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 issues in this case are whether Respondent violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession, specifically Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a) and 6B-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him pursuant to Section 231.2615(1)(i), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The evidence presented at final hearing established the facts that follow. Chavero holds a Florida Educator's Certificate that is currently valid. Chavero was employed as a public school teacher in the Dade County School District at all times pertinent to this proceeding. In the 1999-2000 school year, Chavero taught English and math at Braddock. All of his students were enrolled in an Alternative Education Program known as the STARS Program. The STARS Program is offered as a last resort to students who, because of bad behavior, poor grades, or other problems, need extra assistance and attention to remain in school. If a student in the STARS Program fails to perform satisfactorily, he or she may be expelled. Chavero believed that student misconduct and a general lack of discipline at Braddock (and other schools) were preventing pupils from learning and teachers from teaching. Consistent with his pedagogic philosophy, Chavero aspired to teach his students not only the content of a course but also such social skills as proper behavior, dress, and manners. Braddock's Principal, Dr. Donald Hoecherl, disagreed with Chavero's view that behavior and social skills should be taught in the classroom. Principal Hoecherl told Chavero not to teach his students how to conduct themselves in socially acceptable ways. Apparently, the principal's admonition reflected the administration's sensitivity to the perceived "low self-esteem" of students in the STARS Program. Chavero was expected to be flexible and to refrain from confronting students or "coming on too strong" with them. This type of teaching was completely out of character for Chavero. Predictably, he was not able to abandon the authoritarian style that suited his personality and beliefs. As a result, Chavero developed a reputation as a strict disciplinarian — but "nothing out of the ordinary," in the words of V. D., a former student who testified against him at hearing. Transcript ("T-") 49. Indeed, according to this same student, Chavero's classroom rules were "pretty much the same" as other teachers'. T-49. Students began to complain, however, that Chavero was making too frequent use of a form of punishment called an “exclusion.” An exclusion is a temporary in-school suspension that the teacher may impose when a student is disrupting the class. Upon being excluded, the misbehaving student must leave the classroom and spend the remainder of the period in detention at another location. Assistant Principal Jane Garraux investigated the student complaints and concluded that Chavero’s use of the exclusion was excessive. She also determined that most of Chavero’s students (as many as 70 percent) were failing his classes. By comparison, other teachers in the STARS Program were giving passing grades to between 80 and 95 percent of their students. Following her investigation, the assistant principal initiated an evaluation of Chavero in November 1999 that led to the identification of performance deficiencies in the area of classroom control. He was placed on a 90-day performance probation and, as a result, needed to correct the identified deficiencies within that period or face termination of employment. See Section 231.29(3)(d), Florida Statutes. While on performance probation, Chavero was observed and evaluated several times. In the opinion of his assessors, Chavero’s performance continued to be unsatisfactory. In February 2000, he resigned. 2/ The Commissioner sought to prove that, in the months leading to his resignation, Chavero: (a) refused, on occasion, to answer students’ questions about lessons and assignments; (b) used the exclusion tool excessively, in relation to other teachers in the STARS Program; (c) demanded more from his students in terms of academic performance and classroom decorum than his colleagues were requiring; and (d) became angry and raised his voice in class at times. This is not a proceeding to terminate Chavero’s employment, however, and poor performance does not constitute a basis for discipline under Section 231.2615, Florida Statutes — not, at least, without more than has been shown here. 3/ Therefore, even if all the general deficiencies in Chavero’s performance that the Commissioner attempted to prove at hearing were found to have existed, none amounts to a violation either of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) or of Rule 6B- 1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code. There were, however, two specific occasions on which Chavero allegedly lost his temper and threatened the physical safety of a student or students. Together, these particular instances are the heart of the Commissioner’s case against Chavero and therefore require closer scrutiny. The First Period Incident On January 27, 2000, Chavero gave his first period class a mid-term examination. Near the end of the period, Chavero allowed the students who had completed the test to talk quietly, provided they would not bother the few who were still working. V. D. and J. A., who were sitting together in the back of the room, began conversing with one another. The class soon began to get loud, and Chavero told the students to be quiet. He held up V. D. and J. A. as an example of how he would like the class to behave, saying: "Why can't you guys whisper like J. A. and V. D." The class momentarily calmed down but quickly became noisy again. Chavero began to get angry. He told the students to lower their voices. V. D. continued to talk, and Chavero yelled at her to be quiet. Instead of obeying, V. D. denied that she had been talking loudly, which caused Chavero to yell at her some more. V. D. asked Chavero not to scream at her; he did not stop. At some point during this exchange, V. D. said to Chavero: “What the f*** is your problem?” Enraged, Chavero slammed his fist on a desk and moved quickly toward V. D. Some students, including V. D. and J. A., recall that as Chavero approached V. D., he raised his open hand, palm facing forward, as if to strike her. A number of other students, however, in written statements prepared on January 27, 2000, made no mention of the teacher’s raised hand. For his part, Chavero adamantly denied having raised his hand against V. D. V. D.’s immediate reaction suggests that she was not intimidated or frightened by Chavero’s rapid approach, regardless where his hand was. V. D. testified that she “lost [her] temper,” “got up and . . . exchanged a few words” with Chavero. T-55. More important, it is undisputed that Chavero did not touch V. D. Rather, he returned to his desk at the front of the class to write a “referral” — that is, a written account of V. D.’s misconduct that would be provided to the assistant principal for further handling. V. D. gathered her belongings and left the room. The Commissioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Chavero intended either to hit V. D. or to cause her unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; that V. D. suffered any physical or emotional injury or felt embarrassed or degraded; or that V. D. was in danger of likely being harmed in Chavero’s classroom on January 27, 2000. As a result, it cannot be said without hesitancy that the conditions in Chavero's classroom that day were harmful to learning or to a student's mental or physical health or safety. The Third Period Incident R. G. was a student in Chavero’s third period math class. R. G.’s academic performance was extremely poor, and he frequently was excluded for bad behavior. He was defiant and aggressive, openly challenged Chavero’s authority, and, on at least one occasion, threw staples at the teacher. One day — the precise date of this event is not clear, but it apparently occured after January 27, 2000 — R. G. was in Chavero’s class, sitting in the back, not doing his assignment. Because R. G. was refusing to do his schoolwork, Chavero wrote a referral to send him to the assistant principal. R. G. testified that before Chavero wrote the referral, he had insulted R. G. by saying that his (R. G.’s) mother was raising an animal. However, another of Chavero’s former students named F. V., who witnessed this particular incident and testified at hearing on the Commissioner’s behalf, did not hear Chavero make this remark to R. G. Indeed, F. V. testified that he had never heard Chavero make rude or disrespectful comments to his students, nor had he observed Chavero become angry with the class. Chavero denied having insulted R. G., and the evidence supports his denial. After Chavero had filled out the referral, R. G. rose from his seat and approached Chavero’s desk. R. G. reached out to snatch the referral from Chavero’s hand in a manner that, according to F. V., was apparently intended “just to . . . annoy” Chavero. T-93. Specifically, as R. G. grabbed for the referral, he made a feint toward Chavero’s grade book. As F. V. explained, it was well known that Chavero “didn’t like it when people touched [his] grade book.” T-93. In the process, R. G. may have hit Chavero’s hand, although he denied having done so. Reacting to R. G.’s provocative act, Chavero slapped R. G.’s hand away. R. G. was neither injured nor embarrassed by this. Rather, he became angry and began yelling and cursing at Chavero, insulting him. Both R. G. and F. V. recalled that Chavero then said to R. G., “Oh, hit me if you’re a man,” or words to that effect. Chavero, however, testified that his exact statement to R. G. was: “[I]f you try to be physical you’ll get in trouble.” T-124. Chavero was the most credible witness of the three. After Chavero warned R. G. not to become physical, R. G. left the classroom. The Commissioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Chavero intended either to harm R. G. or to cause him unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; that R. G. suffered any physical or emotional injury or felt embarrassed or degraded; or that R. G. was in danger of likely being hurt in Chavero’s classroom on the day of the third period incident. To the contrary, it appears that R. G.’s aggressive and provocative behavior may have threatened Chavero’s physical safety. Consequently, it cannot be said without hesitancy that the conditions in Chavero's classroom that day were harmful to learning or to a student's mental or physical health or safety.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent Armando M. Chavero. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 15th day of February, 2001.
The Issue Whether Respondent should be transferred from Glades Middle School to an opportunity school.
Findings Of Fact For the 1989-90 school year John Sarmiento was enrolled in the Dade County public school system and he was assigned to the eighth grade at Giades Middle School. On November 27, 1989, Petitioner administratively transferred him from Glades Middle School to J.R.E. Lee, an opportunity school. The stated basis for the transfer was the student's disruptive behavior and his failure to adjust to the regular school. As an opportunity school, J.R.E. Lee has a more structured program than a traditional school, such as Glades Middle School, and is designed to assist students with discipline problems. While attending Glades Middle School, John Sarmiento repeatedly engaged in disruptive conduct that interfered with his own learning and with the learning of others in his classes. This conduct resulted in his being referred to the assistant principal's office between five and ten times per week. On one occasion the student, while in class, threw a piece of chalk at another student. On another occasion, the student engaged in an argument with another student that almost resulted in a fight during class. On an almost daily basis, the student would wander around the class while making loud, boisterous comments. This student's misconduct would have merited his suspension according to the district code of student conduct. Instead of suspending this student, the school officials worked with him and with his parents in an effort to improve his behavior. Unfortunately the considerable efforts of the personnel at Glades Middle School to serve the student's educational needs did not succeed. The student needs the structured environment that the opportunity school can provide, and his educational needs will best be served by his transfer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order which approves John Sarmiento's assignment to the J.R.E. Lee opportunity school. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of April 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of April 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank R. Harder, Esquire 2780 Galloway Road, Suite 100 Twin Oaks Building Miami, Florida 33165 Maria Ruiz de la Torre, Esquire 7111 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite Three Miami, Florida 33138 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Paul W. Bell Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code rules, as charged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, the Commissioner of Education, is responsible for determining whether there is probable cause to warrant disciplinary action against an educator's certificate and, if probable cause is found, for filing and prosecuting an administrative complaint pursuant to chapter 120. Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 803275, valid through June 30, 2021, covering the areas of elementary education, exceptional student education, middle grades integrated curriculum, and social science. At the time of the final hearing in this proceeding, Respondent had taught for approximately 17 years. The Complaint The Complaint alleges that Respondent spoke ill of student E.J.'s work on an assignment in front of the whole class, including, but not limited to, calling it pathetic. As a result, E.J. was embarrassed. Additionally, the Complaint alleges that Respondent spoke ill of student A.S.'s work on an assignment in front of the whole class, including, but not limited to, calling it pathetic. As a result, A.S. was embarrassed. The Complaint also alleges that Respondent criticized student J.P.'s work on an assignment, including, but not limited to, saying he had not put any work into it. As a result of this alleged conduct, the Complaint charges Respondent with having violated section 1012.795(1)(j), and rules 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. and 6A-10.081(2)(a)5. Evidence Adduced at the Final Hearing Respondent began teaching in the St. Lucie County School District ("District") on August 1, 2016. At the time of Respondent's conduct that is alleged to violate section 1012.795 and rule 6A-10.081, Respondent was employed as an eighth grade social studies teacher at West Gate K-8 School ("West Gate"), in the District. The 2018-2019 school year for the District began on August 13, 2018. September 14, 2018, was Respondent's last day of employment with the District. The alleged conduct giving rise to this proceeding occurred at some point between August 13, 2018, and September 14, 2018. On or about September 14, 2018, the District initiated an investigation into Respondent's conduct while she had been employed at West Gate. E.J. was a student in Respondent's eighth grade history class. Respondent assigned the students to complete a history project. After E.J. turned in his project, Respondent called him up to her desk and told him, in the front of the class, that his work on the project was "lazy" and "pathetic." Other students in the class saw Respondent's conduct and heard her comments to E.J. E.J. testified, credibly and persuasively, that he was embarrassed and hurt by Respondent's comments, and that he went back to his desk in tears. The credible evidence establishes that after seeing E.J.'s reaction to her comments, Respondent called E.J. outside of the classroom and apologized. Respondent testified, credibly, that she felt "terrible" about making E.J. cry, and that she had made the comments because she was frustrated with the quality of the students' work on the project. E.J.'s father, Jermaine Jones, who had picked him up from school on the day of the incident, confirmed that E.J. was upset by Respondent's comments on his project. Jones immediately set up a meeting with Assistant Principal Guzman and Respondent for the following day. At that meeting, Respondent apologized to E.J.'s parents and said she was having a stressful day when she made the comments to E.J. According to Jones, the incident made E.J.—who normally is quiet— further withdrawn, and he became, in Jones's words, "a little depressed." According to Jones, following the incident, E.J. did not want to go to Respondent's class. Other student witnesses testified at the final hearing, credibly and consistently, that they saw and heard Respondent's comments directed at E.J., and that E.J. was upset by her comments and started to cry. Another student, J.P., testified that he had been unable to complete the project for Respondent's class because his grandfather was ill and had been hospitalized, and that he and his family had been spending time at the hospital. J.P. took a note from his mother, to Respondent, on the day the project was due, explaining the reason why J.P. had been unable to complete his project. J.P. testified, credibly, that Respondent told him, in front of the class, that she really did not care about the note, and if he did not turn in the completed project by the following day, he would receive a grade of "zero." J.P. credibly testified that other students in the class heard Respondent's comments to him, and that he was "very shocked" and felt "very embarrassed." J.P. did not turn in a project. Student A.S. testified, credibly, that Respondent told him that his work on the project was unacceptable and "pathetic." Respondent made these comments in front of the entire class. A.S. testified, credibly, that he felt "very embarrassed and upset." He testified, credibly, that Respondent did not apologize to him. Respondent testified on her own behalf. She acknowledged calling E.J.'s work "lazy" and "pathetic," but testified that she had not intended to hurt his feelings, and when she realized that she had, she "felt terrible about it." She acknowledged that she has "a deep voice, and I come off harsher than I mean to." She called E.J. outside to explain that she had not intended to hurt his feelings, and there would be other opportunities to make up the bad grade he received on the project. She testified that as a result of their talk, E.J. calmed down, and that she did not have any further issues with him in class. She confirmed that on the day following the incident with E.J., she met with E.J.'s parents to discuss the incident. She testified that the meeting was "civil," and that she left the meeting feeling like "it was taken care of." Regarding the incident with J.P., Respondent testified that the students had two weeks in which to complete the project, and that when J.P. approached her with the note regarding his grandfather's illness, she told him to turn in, the following day, what he had completed to that point. She confirmed that J.P. did not turn in a project. She also testified that she did not hear from J.P.'s mother regarding the project. Regarding student A.S., Respondent testified that she did not call his work "pathetic," and that, given E.J.'s reaction, she would not have used that word again.4 Respondent also presented the testimony of K.K., who also had been a 4 Respondent acknowledged that the alleged incidents with E.J., J.P., and A.S. involved the same project, and that E.J. and A.S. had turned the project in on the same day. Thus, the undersigned questions whether Respondent would have had sufficient time to reflect on the effect that the word "pathetic" had on E.J., such that she would not have used that word in speaking with A.S. on the same day. student in Respondent's eighth grade history class in the 2018-2019 school year. K.K. testified that Respondent discussed E.J.'s paper with the class because it was a good paper, and that she did not see anyone cry in Respondent's class. She also testified that Respondent did not speak in negative terms about anyone's project in front of the class. However, K.K.'s testimony and written statement are directly contradicted by the testimony of four other students, as well as by E.J.'s father and Respondent herself, who admitted having called E.J.'s work on the project "lazy" and "pathetic" in front of the class. Accordingly, K.K.'s testimony and statement are not deemed credible. Respondent has been a teacher for 17 years. She testified that her educator's certificate has never been subjected to discipline, and no evidence was presented showing that disciplinary action has ever been taken against her educator's certificate. Findings of Ultimate Fact Based on the foregoing, it is determined that Petitioner proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent engaged in the conduct alleged in the Complaint. Whether particular conduct constitutes a violation of the applicable statutes and rules is a factual question to be decided in the context of the alleged violation. Langston v. Jamerson, 653 So. 2d 489, 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Whether specific conduct constitutes a deviation from the required standard is an ultimate finding of fact. Holmes v. Turlington, 480 So. 2d 150, 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., of the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, requires a teacher to make reasonable effort to protect a student from conditions harmful to learning and to the student's mental health. It is determined that by disparaging E.J.'s work in front of the entire class—which caused him to suffer distress, withdraw, and avoid going to Respondent's class—Respondent violated this rule. Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)5., of the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, requires a teacher to avoid intentionally exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. As found above, Respondent intentionally engaged in conduct that resulted in unnecessary embarrassment to students E.J., J.P., and A.S. Accordingly, it is determined that Respondent violated this rule. By violating the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j).
Conclusions For Petitioner: Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 For Respondent: Mark S. Wilensky, Esquire Dubiner and Wilensky, LLC 1200 Corporate Way, Suite 200 Wellington, Florida 33414-8594 1 All references to chapter 120 are to the 2020 version.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order placing Respondent's educator's certificate on probation for a period of one year from the date of the Final Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of June, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of June, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Diane Tirado 3502 Southwest Vollmer Street Port St. Lucie, Florida 34953 Mark S. Wilensky, Esquire Dubiner & Wilensky, LLC 1200 Corporate Center Way, Suite 200 Wellington, Florida 33414-8594 Lisa Forbess, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue presented for decision in these consolidated cases is whether Respondent’s employment with the Polk County School Board, first as an assistant principal, then as a teacher, should be terminated, as recommended by Glenn Reynolds, Superintendent of Schools, pursuant to Section 231.36(6), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is an African-American male who attended Florida A&M University and Jacksonville State, earning masters degrees in physical education and educational leadership. Respondent served ten years in the military prior to entering the field of education. Respondent has been employed by the School Board since 1988. From 1988 to 1993, he was a teacher. In 1993, Respondent was promoted to the position of Assistant Principal for Discipline at Boone Middle School ("Boone"). He served in that position until July 23, 1997. Eileen Killebrew was the principal at Boone and was Respondent’s direct supervisor throughout his tenure at Boone. Ms. Killebrew testified that Respondent did a "great job" during his first three years at Boone. Respondent testified that he believed he had a good working relationship with Ms. Killebrew until April 25, 1997, when the events that are the subject of this proceeding commenced. Respondent testified that Ms. Killebrew repeatedly told him he was the best assistant principal she had ever seen and expressed a desire to continue working with Respondent throughout her career. Ms. Killebrew testified that Respondent’s job performance began to suffer during the 1996-1997 school year. He seemed preoccupied and less focused than in prior years. He spent more time on personal telephone calls. Parents complained that they felt Respondent was not listening to their children in his role as Assistant Principal for Discipline. Ms. Killebrew stated that she attributed these problems to difficulties Respondent was having in building a new house and that she referred him to a lawyer who handled such matters. No documentation was produced to corroborate Ms. Killebrew’s testimony regarding Respondent’s performance in the 1996-1997 school year. She did not set forth her concerns in any evaluation or other contemporaneous notation. She testified that parents and teachers had come to her with concerns, but she did not name them and Petitioner did not produce any of them as witnesses. None of the other witnesses in this proceeding testified that they had noted any problems with Respondent’s performance during this period, or that Ms. Killebrew had mentioned her concerns to them prior to April 25, 1997. Respondent testified that throughout the 1996-1997 school year, Ms. Killebrew had been confiding in him regarding her ambition to move up to a higher administrative position in the school district. Ms. Killebrew told Respondent that she had applied for two area superintendent positions, and later that she was a finalist for one of those positions. Ms. Killebrew told Respondent on several occasions that she was convinced that if a woman were to get the job, it would be her. Knowing that Respondent was also ambitious of improving his position, Ms. Killebrew assured him that if she got the area superintendent job, she would recommend him for the position as principal of Boone. At some point in April 1997, Ms. Killebrew learned she would not get the area superintendent job. Shortly thereafter, she learned that she was being reassigned from Boone to Crystal Lake Middle School. Respondent testified that on the afternoon of her reassignment, Ms. Killebrew came into his office. She had tears in her eyes and clearly had been weeping. She told Respondent that she was going home, leaving him and Nancy Woods, the other assistant principal at Boone, in charge of the school for the remainder of the afternoon. The following morning, Ms. Killebrew again came to Respondent’s office. Respondent testified that she began telling him about the reassignment and broke down crying. Respondent testified that Ms. Killebrew was upset partially because she believed that Crystal Lake was the worst school in the district, with students from the worst families in the county, "white trash" and "rednecks." She asked Respondent to transfer with her to continue as her Assistant Principal of Discipline. After thinking about it for a day, Respondent declined Ms. Killebrew’s request to join her at Crystal Lake. He told her that he was in the pool for appointment to a principal’s position, and as one of only two African-American males in the pool, he believed his chances were good. Respondent also had been advised that his chances of getting a principal’s job would be enhanced if he obtained administrative experience outside his current area of discipline. Thus, he told Ms. Killebrew that if he were to spend another year as an assistant principal, he would attempt to become Assistant Principal for Curriculum at Boone. Frances Lee, a teacher at Boone for 32 years, testified that Respondent was a very fair, congenial person. She stated that he was also a very religious person and that she often talked about the Bible with him. Bill Podoski, the guidance counselor at Boone, testified that in his experience, Respondent had always behaved professionally. Raymond Dean Hunt, a teacher at Boone during the relevant time period, testified that he was always impressed with the professional conduct of Respondent. He stated that they had disagreements over the years, and "I’m not one to back down or be quiet . . . but I’ve been impressed with Mr. Mickens, the way he handled me, if you will, on these occasions." He testified that on these occasions, Respondent’s manner was assertive but professional. Rae Fields, a parent and daily volunteer at Boone during the relevant period, testified that Respondent was a very even-tempered person. She had never heard him raise his voice, and noted that he had to use a megaphone in the hallways to make himself heard. She testified that the students respected Respondent and that he could break up school yard fights by simply ordering the combatants to stop. She testified that children would come to him with their problems and that often in the morning there would be a line of students waiting outside his door to talk with him. She told her son that if he was ever in trouble, he should go straight to Respondent. Ms. Fields testified that the idea of Respondent yelling or even raising his voice at anyone would be "totally out of character." She added that she had seen parents "all over his desk, yelling in his face, carrying on," while Respondent sat quietly and listened. Irene Roberts, the PTA President at Boone and a daily volunteer at the school, testified that Respondent was always a gentleman, very polite, and very fair. She took her own child to Respondent, "which I would never have done if I had not felt that Mr. Mickens was fair in his dealings with all children, and that he would help my son and deal with him fairly." Ms. Roberts testified that Respondent treated all children alike and with respect. He never screamed or yelled at the students and was never threatening or rude. Ms. Roberts testified that Respondent was equally adept at dealing with parents: I was amazed, very often, to see this man never lose control. I saw parents come in who were so rude and cruel when they thought the punishment that was meted out to their child wasn’t fair, and I heard him called names and everything, and he never ever lost his temper. He always was polite to them and a gentleman. Ms. Fields and Ms. Roberts were less complimentary toward Ms. Killebrew. Ms. Fields testified that she got to know Ms. Killebrew fairly well as a volunteer at Boone, where she worked for several hours every school day. Ms. Fields characterized Ms. Killebrew as a "bully" who "liked to intimidate the parents. She liked to intimidate the students." More diplomatically, Ms. Roberts described Ms. Killebrew as "feisty." "It was her way or no way. She just didn’t . . . give very easily." When asked if Ms. Killebrew was open-minded, Ms. Roberts replied, "That all depended on what she wanted or what the occasion was." During Ms. Killebrew’s tenure at Boone, there was a certain amount of racial tension at the school. Much of the tension focused on the School Resource Officer ("SRO"), Ed Nixon. The SRO is a local police officer or sheriff’s deputy assigned to each middle school and high school in Polk County. Ms. Roberts, who is white, testified about Officer Nixon as follows: There’s no nice way to say this. I think he was a little bit biased, bigoted. He kind of was very heavy handed with Hispanic kids and sometimes the black children. He just . . . seemed to be a little heavier and hotter on them . . . He was kind of, he was rough with kids and he was especially rough with the Hispanics. Ms. Fields, who is African-American, agreed with Ms. Roberts’ assessment. She testified that Officer Nixon was different with different children, and not friendly with minority children. She testified that "If you were doing something, and you were black or Hispanic, you more than likely got drug [sic] into his office or into the main office for some type of action to be taken." She testified that Officer Nixon was more likely to let white children walk away with a scolding, unless the offense was too severe to overlook. Ms. Fields testified that she was also disturbed that Officer Nixon was actively involved in disciplining children for typical school yard infractions, when she understood the SRO’s job to be deterring illegal activity. Ms. Fields testified that she thought the school, not the SRO, was responsible for primary discipline of children, and she brought her concerns to the attention of Ms. Killebrew. Ms. Fields testified that Ms. Killebrew at first tried to mollify her with a recitation of Officer Nixon’s personal and professional virtues. When Ms. Fields persisted, Ms. Killebrew told Ms. Fields that she could take her child out of the school if she was unhappy with Officer Nixon. Ms. Fields testified that this was a typical reaction by Ms. Killebrew to parents’ expressions of concern. Ms. Killebrew testified that she could not recall whether Officer Nixon was contributing to problems on the Boone campus and that nothing to that effect had ever been reported to her. This testimony is not credible. Both Ms. Roberts and Ms. Fields testified that Officer Nixon tended to harass verbally certain students. Ms. Fields noted this to be especially the case with certain Hispanic children whom Officer Nixon characterized as "known gang members." Ms. Fields testified that the cause of much of the aforementioned parental "yelling and screaming" was Officer Nixon. Parents would come in to complain about Officer Nixon’s treatment of their children, and Mr. Mickens would have to deal with the problem. Respondent testified as to Officer Nixon’s treatment of one particular Hispanic student, J.G. Respondent stated that J.G. had a discipline record that included some time in an alternative school, and that Officer Nixon claimed to have information that J.G. was a "bona fide gang member." Respondent testified that Officer Nixon monitored J.G.’s activity constantly, and that he was always confrontational in his dealings with J.G. Respondent added: And I have to say, I got numerous complaints from Hispanic kids, from black kids . . . it was on a regular basis about how he handled them . . . . [J.G.] had complained to me himself about, you know, Officer Nixon, the way he said things, accusations and things, you know. If there may be some writing on the bathroom wall, or there may be a gang sign on a table, he was always . . . one of the individuals that Officer Nixon would automatically allege or assume had performed the misconduct, you know, without really any evidence. [J.G.] always complained that . . . Officer Nixon always came up and would be questioning him and breaking up their groups, you know, this type thing . . . "He’s not making these other people spread out. Why are we supposed to be gang members, and none of the other people are being accused . . ." And there was always comments about some of the kids’ parents being drug dealers or being, you know, gang members. The morning of Friday, April 25, 1997, was somber on the Boone campus. Ms. Rubio, an aide for special education students at Boone, had died suddenly. Ms. Rubio very well-liked by students and teachers and everyone on the campus was saddened at her death. April 25, 1997, was the date of her funeral. The funeral was scheduled for 11 a.m. at a local church. Respondent came to the campus early that morning. Ms. Killebrew was not on the campus that day. She testified that she was absent because she was at another middle school participating in preparations for a presentation to the School Board. However, she later testified that she remembered attending Ms. Rubio’s funeral. It is undisputed that Ms. Killebrew was not on the Boone campus that morning. Because of Ms. Killebrew’s absence, the two assistant principals met and decided that only one of them should attend the funeral. They decided that Respondent would go to the funeral and that Ms. Woods would stay in charge of the campus. In chatting with Officer Nixon, Respondent mentioned that he was going to the funeral. At that, Officer Nixon "just started crying. He told me that Ms. Killebrew told him that he could not go. He said that he had wanted to lead the procession, you know. He asked me to give his condolences, you know, to the family. And he . . . was just crying about it." Respondent went to the funeral, and returned to the Boone campus around noon. He headed for the patio outside the cafeteria to prepare for monitoring the eighth grade lunch hour. As usual, he carried his megaphone and a portable radio with which he communicated with Officer Nixon. Respondent testified that, as he entered the hallway adjacent to the cafeteria, he saw a student who, upon seeing Respondent, turned on his heels and headed in the other direction toward his class. At about the same time, Officer Nixon radioed Respondent. Respondent testified that he thought Officer Nixon’s message related to the student whom Respondent had just seen heading toward class. Respondent replied to Officer Nixon that all was well, the problem was taken care of. Respondent testified that he later found out that he had misunderstood Officer Nixon’s message. "I learned later on that he had called me to come over to the cafeteria, and I didn’t come. But I did not understand that that was the communication." Respondent testified that he was standing on the patio monitoring the eighth graders going into the cafeteria when Officer Nixon approached him from behind. Officer Nixon asked Respondent if he had disciplined J.G. for running in the bus zone a few days earlier. Respondent answered that he had forgotten. Respondent testified that Officer Nixon then said, "I’m going to handcuff him, slam dunk him, and haul him downtown." Respondent testified that this statement "got my attention," and that he told Officer Nixon to write up a referral on J.G. if he did something wrong. Respondent testified that Officer Nixon was upset, and continued to mutter, to no one in particular, "I’m going to haul him downtown. I’m going to haul his butt off campus." Respondent testified that, up to this point, he had an amicable working relationship with Officer Nixon. They had always been able to talk about Respondent’s concerns with Officer Nixon’s performance. "I treated him with the utmost courtesy, and vice versa. He listened to me. Several things he was doing that I had concerns about, he did proper research and he changed from doing. And we were making progress." Respondent testified that his goal was always to avoid "getting physical" with the children. Two years earlier, Respondent had seen a child handcuffed, thrown to the ground and manhandled, and had vowed that he was going to do everything possible to prevent that from happening again. Thus, when he heard Officer Nixon talking about "slam dunking" J.G., Respondent said, "I don’t want you picking on the kid." With that, Officer Nixon stepped away from Respondent, pointed his finger, and said, "You’re not my boss. You can’t tell me what to do." Respondent testified that he did not respond because there were still children in the area filing into the cafeteria. Officer Nixon then walked away toward the main office. Respondent waited for the children to finish filing into the cafeteria, which he estimated took a couple of minutes. He then asked another teacher to take over his monitoring duties and went to the office. Upon reaching the office, Respondent told Officer Nixon that they needed to speak. Officer Nixon shrugged dismissively and walked away from Respondent. Respondent again stated that he needed to speak to Officer Nixon and that if Officer Nixon would not speak to him, then Officer Nixon should leave the campus. Respondent testified that they were standing at the door of the office and that there were no threats of violence or belligerence of any kind. Only three other people were in the office area at this time: Bill Podoski and Raymond Dean Hunt, teachers who were in Mr. Hunt’s adjacent guidance office when Respondent and Officer Nixon entered; and the guidance secretary. Mr. Podoski heard the altercation from Mr. Hunt’s office and testified that he did not hear Respondent raise his voice. Mr. Hunt came out of his office and saw the two men. He testified that Officer Nixon was speaking loudly and belligerently, saying something to the effect that Respondent was not his boss and could not tell him what to do. Mr. Hunt stated that Respondent was speaking assertively but not as loudly as Officer Nixon. He testified that Respondent’s tone of voice was no louder than he had heard it in previous disagreements Mr. Hunt had had with Respondent, "assertive but professional." Respondent and Officer Nixon proceeded out the office door to a walkway outside the building. Respondent again told Officer Nixon that he should leave the campus. Officer Nixon responded that he was not going to argue with Respondent in front of students, then walked away. Respondent testified that there were a few students sitting on a bench along the walkway. He testified that he did not believe the bulk of the students sitting on the patio could hear his conversation with Officer Nixon due to the distance and to the fact that the patio was noisy with typical lunchtime activity. Respondent testified that at this point he was content to let Officer Nixon walk away, as he had duties to resume. He did not see Officer Nixon again that day. Respondent testified that Ms. Woods, the other assistant principal, came into his office some time later that afternoon. Ms. Woods told Respondent that she had spoken with Officer Nixon, who told her he was scared that Respondent was calling his boss about the incident. Ms. Woods executed a sworn statement on Monday, April 28, 1997. Her statement reads, in relevant part: I was at eighth grade lunch and Officer Nixon came over to where I was. He was very upset. He said that Mr. Mickens had yelled at him in front of students and told him to get off campus. I tried to calm him down. He went on out the back door of the cafeteria. I walked over to the door with him, still trying to calm him down. He said it wasn’t right for Mr. Mickens to do that in front of students. I went back inside and Officer Nixon went on down the sidewalk. * * * After lunch duty was over, Mr. Brickel and I were walking back to the office and Officer Nixon was standing out there by the wall. He was crying (not boo-hooing, but tears in his eyes). He was saying that Mr. Mickens was calling his chief. He said that several times. We tried to calm him down, and Mr. Brickel told him to get in his car and go off and have a cigarette to help him calm down. James Brickel, the teacher referenced in Ms. Woods’ statement, also provided a written statement that confirmed the essentials of Ms. Woods’ account, as well as Respondent’s testimony regarding the miscommunication over the radio between Respondent and Officer Nixon. Respondent testified that after the incident, he called the office of Carolyn Baldwin, the assistant superintendent, to let her know what he said to Officer Nixon. Respondent also called Angus Williams, the Director of Discipline for the school district, who served as the school system’s liaison to the SROs. Respondent attempted to call Lt. Raggs, who was the charge officer for SROs, or anyone else in authority at the Haines City Police Department, but could not reach anyone there. He instructed his secretary to call them continuously, but was never able to speak to them. Respondent testified that Ms. Woods told him that she would call Ms. Killebrew. Ms. Killebrew testified that Ms. Woods called her. Ms. Killebrew stated that Ms. Woods was upset and told her there had been a loud argument between Mr. Mickens and the SRO. Ms. Killebrew stated that Ms. Woods was concerned because students had heard the argument and were already talking about it. Ms. Killebrew stated that Ms. Woods asked her to come back to Boone quickly. Ms. Killebrew testified that Ms. Woods also told her that Chief Wheeler of the Haines City Police Department wanted Ms. Killebrew to call him. This fact indicates that the Haines City Police Department was aware of the situation and acting upon it, despite Respondent’s futile attempts to contact the police directly. Ms. Killebrew testified that she called Chief Wheeler from her car, and he was "very angry and upset." It was agreed that Ms. Killebrew would meet him at the police station. Ms. Killebrew testified that Chief Wheeler was so angry and upset that she called Mr. Williams, the SRO liaison, to go with her to the police station to help guide her through the meeting. Ms. Killebrew and Mr. Williams first went to Boone, where they heard Respondent’s account of the incident. Ms. Killebrew testified that Respondent was "very calm" as he described what happened. She stated that the one point of contention was Respondent’s statement that he asked Officer Nixon to leave the campus. Mr. Williams informed Respondent that the SROs were not employed by the school district and that school administrators lacked the authority to order them off campus. Ms. Killebrew testified that Respondent believed he should have such authority but that he expressed his disagreement in a calm manner. Respondent generally agreed with Ms. Killebrew’s version of the meeting. His recollection was that it was Ms. Killebrew, not Mr. Williams, who told him he lacked the authority to order Officer Nixon off campus. Respondent also recalled that Mr. Williams cut off the conversation during this disagreement and stated that "we’re going to let administration take care of" investigating the matter. Mr. Williams instructed Respondent to report to the school board offices on the morning of Monday, April 28, 1997. Ms. Killebrew and Mr. Williams then drove to the police station. She testified that Officer Nixon was there when she arrived at the police station. Chief Wheeler and Lt. Raggs told her that Officer Nixon was in an office writing up his statement of what happened. Officer Nixon’s unsworn statement reads as follows, in full: On Friday, April 25, 1997 I, Officer Nixon, was on duty at Boone Middle School (225 South 22nd Street) when I advised the Assistant Principal Ron Mikens [sic] that I was having a problem with a student, [J.G.], in the cafeteria. Mr. Mikens then refused to come to the cafeteria. 8th grade lunch then started and I went outside to speak to Mr. Mikens about the problem. I told Mr. Mikens that [J.G.] was accused of picking on [B.D.] and I asked him if he had done anything about an incident that occured [sic] earlier in the week when [J.G.] refused to leave the bus zone and Mr. Mikens told me he had not done anything. I then told Mr. Mikens that [J.G.]’s behavior was getting worse and I felt that a student may get injured if some action was not taken. Mr. Mikens then got agitated and raised his voice at me and told me that I was picking on the kids. Mr. Mikens then pointed his finger at me and said, "let me tell you something Officer Nixon." I then told Mr. Mikens that I do not work for him and walked away. I then went into the main office and walked down the hall when Mr. Mikens began yelling at me again and pointing his finger in my face. I told him again that I did not work for him and at that point he told me to leave the campus. I told him I would not leave the campus and I walked out the door to Student Services and he followed me out the door. Mr. Mikens then began yelling at me in the hallway adjacent to the 8th grade patio and he put his finger in my face and told me that I did work for him and I will leave the school. Mr. Mikens created a disturbance in front of several 8th grade students and Mr. Mikens also stated that he wished I did put my hands on him. I walked away from him again and told Assistant Principal Becky Woods of the situation. I then left the school to prevent any further incident. Officer Nixon did not testify at the hearing. Ms. Killebrew testified that Chief Wheeler was threatening to arrest Respondent. Mr. Williams interjected that he would go to the school and that he would handle the situation. On Monday, Respondent reported as instructed and was interviewed by Dale McDonald, the school district’s Personnel Investigator Specialist, along with William Londeree, the Director of Employee Relations and Noninstructional Personnel. Respondent testified that he wrote a statement at their request. Respondent then was sent home for the rest of the day. Besides meeting with Respondent, Mr. McDonald talked to roughly ten students and had each of them make a written statement. He testified that Respondent gave him the names of three or four students who might have observed the incident. Mr. McDonald did not indicate the source of the other names. Ms. Roberts, the PTA President, testified that she was in the office on the day the interviews were conducted. Mr. McDonald was calling students down to the office, and Ms. Roberts noted four or five students who were discussing what they were going to say when Mr. McDonald called them in. She also noted that four of these students were members of the "Explorers," a Boy Scout type organization focusing on police work. Officer Nixon ran the Explorers chapter at Boone. Ms. Roberts testified that she interrupted the students’ conversation and told them to cease discussing the matter. She ordered them to sit quietly, wait to be called in, and tell the truth to the investigator. In a subsequent written statement, Mr. McDonald reported that he asked each student interviewed if he or she was a member of the Explorers, and that they all told him they were not. Ms. Roberts, who was at Boone every day during that school year and logged more than 1,000 volunteer hours, was in a position to know that the students in question were members of the Explorers, regardless of what these students told Mr. McDonald, an outsider to the Boone campus. Mr. McDonald also took statements from four staff persons, including the statements of Ms. Woods and Mr. Brickel referenced above. Mr. McDonald did not take the statement of Mr. Hunt because "Mr. Hunt was apparently a witness to only the tail end of the conversation." Mr. McDonald’s reasoning is curious in light of the fact that several of the statements he deemed worth taking were from students who saw only the episode on the walkway, and who could hear nothing of what the two men were saying. The walkway episode occurred later than the scene witnessed by Mr. Hunt. Leaving aside questions of bias on the part of the student witnesses, their hearsay statements are unreliable on their face as the basis for findings of fact. The students claim to have heard statements and seen actions that neither participant made or took. One student claimed to have seen Respondent raise his fist as if to hit Officer Nixon. Given the self-serving tenor of Officer Nixon’s written statement, it is difficult to believe he would have refrained from mentioning such an action if it occurred. The students also placed statements in the wrong person’s mouth. Even Officer Nixon agreed that it was he who substantially stated, "You’re not my boss." Yet one of the students claims Respondent made that statement. Mr. McDonald took the statement of one student who saw nothing of the incident, but whose friends told her that Respondent and Officer Nixon were "mad at each other." Another student heard someone say, "Don’t put your hand on me," but did not know who said it. Mr. McDonald also apparently found some value in the following student statement, which reads in full: Last Friday I had just come out of the lunchroom and I went to go sit with my friends and [S.W.] was sitting down by me and I was starting to talk to him and he told me to be quiet he wanted to hear what Mr. Mickens, Officer Nixon, and Mr. Brickel was saying, so I turned around to see what they were doing and that is all I saw. I could not understand what they were saying. Mr. Mickens was talking, but he usually talks loud. None of the students testified at the hearing, further eroding the probative value of their cursory written statements. The students’ statements are useful as an impressionistic indication that the conversation was somewhat more heated than Respondent recalled. All of the students agreed that both men appeared angry. The statements are also useful to indicate that Officer Nixon was not merely the passive recipient of abuse as he claimed in his self-serving written statement. Finally, the student statements are of some value in corroborating Respondent’s testimony that the conversation was not conducted in loud tones. Some of the students frankly admitted they could not hear what the two men were saying. Others claim to have heard statements that appear to be their surmises of what the men must have been saying, given that they "looked mad." In summary, Respondent’s version of events is the only one made under oath and subject to cross-examination, and was corroborated in part by Mr. Hunt. Petitioner offered no testimony from any eyewitness to the event. Officer Nixon’s unsworn hearsay statement is patently self-serving, portraying him as the victim of an unprovoked tirade by Respondent. The student statements are unreliable, except as indicated above. Respondent’s version is consistent with the descriptions of his character and demeanor and of Officer Nixon’s character and demeanor offered at the hearing. It is found that Respondent’s version of the incident with Officer Nixon is essentially accurate, though it likely understates somewhat the heat of the conversation between the two men. It is found that the confrontation was entirely verbal, and that neither man ever threatened to escalate the matter to physical violence. Both men were in a labile emotional state due to the funeral of Ms. Rubio, which contributed to turning a minor misunderstanding into a confrontation. Respondent calmed down quickly, but Officer Nixon remained upset and fearful that Respondent would report his actions to his superiors. This caused Officer Nixon to preemptively go to his superiors with his one-sided version of events, which outraged Chief Wheeler and led him to demand retribution against Respondent. Returning to the chronology of events, Respondent was sent home on Monday, April 28, 1997, after his meeting with Messrs. Londeree and McDonald. On Wednesday, April 30, Respondent received a phone call from Ms. Baldwin’s secretary, telling him to come to a meeting at which Ms. Baldwin "was going to work this thing out." He was told nothing further about the substance of this meeting or even who would be present. Ms. Baldwin testified that the meeting was attended by herself, Respondent, Officer Nixon, Ms. Killebrew, Chief Wheeler, Angus Williams, and Tillman Sanders, who worked in the Superintendent’s office. Ms. Killebrew recalled that two or three police lieutenants were present along with Chief Wheeler. Respondent also recalled that at least one other police officer besides Officer Nixon and Chief Wheeler was present. All agreed that Ms. Baldwin chaired the meeting. Ms. Baldwin testified that the meeting was called at the request of Chief Wheeler because he was "very upset about what he perceived to be unprofessional treatment of a police officer on our school campus." Ms. Baldwin testified that her agenda for the meeting was to assure Chief Wheeler that the incident would not be repeated and to allow Chief Wheeler to speak directly to Respondent. She did not testify as to any effort made by her or her staff to inform Respondent of the purpose of the meeting. Ms. Baldwin testified that Respondent spoke at length, giving his version of events. She opined that he seemed "pretty defensive," and became upset with Officer Nixon’s version of events. Ms. Killebrew testified that she was instructed by Ms. Baldwin during the meeting to write a letter of reprimand to be placed in Respondent’s file. She stated that Respondent was upset by this instruction and continued to argue that such a letter was not in order. Ms. Baldwin also testified that she "recommended" to Ms. Killebrew that a letter of reprimand be written for unprofessional behavior in front of staff and students. Ms. Killebrew testified that Ms. Baldwin gave her detailed instructions as to the form and content of the letter. Respondent testified that he was puzzled throughout the meeting. He testified that Ms. Baldwin lectured him that he was not under any circumstances to order a police officer off the campus. He testified that Chief Wheeler was extremely angry at the statement he had written, which contradicted that of Officer Nixon. At some point, it became clear to Respondent that the purpose of the meeting was to give him a letter of reprimand, not to air the facts of the situation. He testified that he had never heard of any school employee receiving such a public reprimand. Respondent testified that Ms. Baldwin stated that she had not read Mr. McDonald’s report and was not interested in reading it. This was essentially confirmed by Ms. Baldwin, who testified that her basic understanding of the facts came by way of conversations with Ms. Killebrew. Ms. Baldwin testified that it was not her role to investigate the facts. As found above, Ms. Killebrew was not a witness to any of the events on the Boone campus. Thus, Ms. Baldwin’s version of the facts was a third hand retelling of Officer Nixon’s story and need not be repeated here. Ms. Baldwin testified that Ms. Killebrew assured her that "numerous" staff members at Boone confirmed her version of the story, essentially an adoption of Officer Nixon’s statement. Neither Ms. Baldwin nor Ms. Killebrew provided the names of these "numerous" staff members. Ms. Baldwin admitted she performed no independent investigation of the facts or of the credibility and emotional state of Officer Nixon. She was not made aware of teachers from Boone who disagreed with Ms. Killebrew’s version of the facts. Based upon all the testimony, it is found that the principal purpose of this meeting was to publicly reprimand Respondent in an effort to mollify Chief Wheeler of the Haines City Police Department. The testimony indicates that every school board employee at the meeting, except Respondent and Angus Williams, was aware beforehand that he or she was present for a public chastisement of Respondent, not for a fair hearing. Both Ms. Baldwin and Ms. Killebrew insisted that the reprimand had nothing to do with whether Respondent was right or wrong in the argument, but was based on his behavior in front of students and staff. Their testimony was that they were not required to choose between the stories of Respondent and Officer Nixon in order to reprimand Respondent. This testimony is belied by the actual text of the letter of reprimand, dated April 30, 1997, which states in relevant part: I regret that I must reprimand you for unprofessional behavior in the performance of your duties as Assistant Principal at Boone Middle School. This comes as a result of the incident that took place with School Resource Officer Ed Nixon on Friday, April 25, 1997. I am also requiring that you get counseling through the Employee Assistance Program in the hope that it may help you understand the situation better. Despite its use of the first person singular, the letter was signed by both Ms. Baldwin and Ms. Killebrew. The first paragraph of the letter is consistent with the testimony that Respondent was reprimanded for having an argument with Officer Nixon in front of students and staff, regardless of the motivation or whose version of the story Ms. Baldwin and Ms. Killebrew believed. However, in the second paragraph of their letter, Ms. Baldwin and Ms. Killebrew order Respondent to enter counseling. This order indicates that Respondent’s version of events was disregarded and that Officer Nixon’s was entirely accepted. If Respondent was confronting Officer Nixon to protect a student from harassment and possibly from physical abuse, counseling would hardly be necessary to help him "understand the situation." Counseling might be called for if Respondent had gone into an unprovoked rage in response to an innocuous question by Officer Nixon. The finding that Respondent’s story was disregarded is supported by the fact that no disciplinary action was taken against Officer Nixon, the other participant in the incident. Respondent was required to stay home for at least three school days while his supervisors contemplated a course of action. Officer Nixon returned to Boone on the Monday following the incident. It is understood that the school district apparently lacked authority to take direct disciplinary action against Officer Nixon. However, nothing in the record of this case indicates that anyone from the school district even suggested disciplinary action to Officer Nixon’s superiors, despite his participation in the incident and despite repeated complaints from parents about Officer Nixon’s methods and actions on the Boone campus generally. This supports the finding that Respondent’s superiors accepted wholesale the facts as stated by Officer Nixon. Ms. Baldwin testified that the words "I am requiring that you get counseling" did not mean that she was requiring Respondent to get counseling. She stated that the words actually meant that she was "requesting" Respondent to obtain an "evaluation" because of "some behaviors . . . which appeared to be unusual to the supervisory people." She admitted that the "supervisory people" she referenced included no one other than Ms. Killebrew, who testified that the counseling requirement was placed in the letter on Ms. Baldwin’s instructions. Ms. Baldwin’s testimony cannot be credited as anything other than an effort to finesse the fact that she ordered Respondent to enter counseling when she lacked the authority to do so. Petitioner offered no evidence that Ms. Baldwin, as East Area Superintendent, was authorized to require Respondent to obtain counseling through the Employee Assistance Program. Ms. Baldwin testified that it was her understanding that her "recommendations" in this regard must be affirmed by the Superintendent and that she could take no disciplinary action against Respondent for refusing to enter counseling. When asked point blank if she believed she had the authority to require Respondent to submit to the Employee Assistance Program, she answered, "I had the authority to say that I thought that was an appropriate recommendation." Dennis Dunn, the Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources Services, testified that area superintendents such as Ms. Baldwin only have authority to recommend participation in the Employee Assistance Program. He stated that it would be gross misconduct for an area superintendent to require an employee to do something she lacks authority to require. When confronted with the actual letter of reprimand, Mr. Dunn decided that he might be wrong about the area superintendent’s authority in these matters. Ms. Killebrew testified that when she gave Respondent the letter of reprimand, she advised him to drop the matter and "let it go," that with good performance the reprimand letter would "go away." She testified that she told Respondent not to discuss the incident at school because she did not want staff and students gossiping and taking sides in the matter. Respondent testified that Ms. Killebrew never instructed him not to discuss the matter with his co-workers or students. Under cross-examination, Ms. Killebrew conceded that she never "ordered" Respondent not to discuss the matter, and that there was no written directive from her on the subject. She stated that, "I asked him not to, in a professional manner." In early May 1997, Respondent returned to his duties at Boone. On May 8, 1997, two incidents occurred involving Respondent. The first involved a conflict over whether Respondent or Officer Nixon should respond to altercations in classrooms. Ms. Killebrew’s version of events, as she stated was relayed to her by her secretary, is that the secretary placed a call sending Officer Nixon to remove disruptive students from a class pursuant to Ms. Killebrew’s general instruction to always send Officer Nixon on such calls. Shortly thereafter, Respondent approached the secretary and told her that from this point forward she was to send Respondent, not Officer Nixon, to address classroom disturbances. Ms. Killebrew’s secretary did not testify at the final hearing. It is also noted that Ms. Killebrew’s written statement describing these events appears not to have been typed by her secretary. The other letters in the record signed by Ms. Killebrew were typed by her secretary. Ms. Roberts, the PTA President, told a different version of this event. She was in the office when the call came in. She testified that Officer Nixon had just come in the front door when Respondent exited to go to the classroom. She stated that Officer Nixon ran out and said, "I’ll take it, I’ll take it," but that Respondent was already gone. She testified that Officer Nixon returned to the office angry, and said, "That’s it, I’m calling Carolyn Baldwin. He’s fighting me every inch of the way." Ms. Roberts testified that she was puzzled as to what Officer Nixon was talking about, because in her view Respondent was just doing his job. The second incident was caused by the first. Ms. Killebrew testified that she went into Respondent’s office to discuss the ongoing friction between Respondent and Officer Nixon, and particularly the incident between Respondent and her secretary. Ms. Killebrew testified that she also wished to discuss an incident relayed to her by "a teacher," in which Respondent allegedly pulled a child out of class to ask him about the incident with Officer Nixon. Again, Ms. Killebrew did not identify this teacher, and Petitioner offered no corroboration for her hearsay testimony. Thus, this portion of Ms. Killebrew’s testimony cannot be credited. Ms. Killebrew’s written statement of the incident, which she verified as accurate at the final hearing, states in relevant part: I told him that the conflict with Officer Nixon has to stop and that we all have to work together until school is out. I also told him that the staff was becoming divided because he was continuing to discuss it. He responded that he was going to the school board because everybody had lied about him. I told him that was fine, but it needed to be kept away from the school. I reminded him that I had asked him not to discuss the incident when I gave him the letter. He said, "That’s a lie. You never told me that." I asked, "You’re calling me a liar?" He responded, "Yes, I am. After all I’ve did for you, you sat up in that meeting and told those lies . . ." At this point, I stopped him and told him that he needed to take the afternoon off. He continued to go on. Several more times I had to try to stop him and repeat myself. Finally, he acknowledged that he had heard me. Respondent’s version of the incident basically coincides with Ms. Killebrew’s, with some differences in the particulars. When she asked if he was calling her a liar, Respondent testified that his answer was, "Ms. Killebrew, if you said you told me that, yes, you are lying." Respondent testified that he did not say that Ms. Killebrew lied at the earlier meeting with the police officers, but he did reproach her for not supporting him at the meeting. Respondent’s testimony is consistent with Ms. Killebrew’s own testimony that she sat silently at that meeting. Respondent testified that, although he was surprised at Ms. Killebrew’s statements, he responded calmly. On the advice of Dr. Neriah Roberts, Executive Director of the Association of School Based Administrators, Respondent requested that Ms. Killebrew put in writing her order that he go home for the remainder of the day. After obtaining direction from William Londeree, the district’s Director of Employee Relations and Non-Instructional Personnel, Ms. Killebrew put her order in writing and Respondent went home. On the afternoon of May 8, 1997, Ms. Killebrew wrote the statement quoted above, in the form of a letter to Superintendent Glenn Reynolds. The letter concludes as follows: Due to Mr. Mickens’ insubordinate, disrespectful behavior to me, I am asking that you suspend him, without pay, from his duties as assistant principal at Boone Middle School. I am also asking that you consider reassigning him to another location. Not only has he compromised his working relationship with me, he has also put his effectiveness here at the school in jeopardy by failing to behave in a professional manner. Ms. Killebrew testified that she wrote this letter according to instructions given her by Ms. Baldwin, as she had the earlier reprimand letter. She testified that Ms. Baldwin instructed her as to the form and content of the letter, including the suspension recommendation. Ms. Killebrew testified that Ms. Baldwin told her that the School Board has progressive discipline. Ms. Baldwin told Ms. Killebrew that "He had been given a letter of reprimand. This would be step two, therefore I should ask for a suspension." As will be discussed more fully in the conclusions of law below, Ms. Baldwin was correct in stating that the Polk County School Board has progressive discipline. However, "step two" in the progression set forth in Section 3.005(II)(A) of the School Board policies is a "written reprimand," not a suspension. "Suspension or demotion" is step three in the progression. In their eagerness to pacify Chief Wheeler, the district administrators passed over step one in the School Board’s progressive discipline scheme, "verbal reprimand." It is found that Respondent was truthful in testifying that he did not understand Ms. Killebrew to have directed him to refrain from discussing these matters at school. Ms. Killebrew herself softened her recollection to testify that she had "asked" Respondent not to discuss the incident. However, it is also found that such an instruction should not have been necessary. Whether or not Ms. Killebrew said anything at all to Respondent, he should have understood that no good to the school could come from hallway discussions of the incident with Officer Nixon. Respondent did not deny talking about the incident upon his return to Boone. Ms. Killebrew’s testimony that she was hearing from staff that Respondent was discussing the matter is credited. Thus, Ms. Killebrew was justified in confronting Respondent about the matter. Whatever his feelings, Respondent was impolitic at best in accusing Ms. Killebrew of lying. Her immediate reaction in sending Respondent home for the rest of the afternoon was also justified. Tempers could cool and the matter could be addressed rationally at a later time. Nonetheless, it cannot be overlooked that Ms. Killebrew appears to have been pursuing a personal agenda against Respondent. Ms. Roberts, the PTA President, testified that she spoke with Respondent on the day he returned to the Boone campus in early May and offered to be a character witness for him. Shortly thereafter, she was approached by Ms. Killebrew: Eileen Killebrew came up to me and advised me not to talk to him and not to ask him questions about it or to be friendly, and she made the statement, I want him off my campus, or something to that effect . . . I said, Mr. Mickens, he’s so nice, he’s a nice man. And she said, oh, you don’t know, you don’t know. I want him out of here. The vehemence of Ms. Killebrew’s statements to Ms. Roberts cannot be explained by Respondent’s set-to with Officer Nixon, or by her vague comments that she had noted some slippage in Respondent’s performance during the 1996-1997 school year, even if those comments could be credited as more than after-the-fact rationalizations for her actions. Respondent noted that Ms. Killebrew’s change in attitude toward him coincided with his rejection of her request that he join her in transferring to Crystal Lake Middle School. The facts also demonstrate that Ms. Killebrew was well aware that parents and Respondent were concerned about the bullying methods of Officer Nixon and that Ms. Killebrew stood squarely behind Officer Nixon. It is found that these factors best explain why Ms. Killebrew would seize upon a brief argument that occurred behind closed doors as a pretext for attempting to have Respondent suspended from his job without pay and reassigned. She did not wait for tempers to cool, did not attempt to have a rational conversation with Respondent, or otherwise seek a less drastic remedy. Ms. Killebrew wanted an excuse to get Respondent "off her campus," and this incident could do the job. The following day, May 9, 1997, Superintendent Glenn Reynolds sent a letter to Respondent advising that he was placing Respondent on paid leave, effective May 12, 1997. The letter also stated that Mr. Reynolds was "requiring you to submit to a complete medical and psychological evaluation," and provided a list of physicians and psychologists from which Respondent could choose. The letter required Respondent to choose one physician and one psychologist and to inform the Employee Relations Office of his choices no later than May 14, 1997. Unlike Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Reynolds freely admitted that the word "requiring" in his letter meant "requiring." However, as with Ms. Baldwin, Petitioner offered no evidence to demonstrate that Mr. Reynolds had the authority to require Respondent to submit to a complete medical and psychological examination. Mr. Reynolds essentially contended that he had the inherent authority as Superintendent to require Respondent to submit to these examinations. The school district’s Contract of Employment for Administrators for the school year 1997-1998 contained a provision stating as follows: The Employee, at his expense, agrees to submit to the Board, if required, prior to the effective date of this contract written evidence of good health as required by Board policy. The Employee, at the expense of the Board, further agrees, upon request of the Board at any time during the school term, to submit to a physical or psychiatric examination by a qualified physician or physicians to be selected by the Employee from a list consisting of not less than three (3) names approved by the Board. The Employee further agrees to allow the report of the physicians to be submitted to the board with a copy being forwarded to the Employee. The quoted provision was not contained in the contracts for prior years, including the 1996-1997 school year that is the relevant time period for this hearing. Mr. Reynolds testified that he could not recall the particulars regarding this change to the employment contract. It is noted that even if the quoted provision had been in effect, the authority to require an employee to submit to a psychiatric examination is vested in the School Board, not the Superintendent. Respondent replied by letter dated May 12, 1997, informing Mr. Reynolds of his selection of a physician and a psychologist. Respondent’s letter also requested a conference with Ms. Killebrew and a reason in writing from Mr. Reynolds for the medical and psychological evaluation. By letter dated May 14, 1997, Mr. Reynolds responded as follows, in relevant part: I have required the evaluations to provide me with an independent, professional opinion as to whether there are stress-related or medical reasons for reported behaviors which had not been evidenced in your previous work experience. The information will help me in making decisions relating to behaviors which have been recently reported and/or investigated. Mr. Reynolds’ letter was silent as to Respondent’s request for a meeting with Ms. Killebrew. Mr. Reynolds use of "recently reported and/or investigated" in the statement quoted above is technically accurate but misleading in its implication that an "investigation" may have occurred. Mr. Reynolds in fact relied on Ms. Killebrew’s version of events as conveyed to him by Ms. Baldwin, along with the uninformative statements collected by Mr. McDonald and the self-serving written statement of Officer Nixon, which Mr. Reynolds inaptly termed a "deposition." Mr. Reynolds neither conducted nor ordered an independent investigation of the events at Boone. Respondent was dissatisfied with the reasons given for subjecting him to a psychological evaluation and met with Mr. Reynolds. Respondent testified that at the meeting, Mr. Reynolds would only say that he wanted an independent opinion regarding Respondent’s mental health and told Respondent that he would likely be terminated if he didn’t do it. Respondent testified that he was a former military officer, and if his superior ordered him to see a psychologist, he would see a psychologist. At the hearing, Mr. Reynolds was unable to recall lucidly the chronology of events. He justified ordering the psychological exam by reference to "threats" Respondent had made. Further inquiry revealed that the referenced "threats" related to events that allegedly occurred three months after Mr. Reynolds ordered the examination. Mr. Reynolds also suggested that he was acting to help Respondent and perhaps prevent a situation such as later occurred at Littleton, Colorado, and Conyers, Georgia. This suggestion was irrational, given that Respondent had been accused only of having a shouting match with a School Resource Officer and an argument with Ms. Killebrew. Mr. Reynolds frankly admitted he was relying on the word of Ms. Killebrew regarding the events at Boone and Respondent’s mental state. It is not surprising that someone relying entirely on Ms. Killbrew’s version of events would come away believing that Respondent was emotionally unstable, and come away knowing none of the details regarding Officer Nixon’s pattern of behavior at the school or Ms. Killebrew’s resentment of Respondent. Mr. Reynolds justified his reliance on Ms. Killebrew’s word by saying, "We have to assume that our administrators are going to be honest, be straightforward." He failed to explain why Respondent, also an administrator, did not enjoy the benefit of the same assumption. It is found that Mr. Reynolds lacked a sufficient factual basis for taking the serious, potentially stigmatizing step of ordering Respondent to submit to a psychological examination, even if it is assumed that Mr. Reynolds had the authority to do so. The only facts before Mr. Reynolds were that Respondent had arguments with Ms. Killebrew and Officer Nixon, plus Ms. Killebrew’s vague impressions that Respondent appeared to be under stress. Mr. Reynolds made no independent investigation of the situation. He expressed no curiosity as to whether there were personal grudges or emotional issues on the part of Officer Nixon and Ms. Killebrew, even after a group of parents and teachers including Ms. Fields, Ms. Roberts, and Mr. Hunt met with him to state their support of Respondent and their concerns about Officer Nixon’s behavior on the Boone campus. Respondent submitted to the psychological exam on June 11, 1997. Respondent testified that the psychologist presented him with release forms and asked Respondent to sign them. Respondent refused his consent to allow any examination report to be turned over to the school district. Discussions ensued between Respondent and Messrs. Dunn and Londeree of the school district over the release of the examination report. Respondent testified that the psychologist refused to go over the results of the examination with him unless he would sign the release forms. Respondent testified that Mr. Dunn later phoned him to say that he had spoken with the psychologist and arranged for Respondent to go back in and sit down with the psychologist to go over the report. Respondent returned to the psychologist, who told him that he had not written a "report" and did not intend to do so. Respondent testified that the psychologist said to him, "Your problem is not with me, it’s with the Superintendent of Schools." Respondent testified that he next received a call from Mr. Londeree, who wanted to make a deal. Mr. Londeree asked Respondent to permit the psychologist to send a copy of the report to the school district at the same time a copy was sent to Respondent. Respondent testified that his answer was, "I don’t make deals." Respondent testified that Mr. Londeree told him that if the school district did not receive a copy of the psychologist’s report, then it would go to "Plan B." Respondent stated that he and Dr. Roberts puzzled over what "Plan B" might be. Respondent testified that, in retrospect, he assumed "Plan B" was to transfer him to McLaughlin Middle School, because the transfer occurred immediately after he confirmed his refusal to release his records. By letter dated July 23, 1997, Mr. Reynolds informed Respondent that he was reassigned to the assistant principal position at McLaughlin Middle School, effective immediately. Mr. Reynolds testified that Respondent’s refusal to release the exam results played no part in his decision to transfer Respondent, though he offered no alternative explanation for the timing of his decision. The same alleged facts were before Mr. Reynolds on May 9, 1997, when he suspended Respondent with pay, yet more than two months lapsed before this reassignment, just after Respondent’s refusal to release the records of a psychological examination he should not have been required to take. Ronald Rizer, the principal of McLaughlin Middle School, testified that he could not remember the date he was told that Respondent would begin work at his school. He remembered that Ms. Baldwin called him and asked if he would be willing to swap his current assistant principal for Respondent. Mr. Rizer testified that he told Ms. Baldwin he would work with her and the Superintendent in any way he could. Mr. Rizer did not testify as to whether Ms. Baldwin or Mr. Reynolds briefed him on the previous spring’s events at Boone or gave him their opinion of Respondent’s mental and emotional state. Respondent took a few days’ personal leave, then reported at McLaughlin on Tuesday, August 5, 1997. Classes had not begun, but the faculty had returned to prepare for the approaching school year. Mr. Rizer testified that he greeted Respondent and told him he would introduce him to the faculty via the intercom. He told Respondent that he had no basic assignments for him that day and that Respondent should spend the day getting acquainted with the faculty. Alan Jostes was the Dean of Students at McLaughlin. He testified that he learned that morning there was a new assistant principal, and went to Respondent’s office to introduce himself. He testified that Mr. Rizer had assigned him to prepare the duty assignment list, and that he began going over the list with Respondent. Mr. Jostes testified that Respondent saw his name on the list for morning bus duty and immediately became "very upset, yelling at me, ‘Why is my name on this? I don’t do any duties.’" Mr. Jostes told Respondent that he had simply plugged Respondent’s name into the spots on the list that had been filled by the previous assistant principal the year before. Mr. Jostes testified that Respondent became very angry with him: "I felt very threatened at that point. Accusing me of, you know, being insubordinate and not doing my job, when I was asked by the building Principal." Respondent testified that he never yelled at anybody. He stated that when he saw Mr. Jostes had assigned him to bus duty five days a week, he told Mr. Jostes, "I’m a rover. I have to do student, teachers, parent conferences in the morning. I have to check the teachers’ duty stations." Respondent told Mr. Jostes to take the morning bus duty until Respondent could evaluate the personnel and assign someone to the duty on a permanent basis. Mr. Jostes testified that things calmed down as he took Respondent for a tour of the various duty stations, but that Respondent again became agitated when he saw his name on the assignment list for eighth grade cafeteria duty. Mr. Jostes testified that Respondent became "very confrontational" and yelled at him. Mr. Jostes stated that at this point the conversation was going nowhere and he asked Respondent if he needed anything else. Respondent asked Mr. Jostes to show him the classrooms. They walked down the sixth and eighth grade hallways, after which Respondent said, "That’s all I need. You may go back to your office." Respondent agreed that Mr. Jostes took him around the campus. He testified that when he saw Mr. Jostes had put him down for one hour’s duty in the cafeteria, he informed Mr. Jostes that "I pull lunch duty all three hours. I said this is my time to be proactive with the students. I explained all this to him. And I said, Mr. Jostes, [you’re] really talking to me in a condescending manner. [You’re] talking to me like you’re the assistant principal. Mr. Jostes just kind of turned his head." Respondent testified that he then asked Mr. Jostes to show him the sixth and eighth grade wings, after which he told Mr. Jostes that was all he needed. Respondent’s version of these events is credited as a more objectively accurate statement, though it is found that Mr. Jostes’ honestly perceived that Respondent was "yelling" at him. In his demeanor while testifying, Mr. Jostes appeared to be a soft-spoken, sensitive, somewhat timorous gentleman. Respondent does not speak in a loud voice, but his voice does carry conviction and assertiveness. Respondent is also sensitive to what he perceives as condescension, and likely took on a stern tone when he felt Mr. Jostes was talking down to him. This in turn intimidated Mr. Jostes, who considered it "yelling." Supporting the finding that Mr. Jostes’ reactions do not provide an accurate measure of Respondent’s "anger" and propensity for "yelling" is the testimony of Gene Carroll, the in-school suspension instructor at McLaughlin. Over the course of two days, Respondent and Mr. Carroll engaged in serious discussions over the direction of the discipline program at McLaughlin. There were times when the two men were at loggerheads over changes that Respondent wished to make in the program. Despite these serious disagreements, Mr. Carroll testified that Respondent "always had a good attitude, I thought. Very pleasant to speak to, and I like him real well as far as [that]. I just didn’t like his program." Mr. Jostes testified that the next afternoon, he went to Respondent’s office at Respondent’s request. Mr. Jostes then stated: When I arrived back about 12:30, I went directly to his office. And I said, "Is now a good time?" And he’s sitting at his desk, and he said, "You need to shut both doors," after I walked into the office. The conversation in his office turned to, "You have an attitude. You’re very insubordinate to me," and it went from nothing to yelling and screaming at me. I mean, it was not a directive voice, it was yelling and screaming. "You’re insubordinate. You’re very . . . you have an attitude. And if you don’t like the way I do things around here, I’m going to find someone else for the job, and I will get you out of here." And he said, "Do you have any questions?" And before I could even answer that, he says, "And if you don’t like what I’m saying, we’ll get Mr. Rizer in here." And at that point, I said, "I think that would be a good idea." Respondent’s recollection of this incident was markedly different: I guess a little bit before 1:00, I called Mr. Jostes into my office, and I want to go over and want to make sure that he was prepared to, you know, take part, you know, in the afternoon [teachers’] meeting. Mr. Jostes [sat] down . . . and my door was here. I asked him, I said would you please close the door. He just [sat] there. And he said, I think we need to see Mr. Rizer. Q. Had you had a conversation? A. No. He said, I think we need to go see Mr. Rizer. So I said, all right, let’s go see Mr. Rizer. Respondent’s version of this encounter is credited. It appears that Mr. Jostes confused statements that Respondent made during the subsequent meeting with Mr. Rizer with statements made in Respondent’s office. It is also more plausible that Mr. Jostes would be the person to suggest taking their dispute to Mr. Rizer, because Mr. Jostes had a long-standing working relationship with Mr. Rizer. Respondent had met Mr. Rizer only the previous day. The two men went to Mr. Rizer’s office. Mr. Rizer testified that they came in because of Respondent’s concerns that Mr. Jostes was being insubordinate and trying to tell him what to do. Mr. Rizer testified that Mr. Jostes had already reported to him the difficulties he was having with Respondent. This supports Respondent’s testimony that it was Mr. Jostes who suggested a meeting with Mr. Rizer. Mr. Rizer testified that he attempted to explain to Respondent that he had assigned Mr. Jostes the duty assignment list, but had difficulty getting a word in edgewise. He testified that Respondent repeatedly interrupted him. Mr. Rizer testified that he became irritated and slammed his hand down on his desk and said, "Wait a minute. I’m the Principal here and I’m the boss. You’re not, and you’re going to do things my way." Mr. Rizer testified that Respondent settled down at that point and listened. Mr. Rizer testified that the latter portion of the meeting was productive. He explained to Respondent that he had carved out a special role for Mr. Jostes to further his career goals, and that role was somewhat different than that of the typical dean of students. Mr. Rizer testified that he felt there was a meeting of minds as to the way he had established things as principal of McLaughlin Middle School. Mr. Jostes and Respondent generally agreed with Mr. Rizer’s testimony regarding their meeting. Mr. Jostes agreed that the meeting ended calmly and positively. He also stated that he and Respondent returned to Respondent’s office after the meeting, and "we actually had a very productive communication." Respondent testified that in the early part of the meeting, he complained about the lack of cooperation from Mr. Jostes and told Mr. Rizer that "I can carry it by myself until we can bring in somebody who wants to cooperate and be my Dean of Students." Respondent did not recall Mr. Rizer's slamming his hand on the desk, but agreed there came a point at which Mr. Rizer asserted control of the meeting and Respondent listened to what he said. Respondent testified that by meeting’s end, all three participants seemed happy. Mr. Jostes agreed that Respondent seemed better to understand the situation on the campus at the end of the meeting. Respondent said to Mr. Jostes, "Let’s get out of here and go to work." They returned to Respondent’s office and prepared for the afternoon meetings, then sat together in those meetings for the rest of the afternoon. Gene Carroll was in charge of the In-School Suspension ("ISS") program at McLaughlin. On the afternoon of August 5, he introduced himself to Respondent and showed him a copy of the written protocols for the ISS program. Mr. Carroll testified that Respondent handed the paper back to him and said that he did not want a concrete program because he preferred flexibility in making disciplinary decisions. This commenced a substantive dispute, the narrow details of which are unnecessary to recite in this Order. In essence, Respondent had been in charge of discipline at Boone and had run it with a measure of personal discretion in meting out punishment. The program at McLaughlin was a more lockstep system of progressive punishment. Mr. Carroll conceded that Respondent’s program worked well at Boone, but testified that he and Mr. Rizer believed the stricter program was needed at McLaughlin because of its larger and more diverse student population. Respondent believed that his methods were in keeping with school district policy, and that McLaughlin was out of step with the district’s disciplinary philosophy. Mr. Carroll believed that Respondent was "coming on a little strong" in light of the facts that he had just been assigned to the school, that he was unfamiliar with the McLaughlin community and problems, and especially that the McLaughlin ISS program had been developed by Mr. Rizer when he was Assistant Principal for Discipline. However, Mr. Carroll stated that his differences with Respondent were philosophical, not personal. The only point of contention was Mr. Carroll’s testimony that at one point in the discussions, Respondent told him that he would do it Mr. Rizer’s way for a while, but then would run the program as he saw fit. Mr. Carroll testified that he told Respondent that he needed to talk to Mr. Rizer and straighten things out. Respondent testified that Mr. Carroll misunderstood his comments. He was trying to convey to Mr. Carroll that as disciplinarian, he believed he had to personalize the program. He testified that he was willing to do things in any way Mr. Rizer saw fit. Respondent stated that he told Mr. Carroll to do exactly what Mr. Rizer told him to do. Mr. Carroll agreed that Respondent accepted the ISS program once he understood it. Mr. Carroll’s written statement of events concluded, "I left with a very good feeling that everything would be fine and we would continue our successful program." On Friday, August 8, 1997, Respondent attended a semi- annual district-wide meeting of assistant principals, school resource officers, and deans of students. The purpose of these meetings is to discuss code of conduct and other disciplinary issues. The meeting was chaired by Robert Bondurant, Director of Discipline and Security for the Polk County School Board. During the meeting, Respondent raised his hand during a question session. Mr. Bondurant recognized him. Respondent asked if the district could provide a written definition of the duties and scope of authority of assistant principals and school resource officers. Mr. Bondurant testified that this was a prudent request and agreed to provide the requested definition. While he had the floor, Respondent also spoke for several minutes about his own dispute with Officer Nixon regarding the scope of the SRO’s authority on the Boone campus, and the response of district administrators to the dispute. Mr. Bondurant characterized this portion of Respondent’s remarks as an unprofessional "lambasting" of district administration for its handling of Respondent’s situation. Mr. Bondurant did not believe that what took place between Respondent and his principal or district administration was a proper subject for this meeting, even though it provided the factual context of Respondent’s request for written definitions of duties. Mr. Bondurant conceded that his was a subjective judgment, and that another witness might have no objection to Respondent’s statements. Mr. Jostes was present at the meeting and agreed with Mr. Bondurant that Respondent’s comments were inappropriate. He opined that Respondent was "airing out a lot of anger and frustrations that should have been done in a one-on-one situation with . . . the powers that be in the county." Mr. Jostes, too, conceded that this was his subjective assessment of Respondent’s statements. Patricia Barnes is an assistant principal at Mulberry High School, and was present at the meeting. She testified that Respondent spoke for a long time, but that he spoke in a professional manner and that his statements were relevant to the audience of assistant principals, deans of students, and school resource officers. Keith Mitchell is a 17-year veteran of the City of Bartow Police Department. He was present at the meeting and testified that Respondent spoke in a professional manner and that his statements were relevant to the subject matter of the meeting. On the afternoon of August 8, 1997, a coordinated letter writing effort began. It is unclear precisely who instigated this effort, but the testimony of Dennis Dunn, the Assistant Superintendent for Human Resource Services, makes it clear that Mr. Rizer was instructed by someone in the Superintendent’s office to write a statement. Mr. Dunn testified that he could not recall the precise date when the instruction was given or whether the instruction came directly from Mr. Reynolds or from an associate superintendent. He conceded that the instruction had to have been given some time between Tuesday, August 5, when Respondent commenced work at McLaughlin, and Friday, August 8, when the letters were written. In any event, on August 8, 1997, Mr. Rizer wrote a three-page memorandum to Glenn Reynolds in which he repeated, as fact, the accusations of Mr. Jostes and Mr. Carroll concerning events which Mr. Rizer did not witness. He also repeated comments made by "a teacher," who allegedly told him that "a lot of other teachers" had "concerns" about Respondent. One of these "other teachers" "wondered how many personalities Mr. Mickens has." Mr. Rizer stated that "he was told" that Respondent "seemed not to have his act together" while speaking at a faculty meeting. Mr. Rizer skipped the faculty meeting to write the memorandum. Most damaging to Respondent was the following statement in Mr. Rizer’s memorandum: I personally have some concerns about Mr. Mickens; one minute he is calm and the next minute he is very angry. This man has a lot of anger and I feel something serious could happen when he is in his angry state. I do not feel comfortable him being here. Mr. Rizer spent a total of two to three hours in the same room as Respondent. He estimated that he spent about a half-hour with Respondent in a one-on-one basis. He claimed to have seen Respondent become angry one time and testified that Respondent calmed down after Mr. Rizer asserted himself and that they went on to have a productive meeting. Mr. Rizer had no factual basis for the opinion quoted above, plainly implying that he believes Respondent is a danger to the school. He witnessed nothing that would lead a rational person to fear that Respondent might do "something serious." His sources of information were the exaggerations of Mr. Jostes and some hallway gossip by unnamed teachers. Even Mr. Carroll testified that there was no problem with Respondent’s behavior. At the hearing, Mr. Rizer denied that his memorandum was an attempt to portray Respondent as an emotionally unstable person. In fact, this appears to have been his precise purpose. In addition to writing his own memorandum, Mr. Rizer secured written statements from Mr. Jostes, Mr. Carroll, and Russell Aaron, a teacher at McLaughlin. Also on August 8, Mr. Bondurant wrote a letter to Mr. Reynolds concerning Respondent’s comments at the assistant principals’ meeting, a further indication that the Superintendent’s office was coordinating this effort. The letters from Mr. Jostes and Mr. Carroll recapitulate their testimony outlined above. Mr. Carroll states that he is writing his letter "at the request of Mr. Rizer." The letter from Mr. Aaron to Mr. Rizer, dated August 8, 1997, states, in full: After your phone call this evening about the situation with Mr. Mickens, I felt I should write this letter about an incident that took place last week. On Friday, August 1, 1997, I was riding by the school and saw Mr. Hardee [the former Assistant Principal at McLaughlin] standing in front of the school. I had already been informed that he was leaving our school so I stopped to tell him goodbye. He was talking to another man and when I walked up he introduced Mr. Mickens to me. I asked Mr. Hardee [why] he was leaving McLaughlin Middle and he said Mrs. Baldwin asked him to. At that Mr. Mickens said "Carolyn Baldwin, that Fat Bitch, I’m suing her, Glenn Reynolds and all those Bitches over there. I got my Due Process, they didn’t give me my Due Process. I’m gonna get all of them." At that point you walked out of the door and he (Mr. Mickens) stopped talking and walked back in the building with you. Mr. Aaron testified at the hearing. Mr. Hardee did not. Despite the statement that he was writing this letter "After your phone call this evening about the situation with Mr. Mickens," Mr. Aaron testified that it was he who called Mr. Rizer, on a Friday evening a week after the alleged incident occurred. When asked why he waited a week before calling Mr. Rizer about this incident, Mr. Aaron stated, "I think maybe we had talked about it at school, and then we talked about me putting it in writing, and I had called him that night or something, about how I was supposed to go about doing that. He knew about it before that week was out." This testimony cannot be credited. The letter itself indicates that Mr. Aaron was solicited by Mr. Rizer on Friday evening, not vice versa. Given the opprobrious hearsay that Mr. Rizer saw fit to include in his own memorandum to Mr. Reynolds, it is implausible to believe he would not have included this incident had he known of it on Friday afternoon. Mr. Aaron testified that he had never met Respondent before this incident. He testified that Respondent made his statements at the mention of Ms. Baldwin’s name. He testified that neither he nor Mr. Hardee used any profanity during this conversation. Mr. Aaron’s testimony is credited to the extent that Respondent made some sort of derogatory comments about Ms. Baldwin and Mr. Reynolds. Given the prior testimony regarding Respondent’s character and manner, it seems unlikely that he would have erupted with such vehement language, particularly in front of a complete stranger and without so much as a nudge from those in his company. Under the circumstances of the conversation, it also seems unlikely that Respondent was the only person present who made derogatory remarks about district administrators. Mr. Aaron’s credibility is compromised by his equivocations about the phone call from Mr. Rizer, and by the fact that he did nothing for a week and apparently required some coaxing to write his letter reporting the incident. These findings are also influenced by the fact that Mr. Hardee did not testify to corroborate Mr. Aaron’s story. It is found that Mr. Rizer’s actions on August 8, 1997, were out of all proportion to the minor incidents that occurred on the McLaughlin campus, which a rational person might attribute to a new assistant principal’s over-eagerness to take control and make a good impression and to the natural resistance he would meet from entrenched employees less than eager to change their established methods of doing business. The testimony of Respondent, Mr. Carroll, Mr. Jostes, and even Mr. Rizer himself, indicated that Respondent was beginning to settle in to a smooth working relationship with his peers at McLaughlin after an admittedly rocky start. Mr. Rizer’s actions are made even more irrational by the fact that, though he was contemplating action that he hoped would remove Respondent from the campus, he never mentioned to Respondent that there was even a problem. Respondent testified that he believed things were going well at McLaughlin. He presided over an open house on the morning of Thursday, August 7, 1997, and over teacher meetings all that afternoon with Mr. Jostes. He testified that these were "great" meetings. Respondent testified that after he returned from the assistant principals’ meeting on Friday, Mr. Carroll approached him and told him "point blank" that he would work with Respondent in every way. Respondent testified that he liked Mr. Carroll very much, and that Mr. Carroll seemed to like him. Mr. Rizer had given him a project to complete by Friday. He intervened in a situation in which a parent had a "heated, profane argument" with a school secretary, and resolved it such that the parent left the school "super happy." He made a short presentation to the teachers on Friday afternoon, then completed a video for a presentation he planned to make on Monday. Counsel for Respondent pressed the theory that the transfer to McLaughlin was a set-up from the outset, that the Superintendent’s office planned from the beginning to move Respondent there for a short period before cooking up some reason to terminate him. Based on the evidence presented, it would be fair to reach this conclusion. However, a more plausible explanation of events is that, at the time Ms. Baldwin asked Mr. Rizer about the trade of assistant principals between Boone and McLaughlin, she or someone else in the Superintendent’s office fully briefed Mr. Rizer about the events at Boone and their aftermath. It makes sense that anyone in Mr. Rizer’s position would ask why Ms. Baldwin wanted to make this switch and that she would respond with a recitation of the Boone events according to Ms. Killebrew. If Mr. Rizer "knew" on August 23 that he was getting an emotionally unstable, insubordinate, over-stressed employee who had been ordered to visit a psychologist and refused to release the results, then his disproportionate response to Respondent’s actions and the fearful tone of his letter become understandable. Nothing in the record directly indicates that Mr. Rizer had been briefed about Respondent before he arrived, but that is a rational explanation for his actions. Respondent had no idea of the machinations going on between Mr. Rizer and the Superintendent’s office until the morning of Saturday, August 9, 1997. Dennis Dunn phoned Respondent and told him not to report to the school on the following Monday. Rather, Respondent was told to report to the district office. Respondent reported to the district office on Monday, August 11, 1997. He was told to turn in his keys and handed a letter from Mr. Reynolds that read, in relevant part: Based upon reports of your misconduct in office and gross insubordination, which are grounds for suspension or termination of your employment as provided in Section 231.36(6)(b), Florida Statutes, please be advised that I am suspending you with pay effective August 11, 1997 pending the completion of an investigation. You will be given an opportunity to give your explanations regarding the accusations and will be notified of the results of the investigation. As with the incidents at Boone, there was no "investigation" of the events at McLaughlin as that term is commonly used, i.e., an independent effort to ascertain the relevant facts. Mr. Reynolds and his subordinates simply took at face value the materials provided by Mr. Rizer and others, then met to decide on a course of discipline for Respondent. This is borne out by Mr. Reynolds’ letter to Respondent of August 14, 1997, stating, "Enclosed are letters and reports of incidents upon which I could impose disciplinary action." In other words, the "investigation" lasted less than three days, and the investigative report consisted of the letters from Messrs. Rizer, Jostes, Carroll, Aaron, and Bondurant. Mr. Reynolds testified that he met with Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Londeree, Mr. Dunn, and his legal counsel, Donald Wilson, Jr., to deliberate action against Respondent. This meeting was not noticed or open to the public. Respondent was given no notice or opportunity to attend. Mr. Reynolds solicited and received the advice and recommendations of those present at the meeting. He received legal advice from Mr. Wilson. Mr. Dunn testified that the group "collectively" participated in the decision-making process. On August 29, 1997, Mr. Wilson wrote a letter to Respondent’s lawyer, which stated in relevant part: I am writing this letter at the direction of the Superintendent. It is the Superintendent’s opinion that Mr. Mickens’ actions constitute misconduct in office as an assistant principal and that generally his ongoing conduct and repeated actions are wholly incompatible with the standard of conduct the Superintendent reasonably requires from school based administrators. Further, Mr. Mickens’ actions at both Boone Middle School and McLaughlin Middle School and his conduct toward and statements to members of the staff at those schools have made it impossible for him to continue to effectively perform the duties of an assistant principal. In summary, the Superintendent has concluded that Mr. Mickens has specifically engaged in misconduct in office as an assistant principal and that his conduct generally is so serious as to constitute just cause for termination of his position as an assistant principal. The Superintendent will be recommending to the School Board at its regular meeting on September 9, 1997 that Mr. Mickens be removed as an assistant principal. He will continue to be suspended with pay until that time. Mr. Mickens holds a professional services contract pursuant to Section 231.36(3), Florida Statutes, and the Superintendent’s recommendation regarding his contract as an assistant principal is not intended to affect his professional services contract. Accordingly, if the School Board should act favorably on the recommendation on September 9th, Mr. Mickens will be asked to report on September 10, 1997 to Assistant Superintendent Denny Dunn to available teaching positions to determine an appropriate position to which Mr. Mickens will be assigned. It is noted that Mr. Reynolds’ suspension letter of August 11 also accused Respondent of "gross insubordination." Mr. Wilson’s letter mentions only "misconduct in office." The reference to "Mr. Mickens’ actions at both Boone Middle School and McLaughlin Middle School and his conduct toward and statements to members of the staff at those schools" is as close to a formal statement of factual allegations as Respondent ever received in this process. No formal charging document enumerating the facts upon which the Superintendent based his recommendation was ever provided to Respondent or this tribunal, even after Judge Cave directed the School Board to provide a statement of factual allegations at the motion hearing of February 25, 1999. No charging document was ever filed setting forth the particular provisions of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession, Rule 6B-1.001, Florida Administrative Code, or the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, Rule 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code, that Respondent was alleged to have violated. In fact, Petitioner’s first mention of those rules in this case occurred in its Proposed Recommended Order. At its meeting of September 9, 1997, the School Board took up the Superintendent’s recommendation. Mr. Reynolds addressed the School Board, reciting that Respondent "has engaged in a series of actions which constitute misconduct in office as an Assistant principal, and that his ongoing conduct and repeated actions are generally and wholly incompatible with the standard of conduct we reasonably require from school based administrators." Mr. Reynolds did not state any factual allegation against Respondent. During the lengthy deliberations that ensued, at least two members of the School Board voiced concerns over being asked to vote on a matter without knowing any of the underlying facts. The School Board’s lawyer was Steven L. Selph. Mr. Selph advised the School Board that it would be "inappropriate" and possibly "prejudicial" for the board to hear the alleged facts of the case because the board would later be required to enter a final order. Mr. Selph advised the board that its only choices were to vote on the Superintendent’s recommendation in a factual vacuum, or to hold a full evidentiary hearing before the board itself. Mr. Selph stated that "the main thing the board has to consider is whether the recommendation is based on just cause for the purpose of approving it subject to the outcome of a hearing." Mr. Selph did not explain to the inquiring board members how they could determine "just cause" when they did not know what Respondent was alleged to have done. Mr. Selph assured the School Board that its adoption of the Superintendent’s recommendation was a mere formality necessary to trigger Respondent’s right to a formal administrative hearing. Comments by School Board members prior to their vote indicate that they accepted Mr. Selph’s opinion that the vote was essentially procedural, a necessary step to secure Respondent’s right to an administrative hearing, and thus the board did not need to know the factual allegations. Mr. Selph did not explain that the School Board’s vote to accept the Superintendent’s recommendation would become final agency action if Respondent did not timely request an administrative hearing. On the basis of the Superintendent’s recommendation that Respondent committed misconduct in office, the School Board voted to terminate Respondent from his assistant principal position and to place Respondent into a teacher’s position during the pendency of any administrative hearing. It is found that the School Board’s action was a perfunctory ratification of a decision made earlier by Mr. Reynolds in consultation with his subordinates and lawyer. While there was a lengthy discussion of procedural matters at the School Board meeting, no discussion of the ultimate facts alleged to constitute misconduct in office, or of any facts at all, was allowed. Thus, the School Board did not and could not assess the merits of Mr. Reynolds’ probable cause determination. The School Board’s vote was simply a vote of confidence in Mr. Reynolds. The undersigned viewed a videotape of the School Board meeting. Respondent addressed the board concerning the denial of due process he believed was about to occur. It is noted that Respondent’s presentation was forceful and articulate, but not disrespectful, loud, angry or abusive. It is also noted that Mr. Reynolds testified that Respondent was "agitated." By letter dated September 10, 1997, Mr. Reynolds formally notified Respondent that his employment as an assistant principal had been terminated and that he would be returned to an appropriate teaching position for the remainder of the 1997-1998 school year. Mr. Reynolds’ letter also made reference to a statement made by Respondent to Mr. Dunn that he could not return to a teaching position at that time and desired to use his accumulated sick leave. The letter informed Respondent that he could use the leave if he provided medical certification from a physician that he was unable to work and the anticipated amount of time he would be away from work. Mr. Dunn, the Assistant Superintendent for Human Resource Services, testified that Respondent was placed in a teaching position because "my hands were tied" by the fact that Respondent had a continuing contract that had to be honored. By letter dated September 14, 1997, Respondent requested an administrative hearing regarding his termination as an assistant principal. The letter also stated that Respondent would provide the requested medical certification. On November 5, 1997, Mr. Wilson wrote on behalf of Superintendent Reynolds to Respondent. Mr. Wilson reminded Respondent of his September 14, 1997, letter promising medical certification to justify his sick leave and of a conversation he had with Respondent on November 3, 1997, during which Respondent indicated he had a doctor’s appointment to obtain the certification on November 17. Mr. Wilson informed Respondent that the physician’s certification must be received by Mr. Londeree on or before November 20, 1997, and that failure timely to file the certification would be deemed an abandonment of Respondent’s employment with the Polk County School Board. Respondent never provided the physician’s certification. Mr. Dunn and Mr. Londeree testified as to a conference call with Respondent, during which Respondent conceded that he was not sick but that he could not come back to work under the circumstances. Respondent confirmed that he did not accept the teaching position because his reputation had been destroyed. He believed that he could not be effective in the classroom because people were afraid of him. By letter dated December 12, 1997, Mr. Reynolds notified Respondent that he had been determined to have abandoned his teacher’s position and that Mr. Reynolds would recommend to the School Board that Respondent’s employment be terminated. At its meeting of January 13, 1998, the School Board voted to terminate Respondent’s employment.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order reinstating Respondent for the remainder of his assistant principal contract for the 1997-1998 school year, and enter into assistant principal contracts with Respondent for the 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 school years. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of March, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald H. Wilson, Jr., Esquire Boswell & Dunlap, LLP 245 South Central Avenue Post Office Drawer 30 Bartow, Florida 33831 Timothy G. Schoenwalder, Esquire Hopping Green Sams & Smith, P.A. 123 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Glenn Reynolds, Superintendent School Board of Polk County 1915 South Floral Avenue Bartow, Florida 33831-0391
The Issue Whether Respondent should be assigned to the school system's opportunity school program.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto Respondent, Guillermmo Hernandez, was an eighth grade student assigned to South Miami Middle School. While in math class during November, 1988 through January, 1989, Respondent was disruptive in the classroom, tardy on several occasions and unprepared for class. In an attempt to ascertain the reasons for his behavior and to assist him, Respondent's parents were consulted, Respondent was consulted, and Respondent was assigned to detention and work detail. Again, while in home economics class during February through March, 1989, Respondent disrupted the classroom by his antics which on one occasion included piercing his ear and dressing as a girl. Respondent also chased other students, popping them with towels. Here too, his parents were consulted, Respondent was consulted and he was assigned to both outdoor and indoor supervision. Respondent is a disturbed young man who at first appears to be a class clown. He pushes a situation until is becomes a problem and then begs for forgiveness. Further, he does not appear to be learning disabled. However, after repeated attempts to help him, it is apparent that he is unable to control himself in a regular classroom and would benefit from a more structured setting such as the opportunity school program of the Dade County School District.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County, Florida issue a Final Order affirming the assignment of Respondent to school system's opportunity school program. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of June, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. JANE C. HAYMAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Jaime C. Bovell, Esquire 370 Minorca Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Mr. and Mrs. Juan Hernandez 6361 S.W. 33rd Street Miami, Florida 33155 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Joseph A. Fernandez Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the two Respondents, or either of them, should be assigned to the Petitioner's school program.
Findings Of Fact During the 1989/90 school year, Michel Alvarez and his brother, Maikel Alvarez, were both students at American Senior High School in Dade County, Florida. Michel was in the ninth grade and Maikel was in the tenth grade. During the 1989/90 school year, Michel and Maikel Alvarez were students in the industrial arts class of a teacher named Morton Bernstein. On May 1, 1990, during the change of classes after second period, Michel Alvarez approached another student in his second period industrial arts class, Benny Rodriguez, and asked why the latter had been pointing at him. A verbal dispute ensued as to whether there had been any pointing and, if so, what anyone was going to do about it. Thereupon, Michel tackled Benny around the waist with enough force to knock Benny to the floor. Both boys fell to the floor, Benny beneath on his back, Michel above, facing Benny and holding onto him. They struggled on the ground. As they struggled, a large crowd of other students quickly gathered. During the course of the struggle, Benny Rodriguez was kicked or stomped several times. As a result of the blows he received during the struggle, Benny Rodriguez suffered a broken nose and several bruised ribs. 1/ Maikel Alvarez was nearby when he was informed that his brother was in trouble. Maikel pushed his way through the crowd and worked his way towards the middle. Maikel pulled his brother off of Benny Rodriguez and Maikel and Michel Alvarez moved away from the crowd of students. Maikel and Michel Alvarez both went to their respective third period classes. During third period, both of them were called to the Principal's office. At about the same time that Maikel Alvarez went to help his brother, a teacher named Morton Bernstein became aware of the crowd and the struggle and went to break it up. When Bernstein got to the scene of the fracas, the struggle was over and Benny Rodriguez was on the floor, obviously injured. Bernstein assisted Benny and called the school security office. A school security officer accompanied Benny to the main office. Donald Hoecherl, an assistant principal, was present when the security officer brought Benny to the office. Hoecherl put Benny in a room and asked if he was okay. Benny was still bleeding but was coherent. Hoecherl questioned Benny to find out what happened. He then summoned Michel and Maikel to the office where he questioned them. He also called the parents of the students involved, the police, and the school's special investigative unit. Hoecherl had the students write down what happened after they had given him a verbal account. Benny was released to his parent. He was taken to his doctor who then sent him to the hospital. He remained hospitalized for two days and had an operation for the fracture to his nose. Mrs. Alvarez arrived and Hoecherl explained, through an interpreter, what had happened based on the account he had gotten from Bernstein and the students. During the discussion with Mrs. Alvarez and her sons, Maikel appeared to have a poor attitude and he did not appear to be taking what had happened seriously. Mrs. Alvarez told Maikel to straighten up in his chair. She then slapped him. Maikel pushed his mother against the wall. Hoecherl and the police officer who had been called to the school had to restrain Maikel from further physical confrontation toward his mother. Maikel was placed in handcuffs. Hoecherl told Mrs. Alvarez that he was suspending both Michel and Maikel for ten days and recommending an expulsion with a waiver to opportunity school. He made certain that School Board rules and procedures for according the Alvarezes their due process rights were followed. Hoecherl prepared and mailed home the Notice of Suspension forms for Maikel and Michel which narrated the reasons for the disciplinary actions and the right to a school level hearing. Michel's Notice of Suspension form indicated that the suspension was for battery and kicking another student. Maikel's Notice of Suspension form indicated that the action was being taken for battery on a student and parent. Both forms indicated that these rule infractions were Group III violations. The School District's Code of Student Conduct provides that Group III violations warrant expulsion from school. Bernstein had both Michel and Maikel as students in his industrial arts classes. Michel required more attention than the rest of the students. Bernstein described Michel's behavior as disruptive of the regular program and also indicated that Michel's behavior created safety concerns because of the use of power tools in his class. Michel was not passing Bernstein's course because of excessive absences and poor effort. Maikel did little or no work in Bernstein's class. He sat around and talked to friends and did not complete projects. His absences were excessive and he was not passing. Carol McKenny taught Michel math. Michel was disruptive, absent excessively, and was making no effort. He required more attention than her other students, which made it difficult to teach. She talked to Michel and to Mrs. Alvarez about her concerns in an attempt to help him, yet this produced no noticeable improvements in his behavior, attendance, or effort. James McKiernan taught Maikel biology. Maikel was failing this subject because he was making no effort and was frequently absent. McKiernan spoke with Maikel and Mrs Alvarez, but Maikel did not improve. Henry Adams was Michel's and Maikel's guidance counselor. He talked to both students during the year in an attempt to help them. He discussed their chronic absences which were in excess of the state mandatory attendance requirements. He discussed the relationship of attendance to grades. He discussed their behavior in class. He talked to Mrs. Alvarez about their absences and poor progress in school. Adams, who is knowledgeable of the programs offered by the district's opportunity schools, is of the opinion that both students would benefit from such placement because of the smaller class sizes, more structured environment, and increased counseling services. Hoecherl conducted a review of both students' school records files prior to making his final recommendation to the Assistant Superintendent for Alternative Education. His review included grade reports, ability test scores, discipline reports, and attendance information. Michel has average ability and was capable of making B's and C's; however, he failed six of eight courses during the year. Even had he not been suspended on May 1, 1990, he would not have been academically successful because of his grades prior to the last marking period. Maikel has average to slightly below average ability, but was capable of average work in the courses he was taking; however, he failed seven of nine courses during the year. Even had he not been suspended on May 1, 1990, he would not have been academically successful because of his grades prior to the last marking period. Maikel had previously been suspended for five days for fighting. This was a Group III expellable offense. Maikel also had been assigned to several Saturday schools in an attempt to help him remediate the work he had missed when he cut classes on approximately 20 occasions. Saturday school is a District- approved method for helping a student improve his academic performance through a tutorial program. American High School had provided both Michel and Maikel with a variety of student services, including counseling by Adams, Saturday school for Maikel, teacher conferences, and parental contact by the administration. Despite the school's efforts, both students were not successful in the regular program at American High School. An opportunity school assignment would assist Michel and Maikel because it would provide greater structure, smaller class sizes and increased student services. This educational alternative program would afford both students an opportunity to become more successful in school. Maikel is currently enrolled in the opportunity school. He is doing well in his classes and has improved his attendance.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Dade County School Board enter a Final Order in these consolidated cases concluding that Michel Alvarez and Maikel Alvarez are properly assigned to Douglas MacArthur Senior School-North, an opportunity school located in Dade County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED at Tallahassee, Leon County Florida, this 11th day of December, 1990. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of December, 1990.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent is guilty of the alleged misconduct and, if so, whether such misconduct constitutes just cause for Respondent's termination, pursuant to section 1012.33(6)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Introduction Respondent has been teaching for 30 years. At all material times, she has held a professional service contract, pursuant to section 1012.33, Florida Statutes. For the past 13 years, Respondent has taught at Northport K-8 School. She taught at this school until she was suspended without pay, pending termination, for the incidents of March 20, 2013, which are the subject of this case. During second period on March 20, 2013, Respondent was teaching a seventh-grade class. One of the students, R. W., misbehaved. Respondent cautioned him to sit down and be quiet. Instead of doing so, R. W. asked her, "How do you know that I'm the only one talking?" Respondent again instructed him to be quiet, to which the student replied, "I wish I could cuss a teacher out right now." Respondent did not reply. Several nearby students heard this exchange and nothing more of significance. After the bell rang, R. W. proceeded to his next class, which was taught by Sandra Tyndale-Harvey, whose classroom is in the same hallway as Respondent's classroom. During the three-or four-minute interval between second and third periods, Respondent visited another teacher, Kalyn Nova, whose classroom is between the classrooms of Respondent and Ms. Tyndale-Harvey. "Inappropriate Language" and Three Alleged Failures to Act Respondent told Ms. Nova about the incident involving R. W. during the previous period. Although she was speaking in a whisper, she was upset and was overheard by D. S., an eighth-grade student in Ms. Nova's third-period class. According to D. S., he overheard Respondent tell Ms. Nova that R. W. had said to her: "If you don't shut the 'F' up, I'm going to beat the shit out of you," or words very close to that effect, including the abbreviated swear word, the unabbreviated swear word, and the threat of violence. Ms. Nova and Respondent recalled the statement differently from D. S., but similar to each other. Ms. Nova testified that Respondent stated that R. W. had said, "If you don't stop talking to me, I'm going to beat the shit out of you." Respondent testified that R. W. had said, "If you say my name one more time, I'm going to slap the shit out of you," implying that this was what Respondent told Ms. Nova that R. W. had said. The differences in language among all three statements are immaterial. All three versions capture a threat to physically beat Respondent and a hair-trigger precondition to the beating: failing to stop speaking or saying R. W.'s name one more time. All three versions also use the word, "shit." Respondent's use of this vulgarity was not inappropriate for three reasons. First, Respondent was merely recounting what she understood that R. W. had said to her. Based on this record, Respondent was wrong; R. W. never said anything like this to her. But Respondent is not charged with fabricating this statement. Although R. W. did not say it, Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent intentionally misquoted the statement, such that her use of "shit" in Ms. Nova's classroom might have been inappropriate. It is at least as likely that Respondent misunderstood R. W. to have threatened Respondent using the word, "shit." Second, Respondent was visibly upset when she recounted what she had thought R. W. had said to her. And third, despite the fact that she was upset, Respondent took a reasonable precaution--i.e., whispering--to avoid being overheard by other students, even though she was unsuccessful in this effort. Perhaps because she was upset, Respondent's speech was loud enough for a nearby student to overhear it. After recounting R. W.'s statement to Ms. Nova, Respondent walked over to D. S. and M. B., who were seated next to D. S. D. S. knew Respondent because he had taken a class from her the previous school year. Respondent asked D. S. if he would talk to R. W. because he and R. W. were friends and see what was going on with him. The incident during second period was not the sole reason that Respondent might have wondered what was going on with R. W., whose behavior and academic performance had been deteriorating recently. By this time, the bell had rung, and Respondent was walking toward the classroom door to return to her classroom. D. S. and M. B. asked Ms. Nova if they could go to the restroom. Ms. Nova said that they could, so D. S. and M. B. exited the classroom directly behind Respondent, who held open the classroom door for them. Hallway camcorders recorded much of what followed. The camcorders of main interest are identified in the video as Cameras 5 and 6. Located in close proximity to each other, these cameras display opposite ends of the same hallway. Thus, a person walking toward one camera will eventually walk off the bottom of the frame, only to appear at the bottom of the frame of the other camera. A small portion of the hallway, directly beneath both cameras, is not covered by either camera, so a person would not instantly appear in the frame of the other camera as soon as she left the frame of the first camera. The video is timestamped to thousandths of a second, and, at least at the level of seconds, the times for the two cameras are closely synchronized. If the cameras are out of sync at all, it is by no more than a couple of seconds. The video from Camera 6 reveals that Respondent held open the door for D. S., who passed through the door immediately ahead of Respondent. Respondent released the door, but, before it had swung closed, M. B. passed through the door a few steps behind D. S. Both boys walked in the direction of Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom. Rather than proceed in the opposite direction, toward her occupied classroom, Respondent stopped in the middle of the hallway and then followed the two boys for about six seconds, as they approached and stopped at the door of Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom. Both boys looked directly at Respondent, who, for two to three seconds, might have talked to the boys, but it is impossible to know for sure because her back was to the camera. Respondent suggests that she counseled the boys not to run in the hallway, but clearly they were not running. Also, considering that third period had already begun, it is unlikely that, even if two eighth-grade boys were running down the hall, Respondent would so diligently supervise them, even to the extent of following them down the hall for six seconds in the opposite direction of her classroom, and completely ignore the needs of the classroom of her students awaiting her arrival. It appears, then, that Respondent said something to the boys, and it had nothing to do with not running in the hallway. Just before the boys entered Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom, Respondent turned around and started to walk up the hall toward her classroom. Seven seconds after entering Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom, D. S. and M. B. reentered the hallway with R. W. By this time, Respondent was out of range of Camera 6, but she was within range of Camera 5. The video from Camera 5 reveals that Respondent did not immediately enter her classroom. Instead, for about ten seconds, Respondent stared down the hall in the direction of Ms. Tyndale- Harvey's classroom. Based on the timestamps on the two videos, Respondent saw D. S. and M. B. leave the classroom with R. W., and she saw the boys walk R. W. across the hall, where one of the eighth-grade boys opened the door of another classroom, which was occupied at the time. At this point, Respondent entered her classroom, so she did not see what followed in the hallway. The circumstances under which R. W. left Ms. Tyndale- Harvey's classroom are difficult to establish. D. S. testified that he asked to talk to R. W., but he did not say whom he asked. R. W. testified that two boys--D. S. and A. S.--entered Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom and asked the teacher if they could take R. W. because Respondent needed to talk to him. An especially reliable student witness, S. W., testified that she heard the boys tell R. W. that Respondent needed him, and he thus left the classroom with them. Ms. Tyndale-Harvey testified that, by the time that she took attendance toward the beginning of third period, R. W. was not in her classroom. When she asked if anyone knew where he was, several of the students said that he was talking to Respondent. The hallway was clear when the boys and R. W. left Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom, so third period had started, but it is possible that the teacher had not yet taken attendance by the time that R. W. had left. Given the statements of the other students and presence of D. S. and M. B. in the classroom for a total of only seven seconds, it is more likely than not that they persuaded R. W. to join them in the hall without informing or asking Ms. Tyndale-Harvey. The video from Camera 6 reveals that no one left the second classroom to join D. S., M. B., and R. W. in the hall. The three boys went down the hall, still within range of Camera 6, but no longer being observed by Respondent. D. S. or M. B. ducked into a third classroom, from which, in short order, four students joined them in the hall. Up to this point, R. W. was being escorted, but did not appear restrained. While standing in the hall at the door of the third classroom, R. W. stood by himself, only two or three steps from his classroom, but making no attempt to reenter his classroom. However, almost immediately after the four boys joined D. W. and M. B. in the hallway, several of the boys physically confronted R. W., who tried to escape up the hall. One of the boys grabbed him after only a couple of steps and R. W. stumbled. Now surrounded by five or six boys, R. W. kneeled on the floor as the boys grabbed at and pushed him. One of the boys removed his cloth belt and swatted at R. W.'s lower torso seven times, as three of the other boys held R. W. against the wall. The evidentiary record does not establish that R. W. suffered any physical injuries as a result of this incident, whose intensity is impossible to describe. The boys are relatively far from Camera 6, and any views of R. W. are intermittent due to the movement of him and the other boys during the incident. Clearly, though, whatever level of intensity that the incident attained, tapered off considerably after about 30 seconds. About one minute after the start of the incident, the media specialist, who has worked at the school in her present position and as a teacher for 28 years, entered the hallway and walked right by the boys. She gave them a look, but noted nothing out of order--besides, one hopes, the presence of six students loitering in the hall in the middle of third period. The media specialist continued walking up the hall. The students followed her five or six steps behind. At this point, two students were holding R. W., possibly by his backpack, which had remained in place during the hallway incident. As these three boys approach Camera 6--and thus were clearly depicted right in front of the lens--the boys' grasp of R. W. is light, and R. W. is smiling. The other four boys are trailing the first three and are talking in pairs, paying no attention to R. W. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner proved that Respondent was aware that D. S. and M. B. left Ms. Nova's classroom and headed toward R. W.'s classroom, departed Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom with R. W., and walked across the hall with R. W. and opened the door of another, occupied classroom. Petitioner also proved, of course, that Respondent never intervened with the boys during these actions. Petitioner proved that Respondent had just asked one of the boys to talk to R. W. before he left the classroom to visit Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom. Even in a preponderance case, it is impossible to infer that Respondent knew or reasonably should have known that D. S.'s walking to and into Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom meant that he was going to act on her request. But this is a reasonable inference as soon as D. S. emerged from the classroom with R. W., especially given the proximity in time between Respondent's request and D. S.'s action in retrieving R. W. from class. Seeing D. S. and M. B. walking R. W. across the hall and open the door of another occupied classroom establishes the inference that Respondent knew or reasonably should have known that the boys were not merely going to talk to R. W. about what might be wrong. D. S. and M. B., as well as all of the other eighth-grade boys, were much larger than R. W., so D. S. and M. B. did not need allies in order to talk to R. W. safely. More likely, the presence of allies was at least for intimidation, or worse. The Petition alleges a duty to act based on Respondent's having just heard one or both of the students ask if they could confront R. W. The evidentiary record does not establish such a request. However, Petitioner's opening statement predicates the duty to act on Respondent's instruction to one of the boys to talk to R. W. (Tr. 15) As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the point here is that Respondent has established a specific basis for notice and a heightened duty to act on Respondent's part, and basis alleged in the Petition--D. S.'s asking Respondent if he may confront R. W.--is close in time and content to the proved basis-- asking D. S. to talk to R. W. Interlude The media specialist who had passed the boys in the hall was headed to Respondent's classroom to schedule an author visit. The media specialist entered the classroom and, four or five seconds later, so did the six students and R. W. The media specialist remained in Respondent's classroom for a little over one minute. About 20 seconds after she left the room, so did the six students and R. W. The boys urged R. W. to apologize to Respondent. He did so once, but laughingly. Urged by the boys to apologize again, R. W. did so, the second time more sincerely. Respondent thanked R. W. for the apology, but said that she was still going to have to write a referral. Respondent said nothing else to R. W. The boys escorted R. W. down the hall, past his classroom, and into an adjoining hall, where they walked him into a restroom. From the video, it appears that one of the boys locked the door behind them. The boys remained in the restroom for less than one minute. R. W. then walked out of the restroom. About 15 minutes after the boys had left Respondent's classroom, the Dean's clerk went by the classroom and informed Respondent that R. W. had told her that he had been "jumped in the boys' bathroom" by six boys. The clerk added that R. W. had told her that the boys had attacked him on Respondent's instruction. The clerk told Respondent that she was taking R. W. to the front office so he could tell administrators what had happened. Three Alleged Instances of Student Witness Tampering Within three minutes after the clerk and Respondent parted, the six eighth-grade students involved in the hallway incident (plus another student who does not appear to have been involved) entered Respondent's classroom. They met with Respondent in a separate planning room that was in the back of the classroom. Respondent testified that she asked what had happened, and the boys told her about the incident in the hall--with one boy saying that he had removed his belt, but he had hit the floor with it. Respondent testified that they would have to tell the Dean what they had done. About five minutes after entering Respondent's classroom, the six students left it. On this record, it is impossible to find that that Respondent said anything more to the boys. It is thus impossible to find that Respondent tried to influence or interfere with these students in terms of what they would tell school investigators. The second alleged instance of interfering with student witnesses involves Respondent's third-period class, which witnessed the eighth-grade students' production of R. W. before Respondent. One student from this class, D. D., testified that, after Respondent had finished meeting with the boys in the planning room, she asked the class what would R. W. have looked like if he had been beaten up, and the class responded with suggestions. Although this student testified that R. W. did not look as if he had been beaten up, he did not testify that Respondent ever followed up with the obvious question of whether W. looked as if he had been beaten up to the students. Another student from this class, M. C., testified, but was not asked what Respondent had said to the class after talking to the boys in the planning room. The only other student from this class called as a witness, V. S., was also not asked about any comments that Respondent made to the class after talking to the boys in the planning room. It appears that, at hearing, Petitioner decided not to press the second alleged instance of interference with student witnesses. Any implication by Respondent that R. W. did not look beaten up while he was in her classroom was no more an attempt to influence the students than a statement asking them to remember when R. W. was in the classroom: both statements were true. Petitioner thus failed to prove any attempt by Respondent to influence student witnesses on these first two alleged occasions. However, at lunch on the day of the incident, Respondent visited some of her second-period students in the cafeteria. Five students concerning this incident were called as witnesses: W., C. T., K. H., L. J., and J. R. All of them were in R. W.'s second- and third-period classes. S. W. was an especially impressive witness. She also appeared to be quite fond of Respondent. S. W. testified that Respondent approached her and some friends while they were eating and asked if R. W. had said that he had been hurt, and S. W. replied that he had not. Respondent also asked if S. W. or her friends had heard R. W. say during second period, "If she opens her mouth one more time, I'm going to beat the shit out of her." Neither S. W. nor her friends could recall that; S. W. recalled that R. W. had said only, "Sometimes I wish I could curse out a teacher." C. T. was at lunch when Respondent approached him and asked if he and his friends remembered when R. W. had said, "If this bitch won't shut up, I'm going to knock her on the floor." Neither C. T. nor his friends recalled this statement. C. T. testified that R. W. said in second period, "I wish I could cuss out a teacher right now." K. H. testified that Respondent approached him at lunch and asked if he had heard R. W. say that "he wished he could knock that bitch the fuck out." K. H. replied that he not heard any such statement. K. H. testified that R. W. said that he had wished he could cuss out teachers, or words to that effect. L. J. testified that he did not recall anything, except that Respondent approached him during lunch and asked if R. W. had said "anything about he was going to beat the shit out of me." J. R. testified only that Respondent approached him at lunch and asked if he recalled that R. W. had used a curse word at her in class. Petitioner has proved that Respondent asked leading questions to each of these five students. Although the leading questions framed what Respondent apparently had understood R. W. to have said, not a single witness recalled any such statement from R. W. Under the circumstances, including the fact that Respondent had no role in conducting an investigation of her acts and omissions, the leading questions constituted improper influencing of student witnesses. Despite what Respondent understood R. W. to have said, the leading questions suggested to these student witnesses that R. W.'s statement was physically threatening, when it was not, and used one or more swear words, when it did not.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the above-cited violations of the Principles of Professional Conduct and School Board policy and terminating her employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of February, 2014, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of February, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark S. Wilensky, Esquire Dubiner and Wilensky, LLC Suite 103 1300 Corporate Center Way Wellington, Florida 33414-8594 Leslie Jennings Beuttell, Esquire Richeson and Coke, P.A. Post Office Box 4048 Fort Pierce, Florida 34948 Dena Foman, Esquire McLaughlin and Stern, LLP Suite 1530 525 Okeechobee Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Pam Stewart, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Matthew Carson, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael Lannon, Superintendent St. Lucie County School Board 4204 Okeechobee Road Ft. Pierce, Florida 34947-5414
