The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, Bay County School Board (School Board), had just cause under Subsection 1012.67, Florida Statutes (2008), to terminate the employment of Respondent, Thomas Walker, because of his absence without leave.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is employed under a Professional Services Contract and teaches at Bozeman School in Bay County. Respondent, without approval or notice to the administrator or staff of Bozeman School, failed to appear for his teaching assignment in the latter part of November 2008. After repeated attempts to reach Respondent, Dr. Tommye Lou Richardson, Director of Human Resources for Bay District Schools, ascertained that Respondent was incarcerated in the Coffee County Jail in New Brockton, Alabama, for his failure to pay child support. Respondent's absence was willful and without approved leave.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order terminating the employment of Respondent and finding that he has forfeited any compensation since January 14, 2009, the date of his suspension without pay by the School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of May, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Franklin R. Harrison, Esquire Harrison, Sale, McCloy Duncan & Jackson Post Office Drawer 1579 Panama City, Florida 32402-1579 J. E. Sawyer, Esquire 203 South Edward Street Enterprise, Alabama 36330 Thomas Walker 26802 Highway 69A, North Altha, Florida 32421 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 William V. Husfelt, Superintendent Bay County School Board 1311 Balboa Avenue Panama City, Florida 32401-2080
The Issue Whether actions taken by the Hillsborough County School Board prior to December 1, 1974, were sufficient to achieve comparability pursuant to the provisions of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended. whether budgeting and establishing positions by the School Board is sufficient to meet the test of comparability.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, through its compensatory education section, has the responsibility of administering the Title I program, as called for in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, and for dispensing federal-funds to the various school districts throughout the state of Florida. Petitioner, Hillsborough County School Board, is a large urban school district of over 100,000 children. It has some 11,000 employees and 6,000 instructional employees. Employees are allocated on the formula of a per pupil basis, and numerous adjustments must be made after the fall opening of the schools because of major shifts of pupils over a summertime. Allocations, in order to comply with Title I, is a task which requires a great deal of attention, particularly in the fall of the school year. The following sequence of events are pertinent: The Hillsborough County Title I application for FY '75 was approved initially on the basis of the assurance which was signed by the District School Superintendent indicating that comparability existed in the Hillsborough County Title I schools and would continue to be maintained throughout the 1974-75 school year. A memorandum dated September 27, 1974, was signed by Halley B. Lewis, Jr., Administrator, Compensatory Education, and was circulated to all local school districts in Florida confirming that the U.S. Commissioner of Education was designating October 1, 1974, as the date for collecting data on which a comparability report for FY '75 would be based. On October 7 and 8, 1974, the Compensatory Education Section in the Florida Department of Education sponsored a statewide meeting of Title I, ESEA personnel in Orlando. One of the sessions was devoted to comparability. On November 7 and 8, 1974, the Compensatory Education Section of the Florida Department of Education called a meeting for District School Superintendents, Finance Officers, Federal Program Directors and ESEA, Title I Coordinators from the eleven (11) most populous counties in Florida at the request of one (1) or more District School Federal Program Directors. One- half of the program--which amounted to one-half day--was devoted to comparability as outlined in Section 116.26 of the regulations as promulgated in the Federal Register, Volume 38, Number 124, for Thursday, June 28, 1973. On November 20, 1974, in a memorandum from Woodrow J. Darden marked "URGENT", the Respondent advised all Superintendents, the Finance Officers and Title I Coordinators that the comparability reports were due on or before December 1, 1974. A part of said memorandum stated: "If the comparability report submitted by your district did not meet the measures to determine comparability as outlined in the Federal Regulations, administrative or Board action for the purpose of reallocating resources should be taken on or before December 1, 1974, to bring the schools into compliance." On November 27, 1974, a letter from the Hillsborough County School District, dated November 26, 1974, and an original comparability report were received by the Compensatory Education Section of the Florida Department of Education. On December 2, 1974, a letter from Hillsborough County School District dated November 27, 1974, and a revised comparability report were received by the Compensatory Education Section in the Florida Department of Education. A letter, dated December 5, 1974, was forwarded to the Hillsborough County School District by the Compensatory Education Section requesting the dates that the personnel authorized by the School Board on November 26, 1974, reported for work. The Hillsborough County School District, in a letter dated December 10, 1974, submitted to the Compensatory Education Section a partial report detailing the beginning employment dates of some of the personnel authorized by the Hillsborough County District School Board on November 26, 1974, for the purpose of meeting comparability requirements. On December 13, 1974, Ralph D. Turlington, Commissioner of Education, Florida Department of Education, received a telegram from Robert B. wheeler, Acting Deputy Commissioner for School Systems, U.S. Office of Education: "This is to remind you that your agency is required under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act not to make any further payments as of December 1 to any local educational agency that has not as of that date complied with the comparability requirements in 45 CFR 116.26 and to notify each such agency not to obligate any Title I funds after that date. Compliance with this requirement is subject to Federal audit. Your continued cooperation is appreciated." The Hillsborough County School District, in a letter dated December 17, 1974, submitted a final report to the Compensatory Education Section detailing the actual beginning employment dates of personnel authorized by the Hillsborough County District School Board on November 26, 1974, for the purpose of meeting comparability requirements. The Director of the Elementary and Secondary Education Division in the Florida Department of Education notified the Hillsborough County School District that ESEA, Title I funds were being withheld from December 1 through December 16, 1974. A letter from the Compensatory Education Section was sent to the Hillsborough County School District on December 20, 1974, for the primary purpose of reaffirming the necessity to maintain comparability. The Compensatory Education Section of the Florida Department of Education, in a letter dated January 3, 1975, notified the Hillsborough County School District of accounting procedures to be followed for the period of suspension of ESEA, Title I funds from December 1, 1974 through December 16, 1974. The Hillsborough County School District sent a letter dated January 8, 1975, to Commissioner Ralph D. Turlington, Florida Department of Education, along with the documentation they used as a basis for requesting "a special hearing to appeal withholding ESEA, Title I funds for Hillsborough County schools from December 1, 1974 through December 16, 1974." On January 24, 1975, the Commissioner of the Florida Department of Education wrote the district school superintendent in Hillsborough County granting their request for a hearing to appeal the withholding of Title I, ESEA funds. Petitioner, Hillsborough County School Board, applied for and received Title I funds for the school year 1974-75. It became apparent from the memorandum marked "URGENT" from the Department of Education, dated November 20, 1974, that some reallocation was necessary. On November 26, 1974 the Hillsborough County School Board authorized additional positions budgeting funds for the positions and on November 22, 1974 filed its report choosing the option to hire additional people into the Title I schools rather than shifting personnel who were already working in the non-Title I schools. By letter dated December 18, 1974, the Respondent notified Petitioner funds were being withheld for the period of December 2 through December 16, 1974, for the reason that the additional personnel required were not hired and all did not report to work until December 16, 1974. Some $63,000 of additional local funds were required to hire the additional personnel. Funds withheld from Petitioner in excess of $153,000 are Involved in this hearing. Petitioner contends: That it acted in good faith. That the Board action on November 26, 1974, budgeting, approving and establishing the additional positions was compliance both with the federal statutes and regulations and with the requirements of the memorandum from Mr. W. J. Darden of the Department of Education dated November 20, 1974. Respondent contends: That comparability is a continuous state of being, that it not only must be achieved, but must be maintained throughout the year; That upon collection of the data on October 1, it is incumbent upon the school board not only to approve and establish the additional positions but also to see that the persons are hired and in place, on the job, on or before the filing of the report on December 1. The Respondent's position is that the last person necessary to achieve comparability was not in place on the job in Hillsborough County until December 16, 1974, and therefore it had no alternative but to withhold the funds during the period December 2, 1974 through and including December 16, 1974. The statute under consideration is 20 USCA Sec. 241(e): "(a) A local educational agency may receive grant under this subchapter for any fiscal year only upon application therefore approved by the appropriate State educational agency, upon its determination (consistent with such basic criteria as the Commissioner may establish)--... (3) That ... (c) state and local funds be used in the District of such agencies to provide services in project areas which, taken as a whole, are at least comparable to services being provided in areas in such districts which are not receiving funds under this subchapter: . . . Provided further, That each local educational agency receiving funds under this subchapter shall report on or before July 1, 1971 and on or before July 1 of each year thereafter with respect to its compliance with this clause; ..." The regulation under consideration which was promulgated to implement the statute is 45 CFR 116.26, a part of which reads: "(a) A State educational agency shall not approve an application of a local educational agency for a grant under section 141(a) of the Act, or make payment of title I funds under a previously approved application of such agency, unless that local educational agency has demonstrated, in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section, that services provided with State and local funds in title I project areas are at least comparable to the services being provided with State and local funds in schools serving attendance areas not designated as title I project areas. Such approval shall not be given unless the local educational agency also provided the assurances and the additional information required by paragraph (e) of this section with respect to the maintenance of comparability. For the purpose of this section, State and local funds include those funds used in the determination of fiscal effort in accordance with 116.45." 116.26(c) "If any school serving a title I project areas is determined not to be comparable under this paragraph, no further payments of title I funds shall be made to the local educational agency until that agency has taken the action required by paragraph (k)(1) of this section to overcome such lack of comparability." Regulation Sec. 116.26(k)(1) in part reads: "that such local educational agency has allocated or reallocated sufficient addi- tional resources to title I project areas so as to come into compliance with such requirements and has filed a revised comparability report reflecting such compliance..." The Hearing Officer further finds: That both Petitioner and Respondent have demonstrated a dedication and concern for the schools within their respective jurisdictions; That both Petitioner and Respondent have been diligent in trying to act within the provisions of the subject statute and regulations; That the personnel of both the Petitioner and Respondent are familiar with the requirements of the statute and regulation but the federal requirements are subject to different interpretations by reasonable persons. There was no meeting of the minds of the parties from the federal, state and local governmental units as to the required method of compliance with the laws.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether there is just cause to terminate Respondent’s employment.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Overhoff began his employment with the School District on October 20, 2006, as a roofer in the School District’s maintenance department. As a roofer, Mr. Overhoff’s job duties included maintaining and repairing roofs of the School District’s schools and ancillary buildings. His duties also included procuring roofing materials needed on a job, when those materials were not available at the maintenance department’s central warehouse. The School District hired private contracting companies to do major roof repair, and Mr. Overhoff’s duties included meeting with the contractors to discuss the contract work being performed. At all times relevant to this case, Mr. Overhoff was a member of the Support Personnel Association of Lee County (SPALC). During June 27, 2008, through July 11, 2008, Mr. Overhoff resided at 4613 Vinsetta Avenue, North Fort Myers, Florida. Mr. Overhoff’s work hours were from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. with a 30-minute unpaid lunch break and a 15-minute paid break in the morning and a 15-minute paid break in the afternoon. Mr. Overhoff reported to the School District’s maintenance office each morning to receive his work assignments for the day. Each employee was assigned more than eight hours of work to ensure that each employee would have sufficient work for the entire day. After receiving his work assignments, Mr. Overhoff gathered the materials he needed for his jobs that day and traveled to the various locations in the county to work on the School District’s buildings. He was expected to return to the School District’s maintenance office by 3:00 p.m. each day to complete the paper work for the roofing work that had been performed that day and to conference with his supervisors concerning work assignments. Mr. Overhoff was assigned a white pick-up truck owned by the School District and designated as M404. Mr. Overhoff was to use this vehicle to go to his work assignments pursuant to The School Board of Lee County Policy 7.04, which provides that employees who drive School District vehicles “shall [u]se the vehicle strictly for approved District business.” Sometime in April 2008, the School District received a call from a neighbor of Mr. Overhoff, who reported that a School District vehicle was parked in Mr. Overhoff’s driveway during work hours. Donald Easterly, the director of Maintenance Services for the School District, met with Mr. Overhoff in April 2008 to discuss the telephone call. Mr. Easterly made Mr. Overhoff aware that the use of a School District vehicle for personal use was prohibited and that personal business could not be conducted during work hours unless it was during a break. The School Board of Lee County Policy 5.33 prohibits the transaction of personal business on school time and provides: The following rules, regulations and guidelines are to be used to prohibit personal business on school time. No employee of the School District may conduct personal business on school time except for emergencies approved by the principal or Superintendent. No School District equipment or supplies shall be used to conduct personal business or any other activity not connected with the School District. During the time relevant to this case, employees in the maintenance department were allowed to stop at restaurants, convenience stores, and fast food establishments for their lunch and morning and afternoon breaks, if the stops were made while the employees were in transit to a job location. It had also been the practice to allow employees to stop by their bank, if the time was counted as break time, and the stop was while in transit to a job location. It was not permissible for an employee to use a School District vehicle to go to his home unless the employee had permission from his supervisor. In May 2008, the School District began installing Global Positioning Systems (GPS) on some of the vehicles used in the maintenance department. The selection of the vehicles for installation of a GPS was made at random. On June 2, 2008, a GPS was installed on the vehicle M404, which was driven by Mr. Overhoff. The superintendent of the School District has alleged in the Petition for Termination of Employment that Mr. Overhoff used a School District vehicle for his personal use on June 27, June 30, July 1, July 2, July 7, July 8, July 9, July 10, and July 11, 2008. Each day will be discussed individually below. On each day in question, Mr. Overhoff was driving the School District vehicle identified as M404. The locations to which the vehicle traveled and the times of arrivals and departures are based on the information captured by the GPS system installed in vehicle M404 during the relevant time periods. There has been no dispute concerning the accuracy of the information. At the end of each work day, Mr. Overhoff and other employees in the maintenance department were required to complete a daily labor sheet, which identified the work that was performed by work order number, task number, and description of the work; identified the location where the work was performed; and listed the amount of travel time and work hours for each work order. The time was to be listed in 15-minute increments. All locations where work had been performed were to be listed on the daily labor sheet. However, if an employee had to return to the maintenance department during the day, the time spent there was not usually recorded on the daily labor sheet. Mr. Overhoff had never been given any formal instruction on how to complete the daily labor sheet. He understood that the number of hours for travel and work should equal eight hours. His daily labor sheets did not always accurately reflect the locations at which Mr. Overhoff had stopped during the workday and did not always accurately reflect the time that he spent working at School District facilities. Prior to August 2008, the employees in the maintenance department were not required to list their break times on the daily labor sheets, and there was no requirement to list every stop made during the day. After August 2008, the maintenance department employees were required to accurately account for all their time during the day, including break times and stops at the maintenance department on Canal Street. June 27, 2008 On June 27, 2008, vehicle M404 was turned on at 6:29:07 a.m. at the maintenance department located at Canal Street. At 8:01:17 a.m., the vehicle entered the 7-11 store located at Southland Court, and, at 8:12:57 a.m., the vehicle departed the 7-11 store. At 8:31:17 a.m., the vehicle arrived at San Carlos Park Elementary School and remained there until it left at 9:19:27 a.m. The vehicle left San Carlos Park Elementary School and went to a Hess Station/Dunkin Donuts business, where the vehicle remained from 9:22:07 a.m. to 9:39:57 a.m. After leaving the Hess Station, the vehicle arrived at Lexington Middle School at 9:57:57 a.m. The vehicle departed the school at 10:16:17 a.m. and arrived at the Canal Street maintenance department at 10:40 a.m. The vehicle remained at the maintenance department until 11:01 a.m. The next stop for the vehicle was at 11:19:37 a.m. at Mr. Overhoff’s home, where the vehicle remained until 11:28:17 a.m. The vehicle left Mr. Overhoff’s home and went to One Price Optical in Cape Coral, Florida, where it arrived at 11:34:07 a.m. and left at 11:37:07 a.m. At 11:43:47 a.m., the vehicle arrived at Bank of America, and, at 11:44:17 a.m., the vehicle departed from the bank. The vehicle returned to Mr. Overhoff’s home at 11:51:58 a.m. and remained there until 11:53:17 a.m., when it departed for One Price Optical. The vehicle arrived at One Price Optical at 12:00:17 p.m. and left at 12:01:27 p.m. heading for Tanglewood/Riverside Elementary School, where it arrived at 12:22:37 p.m. and left at 12:37:47 p.m. The next stop the vehicle made was at another 7-ll store, where it arrived at 12:53:27 p.m. and left at l:01:57 p.m. The vehicle traveled past Mr. Overhoff’s house and arrived at One Price Optical at 1:18:17 p.m. and remained there until 1:33:47 p.m. From One Price Optical the vehicle proceeded to North Fort Myers High School, where it arrived at 1:38:37 p.m. and left at 1:52:17 p.m. From North Ft. Myers High School, the vehicle proceeded to the Professional Building on Dixie Parkway, arriving at 2:01:37 p.m. The vehicle remained stationary for 16 minutes and 40 seconds, circled the block around the Professional Building, and left at 2:21:37 p.m. From the Professional Building, the vehicle proceeded to Dunbar High School, arriving at 2:30:27 p.m. and leaving at 2:43:47 p.m. From Dunbar High School, the vehicle proceeded to the maintenance department at Canal Street, where it arrived at 2:53:47 p.m. Mr. Overhoff spent a total of 29.5 minutes in the morning at a convenience store and a service station. He spent from 11:01 a.m. to 12:01 p.m. on personal business, including stops at his home, a bank, and an optical business. The total time for his personal business was one hour. He left the maintenance department at 11:01 a.m. and could have taken his personal vehicle to run his personal errands and gone back to the maintenance department when he was finished. The locations where he conducted his personal business were northwest of the maintenance department. The next work assignment after he completed his personal business was located southwest of the maintenance department, which means that the errands that he was running were not on the way to a work assignment. In the afternoon, Mr. Overhoff stopped at another 7-11 store for 8.5 minutes, took a circuitous route by his home, and went back to One Price Optical. The amount of time that elapsed from the time he reached the 7-11 until he left One Price Optical was over 40 minutes. His home and One Price Optical were not located on a route that would have taken him logically to his next work assignment. Mr. Overhoff started his workday at approximately 6:30 a.m. Subtracting Mr. Overhoff’s lunch time and break times, Mr. Overhoff used .6 hours of work time above his allotted break times for his personal business. No evidence was presented to show that Mr. Overhoff took annual or sick leave for this time. Based on his daily labor sheets, Mr. Overhoff recorded eight hours of travel and work time for June 27, 2008. On June 27, 2008, a lens fell out of Mr. Overhoff’s glasses. Mr. Overhoff had permission from his supervisor, Michael Hooks, to go to an optical business to have the lens replaced. Mr. Hooks did not give Mr. Overhoff permission to stop by a Bank of America to conduct his banking business. The stop at the bank was not made while in transit to another job. Mr. Hooks did not give Mr. Overhoff permission to make multiple trips to One Price Optical. Mr. Hook had given Mr. Overhoff permission to stop by his house one time to check on Mr. Overhoff’s son. According to Mr. Overhoff, June 27, 2008, was the date that Mr. Hook had given him permission to stop to check on his son at home. Mr. Hook was not certain of the date that he gave such permission, but it was for one time only. June 30, 2008 Vehicle M404 left the maintenance department at Canal Street at 7:29:27 a.m. and arrived at Dunbar High School at 7:38:17 a.m. The vehicle left Dunbar High School at 7:38:17 a.m. and arrived at Kuhlman Concrete, LLC, at 7:40 a.m. The vehicle left Kuhlman Concrete, LLC, at 7:41 a.m. and arrived at North Fort Myers High School at 7:55:37 a.m. The vehicle left the high school at 8:50:27 a.m. and proceeded to Villas Elementary School, arriving at 9:02:47 a.m. and leaving at 9:31:57 a.m. The vehicle arrived at the James Adams Building at 9:45:37 a.m. and departed at 9:52:57 a.m., proceeding to a Hess Gas Station, where it arrived at 10:15:37 a.m. and left at 10:18:57 a.m. The next stop was at the North Fort Myers Academy of the Arts, where the vehicle arrived at 10:26:47 a.m. and departed at 10:41:17 a.m. The vehicle arrived at Diplomat Middle School at 10:59:27 a.m. and left at 11:35:37 a.m. From the Diplomat Middle School, the vehicle arrived at Mr. Overhoff’s house at 11:46:47 a.m., departed at 11:56:07 a.m., and arrived at North Fort Myers High School at 12:00:57 p.m. The vehicle did not stop at the school, but drove through the school grounds and left at 12:02:57 p.m. The vehicle turned in at Kentucky Fried Chicken at 12:21:57 p.m. and exited at 12:22:37 p.m. The vehicle proceeded to McDonald’s, arriving at 12:36:57 p.m. and leaving at 12:40:27 p.m. At 12:52:17 p.m., the vehicle arrived at Three Oaks Middle School and departed at 1:29:57 p.m. From the middle school, the vehicle proceeded to a Bank of America, arriving at 1:35:37 p.m. and leaving at 1:42:17 p.m. After leaving the bank, the vehicle went to South Fort Myers High School, arriving at 1:54:47 p.m. and leaving at 2:04 p.m. The next stop was Ray V. Pottorf Elementary School, where the vehicle arrived at 2:13:47 p.m. and left at 2:29:27 p.m. The vehicle proceeded to High Tech Central/New Directions, arrived at 2:37:57 p.m., drove through the campus, and exited at 2:44:57 p.m. At 2:54:07 p.m., the vehicle arrived at the maintenance department at Canal Street. Mr. Overhoff stopped at a convenience store for three minutes mid-morning. At lunch time, he stopped at his home for nine minutes. The stop at his home was not authorized and was not in transit to another job location. The travel time to and from his home was eight minutes. He turned into a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant for 40 seconds. According to Mr. Overhoff, he went into the Kentucky Fried Chicken parking lot to take a telephone call or open a work folder. The next stop is a McDonald’s fast food place where he remains for 3.5 minutes. According to Mr. Overhoff, this is another stop to do paperwork. In light of his earlier stop at Kentucky Fried Chicken, Mr. Overhoff’s testimony is not credited. Additionally, Mr. Overhoff’s general assertions that his many stops at convenience stores were to do paperwork is not credible. He was given 30 minutes at the end of each work day for the specific purpose of completing his paperwork. The many inaccuracies in his paperwork do not support his assertion that he was making stops to keep his paperwork accurate and in order. Later in the afternoon, he made a six-minute stop at Bank of America. The side trip to the bank did not appear to be on a logical route to his next work assignment. Thus, four minutes’ travel time is assessed for the bank trip. The total time for his personal business was 33.5 minutes. July 1, 2008 On July 1, 2008, vehicle M404 left the maintenance department on Canal Street at 7:03:37 a.m. and arrived at a gas station/convenience store off Metro Parkway at 7:10 a.m. Leaving the convenience store at 7:14 a.m., the vehicle proceeded to Three Oaks Middle School, arriving at Three Oaks Middle School at 7:39 a.m. and leaving at 8:16 a.m. From the middle school, the vehicle traveled to Ray V. Pottorf Elementary School arriving at 8:36 a.m. and leaving at 8:41 a.m. The vehicle returned to the maintenance department at 8:50 a.m. and remained there until 9:16 a.m. The vehicle proceeded to Bonita Middle School, arrived there at 9:52 a.m., and left at 10:22 a.m. The next stop was Orange River Elementary School, where the vehicle arrived at 11:01:27 a.m. and departed at 11:05:27 a.m. At 11:12 a.m., the vehicle stopped at a restaurant/convenience store and remained there until 11:33 a.m. The vehicle arrived back at the maintenance department at 11:41 a.m. and departed at 12:20 p.m. The vehicle arrived at Trafalgar Middle School at 12:55 p.m. and departed at 1:18 p.m. The next stop was Gulf Middle School, where the vehicle arrived at 1:27 p.m. and left at 1:40 p.m. At 1:48:57 p.m., the vehicle arrived at Bank of America off Skyline Boulevard. The vehicle left the bank at 1:56:07 p.m. From the bank at Skyline Boulevard, the vehicle proceeded to the Bank of America at Viscaya Parkway, arriving at 2:09 p.m. and leaving at 2:19 p.m. At 2:23:07 p.m., the vehicle arrived at One Price Optical. The vehicle left One Price Optical at 2:27:07 p.m. The next stop was the James Adams Building, where the vehicle arrived at 2:44 p.m. and left at 2:46 p.m. At 3:02:57 p.m., the vehicle was parked at the maintenance department. The stop at the convenience store in the morning consumed ten minutes of Mr. Overhoff’s morning break time. The lunch at a restaurant took 21 minutes. In the afternoon, Mr. Overhoff stopped at two banks for a total of 17 minutes. Another stop was made at One Price Optical for four minutes. The stop at One Price Optical was not authorized and, based on the map contained in Petitioner’s Exhibit 7, the trip was not on the route back to the next job location. Thus, the travel time from the last bank stop, four minutes, should be added to the time. The time expended on personal business was 56 minutes. July 2, 2008 On July 2, 2008, vehicle M404 left the maintenance department at 7:04 a.m. and arrived at the James Adams Building at 7:13 a.m. The vehicle left the James Adams Building at 7:56 a.m. and arrived back at the maintenance department at 8:05 a.m. The vehicle left the maintenance department at 8:27 a.m. and arrived at the 7-11 store off Metro Parkway at 8:33 a.m. The vehicle left the 7-11 at 8:37 a.m. and returned to the James Adams Building at 8:50 a.m. At 8:57 a.m., the vehicle left the James Adams Building and returned to the maintenance department at 9:04 a.m., where it remains until 9:26 a.m. The vehicle arrived at Fort Myers High School at 9:41 a.m. and left at 9:56 a.m. Arriving at Orange River Elementary at 10:18 a.m., the vehicle remained until 11:03 a.m. when it proceeded to the Taco Bell off Palm Beach Boulevard. The vehicle reached Taco Bell at 11:05 a.m. and left at 11:38 a.m. At 11:47 a.m., the vehicle arrived at Edgewood Academy, where it left at 11:50 a.m. The vehicle arrived at Dunbar High School at 11:59 a.m. and departed at 12:05 p.m. From Dunbar High School, the vehicle proceeded to Mr. Overhoff’s house, where the vehicle remained from 12:27:17 p.m. to 12:30:07 p.m. At 12:49 p.m., the vehicle arrived at the James Adams Building, where it remained until 12:57 p.m. From the James Adams Building, the vehicle proceeded to a 7-11 store located off Winkler and Colonial Boulevard. The vehicle arrived at the 7-11 at 1:09 p.m. and departed at 1:11 p.m. At 1:17 p.m., the vehicle arrived at Lowe’s Shopping Center off Colonial Boulevard and Ben C. Pratt Parkway. The vehicle left the shopping center at 1:27 p.m. The next stop was Colonial Elementary, where the vehicle arrived at 1:34 p.m. and departed at 1:36 p.m. The vehicle returned to the maintenance department on Canal Street at 1:47 p.m. and remained there. In the morning, Mr. Overhoff went to a convenience store, which was not in route to a job location. The time spent at the convenience store was four minutes and the travel time to and from the convenience store from the maintenance department was 12 minutes for a total of 16 minutes for his morning break. Mr. Overhoff had lunch at Taco Bell for 33 minutes. In the afternoon, Mr. Overhoff stopped at his home for almost three minutes; however, the stop at his home was not on route to any job location. Thus, the travel time to his home and back to the next job should be included in any break time. The travel time for the trip home was 41 minutes, and the total time taken for his trip home was 44 minutes. The stop at his home was not authorized. Mr. Overhoff’s excuse for the stop at his home was to get boots and use the bathroom. His testimony is not credited. Mr. Overhoff testified that he needed his boots to clean off water, but the job in which he had been cleaning off water was before he stopped at his home. In the afternoon, Mr. Overhoff stopped at a convenience store for two minutes and went to Lowe’s for ten minutes. The stop at Lowe’s was not authorized. The stops at the convenience store and at Lowe’s were not in transit to another job location. The travel time should be calculated based on the time it took to get from Lowe’s to his next work location, which was 14 minutes. The total time that Mr. Overhoff spent on personal business was 1.95 hours. Thus, Mr. Overhoff spent .95 hours above his allotted break time for his personal business. No evidence was presented that leave was taken, and his daily labor sheet showed that he worked for eight hours on that day. July 7, 2008 On July 7, 2008, vehicle M404 left the maintenance department on Canal Street at 7:22 a.m. and proceeded to a 7-11 at the corner of Winkler and Colonial Boulevard, arriving there at 7:33 a.m. and leaving at 7:38 a.m. The vehicle arrived at Ray V. Pottorf Elementary at 7:43 a.m. and left at 9:35 a.m. The next stop was Lexington Middle School, where the vehicle arrived at 9:51 a.m. and departed at 10:05 a.m. From Lexington Middle School, the vehicle went to Fort Myers Beach Elementary School, arriving at 10:18 a.m. and leaving at 10:22 a.m. The vehicle arrived at Tanglewood/Riverside Elementary School at 10:46 a.m. and left at 11:04 a.m. At 11:21 a.m., the vehicle returned to the maintenance department at Canal Street. Leaving the maintenance department at 12:04 p.m., the vehicle proceeded to Dunbar High School, arriving at 12:10 p.m. and leaving at 12:23 p.m. At 12:39 p.m., the vehicle arrived at Crowther Roofing and remained there until 12:52 p.m. The vehicle made another stop at One Price Optical at 1:12 p.m. Leaving One Price Optical at 1:21 p.m., the vehicle arrived at Taco Bell off Santa Barbara Boulevard at 1:27 p.m. and left at 1:46 p.m. The vehicle arrived at Mariner High School at 1:53 p.m. and departed at 2:09 p.m. At 2:14 p.m., the vehicle entered the Publix Shopping Center off Santa Barbara Boulevard, departing at 2:17 p.m. From 2:22 p.m. to 2:37 p.m., the vehicle was stopped at a warehouse. At 2:44 p.m., the vehicle arrived at Mr. Overhoff’s house, where it remained until 2:47 p.m. At 3:07 p.m., the vehicle returned to the maintenance department at Canal Street. Mr. Overhoff stopped at a convenience store for five minutes in the morning. In the early afternoon, he made a nine- minute stop at One Price Optical, which was not an authorized stop. He stopped at Taco Bell for 19 minutes. He went to a Publix Shopping Center for three minutes, to a warehouse for 15 minutes, and to his home for three minutes. The stops at the Publix Shopping Center, the warehouse, and Mr. Overhoff’s home were not authorized, were for personal business, and were not in transit to a job location. Thus, the travel time from the shopping center to his home, which totals 12 minutes should be added to the time taken for personal business. The total time for personal business on July 7, 2008, was 65 minutes, which was five minutes above the allotted break times. July 8, 2008 On July 8, 2008, vehicle M404 left the maintenance department at Canal Street at 7:44 a.m., arrived at ALC Central/New Directions at 7:53 a.m., and departed ALC Central/New Directions at 8:23 a.m. The vehicle returned to the maintenance department at 8:28 a.m. and remained there until 8:41 a.m. At 8:58 a.m., the vehicle arrived at Tropic Isles Elementary School and remained there until 9:37 a.m. From the elementary school, the vehicle proceeded to the 7-11 store located off Pondella and Orange Grove. The vehicle arrived at the 7-11 at 9:39 a.m. and left at 9:42 a.m. From the 7-11, the vehicle proceeded to New Directions, arriving at 9:55 a.m. and leaving at 9:57 a.m. The vehicle returned to the maintenance department at Canal Street at 10:03 a.m. and departed at 10:33 a.m. The next stop was Cypress Lake High School, where the vehicle arrived at 10:56 a.m. and left at 11:28 a.m. From Cypress Lake High School, the vehicle traveled to Bank of America off Cypress Lake Drive. The vehicle arrived at the bank at 11:30 a.m. and left at 11:38 a.m. From the bank, the vehicle arrived at the 7-11 store off Metro Parkway at 11:45 a.m. and departed at 11:55 a.m. After leaving the 7-11 store, the vehicle proceeded to South Fort Myers High School, arriving at 11:59 a.m. and departing at 12:31 p.m. The next stop was Roofing Supply Company, where the vehicle stopped at 12:46 p.m. and left at 12:59 p.m. The vehicle proceeded to New Directions and arrived at 1:07 p.m. The vehicle remained at New Directions until 1:53 p.m. From New Directions, the vehicle headed to the maintenance department at Canal Street, where the vehicle arrived at 2:06 p.m. and remained. Mr. Overhoff stopped at a convenience store in the morning for four minutes, at a bank for eight minutes at lunch time, and at a convenience store for ten minutes at lunch time. These stops were made in transit to a job location. July 9, 2008 On July 9, 2008, vehicle M404 left the maintenance department at Canal Street at 7:12 a.m. and arrived at the 7-11 store off Metro Parkway and Colonial at 7:23 a.m. The vehicle remained at the 7-11 store until 7:30 a.m., when it left for Six Mile Cypress School, arriving at 7:42 a.m. and leaving at 7:53 a.m. The next stop for the vehicle was The Sanibel School, where the vehicle arrived at 8:29 a.m. and departed at 9:19 a.m., headed for Bailey’s General Store off Periwinkle Way. The vehicle arrived at Bailey’s General Store at 9:25 a.m. Mr. Overhoff made an authorized purchase of a 6-volt lantern at the store and left the store in the vehicle at 9:35 a.m. to return to The Sanibel School at 9:42 a.m. The vehicle remained at The Sanibel School until 10:29 a.m. At 10:39 a.m., the vehicle arrived at the 7-11 store off Periwinkle Way, where the vehicle remained until 11:02 a.m. From the 7-11, the vehicle traveled to Riverdale High School, where it arrived at 11:53 a.m. The vehicle remained at Riverdale High School until 1:36 p.m. The next stop was a convenience store on Palm Beach Boulevard, where the vehicle arrived at 1:42 p.m. and left at 1:46 p.m. From the convenience store, the vehicle proceeded to Edgewood Elementary School, arriving at 1:59 p.m. and leaving at 2:09 p.m. From Edgewood Elementary School, the vehicle traveled to New Directions/ALC Central, arriving at 2:16 p.m. and leaving at 2:23 p.m. The next stop was Dunbar High School, where the vehicle arrived at 2:28 a.m. and left at 2:56 p.m. The last stop was the maintenance department at Canal Street at 3:00 p.m. Mr. Overhoff stopped at a convenience store early in the morning for six minutes, at another convenience store at mid-morning for 23 minutes, and at a convenience store in the afternoon for four minutes. These stops were in transit to job locations. July 10, 2008 On July 10, 2008, vehicle M404 left the maintenance department at 8:30 a.m. and arrived at the Hess Service Station off River Road at 8:50 a.m. The vehicle remained at the Hess Service Station until 8:53 a.m., when it departed for Lee County Electric Company off Electric Lane. The vehicle arrived at the utility company at 8:56 a.m. and left at 8:59 a.m. The next stop was North Fort Myers Academy of the Arts, where the vehicle arrived at 9:06 a.m. and departed at 9:40 a.m. From North Fort Myers Academy of the Arts, the vehicle proceeded to Hector A. Cafferata, Jr., Elementary School, arrived there at 10:07 a.m. and left at 10:47 a.m. The next stop was Ida S. Baker High School, where the vehicle arrived at 11:05 a.m. and left at 11:26 a.m. At 11:29 a.m., the vehicle arrived at Gulf Middle School and left at 11:45 a.m. From Gulf Middle School, the vehicle traveled to Three Oaks Elementary School arriving at 12:41 p.m. and leaving at 1:11 p.m. The vehicle next arrived at Bonita Springs Elementary School at 1:30 a.m. The vehicle left Bonita Springs Elementary School at 1:55 p.m. and arrived at Lowe’s at Rolfes Road at 2:27 p.m. Mr. Overhoff made an authorized purchase at Lowe’s, and the vehicle left Lowe’s at 2:54 p.m. and arrived at the maintenance department at 3:04 p.m. Mr. Overhoff stopped at a convenience store for three minutes in the early morning and at the electric company for three minutes. The stop at the electric company was not an authorized stop. July 11, 2008 On July 11, 2008, vehicle M404 left the maintenance department at Canal Street at 7:34 a.m. and arrived at the 7-11 store off Lee Boulevard at 8:00 a.m. The vehicle remained at the 7-11 until 8:04 a.m., when it departed for Veteran’s Park Academy, where it arrived at 8:18 a.m. and left at 9:58 a.m. From Veteran’s Park Academy, the vehicle traveled to North Fort Myers High School, where it arrived at 10:45 a.m. and departed at 11:38 a.m. The vehicle returned to the maintenance department at Canal Street at 12:03 p.m., where it remained until 12:24 p.m. From the maintenance department, the vehicle traveled to the 7-11 store off Pondella Road, where it arrived at 12:39 p.m. and left at 12:43 p.m. From the 7-11, the vehicle traveled to Mariner High School, where it stopped at 12:57 p.m. and left at 1:28 p.m. The next stop was Riverdale High School, where the vehicle arrived at 2:07 p.m. and departed at 2:17 p.m. After leaving Riverdale High School, the vehicle went to Bank of America, arriving at 2:20 p.m. and leaving at 2:24 p.m. The vehicle left the bank and headed to Dunbar High School, where it arrived at 2:44 p.m. and left at 2:51 p.m. The last stop for the vehicle was at the maintenance department at Canal Street at 2:56 p.m. Mr. Overhoff stopped at a convenience store for four minutes in the early morning, at a convenience store for three minutes at lunch time, and at a bank in the afternoon for four minutes. The stops were in transit to job locations. The School District initiated an investigation into Mr. Overhoff’s use of a School District vehicle for personal business while on School District time. A predetermination conference was held on September 25, 2008. Mr. Overhoff appeared at the predetermination conference along with a representative of the SPALC. At the conclusion of the investigation, the School District determined that probable cause existed to impose discipline on Mr. Overhoff. On December 18, 2008, Mr. Overhoff was suspended with pay and benefits. By Petition for Termination of Employment, the superintendent for the School District recommended to the School Board that Mr. Overhoff be terminated from his employment. Mr. Overhoff requested an administrative hearing. On February 24, 2009, the School Board suspended Mr. Overhoff without pay and benefits pending the outcome of the administrative hearing. Mr. Overhoff had no prior disciplinary actions taken against him while he has been employed with the School District. Prior to the incidents at issue, Mr. Overhoff had received good performance evaluations. He is regarded by the director of maintenance for the School District as a good roofer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Mr. Overhoff violated The School Board of Lee County Policies 5.02, 5.29, 5.33, and 7.04; finding that Mr. Overhoff willfully neglected his assigned duties; suspending him from employment without pay from February 24, 2009, to September 30, 2009; and placing him on probation for one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of August, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of August, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Mary L. Baxter has been employed by the Polk County School Board for approximately 14 years, first as a classroom teacher, then as assistant principal, and in 1984 she was appointed as principal of John Cox Elementary School in Lakeland. While assigned to John Cox Elementary School, Petitioner was issued an annual contract for eleven months (Exhibit 5). Neriah E. Roberts is the Northwest Area Superintendent of Polk County Schools and was in that position at all times here relevant. As Northwest Area Superintendent, Dr. Roberts was Petitioner's immediate supervisor and supervised seventeen additional principals of the Polk County School System. Functions of the area superintendent include acting as liaison between the communities and the schools in his area responsibility, assisting the principals in obtaining funding for maintenance and other school activities and overseeing the performance of these principals. As Petitioner's immediate supervisor, Dr. Roberts prepared Petitioner's performance evaluation. In his first annual evaluation of Petitioner's performance (Exhibit 4), Dr. Roberts reported that Petitioner met performance standards. However, two of those blocks contained comments regarding performance by Petitioner that needed to be improved. Under "Student Services," Dr. Roberts commented that Petitioner should reassess her disciplinary procedures. Dr. Roberts had received complaints from parents of children at John Cox Elementary School indicating Petitioner was paddling an excessive number of pupils. When he checked the discipline records with Petitioner, he found some 97 pupils had been paddled during that school year. That discovery lead to Dr. Robert's comments. Under "Management" on the evaluation, Dr. Roberts commented that Petitioner should open lines of communication between her staff and her assistant principal. Dr. Roberts had received comments from teachers at John Cox that Petitioner was short tempered and was not popular with members of her instructional staff. On one occasion while Petitioner was principal at John Cox, Dr. Roberts met with the staff at John Cox at which meeting five or six teachers commented unfavorably on Petitioner's relations with her staff. Such reports formed the basis of these comments by Dr. Roberts above noted. In addition to placing the two comments on the March 25, 1985 evaluation, Dr. Roberts submitted a letter to Petitioner dated March 27, 1985 (Exhibit 6) in which he elaborated on the comments placed on the evaluation. Dr. Roberts held another conference with Petitioner on August 14, 1985, which he memorialized in a letter to Petitioner dated August 23, 1985, (Exhibit 7). In this letter, he referred to his March 27, 1985, letter and stated that letter was intended to substitute for a more formal professional development plan. In the evaluation of Petitioner dated March 3, 1986, Dr. Roberts reports that Petitioner successfully met minimum standards in all sections of the evaluation. However, in Section 1, comments are made that "Improvement has been made in leadership style, but this does not preclude the need for continued improvement." Under Item 11 on this evaluation, the comment appears that "Your flexibility and adjustment to this community and students has been good. Due to the inability to read the dates on some of the evaluations contained in Exhibit 4, it is impossible to tell which evaluation was for the second year and which is for the third year Petitioner was principal at John Knox. From Dr. Roberts' testimony, it appears that the evaluation for the second year is included in Exhibit 6, and the evaluation reports in Exhibit 4 in which the date is not legible was for her third year at John Cox. At the expiration of Petitioner's three years as principal at John Cox, she became eligible for a multi-year contract, and Dr. Roberts recommended her for such a contract. When this recommendation reached the superintendent's office, Donald R. Cox, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel, noted that the recommendation was inconsistent with school board policy and contacted Dr. Roberts to remind him of the policy that before administrative personnel can be given a multi-year contract, their performance evaluations must be totally satisfactory in each category on the evaluation report for the three years preceding the awarding of a multi-year contract. Dr. Roberts then contacted Petitioner by phone to tell her she would not receive a multi-year contract. Petitioner was quite upset during this conversation and indicated to Dr. Roberts that she would resign. She was requested to put her resignation in writing. This conversation occurred near the end of the week, and the following work day (either Friday or Monday) Dr. Roberts and Dr. Cox met with the superintendent. During this meeting, the status of Petitioner was brought up, and Dr. Roberts told the superintendent that Petitioner had indicated she would resign. Shortly thereafter on January 12, 1987, the superintendent of schools submitted a letter to Petitioner (Exhibit 5), accepting her verbal resignation as principal at John Cox Elementary School and advising her that she would be reassigned to the first available vacancy as assistant principal. By letter dated June 15, 1987 (Exhibit 10), Petitioner indicated she had not resigned and that the charges against her were based on information she had been given no opportunity to challenge or rebut. The superintendent then authorized Dr. Cox to set up a meeting with Petitioner and Dr. Roberts to try and resolve the differences. At this time, it was clear that no valid resignation had been submitted by Petitioner, and this was no longer an avenue to be pursued by the school board. Dr. Cox was authorized by the superintendent to offer Petitioner continued employment as principal of John Cox Elementary School, a transfer to another school as assistant principal at no reduction in salary or a return to professional status as instructional personnel. A meeting was scheduled and held shortly after June 15, 1987 between Roberts, Cox and Petitioner at which Cox offered the above noted alternatives to Petitioner. Petitioner then stated she did not want to remain at John Cox, but would like a lateral transfer to another school as principal. Cox was not authorized to approve the lateral transfer requested by Petitioner and told her he would relay that request to the superintendent and advise Petitioner. When Dr. Cox presented this proposal to the superintendent, the latter indicated he would refuse to recommend to the school board that Petitioner be employed at any other school to a position higher than assistant principal. Cox relayed this information back to Petitioner, and she was subsequently assigned as assistant principal at North Lakeland Elementary School at the same salary she had received as principal at John Cox. Petitioner subsequently requested the hearing to challenge this action, and these proceedings followed.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations of this case, Petitioner was a school board charged with the responsibility of operating and supervising the public schools within its district. Such responsibility includes the employment of non-instructional school employees. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent was employed as a non-instructional school employee and was utilized as a security monitor assigned to Earlington Heights Elementary School. Prior to the incidents complained of, Respondent had been a satisfactory employee for approximately eight years. During the 1996/97 school year Respondent came to know an eight year old student, R.B., who was enrolled at Earlington Heights in the second grade. On March 14, 1997, Respondent went to R.B.'s classroom during an after school period and advised R.B.'s mother, who was present at the time, that the student was being taken to the office. Contrary to that remark, Respondent took R.B. to a restroom and requested that the minor child urinate into a paper cup left inside the restroom while Respondent remained outside. R.B. did as he was told but was not very happy. When R.B. did not return to the classroom, his mother went to find the minor, found him in the hallway, and asked him what had happened. R.B. related the incident of Respondent requesting him to urinate in the cup. At that time, R.B. and his mother went to see the school principal to lodge a complaint against Respondent. R.B. was frightened; his mother was angry at the prospects of what might have occurred with her son; and the principal tried to pacify them by calling Respondent to the office. Respondent admitted, in front of the principal and R.B.'s mother, that he had taken the child to the restroom so that he could urinate into a cup. Respondent explained the matter by saying he needed the urine for a friend's drug test. Subsequently, Respondent was placed in an alternate assignment away from contact with children while Petitioner investigated allegations of lewd and lascivious behavior (unsupported) and the instant charges of conduct unbecoming a school board employee and misconduct in office. Later during the investigation, Respondent admitted to Officer Ruggiero that the urine was needed for his own drug testing program. Apparently, unbeknown to his employer, Respondent was required to submit to drug testing several times prior to March 14, 1997. According to R.B., prior to March 14, 1997, Respondent had asked him for urine several times and had, on more than one occasion, paid him for same. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent wore a security uniform and was in a position of authority over the minor child, R.B. Respondent claimed to want to help R.B. by "adopting" him and supporting him for various school programs. Thus Respondent sought and exercised additional control over the minor student. R.B. complied with Respondent's requests for urine because he was, in part, afraid of the mean look on Respondent's face. R.B. was embarrassed by the requests for urine. Respondent's conduct with R.B. demonstrates a lack of professional judgment, exploitation of a minor, and a gross indifference to the child's rights. Respondent has offered no explanation for such a breach of ethics. Respondent's conduct has seriously impaired his service to the school district as administrators can no longer trust Respondent around minor students.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County, Florida enter a Final Order dismissing Respondent from his employment with the district. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. Parrish 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Roger C. Cuevas Superintendent Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Suite 403 Miami, Florida 33132 Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire School Board of Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Patricia M. Kennedy, Esquire Leslie Meek, Esquire United Teachers of Dade 2929 Southwest Third Avenue Miami, Florida 33129
The Issue Whether Respondent, Robert P. Sulcer, as principal of Riverland Elementary School, is guilty of "incompetency, and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty" as charged in a 28-count "Amended Petition for Dismissal from Broward County School System," filed September 6, 1984, and should be dismissed from employment with the Petitioner, Broward County School Board.
Findings Of Fact RESPONDENT: BACKGROUND AND PAST PERFORMANCE In 1955, Respondent received a Master's Degree in Education, Supervision, and Administration from Southern Illinois University. He moved to Broward County in 1957 and was first employed by the School Board as a teacher at McNab Elementary School. He has been employed as a principal for 25 years. In 1960, he became the principal of McNab Elementary and continued as a principal in various elementary schools until 1971 or 1972, when he became a principal at Pompano Beach Middle School for seven years. He was assigned the principalship at Lake Forest Elementary School for 5 years, then became principal of Riverland Elementary School in 1982. When he was suspended without pay on August 2, 1984, based on the charges which are the subject of this proceeding, he had a continuing contract (as principal) with the School Board. His supervisors evaluated (in writing) his performance as a principal during each of the 25 years he was a principal, including the 1982-83 and 1983- 84 school years. All evaluations were positive and described his performance as satisfactory. There were no negative comments. II COUNTS 1 AND 2: CONSISTENT DISCIPLINE PLAN Count 1 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish and/or maintain and/or formally present consistent rules and/or regulations regarding student discipline and/or student behavior for the staff and student body at Riverland Elementary School for the 1982-83 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 2 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish and/or maintain and/or formally present consistent rules and/or regulations regarding student discipline and/or student behavior for the staff and student body at Riverland Elementary School for the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Counts 1 and 2 center on the "development of a consistent disciplinary plan" at Riverland Elementary School, including rules and regulations for the 1982-83 and 1983-84 school years. To sustain these charges the School Board must demonstrate that there was no consistent disciplinary plan including rules and regulations in effect at Riverland Elementary School for the years 1982-1983 and 1983-84 and that such omission constituted incompetency, misconduct in office or willful neglect of duty. The evidence not only fails to substantiate these two charges but affirmatively establishes that a consistent formal disciplinary plan and procedure was in effect at Riverland Elementary School during the 1982-83 and 1983-84 school years. A. 1982-83 During the 1982-83 school year, the Student Conduct and Discipline Code ("Discipline Code") for Broward County was in effect and fully utilized. Riverland Elementary School received its accreditation at the conclusion of that year and there was no reference to an inconsistent or non-existent disciplinary plan. There were no reports of a non-existent or inappropriate disciplinary system at Riverland Elementary School during 1982-83 made to School Board administrators at any time prior to the lodging of initial charges in March 1984. (R-2; TR-IV, p.467; TR-V, p.712; TR-XI, pp.42,108) The Discipline Code delineated the teachers' responsibilities for student discipline as well as the consequences for student misconduct. During school year 1982-83, Respondent utilized the disciplinary referral system and handled student discipline problems in a manner consistent with the Discipline Code. (Conversely, there is no evidence demonstrating that Respondent failed to follow the Student Discipline Code in any instance, whatsoever during the year 1982-83.) He made sure (that parents, teachers, and students were aware of the Discipline Code. When he became principal of Riverland he discussed discipline with the students during an orientation assembly. He met with the grade level chairpersons on a daily basis and discussed discipline with them. They, in turn, were instructed to direct the teachers under their jurisdiction to review the contents of the Discipline Code with their students and ensure that students took the Code pamphlets home to be signed by their parents. In connection with the SACS review process, a student assembly was held to discuss discipline. Because of the type of children in the school and the age of the majority of the students, however, school-wide assemblies to discuss discipline proved to be less effective than small group discussions. Respondent's preferred use of small group settings and his utilization of the Discipline Code was deemed acceptable by his immediate supervisor. Other teachers followed a similar practice without objection. (TR-III, p.372; TR-IX, p.40, TR-X, p.83, TR-XIII, p.77, TR-XV, pp.38 169,2,192-193; TR-XVI, pp.8-9,16,48-49) B. 1983-84 During school year 1983-84, the Discipline Code remained in effect. Respondent continued to utilize it as the foundation for the disciplinary process in place at Riverland Elementary School. Indeed, use of the Discipline Code, as adopted by the School Board of Broward County, was mandated. Although several teachers testified that there should be a school-wide code which overlaps or supercedes the official county-wide Discipline Code, there is no showing that a school-wide code, other than the Discipline Code, was required or even customarily used in the school system (TR-I, pp.89,90, TR-II, p.201; TR- IV, p.467, TR-V, p.712; TR-IX, p.38; TR-XI, p.108; TR-XV, p.16) Several teachers critical of Respondent's performance testified that he should have adopted a code listing infractions which would automatically lead to specific consequences. To comply with this request, Respondent would have had to enact a code inconsistent with the Discipline Code mandated by the School Board. Page 6 of the Code sets forth the criteria to be used by a principal or his designee in meting out discipline. The Code attempts to match specific conse- quences with specific behavior. The numbers in brackets which follow each rule refer to consequences which may be used if misbehavior occurs. With the exception of Attendance, consequences are listed on page 24. Under certain circumstances, specification is mandatory and is so identified by an asterisk (*). When discipline problems occur in the pres- ence of a teachers it is the responsibility of the teacher to handle the situation until all strategies available to the teacher according to the School Board Policy have been exhausted. School personnel are encouraged to employ realistic and appropriate methods of disci- pline not necessarily outlined in this Code. For example, cleaning desk tops is an appro- priate consequence for writing on them. When determining the consequences, the fol- lowing circumstances should be taken into consideration: age and/or grade level of student; frequency of misconduct; seriousness of particular misconduct; attitude of student; student records; any other relevant factors including but not limited to, handicapped students who are governed by provi- sions outlined in School Board Policy 5006.1. (e.s.) Under this disciplinary scheme, a principal administers discipline not only to punish students but to encourage behavior modification. To accomplish the latter a principal is given alternatives and combinations of alternatives for use based on the unique circumstances of each situation. Factors to be taken into account include the number of prior referrals, the seriousness of the situation, the child's previous disciplinary record, the age of the child, the intellectual level of the child, the emotional level of the child, and any learning disabilities that might be associated with the child. Respondent followed the Discipline Code and administered discipline based upon the referrals he received from teachers. There was no showing that he failed to follow the student Discipline Code. If the charge is that the Discipline Code, itself, lacks "consistent rules and regulations," or fails to conform to "consistent rules and regulations" such charge is more appropriately directed at the School Boards which adopted the Coded than Respondent who merely implemented it. (TR-XV, pp.38-39, 54; TR-XVI, p.31) At the outset of the 1983-84 school year, Respondent again directed his grade level chairpersons to disseminate the Code to teachers and instruct them to teach the Code to their students. The teachers were instructed to use the Discipline Code in conjunction with I.T.V. programs during the first week or two of school. The teachers carried out these instructions. Students were taught the Code, and their understanding of the Code was reinforced throughout the year. (R,4, TR-II, pp.184, 189,201; TR-V, pp.638,640; TR-X, p.126; TR-XVI, pp.48-49,5-6) In addition to the grade level chairpersons' meetings, Respondent disseminated various bulletins dealing with discipline, specifically Bulletin 83-9, which set forth the steps the teachers were to utilize in the disciplinary process. He issued Bulletin 83-9 because some teachers were not following the Discipline Code and meting out the appropriate discipline in the classrooms (per the Code) before sending students to his office. This bulletin was intended to reinforce the Code's recognition that teachers are primarily responsible for discipline in the classroom. The Code recognizes that classroom management is an integral part, if not the most important component, in the disciplinary process: When discipline problems occur in the pres- ence of a teacher, it is the responsibility of the teacher to handle the situation until all strategies available to the teacher according to the School Board Policy have been exhausted. (R-4; TR-III, P.394; TR-V, p.708)(R-2, p.6, TR-XV, p.31) COUNTS 3 AND 4: INCONSISTENT METING OUT OF DISCIPLINE Count 3 You are hereby charged with failing to admin- ister discipline consistently and/or effec- tively for students referred to you by staff members during the 1982-83 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 4 You are hereby charged with failing to admin- ister discipline consistently and/or effec- tively for students referred to you by staff members during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. These charges allege inconsistency in the meting out of discipline by Respondent as opposed to the failure to establish or maintain consistent disciplinary rules alleged in Counts 1 and 2. Although inconsistent discipline was alleged, none has been shown. The only evidence offered to support these charges was innuendo and vague, elusive accusations or perceptions by several teachers, most of which were based on hearsay consisting of generalizations uttered by others. The record is devoid of specific, concrete examples of "inconsistent" disciplinary action by Respondent. The complete lack of specific evidence is not due to want of records. Detailed records of every disciplinary action taken by Respondent during 1983-84 were available for analysis. (743 discipline referral slips covering school year 1983-84 were retained by Respondent and available for review.) There is no evidence, however, that anyone critical of Respondent's meting out of discipline ever took the time to, or went to the trouble of, reviewing them. Indeed, no one on behalf of the School Board even asked to see them.) It was Respondent who offered all referral slips (identifying details of each infraction and Respondent's action) into evidence. Some teachers testified that there were too many steps in the referral process although how this complaint relates to inconsistency was not shown. Others testified that they had to go through every single disciplinary step in order to refer a child to Respondent for discipline. The opposite was proven to be true. If a situation was serious enough, the disciplinary steps prescribed by Respondent (which were essentially the same steps as those prescribed by the Discipline Code) could be short, circuited and an immediate referral made. When serious disciplinary problems occurred, teachers brought students directly to Respondent's office and he handled the situation. (TR-II, p.219; TR-III, p.425; TR-IV, p.475; TR-X, p.15; TR-XI, P.24) Respondent made an effort to insure that the disciplinary process at Riverland was rational, and known to and followed by all. In addition to Bulletin 83-9 (delineating the steps in the process), Respondent disseminated numerous other bulletins and materials dealing with assertive discipline as part of the Faculty Handbook. He met with the faculty and discussed the disciplinary process. He insisted they use the detailed referral process which he established. The referral slips themselves show that he used all of the allowable disciplinary consequences--individually or in combination--including, but not limited to, student conferences, verbal reprimands written punishments, parental contacts, internal suspensions, corporal punishments, and external suspensions based upon the unique circumstances of each case. (TR-III, P.427; TR-XVI, pp.15,31; R-1; R-2) A. 1982-83 Count 3 alleges that Respondent failed to administer discipline in a consistent manner for the school year 1982-83. There was no meaningful evidence of any inconsistent discipline administered in 1982-83. There was no testimony or documentation of one specific incident which Respondent could cross-examine or refute. 2/ Indeed the record supports an inference that discipline was meted out consistently during 1982-83. There was a detailed Discipline Code in effect, known to all, and he insisted that it be followed. The SACS Report, prepared by the teachers at Riverland, and the grant of accreditation do not reflect that discipline was being inconsistently administered. Ms. Swilley, the Department of Education's competence reviewer, doesn't find inconsistent discipline; she refers to materials appended to her report, and then states the referrals reflect the teacher "concerns." The appended material only contains referrals from 1983-84 gathered together by Ms. Elmore, one of Respondent's harshest critics. The official Broward County School Board Progress Reports for Riverland Elementary School during 1982-83 and 1983-84, reflect teachers', students', and parents', attitudes, all of which are extremely high. (Teachers- -86 percent, parent--92 percent, and students--88 percent) There is no evidence that this alleged deficiency was ever complained of or mentioned in any memoranda, read-react-and-return memo, grade level chairperson minutes, faculty minutes, correspondence to Respondent's supervisor or Board administrators, notes or minutes of the P.T.A., parents advisory group, Respondent's performance evaluation, or any other document. (R-4; Appendix 14; P-4; P-3; R-19) B 1983-84 Similarly, no factual basis has been shown for the charge that Respondent inconsistently administered discipline during the 1983-84 school year. This charge, too, is unsubstantiated. No systematic analysis of the 1983-84 disciplinary records of particular students was done to demonstrate that students were disciplined differently when the facts indicate they should have been disciplined the same. Although some witnesses generally testified that Respondent disciplined students inconsistently during 1983-84, their conclusions were not substantiated. Although one teacher, Ms. Ordway, claimed inconsistency in the meting out of discipline, she could not give one specific example. Similar negative conclusions by Ms. Ross, another teacher, were based on "what the [other] teachers would say." The testimony of Ms. Kasmarik, another teacher, supports the opposite conclusion: Q. (By Mr. Panza) Ms. Kasmarik, let me ask you do you know what--can you give me specific instances that Mr. Sulcer treated two children with disparate consequences for the same act? Can you give me an example? A. That I personally saw it or that I heard about it? Q. No. You are the witness. What you saw, personally were involved in. A. With the referrals that he wrote up, Mr. Sulcer--The only referrals I wrote up were for fighting. That's the only referrals I wrote up, and when I got the response from that, Mr. Sulcer had used corporal punishment on both children. Q. So they were consistent as it goes to your personal observations? A. As my personal observations, it was consistent, yes. (e.s.) (TR-VI, p.826, TR-X, p.147) Likewise, Ms. Bullock, another teacher critical of Respondent's performance, testified: A. I would say that the punishment was consistent. Now, the problem is I didn't feel it was severe enough because it didn't prevent them from repeating the same incidents. (TR-XI, p.23) Mr. Dandy, Respondent's supervisor throughout, and the person who initially pressed him to correct alleged deficiencies, was unable to recall any specific instance of inconsistent discipline being meted out; rather, his criticism of Respondent only reflected the "teachers' perceptions." The unsubstantiated "perceptions" of other teachers based on nothing more than generalized complaint or hearsay are patently insufficient to sustain the charge. (TR-XIII, pp.82- 83,92,97) Respondent followed a set procedure in disciplining students. Before referral the child would describe, in writing, the misbehavior so that the child would understand the significance and inappropriateness of the conduct. On referral to the principal the child would bring with him or her the written description of the incident. Respondent would discuss the situation with the child review any prior disciplinary problems, and then determine the appropriate consequence based on the Discipline Code. He often gave verbal reprimands arranged for parent conferences, or wrote letters to parents. (TR- XVI, pp.10,11,20,31) Witnesses who complained of Respondent's disciplinary actions at hearing never stated what they expected him to do other than to formulate an additional code specifying an automatic consequence for every conceivable infraction. Such a rigidly defined code is neither required nor customary in Broward County. Moreover, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to construct a code with such mathematical precision. The effective disciplining of students is an art, not a science, involving many human variables. It requires flexibility and the exercise of professional judgment. A rigid code which precludes a principal from taking into account the unique circumstances of each case would be inconsistent with the Discipline Code adopted by the Board. COUNTS 5 AND 6: DETERRENCE OF CHRONIC BEHAVIOR OFFENDERS Count 5 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish adequate deterrent as a result of your action of causing or allowing students to become chronic or serious behavior offenders as a result of your inadequately disciplining said, students referred to you by teachers during the 1982-83 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 6 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish adequate deterrent as a result of your action causing or allowing students to become chronic or serious behavior offenders as a result of your inadequately disciplining said students referred to you by teachers during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Here, the Board charges that Respondent failed to establish adequate deterrents and, as a result, he allowed or caused students to become chronic or serious behavior offenders during school year 1982-83. A. 1982-83 The Board has not shown what a "chronic behavior offender" 3/ is or how many students, out of the total student population of approximately 600, fit this category. Neither was it shown that there were a significant number of chronic offenders that "were caused" by Respondent's disciplinary actions. There was student misbehavior at Riverland Elementary School while Respondent was principal, as there was prior to his arrival and after his departure. It has not been shown that the misbehavior was caused by Respondent's efforts to enforce the Student Discipline Code. Many of the children at Riverland came from poor families. These children had little respect for authority and had attitude problems stemming from background and upbringing. Many came from single-parent homes. Many of the children who had behavior problems at school came from homes where discipline was lax or nonexistent. The student population was transient--students were constantly checking in or out of the school. Some students had repeated at least two grade levels so there were several children 13 or 14 years old. Some children had learning disabilities and could be disciplined only in accordance with their prescribed plans. (TR-II, pp.193,222; TR-X, pp.39, 40, 131; TR-XI, p.27; TR-XV, pp.39, 44, 46) Given the diversity and nature of this student body, it has not been shown how the repetitive misbehavior of five to ten of the students can be fairly or logically imputed to Respondent's action or inaction. These students, which the Board (at least for the purpose of this proceeding) classifies as "chronic offenders," were not identified, neither was each incident of misbehavior together with Respondent's disciplinary action, analyzed, compared and critiqued by qualified witnesses. Finally, though some students were referred numerous times, it has not been shown that there was an inordinate number of such students, given the nature and diversity of the student population. Neither does it appear that such repetitive referrals became a problem of serious concern to teachers. The SACS Report, prepared by the teachers at Riverland, does not indicate that a "chronic offender" problem existed at the school. (R-13) B. 1983-84 The nature of students at Riverland Elementary School during 1983-84 was similar to that of the previous year and the Board's failure of proof is, likewise, the same. Respondent applied the district-wide Discipline Code in disciplining the students. The teachers were responsible for the teaching of the Code to students, and for the management of students in their classrooms. All acknowledged that the proper disciplining of students is a joint or cooperative effort by teachers, administrators, and principals. The evidence fails to show that there was an inordinate number of repetitive referrals, neither does it disclose the identity of these children (including their particular acts of misbehavior and the discipline administered) or how Respondent's action was deficient. To the extent some children were repeatedly referred for misbehavior, it has not been shown that Respondent's disciplinary action was the cause. It may well be that the teachers of these children failed to properly control and prevent their misbehavior, or the misbehavior may be due more to the unique personality and family context of each child. (R-2) Indeed, the parents of some of these children tried, without success, to modify their behavior. There were occasions when Respondent would have two or three parental conferences concerning a child's misbehavior, yet--a few weeks later--the child would revert to inappropriate conduct. Several teachers who testified were critical of the effectiveness of Respondent's disciplinary action, but failed to indicate action that would have been more effective. Some teachers favored more use of external suspensions, but under School Board policy external suspensions are to be used only as the last resort. Respondent did suspend some students and the referral slips for 1983-84 showed he used corporal punishment extensively. (R-66) As with school year 1982-83, the record does not establish the identity and number of the "chronic or serious behavior offenders". A reasonable estimate would be that there were between five and ten children (out of 600 students) who had repetitive disciplinary referrals. There is no basis to conclude that this is an inappropriate or unusually high number. In a student population of this nature and diversity, it is perhaps unavoidable that there will be some students who will be repetitively referred for disciplinary action. This condition existed before Respondent arrived at Riverland--and has persisted since he left. COUNTS 7 AND 8 VERBAL AGREEMENTS-1982-83 AND 1983-84 Count 7 You are hereby charged with repeatedly ac- cepting or entering into verbal agreements with students who are repeat offenders that they will not repeat said negative behav- ior/offense in lieu of providing appropriate discipline which has resulted in a negative impact on student behavior and/or student discipline at Riverland Elementary School during the 1982-83 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 8 You are hereby charged with repeatedly ac- cepting or entering into verbal agreements with students who are repeat offenders that they will not repeat said negative behav- ior/offense in lieu of providing appropriate discipline which has resulted in a negative impact on student behavior and/or student discipline at Riverland Elementary School during the 1983-84 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. A. 1982-83 In order to substantiate this charge, it was incumbent on the Board to identify those "repeat offender" students with whom Respondent entered into verbal agreements not to engage in the same conduct to specify the circumstances surrounding the infraction and to show that such verbal agreements were inappropriate. The appropriateness of a disciplinary action (otherwise authorized) cannot be determined without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The Board has failed to substantiate its charges with concrete and specific evidence. Indeed the record is devoid of evidence establishing that Respondent even entered into verbal agreements with students during 1982-83, under any circumstances. (The Board apparently assumed that he entered into verbal agreements with children who were repeat offenders, that such agreements were "in lieu of providing any appropriate discipline," and that such action had a negative impact on student behavior and student discipline at Riverland Elementary School.) It was not shown that Respondent inappropriately used the Student Discipline Code in any instance when he "counseled" with students concerning inappropriate conduct. 4/ To determine appropriate discipline for an individual student, all of the factors contained on page 6 of the Discipline Code would have to be considered in light of the specific infraction. Because of the flexibility and discretion given school principals, any analysis less definitive would be incomplete. (R-2) B. 1983-84 In 1983-84, Respondent--who continued to use the Student Discipline Code--entered into verbal agreements with students, whereby the students agreed not to engage in further inappropriate conduct. It has not been shown that he entered such verbal agreements in lieu of any other more appropriate discipline, or that, in any particular case, the verbal agreement was inappropriate. "Repeat offenders" were not identified nor Respondent's action in any particular incident shown to be improper. As already mentioned, the Board has not demonstrated that Respondent failed to follow the Student Discipline Code in the meting out of discipline. Under this Code, the use of verbal agreements, as part of the overall discipline process, is appropriate. Thus the critical factor is not the entering into of verbal agreements (because verbal agreements are permitted), but rather whether he did so in lieu of other more appropriate discipline. But disciplinary action--otherwise permissible--cannot be found inappropriate without knowing the specific facts of an incident. Such facts have not been shown. COUNTS 9 AND 10 RAMPANT DISRESPECT AND VERBAL ABUSE Count 9 You are hereby charged with unacceptable performance in administering the school discipline program during the 1982-83 school year and said performance has led to rampant disrespect by students toward teachers through verbal abuse and defiance of teacher instructions, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 10 You are hereby charged with unacceptable performance in administering the school discipline program during the 1983-84 school year and said performance has led to rampant disrespect by students toward teachers through verbal abuse and defiance of teacher instructions, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. A. 1982-83 Here the Board charges Respondent with "unacceptable performance" in administering the school discipline program during school year 1982-83. Respondent's discipline program was based on the Student Discipline Code and it was not shown that he ever violated that Code. The Board further charges that Respondent's disciplinary performance led to "rampant disrespect" by students towards teachers through verbal abuse and defiance of teachers' instructions. The evidence is insufficient to sustain a finding of rampant disrespect for teachers by students. 5/ Neither was it shown that any specific incident of disrespect was attributable to Respondent's implementation of the Student Discipline Code. Once again, this charge rests on supposition and generalization and lacks a factual foundation. Assuming, arguendo, that a student verbally defies a teacher's instructions, the question becomes whether the defiance is attributable to a principal's conduct. There are several plausible reasons as for defiance of a teacher's instructions, many of them unrelated to a principal's actions or inactions. Teachers may fail in managing their classrooms and earning the respect of their students, parents may have neglected to teach their children to respect and obey teachers. Here, the Board has not established a causal relationship between Respondent's conduct and any defiance of teachers by students. Speculation or generalization cannot substitute for specific and concrete evidence. (TR-X, pp. 100,101) B. 1983-84 For similar reasons, the charge relating to school year 1983-84 is unsubstantiated. Rampant disrespect for teachers has not been shown. (TR-X, pp.9,10,16,17) It has not been shown that Respondent violated the Discipline Coded the foundation of his disciplinary process, during 1982-83 or 1983-84. Neither has rampant disrespect for teachers been shown. The SACS Report completed by the teachers at the conclusion of the 1983 school year, makes no mention of it. Neither do any memoranda, documents, or other school records support this claim. If student disrespect and defiance had been so widespread, it is likely that it would have been brought to the attention of School Board officials long before Mr. Dandy came to Riverland to listen to teachers' grievances on February 17, 1984. (R-13) COUNTS 11 AND 12 CONTRIBUTING TO SERIOUS DISCIPLINE AND/OR BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS WHEREIN STUDENTS EXHIBITED DEFIANCE Count 11 You are hereby charged with contributing to the serious discipline and/or student behav- ior problems which occurred at Riverland Elementary School during the 1982-83 school year, wherein students exhibited defiance and disrespect toward authority figures and toward fellow students which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 12 You are hereby charged with contributing to the serious discipline and/or student behav- ior problems which occurred at Riverland Elementary School during the 1982-83 school year, wherein students exhibited defiance and disrespect toward authority figures and toward, fellow students which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Counts 11 and 12, virtually identical to Counts 9 and 10, are, likewise, unsubstantiated by the evidence. The record is inadequate to support a conclusion that Respondent contributed to serious discipline or student behavior exhibiting defiance and disrespect toward teachers and fellow students. It is likely that student disrespect for or defiance of teachers occurs, at least occasionally, in every elementary school. Relevant questions are what was the frequency and magnitude of the defiance and disrespect; who were the offenders, and what factors or combination of factors caused or contributed to it? The evidence offered by the Board is non-specific and incapable of supplying answers to these questions. Count 13 THE LOCKING OF THE BATHROOMS BECAUSE OF VANDALISM Count 13 You are hereby charged with failing to di- rect, administer and maintain a program to foster proper student behavior in the halls to such an extent that during the 1983-84 school year one set of bathrooms had to be locked because of fights among students and vandalism of bathrooms during the school day, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon- duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Here, alleged student misbehavior (establishing Respondent's incompetence and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty) was so bad that one set of bathrooms had to be locked because of fights among students and vandalism. This charge is unsubstantiated by concrete factually meaningful evidence; it is based, in the main, on hearsay and the unsupported conclusions of several teachers. It was not shown that vandalism in the bathrooms at Riverland Elementary increased or was at an unacceptably high level during 1983-84, or that any property damage was attributable to Respondent's performance of his duties. An occasional act of vandalism or damage to school property cannot, by itself and without more, support a conclusion that a principal is guilty of incompetency, misconduct in officer or willful neglect of duty. Neither was it shown that there were students fights in the bathrooms, or that fights occurred with such frequency that Respondent was forced to close the bathrooms. Rather, students would gather in the bathrooms prior to school starting and get into mischief. Mary Jo Sluder a teacher who was also Safety Patrol Director and supervised the school hallways, complained to Respondent that she was having problems watching both sets of bathrooms before school started. Respondent asked if it would help if one set of bathrooms remained locked until the second bell at 8:15 a.m., signaling the start of school. Ms. Sluder replied that it would be helpful and the plan was implemented. So one set of bathrooms remained locked for approximately 15 minutes, between 8:00 a.m. and 8:15 a.m., while children were at school. At 8:15 a.m., it was opened. (TR- XVI, pp.41,42; TR-IV, p.452) This was an acceptable strategy used by other principals under similar circumstances, and violated no rule or policy of the School Board. Between the first (8:00 a.m.) and second (8:15 a.m.) bells, bathrooms were always accessible to students. Respondent's action was a rational measured response to a problem perceived by the Safety Patrol Director and it obtained positive results without imposing a hardship on anyone. The danger of relying on hearsay and generalized conclusions of others is illustrated by the testimony offered to support this charge. Mr. Dandy, Respondent's immediate Area Supervisor and an individual who identified Respondent's action as deficient, admitted that he had no specific facts to support this charge; he had only talked to teachers and had reviewed no vandalism records at the school. Of the teachers who testified, one did not know if vandalism had increased during Respondent's tenure over that which had occurred under his predecessor; one did not know how long the bathrooms were closed. Although one teacher testified that it was common knowledge that the bathroom was locked because of vandalism--and this was the extent of her knowledge--vandalism was not discussed at the faculty meetings. Teachers would sometimes stop in the girls' and boys' bathrooms, to tell them to quit playing around. One teacher who complained of vandalism never witnessed conditions inside the bathrooms, never wrote disciplinary referrals for students who congregated in them, and never sent them to Respondent's office. (TR-V, pp. 578,774, TR-II, pp.242, 243, 245, 324; TR-IV, pp. 433, 451; TR-VI, pp. 871,872; TR-X, p.150) COUNTS 14 AND 15: TOO MUCH TIME OFF-CAMPUS AND NOT ENOUGH ON-CAMPUS VISIBILITY Count 14 You are hereby charged with spending too much or inordinate amounts of time in your office and/or off campus and not making yourself visible enough among students which has contributed to poor student disci- pline/behavior problems at Riverland Elemen- tary School during the 1982-83 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon- duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 15 You are hereby charged with spending too much or inordinate amounts of time in your office and/or off campus and not making yourself visible enough among students which has contributed to poor student disci- pline/behavior problems at Riverland Elemen, tary School during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon, duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. These charges accuse Respondent of spending too much time off-campus or in his officer and not making himself "visible enough" among students, thus contributing to poor student disciplinary behavior. Once again, as with the other charges, there is no evidence that Respondent, during 1982-83, spent too much time or an inordinate amount of time in his office or off-campus. This was not identified as a problem by the SACS Report or documented by any exhibit in evidence. A principal is evaluated based on his or her performance. Respondent's evaluations for the years 1982-83 and 1983-84 were totally acceptable. Neither indicates Respondent spent inordinate amounts of time in his office or off-campus, or that he did not make himself "visible enough." Respondent, charged with the responsibility of administering an entire school, attended numerous off-campus functions such as county directed meetings, parent conferences, visitations, professional meetings, and community service projects relating to Riverland Elementary School. His attendance was legitimate and, in most instances, required. (TR-I, p.74; TR-VIII, pp.40,42; TR-XIII, pp.14,16,20; TR-XV, p.46, R-45) It was not shown (nor was it alleged) that Respondent was unlawfully or inappropriately engaging in personal activities off campus. The charges focus on the frequency of his absences, not his whereabouts. The school district official who prepared this charge had no independent knowledge of Respondent's absences, and did no analysis to determine the extent of his absences from campus. Rather, he simply relied on and reiterated vague conclusions offered by several teachers dissatisfied with Respondent's performance. (TR-II, p.246; TR-IV, p.888; TR-VIII, pp.23, 24, 143) Mr. Stephenson, the school district official who helped prepare the charge, never asked Respondent about his alleged excessive absenteeism from campus because (according to Stephenson) that would be a normal routine matter discussed between a principal and his Area Superintendent (Mr. Dandy). But Mr. Dandy never asked Respondent about alleged excessive absenteeism either. (TR- XIII, p.140) The evidence is insufficient to support a conclusion that Respondent was absent from campus for an inordinate amount of time. The only evidence in support of the accusation is sporadic hearsay, or conclusions by others lacking a factual basis. Rather, the evidence establishes that Respondent's presence on campus was sufficient and that, if he left campus, he handled any disciplinary problems (that arose in his absence) upon his return. His secretary always knew where he was. A teacher could find out where he was by simply asking his secretary. (TR-I, p.75; TR-X, p.32) As to Respondent's alleged poor visibility among students, there is no specific factual information pertaining to 1982-83, so this charge is unsubstantiated. As for 1983-84, the evidence was also insufficient to support a conclusion that Respondent was not "visible enough." No standard of visibility was established against which Respondent's conduct could be measured. There is no evidence in the record that anyone (teachers, parents, or administrators) complained to Respondent about his visibility or asked that he become more visible on campus. (TR-VIII, p.91) Testimony by several teachers on this subject was inconsistent and contradictory. Some offered critical opinions, but their conclusions lacked factual support, they simply had a feeling that he should have been more visible. In contrast, some teachers felt that Respondent was "sufficiently visible;" Ms. Kasmarik testified that he was always around the campus and always walking down the halls: CROSS-EXAMINATION Q. (By Mr. Panza) Ms. Kasmarik, isn't it a fact that it's your opinion that you're better off with discipline when Mr. Sulcer was there than you are right now with the new principal? Isn't that a fact? Isn't that what you just said within the last couple of weeks? A. We have the same kinds of problems that we had when Mr. Sulcer was there. Q. Same kinds of problems with the new principal, is that right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Are those same kinds of problems based upon the type of children, in your opinion, that are in that school? A. Yes. Q. Now, you mentioned--Just kind of working backwards a little bit--that visibility was a problem or--not was a problem, is not a problem. You said Mr. Sulcer was walking the hall? A. Yes. Q. Mr. Sulcer went into classrooms, is that correct? A. Yes. He was in and out of the classroom all the time. Q. So teachers could see him around the school. He wasn't--he was there physically in the school? A. Yes. (TR-X, pp.121-122) Ms. Bullock, another teacher critical of Respondent's performance, admitted that he had been visible and had visited her classroom 15 to 20 times: DIRECT-EXAMINATION Q. (By Mr. Montante) Did you ever tell him it was necessary to come down [to observe her class? A. No. Q. Did you ever tell him it was necessary to become visible? A. No. Q. Did he ever offer to become visible to you? A. No. I felt he was visible. Q. Several times a year? A. Yes. Q. How long is the school year, ma'am? A. From August until June. Q. August until June? A. Yes. Q. That's a period of 11 months. A. Ten months. The school year is ten months. Q. He came down to the classroom several times: A. Several times. Q. Three times in 11 months. A. I didn't say three times. Several. How many is several? A. Ten, 15, 20. (e.s.) (TR-XI, pp.61,62) Although Ms. Ross, another teachers claimed that his visibility was almost non- existent, her location in the library (where she worked) was such that she would not have known when he was out of his office or in it. Ms. Bullock, another teacher, never asked him to come to her room because it wasn't necessary. (TR- VI, pp. 823,828; TR-XI, p.61) The vague and indefinite charge of not "enough visibility" must be based on more then the subjective, unsubstantiated judgment of a critical teacher. To be meaningful, the charge must be put in a factual context. In a letter to Dr. Stephenson, the district administrator involved in preferring the charges, Respondent's counsel asked for specific information on the charge so that Respondent could comply with Mr. Dandy's March 21, 1984 directive requiring improvement in this area: 4. Monitor hallways frequently through- out the school day (in an attempt to assist in undesirable behavior on the part of students (Effective immediately) Mr. Sulcer will, as he always has, monitor the hallways. As I am certain you are well aware, it is impossible to be in the hallway all day if one is expected to be a Principal of a school. Once again, I would request specific instances of when Mr. Sulcer was negligent in his monitoring of the hallways which allowed undesirable behavior to take place. I would also like to have the specif- ic set of circumstances that the administra- tion of the School Board can demonstrate that there was undesirable behavior on the part of students because of Mr. Sulcer's conduct. I would like to know the exact amount of time required by Mr. Dandy so Bob Sulcer can comply. If Mr. Dandy is going to evaluate Bob Sulcer in this area, he (Dandy) must know exactly how much time he expects Sulcer to spend. (R-50) This letter went unanswered. COUNTS 16 AND 17 SUPPLIES Count 16 You are hereby charged with failing to supply teachers with basic materials and supplies such as paper, crayons, scissors, etc., thus depriving student [sic] from essential mate- rials necessary for optimum instructions during the 1982-83 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 17 You are hereby charged with failing to supply teachers with basic materials and supplies such as paper, crayons, scissors, etc., thus depriving student [sic] from essential mate- rials necessary for optimum instructions during the 1983-84 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. There were no records of any kind, type or description, offered in evidence to support the allegations that school supplies were inadequate during 1982-83. One team chairperson during 1982-83 and 1983-84 never heard a complaint about lack of supplies. Dr. Stephenson, the school district administrator who helped prepare this charge, became aware of the alleged budget problem through information he received in writing from Ms. Elmore, a teacher critical of Respondent's performance. Based on Ms. Elmore's submittal, he concluded that there was a lack of materials and supplies at Riverland, a situation which should not have existed because adequate funds were available. He never independently investigated to determine if Ms. Elmore's statements were correct. (TR-XI, p.19; TR-VIII, pp.11,151) Ms. Elmore, a Faculty Chairperson at Riverland, had been told by the school bookkeeper that there was a freeze on supplies in 1983-84. She never personally asked Respondent for supplies, and he never told her that funds were unavailable. She felt that it was unnecessary to bother Respondent "with things that minor." (TR-V, pp.771,776) Ms. Ross, a grade level chairperson responsible for coordinating the ordering of supplies for teachers under her control, had no difficulty ordering supplies or books except that, when the funds were frozen, she "couldn't spend the money in my budget for awhile." (TR-VI, p.819) (She never asked Respondent if the budget was frozen.) She had all materials needed to currently teach her students. (Funds were temporarily unavailable only while the F.T.E. count was underway, a situation which was not unusual in the school district). When told the budget was frozen during F.T.E. count, she simply delayed ordering until the count was completed, she "had enough (supplies) to carry (her) over past the F.T.E. count." (TR-VI, p.865) After the count, she was allowed to order whatever she needed. (TR-VI, pp.819, 862, 864, 865) Ms. Ordway, a fifth grade teacher, who had switched to kindergarten, testified that she was unable to get necessary books and supplies for her kindergarten class. However, Ms. Callender, her Faculty Grade Level Chairperson, testified that Ms. Ordway as well as the rest of her grade group, had supplies the entire year. Ms. Callender also testified that Ms. Ordway was given permission to go to the A.B.C. Store to purchase whatever supplies she needed. Ms. Callender's testimony, more precise and less emotional than Ms. Ordway's, is accepted as persuasive. (TR-X, pp.28,48) Respondent did not turn down any supply order for materials that were needed for classes during 1982-83 and 1983- 84. The charge that teachers lacked supplies in 1983-84 is unsubstantiated by the evidence. (TR-XVI, pp.57,58,61) Finally, Ms. Elmore, one of the teachers most critical of Respondent's performances testified that she did not have enough supplies for 1982-83 and 1983-84. Her testimony was conclusory and is rejected as lacking in credibility. Finally, the SACS Report does not mention any problem with supplies at Riverland Elementary School for 1982-83. It is likely that if there was a supply problem of the magnitude alleged, it would have been mentioned in the SACS Report. The evidence does not establish that any children at Riverland were denied instructional materials due to lack of supplies. These charges are unsubstantiated. (TR-V, p.580; R-13) COUNTS 18 AND 19: SECOND IN COMMAND Count 18 You are hereby charged with failing to desig- nate a teacher as second in command and/or failing to inform the faculty which teacher would be in charge during your absence during the 1982-83 school year, thereby leaving the school unsupervised during your absences from campus, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office/and or willful neglect or duty. Count 19 You are hereby charged with failing to desig- nate a teacher as second in command and/or failing to inform the faculty which teacher would be in charge during your absence until approximately January 1984 of the 1983-84 school year, thereby leaving the school unsupervised during your absences from cam- pus, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Respondent appointed a second in command or designee at Riverland Elementary School for years 1982-83 and 1983-84. For 1982-83, Respondent appointed Polly Jones as his second in command or designee. There was no requirement to identify the second in command by posting a notice. However, Mr. Dandy, the Area Superintendent, required principals within his area to advise him of the name of the second in command at the commencement of the school year. Respondent notified him in accordance with this requirement. (TR-I, p.32; TR- VII, p.92; TR-XVI, p.7) During 1982-83, Ms. Jones handled discipline referrals during Respondent's absence and signed as designee. Teachers who were unaware of who the second in command needed only to ask. Respondent's secretary, the office personnel, and administrative staff were informed that Ms. Jones was the appointed second in command. (TR-XVI, pp.7,104) The contention that problems resulted from some teachers not knowing who was second in command during 1982-83, is unsupported by the evidence. No teacher asked Respondent who was second in command--either in person (at grade level chairperson meetings, faculty meetings, in the halls, at SACS Committee Meetings) or by memorandum. Ms. Elmore who was Faculty Chairperson during 1982- 83, never placed the question of who was second in command on the faculty agendas though she had the authority to do so. Although she testified that she did not know who was second in command in 1982-83, she did not ask Respondent or her grade/level chairperson who, ironically, was Ms. Jones, the second in command. In any case, most teachers at Riverland knew Polly Jones handled disciplinary problems in Respondent's absences and expected her to do so. (TR- V, pp.598, 763) For school year 1983-84, Respondent designated Elaine Callender as his second in command. Again, he informed Mr. Dandy of his action at the beginning of the school year. Although most teachers knew that she was the second in command, they did not hear it officially from Respondent. They knew that Ms. Callender could, and did, administer corporal punishment in Respondent's absence. Finally, teachers in 1983-84 knew, or should have known, that Ms. Callender was the second in command because she signed referral slips above the signature line marked "Designee": copies of the completed slip are normally returned to the referring teacher. (TR-I, pp.34,35; TR-X, p.5, TR-XVI, p. 175) These charges must fail since Respondent did, in fact, appoint a designee, and the teachers knew or could have known by simply asking him. Although it was suggested (through hearsay testimony) that students were disciplined by secretaries, there is no substantial evidence to support that implication. When the issue of who was second in command surfaced up at the faculty meeting on November 15, 1983 (as part of 12 identified concerns) would it not have seemed reasonable at the time for someone to ask Respondent who was second in command? The Faculty Council, after it was organized and operational in the early part of January, did ask Respondent, stating that some teachers claimed they did not know who was second in command and wanted this information posted. Respondent posted his second in command that very day. (Mr. Dandy's testimony that the second in command was not posted until mid-February is rejected as clearly erroneous.) (TR-XII, p.87; TR-XIII, p.123) COUNTS 20 AND 21: MORALE Count 20 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish and maintain positive lines of communi- cation with the faculty and students during the 1982-83 school year at Riverland Elemen- tary regarding student discipline which has contributed to the decline of faculty morale toward the principal relative to student discipline, which constitutes incompetency, and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 21 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish and maintain positive lines of communi- cation with the faculty and students during the 1983-84 school year at Riverland Elemen- tary regarding student discipline which has contributed to the decline of faculty morale toward the principal relative to student discipline, which constitutes incompetency. These two Counts center on the issue of faculty morale as it related to student discipline caused allegedly by Respondent's failure to maintain positive lines of communication with faculty and students during schools years 1982-83 and 1983, 84. Morales a somewhat amorphous term, is defined in the American Heritage Dictionary as "the state of the spirits of an individual or group as shown in willingness to perform assigned tasks, confidence, cheerfulness, and discipline." Although affected by many variables, morale is not a subject incapable of measurement. Instead of utilizing an objective or standard method to determine the level of morale at Riverland the School Board presented the testimony of selected teachers, for the most part, the same teachers who were on the ad hoc disciplinary committee and among Respondent's most avid critics. Their testimony lacks credibility and fails to support a conclusion that morale was lowered due to Respondent's handling of discipline problems. They were the teachers who complained most about morale. They gave secret testimony to Dr. Stephenson, the ranking administrator, who developed the charges against Respondent and they were, generally, unwilling to cooperate with Respondent and other teachers (led by the Faculty Council), who were attempting (between November, 1983 and March 1984) to develop ways to improve discipline at Riverland. 6/ No systematic evaluation of faculty morale, using any acceptable and reliable method, was ever undertaken. A poll was conducted at Riverland Elementary in connection with the Official Progress Report of the School Board. The poll indicated that 86 percent of the teachers thought that Riverland was a good school. Ninety-two percent of the parents with children at Riverland responded, "this is a good school." (TR-IV 34 p.461) These results detract from the weight to be given the adverse opinions of the several teachers (testifying at hearing) most critical of Respondent's performance. (TR-IV, p.461; R-19) COUNT 22 FAILING TO DISCIPLINE A STUDENT Count 22 You are hereby charged with failing to disci- pline a student who said to a teacher's aided "Fuck You," during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon- duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. On one occasion during the 1983-84 school year, a child cursed at a teacher's aide, Ms. Williams, who promptly referred the student to Respondent's office. Respondent asked the student for an explanation and the child admitted that he had said the disrespectful words and was ready to be spanked. Respondent asked Ms. Williams (the aide that was cursed at) to enter the office and witness the corporal punishment. After she entered, the child refused to submit to the spanking and constantly moved around, putting his hands across his buttocks and fidgeting making it difficult for Respondent to administer corporal punishment without injuring him. Under these circumstances, Respondent decided not to administer the corporal punishment for fear of injuring the child's hands. Instead, he telephoned the child's parents and told them the child refused the spanking. The parents told him they would punish the child, by using a belt. (TR-XVI, pp.53-54; TR-X, pp.67-68,85) This particular child did not have any further behavior problems at Riverland Elementary. Respondent did not ignore, dismiss, or fail to discipline this child. His handling of this incident of disrespect toward an aide was appropriate and consistent with the Discipline Code. (Although the Board faults him for not reporting the incident to the Department of Internal Affairs, Board Policy 4018, reasonably construed, does not require the reporting of every instance of student disrespect toward a teacher.) Since Respondent properly disciplined the child, the charge must fail. COUNT 23 RAT-INFESTED ROOM Count 23 You are hereby charged with failing to take appropriate action to remove kindergarten students at the request of the teacher from a rat infested room after being informed by the teacher that rats were prevalent in the area, subjecting kindergarten students to rat poison which had been placed by custodial personnel in the students' classroom, and refusing from approximately February 28, 1984, to March 7, 1984, to relocate said kindergarten students from said classroom to an empty portable on the school site which action had been formerly requested by the complaining kindergarten teachers which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. On March 1, 1984, Ms. Ordway, a kindergarten teacher at Riverland Elementary, complained to Respondent about a mouse she had seen in her classroom. He told her that he would get the custodian on it right away, which he did on that same day. The custodian set out traps that night, Respondent also went to Ms. Ordway's classroom that night to make sure that the traps were placed so that there would be no danger to the children. He continued to periodically check the room after school throughout the week, he looked for evidence of mice, but found none. Meanwhile, Ms. Ordway did not ask to have her class moved and her class remained at its regular location. (TR-XVI, pp.71- 73,87,155,254) On Thursday, March 8, 1984, approximately one week after Ms. Ordway had complained of a mouse, Mr. Dandy telephoned Respondent and told him of a complaint he had received (presumably from Ms. Ordway) concerning the mice situation. Respondent immediately called the Area Maintenance Office and requested assistance, then contacted Omni Pest Control and asked them to come out that day. (Respondent had not called the exterminator prior to this because neither he nor the custodian had found evidence of mice, and the custodian was actively addressing the complaint.) (TR-XVI, pp.72,154,157) Omni Pest Control came out on Monday, March 12, 1984, around noontime. Respondent immediately relocated Ms. Ordway's class since he assumed that the exterminator might use chemicals hazardous to children. The exterminator treated the classroom and returned two days later to do a follow- up. At 7:30 a.m. on March 19, 1984, the exterminator returned to check the classroom. Respondent, unavailable to talk to him at that time, called him later to check on the classroom's condition. The exterminator, having found no evidence of mice, told him that the mouse sighting "must have been a fluke." (TR-XVI, pp.72-73,86,88,155,157,159) The evidence does not support a conclusion that Ms. Ordway's classroom was infested with mice or rats. She is the only person who sighted one, and her testimony about what she saw, and the frequency of her sighting's, was inconsistent. No other mice were sighted and no evidence of mice was found by those who investigated and responded to her complaint: Respondent, a Health Department inspector, the school custodian, and the professional exterminator. Respondent reacted to Ms. Ordway's complaint in a reasonable and timely manner. The school custodian was the person who would normally investigate and handle such a complaint. When Respondent received a second complaint, he immediately contacted a professional exterminator despite the fact that he and others had found no evidence of mice in the classroom. This charge is based on the exaggerated complaint of Ms. Ordway, a teacher who, seemingly, Respondent could not mollify. COUNTS 24 AND 25 FAILING TO COOPERATE Count 24 You are hereby charged with failing to util- ize the suggestions of parents and teachers and/or work cooperatively with said groups to improve the declining [sic] student disci- pline/behavior problems at Riverland Elemen- tary during the 1982-83 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 25 You are hereby charged with failing to util- ize the suggestions of parents and teachers and/or work cooperatively with said groups to improve the increasing student disci- pline/behavior problems at Riverland Elemen- tary during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. The School Board failed to substantiate its charge that during 1982-83 or 1983-84, Respondent failed to utilize the suggestions of parents and work with them to improve student discipline at Riverland Elementary. Indeed, there is no evidence that any parents made specific suggestions to Respondent concerning ways to improve student discipline. Even if, arguendo, suggestions were submitted, there was no showing that Respondent was obliged to follow theme irrespective of their merit. Although the School Board also charges Respondent with failing to utilize the suggestions of, and work with, teachers, the opposite was shown. Respondent relied on the teachers of Riverland. He routinely asked them to address problems, and suggest specific changes, usually he implemented their suggestions. One of his management techniques to maximize participation was to set up committees of teachers to address problems and make recommendations. His conviction was that since teachers were a vital part of the school, they should have a say in how it was run--and what changes should be made. He respected their views and welcomed their comments. For example, in late 1983 and early 1984, he encouraged the Faculty Council to devise ways to improve student discipline. When the Council presented him with a School Wide Disciplinary Plan (suggesting numerous changes to improve student discipline) he promised to implement it. (In contrast, some teachers refused to cooperate with either the Faculty Council or Respondent, and were determined to leave student discipline problems to Respondent--alone--to solve.) Another example was his formation of a Cafeteria Committee (of teachers) to address student misbehavior in the cafeteria--a focal point of student "horseplay" in most elementary schools. The Committee met and formulated a plan, which Respondent approved and implemented. Both charges must be dismissed for failure of proof. (TR-III, p.387; TR-V, p.708; TR-VI, p.819; TR-XI, pp. 143,149,150,162; TR-XV, pp.59,110; TR-XVI, p.76) COUNT 26 THE CAFETERIA Count 26 You are hereby charged with failing to prop- erly maintain student control and discipline in the cafeteria and/or inadequately super- vising and/or providing inadequate supervi- sion of students which has resulted in chaos throughout the 1982-83 school year and has continued through the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon- duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. The School Board has not established a standard against which the adequacy of the supervision and control of students in school cafeterias can be judged. Elementary school students abound with energy and will sometimes run in cafeterias. Such running occurred prior to Respondent's arrival at Riverland, and continues, even now. As one witness summed it up, "Every child runs." . . . [and] "Kids are kids." (TR-X, p.78) These cafeterias are noisy, relatively unstructured places where children, within limits, are free to be themselves. No evidence was presented showing that, on a comparative basis, student behavior in the Riverland cafeteria was any worse than that prevalent in the other elementary schools. Indeed, Dr. Gail Daly (an experienced elementary school principal and chosen by the School Board to investigate Respondent's performance at Riverland) visited the school's cafeteria and found student behavior acceptable. (TR-XV, p.59) Although some teachers were critical of Respondent's visibility in the student cafeteria, they rarely ate their own lunches there (to help maintain order)-- even though they could leave school a half-hour early for doing so. Since most teachers did not eat their lunches with the students, supervision of student behavior in the cafeteria was left, for the most part, to teachers' aides. This was an acceptable practice in the various elementary schools. Any student misbehavior which may have existed in the cafeteria was not serious enough to warrant being brought to Respondent's attention, either by the group of teachers who identified "12 concerns" at Riverland or to Mr. Dandy, the Area Supervisor who responded to them. The teachers "12 concerns" do not mention misbehavior in the cafeteria, neither do Mr. Dandy's letters of February 24, and March 1, 1984 (which identify deficiencies in Respondent's performance and require corrective action). This charge must fail for lack of proof. (P-5, P-6, R-2) COUNT 27 FAILURE TO PERFORM DUTIES AS ALLEGED IN COUNTS 1-26 Count 27 You are hereby charged with failing to ade- quately perform your duties as principal with respect to student discipline/behavior as enumerated in the above counts during the 1982-83 and 1983-84 school years to such an extent that your effectiveness as a principal in this area has been impaired serious enough to warrant your dismissal as principal for "good and sufficient reasons, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. The efficacy of this charge depends on a positive finding that Respondent failed to adequately perform his duties as principal with respect to student discipline during 1982-83 and 1983-84, as alleged in the foregoing counts, Nos. 1 through 26. Since these counts were not sustained by the evidence, the charge fails. COUNT 28 SWILLEY REPORT Count 28 You are hereby charged with failing to demon- strate competent performance as an adminis- trator in one or more of the following areas: the administrative and supervisory require- ments and/or communication skills and/or management techniques and/or exercise learn- ing and goal achievement and/or human and interpersonal relationships for the school year (or any part thereof) 1983-84, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Dr. Stephenson, then Associate Superintendent of Personnel, requested a review of Respondent on April 3, 1984, for the purpose of determining his competence. The Department of Education selected Henrietta Swilley (from Bay County) to conduct the competency review. She visited Riverland Elementary from May 1, 1984, to May 3, 1984, (2 1/2 days) one-half day short of the three-day observation required by 6B-5.02(12) Florida Administrative Code. On or about July, 1984, she sent to the School Board her undated and unsigned report. This report was placed in evidence by the School Board as an attachment to a deposition taken of Respondent. Neither Ms. Swilley nor any School Board official testified about the contents of this report, or vouched for its accuracy. Consequently, Respondent's ability to challenge the accuracy of its opinions and conclusions, or examine those who developed or relied on it, was limited. The report, however, is hearsay which, though admissible, can be used only to explain or corroborate other evidence, it cannot, in itself, support a finding of fact. See, 120.58(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Apart from this limitation on its use, the report is replete with factual errors, misstatements, and inconsistencies. It appends materials which do not correspond to references in the report. These errors detract from the weight which might otherwise be given to the report, and place in doubt the credibility of its assertions and conclusions. Several examples should suffice. On pages 4 and 5 of the report, Ms. Swilley reviews teacher observations and evaluations. Of the eight teachers listed, the evaluations of only four were included in the appendix. She indicates that Respondent held conferences with all eight teachers on the same day, May 17, 1983. The four evaluations appended, however, show that the conferences were held on March 3, 16, and April 12 and 15, 1983. On page 5, she faults Respondent of using similar or "patterned" comments on seven of the eight teachers evaluated. But she does not show how this violated any rule or standard of practice. (Mr. Dandy, Area Supervisor, using a similar form, includes no comments, whatsoever, on his evaluations of principals, a practice which, in his views was perfectly acceptable. (TR-XII, p.43).) On page 6, she states: From studying the 1983 evaluations of Ms. Elayna Cross and Ms. Catherine Phoenix it was unclear to this reviewer as to how much time Mr. Sulcer spent observing these teachers. Yet, the time Respondent spent in observing Ms. Phoenix (9:15 to 10:15 on March 3, 1983) is shown on the top of her evaluation contained in the appendix. On page 6, Ms. Swilley further states: If the sampling of evaluations studied is an indication of administrative progress in the area of assessment, all other continuing contract employees on staff would have to be evaluated within 25 days from my visit in order to stay within the confines of the negotiated contract [which prohibited princi- pals from conducting evaluations during the last week of school]. But the evaluations in her sampling were completed, and applied only to the prior school year--1982-83, not 1983-84. Thus her conclusion lacks support. (In fact, Respondent had approximately ten teachers left to evaluate after Ms. Swilley's visit in May, 1984 [TR-XVI, p.77].) Finally, on pages 6,7, Ms. Swilley questions whether Respondent acted as an instructional leader at Riverland. She opines as to what Respondent would have observed if he had visited the classrooms, and includes the results of her interviews with an unknown number of teachers. Among those teachers were Ms. Ross, Ms. Sluder and Ms. Elmore. (These were Respondent's most vociferous critics and members of the original ad hoc faculty committee which identified "12 concerns" at Riverland.) The assertions of Ms. Ross and Ms. Sluder--hearsay, once removed--concerning Respondent's alleged failure to visit or observe their classes are rejected in favor of Respondent's more persuasive testimony to the contrary. (TR-X, p.121; TR-XVI, pp.46-47) The School Board has not shown, by independent evidence, that Respondent failed to demonstrate competence in any of she areas described in this charge. Thus the Swilley Report, even if internally consistent, cannot support a finding of incompetence. This charge must also fail. FAILURE OF SCHOOL SYSTEM TO FOLLOW PROCEDURAL RULES In recommending the suspension and dismissal of Respondent, the Superintendent of Schools failed to follow procedures governing dismissal. Rule 6B-4.08, entitled, "Criteria for Dismissal Procedures," provides: 6B-4.08 Criteria for Dismissal Procedures. When an action or other matter appears to exist which may possibly result in the future dismissal of any employee, the immedi- ate supervisor of the individual should take appropriate action to advise the employee of the matter and the potential consequence if not corrected. Every possible helpful effort should be made by the immediate supervisor to aid the employee to correct the matter which could cause his or her dismissal if not corrected. Except in extremely serious circum- stances, the employee should be given suffi- cient time, following notification, for improvement. Any charges of undesirable traits or practices should be bona fide, verifiable, and clearly stated to the employee in writ- ing. Any employee thus charged should have a fair opportunity to explain or otherwise defend himself or herself, as provided in Section 231.36, Florida Statutes. These criteria mandate that an employee be advised of deficiencies which may result in his dismissals and that he be given sufficient time, following notice, to improve or correct the deficiencies. Here, Mr. Dandy, as Area Supervisor, routinely evaluated Respondent on January 31, 1984, and found him satisfactory when judged against all performance criteria. On February 17, 1984, approximately two weeks later, Mr. Dandy--at the invitation of Ms. Elmore or Ms. Sluder--came to Riverland Elementary and met with some teachers who had gathered to complain to him about lack of student discipline. After hearing the complaints of several teachers, Mr. Dandy--precipitously--told them he was now in control, that they should hence forth come directly to him. Some teachers were intimated by his manner and aggressiveness. Instead of asking individual teachers about any perceived problems, he asked, "Do you feel the rest of the teachers feel . . . is a problem?" or words to that effect. On February 21, 1984, three days later, Mr. Dandy met with the teachers again and, this time, invited Respondent to attend. Respondent, though genuinely surprised by this turn of events, came to the meeting and responded to each of the complaints or concerns raised by the teachers. On February 24, 1984, three days later, Mr. Dandy wrote Respondent outlining the teachers' complaints or concerns and asked for a written response by March 1, 1984. Respondent complied, submitting a timely response addressing, as specifically as possible, each of the concerns. Mr. Dandy responded with a second letter on March 21, 1984, directing Respondent to take eight corrective actions (Mr. Dandy never subsequently evaluated Respondent to determine if those directives were satisfactorily carried out, though he admits improvements were being made.) On March 22, 1984, one day after receiving Mr. Dandy's eight directives, the Superintendent filed the charges against Respondent which later (with one added count) became the basis for Respondent's dismissal. (P-5; P-6; P-19; TR-XII, p.47; TR-XIII, pp. 14, 47, 72, 128, 129) The complaint about Respondent's performance voiced by some teachers to Mr. Dandy were never thoroughly, and conscientiously, investigated or verified by Mr. Dandy prior to his undermining Respondent's authority and, to some extent, taking control of the school away from him. When Respondent was finally informed of the complaints he responded to each in a professional and meaningful way. He was then given "directives," quickly followed by charges, without being given a fair opportunity to take corrective action and effectively respond to the complaints. In their hasty action, school board officials disregarded or were oblivious to the requirements of Rule 6B-4.08. This is all the more perplexing in light of the fact that Mr. Dandy, the Area Supervisor and Respondent's immediate supervisor, never recommended--then or now--that Respondent be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That all charges against Respondent be dismissed, that he be reinstated with full back-pay and emoluments of employment; and that he be awarded reasonable attorney's fees which he actually expended in his defense or which he has legal duty to pay. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of November, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of November, 1985.
The Issue Whether the Respondent should be reassigned to the Opportunity School.
Findings Of Fact Raul Lopez entered the Dade County Public Schools in 1980 and was enrolled in the fifth grade. He repeated the fifth grade once, passed the sixth grade, and, in the 1984-85 school year, was repeating seventh grade. When Raul entered the Dade County school system he did not know the English language and was enrolled in a special program called English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL). He remained in the program for three years. Raul received no bilingual educational services from the school system after the first three years. Raul Lopez entered Palm Springs Junior High School on September 7, 1984, and was recommended for alternative school on January 18, 1985. During the time Raul was at Palm Springs, he was referred to the office for disciplinary reasons on eight different occasions. Assistant Principal Long's testimony was the only evidence presented by Petitioner to show that Raul had a record of disruptive behavior. However, Mr. Long's testimony was not credible and, for the most part, was uncorroborated hearsay. Mr. Long had no personal knowledge of any of the incidents which caused Raul's disciplinary referrals, and could not provide any information, other than speculation, as to what had actually happened to cause each referral. Mr. Long explained that, when a disciplinary problem occurs, the teacher or staff person involved fills out a referral, setting forth the details of the incident. The assistant principal to whom the matter is referred then prepares a computer card on the incident, fitting the behavior that occurred into one or more of the available categories, such as "general disruptive behavior." Mr. Long's testimony regarding Raul's behavior came directly from a computer print-out. It was clear that Mr. Long had no independent recollection of any of the incidents. From the computer print out, Mr. Long testified that Raul received the following referrals: DATE REASON FOR REFERRAL 10/9/84 general disruptive behavior 10/16/84 defiance of school authority; dress code violations; rude and discourteous (Mr. Long stated that Raul may have had his shirttail out or not worn socks) 10/30/84 general disruptive behavior; rude and discourteous; no school materials (Mr. Long explained that Raul didn't have his books or didn't have his P.E. uniform) 11/1/84 excessive tardiness; rude and discourteous 11/13/84 general disruptive behavior; didn't complete class assignment 11/21/84 unauthorized location; no school materials 12/10/84 excessive tardiness; general disruptive behavior; rude and discourteous 1/11/85 general disruptive behavior; assault (Mr. Long stated that he knew nothing about the assault because he didn't handle the referral) Raul was placed on indoor suspension as a result of the October 9, 1984, incident, and was referred to counseling after the November 1st and November 13th incidents. Although Mr. Long stated that attempts were made to contact the parents, the only conference with the parents was on January 18, 1985, to inform them that Raul was being referred to the alternative school. Mr. Long had personal contact with Raul and found him to be defiant, hostile, and disrespectful. Raul also used obscene language. However, he also testified that he had never had problems with Raul. The evidence establishes that Raul had a very poor attendance record while attending Palm Springs. He was absent 25 days, of which 15 absences were confirmed truancies. The Dade County Public Schools Complaint of Truancy (R.Ex.-l) indicates that several conferences were held with Raul's parents concerning Raul's excessive absences; however, the visiting teacher could not remember whether he actually made contact with Raul's parents or merely went to Raul's home and left a message that Raul was truant, and Mr. Long's testimony concerning parent conferences was inconclusive. Several letters were sent to the home regarding Raul's non-attendance. Mrs. Lopez testified that the only contact she had with school personnel was on January 18, 1985. Raul has not been successful academically. He had to repeat the fifth and seventh grades. After the first nine weeks at Palm Springs he received one C, two Ds, and three Fs. After the first semester the number of Fs had increased to four. Mr. Long testified that Raul was not in school often enough to receive passing grades. He also testified that the low grades were a result of Raul's behavior problem. Raul testified that he didn't go to school because he did not understand the school work. He admitted that he does not read or write very well. He stated that nobody had ever asked him why he did not like to go to school. Raul admitted that he had refused to "dress out" for physical education class. Mr. Long did not know why Raul failed to attend school, but stated that every effort was exhausted at Palm Springs to correct Raul's problems. He felt that Palm Springs simply could not meet Raul's needs. The counselor at the school requests testing for exceptional education, and although Raul had been sent to the counselor, Mr. Long did not know whether the counselor had requested exceptional education testing. Mr. Long believed that Raul was in the proper academic program.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered approving the assignment of Respondent to the opportunity school program at Jan Mann Opportunity School-North. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of August, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of August, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark A. Valentine, Jr., Esq. Assistant Schoo1 Board Attorney McCrarY & Valentine, P.A. 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida Mitchell A. Horwich, Esq. Education Advocacy Project Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc. Northside Shopping Center 149 West Plaza, Suite 210 7900 N.W. 27th Avenue Miami, Florida 33147-4796 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Board Administration Building Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Phyllis O. Douglas Assistant School Board Attorney Dade County School Board Suite 301 1450 N.E. 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact Respondent has for twelve years been an instructional employee of the School Board of Broward County, Florida. She currently holds a continuing contract as a classroom teacher, and is assigned to Perry Elementary School in Miramar, Florida. During the same time period, Harold McKahand, Respondent's husband, and Peggy Freeman were instructional employees of the Broward County School Board assigned to Perry Middle School, adjacent to Perry Elementary where Respondent taught. From as early as 1979, Respondent had suspected that her husband and Mrs. Freeman were having a love affair. These suspicions were a frequent topic of conversation between Respondent and her husband. In fact, Respondent had indicated to her husband her intention to seek a divorce. Notwithstanding Mr. McKahand's assurances that he did not want a divorce and would no longer see Mrs. Freeman, he continued to do so, and Mrs. Freeman on many occasions made telephone calls to the McKahand residence, which Respondent apparently considered harassing in nature. All of this culminated in a discussion between Respondent and Mrs. Freeman in August of 1981 in which Respondent requested that Mrs. Freeman cease making telephone calls to her home because they disturbed her and her two children. After this discussion between Respondent and Mrs. Freeman, there was little or no personal contact between them until the act which gave rise to this proceeding. On December 12, 1981, Respondent, her husband and two children attended a racquetball tournament. After the tournament, they returned to their home and Respondent busied herself with work around the home. Respondent's husband, unbeknownst to Respondent, took the family car and proceeded to Perry Middle School to obtain some work folders from his office. Upon arriving at Perry Middle School, Mr. McKahand discovered Mrs. Freeman conducting a Saturday afternoon basketball practice with the school's girls basketball team, which she served as coach. Mr. McKahand and Mrs. Freeman conversed briefly, and Mr. McKahand departed the school and returned home. Meanwhile, Respondent's oldest son had left the family home without performing certain chores which had been assigned to him by Respondent. Upon discovering her son's absence, Respondent took her bicycle and began to search the neighborhood for him. Her search carried her ultimately to the gymnasium at Perry Middle School. Respondent had no knowledge that her husband had gone to his office at Perry Middle School, nor did she know that Mrs. Freeman was conducting a basketball practice at the school. When Respondent arrived at the school, she walked into the gymnasium to see if her son was there. Upon entering the gym, she saw the basketball practice in session, and noticed Mrs. Freeman. When she did not see her son, Respondent started walking from the gym. A member of the girls basketball team advised Mrs. Freeman that Mrs. McKahand was at the door. Although there is some conflict in the testimony on this point, it appears that Mrs. McKahand did not beckon to Mrs. Freeman to follow her outside the gym, but that one of the team players told Mrs. Freeman of Respondent's presence, and indicated to Mrs. Freeman that Respondent wanted to talk to her. Upon being advised of this, Mrs. Freeman walked across the basketball court, picked up her purse from a table, and proceeded to the gym door through which Respondent had exited. By this time Respondent was outside the gym. Mrs. Freeman forcefully opened the gymnasium door behind which Respondent was standing, striking Respondent on the arm. As Mrs. Freeman exited the door, she and Respondent grabbed one another and a fight ensued. The girls basketball team members were at various positions inside the gymnasium at the time the scuffle between Respondent and Mrs. Freeman started. It is clear from the record, however, that each of the students were located behind Mrs. Freeman and, therefore, were not in the best of positions to observe the precise manner in which the conflict started. It is also equally clear that the physical confrontation between Respondent and Mrs. Freeman occurred quickly and spontaneously, and, as a result, the various eye-witness accounts contained in this record predictably contain varying and conflicting versions of the events leading up to and culminating in the scuffle between Respondent and Mrs. Freeman. During the course of their physical confrontation, Mrs. Freeman placed one of her hands on Respondent's throat and the other in Respondent's hair, and Respondent reciprocated, pushing Mrs. Freeman against the gymnasium wall. Several blows were exchanged between the two women. Although the gymnasium door had closed behind Mrs. Freeman, several of the basketball team members followed the two teachers out the door and attempted to separate them. After the fight began, there is no evidence that Respondent acted other than in defense of the actions of Mrs. Freeman. When the students were finally successful in separating the two combatants, Respondent began looking for her sunglasses, which had fallen off, and Mrs. Freeman retrieved her purse, which she had dropped during the altercation. Upon finding her purse, Mrs. Freeman called to several of the students to stand back, whereupon she removed a .22 calibre pistol from her purse, and fired at least two shots. Respondent, upon observing Mrs. Freeman to be armed, began to run from the school premises, retrieved her bicycle, and retreated to her home. Apparently unsatisfied with these results, Mrs. Freeman incredibly loaded several of the team members, including some of the students who testified in this proceeding, into her car, where she reloaded her weapon. Mrs. Freeman then proceeded to drive in a reckless manner, including running several stop signs, to Respondent's home. Upon arriving at Respondent's home, Mrs. Freeman pulled her car into the driveway, took her pistol, got out of her car, and again confronted the Respondent who was standing in her driveway with her two children. Respondent picked up a broom in her garage and got her two children to stand behind her in an attempt to shield them from Mrs. Freeman. Mr. McKahand, who was inside the home during this time, came outside, and ultimately was able to get Respondent inside their home. Mrs. Freeman then departed the McKahand residence, but shortly thereafter began making harassing telephone calls to the McKahand home. Later that afternoon, Mr. McKahand attempted to take Respondent to her part-time job in a local department store, but was prevented from doing so when Mrs. Freeman attempted to run the McKahand car off the street with her vehicle, and further fired upon the McKahands with her pistol. As previously indicated, Petitioner has charged Respondent with referring to Mrs. Freeman as a "bitch" during the course of their fight. Respondent denies making such a statement, and the only testimony in the record which would establish a finding that such a statement was made is contained in the conflicting testimony of Mrs. Freeman and Rachel Geathers, one of the student basketball players. Mrs. Freeman's testimony in this regard, which the Hearing Officer hereby finds unworthy of belief, was that Respondent referred to her as a "filthy bitch" as Mrs. Freeman exited the gymnasium door. Ms. Geathers' testimony was that Respondent referred to Mrs. Freeman as a "bitch" after the two combatants had exited the gym and enough time had passed to allow all of the basketball players to run through the door and outside the gym. Ms. Geathers' testimony in this regard is also rejected, in that several of the other students who were in a better position to observe and hear Respondent and Mrs. Freeman testified that they heard no such statement made. Accordingly, it is specifically concluded that the evidence in this case fails to establish Respondent's use of profanity in the presence of students as alleged in the Petition. There is no evidence in the record of this proceeding to indicate the Respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the Broward County School System has in any way been adversely affected by the above-described events. In fact, Respondent's principal and grade chairman both testified that Respondent is a good teacher, and they would welcome her back on the faculty of Perry Elementary School should she be absolved of the allegations involved in this proceeding. Even a cursory review of the record in this case will reveal sharp divergencies and conflicts in the testimony of several witnesses. In attempting to resolve these conflicts, the Hearing officer has observed the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying, their interest, if any, in the outcome of this proceeding, together with any motive, bias or prejudice which might affect their credibility. Further, the Hearing Officer has also taken into account the conditions existing at the time of the incident observed by the witnesses in weighing the credibility to be attached to the various accounts contained in this record. In so doing, the Hearing Officer has concluded that Respondent did not go to the Perry Middle School gymnasium seeking a confrontation with Mrs. Freeman. Indeed, the record clearly establishes that Respondent did not know Mrs. Freeman was even at the gymnasium on the date in question. Further, it is concluded, despite some evidence to the contrary, that Respondent did not summon Mrs. Freeman to follow her outside the gymnasium, but that Mrs. Freeman was induced to do so as a result of a student telling her that someone was outside the gym to see her. Finally, the quality as opposed to the quantity of the evidence in this case does not support a factual conclusion that Respondent, in fact, initiated the physical confrontation with Mrs. Freeman. Because of her conduct at the time of the incident, and further because of the inaccuracies and inconsistencies in Mrs. Freeman's testimony at the final hearing in this cause, her testimony, in its entirety, is worthy of little credibility. Because of this, her testimony that Respondent initiated the fight has been found unworthy of belief. The testimony of Mrs. Freeman's students, several of whom testified that the first aggressive gesture they saw was made by Respondent, is tainted both by their admitted allegiance to their teacher, Mrs. Freeman, and by their physical positioning which would not admit a particularly clear view of the incident. Conversely, the factual version of this incident given by Respondent in her testimony was, in every particular, more plausible than that contained in the testimony of either the students or Mrs. Freeman. At the time of the above- described incident, almost three and one-half months had passed since Respondent had last spoken in person with Mrs. Freeman. The Respondent did not know that Mrs. Freeman was at the gymnasium when she arrived there looking for her son. As a result, there could not have been any premeditated design on the part of Respondent to assault Mrs. Freeman and, due to the passage of time since her last contact with Mrs. Freeman, there is no apparent motive of record to explain a spontaneous assault. As a result, the only way to resolve the conflict in the testimony concerning how this altercation originated is to weigh the credibility of the various participants. Making such a choice is perhaps the most difficult task a finder of fact must face in a proceeding such as this, but by applying the aforementioned factors, the Hearing Officer has determined that in the areas of conflict, the testimony of the Respondent is more credible than that of either Mrs. Freeman or her students.
The Issue The basic issue in this case is whether the Respondent should be dismissed from his employment as a teacher. The Petitioner seeks such dismissal pursuant to Section 231.36, Florida Statutes, on the basis of allegations that the Respondent is guilty of: (a) violation of the Principles of Professional Conduct, (b) immorality, (c) misconduct, (d) willful neglect of duties, and (e) moral turpitude. The Respondent denies any misconduct.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence received at the hearing and on the parties's stipulations, I make the following findings of fact: Facts stipulated to by the parties Virgil L. Morgan is the duly appointed Superintendent of Schools of Broward County, Florida, and is legally authorized to represent to the School Board of Broward County, Florida, pursuant to statute, that any member of the instructional and/or administrative staff be dismissed from or with the Broward County School System. The address of Virgil L. Morgan is 1320 Southwest Fourth Street, Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida. The address of the School Board of Broward County, Florida, is 1320 Southwest Fourth Street, Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida. The Respondent, Marion Wright, is an employee of the School Board of Broward County, Florida, holding a continuing contract of employment since December 5, 1968, and has currently been employed at Nova High School, 3600 College Avenue, Davie, Broward County, Florida, as an American History and Geography teacher. The last known address of the Respondent is 151 Northwest 33rd Terrace, Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida. Other general facts While employed at Nova High School, the Respondent was also the coach of the girls junior varsity basketball team. Facts regarding motor vehicle operations The Respondent's ex-students and assistant coaches often moved his car from one place to another on the Nova campus during the school day. These ex- students and assistant coaches were licensed drivers. The Respondent sometimes also permitted several students who were seniors and who were licensed drivers to move his car while it was on campus. It is not unusual for teachers at Nova High School to permit students to drive their cars. There is no credible competent substantial evidence in this case that the Respondent permitted unlicensed students to operate his motor vehicle. On January 22, 1988, Andrea Session and Kim Williams, both students at Nova High School who were also members of the girls basketball team, went to the Respondent's classroom shortly after first period began. Neither of the two girls had a driver license. Kim Williams asked the Respondent for the keys to his pickup truck in order to retrieve her school books which were locked in the truck. The Respondent gave the keys to the two girls and they left. It was not uncommon for the girls to leave their books in the Respondent's truck or car, because the Respondent would frequently drive these two girls (and others) from their home to early morning basketball practice before school. They would often leave their school books in the Respondent's vehicle during basketball practice and pick them up later. On January 22, 1988, while in possession of the keys to the Respondent's pickup, Kim Williams attempted to move the pickup and ran into a parked car in the school parking lot. The Respondent did not authorize Kim Williams to drive his pickup truck on January 22, 1988. Facts regarding taking students out of class The Respondent never requested that Kim Williams, Andrea Session, or any other student or member of his basketball team be excused from other classes, except as was consistent with being excused from class on game days. The Respondent did not write passes requesting that students be excused from other classes. Nor did he usually permit students without passes to remain in his classroom. When Kim or Andrea would come to the Respondent's class without a pass, the Respondent would usually ask them to return to their class. On occasion, Kim and Andrea would skip classes and not go to the Respondent's classroom. There is no credible competent substantial evidence in this case that the Respondent arranged for the unauthorized or illegal removal of any student from scheduled class periods. There is no credible competent substantial evidence in this case that the Respondent provided females students on his basketball team with passes to remove them from their regular scheduled classes on the days that basketball games were scheduled in order for them to rest or relax for the game. Facts regarding transportation of students off campus and to liquor stores The Respondent frequently transported students from their homes to early morning basketball practice. The Respondent has taken adult female assistant coaches to the Double Feature Liquor Store, and to other liquor stores, and has purchased beer for them on occasion. There is no credible competent substantial evidence in this case that the Respondent took students to a liquor store, bought alcoholic beverages, and consumed alcoholic beverages with students. There is no credible competent substantial evidence in this case that the Respondent took students off campus on personal errands during the students' scheduled class periods. Facts regarding soliciting false statements and submitting a false affidavit After the Respondent became aware that he was being accused of providing alcoholic beverages to two students, he went to see Ms. Bonnie Session, the mother of one of the students. The Respondent told Bonnie Session about the situation he was in and asked her to sign a statement on his behalf. Thereafter, Adrienne Session, an older daughter of Ms. Session, called the Respondent and told him she had something for him from her mother. Adrienne gave the Respondent a written statement that purported to be signed by Bonnie Session. The Respondent took the statement to a notary public and asked that it be notarized. The notary called on the telephone and spoke to someone she believed to be Bonnie Session. The person to whom the notary spoke acknowledged having signed the statement. The notary then notarized the document and gave it back to the Respondent. At a later date, under circumstances that are not at all clear, Bonnie Session and her two daughters went to the same notary, after having been guided there by the Respondent, and had some additional documents notarized. The Respondent made some efforts, directly and indirectly, to obtain exculpatory statements from several people, but the nature of those efforts cannot be discerned from the credible evidence in this case. There is no credible competent substantial evidence in this case that the Respondent encouraged any students to falsify their accounts of any matters related to the issues in this case. There is no credible competent substantial evidence in this case that the Respondent intentionally distorted, or caused to be misrepresented, any facts regarding an affidavit that was purportedly signed by Bonnie Session.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Broward County issue a final order in this case dismissing all administrative charges against the Respondent, Marion Wright, and reinstating him with full back pay. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of June 1989. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 30th day of June 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-4734 The following are my specific rulings on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. To facilitate an understanding of the rulings which follow, attention is directed to the fact that, for the most part, the testimony of the two principal witnesses against the Respondent has been found to be unworthy of belief and to be an insufficient basis for findings of fact. The two principal accusers have both, while under oath, changed major portions of their stories on more than one occasion. The credibility of their stories is also impaired in large part by the fact that the stories told by the two principal witnesses are inconsistent in a number of telling details, and those stories also conflict with the testimony of other witnesses who are much more worthy of belief. It is also noted that the candor of Respondent's testimony was not without its own tarnish in places. While the Respondent's denial of the charges against him has been accepted in substance, this is largely because of the absence of believable evidence in support of the charges rather than because of any great reliance on the Respondent's candor. Findings proposed by Petitioner: Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2: Rejected as not supported by credible competent substantial evidence and as contrary to the greater weight of the believable evidence. Paragraph 3: First sentence rejected as not supported by credible competent substantial evidence and as contrary to the greater weight of the believable evidence. Second sentence accepted. Paragraph 4: For the most part, rejected as not supported by credible competent substantial evidence and as contrary to the greater weight of the believable evidence. It is accepted that there was an on-campus accident involving Respondent's vehicle. Paragraph 5: Rejected as irrelevant in light of other evidence in the record. Paragraph 6: Rejected as constituting legal argument rather than proposed findings of fact. Paragraph 7: Rejected as irrelevant. [The presentation of the testimony of the Assistant State Attorney appears to have been primarily for the purpose of vouching for the truthfulness of the other witnesses against Respondent. Such vouching is an inappropriate form of proof. See Fuller v. State, 450 So.2d 182, 184 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).] Paragraph 8: Rejected as not supported by credible competent substantial evidence and as contrary to the greater weight of the believable evidence. Findings proposed by Respondent: Paragraph 1: First sentence rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Remainder accepted in substance with a few unnecessary details omitted. Paragraphs 2 and 3: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 4: Accepted in substance with some unnecessary details omitted. Paragraphs 5 and 6: Accepted in substance with some unnecessary details omitted. Paragraph 7: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 8: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than proposed findings of fact. In any event, the subject matter of the summary consists of subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 9, 10, 11, and 12: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 13: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 14 and 15: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 16 through 30: Rejected as constituting, for the most part, a summary of the history of many of the reasons for not making findings of fact rather than actual proposed findings. (Many of the details in this summary form the basis for the conclusion that the testimony of the two principal witnesses against the Respondent is unreliable.). COPIES FURNISHED: Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Whitelock & Moldof 1311 Southeast Second Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Thomas W. Young, III, Esquire General Counsel, FEA/United 208 West Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Virgil L. Morgan, Superintendent Broward County School Board 1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida =================================================================
