, to comply with a directive from Ms. Castiglione--Ms. Maynard was requested to report to an academic meeting with Ms. Castiglione. Among other things, Ms. Maynard was advised that her failure to perform to the standards established for the effective and productive performance of her job duties would result in further disciplinary action up to and including a recommendation for termination of employment. A copy of the written reprimand was provided to Ms. Maynard. Ms. Maynard contended that she was not refusing to attend the meetings but wanted to meet with Ms. Castiglione when a witness of her own choosing could attend. Ms. Maynard wanted a witness to be present at the meetings because she viewed the meetings as disciplinary meetings even though Ms. Castiglione indicated that the meetings were not disciplinary meetings. Additionally, on April 7, 2006, Ms. Maynard made a written request for a transfer from Cypress Elementary. The type of transfer requested by Ms. Maynard was "Regular."2 Cypress Elementary's principal, Louise Portman, signed the request. The principal's signature, as well as the requester's signature, was required. No transfer occurred. PMPs During the 2006-2007 School Year Through School Board policy, implementing a Legislative mandate, all teachers at Cypress Elementary were required to develop an individualized progress monitoring plan (PMP) for each student, who was deficient in reading, in consultation with the student's parent(s). Data for the PMP were collected through reading assessments at the beginning of the school year to establish a student's reading level. The appropriate reading program for the student would be decided upon using the data. Also, who was going to teach the reading program would be decided. The PMP, among other things, identified the student's reading deficiency and set forth the plan to remediate the deficiency and enhance the student's achievement in reading, which included the proposed supplemental instruction services that would be provided to the student. PMPs were generated usually two to three weeks after the beginning of the school year. A copy of the PMP was provided to the student's parent(s). The PMP was referred to as a "living, fluid document." It was not unusual for PMPs to reflect interventions not being used at the time, i.e., it was permissible for PMPs to reflect interventions that were to be used during the school year. Further, the wording current on a PMP referred to interventions during the current school year, not necessarily at that time. PMPs were modified throughout the school year on an as needed basis depending upon a student's progress. On or about September 29, 2006, Ms. Portman advised Ms. Maynard that Ms. Maynard's PMPs must be deleted because the interventions listed on the PMPs were not on the Struggling Readers Chart and were, therefore, invalid. The Struggling Readers Chart was developed by the Florida Department of Education (DOE) and contained interventions approved by DOE. Cypress Elementary had a Reading Coach, Jennifer Murphins. Ms. Murphins advised Ms. Maynard that, in order to delete the PMPs, a list of the students, who were on the PMPs, was needed so that Ms. Murphins could provide the names to the person in the school district who was authorized to delete the PMPs. Further, Ms. Murphins advised Ms. Maynard that, once the PMPs were deleted, Ms. Maynard could input valid interventions for the students. The School Board's Curriculum Administrator, Mark Quintana, Ph.D., was the person who was designated to delete PMPs. It was not unusual for Dr. Quintana to receive a telephone call from a school to delete information from PMPs-- the request must originate from the school. Ms. Maynard resisted the deletion of the PMPs and refused to delete them time and time again. She suggested, instead, not deleting the PMPs, but preparing updated PMPs and sending both to the students' parents. Her belief was that she could not put proposed interventions on the PMPs, but that she was required to only include interventions that were actually being used with the students at the time. Even though Ms. Maynard was advised by Ms. Portman that proposed interventions could be included on PMPs, Ms. Maynard still refused to provide Ms. Murphins with the list of the students. Furthermore, Ms. Maynard insisted that including interventions not yet provided, but to be provided, on the PMPs was contrary to Florida's Meta Consent Agreement. She had not read the Meta Consent Agreement and was unable to provide Ms. Portman with a provision of the Meta Consent Agreement that supported a contradiction. Ms. Portman directed Ms. Murphins to contact Dr. Quintana to delete the PMPs for Ms. Maynard's students. Ms. Murphins did as she was directed. The PMPs were deleted. On or about October 5, 2006, Ms. Maynard notified Ms. Portman by email that a complaint against Ms. Portman was filed by her with DOE regarding, among other things, the changing of the PMPs and the denying to her students equal access to the reading curriculum and trained professionals. On or about October 30, 2006, Ms. Castiglione sent a directive by email to all teachers regarding, among other things, placing PMPs and letters to parents in the students' report card envelopes. Ms. Maynard refused to comply with Ms. Castiglione's directive because, among other things, the students' PMPs for Ms. Maynard had been deleted and to rewrite the PMPs with interventions that were not actually used by the students was considered falsifying legal documents by Ms. Maynard. On or about October 31, 2006, Ms. Portman directed Ms. Maynard to rewrite the PMPs. Ms. Maynard continued to refuse to obey Ms. Portman's directive. Around November 2006, Ms. Maynard lodged "concerns" about Ms. Portman with the School Board's North Area Superintendent, Joanne Harrison, Ed.D., regarding the PMPs and the instruction of English Language Learners (ELL). Dr. Harrison requested Dr. Quintana and Sayra Hughes, Executive Director of Bilingual/Foreign Language/ESOL Education, to investigate the matter. Dr. Quintana investigated and prepared the report on the PMP concerns, which included findings by Dr. Quintana as to Ms. Maynard's concerns. Ms. Hughes investigated and prepared the report on the ELL concerns, which included findings by Ms. Hughes as to Ms. Maynard's concerns. Dr. Harrison provided a copy of both reports to Ms. Maynard. Included in the findings by Dr. Quintana were: (a) that a school's administration requesting the deletion of PMPs was appropriate; (b) that PMPs are intended to document support programming that was to occur during the school year; (c) that including a support program that was not initially implemented, but is currently being implemented, is appropriate; and (d) that the School Board should consider revising the parents' letter as to using the term "current" in that current could be interpreted to mean the present time. Also, included in the findings by Dr. Quintana were: the principal's direction to the teachers, as to the deadline for sending PMPs home by the first quarter report card, was equivalent to the School Board's deadline for sending PMPs home; (b) teacher signatures were not required on PMPs; (c) the principal has discretion as to whether to authorize the sending home of additional PMPs and, with the principal's consent, PMPs can be modified and sent home at any time throughout the school year; and (d) Ms. Maynard completed all of her students' PMPs. Ms. Maynard's concerns regarding ELLS were that Ms. Portman was denying ELLs equal access and had inappropriately adjusted Individual Reading Inventories (IRI) scores of ELLs. Ms. Hughes found that Ms. Maynard only had allegations or claims, but no documentation to substantiate the allegations or claims. As a result, Ms. Hughes concluded that Ms. Portman had committed no violations. As a result of the investigation by Dr. Quintana and Ms. Hughes, Dr. Harrison determined and advised Ms. Maynard, among other things, that no violations had been found in the areas of PMP process, management or implementation and students' equal access rights and that the investigation was officially closed and concluded. Further, Dr. Harrison advised Ms. Maynard that, should additional concerns arise, Ms. Portman, as Principal, was the first line of communication and that, if concerns or issues were not being resolved at the school level, the School Board had a process in place that was accessible. Ms. Maynard admits that she was not satisfied with the determination by Dr. Harrison. Ms. Maynard does not dispute that the deleting of the PMPs were directives from Ms. Portman and that Ms. Portman had the authority to give directives. Ms. Maynard disputes whether the directives were lawful directives and claims that to change the PMPs as directed would be falsifying the reading materials used by her students and, therefore, falsifying PMPs. A finding of fact is made that the directives were reasonable and lawful. Interaction with Students and Parents Ms. Maynard's class consisted of third graders. In addition to reading deficiencies indicated previously, some of her students also had behavioral issues. Ms. Maynard was heard by staff and teachers yelling at her students. For instance, the Media Specialist, Yvonne "Bonnie" Goldstein, heard Ms. Maynard yelling at her (Ms. Maynard's) students. The Media Center was across the hall from Ms. Maynard's classroom and had no doors. On one occasion, Ms. Goldstein was so concerned with the loudness of the yelling, she went to Ms. Maynard's room to determine whether something was wrong; Ms. Maynard assured her that nothing was wrong. Paraprofessionals working in the cafeteria have observed Ms. Maynard yelling at her students. Some teachers reported the yelling to Ms. Portman in writing. The Exceptional Student Education (ESE) Specialist and Administrative Designee, Marjorie DiVeronica, complained to Ms. Portman in writing regarding Ms. Maynard yelling at her students. A Haitian student was in Ms. Maynard's class for approximately two weeks during the beginning of the 2006-2007 school year. The student was not performing well in school. The student's father discussed the student's performance with Ms. Maynard. She indicated to the father that Ms. Portman's directives to teachers, regarding reading services, i.e., PMPs, had negatively impacted his son's performance. Ms. Maynard assisted the father in preparing a complaint with DOE, dated October 12, 2006, against Ms. Portman. Among other things, the complaint contained allegations against Ms. Portman regarding a denial of equal access to trained teachers and the reading curriculum in violation of Florida's Meta Consent Agreement and the Equal Education Opportunity Act. Ms. Portman was not aware that the parent had filed a complaint against her with DOE. Additionally, on October 16, 2006, Ms. Portman held a conference with the Haitian parent. Among other things, Ms. Portman discussed the reading services provided to the parent's child by Cypress Elementary. Ms. Portman provided a summary of the conference to Ms. Maynard. Ms. Maynard responded to Ms. Portman's summary on that same day. In Ms. Maynard's response, she indicated, among other things, that Ms. Portman did not give the Haitian parent accurate information regarding the child. Interaction with Staff (Non-Teachers) A system of awarding points to classes was established for the cafeteria at Cypress Elementary. A five-point system was established in which classes were given a maximum of five points daily. Classes entered in silence and departed in silence. Points were deducted if a class did not act appropriately. An inference is drawn and a finding of fact is made that the five-point system encouraged appropriate conduct by students while they were in the cafeteria. The cafeteria was overseen by Leonor Williamson, who was an ESOL paraprofessional, due to her seniority. The paraprofessionals were responsible for the safety of the students while the students were in the cafeteria. The paraprofessionals implemented the five-point system and came to Ms. Williamson with any problems that they had involving the cafeteria. On or about December 11, 2006, Ms. Maynard's students entered the cafeteria and were unruly. Ms. Williamson instructed the paraprofessional in charge of the section where the students were located to deduct a point from Ms. Maynard's class. Ms. Maynard was upset at Ms. Williamson's action and loudly expressed her displeasure to Ms. Williamson, demanding to know the basis for Ms. Williamson's action. Ms. Maynard would not cease complaining, so Ms. Williamson eventually walked away from Ms. Maynard. Ms. Williamson was required to oversee the safety of the students in the cafeteria and, in order to comply with this responsibility, she had to remove herself from the presence of Ms. Maynard. Ms. Maynard also complained to another teacher, who was attempting to leave the cafeteria with her own students. Additionally, the lunch period for each teacher's class is 30 minutes. On that same day, Ms. Maynard took her class from one section to another section in the cafeteria to serve ice cream to the students. As a result, Ms. Maynard surpassed her lunch period by approximately ten minutes and, at the same time, occupied another class' section. Ms. Williamson viewed Ms. Maynard's conduct as unprofessional during the incident and as abusing the scheduled time for lunch. On or about December 12, 2006, Ms. Williamson notified Ms. Portman about the incidents and requested Ms. Portman to remind Ms. Maynard of the cafeteria workers' responsibility to the students and the lunch period set-aside for each class. The incident on or about December 11, 2006, was not the first time that Ms. Williamson had instructed paraprofessionals to deduct points from Ms. Maynard's class. Each time points were deducted, Ms. Maynard became upset and loudly expressed her displeasure to Ms. Williamson. Ms. Williamson felt intimidated by Ms. Maynard. Also, paraprofessionals had deducted points from Ms. Maynard's class on their own accord without being directed to do so by Ms. Williamson. Whenever the deductions occurred, Ms. Maynard expressed her displeasure with the paraprofessionals' actions and often yelled at them in the presence of students and teachers. Another cafeteria situation occurred in December 2006. A paraprofessional, who was in charge of the section where Ms. Maynard's students ate lunch, observed some of the students not conducting themselves appropriately. The paraprofessional decided to deduct one point from Ms. Maynard's class and to indicate to Ms. Maynard why the point was deducted. Furthermore, the paraprofessional decided that the conduct did not warrant a disciplinary referral. Upon becoming aware of the incident, Ms. Maynard, who did not witness the conduct, wrote disciplinary referrals on the students involved and submitted them to Ms. Castiglione. The policy was that a referral could be written only by the staff person who observed the incident. Ms. Castiglione discussed the incident with the paraprofessional who indicated to Ms. Castiglione that the conduct did not warrant a disciplinary referral. As a result, Ms. Castiglione advised Ms. Maynard that, based upon the paraprofessional's decision and since Ms. Maynard did not witness the incident, Ms. Maynard's referrals would not be accepted and the matter was closed. Ms. Maynard did not agree with the paraprofessional's decision. Ms. Maynard approached the paraprofessional with disciplinary referrals on the students and presented the referrals and strongly encouraged the paraprofessional to sign the referrals. The paraprofessional refused to sign the referrals. Interaction with Staff (Teachers and Administrators) Safety procedures for the Media Center were established by the Media Specialist, Yvonne "Bonnie" Goldstein. At one point in time, Ms. Maynard wanted to bring all of her students to Distance Learning. Because of safety concerns, Ms. Goldstein advised Ms. Maynard that all of her students could not attend at the same time. However, Ms. Maynard brought all of her students anyway. Ms. Goldstein had no choice but to preclude Ms. Maynard from entering the Media Center. Additionally, at another point in time, Ms. Maynard requested, by email, that Ms. Goldstein provide all of her (Ms. Maynard's) students with New Testament Bibles. That same day, Ms. Goldstein advised Ms. Maynard that only two Bibles were in the Media Center and, therefore, the request could not be complied with. Disregarding Ms. Goldstein's reply, Ms. Maynard sent her students to the Media Center that same day in twos and threes, requesting the New Testament Bibles. When the two Bibles on-hand were checked-out, Ms. Goldstein had no choice but to offer the students alternative religious material. During 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, Terri Vaughn was the Team Leader of the third grade class. As Team Leader, Ms. Vaughn's responsibilities included being a liaison between team members and the administration at Cypress Elementary. Ms. Vaughn's personality is to avoid confrontation. Ms. Vaughn had an agenda for each team meeting. During team meetings, Ms. Maynard would deviate from the agenda and discuss matters of her own personal interest, resulting in the agenda not being completed. Also, Ms. Maynard would occasionally monopolize team meetings. Additionally, in team meetings, Ms. Maynard would indicate that she would discuss a problem student with parents who were not the student's parents. As time progressed, during team meetings, Ms. Maynard would engage in outbursts. She would become emotional on matters and raise her voice to the point of yelling. Also, it was not uncommon for Ms. Maynard to point her finger when she became emotional. At times, Ms. Maynard would have to leave the meetings and return because she had begun to cry. Additionally, at times after an outburst, Ms. Maynard would appear as if nothing had happened. Further, during team meetings, Ms. Maynard would excessively raise the subject of PMPs and accuse Ms. Portman of directing her to falsify PMPs or Title I documents. Ms. Vaughn did not report Ms. Maynard's conduct at team meetings to Ms. Portman. However, a written request by a majority of the team members, who believed that the team meetings had become stressful, made a request to the administration of Cypress Elementary for a member of the administration to attend team meetings; their hope was that an administrator's presence would cause Ms. Maynard to become calmer during the team meetings. An administrator began to attend team meetings. Marjorie DiVeronica, an Exceptional Student Education (ESE) Specialist, was an administrative designee, and Ms. Portman designated Ms. DiVeronica to attend the team meetings. Ms. DiVeronica would take notes, try to keep meetings moving, and report to Ms. Portman what was observed. Discussions were stopped by Ms. DiVeronica, and she would redirect the meetings to return to the agenda. Even with Ms. DiVeronica's presence, Ms. Maynard would raise her voice. At one team meeting attended by Ms. Portman, Ms. Maynard would not stop talking and the agenda could not move. Ms. Portman requested Ms. Maynard to stop talking, but Ms. Maynard would not stop. Ms. Portman placed herself in close proximity to Ms. Maynard in order to defuse the situation and raised her voice in order to get Ms. Maynard's attention. Ms. Portman dismissed the meeting. Additionally, at a team meeting, Ms. Maynard had become emotional. Ms. Castiglione was in attendance at that meeting. Ms. Maynard raised her voice and was shouting and yelling and pointing her finger at Ms. Castiglione. Ms. Maynard continued her conduct at the team meetings no matter whether Ms. Portman, Ms. Castiglione, or Ms. DiVeronica attended the meetings. Outside of team meetings, Ms. Vaughn reached the point that she avoided contact with Ms. Maynard due to Ms. Maynard's constantly complaining of matters that were of her (Ms. Maynard's) own personal interest, which resulted in long conversations. Ms. Vaughn's classroom was next to Ms. Maynard's classroom. A closet, with a desk in it, was in Ms. Vaughn's room. At least two or three times, in order to complete some work, Ms. Vaughn went into the closet and closed the door. Another team member, Elizabeth Kane, also made attempts to avoid Ms. Maynard. Ms. Kane viewed Ms. Maynard as making the team meetings stressful. Also, Ms. Kane was uncomfortable around Ms. Maynard due to Ms. Maynard's agitation and, furthermore, felt threatened by Ms. Maynard when Ms. Maynard became agitated. Additionally, Ms. Kane made a concerted effort to avoid Ms. Maynard outside of team meetings. Ms. Kane would "duck" into another teacher's classroom or into a stall in the bathroom to avoid Ms. Maynard. Barbara Young, a team member, tried to be someone to whom Ms. Maynard could come to talk. Ms. Young was never afraid of or felt threatened by Ms. Maynard. Further, regarding the cafeteria incident in December 2006, which Ms. Maynard did not witness, Ms. Maynard did not allow the incident to end with Ms. Castiglione's determination to agree with the paraprofessional's decision to not issue disciplinary referrals. Ms. Maynard, firmly believing that Ms. Castiglione's action was unfair, openly disagreed with the decision in the presence her (Ms. Maynard's) students and strongly encouraged some of the students to go to Ms. Castiglione and protest Ms. Castiglione's determination. Some of the students went to Ms. Castiglione regarding her disciplinary determination. Ms. Castiglione explained her determination to the students, including the process and the reasoning why she did what she did. The students were satisfied with the determination after hearing Ms. Castiglione's explanation. Further, the students indicated to Ms. Castiglione that they had no desire to go to her, but Ms. Maynard wanted them to do it. Ms. Maynard's action had undermined Ms. Castiglione's authority with the students. LaShawn Smith-Settles, Cypress Elementary's Guidance Counselor, never felt threatened by Ms. Maynard or viewed Ms. Maynard as being hostile towards her. However, Ms. Maynard did make her feel uncomfortable. A second grade teacher, Paja Rafferty, never felt threatened by Ms. Maynard. Excessive Emails Communication thru emails is the standard operating procedure at Cypress Elementary. However, Ms. Maynard engaged in excessive emails. Ms. Maynard's emails were on relevant areas. However, she would not only send the email to the staff member, whether teacher or administrator, who could directly respond to her, but would copy every teacher and administrator. This process and procedure used by Ms. Maynard resulted in massive emails being sent to staff who might or might not have an interest in the subject matter. One such staff person, who took action to stop receiving the emails, was Ms. Kane. Ms. Kane was inundated with Ms. Maynard's emails regarding matters on which Ms. Kane had no interest or concern. To stop receiving the emails, Ms. Kane sent Ms. Maynard an email, twice, requesting that Ms. Maynard remove her (Ms. Kane) from the copy list. However, Ms. Maynard did not do so. Due to the massive number of emails sent to Ms. Portman by Ms. Maynard, a significant portion of Ms. Portman's time was devoted to responding to the emails. Ms. Portman had less and less time to devote to her responsibilities as principal of Cypress Elementary. Eventually, Ms. Portman was forced to curtail Ms. Maynard's emails. None of Ms. Maynard's emails threatened teachers, staff, or students. Additional Directives During the time period regarding the PMPs, Ms. Portman became concerned that the parents of Ms. Maynard's students were being misinformed by Ms. Maynard as to the students' performance and as to Cypress Elementary and Ms. Portman addressing the students' performance. On November 3, 2006, Ms. Portman held a meeting with Ms. Maynard. Also, in attendance were Ms. Castiglione and Patricia Costigan, Broward Teachers Union (BTU) Steward. During the meeting, among other things, Ms. Portman directed Ms. Maynard not to have conferences with a parent unless an administrator was present, either Ms. Portman or Ms. Castiglione, in order to assure that parents were not misinformed. A summary of the meeting was prepared on November 6, 2006. A copy of the summary was provided to Ms. Maynard and Ms. Costigan. Subsequently, Ms. Portman received a letter from a parent dated December 20, 2006. The parent stated, among other things, that the parent had approximately a two-hour telephone conversation, during the evening of December 19, 2006, with Ms. Maynard about the parent's child, who was a student in Ms. Maynard's class. Further, the parent stated that her son was referred to by Ms. Maynard as a "fly on manure." Even though Ms. Maynard denies some of the statements attributed to her by the parent and the time span of the telephone conversation, she does not deny that she had the telephone conversation with the parent. On December 20, 2006, Ms. Portman and Ms. Castiglione went to Ms. Maynard's classroom to remind Ms. Maynard of the directive. Ms Maynard was not in her classroom but was in another teacher's room, Barbara Young, with another teacher. Ms. Portman requested Ms. Maynard to come into Ms. Maynard's classroom so that she and Ms. Castiglione could talk with Ms. Maynard out of the presence of the other teachers. Ms. Maynard refused to leave Ms. Young's classroom indicating that whatever had to be said could be said in front of everyone, in front of witnesses. Ms. Portman, complying with Ms. Maynard's request, proceeded to remind Ms. Maynard of the directive to not conference with parents unless an administrator was present. Ms. Maynard became very agitated and yelled at them, indicating that she (Ms. Maynard) wanted what was said in writing and that she (Ms. Maynard) was not going to comply with the directive. Shortly before Winter break, on or about December 21, 2006, in the morning, Ms. Portman noticed Ms. Maynard by letter that a pre-disciplinary meeting would be held on January 10, 2006, regarding insubordination by Ms. Maynard. Among other things, the notice directed Ms. Maynard to "cease and desist all contact with parents" until the meeting was held. Later in the afternoon, after the administrative office was closed, Ms. Maynard returned to Ms. Portman's office. Ms. Maynard confronted Ms. Portman and Ms. Castiglione about the notice, wanting to know what it was all about. Ms. Maynard was very agitated and emotional, raising her voice and pointing her finger. Ms. Portman indicated to Ms. Maynard that the requirement was only to provide the notice, with the meeting to be held later. Ms. Portman asked Ms. Maynard several times to leave because the office was closed; Ms. Maynard finally left. After Ms. Maynard left Ms. Portman's office, Ms. Portman could hear Ms. Maynard talking to other staff. Ms. Portman was very concerned due to Ms. Maynard's agitation and conduct. Ms. Portman contacted the School Board's Professional Standards as to what to do and was told to request all employees, except day care, to leave. Ms. Portman did as she was instructed by Professional Standards, getting on the intercom system and requesting all employees, except for day care, to leave, not giving the employees the actual reason why they were required to leave. Unbeknownst to Ms. Portman, Ms. Maynard had departed Cypress Elementary before she (Ms. Portman) instructed the employees to leave. Regarding the afternoon incident, Ms. Maynard felt "helpless" at that point. She had been informed by Professional Standards to go to administration at Cypress Elementary with her concerns, who was Ms. Portman. Ms. Maynard viewed Ms. Portman as the offender, and, therefore, she was being told to go to offender to have her concerns addressed. On January 9, 2007, a Child Study Team (CST) meeting was convened to address the academic performance of a few of Ms. Maynard's students. Ms. Maynard had referred the students to the CST. The CST's purpose was to provide support for the student and the teacher by problem-solving, using empirical data to assist with and improve a child's academic performance and behavior, and making recommendations. No individual member can override a team's recommendation, only a principal could do that. On January 9, 2007, the CST members included, among others, Ms. DiVeronica, who was the CST's leader; Miriam Kassof, School Board Psychologist; and LaShawn Smith-Settles, Cypress Elementary's Guidance Counselor. Also, in attendance were Ms. Maynard and Ms. Castiglione, who, at that time, was an Intern Principal. During the course of the meeting, Ms. Maynard diverted the discussion from the purpose of the meeting to her wanting two of the students removed from her class. She began discussing the safety of the other students in the class, which was viewed, at first, as being well-meaning, however, when she insisted on the removal of the two students, she became highly emotional, stood-up, and was yelling. Members of the CST team attempted to de-escalate the situation, but Ms. Maynard was not willing to engage in problem solving and her actions were counterproductive. Due to Ms. Maynard's constant insistence on discussing the removal of the students from her class, the CST was not able to meet its purpose within the time period set- aside for the meeting. However, before the CST meeting ended, one of the recommendations made was for Ms. Maynard to collect daily anecdotal behavioral notes regarding one of the students and for the behavioral notes to be sent home to the student's parent. Ms. Castiglione gave Ms. Maynard a directive that, before the behavioral notes were sent home to the parent, the behavioral notes were to be forwarded to Ms. Castiglione for review and approval. Ms. Maynard resisted preparing behavioral notes, expressing that that plan of action would not help the situation. The CST members viewed Ms. Maynard's conduct as being unproductive, inappropriate, and unprofessional. On January 10, 2007, a pre-disciplinary meeting was held regarding Ms. Portman considering disciplinary action against Ms. Maynard for insubordination. Attendees at the meeting included Ms. Portman; Ms. Castiglione (at that time Intern Principal); Ms. Maynard; Jacquelyn Haywood, Area Director; Cathy Kirk, Human Resources; and Andrew David, Attorney for Ms. Maynard. The basis for the insubordination was Ms. Maynard's refusal to comply with Ms. Portman's directive for Ms. Maynard not to conference with parents unless an administrator was present. Ms. Portman pointed out that Ms. Maynard had a telephone conversation with a parent, regarding the parent's child, on December 19, 2006, without an administrator being present and showed Ms. Maynard the letter written by the parent to Ms. Portman, dated December 20, 2006. Ms. Maynard admitted only that she had the telephone conversation. Ms. Portman asked Ms. Maynard to provide a compelling reason as to why the disciplinary action should not be taken; Ms. Maynard did not respond. Ms. Portman reiterated the directive and advised Ms. Maynard that a letter of reprimand would be issued. A summary of the pre-disciplinary meeting was prepared. Ms. Maynard was provided a copy of the summary. On January 17, 2007, a written reprimand was issued by Ms. Portman against Ms. Maynard for failure to adhere to the administrative directive of not having a parent conference unless an administrator was present. The written reprimand stated, among other things, that Ms. Maynard had a parent's conference on the telephone with a student's parent without an administrator being present and that Ms. Maynard failed to present a compelling reason as to why no disciplinary action should be taken. Furthermore, the written reprimand advised Ms. Maynard that any further failure to perform consistent with the standards established for the effective and productive performance of her job duties, as a third grade teacher, would result in further disciplinary action up to and including a recommendation for termination of employment. Ms. Maynard received a copy of the written reprimand. After the Written Reprimand of January 17, 2007 Also, on January 17, 2007, Ms. Portman held a meeting with Ms. Maynard which was not a disciplinary meeting, but was a meeting for Ms. Portman to discuss her concerns and job expectations with Ms. Maynard. In addition to Ms. Portman and Ms. Maynard, attendees at the meeting included Ms. Castiglione; Jacqueline Haywood, Area Director; Cathy Kirk, Human Resources; and Mary Rutland, BTU Steward. Ms. Portman discussed five concerns and issued five directives. The first concern of Ms. Portman was Ms. Maynard's unprofessional behavior. The examples provided by Ms. Portman were Ms. Maynard's (a) yelling at paraprofessional staff in the cafeteria; (b) yelling at administrators, referencing the incident on December 20, 2006; and (c) continuing to publicly accuse Cypress Elementary's administrators of falsifying documents after an investigation had determined the accusation to be unfounded. Further, the directive that Ms. Portman issued to Ms. Maynard was to cease and desist all unprofessional and inappropriate behavior. Ms. Portman's second concern was unprofessional and inappropriate comments. The examples provided by Ms. Portman were Ms. Maynard's (a) indicating on December 20, 2006, while she was in Ms. Young's room, that she would not comply with the directives of which she was reminded by Ms. Portman; (b) speaking to a parent and referring to the parent's child as a "fly on manure"; and (c) telling parents, during conferences, that there was a problem at Cypress Elementary. Further, the directive that Ms. Portman issued to Ms. Maynard was to cease and desist all unprofessional and inappropriate comments. Additionally, Ms. Portman reminded Ms. Maynard that all notes were required to be submitted to administration for review no later than 1:00 p.m., except for student daily behavioral notes, which were to be submitted at 1:30 p.m. The third concern of Ms. Portman was continued dialogue of PMPs and ESOL issues. Ms. Portman indicated that the district had reviewed Ms. Maynard's issues and concerns and had responded to them. Further, the directive that Ms. Portman issued to Ms. Maynard was that the said issues were considered closed and that, if Ms. Maynard wished to pursue the said issues, she should contact her attorney. Ms. Portman's fourth concern was unmanageable emails sent by Ms. Maynard. The example provided by Ms. Portman was that she had received over 200 emails from Ms. Maynard. Ms. Portman indicated that the procedure that Ms. Maynard was required to follow when she (Ms. Maynard) had issues or concerns that needed to be addressed was (a) make an appointment with the administrator through the confidential secretary, identifying that person; and (b) provide the confidential secretary with the issue in writing. Only when (a) and (b) were complied with, would either Ms. Portman or Ms. Castiglione meet with Ms. Maynard, during Ms. Maynard's planning time, on the issue at the appointment time. Further, the directive that Ms. Portman issued to Ms. Maynard was that Ms. Maynard would cease and desist sending issues via emails and that conferences would be scheduled per the procedure outlined. The fifth concern of Ms. Portman's was protocol compliance. Ms. Portman indicated that the proper procedure for Ms. Maynard to adhere to when Ms. Maynard had a complaint or concern was to first, contact her (Ms. Maynard's) supervisor, not the area office, wherein Ms. Maynard would be provided with an opportunity to meet with an administrator. Additionally, as to meeting with an administrator, (a) Ms. Maynard would meet with either Ms. Portman or Ms. Castiglione; (b) an appointment with the administrator would be made through the confidential secretary, identifying that person; (c) Ms. Maynard would provide the confidential secretary with the issue or concern in writing; (d) only when (b) and (c) were complied with, would either Ms. Portman or Ms. Castiglione meet with Ms. Maynard, during Ms. Maynard's planning time, on the issue or concern at the appointment time; (e) administration would address the issue or concern and after the issue or concern had been presented to administration, Ms. Maynard was to consider the issue or concern closed. Further, the directive that Ms. Portman gave to Ms. Maynard was that Ms. Maynard was to comply with the protocol outlined for all of her concerns. Moreover, Ms. Portman indicated that a failure by Ms. Portman to follow all of the directives would result in disciplinary action up to and including termination from employment. A summary of the meeting of concerns and job expectations was prepared. On January 18, 2007, Ms. Portman noticed Ms. Maynard by letter that a pre-disciplinary meeting would be held on January 29, 2007, regarding gross insubordination by Ms. Maynard. Among other things, the notice directed Ms. Maynard to "cease and desist all communication with parents both written and oral" until the meeting was held. The notice was hand-delivered to Ms. Maynard at Cypress Elementary. On or about January 22, 2007, Ms. Portman held a meeting to develop a strategic plan to help motivate one of Ms. Maynard's students, who was in foster care, in the areas of academics and behavior. In addition to Ms. Portman, attendees at the meeting included, among others, Ms. Castiglione; Ms. Smith-Settles; and the student's Guardian Ad-Litem. During the meeting, the Guardian Ad-Litem indicated that Ms. Maynard had telephoned the student's foster parent, engaged in more than a 45-minute conversation, and, during the telephone conversation, made negative comments about Cypress Elementary. On January 23, 2007, Ms. Portman provided Ms. Maynard with a Notice of Special Investigative/Personnel Investigation (Notice) by hand-delivery. The Notice stated, among other things, that the investigation regarded allegations that Ms. Maynard was creating a hostile environment. The Notice directed Ms. Maynard not to engage anyone, connected with the allegations, in conversation regarding the matter and advised that a violation of the directive could result in disciplinary action for insubordination. Further, the Notice advised Ms. Maynard that, if she had any question regarding the status of the investigation, she should contact Joe Melita, Executive Director of Professional Standards and Special Investigative Unit, providing his contact telephone number. The Notice was provided to Ms. Maynard as a result of Ms. Portman making a request for the investigation on January 17, 2007. The request indicated that the allegations were: (1) yelling at paraprofessional staff in the cafeteria; (2) yelling at both the principal and assistant principal on December 20, 2006; (3) accusing the principal of falsifying documents even after the school district investigation found the accusation unwarranted; (4) not complying with directives; and (5) accusing the principal of lying to a parent at a conference. The pre-disciplinary meeting noticed for January 29, 2007, was not held due to the placing of Ms. Maynard under investigation. On or about January 25, 2007, Ms. Maynard was temporarily reassigned to the School Board's Textbook Warehouse by Mr. Melita. Temporary reassignment is standard operating procedure during an investigation. Teachers are usually temporarily reassigned to the Textbook Warehouse. Because of the investigation, Ms. Maynard could not return to Cypress Elementary or contact anyone at Cypress Elementary without Mr. Melita's authorization. The SIU investigator assigned to the case was Frederick Davenport. On August 14, 2007, Investigator Davenport went to the Textbook Warehouse to serve a notice of reassignment on Ms. Maynard from Mr. Melita that her reassignment was changed immediately and that she was reassigned to Crystal Lake Community Middle School. The notice of reassignment required Ms. Maynard's signature. Investigator Davenport met with Ms. Maynard in private in the conference room and advised her of his purpose, which was not to perform any investigative duties but to serve the notice of reassignment and obtain her signature. Ms. Maynard refused to sign the notice of reassignment because it was not signed by Mr. Melita and left. Investigator Davenport contacted Professional Standards and requested the faxing of an executed notice of reassignment by Mr. Melita to the Textbook Warehouse. Professional Standards complied with the request. Investigator Davenport met again with Ms. Maynard in private in the conference room. Ms. Maynard refused to sign the executed notice of reassignment. She felt threatened by Investigator Davenport and ran from the room into the parking area behind the Textbook Warehouse at the loading dock. A finding of fact is made that Investigator Davenport did nothing that the undersigned considers threatening. Investigator Davenport did not immediately follow Ms. Maynard but eventually went to the steps next to the loading dock, however, he did not approach Ms. Maynard in the parking lot. Ms. Maynard refused to talk with Investigator Davenport, expressing her fear of him, and contacted the Broward County Sheriff's Office (BSO). A BSO deputy came to the parking lot. After Ms. Maynard discussed the situation with the BSO deputy and a friend of Ms. Maynard's, who arrived at the scene, she signed the notice of reassignment. Investigator Davenport delivered the notice of reassignment to Professional Standards. Investigator Davenport completed his investigation and forwarded the complete investigative file and his report to his supervisor for approval. At that time, his involvement in the investigation ended. His supervisor presented the investigation to Professional Standards. On or about September 19, 2007, the Professional Standards Committee found probable cause that Ms. Maynard had created a hostile work environment and recommended termination of her employment. The Flyer On April 27, 2009, a town hall meeting was held by the School Board at the Pompano Beach High School's auditorium. That town hall meeting was one of several being held the same night by the School Board. The process and procedure for the town hall meeting included (a) all persons who wished to speak were required to sign-up to speak and (b), if they desired to distribute documents, prior to distribution, the documents were required to be submitted and receive prior approval. Security was at the auditorium, and Investigator Davenport was one of the security officers. During the town hall meeting, an unidentified man rose from his seat, began to talk out-of-turn and loud, was moving toward the front where School Board officials were located, and was distributing a flyer. The actions of the unidentified man got the attention of Investigator Davenport and caused concern about the safety of the School Board officials. Investigator Davenport and the other security officer approached the unidentified man, obtained the flyer, and escorted him out of the auditorium. Once outside, the unidentified man indicated, among other things, that he had not obtained prior approval to distribute the flyer. The unidentified man did not identify who gave him the flyer. Investigator Davenport observed that the flyer was placed on most of the vehicles in the auditorium's parking lot. Once Investigator Davenport and his fellow security officer were convinced that the unidentified man was not a threat to the School Board officials, they released the unidentified man who left the area. Neither Investigator Davenport nor his fellow security officer saw Ms. Maynard at the town hall meeting or had any indication that she had been there. Neither Investigator Davenport nor his fellow security officer had any indication that Ms. Maynard had requested the man to distribute the flyer. The flyer was signed by Ms. Maynard and dated April 27, 2009. The heading of the flyer contained the following: "PARENTS FOR FULL DISCLOSURE"; an email address; and "PROTECT YOUR CHILDREN." The content of the flyer included statements that Ms. Maynard was a teacher in 2006 at Cypress Elementary and was directed twice by her administrators in emails to falsify Title I documents; that she was directed to mislead parents about materials and services that the students were legally entitled to; that many of the students failed because they were denied the materials and services; that she refused to follow the directives and filed complaints with the proper authorities; that in 2008, Ms. Portman, who gave the directives to Ms. Maynard, was removed from Cypress Elementary, along with Ms. Murphins and Dr. Harrison--the flyer also indicated the new locations of the individuals; that persons, who were interested in learning how to prevent themselves from being misinformed and to protect their children from being denied the materials and services, should contact Ms. Maynard at the email address on the flyer; and that parents who gather together have more power than teachers to influence the school districts. Ms. Maynard had no determinations or proof to support any of the allegations in the flyer, only her belief. Recognizing that the flyer contained statements similar to the statements of his investigative report, Investigator Davenport forwarded the flyer to Mr. Melita. Ms. Maynard admits that she prepared the flyer and signed it. She indicates that an individual who claimed to be a member of the parent group, Parents For Full Disclosure, contacted and met with her. That individual, who also did not reveal her identity, requested Ms. Maynard to prepare the flyer and informed Ms. Maynard that the flyer would be distributed at the town hall meeting. Filing Various Complaints with Investigative Agencies Ms. Maynard filed various complaints with public investigative agencies regarding: harassment during the investigation; minority teachers being investigated, reassigned to the Textbook Warehouse, and not receiving annual evaluations; and the flyer. The public investigative agencies included the FBI, Broward County EEOC, federal EEOC, Florida Public Service Commission, and Florida Commission on Human Relations. No evidence was presented to show that Ms. Maynard was prohibited from filing the complaints. Contract Status At the time of the investigation of Ms. Maynard in January 2007 for creating a hostile work environment, she was under a continuing contract. Further, at the time that Professional Standards determined probable cause, on or about September 19, 2007, that Ms. Maynard had created a hostile work environment, she was under a continuing contract. Ms. Maynard testified that, on November 2, 2007, she received and signed a professional services contract, a fact which the School Board did not refute. A finding of fact is made that, on November 2, 2007, she received and signed a professional services contract. Employment Requiring a Teaching Certificate At the time of hearing, Ms. Maynard had not found employment requiring a teaching certificate since being suspended, without pay and benefits, by the School Board on or about March 18, 2008.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commissioner of Education enter a final order: Finding that Doreen Maynard committed Counts 2 (only as to gross immorality), 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 15, and 16; Dismissing Counts 1, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, and 17; and Suspending Doreen Maynard's educator's certificate for three years, with denial of an application for an educator's certificate for the three-year period, and, after completion of the suspension, placing her on probation for one year under terms and conditions deemed appropriate by the Commissioner of Education. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of July, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL 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 21st day of July, 2011.
