The Issue Whether Respondent is subject to personnel action as specified in the Notice of Charges and if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Casey Carlisle is a teacher at Santa Fe High School and is employed by the Alachua County School Board on a professional service contract. Respondent has taught at Santa Fe High School since 1990 and has taught in the Florida public school system for 32 years. The 2006-2007 school year for students began on Monday, August 14, 2006. Respondent teaches a business systems technology course during the sixth period in Room 11-011. The class has approximately 30 students. Respondent is hard of hearing. He advises both teachers and students of his hearing problem, and tends to speak louder than most. According to his wife, he does not need a microphone when he is talking. He had advised the sixth period class of his hearing problem and his tendency to speak loudly on the first day of school. Room 11-011 is a large classroom, although not the largest in the school. The noise from the air conditioner, lights, computers and monitors, and the normal activity of having a classroom full of students shuffling their feet and passing things out, combined with Respondent's hearing deficit, is such that Respondent finds it necessary to speak loudly in this room. Respondent also has a tendency to "talk with his hands," and did so often during his testimony at hearing. The computers in Respondent's classroom were not functioning properly on the first day of school, which caused frustration for students and teacher alike. As a result, Respondent changed his plans for the second day and gave the students an alternative lesson. In preparing for this lesson, it was necessary for him to hand out books and document holders at the beginning of class that were still in the storage cabinets in the classroom. On this same day, Principal Bill Herschleb was monitoring students in a common area on campus during the transition between fifth and sixth periods, which is his normal practice during the initial days of a school year. A student came up to him and asked for help retrieving a backpack that had been left in Room 11-011. Herschleb escorted the student to the classroom to retrieve the backpack so that the student would not be considered tardy going to his next class. Herschleb entered Respondent's classroom with the student while Respondent was giving instruction and handing out books and document holders. According to Herschleb, he remained in the room only 15-30 seconds, and Respondent's back was to him. Herschleb testified that Respondent was yelling down the second row of students in the direction of a particular student, leaning toward that student and saying very loudly, "Come on, buddy, come on," in what the principal perceived as a threatening challenge. The principal believed that he would have to intervene because a physical confrontation was eminent. The principal testified that Respondent was speaking much louder than normal; that he was gesturing and motioning; that the veins of his temples were sticking out and that in Herschleb's judgment, the volume of Respondent's voice was not appropriate for a classroom setting. During this brief exchange, Respondent also allegedly stated, "I'll show you what we're going to do," and turned to his left. At that point, he saw the principal standing near the door and asked what he needed. Herschleb explained that the student wanted to get his backpack. However, the backpack was not located and both Herschleb and the student left the classroom. Herschleb acknowledged that while he felt the incident to be totally inappropriate, Respondent used no name calling and no profanity, and no physical altercation actually occurred. Herschleb did not testify how close Respondent was to the student in question and did not explain how he could see veins at Respondent's temples when Respondent had his back to him. Several students, as well as Respondent, testified regarding their recollection of the incident. Their testimony varied greatly, in terms of whether anything out of the ordinary happened; whether Respondent was speaking louder than normal; which student, if any, was the subject of Respondent's anger; and the reason for any action taken by Respondent. Their testimony was uniform, however, that there was no physical threat to any student. Further, the incident, to the extent there was one, had not made a lasting impression on any student in the classroom. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that Respondent admonished Garrett Holton for speaking in class when he asked questions of Sarah Sapp, a student sitting next to him, after Respondent had instructed the class not to talk without being recognized first. He pointed at Garrett while speaking to him, but there were no threatening gestures. Respondent did raise his voice, but was not much louder than usual, especially when it is taken into account that he was in the process of passing out document holders and at times had his back to the class. While Respondent did not feel well and may have been irritated, he was not angry. Respondent told the student he would get a referral if he continued to talk. Both the student to whom the comments were directed and the girl to whom he was speaking ultimately viewed the incident as not being a "big deal." Garrett Holt testified that while he was embarrassed initially and did not want to get into trouble, he did not take it too seriously and did not indicate any reluctance to return to the class the next day. Sarah thought it was just a normal day, and teachers yelling in class is "nothing new." She did not think the incident was a big deal and felt she and Garrett were treated appropriately and should have waited to discuss the lesson after Respondent finished talking. The students did not feel threatened and the incident was not the subject of conversation around the school. No student or parent complained about the incident. Indeed, one student testified that the matter had been "blown up into something that it wasn't," and it wasn't "necessary to go to court over." Several students considered the day just an ordinary day. Respondent certainly thought so, and was actually pleased with the overall progress of his class that day, given the challenges the computers had presented. After class ended, Respondent saw the backpack that the student with Herschleb had not been able to find, and loaded it onto his cart to take it to Herschleb or to the student via the lost and found. The next morning Respondent saw Herschleb and told him he had found the backpack. He asked what Herschleb wanted him to do with it and apologized for not helping more to find the backpack during class time, making a comment to the effect that "it shouldn't have happened that way." Herschleb understood his apology to mean that Respondent recognized that his behavior the day before as inappropriate. On Wednesday afternoon, August 16, 2006, Herschleb gave Respondent a letter notifying him of a meeting with the principal to be held on Friday, August 18, 2006. Respondent did not know that Herschleb had any concern about his conduct during the August 15, 2006, sixth period class until Herschleb made the allegation on Friday, August 18, 2006. During this meeting, Herschleb explained what he had observed on Tuesday afternoon in Respondent's classroom and why he was concerned. Respondent denied any wrongdoing. Respondent was placed on administrative leave with pay so that the matter could be investigated. The matter was also reported to Joan Longstreth, Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources for the Alachua County School Board. An investigator was assigned who obtained random statements from members of the sixth period class. After receipt of the administrative investigative report, a committee was convened to review the report and make a recommendation. While the committee members discussed the student statements, the most significant factor in recommending disciplinary action to the superintendent was the fact that the school principal had observed the incident.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing all charges against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 5th of February, 2005.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner may terminate Respondent's employment for just cause.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a journeyman mason employed by Petitioner. The school district is divided into large regions, and Respondent is one of only two masons available to schools located within the region to which he has been assigned. As a mason, Respondent performs his work exclusively at school sites, rather than at a centralized shop. In May 2005, Edward Smith, then the principal of the Dario Middle Community School, was in his office and overheard Respondent involved in a loud verbal exchange. School clerical staff had appropriately asked Respondent to present an employee identification badge prior to engaging in work within the school. Respondent was in the office area preparing to perform some masonry work, but, at the moment of the request, was shouting into his cellphone at a representative of a lender with whom he was conducting personal business. Respondent became angry at school staff, when they persisted in asking that he present identification despite his attempt to wave them away. Claiming that he was concerned that he would lose reception and, thus, the call, Respondent did not want to interrupt his cellphone conversation to deal with the request to present identification. When staff continued to demand identification, Respondent's anger spilled over toward school staff. Mr. Smith approached Respondent and demanded to see his identification. Instead of responding to Mr. Smith's demand, Respondent first uttered several profanities, including "shit" and "fuck," to the lender's representative. After uttering these profanities, Respondent turned his attention to Mr. Smith and told him that his identification was in his truck. Mr. Smith then escorted Respondent to his truck so he could produce his badge. During this time, Respondent continued his cellphone conversation, loudly and crudely denouncing the person with whom he was speaking. Respondent produced his school identification in the truck. Shocked at this unprecedented rudeness by a school district employee, Mr. Smith immediately contacted Respondent's supervisor and told him that he never wanted Respondent on his campus again, even if it meant that something broken remained broken. Respondent's supervisor informed Respondent that this type of behavior was unacceptable. On May 26, 2005, Respondent received a reprimand for his behavior at Dario Middle Community School. The reprimand ordered Respondent, among other things, to "[f]ollow all procedures and conduct yourself in a professional manner at all facilities at all times" and "[w]ear your badge at all times, sign in and out at the main office at each school assigned as indicated in your employee handbook . . ., and not engage in any inappropriate contact with students and staff." In September 2005, Dr. Doylene Tarver, the principal of Everglades K-8 Center, overheard from her office Respondent yelling and screaming at her staff. Dr. Tarver left her office and found Respondent angrily confronting the security guard, who was insisting, in accordance with school rules, that Respondent sign in as a visitor. This disruption took place in the presence of after-care parents at the school to pick up their children. Dr. Tarver approached Respondent, who demanded to know who she was. After she identified herself as "Dr. Tarver," Respondent asked if she had been one of the school personnel recently identified in the media as having purchased her degree. Dr. Tarver was understandably offended at this impertinence and demanded that Respondent sign in. He did so and proceeded to report to his work site at the school. As had Mr. Smith four months earlier, Dr. Tarver contacted Respondent's supervisor and requested that he not assign Respondent to her school again. Like Mr. Smith, she had never encountered such behavior from a school district employee. Following a conference for the record on February 13, 2006, Robert Brown, the Administrative Director of Maintenance Operations recommended that the School Board terminate Respondent's employment. On August 2, 2006, the School Board suspended Respondent and initiated proceedings to terminate his employment. Respondent's behavior disrupted the business of the school in two respects. First, as the behavior transpired, school staff and parents were distracted from their business at the school, but, each time, the behavior was worse than a mere distraction. Each of these incidents--separated by only four months--combined a breach of security with a menacing display of aggressive behavior. After failing to conform to simple security procedures, Respondent did not immediately comply, but instead became confrontational, so as to suggest to school staff that the security breach was escalating. Second, both principals found it necessary to ensure that Respondent never perpetrate another disruption at their schools, so they reasonably demanded that Respondent's supervisor never reassign Respondent to their schools. The supervisor agreed to do so, but this left two schools in the region without a mason anytime that the other mason was unavailable due to another assignment, vacation, or illness. Masonry work sometimes constitutes emergency repairs and any delay in performing the work could perpetuate a dangerous condition. Also, some masonry work is a two-person job, and, for such jobs at the two affected schools, Petitioner would have to find a mason from another region and assign him or her out-of-region. For these reasons, Respondent's actions constituted willful neglect of duty, unseemly and abusive conduct, and gross insubordination. Twice in four months, Respondent ignored simple security procedures at schools to which he had been assigned to work. Twice in four months, Respondent refused to comply with these procedures when asked to do so by school staff and instead angrily confronted these school employees. Instead of getting to work at the school sites to which he had been assigned, Respondent disrupted the schools and presented himself as a risk to the security of the students, staff, and parents at both sites. Respondent's confrontation with the two principals, who were trying to restore order and ensure compliance with school security rules, was gross insubordination, as was his failure to comply with the simple, sensible directives in the reprimand that followed the first incident. Additionally, the inability of Petitioner to assign Respondent to two schools within his region impeded his effectiveness as an employee and meant that the performance of his duties would be deficient, at least in this regard. The collective bargaining agreement between Petitioner and the Dade County School Maintenance Employee Committee in effect at the time of these events was the 2002-06 contract. This contract did not require progressive discipline, but Article IV of the contract authorized Petitioner to terminate employees for "just cause." Article XI, Section 1.a of the contract provides for discipline due to the violation of Respondent's rules.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of April, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Rudolph F. Crew Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, No. 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1394 Honorable Jeanine Blomberg Interim Commissioner of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Ana I. Segura, Esquire School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Robert Holland, Esquire Law Offices of Robert W. Holland 5955 Northeast Fourth Court Miami, Florida 33137
The Issue The issue is whether Nicholas Penn should be administratively assigned to the J. R. E. Lee Opportunity School Program in lieu of expulsion for misconduct at the W. R. Thomas Jr. High School.
Findings Of Fact During the 1987-88 school year Nicholas Penn was an eighth grade student at W. R. Thomas Jr. High School in Dade County, Florida. At the beginning of each year students receive a locally prepared handbook which informs the students of the code of student conduct for the Dade County Public Schools. During social studies classes early in the year the code of student conduct is reviewed. Nicholas Penn cut class on September 8, 1987. He was picked up by the police. When he was picked up he had a knife with him. Charges resulting from possession of that knife were dropped. As a result of truancy, he was seen by the Assistant Principal, Donal Helip, who referred Nicholas to the guidance counselor, Betty Thomas. When Betty Thomas saw Nicholas, he told Thomas that he did not enjoy school, did not have many friends, and felt frustrated at home. After a discussion with his mother, Ms. Alcantara, it was agreed that Nicholas would be put on work assignment around the school. Nicholas was also processed for a psychological referral on or about September 20, 1987, because he did not seem to be performing at his academic potential. On October 22, 1987, Nicholas was involved in a fight at school as a result of which he received a bloody nose and a head injury. As a result of the fight, Nicholas was put on a 2-day suspension. He did not attend school on Friday, October 23, or Monday, October 26. Mr. Helip spoke with him on Tuesday, October 27, when he returned to school. Nicholas told Mr. Helip the incident was closed and there would be no more problems about the fight. The other boy involved told Mr. Helip the same thing. On October 28, a student commented to Mr. Helip that Nicholas had a knife. Mr. Helip had the school security monitor bring Nicholas to his office, where Mr. Helip asked Nicholas to unload his backpack. At the bottom of the backpack was a wooden handled knife with a seven inch blade encased in a homemade, black sheath. Ms. Alcantara was called to the school where she identified the knife as one of the type which she had at home, which were part of a knife set purchased at J. C. Penny's. Nicholas was suspended for 10 days with a recommendation of expulsion. A request for waiver of expulsion and reduction of the penalty to suspension was made because the knife had not been used to threaten anyone else. At the time that Nicholas was withdrawn from W. R. Thomas Jr. High School he had a D in math, an F in shop and in physical education and incomplete grades for his other classes. The explanation offered by Nicholas for having the knife in his bag was that he had not brought it to school. During computer class his backpack was on a table and the students involved in the October 22, fight came up to him and said, "Nick, you got a weapon on you?," and when the class ended he picked up his bag and was going to the next class when the school security monitor asked him to go with him to Mr. Helip's office, who wanted to search his things. They went through his locker and in the backpack found the knife. Nicholas originally said that it was not his, but his mother told Mr. Helip that it was a knife like others she had at home. Of course, her knives did not have a black, homemade sheath like the one found on the knife in the backpack. When she returned home she determined that her knife set was complete. Mrs. Alcantara then informed school officials that she had been mistaken when she identified the knife as one of hers. There was nothing about Nicholas' expression at the time his backpack was searched which gave any indication that he was surprised about the knife found in his bag; in Mr. Helip's view, if the knife had been planted, it should have been closer to the top of the bag. Nicholas maintains that when he arrived home he found a rip in the corner of the backpack which would have allowed someone to plant the knife in the bag. The backpack was never produced at the hearing. The Hearing Officer finds it more probable than not, given all the circumstances, that the knife was not planted and Nicholas brought the knife to school.
Recommendation It is recommended that the assignment of Nicholas Penn at the J. R. E. Lee Opportunity School be maintained. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of June, 1988. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 28th day of June, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Rosa Alcantara Frank R. Harder, Esquire 13173 Southwest 11th Lane Circle Suite 2A-3 Miami, Florida 33184 175 Fontaineblau Boulevard Miami, Florida 33172 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Dr. Joseph A. Fernandez Assistant Board Attorney Superintendent of Schools 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue Dade County Public Schools Suite 301 School Board Administration Miami, Florida 33132 Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 The Honorable Betty Castor Sydney H. McKenzie, Esquire Commission of Education General Counsel The Capitol Department of Education Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Should Petitioner, Pinellas County School Board (School Board or Board), terminate the employment of Respondent, Rose M. Dacanay, for the reasons that follow: Violation of Board Policy 4140A(9), incompetence? Violation of Board Policy 4140A(9)(a), failure to perform the duties of the position? Violation of Board Policy 4140A(19), failure to correct performance deficiencies? Violation of Board Policy 4140A(20), insubordination? Violation of Board Policy 4140A(24), failure to comply with Board policy, state law, or contractual agreement?
Findings Of Fact The Pinellas County School District has employed Ms. Dacanay since August 2005. She has worked as a teacher assistant and as an exceptional student education (ESE) associate. At the beginning of the 2011-2012 school year, Ms. Dacanay worked as an ESE associate assigned to the Paul B. Stephens Exceptional Student Education Center (Paul B. Stephens). The Center serves vulnerable students with significant developmental disabilities and medical needs. ESE associates work under a classroom teacher's direct supervision. They must assist the teacher in all aspects of both the care and the education of the students. During the first semester of the 2011-2012 school year, Ms. Dacanay worked in the classroom of Paulette Pickering. Because Ms. Dacanay's performance in Ms. Pickering's class was not satisfactory, the principal, Gail Cox, reassigned her to the classroom of Linda Vest for the second semester, which started January 2012. Ms. Cox selected Ms. Vest's classroom because it did not have as many students as Ms. Pickering's, and the class was not as demanding. The reassignment was to give Ms. Dacanay an opportunity to improve her skills and continue working at the school. Also during 2011, Ms. Cox, along with other administrators and a teacher's union representative, met in October and November with Ms. Dacanay four times to review multiple deficiencies in her performance and offer improvement plans. In the meeting held November 10, 2011, Ms. Cox encouraged Ms. Dacanay to apply for other positions in the school system that would not be so demanding and would be a better fit for her. In January of 2012, Ms. Cox spoke to Ms. Dacanay and told her very directly, "This is not working, Rose. You need to find a different job. Even though everyone is nice and polite, you're still not doing your job, and you need to find another one that better fits your skills." Ms. Dacanay did not take this advice. She worked the remainder of the 2011-2012 school year at Paul B. Stephens. After summer break, she returned to employment in the 2012-2013 school year. She was assigned to assist Kim Gilbert. The students of Paul B. Stephens have emotional, mental, and physical disabilities. Many have severe and multiple disabilities. They are dependent upon the services of their teachers and teacher assistants. One of the students in Ms. Gilbert's class required the use of Dynamic Ankle Foot Orthotics (DAFOS). These are hard plastic inserts positioned around a child's foot before putting on the child's shoe. They must be positioned and wedged on carefully to avoid hurting the student. After correct placement, they are strapped on. The DAFOS are individually made for each wearer's feet. Ms. Dacanay had been instructed and trained on how to put DAFOS on. DAFOS position a child's foot to cure or resist deformity. They are uncomfortable even when properly applied. When DAFOS are put on the wrong foot, they are painful and can cause blisters and sores. They also do not properly perform their rehabilitative function. On October 23, 2012, Ms. Dacanay put a student's DAFOS on backwards. This would cause the student pain and eliminate the benefits of the DAFOS. Fortunately, Ms. Gilbert spotted the mistake and corrected it. The same student also needed and wore an arm splint. Ms. Dacanay had been instructed and trained on how to fasten the arm splints. On October 24, 2012, Ms. Dacanay was improperly fastening the arm splint. Ms. Gilbert noticed and corrected her. In 2012, Ms. Dacanay's duties included placing wheelchair-bound students in the bus and securing their wheelchairs. This service is critical to the students' safety and the safety of the other students. It requires properly fastening the students in their chairs with chest and foot straps to prevent them from falling from the chair or injuring their feet during transportation. Ms. Dacanay was trained in securing the students and their wheelchairs for transport. On October 29, 2012, Ms. Dacanay did not fasten the chest straps on one student's wheelchair. On October 30, 2012, Ms. Dacanay did not properly secure a student's feet for transport on the bus. Fortunately each time, other employees noticed the errors and corrected them. On another occasion, Ms. Dacanay did not properly fasten the chest strap of a student in a wheelchair on the bus. Another ESE associate checked the student's straps and tightened them properly. The students' wheelchairs were also strapped tightly in the bus to prevent movement or falling. Ms. Dacanay was properly trained on how to secure the bus hook-up straps. From October forward, Ms. Dacanay routinely failed to properly secure students for the bus. A fellow ESE associate regularly observed this and began routinely checking and tightening the straps for the students. Specifically, Ms. Dacanay did not properly fasten the wheelchair hook-ups on November 14 and December 4, 2012. Despite the fact that properly securing the wheelchairs was one of her duties, on December 4, 2012, Ms. Dacanay asked a student why he had not hooked up the side straps on his wheelchair. Ms. Dacanay's neglect of the task of securing students in their wheelchairs was so common that the other ESE associates who worked in Ms. Gilbert's class were concerned for the children's safety. Consequently, they regularly checked the wheelchairs of students for whom Ms. Dacanay was responsible to ensure that the students were properly secured and safe. They often found the straps loose and secured them. Swimming was part of the curriculum and services for some students. On November 5, 2012, while bringing students back from the pool, Ms. Dacanay used only one hand to push a student in a tall, cumbersome therapy chair. The chair was tall, unstable, and very difficult to maneuver along the sidewalk. With her other hand, Ms. Dacanay was escorting another student. Two other ESE associates yelled at her to stop. Ms. Dacanay did not, and the chair "wobbled" and went off the sidewalk. Ms. Dacanay was taking prescription medicine. She did not properly secure it, and a pill fell to the bathroom floor. Ms. Gilbert found the pill and gave it to the school nurse, Tomeka Miller. Ms. Dacanay went to Ms. Miller and asked her to return the pill. She also asked if anyone else knew about the pill. Ms. Miller advised Ms. Dacanay that Ms. Gilbert knew. The ready availability of the pill to the students with disabilities represented a potential risk to the students. One of the students for whom Ms. Dacanay was responsible was blind and had other issues. In the words of his teacher, Ms. Gilbert: That was my student who was blind. In addition to having a lot of other issues, he's a student who is transported in a wheelchair and he kind of cruises around furniture, but it's not a walker. He's very, very difficult, very strong, very stubborn. He has a lot of sensory issues, so you can't hurry him to do anything. It just makes the problem worse. Ms. Dacanay was aware of the student's issues and needs. On November 8, 2012, Ms. Dacanay was hurrying the student back into the classroom. She was urging him on and saying "come on, let's go." He became agitated. Ms. Gilbert instructed Ms. Dacanay to let the student calm down. Ms. Dacanay did not. This detrimentally affected the rest of the morning routine, including the student's therapy schedule. Ms. Dacanay denied each of the events described above. Her denials are not credible judged in light of the conflicting testimony, consistency of testimony among several witnesses, and consistent reports in contemporaneously created documents. In addition, Ms. Dacanay regularly displayed an inability to perform her work or learn her duties. Despite repeated instructions, she failed to correctly perform routine functions. When she worked with her students and the physical education teacher, Darlene Tickner, Ms. Tickner had to repeat instructions and requests multiple times to get her to work. Ms. Dacanay's inability to understand her duties caused Ms. Tickner to develop a "Teacher Associate Class Expectations" worksheet to help remind Ms. Dacanay and the other associates of their fundamental duties. Although the worksheet was given to all associates, Ms. Dacanay's repeated inability to perform the duties of her position was the reason Ms. Tickner prepared the worksheet. Although Ms. Dacanay was only responsible for seven students, she could not even remember their names. Ms. Dacanay also demonstrated a pattern of not paying attention to the students, preferring instead to perform chores. For instance on September 19, 2012, when Ms. Dacanay should have been assisting with a student activity, she left the classroom area for about ten minutes and spent her time folding and storing student bathing suits. This was after she had read and signed the "Class Expectations" worksheet that listed "Focus on the students and the activity, not chores" first. On another occasion, Ms. Dacanay neglected to bring a blind student who also needed a wheelchair, because of cerebral palsy, to the physical education class. Ms. Tickner asked Ms. Dacanay where the student was. Ms. Dacanay said "she didn't know." Ms. Tickner sent Ms. Dacanay back to the classroom to get the student. Ms. Dacanay returned without the student and said "she couldn't get him into his chair." Ms. Tickner had to go get the student and bring him to the class. As the "Class Expectation" worksheet notes and Ms. Tickner had emphasized, class participation was important for the students and participation with the students was an important part of the associate's job. Once when Ms. Tickner specifically instructed Ms. Dacanay to work with the other associates getting the students in and out of the pool, Ms. Dacanay disobeyed. Instead, she followed a mobile student who did not need assistance around. On another occasion, Ms. Dacanay was supposed to prepare the students for swimming. She removed the diaper from a child who was not going swimming. Similar issues and concerns about Ms. Dacanay's focus and attention to her duties caused the physical education teacher the year before, Mark Manley, to conclude that he could not leave the room if Ms. Dacanay was working with the students. She repeatedly demonstrated problems "focusing on tasks, staying on task . . . inability to stay with a program all the time." The problems Ms. Dacanay had during the 2012-2013 school year were similar to earlier performance failures during her time at Paul B. Stephens when she was working with Ms. Pickering. Ms. Cox met with Ms. Dacanay on October 18, 2012. The letter of reprimand following that meeting summarized the failings identified above and others. The letter advised Ms. Dacanay: [Y]ou appear to avoid work, especially toileting/changing student. Your ability to learn your job or perform your work responsibilities has been questioned and requires your teacher to constantly monitor you to ensure student safety. For example you appear not to remember which student uses which chair nor how to secure students in their chairs. This has happened several times. After 3-4 weeks in school you still needed direction to assist students with table activities before morning group. You have been off-task during PE and you were not able to monitor students assigned to you when they were in the pool. You also fell asleep during music class. In addition to classroom issues the assistants on the bus with you have stated that you pretend to forget how to hook up wheelchairs and harnesses, and do not do your share on the bus. You also fall asleep regularly on the way home in the afternoon which also puts more work on the other assistants. Before working at Paul B. Stephens, Ms. Dacanay received less than satisfactory ratings on her evaluations beginning on February 20, 2007, at Largo High School, where her evaluation noted that she needed to improve punctuality and that she left her assigned area without notifying the teacher. In all, between February 20, 2007, and February 10, 2011, Ms. Dacanay's evaluations reflect 16 instances of being evaluated as unsatisfactory or in need of improvement in areas that include punctuality, judgment, job knowledge, quality of work, quantity of work, initiative and attendance. The weight of the persuasive, credible evidence established that Ms. Dacanay was not competent to perform her duties, did not perform her duties, and did not improve her performance despite being given repeated opportunities to improve.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Pinellas County School Board enter a final order finding that there is just cause to terminate Ms. Dacanay's employment and terminating her professional service contract for just cause pursuant to section 1012.33, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of November, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of November, 2013.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was a physical education teacher at St. Cloud Middle School for the 1986-1987 school year. He holds teaching certificate number 400221, which was issued on October 26, 1985. Respondent was a good instructor and enjoyed good rapport with the students. Respondent maintained good discipline in his physical education classes. Unlike his predecessors, Respondent did not remain in his office while students piled into the locker room, but instead imposed proper control from the start. On February 9, 1987, Respondent was preparing for the second-period physical education class. The class was going to start a program of wrestling, and Respondent had laid out the new mats. The mats were placed in a large locker room on a tile floor. As the class, which consisted of about 60 seventh- grade boys, began entering the locker room, the other physical education teacher who should have been in the room was in the administrative office. The entrance area was unusually congested due to the excitement of the students at seeing the new mats for the first time and the space that the mats occupied on the floor. As the students poured into the room, locker room doors banged and the children yelled and screamed. Shouting to make himself heard over the din, Respondent told the students to keep off the mats in their street shoes. Respondent was attempting to protect the mats and restore order to avoid injury to any of the children. While making his way toward the front entrance to control the students entering the locker room, Respondent saw two of the students, Mark Baker and Carlo Baker, who had been engaging in horseplay, rushing toward him and the mats. As the two boys reached the mats, Respondent reached out and grabbed each of them by one arm. This was the first time that Respondent had encountered Mark Baker. Respondent then turned them around so that each boy was facing him and off the mats. Respondent, who is right handed, grabbed Mark Baker in his left hand and Carlo Baker in his right hand. Grabbing each boy by the front of his shirt collar near the top buttons, Respondent drew in his arms about halfway and bent down so that he could more easily maintain eye contact with the boys. Respondent, at five feet eleven inches and 170 pounds, is considerably taller than the boys, who were about the same size. Respondent yelled at each of them that they knew that they were not supposed to be on the mats. After obtaining a positive response from each boys Respondent then said, "If you do it again, I'll put your face into the mats." This warning was not given literally. Respondent frequently employed roughhouse hyperbole in order to relieve the tension of a directive. Students knew that such a statement was not to be taken at face value. Respondent simultaneously released the boys. He had held them for a total of about ten to fifteen seconds. At all times, their feet had been on the ground. While in Respondent's grasp, the boys had not struggled or attempted to pull away. Upon his release, Carlo Baker took a reflexive step backwards. Carlo Baker was uninjured by the incident and reported no bruises or marks. Mark Baker, who was handled in the same manner and for the same period of time, lost consciousness as he was released. As his eyes rolled upwards, he tipped over and, with his body perfectly rigid, fell backwards with his head striking the tile floor in advance of the rest of his body. Mark Baker had been alert while in Respondent's grasp. The suddenness of the loss of consciousness prevented Respondent from catching Mark Baker before he fell. The evidence did not prove what caused Mark Baker's sudden loss of consciousness. He may have fainted, possibly in part induced by the stress of the moment preceded by a prior period of exertion. He may have buffered an epileptic seizure. His half-brother and a couple of cousins suffer from epilepsy, and Mark Baker himself had a history of memory lapses not inconsistent with epilepsy. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent's grasp caused the loss of consciousness. There were a couple of unexplained light marks that appeared shortly after the incident, but they quickly vanished. Petitioner was unable to prove that these marks were caused by Respondent. Mark Baker also had a fresh abrasion, together with swelling, on his nose, which was clearly not inflicted by Respondent or suffered in the fall. Respondent, who had never met Mark Baker before, did not hold Mark Baker any tighter than he held Carlo Baker, who was in Respondent's stronger hand and yet suffered no injury or reported bruising. Respondent's yelling was necessitated by the background noise of the locker room and did not indicate a loss of temper. As a result of the fall, Mark Baker suffered a serious concussion and required hospitalization for several days for observation. Through the date of the hearing, Mark Baker was taking prescribed phenobarbital in order to relieve his occasional headaches, whose inception can be traced to the injury. The Osceola County School District Code of Student Conduct (Student Code) was given to Respondent when he began teaching at St. Cloud Middle School. Notwithstanding any contrary provisions in the Student Code, teachers at St. Cloud Middle School customarily administered corporal punishment to students during the 1986-1987 school year. However, under the Student Code and prevailing custom at the school during the period in question, a teacher was not permitted to grab students by the shirt collar under the above-described circumstances.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of intentionally violating a student's legal rights, in violation of Rule 6B- 1.006(3)(f) , Florida Administrative Code, and Section 231.28(1)(h), Florida Statutes, and, pursuant to Section 231.262(6)(f), Florida Statutes, issuing a written reprimand. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 5th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of October, 1988. APPENDIX Treatment Accorded Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-13. Adopted, except that Respondent's face was close but slightly in excess of one foot from the boys' faces. 14. Rejected as legal conclusion and irrelevant. 15-16. Adopted. 17. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. 18-21. Adopted. Rejected as recitation of testimony. Adopted. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. 25-27. Adopted. Treatment Accorded Respondent`s Proposed Findings 1-8. Adopted. Adopted to the extent that the reasonableness of Respondent's action is at issue. First sentence rejected as irrelevant. The second touch was not to get the students' attention. Respondent got their attention as a result of grabbing their arms. a moment earlier. Second sentence rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence to the extent that it implies that the teacher may make physical contact, under such circumstances as when Respondent grabbed the boys by the shirt collars, for a Level I infraction. Remainder rejected as irrelevant. 10 (second). First sentence adopted in substance. Remainder rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. First sentence adopted. Second sentence rejected as irrelevant and against the greater weight of the evidence. Third sentence rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Fourth sentence rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence and a legal conclusion. Adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph Egan, Jr., Esquire Karen B. Wilde Egan, Lev & Siwica Executive Director Post Office Box 2231 Education Practices Commission Orlando, Florida 32802 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Lane Burnett, Esquire 331 East Union Street Martin Schaap Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Administrator Professional Practices Services Sydney H. McKenzie, Esquire 319 West Madison Street General Counsel Room 3 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent, William Doran, committed the acts alleged in the Statement of Charges and Petition for Ten-Day Suspension Without Pay, and, if so, the discipline to be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty of operating, controlling, and supervising all free public schools within St. Lucie County, Florida, pursuant to Article IX, section 4(b), Florida Constitution, and section 1001.32, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed as a teacher at SMS, a public school in St. Lucie County, Florida, pursuant to a professional services contract. Respondent has been employed by the School Board for approximately eight years. Respondent most recently provided individualized instruction and assistance to students with individualized education plans. At all times material to this case, Respondent’s employment with the School Board was governed by Florida law, the School Board’s policies, and the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the St. Lucie Classroom Teachers’ Association. Lydia Martin, principal of SMS, was authorized to issue directives to her employees, including Respondent. The 2010-2011 School Year On November 8, 2010, Respondent was counseled by Principal Martin for discourteous and disparaging remarks to students causing them to feel unnecessary embarrassment. Students and parents reported that Respondent made comments in the classroom including “the Bible is crap and we should not believe it,” told students they could not work in groups because they “would just bullshit,” called a student “stupid,” and referred to a group of African-American students as the “black coffee group.” Parents also expressed concern that Respondent discussed prostitution and told students that, in some countries the younger the girls are, the better it is considered because they have not lost their virginity. Respondent denied saying that the Bible is “crap” but admitted telling students that he did not believe in it. Respondent denied calling a student stupid but admitted that he told a student certain choices may be what a “not so smart” person would do. Respondent admitted to referring to a group of black students as a “coffee klatch,” but denied any reference to race or ethnicity. Respondent admitted discussing prostitution in the context of human rights and his personal observations of sex trafficking while serving in the military in East Germany. Principal Martin provided Respondent with a written Summary of Conference that stated, “In the future, do not make comments to students that may cause them embarrassment or that are unprofessional. My expectation is that you will treat students with respect and follow the district guidelines under 6.302 Employee Standards of Conduct and Code of Ethics for Educators.” On May 2, 2011, Principal Martin gave Respondent a Letter of Concern for making comments to a student that caused embarrassment to the student when Respondent stated that, “somebody cried about not getting their stupid PTO FCAT Goodie bag” and that “they were filled with cheap candy.” The daughter of the PTO president was in the class. The 2011-2012 School Year During the fall of 2011, Respondent was accused of inappropriately touching students.1/ As a result, on December 5, 2011, Respondent was removed from the classroom at SMS and placed on Temporary Duty Assignment at the School Board district office pending an investigation into the allegations. In a letter from Maurice Bonner, director of personnel, dated December 14, 2011, Respondent was directed not to engage witnesses, their parents, or potential witnesses during the open investigation. While he was working at the district office, two co- workers of Respondent overheard Respondent contact the parents of one of the student witnesses involved in the investigation by telephone to discuss the investigation. Also, during the investigation, it was discovered that Respondent had taken pictures of students when they were misbehaving in his class as a means of disciplining those students. On February 13, 2012, Principal Martin provided Respondent a Letter of Reprimand for the violation of the administrative directive (not to contact witnesses and parents during a pending investigation) and inappropriately disciplining students. This Letter of Reprimand reminded Respondent of his previous counseling and Letter of Concern and notified Respondent that his failure to follow the prior directives or violation of any other School Board policy would result in more severe disciplinary action being taken against him. In May 2012, Respondent received a three-day suspension without pay for embarrassing students. Respondent is alleged to have announced a student’s name in class and stated that he (Respondent) was “just wasting red ink” by grading the student’s paper. Respondent does not deny the statement, but claims he muttered it under his breath, and it was overheard by several students. Respondent embarrassed another student by sharing personal information about her family with the class. A student’s mother had privately discussed with Respondent the fact that her daughter might act out in class due to the distress she was experiencing as a result of her parents’ divorce. During a classroom discussion about families, this student made a comment that she had a “normal” family. Respondent said to the student, in front of the class, “If you’re so normal, where is your father?” Respondent admits this was inappropriate behavior on his part. The 2012-2013 School Year On May 3, 2013, Respondent was in the classroom of another teacher for the purpose of providing additional teaching assistance for several students. On this date, the usual classroom teacher was absent, and a substitute teacher was present. While walking around the classroom, Respondent observed two students, M.M. and A.L., engaged in a game of “slaps,” in which both students tried to hit each other’s hands. Respondent directed M.M. to stop and asked why he was doing the game during class time. M.M. responded that he was trying to cheer up A.L., it felt good, and they liked playing the game. At this time, Respondent was approximately eight to ten feet away from M.M. who was sitting at a desk. Respondent told M.M. that he didn’t care if it felt good for M.M. to “jump off a bridge,” it was not to go on in the classroom and to get back to work. M.M. asked Respondent what he meant and the two began to argue. Respondent approached M.M. and bent over him while M.M. remained seated at his desk. Respondent testified that he closed the gap between him and M.M. when he felt M.M. told him to shut up by saying “get out of my face.” Respondent stated, “At that point I decided I wasn’t going to let him push me around and I decided to engage him.” The credible testimony from several of the student witnesses was that Respondent approached M.M. and stood over him and that M.M. repeatedly asked Respondent to “please, get out of my face” and to leave him alone. M.M. also cursed and used a racial slur directed at Respondent.2/ Respondent told M.M. to get up and get out of the classroom. When Respondent did not move away from looming over M.M., M.M. said something to the effect of “I don’t want to do any of this.” M.M. stood up, and he and Respondent were face to face, only a few inches apart. M.M. told Respondent that he was a grown man and that he was “acting like a bitch.” Respondent repeatedly mocked M.M., yelling in his face, “Come on big man-- What are you going to do about it, hit me?” and told M.M. to hit him because it would “make my day.” Respondent called M.M. a coward several times when M.M. refused to hit Respondent and backed away. While this was going on, the other students in the classroom believed that Respondent and M.M. were going to have a physical fight, and they stood up, pushed the desks and chairs back, and got out their cell phones to take photos and video. Several of the students began screaming and yelling.3/ M.M. left the classroom and continued to curse at Respondent as Respondent followed him to the Dean’s office. During this altercation, the substitute teacher did not intervene or attempt to help or contact the SMS office. Respondent admits that, once M.M. told Respondent to “get out of his face,” Respondent did nothing to de-escalate the situation. To the contrary, Respondent intentionally escalated the altercation. According to Respondent, “He [M.M.] needed to be shown you can’t tell an adult to shut up.” Respondent testified that he believed that he was teaching M.M. a “life lesson”-–that “you can’t engage an adult and expect to get away with it.” SMS has a protocol for handling belligerent students in the classroom. Teachers receive training at the beginning of each school year regarding the difference between classroom managed behaviors and office managed behaviors. Teachers are trained not to engage a belligerent student but rather to use the buzzer which is tied to the intercom or telephone, available in every classroom, to notify the main office of the situation. In response, someone from the trained management team will come to the classroom to retrieve the student and bring them back to the Dean’s office. As explained by Principal Martin, the purpose of sending an adult from out of the classroom to retrieve a disruptive student is to minimize the possibility of harm to either the student, teacher, or other students, and to allow a “cooling off period” while the misbehaving student is escorted to the Dean’s office. During the altercation with M.M., Respondent made no effort to use the buzzer or the telephone or ask anyone else to notify the office of the escalating situation. Respondent was aware of the protocol but chose to ignore it. According to Respondent, “[M.M.] wanted to intimidate me and he failed and I let him know about it.” Respondent was purposely confrontational and testified that he wanted to show M.M. that Respondent “was not going to back down.” Respondent disregarded the protocol because he believed it would be ineffective and he wanted to teach M.M. a “humility lesson.” Respondent’s explanation, that he thought using the buzzer or telephone would be ineffective because sometimes the buzzer does not work or he was blocked from reaching the buzzer by M.M., was not supported by credible evidence. Further it was directly contradicted by Respondent’s explanation that he didn’t contact the office because M.M.’s behavior problems likely started in elementary school and that at this point, M.M. was not responsive to “conventional means of disciplining students.” While the undersigned is sensitive to the difficulty faced by teachers when dealing with confrontational and unruly students, no rational justification was provided for Respondent’s extreme and outrageous act of attempting to engage M.M. in a fight and labeling him a coward in front of his peers. Respondent’s actions were an unwarranted attempt to bully and belittle a middle school student. In May 2013, Respondent received a letter from then Superintendent Michael Lannon advising Respondent that he was recommending him to the School Board for a ten-day suspension without pay. During the School Board’s investigation and at the final hearing of this matter, Respondent expressed no remorse regarding his actions towards M.M. and testified that, despite knowing his actions constitute a violation of School Board policies, he would do the same thing again. Respondent received all the necessary steps of progressive discipline required by the collective bargaining agreement between the parties prior to receipt of the recommendation for the ten-day suspension without pay. As discussed in greater detail below, the School Board proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent engaged in misconduct in office in violation of rule 6A-5.056(2).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Lucie County School Board enter a final order finding William Doran guilty of misconduct in office, suspending his employment without pay for a period of ten school days, and placing him on probation for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of August, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of August, 2014.
The Issue The issues for determination are whether Respondent's suspension should be upheld and whether his employment with Petitioner should be terminated, as set forth in Petitioner's action letter dated August 21, 2003.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the School Board was a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Article IX, Florida Constitution, and Section 1001.32, Florida Statutes (2002). At all times material hereto, Mr. Moore was employed full-time with the School Board as a paraprofessional at Robert Renick Educational Center (Renick) and subject to the rules and regulations of the School Board in accordance with Section 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2002). The UTD Contract, between the School Board and UTD, also governs the terms and conditions of Mr. Moore's employment. In April 1977, Mr. Moore began his employment with the School Board and was assigned to Renick. He remained at Renick as a paraprofessional through February 9, 2003. In December 1996, prior to beginning his employment with the School Board, Mr. Moore was charged with possession of stolen property and driving with a suspended license and an expired registration. A few months later, on February 20, 1997, Mr. Moore completed an application for employment with the School Board and indicated on the application that he had no criminal charges pending. However, at the time that he made application for employment, the charges of December 1996 were pending. Mr. Moore does not contest several performance problems and deficiencies for the period October 19, 1998 through March 10, 2002. By memorandum dated October 27, 1998, Mr. Moore was notified by the assistant principal, James DeWitt, that he violated School Board policy on October 19, 1998, by allowing a student to be in possession of the key to his classroom. Mr. DeWitt advised Mr. Moore that a reoccurrence of the violation would lead to a conference-for-the-record. By memorandum dated October 17, 2000, Mr. Moore was notified by Mr. DeWitt that he had arrived late at school that same day without notifying the main office of his tardiness in accordance with the UTD Contract. Mr. DeWitt directed Mr. Moore to adhere to the established work hours and advised Mr. Moore that further failure to adhere to his work schedule would result in disciplinary action. By memorandum dated November 2, 2000, Mr. Moore was notified by Mr. DeWitt that, on November 1, 2000, he (Mr. Moore) was playing a game on his computer while the students were taking a test even though he was required to monitor the test; and that his (Mr. Moore's) failure to supervise and monitor the test resulted in a student writing the answers in the wrong section of the test. Mr. DeWitt directed Mr. Moore to adhere to his duties in his job description and advised Mr. Moore that, among other things, his lack of supervision would not be tolerated and that his failure to adhere to the duties would result in disciplinary action. By memorandum dated March 5, 2001, Mr. Moore was notified by the principal, Eugenia Smith, that, among other things, he was on leave without authorization for 17 days of the 2000-2001 school year, from February 8, 2001 through March 5, 2001. Ms. Smith directed Mr. Moore to, within three (3) days of the date of the memorandum, provide his intended date of return or resign from employment with the School Board. By memorandum dated December 20, 2001, Mr. Moore was notified by Mr. DeWitt that, on December 5, 2001, because of his (Mr. Moore's) lack of supervision, a student pushed the emergency call button twice even though no emergency existed. Mr. DeWitt directed Mr. Moore to adhere to his duties in his job description and advised Mr. Moore that his failure to adhere to the duties would result in disciplinary action. By memorandum dated March 8, 2002, Ms. Smith notified Mr. Moore that he had been tardy for several days, specifying the days of tardiness. On March 8, 2002, a conference-for-the-record was held with Mr. Moore to address his tardiness, including noncompliance with verbal and written directives regarding his tardiness. Also present were, Ms. Smith, Mr. DeWitt, and a UTD representative. At the conference-for-the-record Mr. Moore was given specific directives regarding future tardiness, which were to be to work on time and to adhere to procedures in the UTD contract. A summary of the conference-for-the-record dated March 10, 2002, was prepared and was subsequently signed by Mr. Moore. By memorandum dated November 8, 2002, Mr. Moore was notified by Mr. DeWitt that, on November 7, 2002, Mr. Moore's personal telephone was confiscated because it had been used in the classroom as an extension of the school's telephone system. By memorandum dated November 13, 2002, Mr. Moore was notified by Mr. DeWitt that his (Mr. Moore's) use of his personal telephone as an extension of the school's telephone system was a violation of the School Board's policy prohibiting telephones in the classroom unless approved by the administration. Mr. DeWitt directed Mr. Moore to adhere to School Board policies and advised Mr. Moore that failure to do so would result in disciplinary action. Mr. Moore does not contest violating the School Board's policy regarding the use of his personal telephone in the classroom. By memorandum dated January 17, 2003, Mr. DeWitt notified Mr. Moore that, on January 22, 2003, he (Mr. Moore) left the school for approximately one and one-half hour, from approximately 11:50 a.m. to 2:20 a.m., without signing-out as required by the School Board's policy. Mr. DeWitt directed Mr. Moore to adhere to the scheduled work hours and advised (Mr. Moore) that his failure to so adhere would result in further disciplinary action. On January 22, 2003, Mr. Moore was arrested based on an outstanding warrant for the December 1996 charges previously indicated. Renick is a special center for emotionally handicapped and severely emotionally disturbed students. The student's have emotional problems, which interfere with their ability to learn. The teachers, including paraprofessionals, at Renick are specially trained to deal with the behavior problems of the students. The School Board adheres to a graduated system of discipline for students, which consists of the following: first, student conferences are held, then parent conferences, and then parent-teacher conferences; and after the conferences, indoor suspension, then detention, and, lastly, outdoor suspension. Also, located in each classroom is a call button to call security for assistance if needed. The use of profanity and corporal punishment is prohibited by School Board rules. As a paraprofessional with the School Board for several years, Mr. Moore knew or should have known the School Board's graduated system of discipline, rules, and policies. Training is provided for teachers, including paraprofessionals, in the management of students at Renick, who are misbehaving. Also, in-house workshops are provided. The training is "crisis management," which was formerly safe physical management. In crisis management, physical restraint is the last resort; interventions are used instead. A student's parent must consent in writing for the use of physical restraint; however, even without consent, physical restraint may be used for situations that do not de-escalate. If physical restraint is used, the situation must be documented and the student's parent must be notified. One intervention is a prearranged intervention in which the student and teacher agree on a technique to be used by the teacher to make the student aware that his/her behavior is escalating. The prearranged intervention may be, for instance, a pulling of the student's ear. If the prearrange intervention fails to de-escalate the student's behavior, another intervention referred to as proximity control may be used. In this technique, the student feels the teacher's presence by the teacher moving towards the student, which interrupts the student's behavior. If no interventions, whether verbal or non-verbal, de- escalates the student's behavior, which begins to get out-of- control, forms of physical restraint may be used, as a last resort. One form of physical restraint is for the teacher to hold the student with his/her hand to communicate to that student that his/her behavior is escalating, with safety being the primary issue. If the student's behavior continues to escalate, the teacher may resort to a more restrictive restraint such as the cradle. In using this technique, both the student and teacher are standing, with the student having his/her back to the teacher, and the teacher holding the student, with safety being the primary issue. Again, the teacher is attempting to have the student realize that his/her behavior is escalating. If the student's behavior continues to escalate, the teacher may take the student to the floor. One technique used is the cradle assist. In this technique, the student is brought to the floor by the teacher and the student is held by the teacher in a cradle-like position. If the student's behavior continues to escalate, the teacher, with the assistance of a colleague, may hold the student to the floor. Using a colleague, assists the student in calming down. Whenever physical restraint is used, the parents of the student are notified. Furthermore, the student is counseled, and the student's file must be documented regarding the use of physical restraint. Mr. Moore received the training as to the interventions and the physical restraints. Furthermore, he attended at least one in-house workshop. Therefore, Mr. Moore had knowledge of the behavior techniques. A past performance problem involving Mr. Moore and a student was documented by a memorandum dated July 24, 1998 from Mr. DeWitt to Mr. Moore. The memorandum addressed "alleged misconduct" by Mr. Moore committed on July 20, 1998, in which Mr. Moore allegedly choked a student, when he was putting the student in time-out, and used inappropriate language by calling the student a "faggot." Although the memorandum indicated that Mr. Moore stated that he may have grabbed the student's neck, the memorandum did not indicate that the allegation was confirmed. Mr. DeWitt directed Mr. Moore to "refrain from using inappropriate procedures and language" while performing his duties. The statement by Mr. Moore showed that he admitted, not denied, that he did take some action with the student. Regarding incidents with students, the Amended Notice of Specific Charges alleges a specific incident, occurring on December 19, 2002, between Mr. Moore and a student, J. G. Allegedly, Mr. Moore told J. G. that he "was going to kill him" and "for him [J. G.] to meet him [Mr. Moore] at the store in five minutes since he [J. G.] was bad, so they could fight"; and that he "was going to make him [J. G.] his girl"; Furthermore, Mr. Moore allegedly called J. G. a "fat bitch." Additionally, Mr. Moore allegedly told another student, X. W., that he would "fuck X. W.'s mother in the grave" and called X. W. a "faggot." Also, Mr. Moore allegedly grabbed another student, I. J., and subsequently, another student, M. S., and pulled their arms behind their backs and pushed them against a wall. Further, the Amended Notice of Specific Charges contains a general allegation of how Mr. Moore treated students, i.e., "Moore often hit students with a broomstick on the legs and buttocks, pushed students to the ground, picked a student up and slammed him to the floor, wrestled students in the classroom, and often called them gay." As to the general allegation, student D. J. testified regarding Mr. Moore pushing a student to the ground. D. J. testified that he did not want to do his work and attempted to leave the classroom without permission from Mr. Moore; that Mr. Moore would not allow him to leave the room; and that Mr. Moore placed him on the floor, face first, with his (D. J.'s) arms behind his back in a manner that hurt him (D. J.). No one else was in the classroom to witness the alleged incident. No specific time period was provided for the alleged incident. Mr. Moore's testimony did not address this particular incident. In considering D. J.'s credibility, the undersigned must include, as a factor, that the students at Renick have behavior problems but that also the students should expect to be treated in accordance with the School Board's established crisis management techniques. D. J.'s demeanor and candor, during his testimony, detracted from the credibility of his testimony. The undersigned does not find D. J.'s testimony convincing. Even if Mr. Moore engaged in the physical restraint of D. J., the evidence presented fails to demonstrate that Mr. Moore's action was inappropriate under the circumstances. D. J. was attempting to force his way out of the class. However, Mr. Moore failed to document the incident and notify D. J.'s parents that physical restraint was used. Also, as to the general allegation, student M. L. testified regarding picking a student up and slamming the student to the floor. M. L. testified that, except for him, all the other students in the class had completed their work and were in the rear of the classroom with the teacher; that he had just completed his work and was walking to the rear of the class when Mr. Moore walked into the classroom; that Mr. Moore told him that he was out of his seat without permission; and that Mr. Moore picked him up and slammed him to the floor, placing his (Mr. Moore's) knee in M. L.'s back. Mr. Moore testified that M. L. was out of his seat without permission and that M. L. was running in the classroom and would not sit down even though Mr. Moore asked him to sit down and stop running. M. L. admitted that he had been disciplined before for running around in the classroom. Mr. Moore admits that he put M. L. to the floor, which de-escalated the situation, and that he then allowed M. L. to get up. Furthermore, Mr. Moore admits that he did not document the incident and did not notify the parents of M. L. that physical restraint had been used on M. L. No testimony was presented from Mr. Moore's supervising teacher, Jaime Calaf, regarding the incident with M. L. No other testimony was presented. As to the incident with M. L., the only witnesses testifying were M. L. and Mr. Moore. In considering M. L.'s credibility, the undersigned must include, as a factor, that the students at Renick have behavior problems but that also the students should expect to be treated in accordance with the School Board's established crisis management techniques. M. L.'s demeanor and candor, during his testimony, and his admission that he had been disciplined for the same action previously detracted from the credibility of his testimony. Specifically, the undersigned is not convinced that M. L. had completed his work, that he was not disruptive, that Mr. Moore slammed M. L. to the floor, and that Mr. Moore put his knee in M. L.'s back. Mr. Moore admits that he put, not slammed, M. L. to the floor. The undersigned does not find M. L.'s testimony convincing. The evidence presented fails to demonstrate that Mr. Moore's action was inappropriate under the circumstances. However, Mr. Moore failed to document the situation and failed to notify the parents of M. L. as required that physical restraint had been used with M. L. Regarding the general allegation that Moore often hit students with a broomstick on the legs and buttocks, wrestled students in the classroom, and often called them gay, M. L. testified as to Mr. Moore punching students in the arm, who were misbehaving, and O. B. testified as to Mr. Moore hitting students with a broom. M. L. testified that, at times, Mr. Moore punched him and other students in the arm when they were misbehaving. The undersigned's decision as to M. L.'s credibility remains the same. The evidence fails to demonstrate that Mr. Moore punched students who were misbehaving. O. B. testified that Mr. Moore attempted to hit him once with a broom when he was misbehaving and, at times, hit other students with a broom when they were misbehaving. In considering O. B.'s credibility, the undersigned must include, as a factor, that the students at Renick have behavior problems but that also the students should expect to be treated in accordance with the School Board's established crisis management techniques. O. B. testified that he did not consider J. B. to be a disruptive student; whereas, the evidence presented, regarding J. B., clearly indicates that J. B. is a disruptive student. O. B.'s demeanor and candor, during his testimony, together with his unsupported conclusion that J. B. was not a disruptive student, detracted from the credibility of his testimony. The undersigned does not find O. B.'s testimony convincing. Further, Mr. Calaf testified that, on occasions, he observed Mr. Moore grabbing students in the back and getting rough with them. Mr. Calaf did not testify that he reported his observations to the principal or other person who could exact discipline upon Mr. Moore. Moreover, Mr. Calaf did not testify that what he observed was inappropriate or contrary to the established crisis management training. Consequently, Mr. Calaf's observations cannot be used to support the alleged inappropriate conduct by Mr. Moore. Regarding the specific incident involving J. G. in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges, according to the principal of Renick, Eugenia Smith, she would not have recommended the dismissal of Mr. Moore if it had not been for the incident on December 19, 2002, involving J. G., a middle school student at the time. No dispute exists that the School Board uses progressive discipline. For Ms. Smith, the incident involving J. G. was the incident that triggered the dismissal of Mr. Moore. As a result, this incident is the defining incident for Ms. Smith's decision to recommend dismissal of Mr. Moore and, therefore, if this incident is not proven, the basis for her recommendation of Mr. Moore's dismissal no longer exists. As to the specific incident involving J. G., the witnesses to the incident are J. G., other Renick students in the class, and Mr. Moore. No dispute in the testimony exists that, on December 19, 2002, Mr. Moore and J. G. got into a shouting match and that Mr. Moore never touched J. G. At Renick, J. G. was disruptive in his classes and had had many discipline problems. One psychologist at Renick, Joseph Strasko, described J. G. as physically disruptive and aggressive. Another psychologist at Renick, Theodore Cox, Jr., had observed J. G. engaging in inappropriate behavior. Also, Mr. Strasko described J. G. as a student who would not tell the truth when it was detrimental to him (J. G.); whereas, Mr. Cox had not known J. G. to tell an untruth. As to whether J. G. would tell the truth, the undersigned finds Mr. Strasko to be more credible and, therefore, finds that J. G. will not tell the truth when it is detrimental to him (J. G.). As to what lead to the shouting match, only Mr. Moore was certain as to what happened. The undersigned finds Mr. Moore's testimony credible regarding this aspect of the incident. J. G. was bullying a new student in the class and had physically moved toward the new student. Mr. Moore interceded to stop the bullying by J. G. and to protect the new student, requesting J. G. to take his seat but J. G. refused. Mr. Moore kept himself between J. G. and the new student, thereby, preventing J. G. from advancing upon the new student. What Mr. Moore said during the shouting match is where the testimony differs. However, no dispute exists as to certain aspects of the incident: that J. G. became angry and disrespectful toward Mr. Moore; that J. G. stated to Mr. Moore that, if Mr. Moore put his hands on him, he (J. G.) would bring his father and brother to Renick and they would deal with Mr. Moore; and that J. G. used profanity with Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore denies that he used profanity or disparaging remarks during the incident with J. G. The crisis management expert, Mr. Strasko,2 testified that it is not appropriate for a teacher to shout profanities at a student who is shouting profanities at the teacher; and that a teacher is required to be professional even when students are being disruptive. X. W., a student who was at Renick in the class at the time of the incident on December 19, 2002, testified that Mr. Moore called J. G. a "fat bitch" and called him (X. W.) a "punk." X. W. is J. G.'s cousin. D. J., a student who was at Renick in the class at the time of the incident on December 19, 2002, testified that he did not hear about what J. G. and Mr. Moore were arguing. However, D. J. testified that, when J. G. told Mr. Moore that he (J. G.) was going to bring his (J. G.'s) brother, Mr. Moore told J. G. to bring his brother and that he (Mr. Moore) would "lay him on the ground." O. B. a student who was at Renick in the class at the time of the incident on December 19, 2002, testified that, when J. G. told Mr. Moore that he (J. G.) was going to bring his (J. G.'s) brother, Mr. Moore told J. G. to bring his brother to the store and that they would deal with it then. O. B. further testified that J. G. and Mr. Moore were calling each other gay and other derogatory names. Further, regarding the incident on December 19, 2002, Mr. Calaf did not witness the incident. Mr. Calaf returned to the class after the incident had occurred and observed J. G. crying and Mr. Moore and J. G. shouting at each other. Mr. Calaf did not testify as to what Mr. Moore and J. G. were shouting but did testify that he advised Mr. Moore that he (Mr. Moore) should not shout at students and should always remain professional, not getting on the level of the students. As to J. G.’s being disruptive in the class, Mr. Calaf testified that J. G. was generally disruptive and that usually Mr. Moore could calm J. G. down. The undersigned finds Mr. Calaf's testimony credible. In considering J. G.'s credibility, the aforementioned factors describing J. G. must be considered. In considering X. W.'s credibility, the undersigned must include, as a factor, that the students at Renick have behavior problems but also that teachers are required not to use profanity and to be professional. Further, the undersigned must consider the fact that X. W. is J. G.'s cousin, which was unbeknownst to Ms. Smith. In considering D. J.'s credibility, the undersigned must consider the factor that D. J. complained that Mr. Moore used physical restraint against him in an earlier incident in which the only witnesses were he and Mr. Moore. The incident and D. J.'s credibility are addressed earlier in these findings. In considering O. B.'s credibility, the undersigned must consider that O. B. complained that he observed Mr. Moore hitting students at Renick with a broom. The incident and O. B's credibility are addressed earlier in these findings. In considering Mr. Moore's credibility, the character testimony provided by Mr. Strasko and the character letters provided by Mr. Moore's colleagues must be considered. Mr. Strasko and Mr. Moore's colleagues address, among other things, what they consider the appropriate manner in which Mr. Moore handled students who were having behavior problems. Further, Mr. Moore's length of employment with the School Board, and his aforementioned past performance situations must be considered, including the one documented alleged inappropriate crisis management technique and language used by Mr. Moore in July 1998. Taking all of the aforementioned factors of credibility into consideration, the undersigned finds Mr. Moore's testimony more credible than the students, the character testimony and letters persuasive, and the lack of evidence, as to what was said, by a witness who was not involved in the incident, i.e., Mr. Calaf. Therefore, the undersigned finds that Mr. Moore did not use profanity during the incident of December 19, 2002. Mr. Moore did not report the incident involving J. G. Mr. Moore did not believe that the incident rose to the level that reporting was necessary. Moreover, no physical restraint was used. On May 1, 2003, a conference-for-the-record was held with Mr. Moore by the School Board's Office of Professional Standards (OPS) to review his employment history and future employment with the School Board. Among those in attendance with Mr. Moore were a UTD advocate, Ms. Smith, and the assistant superintendent for the Office of Exceptional Student Education and Student/Career Services. By a summary of the conference- for-the-record, dated June 6, 2003, the conference-for-the record was memoralized. By memorandum dated May 28, 2003, Ms. Smith and the assistant superintendent recommended the dismissal of Mr. Moore. By letter dated August 21, 2003, the School Board notified Mr. Moore that at its meeting on August 20, 2003, it took action to suspend him and initiate dismissal proceedings against him from all employment with it.
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 Algernon J. Moore, Jr. in violation of Counts I and IV in accordance with this Recommended Order. Dismissing Counts II and III. Upholding the suspension of Algernon J. Moore, Jr. Dismissing Algernon J. Moore, Jr. from all employment with the Miami-Dade County School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 2004.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The respondent, Dianne Tice, began teaching home economics at the Jan Mann Opportunity School North (Jan Mann) in the 1981-82 school year. Jan Mann is a school devoted to students with behavior problems, attendance problems and learning disorders. Student James Woody, thirteen years old, was a continuing discipline problem for teachers at Jan Mann. At the time of his admission to Jan Mann, there were discussions as to whether Woody was the type of student who should be admitted. The staff psychologist at Jan Mann believed that a more appropriate placement would have been a residential facility. Nevertheless, Woody was admitted to Jan Mann. On March 13, 1984, Woody was attending respondent's fifth period home economics class. Due to his loud, profane language and banging on desks and chairs, respondent sent Woody to the Principal's office with a referral slip. Approximately twenty minutes later, Woody returned to the respondent's classroom and again became disruptive. Respondent then requested the security guard or hall monitor to either talk to Woody or again take him to the Principal's office. The hall monitor spoke with Woody, placed him back in the classroom and told respondent to put Woody outside the classroom with him if Woody caused any further trouble. Thereafter, the respondent was in the front of the classroom when another student asked to be assisted with the placement of buttonholes in some pants she was sewing. The respondent picked up a pair of scissors, a seam ripper and some keys and began walking to the rear of the classroom to get other equipment from a cabinet so that she could assist the student. At this point, Woody again became disruptive -- pounding on desks and using loud, profane language. The evidence is very conflicting as to what then transpired. Woody left his desk, and it is not clear whether respondent told him to leave the classroom before then or whether he was attempting to proceed to the rear of the room in order to use the restroom. In any event, Respondent was walking toward or behind Woody with the scissors, seam ripper and keys still in her hands. They both ended up at the rear door of the classroom, which opens and closes by means of a push bar. Woody was on the outside of the door and respondent was on the inside. The evidence is again conflicting as to whether respondent was attempting to hold the door closed so that Woody could not reenter her classroom, or whether she was attempting to open the door to either bring him back in or see where he had gone. Whatever she was attempting to do, Woody was either pulling or pushing in the opposite direction. The hall monitor, sitting some ten to fifteen feet away from the door, observed Woody at the door outside the classroom pulling on the door, and began to go over to the door when Woody released the door and cafe over to him. The monitor observed blood on Woody's hand and took him to the bathroom to wash his hand. He then went back to respondent's classroom and asked respondent how Woody had gotten cut. Respondent then ran into the bathroom to help. What was said in the bathroom is also the subject of conflicting testimony. Woody at first told school personnel that he cut his hand while banging on a desk. Respondent told him not to try and protect her. Whatever was said, respondent does not deny that Woody may have been accidentally cut with the scissors, seam ripper or keys during the scuffle at the rear door of the classroom. After the incident, respondent told several people that she had cut Woody. There is no evidence, however, that respondent intentionally stabbed Woody's hand during the incident. As noted above, respondent was first employed at Jan Mann for the 1981- 82 school year. Her annual evaluation for that year indicates that she was rated acceptable in all categories of the evaluation and was recommended for re- employment by her then Principal, Robert Edwards. During this first year, respondent was also formally observed by the Dade County School Board Supervisor of Home and Family Education. She was found to be acceptable in all categories and all comments were very favorable. During the 1982-83 school year, respondent was formally observed in her classroom on three occasions. In November of 1982, Assistant Principal Altman rated respondent unacceptable in the two categories of "classroom management" and "techniques of instruction," and acceptable in the remaining six categories. She was given an overall summary rating of acceptable. In January of 1983, respondent was again observed by Ms. Altman and received an unacceptable rating in three categories, but an overall summary rating of acceptable. Approximately one week after the January evaluation, respondent and Ms. Altman were involved in an incident which resulted in respondent filing a grievance against Ms. Altman for allegedly pushing her in the presence of her students. Principal Oden investigated the matter and decided that respondent's allegations against Ms. Altman were unfounded. In March of 1983, a Department of Education consultant performed an instructional program review and found respondent to have met all assessment standards. Additionally, it was noted that respondent was "commended for her management and organization of the facility." Respondent's annual evaluation by Principal Oden, dated June 9, 1983, indicates that she was rated acceptable in all categories except for the category entitled "preparation and planning." Principal Oden remarked that respondent "does a good job at teaching, but needs to devote more attention to planning." Respondent was recommended for re-employment by Principal Oden. During the 1983-84 school year, Respondent had two formal classroom observations. Assistant Principal Willie Shatteen observed her classroom on October 6, 1983, and found her performance to be acceptable in all categories. His written comments included the following: "lesson plans are evident," "materials are arranged far in advance," "students orderly and attentive," and "has knowledge of background of each student to provide for individual's need." In a follow-up letter, however, Mr. Shatteen criticized respondent for not following her lesson plans and for her negative attitude toward constructive criticism. Several conferences were held between respondent and her supervisors in October and November, 1983. By letter dated November 17, 1983, Principal Oden expressed several concerns he had relating primarily to respondent's planning, teaching and classroom management skills, and made ten recommendations for improvement. Principal Oden formally observed respondent's classroom on December 8, 1983, and rated her acceptable in all categories except "preparation and planning," but gave her an overall rating of acceptable. His comments in the area of "preparation and planning" included "improvement may be achieved through better planning." A "conference for the record" was held on December 13, 1983, to discuss the recommendations made in the November 17th letter. Also discussed was the possibility that respondent would not be recommended for continued employment at Jan Mann should she fail to make the necessary improvements discussed in the November 17th letter. Another conference was arranged for a time between January 19, 1984, and January 25, 1984. The record is not clear as to whether that conference occurred. Respondent's lesson plans were submitted to and reviewed by her supervisors every week. While the January 4, 1984, review found that the plans were not organized to include certain items and that a conference was needed, the plans for the following five weeks were found to be "accepted" and, in one instance, "plans are excellent. No improvement is needed at this time." Just prior to the March 13, 1984, incident involving student James Woody, Principal Oden decided that he was going to recommend respondent for a continuing contract. He told her this and her name was included on the list submitted to the School Board containing those recommended for a continuing contract. While be felt that there were some modifications needed in her teaching behavior, he also felt that there was room for her to improve with the beginning of a new year. Had it not been for the Woody incident, Principal Oden would have recommended respondent for a continuing contract. Indeed, his decision of "not recommended for employment" contained on the 1983-84 annual evaluation contains the remark "pending S.I.U. ..." -- referring to the investigation of the Woody incident by the School Board's Special Investigative Unit. Had respondent been cleared of the Woody incident, she would have been recommended by Principal Oden for re-employment on a continuing contract basis. His annual evaluation for the 1983-84 school year, signed on March 21, 1984, rates respondent as unacceptable in the two categories of "preparation and planning" and "professional responsibility," and acceptable in the remaining six categories. Apparently in connection with the investigation of the Woody incident, a psychiatric evaluation of respondent was performed by Dr. Gail D. Wainger, a psychiatrist. After spending approximately one hour with the respondent on March 20, 1984 (the same day that respondent was informed that she would not be recommended for employment), Dr. Wainger concluded that respondent appears to be suffering from chronic paranoid schizophrenia, and that she experiences misperceptions and shows evidence of poor judgment. This diagnosis was based, in part, upon the respondent's expressions to the effect that the school administration was against her and was attempting to get rid of her and also her relating to Dr. Wainger incidents which occurred at an apartment complex in which she formerly resided. Dr. Wainger is of the opinion that respondent would be likely to decompensate during stressful situations. On June 20 and 22, 1984, another psychiatric examination of respondent was performed by Dr. Lloyd Richard Miller, a psychiatrist. Dr. Miller spent approximately three hours with the respondent over two different days, performed some psychological testing, and also reviewed Dr. Wainger's psychiatric report. It was his conclusion that respondent did not suffer from a mental illness, and he did "not view her as guarded, suspicious or paranoid in any way. It was Dr. Miller's opinion that respondent has the sufficient mental capacity to return to work as a teacher. An expert in the area of teaching personnel evaluation and personnel management employed with the Dade County School Board, Dr. Desmond Patrick Grey, reviewed respondent's personnel files, including her classroom performance and annual evaluations, the investigative reports of the Woody incident and Dr. Wainger's psychiatric report. Dr. Grey was of the opinion that respondent's performance evaluations indicate a serious problem that would limit her effectiveness as a teacher; that the Woody incident impaired the integrity of the profession and the respondent; and that respondent has an incapacity to perform the expected function of a teacher. Three employees at Jan Mann testified in respondent's behalf. A school psychologist believed that respondent's character and reputation at Jan Mann were outstanding. A graphic arts aide felt that respondent was excellent dealing with the children and was dedicated in her occupation. A workshop instructor felt that respondent had been a "pretty competent teacher."
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Amended Specific Notice of Charges against respondent Dianne Tice be DISMISSED, and that she be awarded back salary for the remainder of the contract period following her suspension. Respectfully submitted and entered this 16th day of May, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR 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 16th day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas Robertson, Esquire Merritt, Sikes and Craig, P.A. McCormick Building - 3rd floor 111 Southwest Third Street Miami, Fla. 33130 Carl DiBernardo, Esquire Commercial Bank of Kendall 8603 S. Dixie Highway - Suite 210 Miami, Fla. 33143 Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Fla. 33132
