Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained in the Notice of Charges, Williams was employed by the School Board in a variety of capacities. With the exception of paragraph 22, which, to preserve continuity, will be consolidated with paragraph 2 of the Notice of Charges, the allegations shall be considered seriatum. That during the 1965-1966 school year, the Respondent did receive an overall unsatisfactory rating. That the Respondent in the 1965 and 1966 school years received a poor rat- ing in the following area: "Relation- ship with others," and "Is healthy and emotionally stable;" and further received an unsatisfactory rating in the category of "works well with others," end "demon- strates professional attitude and imple- menting school policy." The evidence indicates that for the school year 1965-1966, Williams received an average score of 3.3 on his Dade County evaluation form. According to the form an average rating below 3.5 indicates unsatisfactory work in Dade County schools. On that same evaluation form Williams received a 3.0 rating for the category "Works well with others." There was no rating for "Is healthy and emotionally stable." Williams received a 2.8 rating for the category "Understands and supports school policies aid demonstrates a professional attitude in implementing them." From the 1965-1966 school year until the present Williams has consistently received satisfactory overall ratings for his work in the Dade County schools. That on or about January 16, 1968, the Respondent, while a visiting teacher with the School Board of Dade County, and more particularly assigned to Gladeview Ele- mentary School, the Respondent, did without reason or authority demanded [sic] of the principal, Mr. Leonard Wollman, his reason for having a child stand outside and perform a task signed by the principal. Said demand made by the Respondent was made in a loud, rude and unprofessional manner, and was over- heard by numerous persons located within the confines of the school. On or about January 16, 1968, Mr. Leonard Wollman was principal of Gladeview Elementary School and at that time observed a student throw an apple out a school window. When the student refused to pick up the apple, Mr. Wollman made the student pick it up along with other trash. At that time, Williams criticized the handling of the incident by Wollman and claimed that the child was being mistreated. There was a lack of competent substantial evidence to establish that Williams' inquiries as to the handling of the incident were made in a loud, rude and unprofessional manner. There was a complete absence of evidence to establish that Williams' comments were overheard by numerous persons located within the confines of the school. That during the 1969-1970 school year, the Respondent, Charles Williams, did receive an unsatisfactory evaluation in the area of personal characteristics and leadership, notwithstanding an overall average of 4.2. The Dade County evaluation form for school year 1969-1970 reflects that Williams received a score of 3.0 in each of two categories of personal characteristics and leadership. The remarks section indicates "Needs improvement in human relations and group processes, which hopefully he will develop within the year. Otherwise, performance this year has been outstanding." That during the year 1970, more particularly, during the month of October, 1970, the Respondent was required by the Director of the North Central District to submit to the district office a plan for gifted children to participate in a program as outlined by the District Office. Further, as a result of the Respondent's failure to comply with the directive of the District Office two deserving children from the Respondent's school were left out of the program. There is no evidence in the record to establish that Williams was required to submit a plan for gifted children. There was evidence to establish that Williams was required to submit the names of students in his school who qualified for the gifted child program by October 30, 1970, and that such names were submitted late. Notwithstanding the late submission, the names were still considered for the gifted child program. Furthermore, there is an absence of competent substantial evidence to establish that at deserving children were left out of the program because of the actions of Williams. In the final analysis, Williams is charged with failing to submit a plan when the evidence shows that he was not required to submit a plan. Accordingly, the charge is not supported by the evidence. That on or about November 23, 1970, the Respondent did berate and make sarcastic and provocative remarks to Mrs. Carol Kleinfeld because said teacher had sought a transfer from the school where the Respondent served as principal. On Motion of Williams at the hearing, the undersigned ruled that there was a complete absence of evidence to support this charge. That on or about March 1, 1971, the Respondent did berate Mrs. Carol Kleinfeld who [was a] teacher at the school where the Respondent is principal and further did scream and shout at [her] in a violent and threatening manner further threatening that he would fire all parties concerned. During the 1970-1971 school year, Carol Kleinfeld worked for Williams at Primary C Elementary School. From time to time, Williams and Mrs. Kleinfeld engaged in discussions concerning Mrs. Kleinfeld's performance of her duties. The evidence establishes that Williams was displeased with the performance and gave Mrs. Kleinfeld the lowest possible performance rating. The evidence also establishes that Williams pointed his finger at Ms. Kleinfeld on one or more occasions. However, there is an absence of competent substantial evidence to establish that Williams berated Ms. Kleinfeld or that he screamed and shouted at her in a violent and threatening manner. That during the 1970-1971 school year, the Respondent acted in such an unprofes- sional fashion towards teachers assigned to his school, that numerous teachers requested transfers to other schools as a result of the humiliating and threaten- ing attitudes of the Respondent. There was no competent substantial evidence to establish that Williams acted in an unprofessional manner toward his teachers or that numerous teachers requested transfers because of Williams' conduct. That on or about April 4, 1975, the Respondent did, in front of children and custodians, harass, threaten and berate one Franklin Clark, Coordinator of Primary C Elementary School, con- cerning an event which did not happen. On April 4, 1975, Franklin Clark was Community School Coordinator for Primary C Elementary School. Clark's working hours were from 2:00 to 10:00 P.M. On several occasions, prior to that date, Clark had taken extended supper without informing Williams. When Williams discovered this practice, he had occasion to correct Clark and reiterate the requirement that Clark be present at the School for the appropriate period of time. On the day in question, Williams confronted Clark with an accusation that Clark had not been present during his proper working hours the night before. Clark denied the accusation. While Williams was angry during that conversation, there was no evidence to establish that he harassed, threatened or berated Clark during the encounter. That during the year 1975, the Respondent did fail to cooperate with other school principals, more particularly Ms. Della A. Zaher, principal at Edison Park Elementary School, in that he failed to cooperate with a fellow school principal in establishing and coordinating the articulation plans for the second and third grade students. While the evidence shows that Williams did not in fact work with Ms. Zaher in establishing articulation plans for second and third grade students, the record is devoid of any evidence which would establish that Williams was required to do so. In fact, inter school cooperation was necessary only as desired by participating principals. The evidence does establish that Williams followed prescribed procedure for articulation plans and that there would have been no real benefit in deeling with Ms. Zeher as she had requested. That on or about November 19, 1976, the Respondent did leave a meeting early without authorization which meeting was for the purpose of the area superintendent to explain the alternative plans for attendance. The evidence establishes that on November 19, 1976, Williams attended a meeting of principals, directors, and area office personnel, called by the area superintendent. Williams left the meeting early. However, the evidence affirmatively establishes that no permission was required for any of the participants of the meeting to leave early. That during the month of November, 1976, the Respondent did fail to observe and follow the purposes outlined by Robert Little Supervisor of the attendance office, in his memorandum entitled, "Pro- cedures and Calendar for the Development of the 1977-78 Attendant Zone Changes," dated November 4, 1976. That by failing to follow the plan as outlined by the memorandum, the Respondent's actions created the potential for negative parent/community reaction. That the Respondent did not provide a written plan to the area office for con- sideration until February 8, 1977, and said report was scheduled to be rendered to the area office and the area superintendent on November 19, 1976. All other principals met this deadline. The evidence affirmatively establishes that the memorandum in question did not require Williams to do anything. The alternatives available in the memorandum were optional on the part of principals. On Motion of Williams, the Hearing Officer declared that there was insufficient evidence to establish the allegations of the foregoing charges. That on or about July 11, 1977, the respondent failed to be a witness for the School Board of Dade County which involved the suspension of an employee who was under the direction and control of the Respondent while he was principal at the Primary C Elementary School [sic]. That his refusal to be a witness was without foundation and further, was his duty and responsibility as an employee of the School Board of Dade County. On July 11, 1977, Williams was called to a conference regarding a hearing that was to be held that afternoon, involving another employee of the School Board. Williams went to the conference and became upset because he believed certain questions propounded to him were improper. Williams, however, was neither requested nor directed to be a witness at the hearing to be held later that day. No subpoena was issued to compel Williams' attendance at that hearing. That during the 1978-1979 school year, numerous teachers at the Primary C Elementary School, where the Respondent was assigned as principal, have sought reassignment because of the open criticism and un- warranted harassment by the Respondent. This charge is not substantiated by competent substantial evidence. While the evidence does indicate that Williams had a small number of disagreements with one or two teachers during that school year, the evidence further establishes that the overwhelming majority of the teachers at that school during that school year hold Williams in high regard. There is am absence of evidence to establish that numerous teachers sought reassignment. That on or about November 8, 1978, a principal's meeting was held for the purpose of assisting administrator's review procedures used to remediate professional personnel where performance is deficient and at said meeting, the Respondent acted in a negative and disruptive manner, so as to make the meeting ineffective for all persons concerned. This charge is unsupported by the evidence. The evidence does establish that at the meeting in question, Williams fully participated and asked pertinent, incisive questions of those conducting the meeting. That on or about January 9, 1979, the area superintendant [sic] attempted to have a conference with the Respondent con- cerning specific recommendations for improvement, and at said conference the Respondent was insubordinate, disruptive, hostile and negative toward the area superintendant [sic], in such a manner as to make the meeting an ineffective one, and thus the meeting had to be terminated because of the behavior of the Respondent. At the hearing in this cause, there was made available a complete transcript of the conference held on January 9, 1979, with Williams and the area superintendent. The document, received as Respondent's Exhibit "Y", demonstrates that Williams was neither insubordinate, disruptive, hostile or negative. In fact, the area superintendant terminated the meeting after ascertaining that Williams had no further questions regarding the recommendations for improvement which were given to Williams at the meeting. That in the school year 1969-1970 it was further noted that the Respondent needed improvement in "Human relations" and "Group processes." (As amended at the hearing in this cause.) The Dade County evaluation form for school year 1969-1970 reflects that Williams received an overall score of 4.2 for that school year. This constitutes a satisfactory rating in the Dade County School System. The remarks section says "Needs improvement in human relations and group processes which hopefully he will develop within the year. Otherwise his performance this year has been outstanding." 25. Evaluations for school years 1970-1971, 1971-1972, 1972-1973, 1973- 1974, 1974-1975, 1975-1976, 1976-1977 and 1977-1978, all show satisfactory performance ratings in the areas in question. Furthermore, these ratings reflect that while Williams is not a perfect individual, he is an outstanding educator who has made continued significant contributions to the Dade County School System and to the students under his care.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent, William B. Bailey, was a certified teacher in Florida employed by the Broward County School System (BCSS). He has been a teacher for 22 years and has taught at Markham Elementary School, (Markham) for 18 or 19 years. Respondent has generally had a good rapport with young boys. He has an adopted 26 year old son who was recently promoted to Captain in the U.S. Air Force. Allean Jones has known Respondent and his parents for many years. Several years ago she became the guardian of her grandson, Earl Edwards, who, for a long time, had disciplinary and behavior problems at home and at school due, at least in part, to his difficult home life with his natural mother who bore him at age 14. For some time, several years ago, Earl Edwards was a student at Markham of Respondent who developed a good relationship with him. While the student-teacher relationship existed, on numerous occasions, Earl went to Respondent's home where he swam, ate, played, and spent nights, always with Mrs. Jones's permission. She feels Respondent, who bought Earl clothes and paid his dental bills, is a good influence on him and she has offered to let Earl stay with him on a permanent basis. At no time did she object to Respondent's relationship with her grandson, and felt it to be beneficial rather than detrimental to his best interests. Unfortunately, Earl has left school since he graduated from Markham and she does not know where he is now. Mr. William Bell, who was principal at Markham at the time, heard about Respondent's relationship with Earl from two staff members and, without any investigation of the situation and without checking with Earl or his grandmother, concluded that since Respondent was an unmarried male, his off- campus contacts with a young male student were inappropriate and he asked Respondent to cease contact with his student off-campus or before or after school and on weekends. Had Respondent been married, Mr. Bell's reaction might well have been different. Mr. Bell believes that the Teacher Code of Ethics conflicts with off-campus contacts in such a manner as would interfere with teacher effectiveness, and parental approval would make no difference. This request to cease contact with Earl Edwards, in 1980 or 1981, somehow became a part of Respondent's record in the BCSS. No copy of any written request was produced by Petitioner, however, nor was any record reflecting it. Both Bell and Dr. Thomas Johnson, Associate Superintendent for Human Resources in the system, recall the incident, though. When requested to cease off-campus contacts with Earl, Respondent complied. In the Spring of 1986, the new principal, Ms. Dorothy Wooten, was approached by a teacher, Ms. Denise Wright, and the school counselor, who requested that she tell Respondent to leave some of her students alone and stop socializing with them when they should be in Ms. Wright's class. The students in question were Sedaniel Allen and Willie McCloud, who, apparently, would leave her class without permission and, she believed, go to visit with Respondent in his planning area. She believed this is where they went because, though she did not check on them to see where they were going, they told her that's where they were going when they asked her for permission to leave. She periodically gave it and therefore assumed that they would visit Respondent when they left without permission. Ms. Wooten did not investigate the situation herself, but, as a result of Ms. Wright's request, called Respondent in and spoke with him about the situation in the presence of the students in question and both complainants. Respondent seemed as though he would comply and she took no formal action. It appears, however, that the situation continued and a short while late, she talked with Respondent again about the same students and again he seemed to agree. It was after the second meeting that she wrote a memo summarizing the situation. After this second conference, she spoke with Ms. Linda Gaines, Sedaniel's mother, who indicated that Sedaniel had spent the night at Respondent's home without her permission or knowledge, and neither Sedaniel nor Respondent had called her to let her know he was there. When Sedaniel went to Respondent's home a second time without her permission, Sedaniel's step-father went to Respondent's home and got him. Further discussion of these incidents is found in paragraph 15 et seq. infra. After Ms. Wooten received this information from Sedaniel's mother, she wrote Respondent a letter on May 1, 1986 recounting the substance of the interview with Ms. Gaines and advised him she was referring the matter to the Internal Affairs Division, (IA), of BCSS. A week later, she wrote another letter to Respondent requesting that he restrict his contact with Sedaniel and Willie to the scheduled class time and "strongly advised" him to have no other contact with them. In a subsequent meeting held with Ms. Wooten, the students' parents, and Mr. Joseph Viens, an investigator with IA, at the investigator's suggestion, at least some of the parents indicated they did not want the Respondent to have any off-campus or extra-class contact with their children. At this point, Respondent indicated he would talk with his attorney before discussing the matter any further. Respondent took that position only after the investigator accusatorily pointed his finger at him and called him a faggot. Respondent strongly denies being a homosexual and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. By the same token, Respondent's recounting of the investigator's public accusation was not contested either and is found to have occurred. Having done all she felt was required by reporting the matter to IA and by advising Respondent in writing to refrain from further off-campus contact, Ms. Wooten felt she was out of the matter until one day in October, 1986 when she noticed Sedaniel and Willie loitering after school and not going home. When she looked into it, she found Willie sitting in Respondent's classroom with Respondent and another person. She called both Respondent and Willie to her office where she recalled her instructions to Respondent to avoid extra-class period contacts with these boys and again stated her requests. In response, Respondent stated Willie had been injured and he was going to take him home. Willie confirmed he had been injured one day around this time in an afternoon ball game and the following day, aggravated the injury at recess. When he reported this to his teacher, Mr. Collins, this individual did not consider it serious and refused to let Willie do anything about it. It got worse during the day and swelled up and after school, Willie went to Respondent's room where he saw Mrs. Ruise, Respondent's team teacher. Respondent was at a meeting away from the area. Mrs. Ruise saw that Willie's ankle was injured, but did nothing for him and when staff departure time came, left the school locking the classroom door and leaving Willie out in the hall. When Respondent came back to his classroom somewhat later, he found Willie curled up on the hall floor outside the room crying. Willie's ankle looked bad but Respondent nonetheless questioned him in a forceful tone to find out what had happened. Willie said he needed a ride home. After some serious questioning and initial refusals, Respondent ultimately relented and agreed to take Willie home even though he knew he was not supposed to have contact with him. He saw Willie at school the next day and attempted to talk with him about his ankle in the cafeteria, but was unable to do so. After school, during a conversation with Mrs. Ruise, he again saw Willie who once more asked for a ride home. When, upon questioning, Willie told him he had gotten a ride to school that morning because of his ankle, Respondent gave him a tongue lashing and told him to get someone else to take him home. As Willie told him there was no one else around to do it, Respondent reluctantly agreed and did take him home, but that was the last contact he had with Willie. It must be noted here that Respondent, on both occasions, agreed to give Willie a ride without checking around the school to see if someone else was available to do so. There was some question whether Willie was actually injured at this time and needed a ride. Ms. Wooten heard from other staff members that Willie did not seem to be nor did he complain of being hurt. By far the better evidence, however, clearly indicates that Willie was hurt on this occasion and needed transport and it is so found. Respondent used poor judgment in not looking for someone else to take Willie in light of the injunction he was under and in not reporting the contact after the fact. There is also some issue that Willie may have hidden in the car at Respondent's direction when Respondent drove him home. This is not established. Even according to Willie, it was his idea to hide to keep from being seen because of the fact that Respondent had been instructed not to be with him away from class. There is no evidence that Respondent attempted to conceal any of his actions with regard to Willie. As a result of all the above, on October 7, 1986, Ms. Wooten again sent Respondent a memo to advise him that all future incidents of unauthorized contact would be reported to IA. She was informed by IA that Respondent had had off-campus contacts with other students in addition to Sedaniel and Willie. These included Reggie Nixon, Andre Murray, and Trenton Glover among others. It was reported to her that Respondent would instruct them to meet him at a shopping center from which he would take them to his home where they would do chores for him there and at his nightclub. She felt this reported behavior, which she did not disbelieve, was inappropriate because (1) it was an abuse of his position as a teacher, and (2) a nightclub is no place for children. Ms. Wooten believes Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher has been adversely affected because she has heard the students are questioning his ability to control his students and are making moral judgments about his behavior in regard to Willie and Sedaniel. She has heard no specific comment by any student, however. During the period she has worked with Respondent, she does not feel there have been any conflicts which would create animosity on either his or her part. In fact, she has recommended him for several special projects which would be to his benefit. Ms. Wooten is convinced that Respondent has an ability to relate to troubled children who tend to seek him out. In fact, former students often come back to school to see him. This is both good and bad. Initially, she favorably commented on this in an evaluation of Respondent but after some of these students began making trouble, and after, at a course she took, she learned that this conduct may indicate inappropriate luring of children for improper purposes, she began to look at it differently and tried to put a stop to it. With regard to Sedaniel Allen, Ms. Gaines' dissatisfaction with Respondent arose out of an incident in April, 1986, when Sedaniel had spent the night at Respondent's home without either Respondent or Sedaniel calling to let her know he was going to do that. Prior to the weekend in question, Respondent, acquiescing in Sedaniel's request to be allowed to come over with some other boys, wrote her a note requesting permission for Sedaniel to come to his house to work for him for pay. She agreed to this and signed the permission slip but never returned it to the Respondent. Had Sedaniel returned home on Saturday night, she would not have been upset. In fact, however, Sedaniel did not come home until Sunday evening when Respondent dropped him off. Ms. Gaines and her husband were angry over this and told Sedaniel they didn't want him to go back to Respondent's house ever again. They did not pass this information on to the Respondent, however. Nonetheless, two weeks later, on a Saturday morning, Sedaniel disappeared again. When she checked around, she found that Respondent had picked him up again at the "Gate" of the housing project in which they lived. That evening, Mr. Gaines went to Respondent's house in Deerfield Beach where he found Sedaniel watching television. On this occasion, Respondent had not sent home a permission slip, but subsequent inquiry showed it was Sedaniel who initiated the visit and who had told Respondent that he had permission to be there. He had also told Respondent he had permission to spend the night on the first visit. On these visits the boys would swim, watch television, wrestle (with, on occasion, Respondent) and generally have a good time. Sedaniel indicates that he met with Respondent in his classroom after class on several occasions to discuss what would be done when he was at the Respondent's house. Some other teacher was always there when this happened. On most other occasions, Sedaniel would go to Respondent's classroom with Willie McCloud and wait while Willie would ask Respondent for a ride home. Ms. Sandra Ruise, who knew Sedaniel as one of her own students, and who was Respondent's team teacher, was frequently in the area of the room. She never saw Sedaniel in Respondent's room outside of class hours nor did she ever see any student come to have lunch in Respondent's classroom while she was there and she ate in the room with the Respondent almost every day. She knows Sedaniel's reputation for telling the truth, gleaned from discussions with other teachers and his mother, and it is not good. He has even lied about her, filing a false report about her which he subsequently recanted. Consequently, while it is clear Sedaniel did go to Respondent's home on two occasions, once without permission and once with permission for only a day visit, he was not a frequent visitor to Respondent's room outside of class hours and Respondent's relationship with him at school was not improper. As to the unauthorized visits by Sedaniel to Respondent's home, it is also clear that Sedaniel initiated the visits, begged to stay over night, and lied about having permission to be there. None of this excuses Respondent's failure to verify and have presented to him some concrete evidence of parental authorization for the visit and the length thereof, however. Sedaniel and some other boys, Willie McCloud, Andre Murray, and Trenton Glover, were with Respondent one time when he was on an errand and stopped by Club Bailey for a moment to drop something off. On that occasion, they picked up beer cans from a vacant lot and cleaned ashtrays outside the building. It well may be that the club was open at the time, a Sunday morning, (Respondent was inconsistent in his stories as to whether the club was open), but aside from Sedaniel's uncorroborated allegation that he cleaned the ashtrays inside the club, all the other testimony, including that of the other boys, indicates, and it is so found, that they did not go inside. Respondent alleges that one of the male visitors to Respondent's home on one of the occasions when the boys were there swimming made a remark to the effect that Reggie Nixon was "fine meat" or words to that effect and that Respondent immediately told this individual to keep quiet. Neither comment was heard by Reggie, though Willie and Andre allegedly did. Even if the comments were made, however, the evidence is clear that there were no approaches made to any of the boys, they were not touched or bothered in any way, and in fact, were not spoken to at all by any of the men in question, all of whom deny such comments being made. There is also no support for the allegation that one of the men asked if the boys had ever had sex with a man. What is certain, however, is that Sedaniel has a reputation for being untruthful and his report, as well as his characterization of Respondent's visitors as "faggots", is lacking in credibility. Each of the visitors identified by Sedaniel and the other boys testified at the hearing. The boys' descriptions of one or more of the men as "faggots" were based on their opinions of their hair styles, laughs, and voice patterns. This evidence is not enough to support a finding that there was anything untoward about Respondent's guests, especially in light of the youth and lack of sophistication of these boys and the unequivocal denials of Respondent and the other men. The investigation into Respondent's conduct, conducted by the school system's internal affairs division at the request of Ms. Wooten, resulted in a report incorporating much of the above information which was referred to Dr. Thomas P. Johnson, Associate Superintendent for Human Resources. Dr. Johnson referred it to a committee for evaluation which resulted in a recommendation to bring charges against the Respondent. The action here was based upon the allegations that respondent had taken students to his home without parental permission; that some of the students involved had indicated Respondent's friends were "faggots"; that there was an allegation by one of the children that they had been worked in Respondent's night club; and that Respondent had disregarded a direction from his principal to cease this activity. This all was aggravated by allegations that Respondent had been the subject of a report of similar activity several years previously which, while not resulting in disciplinary action against him, had resulted in a "Cease and Desist Order" being issued. This prior order was not offered into evidence. School officials considered that Respondent's failure to abide by the orders given him by his principal showed a lack of judgment and integrity and his invitation of the students to his home violated the ethical requirements of the Teacher's Code of Ethics. It must be noted that off-campus contacts are not, per se, improper if done with parental consent. With regard to the issue of parental consent, Respondent always sent a note home requesting permission. Sedaniel lied about having permission to spend the night on the first visit and about having permission on the second visit. If Respondent is at fault, it is in failing to insure by a phone call or by seeing the permission slip itself, that what he was told by Sedaniel was true. As to Respondent's alleged disregard of Ms. Wooten's direction to stay away from Sedaniel and Willie, the evidence is clear that Respondent attempted to do just that; that the two occasions on which he gave Willie a ride home, (the only contacts he had with Willie after the direction from the Principal), were as a direct result of Willie's initiation and Respondent's unwillingness to allow an injured boy to fend for himself. Respondent showed poor judgment here but the evidence does not support a finding of misconduct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent be reinstated to a teaching position with the BCSS and that that he be awarded full back pay and benefits. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of July, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of July, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-4727 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact (PFOF) submitted by the parties to this case. By the Petitioner Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. The witness's testimony related to Earl Edwards and was offset by Edwards' grandmother. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as a recitation of testimony, not a FOF. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as it refers to any male in female garb which does not appear in the record as represented. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. 9-11. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14-15. Accepted and incorporated herein. 16-19. Accepted and incorporated herein. 20. Misleading. Respondent did take students to his home and paid them to perform chores in the yard. He did go to his lounge with some students on one occasion, but did not take them inside. 21-22. Accepted as the witness' opinion. Misleading. Sedaniel Allen, a reported liar, told Respondent not to pick him up at home. This was due more to Sedaniel's manipulation than to Respondent's actions. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Accepted and incorporated herein. Respondent sent home a permission slip. The child reported he could stay. Respondent did not know he could not. Proposed FOF is incomplete and misleading. Accepted but phrased in a misleading way. Accepted as to the 1st and 2nd sentences. Accepted and incorporated herein. 31&32. Accepted and incorporated herein. This PFOF is misleading. The students went to the club once where Sedaniel cleaned some ashtrays outside while Respondent was doing something inside. The bar was closed to the public at the time and no alcohol was being served. The Respondent1s associates were at his home not at the club and there is substantial doubt as to the alleged comments. That the students were left at home unsupervised is contradicted by the Respondent who says his mother would come over and sit. In any case, this element is not in issue as to the charges. Accepted as to the facts, not the inferences. This PFOF does not make sense. Rejected. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected in that the transcript says he went to Respondent's home on 5 to 10 occasions but did not spend the night each time. Accepted as to what the witness testified to. Use of word feminine is improper. The cousins were male but were described as feminine in demeanor. Accepted. 42&43. Accepted. Accepted (See 33, supra). Accepted. Accepted. Misleading in that this student is the one who initiated all contact after the principal's directive. Accepted as the witness's opinions--the issue of comments was not established. Accepted but irrelevant. Rejected as an improper conclusion drawn from the evidence. This PFOF is incompetent in that it is impossible to determine who is being described. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence admitted at hearing. Accepted and incorporated herein. 54&55. Accepted. 56&57. Accepted. By the Respondent 1-3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 4-10. Accepted. 11. Accepted and incorporated herein. 12. Accepted. 13-15. Accepted and incorporated herein. 16-21. Accepted. 22&23. Accepted and incorporated herein. 24. Accepted. 25&26. Accepted. 27-31. Accepted. 32-35. Accepted. 36-40. Accepted and incorporated herein. 41-44. Accepted and incorporated herein. 45&46. Accepted. 47. Accepted. 48. Accepted. 49. Accepted and incorporated herein. 50-55. Accepted. 56-58. Accepted and incorporated herein. 59. Accepted. 60-66. Accepted and incorporated herein. 67-76. Accepted and incorporated herein. 77. Accepted. 78-80. Accepted and incorporated herein. 81-83. Accepted. 84-90. Accepted and incorporated herein. 91-93. Accepted. 94-96. Accepted. 97-100. Accepted. 101-104. Accepted. 105&106. Accepted and incorporated herein. 107&108. Accepted and incorporated herein. 109. Accepted. 110-115. Accepted. 116. Immaterial. 117-119. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. 124-125. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: William J. Leary, Superintendent School Board of Broward County 1320 S.W. 4th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Whitelock and Moldof 1311 Southeast Second Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Leslie Holland, Esquire Staff Counsel, FEA/United 208 West Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent commenced the 1985-86 school year as a student in the eighth grade at Palms Springs Junior High School. By letter dated November 22, 1985, Petitioner advised Respondent's parents that Respondent "as being administratively assigned, effective immediately, to the Jan Mann Opportunity School-North. That letter further advised of a right of review of Respondent's placement into the opportunity school program until Respondent had made sufficient progress to be returned to the regular school program. Respondent's mother requested a hearing on that placement. On December 5 1985, a "withdrawal card" from the Dade County public schools was executed. At the hearing in this cause on March 17, 1986, Respondent testified that he has never attended the Jan Mann Opportunity School-North while waiting for review of that placement and in fact has been attending no school since he was administratively assigned. In response to questioning as to what he has been doing since his administrative reassignment of November 22, 1985, Respondent replied, "Nothing." Although Respondent's mother agreed during the formal hearing in this cause that she would place her son back into the school system and would send him to the opportunity school while awaiting the outcome of this proceeding, she has not done so. Pursuant to instructions from the undersigned, on March 31, 1986, Petitioner filed a Certification advising that as of March 27, 1986, Respondent was still not in attendance within the Dade County school system. Respondent was born on August 14, 1970.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing Respondent's request for an administrative review for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 15th day of May, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 486-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of May, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank R. Harder Esquire 2780 Galloway Road Suite 100 Twin Oaks Building Miami Florida 33165 James M. Ratliff Esquire Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc. Northside Shopping Center 149 West Plaza, Suite 210 7900 N.W. 27th Avenue Miami Florida 33147-4796 Leonard Britton, Superintendent School Board of Dade County 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami Florida 33132 Phyllis O. Douglas Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Fred D. Greene, began service with the Hamilton County School Board as a teacher in August, 1965. He was employed on annual contract for three school years until he was granted a continuing contract by the school board on July 23, 1968, as a teacher pursuant to Section 231.36, Florida Statutes. After the execution of the continuing contract, Petitioner was assigned as coordinator of vocational education during the 1969-1970 school term but in addition to those duties, continued to teach five classes. As Petitioner was assigned additional duties by the Superintendent, his teaching duties were reduced. Starting in 1970 and continuing through 1973, though the continuing contract as a teacher had not been rescinded, Petitioner and the school board entered into annual contracts of employment in which Petitioner was assigned as Director of Vocational Education. On June 5, 1973, the parties entered into a second continuing contract which described Petitioner's duties as "Director of Vocational, Technical and Adult Education." At no time did Petitioner ever hold a contract as "principal" nor was he ever paid as such. His current Florida Teacher's Certificate shows him certified in, among other things, secondary administration and supervision. Both this contract and the 1968 continuing contract contained a provision that the school board was authorized, upon recommendation of the superintendent of schools, to transfer and assign the Petitioner to a "similar position in any other school" in the district, provided that "the duties shall be similar to the duties originally assigned and the salary shall be as heretofore set forth." From the time he was appointed director of VTAE until January, 1981, Petitioner served in that capacity. As director of VTAE, he considered his position as similar to that of a principal in that he reported directly to the Superintendent of Schools, he supervised the teachers who taught within his program (although he did not rate them) he was paid on the non- instructional salary schedule as is a principal he was responsible for the procurement of and administration of students including their promotion and graduation. Nonetheless, he was not classified as a principal, he served schools throughout the county, the teachers in the program were recruited from regular day teachers and additional personnel who taught only in the night program, and these teachers were rated by their day principal when appropriate. Consequently, his position as Director, VTAE, was not similar to that of a principal. At the time he left the job as Director, VTAE, to assume the office of Superintendent of Schools, he was paid a salary of $21,000.00 per year for a 12 month term and was on step 6 of the non-instructional salary schedule. He has never released the school board from the terms of the continuing contract. In January, 1981, Petitioner took office as Superintendent of Schools. At that time the function of Director, VTAE, was assigned to Ms. Scaff who subsequently also occupied several other positions within the school board system including instructional coordinator, secondary curriculum coordinator, community education director, law education director, and management information systems director. Ms. Scaff did not assume all those functions at one time. The job was built up over a period of years and while the duties changed, the title of Director, VTAE, did not. Ms. Scaff was paid as an instructional director on the non-instructional salary schedule. As Director, VTAE, Ms. Scaff, and Mr. Greene before her, occupied one of the director positions reflected in the directory of the School Board. The School Board uses the same contract form for directors and principals and the director is evaluated by the Superintendent of Schools as is a principal, but there are few other similarities between the function of principal and Director. Petitioner served as Superintendent of Schools from 1981 until November, 1984, when he was replaced as superintendent by Mr. Hinton. Several months before his term expired, in June, 1984, Petitioner recommended to the School Board that it appoint Ms. Scaff, who was at that time serving as, inter alia, Director, VTAE, to a two year contract in that position. This contract was approved by the School Board. Shortly after his defeat in the election, Petitioner allegedly told Mr. Hinton that he did not wish to displace anyone employed by the school system in order to enforce his return rights under the continuing contract he held. It was his position that he would accept a teaching position but at a salary level equivalent to that of an administrator until such time as an administrator's position within the system became open. At a special meeting of the School Board called by Petitioner on the last day of his term as superintendent, Mr. Greene nominated himself for the position as principal at NHE. This nomination, however, was tabled by the School Board upon advice of counsel so that an advisory opinion on it could be requested from the Florida Commission on Ethics. At this point it should be noted that though the position as Principal at NHE became vacant prior to Petitioner leaving his position as superintendent, he did not apply during the period that the·advertisement was open. The only person to do so was Harry Pennington who was subsequently placed in that position. When Mr. Hinton assumed the position of Superintendent of Schools, replacing Mr. Greene, he immediately assigned Petitioner to the position as teacher of business education. Mr. Greene accepted the assignment but requested that he be paid a salary equivalent to the 20th step on the salary schedule for the position of instructional director at a figure of $32,550.00 per year. The figure demanded by Petitioner was not paid, however. After conferring with the State Department of Education regarding the proposed salary for Petitioner, the School Board determined that since he held a continuing contract as a teacher, he would be employed at a salary based on the teacher position. He was given credit for four years of teaching service while serving as Superintendent of Schools which placed him at the 20 year service point. In addition, he was given credit for a master's degree and for teaching in his field of certification. His total salary, therefore, was set at $23,460.00 over a ten month term. Petitioner was not satisfied, especially since Mr. Pennington, who was serving as principal of NHE was receiving $28,100.00 per year based on a 12 month employment contract. On May 27, 1985 the school board rejected Mr. Greene's nomination of himself as principal at NHE. The board's rejection of Mr. Greene was based on the recommendation of Mr. Hinton who felt that Petitioner was not qualified for the position in that he did not hold certification in administration and supervision at the elementary level his contract was not for the position of principal he had no experience as principal or assistant principal he did not apply for the position when it was advertised and because counsel advised that filling the position based on self nomination might violate Florida law. Mr. Pennington on the other hand, was fully certified in administration and supervision for all grade levels involved at NHE. Other positions for which Respondent felt himself qualified came open during the 1984-1985 school year but he was not selected to fill any of them. Included in these were that of principal of Hamilton County High School and administrative assistant positions at both North Hamilton Elementary and South Hamilton Elementary. When Mr. Hinton took over as Superintendent of Schools, as a part of his management program and in an effort to correct what appeared to be a problem regarding the late payment of School Board obligations which existed when he took over, he recommended certain personnel changes including the creation of an office manager position. Mattie Fouraker, formerly the business education instructor at Hamilton High School, was appointed office manager to the School Board at a salary approximately equivalent to that she received as a teacher. It is to her vacant job as teacher of business education that Mr. Greene was assigned. Petitioner contends Ms. Fouraker was appointed to the position before it was ever officially created and approved by the School Board. Be that as it may, however, it becomes clear that the Superintendent of Schools intended that a problem be solved and to do so, created a position designed to correct it. He appointed Ms. Fouraker to the job on a temporary basis and as soon as the School Board met at the next scheduled meeting in December, 1984, it approved the position and confirmed Ms. Fouraker's assignment to it. This formal board action, however, served to increase her pay from that of a teacher at $23,460.00 per year to that of an administrative position at $29,700.00 per year and her position was changed from that of a 10 month to a 12 month employment, along with the benefits accruing thereto. Petitioner's salary as business education instructor was developed through a tailored formula developed with an intent to,-in the opinion of Mr. Hinton, put Mr. Greene in approximately the same position for the four years he was Superintendent of Schools. As was stated previously, Mr. Greene was given credit for his 16 years in the classroom plus his years of superintendent for a total of 20 years experience credit. Added to that was credit for a Master's degree and credit for teaching in his field of certification. When the $23,460.00 salary that was arrived at for this was compared to what it was anticipated he would have earned had he stayed as Director of VTAE, it was seen that had he remained in his position on the same salary schedule, he would have presumably earned $2,362.50 per month ($23,625.00 per 10 month school year) as an instructional director, Step 6. This is approximately $155.00 more over the school year. Had Petitioner been paid at the salary of an instructional support position, Step 6, the monthly salary would be slightly lower. It should be noted, however, that due to schedule changes during the period, this might not be a valid comparison. Positions within the school system are assigned by the Superintendent of schools on the nature of the position. Non- instructional personnel are assigned categories on the salary schedule based on an assessment of their qualifications and value to the system. Teachers, on the other hand, who are generally serving under contracts, are placed on the salary schedule consistent with the number of years experience they have plus certain other additions. It was Mr. Hinton's position that Mr. Greene should be paid as a teacher since he was serving as a teacher and once that decision was made, Mr. Greene was paid the highest amount that a person with his certificate and his experience and qualification could earn in that position. When the Florida Commission on Ethics issued its opinion on the question certified to it regarding Petitioner's recommending himself for the position of Principal of NHE, the opinion indicated the Commission could not conceive of how the Petitioner's actions in recommending himself for a position could not have constituted a misuse of public position. In other words, while not saying that it was, the Commission concluded that it probably was a violation. Thereafter, the School Board requested an Attorney General's opinion on whether a school superintendent may nominate himself for appointment of a principal. The opinion was not received as of the date of the hearing. Turning again to the issue of the function of Director of VTAE, the School Board contends that the function of Director has steadily expanded in scope. For example, Mr. Hinton urges that the work that Mr. Greene was doing as Director, VTAE prior to being elected superintendent now constitutes only 10 to 20% of the currently described duties of the position. The additional functions that Ms. Scaff performs, as described above, he contends, constitute more by far than that which Petitioner did when he held the job. In support of that position, Mr. Hinton refers to the organization and management study conducted in 1983 at the request of Petitioner when he was Superintendent of Schools. Among the pertinent recommendations of that study was the restructuring of the organization within the school district level. The position of Director, VTAE was not one of the three Director and five coordinator positions recommended by the study. Ms. Scaff indicates that when Petitioner was defeated in his bid for re-election as superintendent of schools, she indicated her willingness to step down from the position of Director, VTAE and return to classroom teaching. She does not consider the return to a position of teaching as a demotion nor does Ms. Fouraker. It should be noted, however, that both individuals received substantial increases in salary by virtue of their position changes under the Hinton administration. For example, Ms. Fouraker's promotion to the position of office manager carried a pay increase from $23,460.00 to $29,700.00 per year. Ms. Scaff now earns the same. Mr. Greene was at Step 6 on the non-instructional scale when he left the job of Director, VTAE. These scales were modified in the intervening years, and Ms. Fouraker traced Mr. Greene's position as Director, VTAE, to the new scale as if he had stayed in place. She placed him at Step 6 on the new scale at a salary of $28,350.00. Petitioner contends that he should be treated the same as Mr. Coe, Director of Personnel, who realized a large salary and step increase when the pay scales were changed. If this were done, and he was given an instructional director's position at step 20 on the non- instructional salary schedule, his salary would be $32,500.00. Subtracting that $28,350.00 from the $32,550.00 he says he should be earning, Mr. Greene indicates that he lost approximately $4,958.87 for the period starting November 20, 1984, when he began teaching, to the end of the school year. He further contends that his salary loss is continuing at the rate of $757.50 per month and in addition, he is also being deprived of other benefits of employment such as paid annual leave, sick leave, enhanced retirement benefits, and other like perquisites attached to a 12 month contract. Mr. Greene further contends that since he was involved in litigation with the school board concerning Mr. Coe's contract prior to his leaving the position of Superintendent of Schools, the School Board should have known of his entitlements under the continuing contract since it was shown that it had been established for assignments and transfers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Fred D. Greene, be assigned a non-principal supervisor/director position within the Hamilton County Schools as available that he be paid accordingly when performing in such a position but that he be denied adjustment for back pay and attorney's fees and costs. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of October, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H POLLOCK 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 29th day of October, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: John D. Carlson, Esquire Gatlin, Woods, Carlson & Girtman 1030 East Lafayette, Suite 112 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Paul Hendrick, Esquire 111 South Central Avenue Suite 1 Jasper, FL 32052 Owen Hinton, Jr. Superintendent Hamilton County School Board P. O. Box 1059 Jasper, FL 32052 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32301 APPENDIX Ruling by the Hearing Officer as to the Petitioner's Proposed Findings Of Fact: Paragraphs Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted* Accepted* Accepted* Accepted Accepted except as to the veracity of the reported comment of the School Board member Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted except as to comments of Ms. Scaff as to her being a principal and signing forms as such Accepted except for Petitioner's comment that he would receive temporary certificate for Elementary Ed principal and would obtain certification in grades K-6 without much problem Accepted Accepted Rejected as irrelevant Irrelevant as a finding of fact should be conclusion of law Accepted Accepted except as to last sentence which is irrelevant unnumbered between and 23 Rejected Rejected Rulings by the Hearing Officer as to Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact (Respondent failed to number paragraphs.) The unnumbered paragraphs are therefore treated in sequence and numbered herein for purposes of identification only. Paragraphs Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted as to substance Accepted Accepted Accepted except that acceptance of the position was not meant to be acquiesed in permanent assignment Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted as it relates to teacher salaries only Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted as to the request made. As of the hearing, the opinion had not been received. It was not offered into evidence and though attached to Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order, was not considered Accepted Accepted Accepted except for the conclusion drawn in the last sentence which was not supported by evidence admitted. Accepted Accepted Accepted Rejected. Position was held by Ms. Scaff who performed the same duties performed by Petitioner when he was the encumbent, in addition to additional duties which he did not *Petitioner's terms describing the personnel changes are not necessarily dispositive of the issue.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been employed by the School Board of Dade County, Florida, as a continuing contract teacher for some years. The contract between the Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade, introduced as Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, contains the terms and conditions of Respondent's employment. The contract states that the superintendent has the authority to assign or reassign the Respondent to any school within the system. The superintendent or his designee may, when deemed in the best interest of the school system, involuntarily transfer a teacher. Before a teacher is involuntarily transferred a conference shall be held with the area superintendent or his designee or appropriate division head, except where such transfers are the result of a legal order. The contract further provides for the filing of grievances by employees concerning the application or interpretation of the wages, hours, terms, and conditions of employment as defined in the contract. The contract defines a grievance as a formal allegation by an employee that there has been a violation, misinterpretation or misapplication of any of the terms and conditions of employment set forth in the contract. Respondent was involuntarily transferred from a sixth grade teaching position at Edison Park Elementary School to a first grade teaching position at Primary C Elementary School. Prior to the transfer he was afforded the opportunity of a conference with a designee of the Area Superintendent at which time he unsuccessfully challenged his transfer. The Respondent believes that the conference which was held was a sham and was not meaningful. Respondent continued to be dissatisfied with the transfer and continued to seek a solution to his problem by engaging in subsequent conversations with the Area Superintendent and others within the Dade County School System. Respondent did not follow the provisions for grievance filing contained in the contract but rather reported for duty on August 25, 1976. On or about that date, he notified his principal and Mr. Steve Moore, the Assistant Superintendent for Personnel, that he would not and did not intend to remain at his assigned position. Respondent worked on August 26, 1976, but then departed, calling in sick for the work days up to and including October 8, 1976. This period of absence constituted authorized sick leave. On October 8, 1976, Respondent advised Dr. West and other members of the school system administrative staff that he was available for assignment to another school but would not report to work at Primary C Elementary School. Up to and including the date of the hearing, Respondent has failed and refused to report for duty at his assigned work location and has in fact performed no duties as a teacher during that time. The school system administration has at no time authorized Respondent's absence from duty from October 8, 1976, to the date of the hearing.
The Issue Whether Respondent's employment should be terminated based on the allegations contained in the Notice of Specific Charges.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner has been a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Article IX, Florida Constitution, and Section 1001.32. Petitioner has continuously employed Respondent since 1992 as a custodian at Melrose Elementary School, one of the public schools in Miami-Dade County. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Cynthia Gracia was the principal of Melrose Elementary School. Respondent is a non-probationary "educational support employee" within the meaning of Section 1012.40, which provides, in pertinent part, as follows: As used in this section: "Educational support employee" means any person employed by a district school system . . . who by virtue of his or her position of employment is not required to be certified by the Department of Education or district school board pursuant to s. 1012.39. . . . "Employee" means any person employed as an educational support employee. (2)(a) Each educational support employee shall be employed on probationary status for a period to be determined through the appropriate collective bargaining agreement or by district school board rule in cases where a collective bargaining agreement does not exist. (b) Upon successful completion of the probationary period by the employee, the employee's status shall continue from year to year unless the superintendent terminates the employee for reasons stated in the collective bargaining agreement, or in district school board rule in cases where a collective bargaining agreement does not exist . . . At the times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a member of the AFSCME collective bargaining unit. AFSCME and Petitioner have entered into a CBA, which provides in Article XI for discipline of covered employees. Article XI, Section 4 provides that covered employees who have been employed by Petitioner for more than five years (such as Respondent) may only be discharged for "just cause." Article XI, Section 4 of the CBA pertains to types of separation from employment. Article XI, Section 4(B) pertains to excessive absenteeism and abandonment of position and provides as follows: (B) An unauthorized absence for three consecutive workdays shall be evidence of abandonment of position. Unauthorized absences totaling 10 or more workdays during the previous 12-month period shall be evidence of excessive absenteeism. Either of the foregoing shall be grounds for termination. . . . School Board Rule 6Gx13-4E-1.01 provides as follows: Except for sudden illness or emergency situations, any employee who is absent without prior approval shall be deemed to have been willfully absent without leave. Pursuant to Section 1012.67, a school board is authorized to terminate the employment of an employee who is willfully absent from employment without authorized leave, as follows: Any district school board employee who is willfully absent from duty without leave shall forfeit compensation for the time of such absence, and his or her employment shall be subject to termination by the school board. Petitioner's leave policies do not permit a leave of absence for an incarcerated employee, unless the employee can demonstrate that he or she was wrongfully incarcerated. At the times material to this proceeding, Respondent was not wrongfully incarcerated, and he was not eligible for a leave of absence under Petitioner’s leave polices. School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 states in pertinent part that: All persons employed by The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves, both in their employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. On September 25, 2002, Respondent was charged with assault and battery (domestic violence) involving his then girlfriend. Those charges were pending at the time of the final hearing. On or about November 14, 2002, Respondent appeared at a court hearing. Because he had missed an earlier court date, Respondent was incarcerated in the Miami-Dade County jail. Shortly after he was arrested, Respondent attempted to contact Ms. Gracia at Melrose Elementary School. Respondent testified he tried to call the school five or six times on the day he was arrested, but the call from jail was long distance and the school would not take a collect call. That same day, Respondent called his new girlfriend (Leanne Perez), told her that he was in jail, and asked her to tell Ms. Gracia that he was in jail. On November 14, 2002, Ms. Perez told Ms. Gracia by telephone that Respondent had been detained. When questioned, Ms. Perez explained that Respondent was in jail, but she did not provide any additional information. Respondent returned to his job site on December 16, 2002. Between November 14 and December 16, Respondent was absent from work without authorized leave. Neither Respondent nor anyone on Respondent's behalf contacted or attempted to contact Ms. Gracia between Ms. Perez's telephone call on November 14 and Respondent's reappearance at the job site on December 16. Prior to his incarceration, Respondent had absences from work without authorized leave. From April 11, 2002, to December 16, 2002, Respondent had 29.5 days of unauthorized absences from the worksite. Respondent's unauthorized absences impeded the provision of the custodial services that are necessary to keep a school clean and safe. During Respondent's unauthorized absences, the other members of the custodial staff had to perform their duties and had to perform extra work to cover for Respondent's absence. On December 5, 2002, Ms. Gracia wrote a memorandum to Respondent styled "Employment Intention." After listing the dates Respondent had been absent between October 10, 2002, and December 5, Ms. Gracia wrote as follows: These absences have caused the effective operation of the worksite to be impeded, and/or efficient services to students to be impeded. I am requesting your immediate review and implementation of any of the following options: Notify the worksite of your intended date of return; or Effect leave procedures (request for leave [form] attached); or Implement resignation from Miami-Dade County Public Schools. (Resignation letter attached.) You are directed to notify the worksite within 3 days of the date of this memorandum as to your employment intention. Your absences will be considered unauthorized until you communicate directly with this administrator. Ms. Gracia's memorandum was mailed to the address Respondent had given Petitioner as his residence, and a relative of Respondent, who was not named at the final hearing, signed for the mailing. Respondent testified, credibly, that he did not receive the memorandum until after he got out of jail. Respondent did not respond to the memorandum. Respondent testified, credibly, that he did not intend to abandon his employment. Respondent worked between December 16, 2002, and April 9, 2003, the date Petitioner suspended Respondent's employment without pay and instituted these proceedings to terminate his employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order that adopts the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth in this Recommended Order, sustains the suspension of Respondent's employment without pay, and terminates that employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of October, 2003.
Findings Of Fact Tracy Tashanna Jackson is a 13-year-old, and Tammy Terrell Jackson is a 12-year-old, who were, until February 7, 1979, assigned respectively to the eighth and seventh grades at Miami Edison Middle School in Miami, Florida. On February 7, 1979, an incident occurred at Miami Edison Middle School which resulted in both students being reassigned to Jan Mann Opportunity School North. At the time of this incident, the two students had been attending Miami Edison Middle School for only approximately one month. On February 6, 1979, one day prior to the incident which gave rise to this proceeding, the students were threatened by another student who allegedly was a member of a group of students popularly known as the "Graveyard Gang." Upon receiving the throat, the students went to the office of the Assistant Principal and advised him that they expected trouble from these other students. The Assistant Principal essentially advised the students to attempt to avoid any confrontation. However, on the afternoon of February 6, 1979, while Tammy and Tracy Jackson were on their way home from school, they encountered the students who had threatened them, and a fight ensued. After the fight, Tracy and Tammy Jackson were advised by the other students that the fight would continue the next day at school, that these other students would have knives, and that Tracy and Tammy Jackson should come prepared. When Tracy and Tammy Jackson and their brother stepped off the city bus in the vicinity of Miami Edison Middle School the next morning, they were met by a large group of other students. Apparently, some member of this group struck Tracy and Tammy Jackson's brother, at which point Tracy and Tammy Jackson first displayed knives which they had brought with them from home. According to the testimony of Tracy and Tammy Jackson, which is not controverted, this was the first and only time that they had attended school armed with knives. The entire group of students apparently began milling around but proceeded generally in the direction of the main school building. At this point, Freddie Robinson, the Assistant Principal at Miami Edison Middle School, noticed the crowd of students, and proceeded into the crowd on the assumption that a fight was occurring. Upon being advised that Tracy and Tammy Jackson were armed with knives, Mr. Robinson managed to direct the students into the main school building, down the hall and into the Counselor's office. At all times during those movements, the Assistant Principal and the students were surrounded by a milling group of hostile students apparently intent on prolonging the confrontation. According to the Assistant Principal, at no time did either of the students display their knives in a threatening or offensive manner, but were instead attempting to defend themselves against attack. At some point in this process, the Assistant Principal was joined by George Thomas, a teacher at the school, who attempted to assist Mr. Robinson in disarming the girls. Mr. Thomas managed to remove the knife from the possession of Tammy Jackson without incident, but when Mr. Robinson grabbed the arm of Tracy Jackson, that student, in attempting to break free, inflicted what appears to have been a minor wound to Mr. Robinson's forearm. Mr. Robinson testified, without contradiction, that it appeared to him that the student did not intentionally stab him, but inflicted the wound accidently in the process of attempting to break free from his hold. On February 22, 1979, both Tammy and Tracy Jackson were reassigned from Miami Edison Middle School to Jan Mann Opportunity School North as a result of this incident. There is nothing in the record to indicate the procedures by which this assignment was accomplished. It is, however, clear that the students never attended Jan Mann Opportunity School North, but were instead held out of school by their mother. As a result, February 7, 1979, was the last day on which these students attended school during the 1978-79 school year. The incident which occurred on February 7, 1979, was the only incident of disruptive behavior in which Tracy and Tammy Jackson have been involved while enrolled in the Dade County Public Schools. The other students involved in the fight with them, however, had been suspended from school on several occasions for fighting and disrupting classes. There is no evidence in the record in this cause concerning Tracy and Tammy Jackson' grades from which any determination could be made that they have been unsuccessful in the normal school environment. Likewise, the record is devoid of any testimony regarding their lack of attendance in the regular school program. Although the students did not attend Jan Mann Opportunity School North after having been assigned to that facility, there appears no evidence of record concerning the programs available at that institution in which the students would have been enrolled had they chosen to attend. In addition, although there exists some testimony concerning a very commendable Dade County School Board policy against the possession of knives on campus at any school in Dade County, no such written policy was offered into evidence at this proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Dade County School Board reassigning the students, Tammy Terrell Jackson and Tracy Tashanna Jackson, to the regular school program in the Dade County School System. Recommended this 17th day of July, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mrs. Jerry D. Jackson 2340 NW 73rd Terrace, #12 Miami, Florida 33147 Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Esquire 3000 Executive Building, Suite 300 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Mr. Ludwig J. Gross Executive Director Division of Student Services Dade County Public Schools 5975 East 7th Avenue Hialeah, Florida 33013 Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire Dade County Public Schools Administrative Office Lindsey Hopkins Building 1410 NE 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Michael Neimand, Esquire 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami Florida, 33137 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY CASE NOS. 79-709, 79-710 MRS. JERRY D. JACKSON, on behalf of minor child, TAMMY TERRELL JACKSON, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 79-709 THE SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, Respondent. / MRS. JERRY D. JACKSON, on behalf of minor child, TRACY TASHANNA JACKSON, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 79-710 THE SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, Respondent. / ORDER OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY FLORIDA THIS CAUSE came on for hearing before The School Board of Dade County, Florida at its regular meeting on August 22, 1979, upon the Hearing Officer's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended order, recommending that Tammy Terrell Jackson and Tracy Tashanna Jackson be reassigned to the regular school program in the Dade County school system. IT IS THEREUPON ORDERED by The School Board of Dade County, Florida that the Hearing Officer's findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommended order are adopted with the following modifications: 1. The Hearing Officer's Conclusions of Law are modified by deleting paragraph 7 and substituting the following therefor: 7. F.A.C. Section 6A-1.994 provides: "6A-1.994 Educational alternative programs. Definition. Educational alternative programs are programs designed to meet the needs of students who are disruptive, dis- interested, or unsuccessful in a normal school environment. The educational alter- native may occur either within the school system or in another agency authorized by the school board. Criteria for eligibility. A student may be eligible for an educational alternative program if the student meets one (1) or more of the criteria prescribed below as deter- mined by grades, achievement test scores, referrals for suspension or other discipli- nary action, and rate of absences. (a) Disruptive. A student who: Displays persistent behavior which inter- feres with the student's own learning or the educational process of others and requires attention and assistance beyond that which the traditional program can provide; or Displays consistent behavior resulting in frequent conflicts of a disruptive nature while the student is under the jurisdiction of the school either in or out of the class- room; or Displays disruptive behavior which severely threatens the general welfare of the student or other members of the school population." (emphasis supplied) 8. The petitioners have both displayed "dis- ruptive behavior which severely threatens the general welfare of the student or other members of the school population." Meeting this criteria is sufficient grounds for placement in an educational alternative program. Accordingly, they are properly, and in their own best interests, assigned to Jan Mann Opportunity School North. There is no evidence that this assignment is punitive rather than positive in nature. 2. The Hearing Officer's recommendation is, therefore, rejected, and the assignment of Tammy Terrell Jackson and Tracy Tashanna Jackson to Jan Mann Opportunity School North is affirmed. DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of August, 1979. THE SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA By: Phyllis Miller, Chairman
The Issue Whether just cause exists to sustain Respondent’s dismissal from employment with the Miami-Dade County School Board.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a duly-constituted district school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within Miami-Dade County, Florida. Article IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const. In 2010, Whitley started working for the School Board as a school security monitor. During the 2016-2017 school year, Whitley was assigned to Thomas Jefferson Middle School (“Thomas Jefferson”) as a security monitor. He remains employed in that role at Thomas Jefferson presently. Whitley’s job duties and responsibilities include, but are not limited to, maintaining the safety of the children, ensuring the children make it to class on time, assisting with any problems that may be going on in the school, and monitoring the security cameras. At all times relevant to the proceeding, Respondent has been employed by the School Board pursuant to a continuing contract. The incident giving rise to this proceeding occurred on February 6, 2017. On February 6, 2017, Whitley was patrolling his assigned hall and noticed that M.G., a 13-year-old sixth grader, was out of class and sitting at Respondent’s desk in the hallway. Whitley requested that M.G. get out of the chair, and M.G. refused to get out of the desk. According to M.G., after M.G. refused, Whitley flipped the desk while he was seated, which caused M.G. to fall and hit his head on the floor. There is conflicting evidence as to what happened when Whitley approached the desk (“incident”). At hearing, M.G. credibly testified that he reported the incident to Principal Robin Atkins the same day and that he also got an ice pack for his head. Almost a month later, the Office of Professional Standards opened an investigation regarding the incident. Afterward, Respondent was notified that M.G. accused him of flipping the desk that he was sitting in and causing him to hit his head as a result. In 2017, law enforcement interviewed Respondent. The matter was ultimately turned over to the School Board's General Investigative Unit (“GIU”). The investigation took approximately two years to conclude. Even though Thomas Jefferson maintained security footage and recorded videos of the hallway where the incident occurred, no video footage existed for anyone to review regarding the incident. Based on its investigation, on or about May 30, 2019, GIU determined that there was probable cause to support the allegation that Respondent had violated School Board Policy 4210, Standards of Ethical Conduct; 4210.01, Code of Ethics; and 4213, Student Supervision and Welfare. Respondent learned about the determination soon thereafter. After summer break, when Respondent returned to work, on or about August 27, 2019, Carlos Diaz, the district director of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards conducted a conference-for-the-record (“CFR”) meeting to discuss the pending allegations from the GIU case. Respondent was present at the CFR with his union representative. Following the CFR, the Disciplinary Review Team (“DRT”) met. DRT considered Respondent’s repeated and similar conduct for inappropriate contact with students and Respondent’s prior directives in its decision to discipline Respondent. DRT recommended that Respondent be terminated. The recommendation was adopted by the School Board. Prior Disciplinary History During his employment with the School Board, Whitley has been disciplined twice regarding inappropriate touching of students prior to the incident. The School Board kept a record of Respondent’s discipline in Whitley’s personnel file. On or about April 16, 2013, Whitley received a written reprimand after an investigation concluded that he shoved and touched a student’s shoulder repeatedly. Whitley’s reprimand directed Respondent to “[r]efrain from any physical touching of students.” In November 2013, Whitley was suspended for 12 workdays without pay after an investigation concluded that Respondent inappropriately picked up and dropped a student to the ground. The CFR memorandum regarding Respondent’s November 2013 occurrence directed Whitley to: “adhere to School Board Policies 4210, Standards of Ethical Conduct; 4210.01, Code of Ethics; and 4213, Student Supervision and Welfare”; “refrain from inappropriate communications with students”; and “refrain from inappropriate physical contact with students.” Hearing At the final hearing, M.G. provided persuasive credible testimony regarding the incident. He testified that he was sitting in Whitley’s chair in the hall. M.G. also admitted that he refused to move and told Respondent “no” when told to move. Whitley testified that M.G. “jumped” out of the chair. The undersigned does not credit Whitley’s testimony based on his contradictory statements about the incident, which diminish the trustworthiness of his testimony.1 Findings of Ultimate Fact Accordingly, the undersigned finds that M.G.’s credible testimony established that Whitley initiated contact with M.G., grabbed the desk to lean in, and flipped M.G., who was seated, out of the desk. As a result of Whitley’s actions, M.G. landed in a manner where his “hand hit the ground,” head hit the concrete floor, and, by doing so, jeopardized M.G.’s health, safety, and welfare.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order: finding Respondent in violation of rules 6A-5.056(2) and (4), 6A-10.081, and School Board Policies 4210, 4210.01, and 4213 as charged; and upholding Respondent's termination from employment for just cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of October, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY 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 29th day of October, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher J. La Piano, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132 (eServed) Branden M. Vicari, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761 (eServed) Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
