Findings Of Fact In the summer of 1981, Christopher Max Grix (Chris), a tenth-grader, was one of some 1,100 students enrolled in the combined Miami Beach Senior High School-Nautilus Junior High School summer school program. On Monday, July 20, 1981, George Thompson, a security man at the school, took Chris, John DeBlasio, and a third youth to the school office. Mr. Thompson told Solomon Lichter, the principal, and Assistant Principal Nockow, that he had seen these three boys shoving one another. As a result, each student received a three-day suspension, ending with the opening of school on Thursday, July 23, 1981. At about 7:20 on the morning of July 27, 1981, Chris and John DeBlasio had another "confrontation." When it ended, Chris fled in his car to the principal's office. There he reported that some "niggers and spics" had jumped him on school grounds along 42nd Street, and complained that the principal had not done "a damn thing about it." Although Mr. Lichter asked Chris to remain seated, Chris jumped up and left the office after he had been there only two minutes. While Mr. Lichter summoned the police, Carlton Jenkins, Jr., another assistant principal who was in an office near Mr. Lichter's, followed Chris and watched him drive away recklessly, stop near some students, and emerge from the car with a tire iron. Chris asked John DeBlasio's brother Alfred where John had gone. Wielding a tire iron, Chris shoved Alfred and threatened to kill him. He made the identical threat to Mark Allen Uffner, and also shoved him. After the tire iron was back in Chris's car, and after Alfred and George Korakakos had subdued Chris in a fist fight, Uffner ran to meet Assistant Principal Jenkins and Principal Lichter as they approached from the school office, and gave them a full report. Chris was gone by the time the police arrived. Later on the morning of July 27, 1981, Messrs. Lichter and Nockow left the summer school grounds for the campus of Miami Beach Senior High School to look for some walkie-talkies. While they were there, Chris, his older brother, and a third young man arrived. When Chris's older brother asked what had happened, Chris gave his version in colorful language. Mr. Lichter told Chris he was going to suspend him from school if he did not calm down. After Chris continued complaining about "niggers, spics, and the school principal," Mr. Lichter announced that Chris was suspended and ordered him to stay off school grounds for ten days. The trio left the campus of Miami Beach Senior High School but later on, at midday on July 27, 1981, Alfred DeBlasio saw Chris and the others on the summer school (Nautilus Junior High School) campus near 42nd Street, with knives and crow bars. Chris and traveling companions were equipped with ax handles, and were threatening Uffner, among others. A security man told Mr. Jenkins that a gang of students was headed toward Chris's car behind the cafeteria. Mr. Jenkins called after Chris's car as it left, ordering Chris not to return to school for the rest of the day.
The Issue Did Respondent, Yolie Bauduy, violate section 1012.795(1)(g), Florida Statutes (2018)?1 Did Respondent, Yolie Bauduy, violate section 1012.795(1)(j)? 1 All citations to the Florida Statutes are to the 2018 codification unless otherwise noted. Did Respondent, Yolie Bauduy, violate Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1.?
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner, Richard Corcoran, is the Commissioner of Education. The Commissioner is the head of the state agency, the Florida Department of Education, responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding Florida educator certificates. Ms. Bauduy holds a Florida Educators Certificate covering the areas of Autism Spectrum Disorder, Elementary Education, English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), Exceptional Student Education (ESE), and Middle Grades Integrated Curriculum. It is valid through June 30, 2025. Ms. Bauduy teaches at Gotha Middle School in the Orange County School District and did at the time of the events alleged in the Administrative Complaint. During the period during which the alleged acts occurred, Ms. Bauduy taught students with autism. She has served students with disabilities of Orange County as an educator in ESE programs for 16 years. She taught at Gotha Middle School for 14 of those 16 years. Other than discipline for the incidents that are the subject of this proceeding, the District has never disciplined Ms. Bauduy. The school has recognized Ms. Bauduy as an effective teacher. For instance, an evaluation resulting from seven days of in-class observation in November 2020 concluded that she was applying all four expected classroom strategies and behaviors. The Education Practices Commission has never disciplined Ms. Bauduy. Gotha Middle School and Ms. Bauduy's Class During the 2018-2019 school year, all of Ms. Bauduy's students had disabilities that required more assistance and support than needed by students in the general population. Because of their disabilities, Ms. Bauduy's students required a modified curriculum that was less rigorous than the standard curriculum. The modified curriculum included social, skills, personal skills, and independent function skills. Teaching those skills helps students learn to manage their behavior and become more independent. All of Ms. Bauduy's students had Individual Education Plans (IEP). These plans identify a student's disabilities, their effect, and behavior that may arise from them. They establish goals for the student in light of the student's disabilities. And they identify strategies for helping the students accomplish the established goals. The demands of teaching students with disabilities required additional staff in the classroom to assist Ms. Bauduy. The school determined that properly caring for and teaching the children required a three to one student teacher ratio. The students' IEPs also required this staffing ratio. For that reason, the school assigned two paraprofessionals to assist in Ms. Bauduy's class of ten people. This was in addition to Ms. Edoo, who was assigned to student E.K. one-on-one. Thus, the proper staffing complement for Ms. Bauduy's class was four adults. Throughout the 2018-2019 school year, Gotha Middle School experienced chronic staffing shortages. One paraprofessional position in Ms. Bauduy's class was vacant the entire year. The school engaged a long- term substitute. That person often did not show up for work. In those instances, the school sought, often unsuccessfully, to engage fill-ins from a temporary staffing agency. In addition, the school usually did not provide staff to cover the paraprofessionals' breaks and lunches. Throughout the year, Ms. Bauduy had to juggle staffing shortages as best she could. During the representative month of September 2018, Ms. Bauduy's class was short one adult seven full days and four partial days. On September 11, 2018, Ms. Bauduy's class was down two professionals. When the paraprofessional staff took their breaks or lunch periods, the staffing deficiencies worsened. Ms. Bauduy repeatedly advised the administration about the staffing deficiencies, sought assistance, and expressed her concerns about not complying with students' IEP requirements. Her communications included a September 5, 2018, email advising that a substitute had not arrived, a September 11 email forwarding an email from a paraprofessional advising she was not coming in, and a September 26 email advising that a substitute once again failed to arrive and asking for assistance. In January 2019, despite the chronic understaffing, the school transferred two students, T.M. and N.A., from other classrooms to Ms. Bauduy's class. These students' disabilities were more profound and required more supports than the other students. They were regular elopers, required diaper changes, and required individual nearly one-on-one prompting for tasks. Among other things, T.M.'s disabilities required having someone hold his hand during transitions. Placement of T.M. and N.A. in Ms. Bauduy's class was not appropriate. Ms. Bauduy continued sending emails expressing her concerns and frustrations about understaffing. She also repeatedly, without effect, sought to get the school to change mandatory meetings to her planning period or after school because the meetings caused her to leave the classroom and exacerbated the staffing problems. Between October 25, 2018, and March 4, 2019, Ms. Bauduy sent 17 emails requesting full staffing and advising of staff absences. Ms. Bauduay could not rely upon prompt responses when she called for assistance or additional staffing to put her room back in compliance with the required student/adult ratio. Sometimes she received a quick response. Sometimes no one came. Often there was a 20 to 30-minute delay before assistance arrived. Even when management responded to Ms. Bauduy's request for a schedule of when behavior staff would be available to support her students, management's response was conditional. For instance, Laura Fogarty, ESE Curriculum and Instruction Team Instructional Coach, conditioned the schedule of available staff that she provided as follows. Please remember, however, that this schedule is in a perfect world. The behavior support team's first priority is to respond to radio calls and have other responsibilities that don't always make it possible for them to be in your room for the times listed below. They may also have to leave to respond to a behavior call when they are in there. Below is the ideal, if everything goes right and there are no behavior calls or other areas that require their attention. The world in which Ms. Bauduy taught was neither perfect nor ideal. Ms. Bauduy's testimony about staffing difficulties and insufficient responses to requests for assistance differs from testimony of school representatives. Ms. Bauduy was more credible and persuasive than the school representatives. Four of the reasons for this judgment are Ms. Bauduy's sincere demeanor, documents such as emails and logs consistent with her testimony, the admission in Ms. Fogarty's email that even scheduled availability of support was not reliable, and the corroborating testimony of a paraprofessional who worked in Ms. Bauduy's room, Lauren Mueller. K.C. K.C. was a male sixth grade student in Ms. Bauduy's class. K.C.'s IEP specified that K.C. should always be supervised. It stated, "He requires continuous supervision as he is very impulsive and responds aggressively and or obscenely." K.C. also had a Behavioral Improvement Plan (BIP). It too noted a need for intensive intervention to address inappropriate touching of and advances toward female students. The BIP provided, among other things, "If outside the classroom, one on one supervision must be provided." The BIP went on to state that K.C.'s transitions out of the classroom should be limited to necessary transitions and that a staff member should provide one-on-one supervision during all transitions. Ms. Bauduy was aware of the contents of the IEP and BIP. At each day's end, Ms. Edoo usually escorted K.C. from class to the transportation loading area, after escorting her assigned student to the transportation area. This did not happen on September 11, 2018. This was one of the many days when Ms. Bauduy's room was short-staffed. Because of a vacant position and a paraprofessional not showing up, Ms. Bauduy was down to two adults, including herself, of the staff that should have been in the room. This excludes Ms. Edoo who was responsible for providing one-on- one care for a single student. The afternoon of September 11 the substitute paraprofessional was to escort the students, in shifts, to the transportation area. The substitute took a student to the transportation area and did not return. This left Ms. Bauduy the sole adult in the room, responsible both for getting the children to the transportation area and supervising students in the classroom. Ms. Edoo called Ms. Bauduy on the radio and said to release K.C. Ms. Bauduy thought that meant Ms. Edoo was returning to the classroom and would meet K.C. in the hall. Although her room had a telephone and a two-way radio, Ms. Bauduy knew from experience a response to a request for help would be slow, if there even was one. Faced with confounding choices, Ms. Bauduy explained to K.C. that she would release him to go directly down the hall to meet Ms. Edoo. K.C. did not go straight down the hall to Ms. Edoo, and Ms. Edoo was not in the hall. K.C. went to the bathroom that opened on the hall. A student, K.M., found K.C. laying naked, save for his socks, on the bathroom floor, masturbating. This scared and confused K.M. He went home and told his mother about the incident. She called the school. The next day a guidance counselor met with K.M. to discuss the incident and reassure him. Shortly after K.M. left for home, an ESE clerk, Elizabeth Elkholi, saw K.C. naked in the bathroom, through the open door. She called for Shantell Johnson, a behavior trainer. Ms. Johnson did not wish to enter the bathroom because K.C. was naked. A substitute, Stephen Harnishfeger, and Deputy Luna, a school resource officer, joined Ms. Elkholi and Ms. Johnson. Between them, these four adults kept K.C. in sight. K.C. got dressed in a stall. Ms. Johnson escorted him back to Ms. Bauduy's classroom. Ms. Bauduy was not aware of this activity until K.C. was returned to her room. K.C. could have left the school grounds during the period that he was unsupervised. Eventually the substitute reappeared and declared she was leaving for the day. Ms. Bauduy convinced the substitute to escort K.C. to the transportation loading area before leaving. The school suspended Ms. Bauduy for five days without pay for this incident. T.M. T.M. was a student on the autism spectrum that the school transferred to Ms. Bauduy's class in January. T.M.'s previous classroom, Ms. Franklin's, was adjacent to Ms. Bauduy's classroom. On February 25, 2019, the school had again failed to staff Ms. Bauduy's classroom in compliance with the requirements of her students' IEPs. That day the school required Ms. Bauduy to participate in an IEP meeting, scheduled for 30 minutes, during her planning period. The meeting took two hours, running through her lunch period and ending at 4:00 p.m. When Ms. Bauduy returned to the classroom, she realized none of her paraprofessionals had taken a break. So, she released them one at a time for a short break. While one paraprofessional was gone on break, the remaining one left the room with a student to go to the restroom and change a diaper. This left Ms. Bauduy alone with the students. At that time, Ms. Bauduy was providing directions to a group of students. She heard the door slam. She looked for T.M. and did not see him in the classroom. T.M. had slipped away from Ms. Bauduy's classroom out into the hall. He left through the classroom's only door. Ms. Bauduy immediately went to the doorway to look for him. She knew T.M. had a history of leaving the classroom but waiting just outside the door. She did not see him. Then Ms. Bauduy took a few steps outside the door of her classroom into the hall. To the left of Ms. Bauduy's classroom the hall met double doors just yards away that led to the outside and a nearby road. Ms. Bauduy was in the hall approximately 23 seconds seeking to ensure that T.M. had not gone to the left toward the double doors. During these 23 seconds there was no adult inside Ms. Bauduy's class room. She however was just feet from the only door. One of the students could have done something destructive or harmful. But the brief period of time that Ms. Bauduy was outside the classroom, her proximity to the door, and the very short distance she was from her students made that risk minimal. Ms. Bauduy saw the door to Classroom B104 close. This was T.M.'s former classroom, which was next to Ms. Bauduy's room. This reassured her that T.M. was safe. She ran back to her classroom. The students had spent the 23 seconds without incident. Then Ms. Bauduy called for assistance. A staff member came to return T.M. to Ms. Bauduy's room. When T.M. slipped away, Ms. Bauduy had no good choices. In the time it would take to call for assistance and wait for it to arrive, if it did, T.M. could have been out the doors and in the road. Ms. Bauduy's experience taught her that assistance was often slow to arrive and sometimes did not arrive at all. Stepping out in the hall to quickly see where T.M. went left the eight remaining students without direct adult supervision for 23 seconds. But Ms. Bauduy was just outside the only door out of the classroom. She made a reasonable choice, one that most reduced the risk of a bad outcome to T.M. and his classmates. The school suspended Ms. Bauduy for five days without pay because of this incident. F.O. F.O. was a student in Ms. Bauduy's class. F.O. was non-verbal and deaf. She was working on pre-academic skills. F.O. was a joyful and social student. She, however, was defiant. She did not like to be corrected. She wanted to be on her own, basically following her own schedule. When corrected, F.O. would shake her head, point her finger, and stick her tongue out. The school regularly delivered breakfast and lunch to the class. On September 11, 2019, F.O. ate breakfast around 10:00 a.m. After breakfast, F.O. and the other students had a short lesson and went to PE. After they returned to class, they had another short lesson. Afterwards, Ms. Bauduy gave the class another short break. Around 11:30 a.m., the lunch cart's arrival signaled the beginning of lunch to the class. The lunch service procedure began with placing meals on tables for students who could feed themselves. Then Ms. Bauduy and the paraprofessionals assisted students who needed help eating. F.O.'s lunch was placed in front of her. It was time for F.O. to pick up her toys and eat. She refused. Ms. Bauduy tried prompting F.O. several ways. Ms. Bauduy's efforts to persuade F.O. to put her toys up included gestures, pantomiming the desired actions, and modeling the actions by picking up some toys herself. This did not work. Ms. Bauduy took F.O. out of the classroom to see if a change in environment would help. Ms. Bauduy then took F.O. to the behavior specialist's classroom down the hall. But it was not staffed. They returned to Ms. Bauduy's classroom. There Ms. Bauduy tried to get F.O. to comply with simple directions like "put it down." F.O. would not respond. Also, F.O. continued to refuse to pick up her toys and eat lunch. Ms. Bauduy concluded that F.O.'s refusal to eat lunch was a defiance issue. Ms. Bauduy learned a behavior management strategy called "First – Then" in her applied behavior classes at the University of Central Florida. Ms. Bauduy kept a graphic depicting this strategy posted in her classroom. Other teachers and paraprofessionals in the school also used this strategy. It was a system where the "Then" was something the child wanted or wanted to do and the "First" was a task the child was resisting. After F.O. continued to play with toys and ignore her lunch. Ms. Bauduy decided to use the "First—Then" strategy by withholding F.O.'s lunch until she picked up her toys. She asked a paraprofessional, Ms. Lewis, to remove the food. Ms. Lewis refused. Ms. Bauduy then placed the lunch on a shelf so that other students would not eat it or play with it. Around 2:00 p.m., snack time, F.O. had put up her toys. Ms. Bauduy gave her the lunch. Ms. Bauduy's log for the day, sent home with each student each day, advised F.O.'s parents that F.O. would not listen or follow directions most of the day and that "lunch was delayed till she showed more compliance." Withholding lunch was not a proper use of the "First – Then" strategy. Meals are a regular part of the day and necessary for nutrition, although in this case the student repeatedly declined food. Withholding a meal, as opposed to withholding a treat, is not proper. Also, since F.O. was not interested in eating lunch, making lunch the "Then" was not a well-reasoned use of the strategy. Ms. Bauduy, however, did not withhold lunch as a punishment. But withholding lunch was not a reasonable behavior management strategy. The school suspended Ms. Bauduy for five days for this instance.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 For Respondent: Branden M. Vicari, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent, Yolie Bauduy, violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A- 10.081(2)(a)1., and imposing a reprimand upon Respondent, Yolie Bauduy. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us COPIES FURNISHED: Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of November, 2021. Lisa M. Forbess, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 316 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Branden M. Vicari, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761 Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 Anastasios Kamoutsas, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent's educator's certificate should be subject to discipline for alleged attempts to persuade instructional staff members to change students' failing grades to higher passing grades without academic justification, for allegedly changing the grades of one or more students to higher grades without academic justification, and for allegedly "flagging" the grades of one or more students such that the grades would not count toward the students' grade point averages, in violation of Section 231.2615(1)(c), (f) and (h), Florida Statutes (2001), and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (d), (4)(b), and (5)(a) and (h), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent, Suzanne Elliott, holds Florida Educator Certificate 558267, covering the areas of biology, physical education, and guidance counseling, which is valid through June 30, 2005. Ms. Elliott has a bachelor's degree in Physical Education, Recreation and Biology, and a master's degree in Guidance Counseling at the secondary level. Ms. Elliott was employed as a guidance counselor at Merritt Island High School ("Merritt Island") in the Brevard County School District (the "District") for the 1997-1998 and 1998-1999 school years. She had held this position since 1985. Ms. Elliott had also served for several years as the cheerleading coach at Merritt Island. Ms. Elliott was the crisis counselor for the entire Merritt Island student body, and was also heavily involved in special education and standardized testing. In fourteen years at Merritt Island, and eighteen years in the field of education, Ms. Elliott had no prior disciplinary actions brought against her license. Her employee evaluations uniformly ranged from "satisfactory" to "exemplary," with the exception of her evaluation dated October 26, 1998. This evaluation was "unsatisfactory," for reasons explained in the body of this Recommended Order. Relevant District policies To "establish suitable uniform procedures for marking and reporting progress of pupils," the District has adopted the Brevard County Secondary Schools Grading Procedures, which provide the following statement of purpose: Grades shall be a measure of a student's progress and achievement in mastering the subject matter, based on the quality of work done, and reflect a comprehensive evaluation which utilizes a number of marks. A student's regular attendance, daily preparation, and promptness in completing assignments should be consistent and congruent with these grades and taken into consideration in reporting a student's progress. During the period from 1997 to 2000, the Florida legislature required that a student have a 2.0 grade point average ("GPA") to compete or participate in sports, including cheerleading. Students who graduated in 1998-1999 were required to have a "minimum cumulative grade point average of 1.5 based on a 4.0 scale for the 24 credits required for graduation and a cumulative 2.0 unweighted GPA on all courses taken after July 1, 1997, which count toward graduation or a cumulative unweighted GPA of 2.0 on all courses taken." Students who graduated in 2000 and thereafter were required to have a minimum cumulative GPA of 2.0 based on a 4.0 scale for the 24 credits needed for graduation. Three of the District's Grading Procedures, and the proper interpretation thereof, provide the context for this case: the procedure regarding grade changes; the procedure regarding grade forgiveness, or "flagging" grades for courses that a student has repeated; and the procedure regarding "failure due to absences" or "FA" as a course grade. As to grade changes, the District's Grading Procedures provide: "Grades once recorded, other than an 'Incomplete,' will not be changed without approval of the principal. For justifiable academic reasons a principal may change a grade." Marjorie Ebersbach was the Area III Superintendent for Brevard County from 1997 to 1999. Area III included Merritt Island High School. As Area III Superintendent, Ms. Ebersbach was responsible for the operation of approximately 22 schools in the Brevard County area and reported directly to the Superintendent. Ms. Ebersbach confirmed that District procedure is that a student's grade may be changed for justifiable academic reasons with the permission of the principal. Merritt Island assistant principal Katherine Halbuer testified that a grade can be changed only by the teacher who assigned the grade or by the principal for justifiable academic reasons. Ms. Halbuer stated that under no circumstances does a guidance counselor have the authority to change a student’s grade. Cocoa Beach Junior/Senior High School ("Cocoa Beach") principal Leslie Patricia Vann, former Merritt Island principal William Dugan, Jefferson Middle School principal Gary Shiffrin, and Cocoa Beach teacher Mary Jane Binney, all testified that the District procedure for changing a student's grade is that the teacher who assigned the original grade may change it for a justifiable academic reason, with administrative approval. These witnesses agreed that a guidance counselor lacked the authority to change a student's grade. As to grade forgiveness for repeated courses, the District's Grading Procedures provide: A student may repeat a failed course during the regular school year or in the summer. If the student then passes the course, the failed course shall remain part of the student's record but shall not be included in the computation of the cumulative grade point average. During the regular school year, a student may repeat a course previously passed for the purpose of grade improvement. In such cases, no additional credit shall be awarded, and all attempts at the course shall be a part of the student’s record. Only the higher grade will be used in computing the cumulative grade point average for graduation. The method by which a failed course may be excluded from computation of the GPA after the course is successfully repeated is referred to in the District as "flagging." A course flag can be added to a student’s transcript so that a certain course is excluded from the calculation of a student's grade point average. Guidance counselors do have the authority to flag a student's grades. At issue in this proceeding was the timing of the flagging. Each District employee who testified on behalf of the Department stated that after the student has retaken the course, received a higher grade, and had that grade posted to his official transcript by the district, the first course grade may be "flagged" so that the lower grade is excluded from the grade point average. These witnesses testified that a course can be flagged only after it has been retaken and the second grade has been posted, and that it is not proper for a guidance counselor to flag a course before the student has completed the course and had the grade posted by the District. The District's witnesses testified that it is improper to flag a grade while the student is retaking the course. Ms. Ebersbach explained that while the student is retaking the course, he has "not earned a grade to replace the previous grade, and you’re excluding something from their academic record that you have no legal authority to exclude." Ms. Vann, Ms. Halbuer, and Mr. Dugan concurred with Ms. Ebersbach that the student must complete the second course and have the higher grade posted before the first grade could be flagged and excluded from the student's GPA. Barbara Jones, a guidance counselor at Cocoa Beach, who had interned under Ms. Elliott at Merritt Island, also testified that flagging a grade was appropriate only after the student had repeated the course and the second grade had been entered. Ms. Jones stated that she learned this procedure "on the job." Grade changes and flags were posted via computer data entry. For many years prior to February 1998, the District employed an IBM mainframe computer running programs written by District staff. This system was popularly known as "IRMA." In February 1998, the IBM mainframe was replaced by an IBM AS400 server, and the homegrown programs were replaced by a commercially developed software program called "Total Educational Resource Management System," or "TERMS." As to "failure due to absences," the District's Grading Procedures provide: When a student is to receive a failing grade due to excessive absences, the following guidelines will apply: Students who have earned an average of 70 or higher [i.e., a passing grade] will receive 69 [the highest failing grade] for the grading period. Students who have earned an average between 49 and 69 will receive the grade they have earned.... The District did not set a system-wide number of unexcused absences that would merit a course grade of "failure due to attendance" or "FA." Individual schools were allowed to establish their own standards. At Cocoa Beach, an FA would be given when a student had more than nine days of unexcused absences in a given course. A student who received an FA could appeal the grade by timely filing an appeal form and going before a faculty appeal committee, which could change the FA to the grade the student would have received but for the excessive absences. However, a student whose absences were due to truancy or skipping class would not be permitted to appeal the FA grade. The Allegations In August 1998, Ms. Vann, the principal of Cocoa Beach, was approached by one of her teachers, who asked her why a guidance counselor from Merritt Island would make inquiries as to the grades of a Cocoa Beach student. Ms. Vann thought this highly irregular, believing that a counselor from another school should first contact the principal of the school with any such inquiries. Upon investigation, Ms. Vann learned that the counselor in question was Ms. Elliott, and that she had contacted three Cocoa Beach teachers regarding S.H., a Cocoa Beach student and cheerleader, who was in the process of transferring to Merritt Island. At a principals' meeting on August 26, 1998, Ms. Vann raised the issue with Mr. Dugan, the principal of Merritt Island. Mr. Dugan told Ms. Vann that if she had allegations to make against Ms. Elliott, she should put them in writing and he would consider them. At about the same time as Ms. Vann began expressing concerns about Ms. Elliott, Merritt Island assistant principal Catherine Halbuer began her own investigation of Ms. Elliott. Heather Novitsky, a newly hired data entry clerk, came to Ms. Halbuer with a handwritten list of students and courses that Ms. Elliott had given her with instructions to flag the courses. Ms. Novitsky did not know what "flagging" meant. When Ms. Halbuer instructed Ms. Novitsky on the procedure for flagging a student's grade, she discovered that the students on the list had not repeated the classes that Ms. Elliott had marked for flagging. Ms. Halbuer met with Ms. Elliott in August 19982 to explain that a flag could not be entered until a student had repeated the class and the grade had been posted. At a subsequent meeting on August 26, 1998, Mr. Dugan and Ms. Halbuer again discussed the proper procedure for flagging student courses with Ms. Elliott. At this meeting, Mr. Dugan told Ms. Elliott that a course could not be flagged before the second class had been completed and the grade posted. Ms. Elliott indicated that she understood. Meanwhile, Ms. Vann was conducting an independent investigation of Ms. Elliott's involvement with student S.H. Ms. Vann personally reviewed S.H.'s academic history and discovered that someone outside of Cocoa Beach had made three grade changes to S.H.'s record without authorization from any teacher at Cocoa Beach. Ms. Vann also discovered that someone outside of Cocoa Beach had flagged six courses for S.H., none of which S.H. had retaken at the time of flagging. On September 11, 1998, Ms. Vann sent a package to Principal Dugan documenting her investigation into the grade changes and flags that had been made to S.H.'s records. Ms. Vann's cover letter to Mr. Dugan requested that S.H.'s transcript be corrected to reflect the grades that were issued by her teachers at Cocoa Beach. In response to Ms. Vann's memorandum and accompanying materials, Mr. Dugan commenced his own investigation into the allegations. He personally reviewed the student records compiled by Ms. Vann, and concluded from the user password on the computer printouts that Ms. Elliott was the person who flagged and changed the grades for S.H. Mr. Dugan also discovered that Ms. Elliott had flagged an "F" grade in Algebra I for Student M.P., despite the fact that M.P. had not retaken the course. Mr. Dugan decided that these findings merited a thorough review of Ms. Elliott's flagging practices. Mr. Dugan contacted the District's main office, which assigned its systems analyst, Andrea Young, to compile information for Mr. Dugan's review. Ms. Young spent approximately three months compiling computer records regarding Ms. Elliott's case. On September 15, 1998, Mr. Dugan orally informed Ms. Elliott of the allegations against her and gave her 24 hours to respond. Mr. Dugan also told Ms. Elliott that she was prohibited from accessing TERMS until the allegations against her were resolved. Ms. Elliott did not respond to the substance of the allegations by September 16, 1998. However, on that date Ms. Elliott requested that Mr. Dugan put the allegations in writing so that she could obtain the assistance of her union representative. On September 17, 1998, Mr. Dugan addressed a memorandum to Ms. Elliott that set forth the following allegations: Mrs. Elliott approached three teachers at Cocoa Beach High School requesting a grade change for student [S.H.]. Mrs. Elliott did flag six grades for [S.H.] so they would not count on her gpa at approximately 6:00 p.m. on 8/27/98 and 8/28/98. Mrs. Elliott did change three grades for [S.H.] on 8/27/98 and 8/28/98. Mrs. Elliott did flag one grade for [student M.P.] so it did not count on her gpa on 8/27/98. I am requesting that you provide me with a written response to these allegations by 9:00 a.m. Monday, September 21, 1998. Also on September 17, 1998, prior to receiving any substantive response from Ms. Elliott, Mr. Dugan wrote a memorandum to Leroy Berry, the District's assistant superintendent for human resources. The memorandum stated that Mr. Dugan had completed his investigation and concluded that Ms. Elliott had in fact committed the acts described as "allegations" in his memorandum to her. Mr. Dugan further wrote that Ms. Elliott's failure to respond to the substance of his allegations within the 24-hour deadline he had given her on September 15, along with the documentation he received from Ms. Vann, led him to conclude that Ms. Elliott had changed and flagged the grades of S.H. and M.P. with the intent of making them eligible for the cheerleading squad. On September 21, 1998, Ms. Elliott gave Mr. Dugan her written response to each of the allegations: I had telephone conversations with three teachers from Cocoa Beach High School (CBHS) and explained that we had put [S.H.] on a contract—- a procedure that we use at Merritt Island High School (MIHS) for students with Failed/Attendances (FAs). I asked them if they would be willing to change the grades pending administrative approval if she followed through with the contract; she attended every day of summer school at CBHS and passed the classes. Two of the teachers said she was a good student, and they would be willing to help her. One teacher said there were no appeals processes or contracts at CBHS. I flagged courses she repeated in summer school, courses that were FAs, and courses in which she was presently enrolled. After practice on 27 and 28 August, at approximately 6 pm, [S.H.] came down to my office for counseling regarding her grades. I explained to her the effort she needed to apply to her studies, using the computer to demonstrate by making changes to letter grades. I never intended the grades to be changed permanently, evidenced by the fact that I never changed the Quality Points. Both changes are required for permanent grade changes. I did not know enough about the TERMS Program to realize that those changes I did make in demonstration to [S.H.] would be automatically saved when I exited the program. [M.P.] made up both of the courses in question in summer school and achieved the necessary grade to be eligible [for cheerleading]. On September 22, 1998, Mr. Dugan addressed to Mr. Berry a detailed memorandum in response to Ms. Elliott's memorandum of September 21. In his memorandum, Mr. Dugan stated that the contract procedure described by Ms. Elliott had never been used at Merritt Island, though he conceded that the principal might enter a contract to change the grade of a student "when faced with parental pressure on a questionable situation or to motivate a student in attendance trouble during that semester...." Mr. Dugan also noted that, according to Ms. Vann, no teacher at Cocoa Beach gave approval for a grade change. Mr. Dugan wrote that S.H. repeated only one class in summer school, that it was a class S.H. had already passed with a "B," that her grade for the course for summer school was also a "B," and that Ms. Elliott had improperly counted both "Bs" in the same course toward S.H.'s eligibility to participate in cheerleading. Mr. Dugan wrote that Ms. Elliott's flagging of S.H.'s grades of FA were both unauthorized and untimely, as was the flagging of M.P.'s grade for Algebra I. Finally, Mr. Dugan questioned Ms. Elliott's claim of ignorance as to entering grades on the TERMS system: "[A]ll counselors know anytime you change a grade on TERMS and hit enter, the screen automatically tells you the information has been taken and the record has been updated." On October 8, 1998, Mr. Dugan outlined a new allegation in a memorandum to Mr. Berry. Mr. Dugan stated that on September 30, 1998, Ms. Elliott had obtained the TERMS password of another guidance counselor, Kathleen Peters, and had used Ms. Peters' password to access the TERMS system, in contravention of Mr. Dugan's order of September 15, 1998. At some point in early October 1998, the District suspended Ms. Elliott with pay, pending the results of the investigation. On October 26, 1998, Ms. Elliott received an official letter of reprimand stating as follows, in relevant part: This is an official letter of reprimand for your violations of School Board Policies 6Gx5-4.04 Access to Student Records, and 6Gx5-7.01(8) Compliance with Policies Required, the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida (State Board of Education Rule 6B-1.006, [Florida Administrative Code] (3)(d); (4)(a)(b)[sic]; and (5)(a) and two instances of gross insubordination to administrative directions. Not only did you request a teacher at Cocoa Beach Junior/Senior High School to change students' failing grades, you blatantly ignored my specific instructions on two occasions and changed failing grades and/or course flags of two students thereby raising their expectations to become eligible for participating on the Merritt Island High School cheerleading squad. Your access to TERMS was removed yet you deliberately went into the program utilizing another colleague's password. This letter serves to officially notify you that you no longer will be able to have access to TERMS. As of today, October 26, 1998, your suspension with pay has been rescinded by the Superintendent and you are being reassigned to the Abeyance Center, Cogswell site, effective tomorrow, Tuesday, October 27, 1998. You are to report to Kim Armellini, assistant principal, at 8:00 A.M. As you are removing your personal items on October 26, 1998, there remains no further reason for your continued presence on the Merritt Island High School campus. In early 1999, the District decided to terminate Ms. Elliott's employment. Ms. Elliott challenged that decision in DOAH Case No. 99-0207. The case was settled in November 1999, prior to hearing. Ms. Elliott voluntarily resigned her position with the District as part of the settlement. The investigation into Ms. Elliott's grade changes and flags continued even after she was removed from the Merritt Island campus and ultimately left the employ of the District. As noted above, Ms. Young's compilation of computer records relating to flags entered by Ms. Elliott continued through approximately December 1998. In October 1998, Marjorie Ebersbach took over as area superintendent and asked Mr. Dugan to bring her up to speed on any matters of concern at Merritt Island. Mr. Dugan briefed her on the Elliott investigation, and Ms. Ebersbach began her own investigation of the matter. During her personal investigation, Ms. Ebersbach met with Principal Dugan, Ms. Young, and Assistant Principal Halbuer. She also reviewed student records and concluded that Ms. Elliott had improperly flagged and changed student records. Mr. Dugan also continued his personal review of student records allegedly altered by Ms. Elliott, and finally concluded that "the evidence on file indicates Ms. Elliott continually violated . . . accepted ethical practices and she [should] be terminated." Ms. Halbuer, the assistant principal, also continued her investigation. She pulled student records and compared them to transcripts in the students' cumulative files, to determine whether the errors were merely computer errors. Ms. Halbuer found approximately fifty-six student records that she concluded had been improperly altered by Ms. Elliott. A number of these students with altered records had already graduated. Memoranda by Ms. Halbuer outlining fresh allegations against Ms. Elliott appeared as late as February 15, 1999. Based on her personal review of the student records, Ms. Halbuer concluded that Ms. Elliott "flagged on a wide scale throughout all of her senior students, and also that some students had actual classes, based on their transcripts, that they never took, and that some students received diplomas that probably should not have received diplomas." The Evidence This section deals with the charges against Ms. Elliott for which the Department was able to produce evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case of wrongdoing by Ms. Elliott. As will be discussed below, the passage of time and the routine destruction of records meant that the Department was unable to make a prima facie case regarding several students as to whom Ms. Halbuer's accusatory memoranda were unsupported by the documents on which she relied. Student S.H. Student S.H., an African-American female, attended ninth grade at Cocoa Beach in the 1997-98 school year. S.H. was a talented cheerleader but, by her own and her mother's testimony, she was going through a rebellious period. She fell in with the "wrong crowd" and began a pattern of skipping classes with her friends. Because of her truancy, S.H. received grades of FA in four of her ninth grade classes, including classes taught by Michael Gaudy, Michael Drake, and Mary Jane Binney. Cocoa Beach allowed students who had received a grade of FA to appeal that grade, but maintained a strict prohibition against appeals by students whose FA grades were due to skipping school. Ms. Vann, the Cocoa Beach principal, had evidence in her records that S.H. had skipped school, including records from teachers, phone calls to her parents, and referrals of S.H. to the dean’s office for truancy. Ms. Vann documented at least fourteen dates on which a teacher or administrator from Cocoa Beach contacted or attempted to contact S.H.'s parents regarding truancy, absences, grades, and leaving class. At the end of her ninth grade year at Cocoa Beach, S.H. had a GPA of 1.333, well below the 2.0 GPA required for participation in cheerleading. S.H. cheered on an independent, competitive "all star" team which included several members of the Merritt Island cheerleading squad. With the encouragement of some Merritt Island cheerleaders, S.H. approached Ms. Elliott in April 1998 about coming to Merritt Island and cheering for its team. Merritt Island was the school for which S.H. was actually zoned. She had attended Cocoa Beach because her older brother went there, but he graduated in Spring 1998. S.H. and her mother, M.H., wanted S.H. to transfer to Merritt Island. M.H. believed that Merritt Island would provide S.H. with a fresh start to her high school career away from the people with whom she'd been in trouble at Cocoa Beach. M.H. also believed that the larger African-American student population at Merritt Island would be positive for S.H. socially and academically. S.H. learned of the FA appeal process from one of the friends who had skipped school with her. This friend said that she had successfully appealed her FAs through Ms. Vann. However, when S.H. went to the Cocoa Beach office and attempted to file an appeal, her efforts were rejected as untimely. Because S.H.'s friend was white, S.H. and her mother suspected there was some racial motive in the rejection of her appeal. The evidence presented at hearing did not demonstrate that S.H.'s appeal was denied for any reason other than it was untimely. Ms. Elliott's initial reaction to hearing S.H.'s allegation of racial discrimination was to tell S.H. that there was nothing she could do. She advised S.H. to handle the problem herself, with her mother's assistance. However, M.H. subsequently told Ms. Elliott that she could not deal with the personnel at Cocoa Beach. Ms. Elliott offered to help collect information that the parent could present to the administration at Cocoa Beach to appeal the FA's. Ms. Elliott believed that Mr. Dugan might help and even intercede directly with the administration at Cocoa Beach, because Merritt Island was more lenient about granting FA appeals and because Mr. Dugan had helped her before with similar problems. Ms. Elliott was aware of several successful FA appeals at Merritt Island involving students who had more absences than S.H. Ms. Elliott also testified that Mr. Dugan had always been supportive of the cheerleading squad. Ms. Elliott advised S.H. that she would have to show "massive improvement" in her school work and spent time with S.H. to work on improving her grades. Ms. Elliott reviewed S.H.'s complete cumulative academic folder, counseled her on the racial issues she had raised, advised her on appealing the FAs, encouraged her to go to summer school, spent time with her after-hours, and placed her on the aforementioned "contract." The contract, signed on May 4, 1998, by Ms. Elliott, S.H., and M.H., stated: I, [S.H.], will attend summer school everyday [sic] during summer I and II to repeat courses I failed during my ninth grade year at Cocoa Beach High School in an effort to show my true capabilities and academic potential. In my efforts I realize that I can "audit" (x) or have my FA's changed from semester I at Cocoa Beach High School with the cooperation of my teachers from Cocoa Beach High School and/or administration from Merritt Island High School. I also realize that if I earn a D or an F during any term, as a Varsity Cheerleader at Merritt Island High School I will be on academic probation and will be required to work with a tutor one day a week. At the hearing, Mr. Dugan testified that one of his chief objections to the contract with S.H. was that Ms. Elliott did not obtain his approval. He stated that only the principal or his designee could enter into such a contract with a student. Mr. Dugan further stated: But in all of these cases, the contract would have to have the student right the wrong, whatever it was that they had done, okay? For example, you may give a student who's... passed mathematics with a C but failed it through excessive [absences]. You might write a contract with that student that if you don't miss any more than three days the next semester I would remove the FA because you've shown the fact that you can attend and will attend on time. Mr. Dugan found Ms. Elliott's contract with S.H. "totally illegal" because at the time the contract was executed, S.H. was not a student at Merritt Island. Further, Ms. Elliott was holding out the possibility of changing S.H.'s Cocoa Beach FAs with no real way of knowing whether it could be done. Ms. Elliott advised S.H. that she was ineligible for cheerleading upon her transfer in August 1998, and could not cheer until she became academically eligible. S.H. took two classes every day over her summer break. She received an "A" in one class, and a "B" in the other, with no absences. Ms. Elliott testified that in August 1998 she phoned three of S.H.'s teachers at Cocoa Beach, not to ask them to change S.H.'s FA grades in their classes, but to obtain information about S.H’s performance in their classes and to inform them of the assistance she was giving S.H. Ms. Elliott testified that one reason she called the teachers was to verify what S.H. was saying about her performance at Cocoa Beach. Ms. Elliott asked the teachers how often and why S.H. was absent from their classes, what grades S.H. would have earned but for the excessive absences, and whether she had brought an appeal of the FAs to any of them. Ms. Elliott conceded that her September 21, 1998, written response to Mr. Dugan's allegations included the statement: "I asked them if they would be willing to change the grades pending administrative approval if [S.H.] followed through with the contract." Ms. Elliott testified that this was in the nature of a shorthand response to Mr. Dugan's inquiry, and reiterated that she never directly asked the Cocoa Beach teachers to change S.H.'s grades. Ms. Elliott testified that she would have crafted her written response with more care had she understood the gravity of her situation. All three of the Cocoa Beach teachers contacted by Ms. Elliott testified at hearing. Each teacher verified that he or she was telephoned by Ms. Elliott, and that Ms. Elliott did not ask him or her to change the FA grade given to S.H. None of the three teachers recalled S.H.'s requesting an appeal of her FAs. Mike Drake taught ninth grade World Geography to S.H. during the 1997-98 school year and gave her an FA for more than nine unexcused absences. He stated that S.H. would likely have made a high "B" in his class but for the absences. Mr. Drake recalled that another teacher had circulated an e-mail throughout Cocoa Beach regarding the fact that S.H. had skipped school and that S.H.'s mother had been contacted concerning the absences. Mr. Drake confirmed that Ms. Elliott did not ask him to change S.H.'s grade. He stated that his interpretation of Ms. Elliott's purpose in calling was "gathering information." Mary Jane Binney, who taught Life Management to S.H. during the 1997-98 school year, testified that S.H. would have made a "C" in her class but for the absences. Ms. Binney testified that Ms. Elliott told her that she was helping S.H., and that Ms. Elliott "absolutely" did not ask her to change S.H.'s grade. Mike Gaudy, the athletic director at Cocoa Beach, had taught Weight Training to S.H., though he had no recollection of S.H. or of the grade she would have received but for her excessive absences. Mr. Gaudy thought it was "peculiar" that Ms. Elliott would contact him about a student who no longer attended Cocoa Beach. He was the teacher who reported his conversation with Ms. Elliott to his principal, Ms. Vann, who had him write a statement concerning his conversation with Ms. Elliott. Mr. Gaudy's written statement strongly implied that Ms. Elliott's purpose in calling was to persuade him to change S.H.'s grade. At the hearing, Mr. Gaudy testified that Ms. Elliott in fact never asked him to change a grade. The subject of grade changes came up only because Mr. Gaudy asked Ms. Elliott if that was her purpose in calling. In summary, no evidence was presented that Ms. Elliott at any time "improperly attempted to persuade instructional staff members to change failing grades they issued to one or more students to higher, passing grades without proper justification." Ms. Elliott was attempting to work out some form of grade forgiveness for S.H., contingent upon her improved performance in summer school and beyond, but there is no indication that she did anything "improper" aside from failing to involve Mr. Dugan in her efforts. At worst, Ms. Elliott failed to understand that Cocoa Beach's policy concerning FAs was more unyielding than the policy at Merritt Island, and that suspicions would therefore be aroused at Cocoa Beach when she began making inquiries about S.H.'s grades. The next phase of the narrative requires a digression on the working of TERMS. As noted above, TERMS was introduced to the District in Spring 1998. Training of District personnel on the use of TERMS began in February 1998. Ms. Elliott attended the first introductory course in February, and there learned that the entire District would immediately begin using TERMS for student scheduling. The training was to include a preview of the different "screens" on TERMS, including the scheduling screen and the attendance screen. Each type of screen required separate training. More than one hundred trainees attended the course with Ms. Elliott. They were provided no hands-on training; rather, they viewed a simulation of the TERMS program on an overhead projector and heard descriptions of the program's capabilities. One working TERMS terminal was set up to demonstrate its functionality, but the program constantly malfunctioned. Ms. Elliott testified that District personnel were skeptical about TERMS because they had heard about severe problems experienced in another large county, where the program was unable even to print transcripts. She testified that the malfunctions of the program at this introductory course intensified the general apprehension about TERMS. Ms. Elliott was not the only witness to discuss the problems with TERMS. Mr. Dugan testified that "there was an awful lot of frustration not only with my staff but with myself and all the other principals. Getting on the new system was a frustrating experience for all of us." Ms. Vann found the TERMS program "a lot more complex" than IRMA, "difficult" enough that she created her own training handbook that was ultimately circulated to all principals in the District. Mr. Dugan testified that TERMS was a "difficult program," and that it was "probably unfair" to expect the guidance counselors to use it for scheduling without adequate training. Ms. Elliott never received hands-on training on the scheduling screen. She learned on the job by scheduling students into their classes with the help of a "cheat sheet" prepared by a fellow guidance counselor who attended a later TERMS training session. She scheduled students for their Fall 1998 semester classes, asking for help when she made a mistake. Ms. Elliott received no training on the "academic history" screen, which was the screen used to enter grade changes or flags on a student's record. Ms. Elliott repeatedly requested hands-on training, but never received it. She tried to learn the program by watching what the other counselors did. Ms. Elliott testified that she had learned through "gossip of the counselors" that the TERMS program could be used as a counseling tool. She was told that it had the capability to allow a counselor to sit with a student and run hypothetical, "what if" scenarios regarding how the student's GPA could be improved or lowered depending on the grade received in a particular class or classes. Ms. Elliott was excited by this possibility, because the only way a counselor currently had to play such "what if" games was pencil and paper calculation, which was time consuming and subject to error. She believed that seeing the possible GPA improvement pop up immediately on a computer screen would be more likely to inspire the student to earn those grades, and she looked forward to using this tool with her counseling students. In fact, the TERMS program has no such "what if" capability, though systems analyst Andrea Young testified that it would be possible to write a program to give TERMS that capability. Ms. Young also testified that TERMS automatically saved any grade changes entered, without giving the user any opportunity, in the form of a "save" warning or otherwise, to rescind a grade entry. On the evening of August 27, 1998, after cheerleading practice, Ms. Elliott sat down in her office with S.H. to review her summer school grades on the "academic history" screen of the TERMS program. At this point, Ms. Elliott had seldom if ever attempted to manipulate data on the academic history screen. She had never changed letter grades, though she had entered flags for repeated courses. Ms. Elliott attempted to show S.H. what her GPA would be after her summer school grades were posted, and what it would be if S.H. were able to obtain the letter grades she would have received in the three classes at Cocoa Beach but for her excessive absences. Ms. Elliott entered the grades, but noticed that the grade changes resulted in no change in S.H.'s quality points or overall GPA on the TERMS screen. Ms. Elliott was perplexed. She knew from experience that flagging the grades would change the GPA, so she entered flags next to each grade. Flagging the grades did change the GPA, and enabled her to counsel S.H. Ms. Elliott testified that her only intention was to motivate S.H., to show her what would happen if she could successfully appeal the FAs from Cocoa Beach. She told S.H. that she would not likely raise her GPA sufficiently to be eligible for cheerleading in her first semester at Merritt Island, but that it would be possible to attain eligibility in her second semester. S.H. testified at the hearing, and completely corroborated Ms. Elliott's version of events. She confirmed that Ms. Elliott told her she was not eligible to cheer for Merritt Island. S.H. testified that her main concern at the time was to get away from Cocoa Beach, not to cheer for Merritt Island. She was already cheering for an elite competitive team away from school. S.H. testified that she began to cheer for Merritt Island during the second semester of her tenth grade year. Ms. Elliott testified that when she used the old IRMA system, the screen would clear upon signing off. IRMA required an affirmative keystroke to make grade changes permanent. Ms. Elliott did not realize until the evening of August 27, 1998, that TERMS made the changes automatically. Ms. Elliott returned to S.H.'s record in the TERMS program the next evening, August 28, 1998. Ms. Elliott testified that she was determined to figure out how to make grade changes on the TERMS program, and how to correct the erroneous grade changes and flags she had entered the previous evening. She had no better luck on the second night. Ms. Elliott testified that she never intended to make permanent changes in S.H.'s records. She expected to change the grades back to their correct status when she received S.H.'s cumulative folder from Cocoa Beach. She never made the corrections because the investigation commenced and she was barred from using TERMS before she had an opportunity to do so. The only evidence that Ms. Elliott altered S.H.'s records in order to make her eligible for cheerleading came from Mr. Dugan, who testified that S.H. cheered for Merritt Island at a Spring 1998 football jamboree before she was even a student at Merritt Island. Mr. Dugan also testified that he had "personal knowledge" that S.H. cheered for Merritt Island at the first three football games in Fall 1998, though he did not elaborate on the nature of this personal knowledge.3 He testified that he would have believed Ms. Elliott's story about playing "what if" games on the TERMS program, had she not placed S.H. on the cheerleading squad. Ms. Elliott, S.H., and M.H. testified that they all understood S.H. was not eligible to cheer during the Fall semester of 1998. S.H. testified that she was allowed to practice with the team, and was allowed to wear the uniform to games but was not allowed to cheer with the team. The last point accounts for the contradiction between Mr. Dugan's testimony and that of Ms. Elliott and S.H. Mr. Dugan testified that a cheerleader who did not have a 2.0 GPA could work out and practice with the team, but was not permitted to wear the uniform or cheer at school activities. Ms. Halbuer, the assistant principal at Merritt Island and a former junior varsity cheerleading coach, confirmed Mr. Dugan's statement that an ineligible cheerleader cannot wear the uniform. According to her own testimony, S.H. was allowed to wear the cheerleader uniform to games before she was eligible. The weight of the testimony establishes that Ms. Elliott should not have allowed S.H. to wear the uniform. However, despite Mr. Dugan's testimony, the evidence is persuasive that Ms. Elliott, S.H., and M.H. all understood that S.H. was not eligible to cheer for Merritt Island during the Fall semester of 1998, and that S.H. did not actually cheer with the team at any games prior to becoming eligible in the Spring semester of 1999. Ms. Elliott's testimony as to how S.H.'s grades came to be changed and flagged is persuasive and credited. Ms. Elliott was negligent in failing to take steps immediately to correct S.H.'s grades. Rather than waiting for S.H.'s cumulative file to come over from Cocoa Beach, Ms. Elliott should have approached her superiors at the first opportunity to explain what happened and obtain assistance in correcting the record. However, the evidence presented at the hearing did not demonstrate that Ms. Elliott intentionally altered S.H.'s grades to make her eligible to cheer for Merritt Island. Ms. Elliott, S.H., and M.H. all understood that S.H. was not eligible to cheer for Merritt Island during the Fall semester of the 1998-99 school year. Student M.P. Student M.P., a white female, attended ninth grade at Jefferson Junior High School ("Jefferson") in the 1997-98 school year. She transferred to Merritt Island to begin tenth grade in Fall 1998. M.P. was a cheerleader, and attended summer cheerleading camp with Ms. Elliott during the summer of 1998. In the ninth grade at Jefferson, M.P. took Algebra I during her first semester and received an "F." She was placed in Applied Math I for the second semester of ninth grade and received a "D." Two semesters of Applied Math I are considered the equivalent of one semester of Algebra I. At the end of ninth grade, M.P. was advised by her counselor at Jefferson that she should repeat Algebra I during the 1998 summer session. She applied to take Algebra I, but was told that it was not available. Therefore, she signed up for two semesters of Applied Math I. M.P. earned a "C" for the first semester and an "A" for the second semester of Applied Math I during summer school. On August 27, 1998, Ms. Elliott entered flags for M.P.'s ninth grade "F" in Algebra I and "D" in Applied Math I, meaning her grades in those courses would not count toward M.P.'s GPA. Ms. Elliott's logic was that, because Applied Math I is considered an equivalent course to Algebra I, M.P.'s two semesters of Applied Math I in summer school could replace her two semesters of Algebra I and Applied Math I in the ninth grade. The two flags entered by Ms. Elliott made M.P. eligible to cheer during the 1998 fall semester at Merritt Island. Believing M.P. to be eligible, Ms. Elliott permitted M.P. to cheer at three Merritt Island football games in August and September 1998. During his September 1998 investigation of Ms. Elliott, Mr. Dugan discovered the flag for Algebra I on M.P.'s records. Noting that M.P. had never retaken Algebra I, and declaring that a flag was appropriate only where a student has retaken the identical course, Mr. Dugan ordered the flag removed. With the "F" in Algebra I returned to the calculation, M.P.'s GPA fell below 2.0. Mr. Dugan ordered M.P. removed from the cheerleading team in late September 1998. He had a meeting with M.P.'s parents at which he told them that "something was going on," that grades had been changed that should not have been changed, and that M.P. was no longer eligible to cheer for Merritt Island. M.P.'s parents approached Ms. Elliott to find out what happened. Ms. Elliott did not believe that Mr. Dugan's insistence that only identical courses were eligible for flagging was consistent with Florida Department of Education policy. She telephoned Sharon Koon, her contact at the Department of Education, who verified that Algebra and Applied Math are viewed as equivalent and that the "F" in Algebra I could be flagged because M.P. took two semesters of Applied Math I during summer school. On October 8, 1998, M.P.'s parents returned to Mr. Dugan to inform him of Ms. Elliott's findings. Mr. Dugan was upset that Ms. Elliott had discussed the matter with M.P.'s parents before talking to him about the matter. He nonetheless consulted Daniel Scheuerer, the District's assistant superintendent for academics, who informed him that the two semesters of Applied Math I could indeed substitute for Algebra I. Therefore, Ms. Elliott's flag of M.P.'s "F" grade in Algebra I had been correct. However, Mr. Scheuerer also noted that if both semesters of Applied Math I were used to forgive M.P.'s grade in Algebra I, then there was nothing that could be used to forgive M.P.'s "D" grade in Applied Math I for the second semester of ninth grade. Thus, Ms. Elliott's flag of the "D" grade for Applied Math I would have to be removed even as the flag for M.P.'s "F" in Algebra I was reinstated. The end result was that M.P. remained ineligible for cheerleading. The evidence regarding M.P. establishes no more than a good faith misunderstanding regarding equivalent courses by Ms. Elliott. It was apparent that Mr. Dugan himself misunderstood the application of equivalencies prior to consulting Mr. Scheuerer. There was insufficient evidence that Ms. Elliott intentionally entered improper flags for M.P. in order to make her eligible for the cheerleading squad. Improper Use of Password As noted above, Mr. Dugan's October 8, 1998, memorandum to Mr. Berry outlined a new allegation against Ms. Elliott. Mr. Dugan stated that on September 30, 1998, Ms. Elliott had obtained the TERMS password of another guidance counselor, Kathleen Peters, and had used Ms. Peters' password to gain access to the TERMS system, in contravention of Mr. Dugan's order that Ms. Elliott was not to use TERMS while she was under investigation. It must be noted that the allegation of improper use of Ms. Peters' password was not among the factual allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint. No objection was lodged by counsel for Ms. Elliott on this basis. Ms. Elliott was aware of this allegation and fully joined the issue at the final hearing. It is found that the pleadings of the Administrative Complaint were effectively amended to conform to the evidence. Kathleen Peters was the director of guidance at Merritt Island. She was Ms. Elliott's direct superior. On September 30, 1998, Ms. Peters called in sick with a migraine headache. She was in the midst of rearranging the schedules for Spanish classes, and had a list of changes that had to be entered on the computer that day. She phoned the guidance office and reached Ms. Elliott, who was the only guidance counselor present at Merritt Island on that day. Ms. Peters explained the situation to Ms. Elliott, and asked her to make the schedule changes and corrections. Ms. Elliott told Ms. Peters that she could not use her own code to access the TERMS program. Ms. Elliott did not tell Ms. Peters that Mr. Dugan had prohibited her from using TERMS. At the hearing, Ms. Elliott indicated that her reticence was largely due to embarrassment over the investigation of her computer use. She was unsure whether her colleagues in the guidance office knew about the investigation, and was unsure herself of the investigation's scope and how much information she should share with Ms. Peters. Ms. Elliott asked Ms. Peters for her code to the TERMS system. Ms. Peters saw nothing unusual in this request, because it was not uncommon for TERMS to deny access to some users for apparently arbitrary reasons. Ms. Peters testified that she had been denied access on occasion. Ms. Peters gave her code to Ms. Elliott. Ms. Elliott attempted to access TERMS on her own computer, using Ms. Peters' code. She was denied access. She thought that the code might work if entered on Ms. Peters' computer. However, given the allegations that had already been made against her, Ms. Elliott thought she ought not be seen going into Ms. Peters' office and trying to use Ms. Peters' computer. She decided simply to tell Ms. Peters that she had tried but could not access TERMS. Ms. Elliott testified that she did not make changes to any records using Ms. Peters access code. Her testimony on this point was confirmed by Mr. Dugan, who admitted at the hearing that a subsequent investigation revealed no records that had been accessed by Ms. Elliott by way of Ms. Peters' security code. On October 5, 1998, during a scheduling discussion, Ms. Peters learned from Ms. Halbuer that Ms. Elliott was prohibited from using the computer. Ms. Peters then reported to Ms. Halbuer that Ms. Elliott had obtained her access code on September 30. Ms. Halbuer relayed this information to Mr. Dugan, who added this incident to the list of allegations related to Ms. Elliott in his memorandum of October 9, 1998: On September 15, 1998, I informed you that you were not permitted to use TERMS until the investigation reference [sic] the allegations against you were resolved. On Wednesday September 30, 1998, Mrs. Elliott did request and receive Mrs. Peters security code and did access TERMS without requesting authorization or receiving authorization. This allegation was sustained by the evidence at least insofar as Ms. Elliott obtained Ms. Peters' code and attempted to access TERMS. Ms. Elliott's culpability is mitigated by the exigency of the situation and by the fact that she did not actually make use of Ms. Peters' security code. Nonetheless, Ms. Elliott well understood that she was prohibited from accessing TERMS. There were numerous options available to her that did not involve direct insubordination to Mr. Dugan's directive. She could have obtained the assistance of the data entry clerk. She could have approached Mr. Dugan or Ms. Halbuer with her dilemma. She could have simply leveled with Ms. Peters as to why she was unable to use her own security code. However wronged she felt by the ongoing investigation, Ms. Elliott had no authority to disregard Mr. Dugan's order. Flagging in general As noted above, the investigation of Ms. Elliott continued even after the District removed her from Merritt Island and terminated her employment. In particular, Ms. Halbuer, the assistant principal, pulled student records and compared them to transcripts in the students' cumulative files, to determine whether the errors were merely computer errors. Ms. Halbuer found approximately fifty-six student records that she concluded had been improperly altered by Ms. Elliott. At the hearing, the Department was unable to produce the complete files of some of the students whose records Ms. Halbuer investigated, because school policy dictated destruction of her investigative records after the passage of a certain amount of time. The complete files would have contained the final, official transcripts of the students as well as Ms. Elliott's counseling notes. In some instances, the only proof offered was Ms. Halbuer's conclusory memoranda attesting that certain students' grades had been improperly flagged. In other instances, only the unofficial, editing copy of the transcripts was provided. Ms. Halbuer's honesty is not in doubt. However, it would be inherently unfair to require Ms. Elliott to mount a defense as to these students, more than four years after the fact, without access to the cumulative files and her own counseling notes to refresh her memory. Thus, it must be found that the Department failed to provide prima facie evidence as to any of the fifty-six students save those discussed below. Ms. Elliott's understanding of the flagging procedure was markedly different than that of the administrators. To reiterate, the District's Grading Procedures provide: A student may repeat a failed course during the regular school year or in the summer. If the student then passes the course, the failed course shall remain part of the student's record but shall not be included in the computation of the cumulative grade point average. During the regular school year, a student may repeat a course previously passed for the purpose of grade improvement. In such cases, no additional credit shall be awarded, and all attempts at the course shall be a part of the student’s record. Only the higher grade will be used in computing the cumulative grade point average for graduation. The method by which a failed course may be excluded from computation of the GPA is referred to in the District as "flagging." The text of the Grading Procedures quoted above does not expressly provide instruction as to the proper time for entry of a course flag. However, each District witness who testified on behalf of the Department stated that a course can be flagged only after it has been retaken and the second grade has been posted, and that it is not proper for a guidance counselor to flag a course before the student has completed the course and had the second grade posted by the District. The District's witnesses testified that it is improper to flag a grade while the student is retaking the course. Ms. Elliott testified that she never saw the written grade forgiveness procedure until after the allegations here at issue were first lodged, when her union representative obtained a copy from the District. Ms. Elliott first learned that the District had a forgiveness policy in the early 1990s when she was being trained by Nancy Rhoda, who was then the guidance department chair. Ms. Elliott was instructed to check the students' records for courses that they repeated, and to have those courses flagged. Ms. Elliott's consistent understanding of the policy was that a course could be flagged while the student was repeating the course. Ms. Elliott was one of three guidance counselors at Merritt Island, and was responsible for scheduling approximately 500 students every semester. At times, she was assigned upwards of 700 students. Part of her duties was to schedule her students into classes they wanted to repeat pursuant to the forgiveness policy. Each semester comprised three six-week grading periods. At the close of each six-week grading period, Ms. Elliott would receive computer printouts of each of her assigned students' grades. Thus, there would be a first, second, and third six-week report of the grades her students were receiving in their respective classes. Ms. Elliott typically flagged after she had two six-week grade reports before her, thus having a relatively solid basis for anticipating that the student was going to pass the repeated course. She testified that she flagged courses only when she was convinced the student was "doing fine" in the repeated course. Ms. Elliott would compile a list of students and courses to be flagged and give it to Jan Amico, the data entry clerk, after the second six-week grading period. The flags would be entered during the thirteenth or fourteenth week of the eighteen-week semester, depending on how long it took Ms. Elliott to meet with each student and review their progress. By this time, Ms. Elliott would know whether the student was passing the repeated class. Ms. Amico, who was the data entry clerk at Merritt Island for four years, testified at the hearing. She confirmed that Ms. Elliott's method of flagging had been consistent during Ms. Amico's tenure at Merritt Island. During the first six weeks of a semester, Ms. Elliott assisted all of her assigned students with their class scheduling problems. During the second six weeks, Ms. Elliott typically had more time to review each of her students' grades via the computer printouts provided each guidance counselor. She went through the grade printouts and contacted students who were failing classes to offer academic counseling and tutoring while they still had roughly nine weeks to improve their final semester grade. While Ms. Elliott tried to meet with each student in her charge during the middle of the term, she made it a priority to meet with students who were having difficulty passing classes, those needing special attention, and those she felt might need more support from their parents. If a student received a "D" or "F" grade on the first or second six-week grading report, Ms. Elliott would counsel that student. She would also meet with the teacher to see what could be done to help the student. If needed, Ms. Elliott would arrange for tutoring by one of the volunteers she had recruited from the community. These tutors included her own husband, Joe Elliott, who tutored many students in math. At the end of the semester, Ms. Elliott would meet with her students again. They would review the student's unofficial transcript to make sure the recorded grades were correct, and make any necessary corrections. If the student received a failing grade for a repeated class, Ms. Elliott would have the flag removed from the student's record. Ms. Elliott testified that she was in constant contact with college admissions officers, who asked her to flag courses so they could determine whether their applicants were retaking failed courses. Ms. Elliott stated that the admissions officers followed the students' progress and liked to know whether students applying to their colleges were making extra efforts to master difficult materials. Ms. Elliott testified that she had followed this flagging procedure since the early 1990's, that the teachers, her direct supervisor, the school's department chairs, and the assistant principal in charge of guidance all knew her method for flagging grades, and that no one had ever told her it was inappropriate until Ms. Halbuer did so in August 1998. Ms. Elliott testified that even when Ms. Halbuer told her that she should wait until the end of the semester to flag courses, there was no implication that Ms. Elliott had been doing anything wrong. Rather, Ms. Halbuer indicated that the new data entry clerk was just learning the TERMS system and was overwhelmed with work, and so the entering of course flags would have to wait. As a general matter, it is found that Ms. Elliott's practice of entering the flags prior to the student's receiving a final grade in the repeated course was against the District's policy as generally understood by the District administrators. However, nowhere was this general understanding reduced to writing in unequivocal terms. The understanding may be inferred from the written Grading Procedure, but nothing in the procedure may fairly be read to forbid Ms. Elliott's longstanding method of flagging. To the extent that Ms. Elliott's flagging of individual student grades followed the procedure she described, i.e., the student was enrolled in the repeated class, appeared to be passing the class at the two-thirds point of the semester when the flag was entered, and Ms. Elliott corrected the record at the end of the semester, she cannot be found to have violated a clearly stated policy of the District. Mr. Dugan, Ms. Halbuer, and Ms. Ebersbach all testified that Ms. Elliott's method of flagging artificially inflated her students' GPA's and distorted their relative class standing. This concern was valid but transitory, to the extent that Ms. Elliott followed her stated procedure. A student's GPA would be inflated for the four or five weeks of the semester between the time the flags were first entered and the final grades were posted. After the grades were posted, the flag would either be validated or removed by Ms. Elliott, ensuring the accuracy of the GPA and class standing reflected on the official transcript. As noted above, the Department was not able to produce the complete files for all of the fifty-six students whose records Ms. Elliott is alleged to have improperly flagged. The students discussed below were those for whom the Department was able to produce records sufficient to establish the circumstances of the flagging and to refresh Ms. Elliott's memory as to those circumstances. As to Student B.H., Ms. Halbuer discovered that Ms. Elliott entered a course flag for B.H.'s "F" grade in Algebra I Honors for the first semester of the 1995-96 school year, despite the fact that B.H. repeated Algebra I rather than the honors course. Ms. Halbuer testified that it is improper to flag an honors course with the grade from a regular course, even where the course material is the same. Ms. Elliott conceded that she flagged the honors course based on B.H.'s successfully completing the regular Algebra I course. Her rationale was that a student must receive a teacher's recommendation to enroll in an honors course, and no teacher would have recommended B.H. to repeat Algebra I Honors after she failed it once. Also, Ms. Elliott believed it proper to enter the flag because the course work in Algebra I was the same as Algebra I Honors, the only difference being that the latter class would be smaller, have a better teacher, and involve more homework. Ms. Elliott did not consult with her superiors prior to entering this flag, which had the effect of increasing B.H.'s GPA. It is found that Ms. Elliott improperly flagged B.H.'s grade for Algebra I Honors, but that she did so in a good faith, though mistaken, belief that it was proper to do so. As to Student D.H., Ms. Halbuer testified that she personally compiled and reviewed D.H.'s student records and found that Ms. Elliott entered an improper flag for D.H.'s "D" and "C" grades in Algebra II Honors for the first and second semesters of the 1995-96 school year, though D.H. repeated regular Algebra II. As with Student B.H., D.H. was not entitled to receive grade forgiveness for the grades received in the honors course when the honors course was not retaken. It is found that Ms. Elliott improperly flagged D.H.'s grade for Algebra II Honors, but that she did so in a good faith, though mistaken belief, that it was proper to do so. As to Student L.H., Ms. Halbuer found that Ms. Elliott flagged an "F" grade L.H. received in Algebra I in the second semester of the 1995-96 school year. For this flag to have been appropriate, L.H. would have had to either repeat the second semester of Alegbra I or complete two semesters of Applied Math II. L.H. in fact completed only one semester of Applied Math II. Ms. Halbuer testified that without the two semesters of Applied Math II or a successfully completed second semester of Algebra I, L.H. did not have the requisite math requirements for graduation. L.H. nonetheless was allowed to graduate from Merritt Island in 1998 without ever taking the second semester of Applied Math II, with a transcript certified by Ms. Elliott. Ms. Elliott testified that L.H. had the three math credits required to graduate, and met the graduation requirements that were in place for the class of 1998. It is found that the Department failed to demonstrate that L.H. should not have graduated, but did demonstrate that Ms. Elliott improperly flagged L.H.'s grade for Algebra I and offered no adequate justification for having done so. As to Student J. E.-N., Principal Dugan and Assistant Principal Halbuer both testified that they personally reviewed the student's records and found that Ms. Elliott entered an improper course flag for an "F" in Classical Literature and an "F" in Applied Math III, both for the first semester of the 1997-98 school year. Ms. Elliott certified J. E.-N. for graduation in 1998. Without the two flags, J. E.-N. would not have had the requisite 2.0 GPA for graduation. Ms. Elliott admitted flagging the Applied Math III grade, but stated that she did so pursuant to a precedent set by Mr. Dugan when he was an assistant principal at Merritt Island. J. E.-N. was a student with very limited proficiency in English. Ms. Elliott testified that Mr. Dugan's practice had been to apply forgiveness for math classes to such students once they had passed the high school competency test in math. J. E.-N. had passed the high school competency test. As to the flag for Classical Literature, Ms. Elliott testified that J. E.-N. took English IV in night school, and that English IV was equivalent to Classical Literature. It is found that Ms. Elliott improperly flagged J. E.-N.'s grade for Applied Math III before consulting with Mr. Dugan or some other superior to ascertain that she was applying a recognized school policy. Ms. Elliott's flag of the Classical Literature class was another example of her belief that "equivalent" courses could count as repeated courses for purposes of flagging, whereas the administrators who testified consistently held that only identical courses could be repeated for forgiveness. As to both flags for J. E.-N., it is found that Ms. Elliott entered them in a good faith, though mistaken, belief that it was proper to do so. As to Student A.L., Principal Dugan and Assistant Principal Halbuer both testified that they personally reviewed A.L.'s student records and found that Ms. Elliott improperly flagged a tenth-grade Algebra II Honors course prior to A.L.'s completing the same course and receiving a higher grade, which is against their interpretation of district policy. A.L. in fact repeated Algebra II Honors and passed the course in the eleventh grade. The evidence demonstrated that Ms. Elliott flagged the course prior to A.L.'s having successfully completed the retaken course, but that she did so in the good faith belief that it was proper to do so. Student M.M. had completed ninth grade at Jefferson Middle School, then transferred to Merritt Island for tenth grade in the 1998-99 school year and participated in cheerleading. Gary Shiffrin, the principal at Jefferson Middle School, testified that M.M. returned to the middle school during the fall of her tenth grade year and asked Mr. Shiffrin if she could speak to one of her former teachers. After the teacher spoke to M.M., Mr. Shiffrin learned that M.M. had requested the opportunity to make up some work she had missed from the previous semester at Jefferson Middle School. Mr. Shiffrin denied M.M.'s request to make up work in an attempt to receive a higher grade, because "the time element had certainly passed." Because he thought M.M.'s request was "kind of unusual," Mr. Shiffrin contacted Mr. Dugan and informed him of what had taken place. Mr. Dugan investigated the matter and discovered that, on August 13, 1998, Ms. Elliott had entered course flags for two semesters of Spanish I from M.M.'s ninth grade year at Jefferson Middle School. The resulting GPA made M.M. eligible to cheer. On August 21, 1998, Ms. Halbuer pulled and reviewed the records of all of Ms. Elliott's cheerleaders. She concluded that M.M. should not have had course flags on her record. She discussed the flagging issue with Ms. Elliott, as described above. On August 24, 1998, Ms. Elliott removed the flags. Removal of the flags meant that M.M. was no longer eligible to cheer. Her parents sought over $700.00 in reimbursement of cheerleading expenses from Merritt Island as a result of this incident. In the case of M.M., the Department did not offer complete records to indicate whether the student was enrolled in the Spanish courses at the time Ms. Elliott flagged her prior grades. Ms. Elliott contended that her removal of the flags was not an admission of wrongdoing, but an indication of her willingness to accept direction from Ms. Halbuer on the issue of flagging. Without the complete records, it cannot be determined whether Ms. Elliott flagged the grades pursuant to her understanding of the flagging policy, or whether she did so without any justification at all. It is found that the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that Ms. Elliott violated clear District policy in flagging the grades of M.M. As to Student B.M., Mr. Dugan and Ms. Halbuer both testified that they personally reviewed B.M.'s student records and discovered that Ms. Elliott had improperly flagged a "D" grade in Algebra II for the second semester of the 1997-98 school year. The flag was entered on August 13, 1998, though B.M. did not enroll for the second semester of Algebra II until February 1999. On February 15, 1999, Ms. Halbuer instructed the data entry clerk to remove the flag, thus reducing B.M.'s GPA. Ms. Elliott testified that B.M. was a learning disabled student whose parents monitored his progress closely to ensure he would be eligible for college. Ms. Elliott met with B.M.'s parents in August 1998, at the start of B.M.'s senior year. The parents were aware of the availability of grade forgiveness, and wanted to make sure Ms. Elliott knew that their son would be repeating both semesters of Algebra II during the 1998-99 school year. Ms. Elliott flagged the second semester of Algebra II with the intent of monitoring B.M.'s progress throughout the year and obtaining tutoring assistance if he encountered difficulty. Ms. Elliott testified that she mistakenly neglected to flag the first semester of Algebra I. Ms. Elliott testified that the flag served to notify colleges that B.M. was repeating the entire year of Algebra II, a sign of maturity in attempting to improve his grades and master the material. Ms. Elliott testified that she did monitor B.M.'s progress until she was forced off the Merritt Island campus. It is found that Ms. Elliott's flagging of B.M.'s second semester Algebra II course improperly deviated from District policy. Even according to the procedure Ms. Elliott normally followed, it was premature to flag a course before the student had even enrolled to repeat the class. The distortion of B.M.'s GPA would have endured, not for a few weeks as in most instances of Ms. Elliott's flags, but for the entire 1998-99 school year, had Ms. Halbuer not removed the flag. Ms. Elliott testified that B.M.'s overall GPA was not inflated because there were other repeated classes on his transcript for which he did not receive credit. Ms. Elliott may have been correct on this score, but cannot justify an improper flag by pointing to other flags that should have been but were not entered. Ms. Elliott's testimony as to her salutary reasons for entering the flag is credited, but is insufficient to justify the timing of the flag in this instance. As to Student A.M., Mr. Dugan and Ms. Halbuer both testified that they personally reviewed A.M.'s student records and found that, on August 26, 1998, Ms. Elliott entered an improper course flag for A.M.'s "D" grade in Algebra I for the first semester of the 1995-96 school year. This flag was entered after Ms. Halbuer's initial August meeting with Ms. Elliott as to the proper flagging procedure. A.M. was enrolled to retake Algebra I at the time of the flag, but had only just commenced the class. A.M.'s grade in the retaken Algebra I was not posted until January 1999. It is found that Ms. Elliott's flagging of A.M.'s first semester Algebra I course improperly deviated from District policy. Even according to the procedure Ms. Elliott normally followed, it was premature to flag a course before the student had demonstrated progress sufficient to satisfy Ms. Elliott that she would likely pass the retaken course. As to Student B.W., Ms. Ebersbach and Ms. Halbuer testified that they each personally reviewed B.W.'s student records and discovered that, on September 10, 1998, Ms. Elliott changed B.W.'s letter grade in Integrated Science from a "D" to a "B" for the first semester of the 1998-99 school year. While conceding that her computer code appeared on the grade change, Ms. Elliott flatly denied changing B.W.'s grade. B.W. was not a student assigned to Ms. Elliott, and she had no recollection of him. Her planning book for the relevant date and time indicated that she was not even in the guidance office when the grade change was made. Ms. Elliott theorized that another counselor may have made the change, using her code. Ms. Elliott's denial is credited. Her testimony throughout this proceeding was forthright and honest, even when detrimental to her own case. Aside from the S.H. situation, which she adequately explained, Ms. Elliott was accused of changing a grade only in this one instance out of fifty-six alleged violations of District policy. It is found that the Department failed to demonstrate that Ms. Elliott changed B.W.'s Integrated Science grade. Testimony was also offered as to the following students: J. McD., S. McC., P.L., M.L., S.K., K.L., and a second student with the initials D.H. In the cases of these students, the Department failed to produce records sufficient to permit Ms. Elliott to answer the charges. The Department proffered the transcripts of S.K., K.L., P.L., S. McC., and J. McD. at the hearing as Exhibits 54 through 58. These were not admitted because they had not been provided to Ms. Elliott during the pre-hearing discovery process. It is noted that the failure to provide these transcripts to Ms. Elliott prior to the hearing was not due to any negligence or misfeasance by counsel for the Department. The documents were simply unavailable to the Department before the final hearing began. E. The "vendetta" defense Evidence was presented at the hearing aimed at demonstrating that Mr. Dugan, the principal of Merritt Island, pursued these allegations against Ms. Elliott not on their merits but because he held a longstanding grudge against her. This grudge was alleged to have its origin in Ms. Elliott's testimony in the criminal trial of Doris Roberts, a former teacher charged with committing sexual acts with students at Merritt Island. At the trial, there was some conflict in the testimony as to whether Mr. Dugan, then an assistant principal, had ignored information that should have led him to investigate Ms. Roberts well before her activities were finally exposed and stopped. Ms. Elliott's testimony at the criminal trial is claimed to have contradicted Mr. Dugan's testimony on that point. Ms. Elliott claimed that every school employee whose testimony at the criminal trial contradicted that of Mr. Dugan was subjected to harassment by him, and either retired from the District or transferred away from Merritt Island. Ms. Elliott presented the testimony of two witnesses, Marvin Gaines and Doris Glenn, who Ms. Elliott alleged were victims of Mr. Dugan's vendetta. Their testimony indicated that Mr. Dugan could be a harsh administrator, could be less than straightforward in his dealings with employees, and engaged in juvenile and unprofessional name-calling when displeased with subordinates. Ms. Glenn, a retired assistant principal with 33 years of experience at Merritt Island, made it clear that Mr. Dugan tended to be arbitrary. One's relationship with Mr. Dugan "depended on what he had for breakfast." Ms. Glenn went on say, "If you were in, you were in. If you were out, buddy, you were out. I mean solid out." Ms. Glenn testified that she spent a good deal of time in Mr. Dugan's bad graces, and attributed her retirement to the harassment ensuing from her testimony in the Roberts case. Significantly, Ms. Glenn stated that she had never known Mr. Dugan to invent false charges in an effort to harm an employee. Mr. Dugan would go over the work of a disfavored employee with a fine-tooth comb. In her words, "He'd be looking for [something wrong] if you were on his out list. He would be looking for any little flake of dandruff." If Mr. Dugan "got on you," then "you'd better be strong and you'd better be ethical. You better be able to clean your plate up good because if you messed up he'd have your ass." However, Ms. Glenn did not believe that Mr. Dugan would fabricate allegations against an employee. Mr. Gaines, who had 35 years with the District including ten years at Merritt Island, also had a poor relationship with Mr. Dugan. Like Ms. Glenn, Mr. Gaines believed that Mr. Dugan had a "list" of those he disliked. Mr. Gaines described Mr. Dugan as a "very retaliatory person" and a "big liar." However, the animosity in Mr. Gaines' case appeared related less to the Roberts case than to the fact that Mr. Dugan lobbied District administrators to pass over Mr. Gaines for a promotion. In fact, Mr. Gaines described his relationship with Mr. Dugan as "all right for a while" in the immediate aftermath of the Roberts case. While Mr. Gaines believed that Mr. Dugan had lied to him concerning the promotion, he had never known Mr. Dugan to fabricate allegations of wrongdoing. In summary, there was credible evidence that Mr. Dugan was vituperative and would not hesitate to go after a subordinate against whom he held a grudge. Mr. Dugan denied any such grudge against Ms. Elliott. Aside from the investigation itself, Ms. Elliott offered no evidence that Mr. Dugan was pursuing a vendetta against her. To the contrary, she testified that Mr. Dugan had been supportive of the cheerleading team. It is also noted that Mr. Dugan did not initiate the investigation of Ms. Elliott. Ms. Halbuer and Ms. Vann separately approached him with suspicions as to Ms. Elliott's actions. When Ms. Vann discussed her allegations at the principals' meeting, Mr. Dugan was not particularly eager to pursue them. He told Ms. Vann to document her allegations in writing before he would consider them. In any event, an alleged vendetta by Mr. Dugan against Ms. Elliott would have relevance only as a motive for bringing false allegations against her. No evidence was presented that Mr. Dugan ever fabricated evidence against any employee, including Ms. Elliott. The alleged grudge may have spurred Mr. Dugan to investigate the matter more fully. However, his motive is irrelevant because his factual allegations were essentially accurate, even though the conclusions he drew from them were overstated. IV. Summary of Findings Three material allegations of fact were set forth in the Administrative Complaint. The first allegation stated: During the 1997-1998 and 1998-1999 school years, the Respondent improperly attempted to persuade instructional staff members to change failing grades they issued to one or more students to higher, passing grades without proper justification. It is found that the Department failed to offer clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Elliott improperly attempted to persuade the three faculty members from Cocoa Beach to change the grades of Student S.H. In fact, all three of the faculty members testified that Ms. Elliott did not ask them to change the grades. The second factual allegation stated: During the 1997-1998 and 1998-1999 school years, the Respondent changed the grades of one or more students to a grade higher than that assigned by the instructional staff member. These changes were made without academic or other proper justification. It is found that the Department offered clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Elliott changed the grades of Student S.H. However, the evidence also demonstrated that Ms. Elliott made those changes as a demonstration to S.H. of how she could potentially raise her GPA. Ms. Elliott had no intention of effecting permanent changes to S.H.'s grades, as evidenced by the fact that Ms. Elliott and S.H. acknowledged that S.H. was not eligible for cheerleading during the Fall semester of 1998. The third factual allegation stated: During the 1997-1998 and 1998-1999 school years, the Respondent "flagged" grades of one or more students in such a manner that the grades would not count in the computation of the student(s) grade point average, thereby artificially and improperly raising the grade point average of the student(s). It is found that the Department offered clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Elliott improperly flagged the grades of Students L.H., B.M., and A.M. It is found that the Department did not offer evidence sufficient to demonstrate that Ms. Elliott improperly flagged the grades of Students M.M. and B.W. It is found that the Department offered clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Elliott's flagging of the grades of Students M.P., B.H., D.H., J. E.-N., and A.L. violated the District's Grading Procedures as understood by District administrators. However, it is also found that Ms. Elliott's flagging of these students' grades was consistent with her understanding of the flagging policy and with the manner in which she had flagged grades for several years. It is found that the Department offered clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Elliott obtained Ms. Peters' TERMS access code without fully disclosing the reasons why she could not use her own code, and further that she attempted to access the TERMS program after she had been expressly forbidden to do so by Mr. Dugan. It is found that the Department failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Elliott's motive for flagging grades was to make the subject students eligible to participate in cheerleading.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued finding that Respondent did violate the provisions of Section 231.2615(1)(f) and (i), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-1.006(4)(b) and (5)(a), Florida Administrative Code, but did not violate Section 231.2615(1)(c), Florida Statutes or Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) or (d), or Rule 6B-1.006(5)(h), Florida Administrative Code. It is further RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued providing that a written reprimand be placed in her certification file and placing her on a two-year period of probation subject to such conditions as the Commission may specify, to commence if and when Respondent again becomes an active guidance counselor in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 8th day of May, 2003.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was a 6th grade student at Mays Middle School in Dade County, Florida, during the 1987-88 school year. On June 14, 1988, another student informed the school's assistant principal that Respondent had in his possession a quantity of marijuana. Respondent was brought to the assistant principal. In the course of interrogating Respondent, the assistant principal momentarily left Respondent in the custody of a security officer. Upon returning to the room, the principal learned that Respondent had attempted to discard a foil packet, behind a filing cabinet. The packet was subsequently analyzed and found to contain one quarter to one half of an ounce of marijuana. Upon further questioning by the assistant principal, Respondent contended that he had found the contraband packet on the way to school and intended to sell the drug since his family needed the money. Thereupon, Respondent was suspended for the remaining two days of the school year and reassigned to the opportunity school program for the 1988-89 school year. In response to a telephone call by school administrators, Respondent's mother came to the school when he was apprehended for the possession of marijuana. Somewhat distraught about the incident, her major concern was what action would be taken in response to this behavior by her son. Previous conversations had been had between school officials and Respondent's mother regarding his attendance record and academic problems during the school year. The entire incident of Respondent's apprehension for possession of a controlled substance was reported to law enforcement officials for further investigation and appropriate legal action. During the course of the school year, Respondent has been absent a total of 36 days. His academic progress has been extremely poor resulting in final grades for the year of "F" in language arts, "D" in mathematics, "D" in French, "F" in reading and "F" in science. During the course of the school year, Respondent was seen by the school counselor a total of 12 times. Several of the counselling sessions were the result of Respondent's referral by his teachers for disruptive behavior. Other sessions resulted from teachers concern about Respondent's academic progress. Possible remedies for Respondent's academic needs and attendance problems are more likely to be realized in the smaller and more structured educational atmosphere of the opportunity school. Petitioner's district code of student conduct contains recommended disciplinary action for students found in possession of illegal mood modifiers. Mood modifiers are defined in the district code to mean all substances capable of producing a change in behavior or altering a state of mind or feeling. The code recommends that such students either be expelled or be suspended with a possible recommendation for administrative assignment to an opportunity school. In the absence of evidence other than Respondent's own admission of his intent to sell the marijuana, school officials elected to suspend Respondent and recommend assignment to an opportunity school. Respondent is presently attending the J.R.E. Lee Opportunity School.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered assigning Respondent to the J.R.E. Lee Opportunity School. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 14th day of November, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank Harder, Esquire 175 Fontainebleau Boulevard Suite 2A-3 Miami, Florida 33172 Clara Patino 19316 South West 121st Avenue Miami, Florida 33177 Hon. Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sydney H. McKenzie, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Dr. Josesph A. Fernandez Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public School 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue This case concerns the effort by the Petitioner, School Board of Nassau County, Florida, to dismiss the Respondent, Vashti Garrett, as a teacher in the Nassau County School System at the termination of the 1979-80 school year. As grounds for this dismissal, the Petitioner has alleged that there is good and sufficient reason for the dismissal based upon the Respondent's continued emotional and psychiatric problems, which render her unfit for service as a classroom teacher in the Nassau County School System and the Respondent's continuing need for psychiatric therapy. The Petitioner further contends that the Respondent, due to past psychiatric disabilities resulting in previous leaves of absences, renders her continued service as a teacher in their system uncertain and questionable.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, School Board of Nassau County, Florida, is an educational unit within the State of Florida, which employs a number of teachers to carry out its function. One of those teachers is Vashti Garrett, the Respondent, who has continuing contract status with the Petitioner. It is the intention of the Petitioner to dismiss Vashti Garrett from her employment as a teacher in the Nassau County School System, effective at the conclusion of the school year 1979-80. The dismissal action is promoted pursuant to Subsection 231.36(4), Florida statutes. 2/ The Respondent has opposed this action and has requested a formal administrative hearing in accordance with Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, which hearing was conducted, resulting in this Recommended Order. The facts reveal that the Respondent returned to her position as a teacher at the Fernandina Beach Junior High School as an employee of the Petitioner in the school year 1979-80. During the pre-planning phase of that academic year, specifically in August, 1979, the Respondent and other members of the instructional staff of that school observed that Mrs. Garrett felt the other teachers were "making fun" of her and accusing her. In fact, there was no effort to derogate the Respondent. Throughout this time the Respondent appeared unduly distressed and on August 25, 1979, the Principal of her school, Eugene W. Grant, held a conference with Mrs. Garrett to discuss her problems. Robert Johnson, the Assistant Superintendent of Instruction for the Petitioner, entered the conference at a later point on that date. In the course of the conference, the Respondent would begin to laugh and then become depressed and cry. In view of her appearance and past emotional illnesses, the Principal felt it necessary to speak with the Superintendent of the School System on this subject. On August 27, 1979, a conference was held in which the Respondent, Principal Grant and Superintendent Craig Marsh were in attendance. Mrs. Garrett was somewhat ambivalent about returning to the classroom, as related in her discussion on that date, in that she at times indicated that she was unable to cope with that situation and the pressures inherent in that job and at other times would state that she felt capable of returning to the classroom. The Superintendent decided, based upon his knowledge of the present situation and the past emotional illnesses of the Respondent, that she should be kept from the classroom and be made to undergo a mental status examination to determine the future course of the employment arrangement between the Petitioner and Respondent. The names of three psychiatrists were provided to the Respondent for her to choose one of those named physicians to administer a mental status examination to her. The Respondent chose Joseph A. Virzi, M.D., a psychiatrist practicing in Jacksonville, Florida. Dr. Virzi examined the Respondent and forwarded a report to the School Board of Nassau County. The report is dated September 11, 1979, a copy of which has been introduced in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 7. Dr. Virzi found the Respondent to be suffering from chronic schizophrenia, paranoid reaction, severe, which is a mental illness and recommended that the Respondent not be returned to her job as a school teacher, in that she was unable to handle the stresses of that occupational role. Dr. Virzi stated in his report that the Respondent was in need of extensive psychiatric care on a routine basis and that she might benefit significantly from a medically oriented psychiatric day treatment program. This prognosis held by Dr. Virzi was that with proper treatment the patient might be able to return to work in January, 1980. He concluded by stating that in January, 1980, the Respondent would need another complete psychiatric status examination. The Superintendent met with Mrs. Garrett again on September 17, 1979, and in view of Dr. Virzi's report, indicated to the Respondent that she was being suspended with pay and would no longer be a member of the instructional staff at Fernandina Beach Junior High School. This conversation of September 17, 1979, was followed by a written communication by certified mail on September 20, 1979, from the Superintendent to the Respondent. In this correspondence matters of the conference of September 17, 1979, were reiterated and it was indicated that the suspension with pay would continue until the next regularly scheduled meeting of the School Board of Nassau County, to be held at 7:30 p.m. on Thursday, October 11, 1979. The Superintendent also indicated that she would have the opportunity to make a request for hearing and to make that request on or before October 11, 1979, and if a request for hearing was granted, she would be given the right to be represented by an attorney, to have witnesses subpoenaed, and to demand proof that the charges against her be proven. The charges referred to are outlined in this correspondence as being a statement by the Superintendent of intended recommendation that Mrs. Garrett be released from her contract for reason of medical disability as specifically set forth and described in the report of Dr. Virzi dated September 11, 1979, and as stated by Superintendent Marsh, "Your past extensive history of this identical problem". The correspondence also stated that the Superintendent would recommend to the School Board at the October 11, 1979, meeting that the Respondent be suspended without pay through the date of the hearing and concluded by stating that if no hearing was requested, the Superintendent would recommend the release of the Respondent from her contract status for reasons as described in this paragraph. On January 3, 1980, the School Hoard of Nassau County, Florida, entered an order confirming the Superintendent's suspension of the Respondent with pay until November 1, 1979, and suspending the Respondent without pay from November 1, 1979, pending further action of the Board. No mention was made about the specific date for further action. This order may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 3 admitted into evidence. Beginning January 22, 1980, the Respondent began to undergo extensive outpatient treatment by Dr. Virzi, which included psychotherapy and the utilization of psychotropic medication. Between that date and May 19, 1980, Dr. Virzi saw Mrs. Garrett approximately sixty (60) times with roughly half of those visits occurring before March 4, 1980. On March 4, 1980, Dr. Virzi wrote to William Webb, an official with the School System. This correspondence took the form of a status update on the mental health condition of the Respondent. (At that time the Petitioner was unaware that the Respondent had undergone continuing treatment by Dr. Virzi.) Dr. Virzi's impression of the Respondent at that March 4, 1980, visit was markedly different than his initial impression of September 11, 1979. In March, Dr. Virzi felt that the Respondent carried the diagnosis chronic schizophrenic reaction, paranoid type, recovered. At that time, he recommended that Mrs. Garrett have outpatient therapy, one session per week, in order to gain more insight into her personality. The patient was no longer receiving medication in March. Further, Dr. Virzi felt that the Respondent was able to return to her work and carry out her duties as a teacher in the junior high school in Fernandina Beach. Between March 4, 1980, and May 19, 1980, Dr. Virzi continued to see the Respondent in the type of setting as described in the report of March 4, 1980. (A copy of the March 4, 1980, report of Dr. Virzi may be found as a part of Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 5 admitted into evidence.) The deposition of Dr. Virzi was taken on July 2, 1980, as found as Respondent's Exhibit 1 admitted into evidence, and at that time Dr. Virzi continued to hold the opinions as expressed by his March 4, 1980, report. On March 18, 1980, Superintendent Marsh wrote to Mrs. Garrett indicating to her that her salary was being reinstated effective March 4, 1980, in view of the report of Dr. Virzi. A copy of this correspondence may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 4 admitted into evidence. That correspondence goes on to say that the Superintendent would recommend, at a special meeting of the School Board on March 25, 1980, that the Respondent be paid the balance of her salary for the school year 1979-1980. The letter next states that the Superintendent will recommend to the School Board that the Respondent be terminated in accordance with the provisions of Subsection 231.36(4), Florida Statutes. The stated basis for the Superintendent's recommendation was: "1. Your continued need for psychiatric therapy and your history of emotional disabilities render your placement in a classroom teach- ing position unpredictable and hence, not in the best interest of the public school system of Nassau County. 2. Your continued need for psychiatric therapy indicates a chronic medical psychiatric condition which I feel renders your services in the future questionable at best." The correspondence additionally gave information about the starting time of the School Board meeting and allowed for the Respondent to request a full hearing to be scheduled at a date subsequent to March 25, 1980, in which proceeding the Respondent could be represented by counsel and bring witnesses and to be provided a full statement of the nature of the charges against her. A formal statement of recommended dismissal of the Respondent was presented to the School Board on March 25, 1980, and a copy of this recommended dismissal is found as a part of the Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 5 admitted into evidence, the balance of that exhibit being Dr. Virzi's report. It is this statement of recommended dismissal which fashions the accusations which the Respondent has been called upon to defend against in the case now before the Division of Administrative Hearings. In response to the Superintendent's recommended dismissal petition, the Petitioner accepted the Superintendent's recommendation of dismissal of the Respondent at the conclusion of the year 1979-80 with a condition that the Respondent be paid for the period March 4, 1980, until the conclusion of the school year 1979-80 at her regular rate, but that the Respondent not be given classroom assignments or any specific assigned duties. (The Respondent did not perform any classroom assignments or other specific duties of employment for the Petitioner for the school year 1979-80 beyond pre-planning in August, 1979.) Finally, the notice and order of dismissal with pay entered by the School Board stated that final determination in the matter would be made following an evidential hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings. A copy of this notice and order of the School Board may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 6 admitted into evidence. After the Petitioner's decision on March 25, 1980, no further mental status examination or significant treatment was rendered to the Respondent, other than as conducted by Dr. Virzi. (Sometime in the school year 1979-1980 the Respondent did go to the Southside Free Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida, which is a mental health unit. However, the several visits to that clinic only involved initial conversations and personal history information.) In examining the medical evidence that has been adduced, Dr. Virzi's testimony and reports clearly establish that the Respondent carries the diagnosis, chronic schizophrenia, paranoid reaction, and in September of 1979 this condition was severe enough that the Respondent was unable to undertake her duties within the Nassau County School System. In contrast to this condition, following long standing and frequent treatment by Dr. Virzi, the Respondent was sufficiently recovered to be able to return to her position as teacher in the Fernandina Beach Junior High School, with the only proviso being that she receive outpatient psychotherapy, one session per week. This recovered condition was the patient's status in late May, 1980, and at the time of the evidentiary hearing in this cause. There have been other absences by the Respondent while teaching in the Nassau County School System, some of which have been related to her mental health. A synopsis of the number of days which the Respondent has been absent from the School System beginning in the years 1978-79 and continuing through the school year 1979-80 may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 8 admitted into evidence. The Respondent's absenteeism directly attributable to her mental health began to manifest itself in the school year 1975-76, specifically in February, 1976. In that month in a conference with the Principal of Fernandina Beach Junior High School, the Respondent indicated that she could work with faculty and administration and that she was concerned about herself and wished to know if there were any complaints about her. Mrs. Garrett also made mention of some lists that had been passed around. The lists concerned names of students who were trying to get the Respondent dismissed from teaching at Fernandina Beach Junior High School in view of the allegation that Mrs. Garrett's husband was selling "dope" and the accusation that she was participating with him in the sales. Mrs. Garrett also stated that the Assistant Principal had said that she was "crazy" and that her husband had called her "crazy". This was later changed from the word "crazy" to "dense". During the process of this conference, Mrs. Garrett also accused the person who had monitored her class while the conference was proceeding of taking something from the Respondent's purse. Finally, she stated that a black student and a white student had told her she wasn't supposed to use the telephone. Mrs. Garrett later confronted the teacher who had monitored the class as related above and appeared very excited. The Respondent then accused Mary Tom Drew of going into her purse. On February 23, 1976, the Respondent did not report for work at the school and had no lesson plans available for a substitute teacher. On February 24, 1976, a call was made to the school, indicating that the Respondent would not be in for the remainder of the week of February 25 through 28, 1976. The caller indicated that the Respondent was in Plant City. On February 29, 1976, the mother-in-law of the Respondent called school officials and indicated that the Respondent would not be at school from March 1 through March 5, 1976. The mother-in-law later called back to say that the Respondent would be mailing lesson plans and that the students should continue to work out of their textbooks until those plans arrived. The Respondent was out of school from February 20, 1976, through March 15, 1976. In this same series of events, on March 3, 1976, the Assistant Principal spoke with Mrs. Garrett in Plant City, Florida, and she informed him that she would call her doctor and see if he would release her on March 15, 1976, to return to work. On March 15, 1976, Mrs. Garrett's mother called the Principal at the junior high school and stated that the Respondent had not been released from the doctor's care, and that Mrs. Garrett probably would want to receive a leave of absence. At this juncture, the school authorities did not know what the medical problem was. (By way of clarification, in the course of the hearing Mrs. Garrett indicated that allegations at school to the affect that she was assisting her husband in selling "dope" brought on a "nervous breakdown".) There was no other indications of problems in the school year 1975-76. Beginning the school year 1976-77, the first reporting date was August 29 but the Respondent did not report for work and missed the entire first week of school in that school year. Someone called for Mrs. Garrett to inform the administration of the Fernandina Beach Junior High School that she would not be at school during the first week; however, no explanation was given for missing that time and no explanation was ever given by the Respondent of why she missed the first week. When attempts were made to determine the explanation, the Respondent was evasive. On September 6, 1976, the Respondent's mother-in-law called the secretary at the school stating that the Respondent would not be at work from September 7 through September 15. The mother-in-law was told to have the Respondent call and explain this absence to the Principal. The mother-in-law made a second call to the principal and explained that Mrs. Garrett would not be available for that week due to her confinement in Plant City. The mother-in-law stated to the Principal that the Respondent would not be in attendance at the school from September 7 through September 10. On September 7, 1976, the Respondent's mother called the principal, Mr. Grant, and stated that the Respondent was in the hospital and that it was the intention of the Respondent's mother to determine the nature of the illness, On September 11, 1976, the Respondent wrote to the Superintendent of the Nassau County School System asking for medical leave through the Thanksgiving Holidays. This letter may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 9 admitted into evidence. The Superintendent responded to the request of the Respondent and asked that Dr. Eduardo Valdes, a psychiatrist treating the Respondent indicate that it was necessary for the Respondent to have medical leave. A letter was written on October 1, 1976, a copy of which may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 10, addressed from Dr. Valdes to the Superintendent of Schools, Albert, H. Rumph. In that letter, Dr. Valdes diagnosed the Respondent's condition as chronic undifferentiated schizophrenia and indicated that he had treated the Respondent from August 31, 1976, through September 14, 1976. The physician recommended that the Respondent be afforded a medical leave of absence for the first semester of the school year. The Respondent did not return to work until January, 1977. When she did return, she resumed her duties as a teacher and no further incidents occurred until June 10, 1977. On that date, the Respondent told the secretary to the Principal that she would need a substitute teacher and then approached the Principal and told the Principal, Mr. Grant, that she had asked the secretary for a substitute teacher. Mrs. Garrett then walked off without making further comment. The Principal called after her and received no answer. Shortly thereafter, the Principal was informed that Mrs. Garrett had left her class and, in fact, she had. She departed without leaving any instructions on the subject of the test schedule which was called to be administered on June 10, 1977. On the following Monday, June 13, 1977, the Principal and Assistant Principal spoke with Mrs. Garrett about the departure of June 10, 1977, and she responded by saying that she was not respected by the students and that her side was hurting and that she did not feel she wished to give further explanation about leaving school on the above-mentioned date. No further action was taken on that matter. In the course of the conversation of June 13, 1977, the Respondent acted defensive in relating to the inquiry made by the Principal and the Assistant Principal. In January, 1978, the Respondent missed a day of school without arranging for a substitute teacher and one additional day due to hospitalization. Respondent never related the reason for her hospitalization. In the school year of 1978-79 there were a number of absences by the Respondent for which she would give short notice and fail to arrange for a substitute teacher. Some of these absences pertained to medical reasons and were allowed by the Petitioner. During the academic year there were also deficiencies in the school records kept by the Respondent. Respondent was absent in portions of April and May of that year, for a total of twenty-three (23) days of absences in the school year. In explanation of her absences, Mrs. Garrett produced a form of accounting invoice from a doctor who was treating her. A copy of this invoice may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 11 admitted into evidence. Petitioner's Exhibit 11 is an entry made by Dr. Roman or one of his associates who succeeded Dr. Delmazes, who had taken over for Dr. Valdes in treating Respondent's mental illness. This document indicated that Mrs. Garrett had been hospitalized since April 30 and was able to return to work effective May 9, 1979. Other incidents related to the Respondent's emotional conduct included an item during pre-planning in August of 1976 for the school year 1976-77. On that occasion there was a situation in which the Respondent was approached by another teacher, Emily Crapps, to gain the Respondent's assistance in preparing bulletin boards. The Respondent yelled at Mrs. Crapps and told her to get out of the room. This exchange was unprovoked. There were other occasions overheard by Mrs. Crapps in that school year wherein loud exchanges were occurring between the Respondent and Respondent's students. There was an exchange between Mrs. Garrett and Sandra Wright, another teacher, at sometime during the course of her employment at the Fernandina Beach Junior High School, in which the Respondent borrowed some materials from Sandra Wright and later Ms. Wright and some other teachers were talking in a teasing way about having enough classroom materials and they indicated to Mrs. Garrett that they were all merely teasing. Later on that day, Ms. Wright was approached at her car by the Respondent, who asked Ms. Wright why she was laughing at Respondent, to which Ms. Wright responded that she was not laughing at Respondent. Mrs. Garrett then stated to Ms. Wright that Ms. Wright was trying to get the Respondent fired.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the action of the Petitioner, School Board of Nassau County, Florida, against the Respondent, Vashti Garrett, be set aside and that the Respondent be allowed to return to her duties as a teacher in the Nassau County School System, in an assignment other than the Fernandina Beach Junior High School and upon condition that she receive necessary outpatient treatment as suggested by Dr. Virzi. 3/ DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day or August, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of August, 1980.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent is the holder of a teacher's certificate duly issued by the Department of Education for the State of Florida. Such certificate bears number 282363 and is a Rank 2 certificate, expiring on June 30, 1986. On or about August 11, 1970, Respondent caused to be filed with the Department of Education for the State of Florida his application for issuance of a teaching certificate. Respondent, under oath, stated within that application that he had never been arrested or involved in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation. Respondent had been arrested by the Fort Lauderdale Police Department on or about July 1, 1965, for the offense of petit larceny (shoplifting). As a result of that arrest, Respondent was adjudicated and fined $125, and his sentence of 15 days of incarceration was suspended. On or about September 2, 1969, Respondent was again arrested by the Fort Lauderdale Police Department for the offense of contributing to the delinquency of a minor and violation of the curfew laws. Respondent pled nolo contendere to the first charge, and adjudication was withheld. The second charge was nolle prossed. As a result of filing that application with the Department of Education, Respondent was issued a teaching certificate for the academic school year 1970-1971. On or about May 1, 1973, Respondent caused to be filed with the Department of Education for the State of Florida his application for the issuance of a full-time teaching certificate under the Department of Education Number 282363 with a preference in physical education. Respondent, under oath, stated within that application that he had never been arrested or involved in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation. Accordingly, Respondent did not reveal the prior two arrests by the Fort Lauderdale Police Department set forth above. As a result of filing that application, Respondent was issued a teaching certificate as a full-time instructor under Department of Education Number 282363, certificate type 04. In September 1976, Respondent caused to be filed with the Department of Education for the State of Florida his application for the issuance of a teaching certificate under Department of Education Number 282363. Respondent, under oath, stated within that application that he had never been arrested or involved in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation. Accordingly, Respondent did not reveal the prior two arrests by the Fort Lauderdale Police Department set forth above. On or about October 3, 1973, Respondent was arrested in Duval County, Florida. Subsequent thereto, an Amended Information was filed against Respondent charging him with breaking and entering the dwelling house of another with the intent to commit a misdemeanor therein, to wit: assault and battery, and also charging him with committing assault and battery on Evelyn Rebecca May. On December 10, 1973, Respondent entered a plea of guilty to the offense of trespassing with malice. Adjudication was withheld, and Respondent was placed on probation for one year. As a result of filing that application, Respondent was issued a teaching certificate under Department of Education Number 282363, Rank 2, Type 2. On or about May 30, 1979, Respondent caused to be filed with the Department of Education for the State of Florida his application for the issuance of a duplicate teaching certificate. Respondent, under oath, stated in that application that he had never been convicted or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation and that there were no criminal charges pending against him other than minor traffic violations. Accordingly, Respondent did not reveal the prior two arrests by the Fort Lauderdale Police Department set forth above. Respondent also thereby failed to disclose his arrest in Duval County, his plea of guilty to the offense of trespassing with malice, and the withholding of adjudication and placing him on probation as a result of that arrest and guilty plea. Respondent, while attending a high school basketball championship play-off in Lakeland, Florida, was arrested on or about March 10, 1979, for the offense of "scalping." As a result of that arrest, Respondent was formally charged with violation of Section 817.36, Florida Statutes, in the County Court of Polk County, State of Florida, case number MO79-000450-LD. Subsequent to the filing of those formal charges, Respondent tendered a plea of nolo contendere and had court costs assessed against him in the amount of $112. As a result of filing the application for the issuance of a duplicate certificate, Respondent having previously stated that he had lost his original certificate, the Department of Education issued a duplicate certificate under Department of Education Number 282363, Rank 2, Type 2. On or about May 27, 1970, Respondent filed an application for employment with the Duval County School Board. That application failed to disclose his arrests by the Fort Lauderdale Police Department. Rather, Respondent specifically denied that he had been arrested for any offense other than minor traffic violations. Between September 1971 and September 1973, Respondent was employed by the Duval County School Board at Sandalwood Junior-Senior High School. On or about September 4, 1973, Respondent filed an application for employment with the Nassau County School Board. That application failed to disclose his arrests by the Fort Lauderdale Police Department. Rather, Respondent specifically denied that he had been arrested for any offense other than minor traffic violations. During the academic year of 1973-1974, Respondent was employed by the Nassau County School Board at West Nassau Senior High School. During the 1973-1974 school year, Marilyn B. Grimmage was a student at West Nassau High School where Respondent was then a physical education teacher. Grimmage was 15 years of age. She and Respondent began to date. After a period of two to three months, they engaged in several acts of sexual intercourse. While there were no acts of sexual intercourse committed on the school grounds, there were times when Grimmage and the Respondent would sneak off to private areas of the school and kiss. Grimmage and Respondent engaged in sexual intercourse on three occasions: two of the occasions occurred at the residence belonging to a friend of the Respondent, and one occasion occurred in a wooded area. Grimmage knew that Respondent was married at the time and believed that their relationship was common knowledge at the school. While Respondent was employed at the West Nassau Senior High School, he made contact with Belinda Yvette Morris, who was 15 years of age and attending a junior high school within the Nassau County public school system. Contrary to the allegations of paragraph 33 of Count VII, Morris was not then attending West Nassau High School, but rather went there daily in order to practice for cheerleading. Respondent engaged in sexual intercourse with Morris. He was married at the time. Respondent made a second attempt to engage in sexual intercourse with Morris following a basketball game when Morris was on her way home with other students. At Respondent's request, she entered his automobile and drove with him to an isolated area. He gave her a necklace and then made physical advances toward her in attempt to consummate sexual intercourse. His advances were rebuffed, and Respondent drove her to a location near her home and let her out of the automobile. On or about June 23, 1975, Respondent filed an application for employment with the Dade County School Board. That application failed to disclose his arrests by the Fort Lauderdale Police Department and also failed to disclose his arrest in Duval County, his plea of guilty to the offense of trespassing with malice, and the withholding of adjudication and placing him on probation as a result of that arrest and guilty plea. Rather, Respondent specifically denied that he had been arrested for any offense other than minor traffic violations. On that application for employment with the Dade County School Board, Respondent also failed to note that he had been previously employed with the Duval County School Board and with the Nassau County School Board. Rather, Respondent stated that he had been a professional basketball player for a period of years which would roughly correspond to the period of time he was employed with the Duval County School Board, and he further stated that he had been employed during that time period by a non-public school employer, the Jacksonville Marine Institute. On that application, Respondent also denied that he had ever been a member of the Florida Retirement System. As a result of filing that application, Respondent was employed by the Dade County School Board between September 1978 and October 1981 at American Senior High School. Sharon Colbert met Respondent when she was 15 years of age and a student at American Senior High School in Dade County, Florida, where Respondent was employed as a physical education teacher. Respondent was also the head coach for the varsity basketball team, and he approached Colbert and asked her to be on the "stat team," which consisted of students who would work with him and assist in keeping statistics for the basketball team. Colbert replied she could not afford to purchase the uniforms, and Respondent purchased her uniforms for her. One evening during the 1980-1981 school year, while Colbert was a member of the stat team, she accompanied Respondent and some of his basketball players to scout a game that was being conducted at Miami-Dade Community College. After the game, Respondent dropped off the other students and invited Colbert to the home of a friend of his for something to eat before he took her home. When Colbert and Respondent arrived at his friend's home, Respondent and his friend began "snorting coke." After his friend left, Respondent forcibly took Colbert into a bedroom, where he performed sexual intercourse. As a result of that sexual intercourse, Colbert contracted the "crabs." When she confronted Respondent about her predicament, he said he would assist her by taking her to the doctor. However, he instead took her to another residence and forcibly engaged in sexual intercourse with her. He then took her to a convenience store, where he obtained some pills and ointment for her to use to eradicate her crabs. In September 1981, while Respondent was teaching at American Senior High School, he approached Paulette Brown, who was then 15 years of age and a student at that school. Respondent asked Brown to remain after school to discuss her interest in becoming a member of the "stat team." After receiving permission from her father to remain after school, Brown went to the coach's office and waited while Respondent completed some last-minute errands. After Respondent returned to the coach's office, he asked Brown about her boyfriends and then told her he wanted to show her "his layout." Respondent took Brown through the boys' locker room to an equipment room. When they were inside the equipment room, Respondent closed the door and persuaded Brown to remove her clothing. He then engaged in sexual intercourse with Brown. Frederick Bertani and Desmond Patrick Gray, Jr., offered expert opinion that Respondent's effectiveness as an employee of a school board has been not only diminished but severely impaired, not only within Dade County but within the entire profession itself.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered in Case No. 82-1604 finding Respondent Otis Fells guilty of the allegations contained within the Administrative Complaint and permanently revoking his teaching certificate number 282363; and it is further RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered in Case No. 82-2742 finding Respondent Otis J. Fells guilty of the allegations contained within the Amended Notice of Charges and dismissing the Respondent from his employment with the School Board of Dade County and denying any claim he may have for back pay. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 7th day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 7th day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig R. Wilson, Esquire 315 Third Street West Palm Beach, Florida 3340l Jose Martinez, Esquire 201 Alhambra Circle, Suite 1200 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Mr. Otis J. Fells 1216 Walsh Avenue, Apt. 25-A Coral Gables, Florida 33146 Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools Lindsey Hopkins Building, Suite 200 1410 NE Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Donald L. Griesheimer, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER (SHCOOL BOARD) ================================================================= THE SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA EDUCATION PRACTICES COMMISSION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 82-1604 OTIS FELLS, Respondent. / SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 82-2742 OTIS J. FELLS, Respondent. /
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the letter from the Petitioner dated January 16, 2003, and in the Notice of Specific Charges filed February 27, 2003, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Article IX, Florida Constitution; Section 230.03, Florida Statutes (2002).3 At the times material to this proceeding, Mr. Lefkowitz taught emotionally handicapped and seriously emotionally disturbed students in North Miami Beach High's Bertha Abbess exceptional student education program. He has been employed by the School Board since 1993, and is currently employed under a professional services contract. At the times material to this proceeding, Mr. Lefkowitz and at least one other person were making a music video for a course they were taking at Florida International University. Alvarro Gutierrez was working with Mr. Lefkowitz on the video, and Mr. Gutierrez had chosen the girl who would sing and would choreograph the dances for the video. Mr. Gutierrez did not, however, have any dancers, and Mr. Lefkowitz told Mr. Gutierrez that he knew some girls "from school" who were dancers and that he would ask them if they wanted to dance in the video. J.D. was, at the times material to his proceeding, an 11th-grade student at North Miami Beach High, although she was not a student of Mr. Lefkowitz. Rather, J.D. met Mr. Lefkowitz in a school hallway, while she was selling candy for her French class, and they apparently had several conversations during school hours. In one of these conversations, Mr. Lefkowitz mentioned that he was filming a music video for a college class. J.D. asked if she could be in the video, and Mr. Lefkowitz agreed and asked J.D. if she had any friends who could also dance in the video. J.D. introduced Mr. Lefkowitz to her friend N.F. N.F. was, at the time, an 11th-grade student at North Miami Beach High, but she did not know Mr. Lefkowitz until J.D. introduced them. Mr. Lefkowitz did not know at the time he met her that N.F. was a student at North Miami Beach High. J.D. also introduced Mr. Lefkowitz to Glamour Legros, whom she knew because she and Ms. Legros attended the same church. Prior to introducing Mr. Lefkowitz to Ms. Legros, J.D. had told him on a number of occasions how much Ms. Legros wanted to meet him.4 Ms. Legros and N.F. shared an apartment. Ms. Legros was not a student at the times material to this proceeding, and she was older than N.F. and J.D. J.D., N.F., and Ms. Legros agreed to dance in the music video and went to Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment several times to discuss, rehearse, and shoot the video. Mr. Lefkowitz picked up J.D., N.F., and Ms. Legros and drove them to his apartment on the occasions when they were working on the video. Mr. Lefkowitz also took J.D. and her friends home on these occasions. M.D., J.D.'s brother and a student at North Miami Beach High at the time, went to Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment once, and H.D., another student at North Miami Beach High, was at Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment on at least one occasion, when she danced for the music video. These two students also rode with Mr. Lefkowitz in his car on at least one occasion. In addition to her visits to Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment and her rides in his car, J.D. spoke with Mr. Lefkowitz numerous times on the telephone. When working on the video, J.D. went to Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment with her friends. She was alone with Mr. Lefkowitz once, after her friends left Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment; Mr. Lefkowitz took her home after about an hour. Mr. Gutierrez did not observe Mr. Lefkowitz engage in any improper behavior with J.D. or her friends at Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment during the time they were discussing, rehearsing, and shooting the music video. On April 21, 2003, Ms. Legros called the police and she and N.F. reported that Mr. Lefkowitz had come to their apartment, beat on the door, and threatened them verbally. According to the police incident report, the police were dispatched at 10:09 p.m. and arrived at Ms. Legros's and N.F.'s apartment at 10:12 p.m. Mr. Lefkowitz had outpatient surgery on April 18, 2002. Mr. Lefkowitz's mother was with him at his apartment from April 18 through the morning of April 22, 2002, the day he returned to work. According to Ms. Lefkowitz, Mr. Lefkowitz was in bed, asleep, on the night of April 21, 2002. On April 22, 2002, Raymond Fontana, the principal of North Miami Beach High, received a telephone call from a woman who identified herself to Mr. Fontana's secretary as J.D.'s aunt and who told Mr. Fontana that an exceptional student education teacher named "Neil" was having a relationship with J.D., a student at North Miami Beach High; the caller also reported that the teacher had been involved in an "incident" that had been reported to the police. Ms. Legros was the person who called Mr. Fontana.5 Mr. Fontana called Allyn Bernstein, an assistant principal at North Miami Beach High, into his office and asked her to look into the allegations made by the caller. Dr. Bernstein called Mr. Lefkowitz into her office and, before she could say anything, Mr. Lefkowitz told her that he knew why she had summoned him, that an ex-girlfriend had threatened to make trouble for him because he wouldn't give her money. When Dr. Bernstein questioned Mr. Lefkowitz about his relationship with the student J.D., Mr. Lefkowitz denied knowing her. Dr. Bernstein also called J.D. into her office. In response to Dr. Bernstein's questions, J.D. denied knowing Mr. Lefkowitz. She stated that she did not have a social relationship with any teacher outside of school and that she had never met any staff member outside school. After Dr. Bernstein reported to Mr. Fontana that she believed that there might be "something there,"6 Mr. Fontana reported the matter to the school district personnel, who referred the matter to the Miami-Dade School Police Department, and an investigation was initiated. Once the investigation was initiated, Mr. Lefkowitz was placed on alternate assignment at his home effective May 3, 2002. The investigator, Detective Victor Hernandez, interviewed N.F., Ms. Legros, J.D., H.D., M.D., and Mr. Lefkowitz. During the course of his investigation, Detective Hernandez was told that Mr. Lefkowitz and N.F. had dated and that they had had sexual intercourse. When Detective Hernandez interviewed Mr. Lefkowitz, Mr. Lefkowitz denied that he knew either J.D. or N.F. In a report dated September 2, 2002, Detective Hernandez described his investigation and set forth the substance of the statements given by the witnesses. Detective Hernandez concluded that the charges that Mr. Lefkowitz had violated Rules 6B-1.001 and 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code, and School Board Rules 6Gx13-4.109 and 6Gx13-4A-1.21 were substantiated. A Conference-for-the-Record was held on October 2, 2002, with Paul Greenfield, District Director, presiding. Mr. Lefkowitz attended the Conference-for-the-Record, together with the School Board's Director of Region II and Mr. Fontana. Mr. Lefkowitz requested that his attorney be allowed to attend, but this request was denied.7 Mr. Greenfield reviewed Mr. Lefkowitz's history with the Miami-Dade County public school system and presented the results of the investigation. Mr. Lefkowitz denied having met J.D. and N.F. and denied that they were ever in his apartment. After the Conference-for-the-Record, Mr. Fontana recommended to the Superintendent of Region II that Mr. Lefkowitz's employment be terminated. Mr. Lefkowitz lied to Dr. Bernstein, to Detective Hernandez, and to the participants in the Conference-for-the- Record about his relationships with J.D. and N.F. because he knew it was improper for the students to be in his apartment and for him to associate with students outside of school. Mr. Lefkowitz expressed remorse at his behavior and acknowledged that his conduct was not appropriate. J.D. testified that she and Mr. Lefkowitz never dated or had sexual intercourse. Ms. Legros testified that she did not know whether Mr. Lefkowitz and J.D. had had sexual intercourse. She claimed, however, to have observed Mr. Lefkowitz and J.D. at Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment hugging and kissing and acting like "boyfriend and girlfriend to me."8 Ms. Legros has no personal knowledge that Mr. Lefkowitz had sexual relations with N.F., but testified that N.F. told Ms. Legros that she had had a relationship with Mr. Lefkowitz. An 11th-grade student testified at the hearing that he considered Mr. Lefkowitz to be a good teacher, a role model, and a teacher that he would remember after high school. Mr. Fontana testified that he thought Mr. Lefkowitz's effectiveness as a teacher had been impaired because of the "manner in which he dealt with students, having students come to his apartment, dealing with students that are out of the realm of his teaching responsibilities." Mr. Fontana observed that "once you breach that student/teacher relationship and you lose that professionalism I don't think you can ever go back and have the same degree of effectiveness as a teacher."9 In making his decision to recommend that Mr. Lefkowitz be terminated from his employment as a teacher, Mr. Fontana considered Mr. Lefkowitz's employment history with the Miami- Dade County public school system. Mr. Lefkowitz was twice referred for evaluation as to his medical fitness to perform his duties as a teacher and was twice found fit to perform these duties. Mr. Lefkowitz was the subject of three allegations of battery on a student, one in February 1995, one in February 1999, and one in March 1999; the February 1995 charge was substantiated,10 and Mr. Lefkowitz was given a verbal warning; the remaining two charges were unsubstantiated. Finally, in August 1995, Mr. Lefkowitz had an unacceptable annual evaluation, was given a TADS Category VII prescription in the area of Professional Responsibility, and successfully completed the prescription within the specified time. Summary The greater weight of the credible evidence presented by the School Board is insufficient to establish that Mr. Lefkowitz dated either J.D. or N.F. or that Mr. Lefkowitz had sexual intercourse with N.F. The School Board presented no direct evidence establishing that J.D. and Mr. Lefkowitz had a romantic relationship or that N.F. and Mr. Lefkowitz had a sexual relationship. The School Board relied exclusively on Ms. Legros's testimony to establish that these relationships existed,11 and most of her testimony was based on hearsay, not personal knowledge. Ms. Legros had no personal knowledge that N.F. had sexual relations with Mr. Lefkowitz, and the only behavior that Ms. Legros testified that she personally observed was Mr. Lefkowitz and J.D. in Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment hugging and kissing and, in Ms. Legros's estimation, acting like boyfriend and girlfriend. Ms. Legros is found not to be a particularly credible witness, and her uncorroborated testimony is not sufficiently persuasive to establish that Mr. Lefkowitz and J.D. more likely than not were dating or that the hugging and kissing, if she indeed observed such behavior, was sexual in nature. Both J.D. and Mr. Lefkowitz denied having a romantic relationship, but it is difficult to credit fully their testimony, given that both J.D. and Mr. Lefkowitz lied to School Board personnel about knowing one another and that Mr. Lefkowitz lied to School Board personnel about being acquainted with N.F. However, on reflection and after a careful review of the evidence, the testimony of J.D. and Mr. Lefkowitz is credited over that of Ms. Legros. The greater weight of the credible evidence presented by the School Board is not sufficient to establish that Mr. Lefkowitz telephoned N.F. on April 21, 2002, and threatened her or that he went to the apartment shared by Ms. Legros and N.F. on the night of April 21, 2002, and made threats to harm them. Mr. Lefkowitz's mother testified unequivocally that she was with Mr. Lefkowitz from April 19 through the morning of April 22, 2002, and that he was recovering from surgery and sleeping on the night of April 21, 2002. The School Board presented no evidence that Mr. Lefkowitz telephoned N.F. and threatened her, and Ms. Legros was the only witness to testify that Mr. Lefkowitz came to her apartment and made threats. The testimony of Mrs. Lefkowitz is credited over that of Ms. Legros.12 The evidence presented in this case is sufficient to establish that Mr. Lefkowitz failed to exercise the best professional judgment, failed to maintain the highest ethical standards, and used his position as a teacher to his personal advantage by recruiting young women students to perform as dancers in the music video he was filming as part of a college assignment. Mr. Lefkowitz admitted that he had engaged in inappropriate conduct: He had had a personal relationship outside of school with both J.D. and N.F.; J.D. and N.F. danced in a music video he made for a college project; J.D. and N.F. were in his apartment several times; and he drove J.D. and N.F. in his car to and from his apartment. The contents and tone of the written statement Mr. Lefkowitz adopted as his testimony supports an inference that he was on very familiar terms with both J.D. and N.F., and with Ms. Legros as well.13 Mr. Lefkowitz's poor judgment in developing significant social relationships outside of school with two female students at North Miami Beach High and his inappropriate behavior in having these students as guests in his car and in his apartment reflect poorly on him as a teacher employed by the School Board. Mr. Lefkowitz also failed to exercise the best professional judgment and to maintain the highest ethical standards with respect to his dealings with the School Board during the investigation of his conduct. Mr. Lefkowitz lied to Dr. Bernstein and Detective Hernandez and at the October 2, 2002, Conference-for-the-Record when he said he did not know J.D. or N.F., and he admitted at the final hearing that he lied because he knew that he should never have involved these students in making the music video, should never have given these students rides in his car, and should never have invited the students to his apartment. Mr. Lefkowitz's lack of truthfulness reflects poorly on him as a teacher employed by the School Board. The evidence presented by the School Board is also sufficient to establish that Mr. Lefkowitz engaged in one instance of inappropriate behavior involving students M.D. and H.D. Mr. Lefkowitz admitted that, on one occasion, he picked up these two students in his car and drove them to his apartment, where H.D. danced in the music video and M.D. observed Mr. Lefkowitz and cohorts filming the music video. Mr. Lefkowitz did not have repeated out-of-school contacts with these two students, as he did with J.D. and N.F., but his behavior with M.D. and H.D. reflected poorly on him as a teacher employed by the School Board. The evidence presented by the School Board, which consisted only of Mr. Fontana's conclusory and general statements, is not sufficient to establish that Mr. Lefkowitz's conduct impaired his effectiveness as a teacher in the Miami- Dade County public school system. The evidence presented by the School Board is, however, sufficient to permit an inference that Mr. Lefkowitz's effectiveness as a teacher was impaired. Mr. Lefkowitz encouraged students to develop personal relationships with him and to spend significant amounts of time with him in his apartment. Even though J.D., the young woman with whom he was primarily involved, was not a student in his class, his willingness to become involved with this student and her friends brings his personal and professional judgment into question and necessarily affects the school administration's assessment of his fitness for supervising high school students. It may also be inferred that Mr. Lefkowitz's effectiveness as an employee of the School Board was also impaired because he lied to the principal and assistant principal of his school and to the regional superintendent of the Miami-Dade County public school system about even knowing J.D. By not being truthful with the school system administrators, Mr. Lefkowitz diminished his credibility as a professional educator.
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 that Neil D. Lefkowitz is guilty of having committed misconduct in office and of violating School Board Rules 6Gx13-4-1.09 and 6Gx13-4A-1.21; Suspending Mr. Lefkowitz without pay for a period of 24 months, retroactive to the date on which the School Board suspended him from his employment without pay; and Imposing such conditions on Mr. Lefkowitz upon his return to employment as the School Board deems appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 31th day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 31th day of July, 2003.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate 195597 covering the area of industrial arts. During the school years of 1973-1974 to 1983-1984, Respondent had no persistent pattern involving professional incompetency or unprofessional conduct. The Respondent was employed as a teacher of industrial arts at Vero Beach Junior High School in the Indian River County School District during the 1983-1984, 1984-1985, and the first three weeks of the 1985-1986 school years, until his suspension effective September 16, 1985. During 1983-1984, he also apparently taught mathematics. At various times, the classes Respondent taught at Vero Beach Junior High School included some classes directed to regular students and others directed to exceptional students, including the educable mentally handicapped (EMH). EMH students have intelligence quotients (IQs) of less than 70. At all times, all of the industrial arts classes taught by Respondent were elective. THE 1983-1984 SCHOOL YEAR Mr. Marion Bass was the Respondent's supervising principal at all times material to the administrative complaint. As the Respondent's supervising principal, Mr. Bass observed and evaluated the Respondent's teaching performance. Prior to evaluating the Respondent's teaching performance, Principal Bass received formal training in the evaluation of teachers and had 12 to 13 years of practical experience in conducting teacher evaluations. Principal Bass observed the Respondent's teaching performance informally on two or three occasions during the 1983- 1984 school year and twice formally at the end of that school year. In his observations and evaluation of Respondent, Bass found the Respondent's performance to be unsatisfactory. Specifically, Bass observed that the Respondent did not satisfactorily control students in his classroom, his planning was not as complete as it should be, implementation of his lesson plans was not acceptable, and Respondent's "voice procedures" (i.e., diction and volume) were unsatisfactory. Bass opined that the Respondent did not have a specific structure to his industrial arts class. Even if students were knowledgeable of their assigned task on a given day, the students were not always on-task. Instead, they would be out of their seats, moving around the room and discussing topics unrelated to class work. In Bass' view, Respondent failed to provide proper supervision of the students, and as a result, the students did not appear to respect the Respondent's instructions. Bass observed that students ignored Respondent's instructions to sit down and be quiet. On other occasions, he observed that the Respondent ignored some students' off-task behavior while he was involved with others. However, none of Bass' observations in the 1983- 1984 school year were reduced to writing nor formally discussed with Respondent, and the formal year-end evaluation of Respondent of March 16, 1984, by Laurent Smith, Assistant Principal, rated Respondent as overall satisfactory and his contract was subsequently renewed for the 1984-1985 school year. On or about May 15, 1984, Bass inadvertently discovered that the Respondent was not knowledgeable of his mathematics students' progress in their skills continuum. This was particularly disturbing to Bass in that each student is required by the Indian River County School Board to accomplish at least 70 percent proficiency in state-mandated skills in order to be promoted to the next higher grade. Thereafter, Bass made an attempt to ascertain the level of skills accomplishment by the students in Respondent's classes. While doing so, Bass questioned Respondent about the matter. The Respondent indicated that certain students were in the Compensatory Education Program. Bass subsequently learned that those students were not compensatory education students but were Level Two students. It alarmed Bass to discover that the Respondent did not even know what level of students he had been teaching for seven months. THE 1984-1985 SCHOOL YEAR On September 17, 1984, Bass prepared a memorandum to Dr. Douglas King, Director of Personnel for the School Board. In that memorandum, Bass outlined his concerns regarding Respondent's teaching performance. The memorandum addressed seven general areas of deficiency: failure to control students' behavior; failure to provide meaningful structure and direction and failure to support an enthusiasm for learning; failure to demonstrate the ability to plan a course of study with overall goals and objectives providing direction and continuity in the subject matter; difficulty in implementing what lesson plans the Respondent did develop; addressing only a small percentage of the students in his class when presenting a lesson; difficulty with proper grammar and diction; and a demonstrated lack of understanding for the basic academic and social skill needs of his students. Following preparation of his September 17, 1984 memorandum, Bass continued to make observations of the Respondent's teaching performance. Bass observed the Respondent's teaching performance on October 15, 1984 and completed a Classroom Observation Instrument containing his notes of that observation which rated the Respondent's performance in the classroom as "extremely poor, one of great concern." The notations on the Classroom Observation Instrument itself indicate that the Respondent gave directions to a limited number of students, assisted only a small number of students, engaged in very little class communication, did not enunciate well, used poor diction, utilized "very poor" classroom management, and failed to keep the students on task. Following Bass' observation of the Respondent on October 15, 1984, he prepared a written memorandum of his concerns and his suggestions for improvement. He met with the Respondent and discussed both his concerns and suggestions for improvement. The Respondent received a copy of the memorandum. During this conference, Bass told the Respondent that he was there to help him in any way that he knew how to help. Bass expressed similar sentiments in other conferences with Respondent regarding Respondent's teaching performance and offered to allow Respondent to visit other schools and other teachers both in and out of the school district in an effort to help Respondent remediate his observed deficiencies. On September 13, 1984, Theresa Wagner, chairperson of the vocational department of Vero Beach Junior High School, sent all teachers within that department a memorandum establishing dates for computer usage. One of the components of the Respondent's industrial arts curriculum was demonstration of computer literacy. Respondent received a copy of the memorandum. On October 15, 1984, the first day of the Respondent's assigned time block for use of the computers, the Respondent advised Ms. Wagner that his class was not ready to use the computers and would probably not be ready the following week. However, until that date, Respondent had expressed no problem with the time block assigned to him and had requested no assistance in preparing for this new function of the curriculum. When Ms. Wagner reminded him that computer skills were a part of his required curriculum at that time, Respondent replied that he could not understand why he had to teach something he did not know anything about. Further, he stated that he could not learn it. Respondent apparently made two attempts to learn the computer and gave up. Respondent's failure to adapt himself to the new computer programming time blocks inconvenienced Ms. Wagner and others who were required to share the single computer during the finite time available in a school day/school year. At hearing, Respondent advanced the theory that because his major was in TIE (Trade Industrial Education), he ought not to be required to adapt to teaching manufacturing, woodworking, and computer literacy, which are outside of his expressed field of interest, but which apparently are very much contemplated within the general field of industrial arts. Additionally, he felt he certainly should not be required to adapt to teaching all these "new" areas at one time. However, it appears he had been teaching woodworking for some period of time anyway. Overall, Respondent made it clear he did not want to teach the curriculum assigned to him. As a part of her assigned responsibilities as department chairperson, Ms. Wagner was required to observe each of the teachers within the vocational department. On October 10, 1984, she observed the Respondent. Her memorandum to the Respondent dated October 10, 1984, outlined her observations as well as her suggestions for his improvement. Ms. Wagner had difficulty understanding the Respondent when he was teaching. She suggested that he talk louder and make a special effort to enunciate clearly. She observed that the Respondent failed to provide a handout for one girl in the class. The girl raised her hand and had it up for five minutes before the Respondent noticed the student and gave her the handout. Ms. Wagner observed a lot of non-essential, non-productive movement of students in the classroom. Finally, she noted among other things that the last lesson plans which the Respondent turned in were for the week of September 17, 1984, although he was on notice that he was supposed to turn in lesson plans weekly. Ms. Wagner observed little, if any, instruction being provided by the Respondent. The students failed to respond to the Respondent's directions and did not pay attention to him or obey his directions. In fact, the majority of the students ignored the Respondent during this observation by Ms. Wagner. Lesson plans were an on-going problem between Ms. Wagner and Respondent. Only when Ms. Wagner specifically asked the Respondent for lesson plans did she receive them. Those which she did receive from the Respondent were not satisfactory. In her opinion, any substitute teacher would have had a very difficult time teaching effectively based upon the plans which Respondent did submit to her. Although other departmental personnel sometimes missed turning in lesson plans timely, everyone except the Respondent eventually "caught up" with their lesson plans. Ms. Wagner later observed Respondent on several other occasions. Those observations of the Respondent's teaching performance were consistent with her observations on October 10, 1984. On September 14, 1984, Richard Thomas, Vero Beach Junior High School Dean and Assistant Principal, observed the Respondent's classroom performance. Mr. Thomas is trained for such evaluations. Using the teacher evaluation form containing 39 observable "behaviors," Thomas rated the Respondent as "needs improvement" in 14 of the 39 categories based upon his observations on September 14, 1984. Thomas categorized the Respondent's performance on that date as incompetent. On September 20, 1984, Thomas became aware that the Respondent was sending a large number of student referrals to the Guidance Department for the purpose of having the students seek reassignments from his classes to other classes. Respondent's action was creating problems for the Guidance Department, the students, and the Respondent himself because by that point in the school year, a change of classes under the circumstances was impossible. Thomas prepared a letter dated September 20, 1984 to Respondent requesting that he refrain from such conduct. In the letter, Thomas offered to discuss the matter with the Respondent. Respondent's reasons for his acceleration of referrals was never made entirely clear. However, one explanation offered by the Respondent at formal hearing was that when he had behavioral problems with students in his classes and was not permitted to lock them out of the class (see findings of fact 21, 32, and 33 infra.) and was not otherwise "backed up" by Principal Bass and Assistant Principal Thomas, Respondent felt justified, as a strict disciplinarian, in referring those students whom he viewed as troublemakers to the Guidance Department either to be dealt with by Thomas or for reassignment elsewhere. Under the circumstances, this explanation by Respondent of strict discipline is flawed and unreasonable and evidences lack of classroom control. At hearing, Respondent expressed his objection to having exceptional and special education students in his classes due to their low IQs, even though he admittedly had taken courses in this area. Although all school and School Board personnel assumed Respondent was certified for EMH students, Respondent was not specifically so-certified. He maintained that because of their low IQs, EMH students created special discipline problems, which fact was confirmed by Mr. LaPointe and Mr. Bass. However, Mr. LaPointe, a specialist in the field, also opined that an industrial arts certificate should qualify Respondent to teach industrial arts to EMH students. Respondent attributed much of his professional troubles to the inability of the exceptional education students to learn as opposed to his own inability to teach. At first, Respondent further suggested Bass and Thomas had also assigned students with disciplinary problems to both his regular and exceptional classes. However, he could not substantiate this premise in light of the elective nature of all industrial arts classes. Overall, Respondent only made it clear that he did not want to teach the students assigned to him. On October 17, 1984, as a follow-up to his September 14, 1984 visit, Thomas observed Respondent teaching and prepared a Classroom Observation Instrument. He concluded that the Respondent's "with-it-ness" was poor because Respondent was oblivious to a fight which was about to break out between students in the back of his classroom and because a student had to approach the Respondent and almost physically pull on the Respondent's arm to get his attention. Thomas observed that the Respondent was not in control of his class and that he failed to maintain the attention of all students. Thomas observed no improvement in Respondent's performance on his October 17, 1984 return, except that on that particular date, the Respondent did attempt to implement some organizational structure through the use of an overhead projection covering four items. On November 9, 1984, Thomas wrote the Respondent a letter in regard to the manufacture of weapons by students in the Respondent's manufacturing class. Prior to that date, Thomas had verbally cautioned the Respondent about the manufacture of weapons by students in his class. No direct competent substantial evidence nor any corroborated hearsay supports a finding of fact that "weapons" per se were in fact created in Respondent's class with his knowledge. It was, however, demonstrated that various lathe-produced wooden objects, possibly intended by Respondent for use as chair legs, were smuggled out of his class by students. Although Respondent denied certain items described as "swords" and "paddles" were weapons and even that some of the "chair legs" were made in his class, the fact that he admitted that a paddle and certain "chair legs" could have been smuggled out by students indicates an appalling nonchalance for his duties of supervision of young people. It was further demonstrated that a sign bearing the expression "I LOVE SEX" and that a paddle bearing the expression "DUCK BUT!" [sic] were manufactured in Respondent's class without his disapproval. On October 16, 1984, Jean Carter, the Director of Vocational Adult and Community Education for the Indian River County School District, observed the Respondent's second period class. Ms. Carter is a qualified observer with the Florida Performance Measurement System. During her observation on October 16, 1984, Ms. Carter noted that the Respondent did not begin his class promptly. Students talked in loud voices and milled around the room. The Respondent had difficulty communicating with his students. Most of his comments were inaudible. The Respondent turned his back on some students when he spoke to other students. Few students attempted to write the notes shown on the overhead projector as the Respondent ordered. Other students never faced the projector, and the Respondent seemed to be unaware that they were not taking notes. Ms. Carter observed several students off task. Four or five students were throwing paper and spitballs around the room. The word "important" was misspelled on the transparency. Respondent exhibited no enthusiasm for the subject matter, never praised the students, spoke positively, or smiled. He did not appear to enjoy teaching. In November 1984, a request was made to the Florida Department of Education to provide an assistance review of the Respondent's teaching performance. The purpose of the assistance review was to provide the Respondent with assistance in becoming a more proficient teacher. Following the assistance review, a very lengthy, detailed report was prepared by the reviewer and submitted to the Indian River County School District. On February 7, 1985, a conference was held involving Superintendent Burns; Principal Bass; Dr. Eddie Hudson, Personnel Coordinator; Mrs. Shirley Hanawait, Assistant Superintendent; Ms. Carolyn Sheppard, CEA President; Jean Carter, Director of Vocational Education; Dr. Douglas King, Director of Personnel; and the Respondent. The purpose of the conference was to review the report prepared by the Department of Education assistance reviewer and to make arrangements to provide Respondent with additional help and assistance as needed. In that conference, Respondent's supervisors made arrangements to correct, repair, or adjust equipment in Respondent's classroom; to have another industrial arts teacher assist Respondent; to provide Respondent with relief time to observe other professional teachers in the same vocational area; to send the Respondent to two professional conferences; to provide Respondent with professional journals; to provide Respondent with assistance through the department head; and to provide assistance from Mr. Bass in the areas of grading, lesson plans, supervision, management, and organization. Mr. Bass, Superintendent Burns, and Dr. King emphasized to Respondent that he must begin to show improvement in his performance immediately. Respondent was advised that if no improvement were demonstrated immediately, Respondent could be removed from continuing contract status or dismissed altogether. The Respondent received a copy of the conference summary prepared by Dr. King as a reminder of the action Respondent was expected to take to improve his classroom performance. Ms. Carter participated in the conference held with the Respondent on February 7, 1985, to review the assistance review report and to provide the Respondent with help. Her purpose in attending the conference was to provide the Respondent with assistance in any way possible to improve his performance. Ms. Carter later made sure that all of the Respondent's equipment was in proper working order, that he had copies of the performance standards mandated for the courses he taught, that he received professional journals, and that he was authorized to attend two conferences relating to his subject matter area. Respondent did not, however, attend either conference. Subsequent to the February 7, 1985 conference, Bass conducted five classroom observations of the Respondent's teaching performance. On each occasion, Bass completed a Classroom Observation Instrument. On March 8, 1985, Bass observed the Respondent's class and found that no valid learning activity was going on in the classroom. On March 12, 1985 at 7:35 a.m., Bass observed the Respondent's industrial arts class for exceptional education students. There were seven or eight students in the class. Bass observed that the Respondent gave the students approximately 15 vocabulary words to look up while the Respondent straightened up the classroom. In Bass' opinion, such an assignment for exceptional education students was inappropriate due to their limited intelligence, attention span, and the purpose for which such students were enrolled in the course. Mr. Bass characterized Respondent's performance on that date as poor. Subsequently, on the same date, Bass observed the Respondent teaching manufacturing to a regular class of about 17 students. Although Bass characterized Respondent's performance in this class as better, he still gave it an overall score of poor because Respondent's presentation lacked continuity and his discourse was "disjointed." Bass continued to note that the Respondent had difficulty with grammar, enunciation, and projection of an enthusiasm for the subject matter. On March 18, 1985, Bass again observed Respondent's manufacturing class for exceptional students. Although Bass also termed this observation better than those he had made of Respondent in the past, he still considered it a below average observation. On the observation instrument itself, Bass noted that the Respondent was late to class, wasted time by marching the students to a film which was set up in a classroom in a separate building, provided no orientation or preview prior to showing the film, and conducted no discussion of the film after it had been shown. He further noted that the Respondent performed much of the project work himself, thereby limiting the hands-on experience that the students were in the class to receive. That same day, Bass observed the Respondent's manufacturing class for regular students, which viewed the same film as had been shown to the exceptional education students. The content of the film would have been acceptably pitched for both types of classes if Respondent had appropriately introduced the film and had led post-film discussions appropriate to each level, which he did not. Bass felt that once again a lot of time was wasted, there was scant review of the film's content, and there existed the same problems with diction and discourse by the Respondent. Bass concluded that the Respondent's teaching performance remained virtually unchanged from what it had been prior to the assistance review. Bass' March 27, 1985 Annual Teacher Evaluation for Respondent's 1984- 1985 school year resulted in a rating of "needs improvement" in 23 of the 39 "behaviors" evaluated on the form. Bass met with Respondent on March 28, 1985 to review the evaluation and discuss it with him. Before Bass could begin discussion of the evaluation, Respondent stated, "Let me make a long story short, Mr. Bass, I am not going to sign my evaluation even if we talk all week. You're 100 percent right on what you wrote, but I'm still not signing it." On more than six occasions, Thomas found the Respondent's students out of class when they were supposed to be in his room. On certain occasions Respondent locked them out. When the Respondent locked students out of his classroom, those students were free to roam the halls with the excuse that they had been locked out of their classroom. On one occasion, school staff members caught one of the Respondent's students committing a theft at a time when he was supposed to be in Respondent's class. Although the theft incident was not conclusively tied to a date Respondent locked students out of his classroom, Respondent was still responsible for indicating to the administration that the student was "cutting" and had not done so. On June 4, 1985, Bass learned that the Respondent was locking his students out of his classroom. Final examinations were being conducted at the time. The Respondent told Bass that he could not make the students stay in class without this procedure, which he had designed to catch students when a student still in the classroom tried to let those who had left the classroom back into the classroom from the outside. Respondent also told Bass he could not give an examination and control the students if the door were not locked. Respondent repeated this explanation from the stand at formal hearing as if his plan were designed to catch those who "cut" class, but Respondent also maintained it was a method of timing the number of minutes students remained out of class so that Respondent could tell their parents why he would not permit them ever to leave the room again, apparently even for reasons as mundane and urgent as using the bathroom. Such reasoning process is flawed and unreasonable, if not downright silly. The Respondent refused to sign the incident report resulting from this incident and further refused to discuss the incident report with Mr. Bass. As a vocational education teacher, Respondent was required to submit end of the year reports to Ms. Carter as a part of state and federal funding requirements. Ms. Carter had informed Respondent of the requirement that he prepare and submit the reports prior to leaving school. Respondent testified he submitted the required reports at the end of the 1984-1985 school year by placing them in the school office mail box of Ms. Wagner. Ms. Carter testified that she did not receive them. The problem with transmittal of the reports appears to be one that could have been resolved by Ms. Wagner or someone notifying the Respondent immediately by telephone that they had not been received. This was not done, although Ms. Carter and Dr. King followed up with written reproofs. Such an infraction under these circumstances will not support discipline of Respondent. Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1984-1985 school year, dated March 27, 1985 and referenced above, was not satisfactory, but Respondent's contract was subsequently renewed for the 1985-1986 year. THE 1985-1986 SCHOOL YEAR On September 3, 1985, Howard LaPointe, then a staff associate in the Exceptional Education Program of the Indian River County School District, observed Respondent teaching exceptional students in his manufacturing class. Although school had begun on August 17, 1985, Respondent took his class on a tour of the other building on September 3, 1985. Mr. LaPointe observed numerous deficiencies during his observation and noted that the Respondent needed assistance in the areas of classroom management, instructional materials, orientation to class work, utilization of student notebooks, and competency based upon the curriculum guide. On September 13, 1985, the Respondent met in Principal Bass' office with Bass, LaPointe, Carolyn Sheppard (president of the teachers' union) and Dr. King to review LaPointe's observation conducted on September 3, 1985 and to discuss suggestions for Respondent's professional improvement. As Mr. LaPointe began to present his plan for providing assistance to the Respondent, Respondent became angry and upset. After a sharp exchange between LaPointe and Respondent, wherein LaPointe asked Respondent "What the hell do you expect the children to do?" or some similarly-phrased question, Respondent left the meeting and did not return. Bass and Dr. King walked down to the Respondent's office, a glass- enclosed room. They could see Respondent was in a highly emotional, agitated state. The Respondent had knocked his personal television set onto the floor. It was not demonstrated that Respondent damaged a projector or any other school property or that two obscenities uttered by Respondent were heard by anyone other than a fellow teacher, Mr. Humphrey, who had entered the enclosed room as a friend to calm down the Respondent. Had Bass and King not followed Respondent to his own office they would not have even observed his agitated state. Respondent was excused for the remainder of the school day after Mr. Humphrey calmed him down. Later that day, Superintendent Burns suspended the Respondent without pay. Respondent was subsequently terminated by the School Board for incompetence, misconduct, and gross insubordination. On December 12, 1985, Dr. King notified the Florida Department of Education that the Respondent had been dismissed from his position of employment. Dr. King recommended that the Respondent's teaching certificate be permanently revoked. Based upon Bass' observations and evaluations of the Respondent's teaching performance over a period of more than two years, Bass holds the professional opinion that the Respondent is an incompetent teacher. Bass would not recommend the Respondent for employment in Indian River County or any other school district. In Bass' professional opinion, students in the Respondent's regular classroom did not receive even a minimal educational experience and the exceptional students received only a minimal educational experience. No evidence whatsoever supporting the allegations of unprofessional conduct at Clemans Elementary School was offered and no such unprofessional conduct is found. No direct competent substantial evidence nor any corroborated hearsay supports the allegation that Respondent used profanity in the presence of students and no such conduct is found. Respondent's pre-1983-1984 school year evaluations are technically irrelevant to the charges at bar but were admitted to give Respondent every opportunity to "prove up" his allegations that his current problems arose from personal or personality conflicts with Bass and Thomas. Unfortunately for Respondent, these exhibits show some of his deficiencies are long-standing but were sporadic as opposed to forming a consistent pattern early on. Otherwise, these exhibits are too remote in time to have great weight. Respondent also defended, pursuant to Rule 6B-4.08(2), Florida Administrative Code, upon the premise that after a bombardment of evaluations and conferences he felt he was being harassed rather than given corrective assistance and that he was given too little time in which to make the adjustments required. Rule 613-4.08(2) requires Respondent's immediate supervisor to make all efforts possible to aid Respondent to correct the matter which caused his dismissal. Although this is a questionable defense when, as here, Petitioner and the School Board are not one and the same entity, some of Respondent's allegations have a mitigating effect. There is some merit to his allegations with regard to the timeframe and limited assistance provided but none as to the allegation of harassment. Respondent did unsuccessfully apply for transfer and volunteer to accept a custodial job at the same pay in order to avoid his problems with Bass and Thomas, but he could not demonstrate at formal hearing any reason other than his own attitude and teaching performance for Bass' and Thomas' poor evaluations and refusal to transfer him. Moreover, the consistency of the other observers' analyses belies any conspiracy or vendetta against Respondent on the part of Bass and Thomas. There is some evidence that Respondent made some minimal improvements in technique after assistance was provided by the professional reviewer, which assistance Mr. Bass characterized as the only significant remediation provided the Respondent. Upon his superiors' advice, Respondent also conferred with at least one other teacher in his field who came to his school. Ms. Carter testified that Respondent was authorized to attend two professional conferences and he did not, in fact, attend, but it is unclear from her testimony and the supporting documentary evidence whether federal grant monies were ever authorized for Respondent's attendance at either of these conferences. Mr. LaPointe's evidence that special assistance with regard to exceptional students was offered by him but rebuffed by Respondent is indicative of Respondent's poor attitude. There is evidence that equipment was repaired for Respondent and although not stated by any one witness in so many words, it may be inferred from the collective testimony of several witnesses that Respondent could have requested time off to observe other industrial arts classes and confer with other industrial arts teachers outside his own school but failed to do so. In light of Respondent's satisfactory rating in the 1983-1984 school year, the fact that significant efforts to assist Respondent did not commence until November 1984 (reviewer visit) and that internal assistance did not begin in earnest until the February 7, 1985 conference, I find Respondent had really only from February to March 1985 to avoid an initial unfavorable annual evaluation. From March 1985 to school's closing in June and part of August and September in the 1985-1986 school year was all the time permitted Respondent for remediation because he was dismissed in mid-September 1985. Even so, he showed some minimal improvement which has been considered.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent's Florida teaching certificate be suspended for three years with provision for reinstatement as provided by statute. DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of June, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 22nd day of June, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-4101 The following constitute rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (FOF). Petitioner's Proposed FOF: Covered in FOF 1. Covered in FOF 3. Covered in FOF 5. 4-5 Covered in FOF 6. 6-8 Covered in FOF 7 but amplified to conform to the record as a whole. Covered in FOF 8. Covered in FOF 9. Accepted that there were such reports but rejected as set forth in FOF 41. Covered in FOF 10. Covered in FOF 11 except as to the subordinate and unnecessary. 14-15. Covered in FOF 12 except as to the subordinate and unnecessary. Covered in FOF 25. Covered in FOF 26. 18-19. Covered in FOF 27. 20. Covered in FOF 29. 21-23. Covered and amplified in FOF 30 to conform to the record, but eliminating the legal argument from proposal 23. 24. Covered in FOF 31. The commentary about the presence of a secretary and Respondent's mood are rejected as immaterial in light of no charges of insubordination. Further, mild anger in the presence of the Principal's secretary is hardly likely to impair Respondent's effectiveness. 25-26. Covered, modified and amplified as necessary in FOF 33 to convey the full scope of the material facts of record. That which is cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary has been rejected. 27. Covered in FOF 36; what is rejected is subordinate and unnecessary. 28-29. Covered in FOF 39; what is rejected is cumulative. 30-31. Covered in FOF 13-14 and amplified to more accurately convey the evidence of record as a whole. Covered in FOF 16 but modified for clarity. Covered in FOF 18. Except for elimination of the cumulative, covered in FOF 17. Except as cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary, covered in FOF 19. Covered in FOF 19. 37-38. Covered and amplified in FOF 20 to more accurately reflect the evidence of record as a whole. 39-42. Except as cumulative, subordinate or unnecessary, covered in FOF 22. 43-46, and 49 Rejected as not supported by the direct, credible competent substantial evidence of record as a whole. 47-48. Accepted that reports were written but rejected on the basis of uncorroborated hearsay, unsupported by direct credible competent substantial evidence in the record as a whole as covered in FOF 41. 50. Covered and amplified to more accurately reflect the record evidence as a whole in FOF 32. See also FOF 33. 51-53. Except for the cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary, covered in FOF 24. Covered in FOF 28 and 42. Rejected as not supported by the record as a whole. All witnesses are entirely credible on this point and Respondent's testimony is not truly contrary to other testimony. The benefit of the doubt must be resolved in his favor in this penal procedure. 56-58. Rejected as stated as not supported by the credible competent substantial evidence of record as a whole which is set out in FOF 37. 59. Covered in FOF 38. 60-61. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary except as covered in FOF 38. 62. Covered in FOF 38. 63-65. Rejected as irrelevant except as covered in FOF 42. Rejected as cumulative. See FOF 20, 21, 32 and 33. Accepted but covered as set forth in FOF 23 since the proposal does not constitute an ultimate, material fact. Rejected as legal argument except to the extent it is peripherally covered in FOF 42. Respondent's Proposed FOF: 1-3. Accepted but cumulative upon the acceptance of similar proposals by Petitioner. 4. Rejected as stated in that it constitutes argument but the topic is covered in FOF 7, 21 and 42, as supported by the record as a whole. 5-8. Accepted but cumulative upon the acceptance of similar proposals by Petitioner. This proposal is not a sentence and is therefore rejected. Accepted that Respondent had the feelings and made the statement but rejected as stated as misleading of the record as a whole. See FOF 37. Except as covered in FOF 4, rejected as irrelevant, although true. Accepted but this goes to Respondent's overall incompetency and is not an ultimate material fact and therefore not adopted. See FOF 21. Rejected as some of these were not admitted in evidence and those in evidence do not support the proposal, neither does the record evidence as a whole. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire Post Office Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Charles L. Hendley, Esquire 1500 Delaware Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Marlene T. Greenfield Administrator Professional Practices Services 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 =================================================================
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner may terminate Respondent's employment as an educational paraprofessional, based upon the conduct alleged in the Petition for Termination of Employment.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the facts stipulated by the parties, the following findings are made: The School Board is the governing body of the local school district in and for Lee County, Florida. The School Board is located at 2055 Central Avenue, Fort Myers, Florida 33901. The School Board's Florida Administrative Code identification code is 6GX-36. The School Board has the authority to terminate and/or suspend educational support personnel without pay and benefits pursuant to Subsections 1012.22(1)(f) and 1012.40(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2005).1 Respondent has been employed by the School Board since August 27, 1998, with the exception of a break in service during the period from February 24, 1999, through September 27, 2000. Currently, Respondent is employed as an educational paraprofessional at Alternative Learning Center ("ALC") High School. He was previously employed as a bus attendant. Respondent has always received satisfactory performance assessments and has never before been the subject of discipline by the School Board. Respondent's current home address is 3971 Wheaton Court, Fort Myers, Florida 33905. Respondent is an "educational support employee," as defined by Subsection 1012.40(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and is a member of the support personnel bargaining unit ("SPALC") that is covered by a collective bargaining agreement between SPALC and the School Board. The standard for discipline of support personnel is "just cause" pursuant to Article 7 of the SPALC Agreement. On or about August 12, 2005, David LaRosa, the principal of ALC High School, contacted Gregory Adkins, executive director of Human Resources and Employee Relations, to report two recent conversations regarding Respondent. Both conversations concerned alleged inappropriate interaction by Respondent with two female students. On the basis of the information reported to Mr. LaRosa, an investigation into the matter was conducted. During the course of the investigation, the District became aware that Respondent had fathered a child and that the child's mother was a senior at Cypress Lake High School at the time the child was conceived. The child was born on December 10, 2002. Respondent denied knowing that the mother was a student when they met at a Dr. Martin Luther King celebration in January 2002, or when they met again on February 14, 2002. The mother of the child turned 18 on February 14, 2002. Respondent was 23 years old at the time.2 On September 7, 2005, the School Board determined that probable cause existed to impose disciplinary action against Respondent for engaging in a sexual relationship with a student. Also, on September 7, 2005, a certified letter was sent to Respondent, advising him of the probable cause determination and that a recommendation would be made to the superintendent that Respondent be terminated. The School Board did not, during the time in question, have a policy or regulation specifically prohibiting a sexual relationship between an employee and a student. The School Board provided no notice to employees that a sexual relationship with a student could result in disciplinary action. No evidence was presented that Respondent's alleged misconduct had any adverse impact on the School Board or on Respondent's work performance. Respondent continued to work for the School Board for more than two and a half years after his child's birth without incident and with satisfactory performance evaluations. Respondent's child was born ten months after the mother's eighteenth birthday, meaning there is no evidence that Respondent engaged in sexual relations with the mother when she was a minor. No evidence was presented to contradict Respondent's claim that he was unaware that the woman was a high school student at the time they had sexual relations.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Lee County School Board, issue a final order dismissing the Petition, reinstating the employment of Respondent, and awarding him back pay and benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of May, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 30th day of May, 2006.
