Findings Of Fact Respondent, David L. Smith, is a teaching veteran of twenty years and holds a teacher certificate by Florida. He is employed by Petitioner, the School Board of Pinellas County, as a teacher by means of a continuing contract. During times material, Respondent was assigned as a teacher at Pinellas Park High School. At the beginning of the 1991-92 school year, Respondent's father passed away and Respondent was allowed bereavement leave for a period of approximately eight days. The incidents alleged in Petitioner's charging letter and which is at issue herein occurred over a 5-day period from September 9-13, 1991, after Respondent returned from the burial of his father in the Midwest. During early September 1991, Respondent found a black student, Gregory Mills, sitting in his chair whereupon he replied to the class, "How far to you think I can throw this negro?" The term "negro" is offensive to some black students and Petitioner discourages the use of racial slurs in the school setting. The student to whom the remark was made, Gregory Mills, did not view the remark as offensive and considered that Respondent was making a joke of the incident. Mills view Respondent as a good teacher who gets along well with all students and was particularly concerned about the welfare of minorities, exemplifying such by assisting them in achieving their career objectives. At least one student, Robia Brown, who was in Respondent's class when Respondent made the "negro" remark to Mills thought that Respondent used the term "nigger" instead of "negro." However, the facts failed to support Robia Brown's recollection and it was not borne out by the testimony of Respondent and the student to whom it was directed, Gregory Mills. During times material, Bihn Vo was an oriental student at Pinellas Park and was an office assistant whose duties included taking messages and information from the office to individual classrooms. On one occasion following September 9, 1991, Vo was delivering information to Respondent's classroom. When Vo entered the wrong door, Respondent replied, "What do you want, you oriental son of a bitch?" On a separate occasion during early September 1991, information was delivered to Respondent's classroom for Kelly Slusser, a student. When the file which contained the information was given to Respondent, he threw the open file across the room and remarked, "[I] do not like her anymore." Also, during the same time period, Respondent grabbed Slusser by the neck and pushed her backwards leaving marks on her neck which were later visible by the assistant principal, Pamela Jones. As a result of those incidents, Slusser and another student, Robia Brown, withdrew from Respondent's class. During this period of time in early September 1991, Respondent openly used profanity in the presence of students. On September 9, 1991, Respondent experienced restlessness and an inability to sleep because of the mental state that he was experiencing following his father's burial and the internal strife that was brought upon him by his family members and some chicanery that was ongoing between Respondent and other family members about estate property which his father left. Respondent and his father enjoyed a very close relationship. His father's death was untimely occurring during a period when he (Respondent's father) appeared to have been enjoying good health. Respondent's father would spend most summers with him and they would vacation in and around Central Florida. As a result of the depression that Respondent appeared to suffer following his father's death, he visited his physician, David R. Newsome, M.D., for medication which would allow him to sleep at night. All of the incidents which are at issue occurred over a 5-day period from September 9-13, 1991. Following those incidents, Respondent took an 8-day leave from September 16-27, 1991, and received psychotherapy. On September 27, 1991, Respondent returned to his teaching duties and continued his employment with Petitioner until October 19, 1991, without further incident, at which time he was suspended by Petitioner. It is undisputed that Respondent was a popular teacher who often kidded with students. He appeared sleepy and drowsy during early September 1991 and at least one of Petitioner's supervisory employees questioned him about his well-being and suggested that he request administrative leave, which he did. Respondent's actions during the period September 9-13, 1991, came about as a result of his despondency over his father's death and he received medical treatment which appeared to have alleviated the problem. Respondent enjoys teaching and it does not appear that his effectiveness has been reduced to the point whereby he would be an ineffective teacher if he is afforded an opportunity to return to a classroom.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: 1. Petitioner enter a Final Order (1) reversing its recommendation that Respondent be dismissed from his position of employment with Petitioner as an instructional employee, (2) that Respondent be placed on probation for a period of one (1) year under terms and conditions designed to assure that no further similar acts/occurrences that were displayed by him in September 1991 are manifested, and (3) that Respondent be reinstated with all other rights and benefits of a tenured instructor employed by continuing contract with the Pinellas County School Board. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: BRUCE P TAYLOR ESQ SCHOOL BOARD ATTORNEY PINELLAS COUNTY SCHOOLS PO BOX 2942 LARGO FL 34649 2942 LAWRENCE D BLACK ESQ 650 SEMINOLE BLVD LARGO FL 34640 3625 J HOWARD HINESLEY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS PINELLAS COUNTY SCHOOLS PO BOX 2942 LARGO FL 34649 2942 BETTY CASTOR COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION THE CAPITOL TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 May, 1992.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following Findings of Fact: The Pinellas Vocational Technical Institute is operated by the School Board of Pinellas County, Florida and consists of the Police Academy and the Pinellas Corrections Academy. The Corrections Academy and the Police Academy are housed in separate buildings and offer different curriculum and degree programs, although certain faculty and staff members are shared. Students enrolled at the Police Academy or Corrections Academy are usually employed by a police department. The employer police department serves as the sponsoring agency for the student at the Academy. While employed with the Pinellas County Sheriff's Department, the Petitioner, a black male, was enrolled in Class XI at the Corrections Academy. The Petitioner was removed from his class at the Corrections Academy on December 3, 1984 by Mr. Paul Drolet, the instructor and class coordinator. The Petitioner was subsequently discharged from the Academy by Mr. Mario Vitelli, the Assistant Director. On December 3, 1984, Mr. Drolet called roll in class and discovered that a white female student, Donna Harper, was not in her assigned seat. Mr. Drolet asked Ms. Harper why she was not in her assigned seat. Ms. Harper, who had been sitting next to the Petitioner, stated that she was annoyed by the Petitioner and the things that he was doing. Ms. Harper complained that the Petitioner constantly annoyed and bothered her. Ms. Harper stated that the Petitioner constantly opened and closed his briefcase during class and generally displayed a disinterested attitude. This apparently disturbed Ms. Harper. Ms. Harper also complained that the Petitioner's legs and knees were constantly touching hers because he would spread his legs real wide and have them over on her space. The class had been in session for approximately six days and Ms. Harper complained that the Petitioner's actions had been going on since the beginning of class. After Ms. Harper informed Mr. Drolet of Petitioner's actions, he requested that she give a statement to her sponsoring employer, the Hillsborough County Police Department. After Ms. Harper gave her statement, Mr. Drolet called the Petitioner out of class and asked whether or not the Petitioner wanted to talk about the allegations. The Petitioner stated "I didn't do it, and I have nothing to say". Later, Mr. Drolet informed Petitioner that he was being withdrawn from the class. The Petitioner had been enrolled in the previous class (class IX) at the Corrections Academy. While in class IX, the Petitioner was late to class on several occasions, was found in the Police Academy building (students in the Corrections Academy are not allowed to go into the Police Academy building without permission) and was caught using the non-public telephone at the academy for personal reasons. The Petitioner's major disciplinary problem while in class IX was a complaint made against him by Tia Throckmorton, a white female student. Ms. Throckmorton complained to Larry Wagner, the class coordinator, about a series of events involving the Petitioner. Ms. Throckmorton complained that on one occasion, after the class was shown a .22 caliber gun that a female inmate had attempted to smuggle into a local jail by hiding it in her vaginal area, the Petitioner told Ms. Throckmorton that she could probably hide a .38 caliber gun in her vaginal area. Ms. Throckmorton also complained that during class breaks, the Petitioner would constantly touch her on the shoulders and neck, even after she would pull away to demonstrate that she did not want to be touched. On another occasion at the firing range, the Petitioner stood behind Ms. Throckmorton and squeezed next to her in a "grinding" fashion even though there was plenty of space to pass by. Subsequent to that, the Petitioner attempted to follow Ms. Throckmorton home one day after class. Following this last incident, Ms. Throckmorton decided to complain. The administration of the Corrections Academy, through Mr. Larry Wagner, informed the Pinellas County Sheriff's Department of the complaint by Tia Throckmorton. Upon receiving the information concerning Ms. Throckmorton's complaint, the Sheriff's office withdrew the Petitioner from the Corrections Academy and conducted an internal affairs investigation into the incident. The internal affairs investigation resulted in a finding that there was insufficient evidence to either prove or disprove the allegations of Ms. Throckmorton. Thereafter, the Sheriff's office re-enrolled the Petitioner at the Corrections Academy for the next class. Due to a large number of students entering the Corrections Academy in the next term, the administration decided to operate two separate classes simultaneously, numbered X and XI, with Larry Wagner and Paul Drolet as the respective class coordinators. Due to the prior problems that Petitioner had experienced in Wagner's class, Wagner suggested to Drolet that the Petitioner be placed in class XI, so that Petitioner would feel less stigmatized by his previous withdrawal. Drolet agreed, and the Petitioner was assigned to class XI. While in class XI, and prior to the complaint against Petitioner by Ms. Harper, Mr. Drolet had experienced problems with the Petitioner. On several occasions, the Petitioner fell asleep in class, including a class on unarmed self-defense. On another occasion, the Petitioner wore a utility uniform to class after the students had been specifically instructed to wear their dress uniforms. The Petitioner had also been enrolled in a previous class at the Police Academy. While at the Police Academy, the Petitioner fell asleep on several occasions, and wore an improper uniform on at least two occasions. The Petitioner graduated from the Police Academy on January 3, 1984 with an overall rating of "poor" and the lowest grade average of all students in his graduating class. After Ms. Harper made her complaint against the Petitioner, Mr. Drolet considered the Petitioner's past performance and complaint record at the Pinellas Vocational Technical Institute and recommended to Mr. Vitelli, the Assistant Director, that Petitioner be withdrawn from the academy. Mr. Vitelli instructed Drolet to question the Petitioner about the incident. When Drolet questioned the Petitioner, the Petitioner stated that he didn't do anything and that he had nothing to say. Based on the Petitioner's past record of complaints and discipline problems, and on Petitioner's response to the latest complaint, Mr. Vitelli discharged the Petitioner from the Academy on December 3, 1984. Vitelli explained to Petitioner his right to appeal his dismissal from the Academy to the Director of the Pinellas Vocational Technical Institute, to the Director of Adult Education and to the Superintendent of the School Board of Pinellas County. The Petitioner did not avail himself of any of these direct appeals. The Pinellas County Sheriff's office initiated an internal affairs investigation into the complaint made by Donna Harper, which was scheduled to commence on December 5, 1984. On December 5, 1984, the Petitioner resigned from the Sheriff's office. In classes I through XV at the Corrections Academy, a total of 15 different students were withdrawn for disciplinary reasons, 4 of whom were minorities. During the same period, 56 minority students entered the Corrections Academy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the complaint and the Petition for Relief filed by Mr. Jeffrey C. Harris. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of March, 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of March, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire School Board of Pinellas County Post Office Box 6374 Clearwater, Florida 33518 Jeffrey C. Harris 2805 West Horatio Street Tampa, Florida 33619 Miles A. Lance, Esquire Post Office Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33518-4748 Community Relations Board City of Clearwater Post Office Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33518-4748 Pinellas Vocational Technical Institute 6100 154 Avenue, North Clearwater, Florida 33520 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Rejected as a recitation of testimony. a. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate and/or misleading. a. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Matters not contained therein are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence and/or subordinate. Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 5 and 8. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate and/or misleading. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence and/or subordinate. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26 Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Rejected as subordinate. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Rejected as subordinate. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Rejected as subordinate. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Facts 10 and 18. Rejected as subordinate. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Findings of Fact 11 and 12. 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. 22. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. 25. Rejected as subordinate. 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. 31. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. 32. Rejected as subordinate. 33. Rejected as subordinate. 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. 35. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. 36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25.
Conclusions WHEREAS, Respondent appealed her termination to the Pinellas County Sheriff's Civil Service Board (the “Board”); and WHEREAS, the appeal was transmitted to the Department of Administrative Hearings Administrative Law Judge for evidentiary hearing and recommended order; and WHEREAS, the Respondent, Pamela L. Wilson, voluntarily forfeited her right to appeal by letter to the Department of Administrative Hearings Administrative Law Judge dated September 23, 2013; and WHEREAS, Petitioner, Pinellas County Sheriffs Office, filed a Motion to Dismiss; and WHEREAS, in response to that Motion to Dismiss, the Administrative Law Judge issued an order (attached hereto and incorporated by reference) closing its file on the appeal and relinquishing jurisdiction to the Board; and “WHEREAS, Petitioner requested this Board take final agency action to accept the Administrative Law Judge’s disposition of the appeal; and WHEREAS, on October, 9, 2013, the Pinellas Board met at a duly noticed meeting to hear Petitioner’s request and reviewed the Respondent’s September 23, 2013 letter, the Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss and the Administrative Law Judge’s Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and voted to dismiss Pamela Wilson’s appeal by a vote of 5 to 0. NOW, THEREFORE, it is ordered and adjudged that: 1. The Board, by a unanimous vote of five (5) members, hereby dismisses the appeal of Pamela Wilson. Page 1 of 2 2. The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this Final Order to the Second District Court of Appeal by filing notice of intent to do so upon the Clerk of Court and the Pinellas County Sheriffs Civil Service Board within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. IT IS SO ORDERED this_//zyw_ day of October, 2013. Lt. Col. Neal A. White, Chairman Pinellas County Sheriff’s Civil Service Board CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above Final Order has been furnished by U.S. Regular Mail to: Paul G. Rozelle, Associate General Counsel Ms. Pamela Wilson Pinellas County Sheriff's Office 518 Still Meadows Circle West 10750 Ulmerton Road Palm Harbor, FL 34683 Largo, FL 33778 this | xe day of October, 2013. p Carole Sanzeri Senior Assistant County Attorney 315 Court Street, 6" Floor Clearwater, FL 33756 Phone: 727-464-3354 / Fax: 727-464-4147 Attorney for the Sheriff's Civil Service Board Copy to: Members of the Sheriff’s Civil Service Board Lizzie F. Bogan, Administrative Law Judge HAUSERS\ATYKB03\WPDOCS\CS\SHERIFF CIVIL SERVICE BOARD\APPEALS\WILSON PAMELA\FINAL ORDER.DOCX Page 2 of 2
The Issue The issue in this case is whether respondent should be dismissed from her position as a teacher for the reasons given in the amended notice of proposed dismissal dated January 20, 1995.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Gwendolyn M. Beeks, was a classroom teacher employed by petitioner, Duval County School Board (Board). When the events herein occurred, respondent was employed at Pine Estates Elementary School in Jacksonville, Florida. Between July 9, 1994, and August 22, 1994, respondent had access to the bank account of the Pine Estates Elementary School Safety Patrol. Based on a complaint by parents of patrol members, an investigation of the bank account was conducted by the state attorney. On November 14, 1994, the state attorney filed an information against respondent charging her with violating Section 812.014(c), Florida Statutes, a third degree felony. Specifically, respondent was charged with the theft of approximately $1,600.00 from the Safety Patrol bank account. On December 15, 1994, respondent entered a plea of guilty to the charge. The circuit court withheld adjudication, placed her on eighteen months probation, required restitution, payment of costs and a letter of apology, and ordered that she perform fifty hours of public service. On January 20, 1995, the Board issued its amended notice of proposed dismissal. Respondent has been suspended without pay since that time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Duval County School Board enter a final order discharging respondent as a classroom teacher for violating Sections 4(a) and (d) of the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act, as amended. The charge that she has violated Section 4(b) should be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of December 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Larry L. Zenke Superintendent of Schools Duval County Public Schools 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207-8182 Thomas E. Crowder, Esquire 600 City Hall 1300 East Bay Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Ms. Gwendolyn M. Beeks 9801 Baymeadows Road, Number 156 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Honorable Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue At issue herein is whether or not the Respondent's teaching certificate should be revoked for conduct which will be set forth hereinafter in detail which is allegedly violative of Sections 231.09 and 231.28, Florida Statutes, and Rules 6A-4.37 and 6B-1, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the argeements of counsel, the stipulation of the parties entered on June 7, 1979, and the entire record compiled herein, the following facts are found. The Florida Professional Practices Council (sometimes referred to as "Petitioner") received a report from the Superintendent of Pinellas County Schools on October 24, 1977, indicating that the district had reason to believe that there might be probable cause for revocation of the teaching certificate of John A. Lettelleir, Respondent. Pursuant to this report, and under the authority contained in Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, Petitioner's staff conducted a professional inquiry into the matter and on January 9, 1978, made its report to the Executive Committee of the Professional Practices Council. The Executive Committee recommended that the Commissioner of Education find that probable cause exists to believe that Respondent is guilty of acts which provide grounds for the revocation of his Florida teacher's certificate. The Commissioner of Education found probable cause and directed the filing of a Petition on January 9, 1978, pursuant to the authority vested under Section 6A-4.37, Rules of the State Board of Education, and Section 231.28, Florida Statutes. In conclusionary allegations, the Petition cites that the Respondent engaged in acts which are "immoral, seriously reduced his effectiveness as a School Board employee and was not a proper example or model for students and not in the best interests of the health and safety of students" contra to Section 231.09; 231.28, Florida Statutes, and Rule 6A-4.37 and 6B-1, Rules of the State Board of Education. Respondent currently holds a Post-graduate, Rank II, Florida Teacher's Certificate No. 347804, covering elementary education, early childhood and junior college, which is valid through June 30, 1985. Respondent was employed in the Public Schools of Pinellas County as a teacher at Maximo Elementary School during the 1976-77 school year. Respondent resigned from his teaching position in the Pinellas County School System in October, 1977. Respondent chaperoned a three day Easter trip for male and female school children from Maximo Elementary School in April of 1976. The trip required three nights away from home for these children. On two of these nights, Respondent shared a sleeping bag with one of his male students. On both nights, Respondent improperly touched the student. During the fall of 1976, three male school children from Maximo Elementary School spent the night at Respondent`s home. The boys slept in Respondent's bedroom. Respondent slept in a double bed with one of the three students and improperly touched the student. Sandra McMichael and Louanne Crawford, teachers in the Pinellas County School System, appeared and testified respecting their relationship with the Respondent. Ms. McMichael and Ms. Crawford both related their professional involvement with Respondent and it suffices to say, in summary fashion, that they considered the Respondent a person of unquestionable character. (TR 20-57 of Joint Exhibit 2.) During the hearing, Respondent testified respecting the agony which the subject incident has brought to his family. Among other things, he stated that he only stipulated to the facts contained in Joint Exhibit 1 based on counsel's advice and their considered joint opinion that without regard to the outcome of his proof or innocence by a contested hearing in this matter, that ultimately he would have gained nothing based on the wide publicity which attaches to such hearings involving public figures. Therefore, Respondent, while maintaining his innocence of the material accusations against him, reluctantly entered into the stipulation which admits improper touching of a male student, in order to satisfy the apparent interpretation of Rule 6A-4.37, Rules of the State Board of Education during a prior hearing in this matter on August 15, 1979. Such an interpretation requires an admission of wrongdoing as a predicate to surrender of a teacher's certificate for less than permanent revocation. Based on the foregoing and the parties' joint stipulation for less than permanent revocation, i.e., five years, the undersigned is of the considered opinion that sufficient basis exists to support a favorable recommendation to the Board of Education for a five (5) year revocation with the running of the revocation period commencing in October, 1977, the date of Respondent's resignation from the Pinellas County School System. I shall so recommend.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's teacher's certificate, No. 347804, be revoked for a period of five (5) years with entry of the revocation period commencing on October, 1977, the date of Respondent's resignation from the Pinellas County School System. ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, Respondent, Alvin H. Dana, held Florida Teaching Certificate 100407 qualifying him in the areas of social studies, guidance, junior college, school psychology, and administration and supervision at the elementary, secondary, and junior college level. During the period pertinent hereto, Respondent was employed as a guidance counselor at TSHS in the Pinellas County School District. He resigned from that position in April, 1987 after having been employed there for the 1986- 1987 school year. During the 1986-1987 school year, Jeffrey Moore, age 16 or 17, was an 11th grade student at TSHS. In early April, 1987, Nancy Zambito, Director of School Operations for Areas 1 and 2 of the Pinellas County Schools, and previously Director of personnel Services for the District, received a phone call from a school board member who related that he had received a call from a minister who had related to him that a student at TSHS, Jeff Moore, had a sexual encounter with the guidance counselor at that school, Alvin Dana. Ms. Zambito met with the student, who now resides in Tennessee and who did not testify at the hearing, and his mother on April 6, 1987. During the conversation, Moore stated he had gone in to talk with the Respondent because his parents were in the process of getting a divorce and because he was having some problems with his own sexual identity, a condition not further explained. During this conversation, Respondent allegedly mentioned a bar in Dunedin which Moore knew to be a gay bar. At this point, Moore had to leave Respondent's office to go back to class, and Respondent allegedly asked him to meet him after school, which Moore did. When they met, according to Moore, Dana took him to his, Dana's, apartment, which Moore described, gave him a drink, and then initiated sexual contact with him by kissing him. Moore relates they went into the bedroom and had a sexual relationship. Afterward he claims, they cleaned up, had dinner at a restaurant, and then went to a bar where they had a beer. At about 8:30 P.M., Respondent returned Moore to his own car to go home. That was the only sexual encounter they had, but Respondent allegedly talked to Moore about going with him to Jacksonville. After meeting with Moore and his mother, that same day Ms. Zambito met with Respondent in the principal's office along with the Area 1 Supervisor, the Principal, and a union representative. During the meeting, which, according to Ms. Zambito, took between 45 minutes and an hour, she asked all the questions and in no way, she claims, attempted to place any influence or pressure on Respondent. She explained the complaint from Moore to Dana without telling him who the student was. It was obvious to her, however, that Respondent knew who the student was and, in fact, named him, but denied any improprieties with Moore who, according to Dana, had accused his own pastor of being gay. Ms. Zambito states that Respondent later admitted to her that he had taken Moore to the bar and to his apartment and had provided alcohol to him, in addition to admitting to a sexual relationship with the student. As to that aspect, she claims, Dana contended Moore was the aggressor. Mr. Coe, the Principal, and Mr. Kreiver, the Area Superintendent, who were both present at the meeting with Dana, tend to support Ms. Zambito's testimony. Both claim Dana admitted to having an "affair" or "sexual relationship" with Moore when she confronted him. As a result of this conversation, Ms. Zambito advised Respondent she would report the information to the Superintendent at which point, Respondent indicated he would resign. In fact, Respondent did resign the next day before Ms. Zambito could contact the superintendent. However, she prepared a memorandum of the conference, and mailed the original to the Respondent at his address of record. Ms. Zambito is not sure he received it, but it was not returned. Respondent denies having received it. On September 11, 1987, Mr. Dana pled nolo contendere in the County Court of Pinellas County to one charge of child abuse by furnishing Moore with alcoholic beverages. He was ordered to pay a fine of $250.00 and, inter alia, directed to not engage in teaching or in any other profession where minors will be without disclosure of the conviction to proper authorities. Respondent was a teacher in Sarasota County for ten years and served as a college registrar for seventeen years before his one year in the Pinellas County schools. In all his twenty-eight years in education, he has never been accused of improprieties with students and denies being either bisexual or homosexual. Dana admits to pleading nolo contendere to providing alcohol to a minor and understands that he was found guilty. However, as to the incident in question, he relates a somewhat different story than that reported by Ms. Zambito. He contends that one school day Moore came to him as guidance counselor and related he was having a sexual identity problem, describing himself as a "flaming faggot." Moore said he was considering running away and told Respondent stories of sexual relations he had had with someone in Port Richey at a MacDonald's restaurant. He also mentioned a place in Dunedin where he would go for sex with men. As a result of his conversation with the boy, Respondent feels he convinced him not to run away. After school that day, however, Moore was waiting for him in the parking lot and stated that he needed to talk with him more. Respondent agreed and they went to a restaurant and to a bar where they had two beers for which Respondent paid. On cross examination, Mr. Dana admitted that he took Moore to two bars, The Pro Shop and The Flamingo, both of which were gay bars, and at both of which he bought Moore a beer. According to Dana, the bars were chosen by Moore and Dana did not know they were gay oriented. While admitting to going to the bars and the restaurant with Moore, he denies going to his apartment or to Moore's house. On rebuttal, Ms. Zambito claims he admitted having been in Moore's house in response to her questions. Mr. Kriever recalls this as well. Respondent asserts there was no more to the relationship than his taking the boy for two drinks and while he admits he made a mistake in going with Moore and admits to paying for his beer, he unequivocally states he refused any attempts at sex initiated by Moore and claims none took place. Dana's story of the meeting with Ms. Zambito is somewhat different than hers. He recalls it as lasting ten minutes at the most as opposed to the forty-five minutes to an hour as she stated. He relates she suggested to him that he resign in lieu of being not reappointed the following year. He admitted to her that he went to the bar with Moore and admitted to a "relationship" with him but denies the relationship was sexual in nature, that he told her it was, or that he, at any time, ever had a sexual relation with any student. Dana admits that going to the bar with Moore was stupid but claims he went there out of curiosity. Moore is a very persuasive young man who claimed he wanted to be a journalist. When Moore called himself a flaming faggot, curiosity prompted Dana to go to the bar with him. This is a weak rationalization which does Respondent's position no good. Dana contends he had one or two previous visits with Moore, one of which involved Moore's mother. He believes Moore exaggerates and fantasizes. He describes Moore as a bright, articulate, convincing and conniving individual, and relates he was taken in by Moore's statement of need. Respondent claims Ms. Zambito never asked him if he had had sexual relations with Moore. She asked if he knew the student or could identify any student who would have made such allegations against him. Her questions were general in nature and he does not believe he would have admitted to any acts of sexual misconduct with Moore since he claims he committed none. According to Mr. Kriever, when confronted with the allegations against him, Respondent initially appeared shocked and denied the relationship. Later, he said it was forced upon him and finally, he admitted to a sexual relationship with Moore. The principal, Mr. Coe, related, however, that Dana did not deny the allegations but admitted to a "relationship" with Moore without Ms. Zambito even identifying him by name. These responses come to easily and are far too indefinite to be controlling. If the allegations against Dana are accurate, he would be ineffective in any position in the school district. Educators hold positions of trust and Respondent's actions, if established, constitute a forfeiture of this trust. In the opinion of the principal, Mr. Coe, as a guidance counselor, Dana holds a position of trust which this misconduct clearly violates. The same would be true regarding Respondent's status as a teacher. The trust that administrators and parents must place in anyone in education has been violated by Respondent's misconduct and Respondent could not serve within the system. All the evidence, except Respondent's testimony is in the form of hearsay testimony. Moore did not testify. Other than Respondent, no one who testified was privy to the conversations and relationships between the two or saw them together away from the school grounds. In the instant case, the only evidence that Respondent engaged in sexual activity with Moore comes from the hearsay comments made to Ms. Zambito by Moore who was not present at the hearing. Ms. Zambito's testimony as to Respondent's alleged admissions to a sexual relationship is, to a great degree, con- firmed by that of Coe and Kriever. On the other hand, Respondent unequivocally denies having had a sexual relationship with Moore. This is direct evidence from a party in interest. Considering the evidence as a whole, therefore, it is found that Respondent did provide alcoholic beverages to Moore, a minor, and he showed extremely poor judgement in engaging in an unchaperoned social relationship with a student outside of the school environment and outside of school hours, but the evidence is insufficient to find that he engaged in homosexual activity with him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent's Florida Teaching Certificate be revoked for a period of three years. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of November, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of November, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2475 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. For the Petitioner: 1- 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. 5. Accepted and incorporated herein except for the allegation that Respondent admitted to having sex with the student, which was not proven. 6. Accepted as a recitation of what the student told Ms. Zambito but not as dispositive of the issue. Further, the meeting took place not on April 27, 1987 but on the same day as Ms. Zambito's meeting with Respondent. 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. 8. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. 9. & 10. Rejected as it pertains to disregarding Respondent's denials. Balance rejected as a recitation of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. 11. & 12. Rejected 13. Accepted and incorporated herein For the Respondent Respondent claims his recitation of the facts is interwoven with his argument. Since they cannot be identified with specificity, they are not addressed individually. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire 325 John Knox Road Building C, Number 135 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Lawrence D. Black, Esquire 152 8th Avenue Southwest Largo, Florida 34640 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Sydney H. McKenzie, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent, Ullyses Wynn, violated Pinellas County School Board policies related to unsatisfactory performance, misconduct, and insubordination and, if so, whether the violations constitute cause for his termination as a plant operator.
Findings Of Fact Beginning July 5, 1994, and at all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, Ullyses Wynn (Respondent), was employed by Petitioner, Pinellas County School Board (School Board), as a plant operator at Gibbs High School. As a plant operator, at Gibbs High School, Respondent was responsible for cleaning designated areas of the school, including Buildings One and Four. In addition to cleaning these buildings, Respondent's duties included helping other crew members on his shift to clean the cafeteria. Respondent was also required to participate in “gang cleaning.” Gang cleaning is a term used when one crew member is absent and the crew members on duty join together to complete the duties of the absent crew member. At all times relevant hereto, Mark Sprecher was the Head Plant Operator at Gibbs High School. In that capacity, Mr. Sprecher was responsible for assigning and supervising the work of all plant operators and the night foreman. When the regularly assigned night foreman was not on duty, Mr. Sprecher assigned or designated the plant operator who would perform those tasks in his or her absence. 4. At all times relevant hereto, Freddie Fussell was the night foreman at Gibbs High School and was Respondent’s direct supervisor. At all times relevant hereto, Wayne Nundy was the assistant principal at Gibbs High School. In that capacity, Mr. Nundy’s responsibilities included supervising maintenance of the physical facility as well as the plant operators. In order to evaluate the job performance of plant operators, Mr. Sprecher regularly completed quality control sheets after inspecting areas cleaned by plant operators. The form, issued at the district level, is an evaluative tool designed to record areas of satisfactory as well as unsatisfactory performance. When Respondent initially began working at Gibbs High School, problems related to Respondent’s work surfaced, but were not documented. However, after about six months, it soon became evident to Mr. Sprecher that merely talking to Respondent about the problems related to his job performance was not effective and that formal disciplinary action would need to be taken. On May 25, 1995, Mr. Sprecher issued a reprimand to Respondent for excessive absences. Between January 1995 and May 1995, Respondent missed five and one-half days from work. This absentee rate is considered excessive. To the extent that Respondent is absent from work, his areas must be cleaned by other crew members, thereby reducing the amount of time that they can spend cleaning their designated areas. Due to his excessive absences, Mr. Sprecher met with Respondent for a summary conference and issued the reprimand. On June 1, 1995, a maintenance man replaced some of the ceiling tiles in the Gibbs High School gym. After completing the job, the maintenance man removed the large pieces of old ceiling tile that were on the floor. However, some debris from tile replacement project remained on the gym floor. Later that day, when Mr. Sprecher observed the debris on the gym floor, he directed Respondent to clean up the debris. The next day, while in the gym, Mr. Sprecher noticed that the debris was still on the gym floor, and again directed Respondent to clean it up. Respondent told Mr. Sprecher that he would not clean up the debris because that was not his job, and, in fact, did not clean it up. On January 8, 1996, Respondent left his assigned area during his shift to watch a basketball game in the Gibbs High School gym. When told to return to work by his supervisor, Night Foreman Fussell, Respondent began to argue with Mr. Fussell. The disagreement became so heated that the school resource officer had to intervene. Following this incident, Respondent received a county-level reprimand for poor job performance and insubordination. This letter of reprimand indicated that further problems in these areas may result in further disciplinary action, and that such action "may include suspension or dismissal." On or about March 15, 1996, Mr. Sprecher and Respondent’s direct supervisor, Mr. Fussell, made random inspections of the classrooms to determine if they were cleaned properly. The inspection of classrooms in Respondent’s building revealed that the carpets had not been vacuumed; the pencil sharpeners had not been emptied; and the chalkboards had not been cleaned. These cleaning deficiencies were noted on quality control forms and shared with Respondent during a conference. On or about March 15, 1996, and after the conference, Mr. Sprecher issued a warning letter to Respondent regarding the cleaning deficiencies. During the conference, Respondent did not deny the cited cleaning deficiencies. Rather, Respondent claimed that, because his area was so large, it was impossible for him to clean it during his shift. Thereafter, Mr. Sprecher checked the square footage of Respondent’s area and determined that Respondent’s assigned work area was actually 2800 square feet less than that recommended by the employees' union and the school district. On March 19, 1996, Mr. Nandy, accompanied by Mr. Sprecher, inspected Building One. Mr. Nandy’s observed that Respondent had failed to carry out his assigned cleaning responsibilities. By failing to satisfactorily clean his assigned areas, Respondent had completely disregarded instructions given during the previous conference with Mr. Sprecher and in the warning letter. During the March 19, 1996, inspection of Building One, numerous cleaning deficiencies were found. Specifically, the following cleaning deficiencies were observed in classrooms assigned to Respondent: low dusting not done; pencil sharpeners not emptied; chalkboards not cleaned; chalk trays not cleaned; floor not spot-mopped in room where coffee had spilled; furniture not spot-cleaned; graffiti on walls not removed; and window sills and audio visual screen not dusted. As a result of these cleaning deficiencies and the previous warning issued to Respondent, Mr. Nandy issued a school-level reprimand to Respondent on March 22, 1996, for insubordination and poor job performance. The reprimand stated that should similar problems occur in the future, Respondent might be subjected to further disciplinary action. On September 27, 1996, Mr. Sprecher observed several deficiencies in the second floor boys' bathrooms assigned to Respondent. There were cigarette butts and paper towels on the bathroom floor and urine in the toilets. Although the second floor bathrooms are usually locked and not normally used by students, Respondent was responsible for checking and cleaning his entire assigned work area. Later that day, Mr. Sprecher wrote a note to Respondent pointing out the cleaning deficiencies and indicating that Respondent had not cleaned all of his assigned areas the previous night. October 18, 1996, was designated a “Pro-Ed” day in the Pinellas County School District. On these days, students do not attend school. Because students are not in school, all plant operators work from approximately 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and are expected to do more extensive cleaning than can be done on days that students are in school. On the morning of October 18, 1996, Mr. Sprecher accompanied Respondent to Building Four to point out several cleaning deficiencies. As a result of deficiencies observed on that day, Mr. Sprecher directed Respondent to clean the graffiti off the wall and paper towel dispenser in the boys' bathroom; clean the stairs and stair treads; pick up the trash on the floor; and vacuum the carpets. These deficiencies required Respondent’s immediate attention and were all tasks that Respondent should have completed the night before. In response to Mr. Sprecher’s directive, Respondent became argumentative with and enraged at Mr. Sprecher. Respondent yelled at and accused Mr. Sprecher of “picking on" him. On October 18, 1996, after this encounter with Respondent, Mr. Sprecher wrote a Foreman’s Complaint to Mr. Nundy, the assistant principal, regarding cleaning deficiencies in Respondent’s assigned area in Building Four. In the complaint to Assistant Principal Nundy, Mr. Sprecher stated that he found it impossible to talk to, reason with, or give simple directions to Respondent. Mr. Sprecher further stated that he was verbally abused, and given no respect by Respondent. On Monday morning, October 21, 1996, Mr. Sprecher checked the area that had been assigned to Respondent. Upon inspection, Mr. Sprecher found that the cleaning he had directed Respondent to complete on October 18, 1996, had not been done. Also, many of the classrooms in Respondent’s area had not been cleaned. Mr. Sprecher noted these deficiencies on the quality control sheets completed for Respondent’s area. On October 22, 1996, Mr. Sprecher wrote a Foreman’s Complaint to Assistant Principal Nundy stating that the specific items Respondent had been directed to complete on the October 18, 1996, had not been done, Later, on October 22, 1996, Mr. Sprecher and Mr. Fussell met with Respondent and talked with him about his failure to complete the assignments. Respondent offered no reason for his failure to perform his assigned tasks. On November 7, 1996, a Foreman’s Complaint was made to the Gibbs High School principal, Ms. Shorter, indicating that Respondent had been involved in a conflict with one of the plant operators in the cafeteria. This complaint was based on an incident that occurred when the entire twelve-member crew was cleaning the cafeteria. Pursuant to instructions of Foreman Fussell, all crew members were required to simultaneously mop the cafeteria, beginning in the front of the cafeteria and moving to the back. Respondent refused to mop in the same direction as the other plant operators, and insisted on mopping in the opposite direction from the other crew members. When Mr. Sprecher requested that Respondent perform the task as directed by Foreman Fussell, Respondent became upset and threw a cup of water and ice into the air and left the cafeteria. It was Respondent’s responsibility to lock all of the classrooms in Building Four. Nonetheless, on November 7, 1996, a complaint was made by the teacher assigned to Room 406, Building Four, that her classroom, had been left open the night before. Respondent’s failure to secure the room was of particular concern to the teacher because there were several new computers in the classroom. On November 12, 1996, while on duty at Gibbs High School, Respondent became engaged in a heated verbal confrontation with Mr. Willie Jones, another plant operator. The verbal exchange took place in the maintenance shop in the presence of other crew members working the night shift. At one point during the argument, Respondent pulled a box cutter from his pocket and moved toward the table where Mr. Jones was sitting. Upon the advice of another plant operator and in an effort to de-escalate the situation, Mr. Jones left the maintenance shop. As the night foreman, one of Mr. Fussell’s responsibilities was to return golf carts used by the school staff to the maintenance shop and to recharge them for the next day. On the evening of November 19, 1996, while Mr. Fussell was driving one of the golf carts into the maintenance shop, Respondent intentionally stood in the path of the golf cart. After Mr. Fussell asked Respondent to move, Respondent reluctantly moved to the side to let Mr. Fussell pass. However, as Mr. Fussell drove the golf cart past Respondent and into the maintenance shop, Respondent called Mr. Fussell a “mother fucker.” At the time Respondent made this comment to his supervisor, other crew members were in or near the maintenance shop and heard Respondent’s comment. On December 5, 1996, Assistant Principal Nundy received a complaint from a female student that graffiti containing her name had been in the girls' bathroom in Building Four for three weeks. Because Respondent's shift had not begun, Mr. Sprecher enlisted the assistance of a Plant Operator from the day crew to remove the graffiti. The crew member immediately removed the graffiti, using a heavy duty cleaning agent. Later that day, Mr. Nandy had a conference with Respondent regarding the graffiti in the girls' bathroom of Building Four. During the conference, Respondent acknowledged that the graffiti had been on the wall, but said it had been there only two weeks. According to Respondent, he had been unable to remove the graffiti with his cleaning supplies. The cleaning agent used by the day crew member to remove the graffiti from the girls' bathroom was readily available to plant operators who requested it from the night foreman. Respondent never informed Foreman Fussell that there was graffiti in the girls' bathroom in Building Four that Respondent was unable to remove. Also, at no time did Respondent ever request from the foreman a cleaner which might remove the graffiti in the girls' bathroom in Building Four. On the following day, December 6, 1996, Mr. Nundy and Mr. Specher checked the bathrooms in Respondent’s assigned areas and found "gang" graffiti in the other three bathrooms. Mr. Specher cleaned the graffiti from all three bathrooms in about five minutes, using cleaning supplies from Respondent’s custodial closet. On December 17, 1996, at about 6:30 a.m., after opening one of the buildings Respondent was responsible for cleaning, Mr. Sprecher observed obscene graffiti on walls in several different locations. Upon discovering the graffiti, Mr. Sprecher immediately cleaned all the graffiti from the walls. Mr. Sprecher was able to remove all the graffiti from the walls in about fifteen minutes with supplies that he obtained from Respondent’s custodial closet. On December 17, 1996, Mr. Specher wrote a note advising Respondent that earlier that day graffiti was again observed in the area assigned to him; that it was Respondent’s responsibility to remove all graffiti nightly; and that Mr. Sprecher had cleaned graffiti off the wall in fifteen minutes with cleaning supplies from Respondent’s custodial closet. Mr. Sprecher gave the note to Respondent, but Respondent refused to sign the note acknowledging that he received it. On January 7, 1997, Mr. Sprecher and Mr. Fussell had a conference with Respondent regarding his attendance. Respondent had been absent from work twelve days in the preceding months. That number of absences over the time period in question was considered excessive. Respondent was given a written notice regard the excessive absences, but he refused to sign it. On February 13, 1997, Respondent told Mr. Sprecher that he had heard someone walking through his building the night before. Respondent stated that he would not be held responsible for his actions if someone came into his building unannounced. It was later discovered that Mr. Fussell had entered the Respondent’s building to set a timer. Mr. Sprecher was concerned by the statements made by Respondent, and was fearful that Respondent would harm someone who had innocently entered the building for a legitimate reason. Mr. Sprecher wrote a letter to Respondent expressing these concerns. In the letter, Mr. Sprecher also reminded Respondent that he was an adult employee of the Pinellas School Board, and would be held responsible for his actions. The following day Mr. Sprecher and Foreman Fussell met with Respondent, discussed the context of the letter, and gave the letter to Respondent. A day or so after he received the letter discussed in paragraph 32 above, Respondent went to the maintenance shop about 3:15 p.m., and approached Mr. Sprecher. With the letter in hand, Respondent asked Sprecher, “What to you mean by this letter?” Mr. Sprecher told Respondent that he had some place to be at 3:30 p.m. and asked if they could discuss the matter the following day. Respondent never answered the question, but instead yelled at Mr. Sprecher and accused him of lying. While Mr. Sprecher was walking away from Respondent to leave the maintenance shop, Mr. Sprecher told Respondent that he would see him later. Respondent replied, “Damn right, you’ll see me later.” On February 14, 1997, Mr. Sprecher wrote a note to Principal Shorter stating that he could no longer supervise Respondent, and that he believed Respondent was a danger to himself and the crew. On February 27, 1997, Respondent complained to Mr. Sprecher that a co-worker was not fulfilling his responsibilities relative to assisting fellow crew members in cleaning the cafeteria. Mr. Sprecher told Respondent that the co-worker would be observed and cautioned if necessary. Respondent immediately became visibly angry, raised his voice, and accused Mr. Sprecher of not reprimanding the plant operator whom Respondent had accused of not helping to clean the cafeteria. Respondent left the cafeteria and did not return to assist other crew members in completing the cafeteria cleanup. As Respondent left the cafeteria, Respondent yelled to Mr. Sprecher, "Write me up." On March 5, 1997, when a crew member was absent, Mr. Sprecher received a complaint that Respondent was not participating in “gang cleaning.” Night Foreman Fussell confirmed that, in fact, Respondent did not participate in the gang cleaning that night and had not done so on several previous occasions. On May 7, 1997, Mr. Sprecher, Mr. Fussell, and Respondent met to discuss and review the quality control sheets detailing recent deficiencies observed in Building Four. Respondent refused to sign the quality control sheets and left the maintenance shop. After this meeting, Respondent was to assist in cleaning the cafeteria. However, Respondent never reported to the cafeteria that day to assist other crew members in cleaning the cafeteria. On three separate days, during the week of May 19, 1997, Respondent was observed sleeping in the auditorium while a play was being rehearsed. At other times during this week, Respondent was in the auditorium watching the rehearsal. Respondent had no duties in connection with the auditorium, and without exception, these incidents occurred when Respondent was on duty and should have been cleaning his assigned area. During the summer, on the morning of June 11, 1997, Respondent was assigned to thoroughly clean a teacher’s small workroom. Completion of this job should have taken approximately two hours. Two hours after Respondent was left in the workroom to perform this assignment, Mr. Sprecher returned to the workroom to check on Respondent’s progress. Mr. Sprecher found that Respondent not only had failed to complete the cleaning as expected, but had done very little cleaning in the workroom. When questioned on his lack of progress, Respondent became agitated and yelled at Mr. Sprecher and stated that he would not be able to finish cleaning this area in an additional two hours. Mr. Sprecher testified that in his twelve years as a Head Plant Operator, Respondent’s performance was the worst that he has ever observed. The Pinellas County School Policy 6Gx52-5.31, entitled “Disciplinary Guidelines for Employees," states that the school district generally follows a system of progressive discipline with its employees and that the severity of the employee’s conduct will determine if all steps will be followed or a recommendation will be made for dismissal. Employee conduct which may lead to a recommendation for suspension and/or dismissal during the term of appointment includes, but is not limited to the following: (1) failure to correct performance deficiencies, (2) insubordination, and (3) misconduct. On December 5, 1996, Respondent was sent a certified letter by Dr. J. Howard Hinesley, Superintendent of Pinellas County Schools, recommending that he be suspended for five days without pay. The recommendation was based on Respondent’s unsatisfactory performance, after receiving reprimands from supervisors; misconduct; and insubordination. On January 10, 1997, Respondent wrote a letter requesting a hearing in response to the superintendent's recommendation for a five-day suspension. After Respondent requested a hearing, but prior to the hearing being conducted, Respondent engaged in additional acts of misconduct and insubordination, by stating to Mr. Sprecher that Respondent would not be responsible for his actions if anyone came into his area without his knowledge, and refusing to perform job-related tasks directly assigned to him by Mr. Sprecher. As a result of Respondent’s further misconduct and insubordination, on April 1, 1997, Respondent was sent a second letter by Dr. Hinesley recommending the Respondent be suspended for a total of seven days, an increase of two days over the original recommendation. Following the recommendation for a seven-day suspension, Respondent engaged in additional acts of misconduct, including occasions when Respondent was observed to be in the auditorium, off-task, sleeping, and watching rehearsals of a play during work time. Respondent also failed to correct performance deficiencies. As a result of Respondent’s further misconduct, Dr. Hinesley sent a letter to Respondent dated August 7, 1997, advising him that Dr. Hinesley would recommend termination of Respondent’s employment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Pinellas County School Board enter the final order dismissing Respondent, Ullyses Wynn, from his position as a plant operator. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of January, 1998, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of January, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: C. Wesley Bridges II, Esquire Pinellas County School Board 301 Fourth Street Southwest Post Office Box 33779-2942 Largo, Florida 34649-2942 Ullyses Wynn 2242 Lakeview Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33712 Dr. J. Howard Hinesley, Superintendent Pinellas County School Board 301 Fourth Street Southwest Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 33779-2942 Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick General Counsel The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
