The Issue Whether Respondent violated sections 1012.795(1)(c), (g) and (j), Florida Statutes (2010),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Ferrier holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 864022, covering the areas of educational leadership, elementary education, and middle grades integrated curriculum, which is valid through June 30, 2012. At all times pertinent to this case, Mr. Ferrier was employed as a teacher at either Pinellas Park Middle School (Pinellas Park) or Seminole Middle School (Seminole) in the Pinellas County School District (School District). Petitioner, Dr. Eric Smith, at all times pertinent to this case, is acting as the Florida Commissioner of Education, pursuant to his authority in section 1012.796(6). Mr. Ferrier began teaching at Pinellas Park in the 2006- 2007 school year. The record shows by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Ferrier’s performance during the three school years, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, and 2008-2009, was characterized by a lack of organization, failure to effectively communicate with parents and students, failure to provide students with grades and collect school work, and discord. Ms. Gorman, an assistant principal for Pinellas Park, was Mr. Ferrier’s immediate supervisor. She evaluated Mr. Ferrier’s performance for the three years that he taught at Pinellas Park. Ms. Gorman’s first evaluation of Mr. Ferrier for the 2006-2007 school year shows that he earned a score of "1" which indicates Mr. Ferrier was satisfactory. A rating less than level "1" is deemed unsatisfactory. Further, the 2006-2007 evaluation shows that Ms. Gorman expected Mr. Ferrier to make progress in 11 out of 23 areas she assessed in the evaluation. The evaluation form contained 25 areas for assessment. Mr. Ferrier’s evaluation shows that Ms. Gorman left two assessment areas blank. For the 2007-2008 school year, Ms. Gorman rated Mr. Ferrier at a level "2" with progress expected in 10 of the 25 areas assessed. Mr. Ferrier’s 2007-2008 evaluation showed that he was satisfactory. For the 2008-2009 school year, Ms. Gorman rated Mr. Ferrier as not meeting the minimum expectations for teaching. Out of the 25 measured categories, Ms. Gorman rated Mr. Ferrier as not meeting expectation in 17 categories. Mr. Ferrier failed to meet expectations for subject knowledge; instructional method; respect for students, parents, and colleagues; engaging students; and use of technology in the classroom. Mr. Ferrier’s tenure at Pinellas Park was also characterized by repeated failures to answer calls made by parents, disorganization, poor attendance at meetings, arriving to school and classes late, and not acting as a professional in dealing with colleagues. Ms. Witcher, the Pinellas Park principal, provided credible testimony showing Mr. Ferrier’s disorganization and propensity for arriving late to school. For example, in the 2008-2009 school year, on the first day of school for returning teachers, Mr. Ferrier arrived at noon as opposed to 8:30 a.m. When asked by Ms. Witcher why he was late, Mr. Ferrier explained that he did not know that school began on that date. Mr. Ferrier’s tardiness was indicative of his behavior. Ms. Witcher clearly testified that on a "few occasions during the first and second year . . . he was so tardy, I had to go down and open the classroom door, let the kids in and wait for him." The record clearly also shows that Mr. Ferrier failed to be responsive to parent concerns about their children. Ms. Northcutt, the guidance counselor for Pinellas Park, provided credible testimony showing that Mr. Ferrier failed to return parent phone calls, failed to attend parent-teacher meetings, and, if Mr. Ferrier did attend the meeting, he was disorganized and unprepared. The frequency of parents calling Ms. Northcutt to ask Mr. Ferrier to contact them became so great that she "felt almost like a personal secretary to Mr. Ferrier," asking him to return phone calls. In addition to being unresponsive to phone calls, the record clearly shows, through Ms. Northcutt’s testimony and e-mails admitted into evidence, that Mr. Ferrier either failed to show up for parent-teacher conferences, or was late and unprepared if he did attend the conference. Parents would contact Ms. Northcutt in her capacity as the guidance counselor because the parents had concerns about Mr. Ferrier’s teaching and grading. Mr. Ferrier would routinely fail to timely enter grades of assignments into the computer system so that parents could check their child’s progress. The record clearly shows that Mr. Ferrier lacked insight into his professional shortcomings. The record clearly showed that Mr. Ferrier was offered assistance to help him become an organized and effective teacher, but failed to avail himself of the assistance. Further, Mr. Ferrier objected to Ms. Witcher’s direction that he not coach the volleyball team and concentrate on teaching. In response to this directive, Mr. Ferrier encouraged parents of the volleyball players to contact Ms. Witcher to change her decision. The record also shows that, during Mr. Ferrier’s tenure at Pinellas Park, he did not act as a professional in dealing with colleagues. This finding is based on the events concerning Mr. Ferrier’s placement on administrative leave while the School District investigated him for bullying a co-worker, and his subsequent action after returning from administrative leave. Ms. Northcutt credibly testified that, based on Mr. Ferrier’s repeated failures to either attend parent-teacher conferences or be on time for them, she began to document these actions and inform Ms. Witcher. At one parent-teacher conference, Ms. Northcutt noted that Mr. Ferrier arrived late, although the parents had not yet arrived. Mr. Ferrier told Ms. Northcutt to note that he had arrived on time, which she replied that he was still late. Two other teachers, who were to attend the conference, also arrived late. One of the teachers had permission due to a conflict, and the other teacher arrived after attending another conference. Mr. Ferrier demanded that Ms. Northcutt report the two teachers as late. Ms. Northcutt credibly testified that she felt threatened and intimidated by Mr. Ferrier’s confrontational behavior. She reported the incident to Ms. Witcher, who referred the incident to the School District, and an investigation was begun. The School District placed Mr. Ferrier on administrative leave, and Ms. Witcher informed Mr. Ferrier that he was to leave the campus quietly. As Mr. Ferrier was leaving the campus, he told everyone that he encountered that he was accused of bullying and that he would return. Ms. Witcher felt that Mr. Ferrier’s actions were divisive and sought to undermine her new administration at the school. When Mr. Ferrier returned to the school from the administrative leave, Mr. Lott, the School District’s administrator for the Office of Professional Standards, informed Mr. Ferrier to be very careful in his interactions with Ms. Northcutt. Within two days of his return, Mr. Ferrier sent all of the Pinellas Park personnel an e-mail stating that he had been wrongly accused of bullying and that he had been exonerated. Mr. Lott found this action to be inappropriate and a continuation of Mr. Ferrier’s efforts to bully Ms. Northcutt. Consequently, based on this action, Mr. Ferrier received a written reprimand and was involuntarily transferred from Pinellas Park to Seminole. The purpose of transferring Mr. Ferrier to Seminole was to provide him with a fresh start. Unfortunately, the record clearly shows that Mr. Ferrier’s short tenure at Seminole was again characterized by ineffective teaching, lack of knowledge of materials he was expected to teach, lack of communication with parents, tardiness, and failure to follow directions to become an effective teacher. Mr. Lechner, the principal at Seminole, assigned Mr. Ferrier to teach regular science classes and three advanced honor science classes. The parents at Seminole are actively involved in their children’s education. Thus, many of Mr. Ferrier’s short-comings were quickly brought to the attention of Mr. Lechner. The record shows that Mr. Lechner was pro-active in assessing Mr. Ferrier’s teaching, offering Mr. Ferrier assistance to become an effective teacher, and ultimately removing Mr. Ferrier from the classroom. The record clearly shows that Mr. Ferrier failed to carry out his duties as a teacher. Specifically, the evidence clearly showed the following instances: Mr. Ferrier was disorganized in the classroom. Mr. Ferrier’s disorganization in the classroom was apparent from the very beginning of his tenure at Seminole. During an open house for parents, Mr. Ferrier, in addressing parents of honor students, did not have a syllabus for the class, pointed out text books that he stated the class probably would not use, and discussed at length discipline issues with the parents. The record shows, however, that honor students typically did not cause discipline problems. Mr. Ferrier’s disorganization quickly led students to becoming frustrated in the classroom and parents complaining to Mr. Lechner. Further, this disorganization was reflected in Mr. Ferrier’s losing assignments, failing to properly log grades into the school computer system so that parents could access the grades, and losing test results. Mr. Ferrier’s disorganization in the classroom was further documented by Mr. Lechner, who placed Mr. Ferrier on a Professional Service Contract Probation for 90 days during the school year, beginning on September 28, 2009. Mr. Lechner conducted personal observations of Mr. Ferrier’s instruction and found it disorganized, confusing, and resulting in students becoming frustrated. Mr. Lechner gave Mr. Ferrier specific instructions on how to improve his teaching, but Mr. Ferrier failed to follow the instructions. Mr. Ferrier continued to be tardy to class and miss important faculty meetings. The record shows through Mr. Lechner’s testimony that Mr. Ferrier missed the teachers’ mandatory first professional learning community meeting. Although Mr. Lechner could not remember the reason that Mr. Ferrier gave for missing the meeting, Mr. Lechner testified that Mr. Ferrier "always had an excuse." Based on Mr. Lechner’s answer, it was clear that Mr. Ferrier made excuses for his failures, as opposed to acknowledging his mistakes. The record further showed that Mr. Ferrier’s tardiness often would extend into the day. The testimony showed that Mr. Ferrier would leave campus and return from lunch 15 minutes late, thus, delaying instruction. As a result of Mr. Ferrier’s habitual tardiness, Mr. Lechner required Mr. Ferrier to use a sign-in and sign-out log. Mr. Ferrier used ineffective instructional methods and did not have a grasp of the material that he was to teach. The parents and students, who testified, were unanimous in their consensus that Mr. Ferrier failed to teach anything. Mr. Ferrier’s failure to teach resulted in one student having to "steal" one of the text books that Mr. Ferrier was not using and teach herself physical science. Further, the testimony was clear that, after Mr. Ferrier was relieved of his teaching duties, the students had to "cram" a year’s worth of science into half a school year. In essence, Mr. Ferrier cheated the students out of an education. The conclusion that Mr. Ferrier used ineffective instructional methods and did not have a grasp of the material that he was to teach is supported by the testimony of Ms. Lamy and Mr. Lechner. The record clearly showed that Mr. Ferrier used "bell work" for a significant period of the teaching time. "Bell work" was defined as work given to students for the first few minutes of class to engage them immediately. Ms. Lamy, who was the School District’s supervisor for secondary science, conducted an in-classroom observation of Mr. Ferrier’s teaching at Seminole. Ms. Lamy noted that Mr. Ferrier used "bell work" for almost the entire class time. As a result, Mr. Ferrier did not teach. Further, Ms. Lamy observed that Mr. Ferrier did not have control of his class and did not have an adequate lesson plan. Based on her observations, Ms. Lamy made recommendations for Mr. Ferrier on handling the classroom and preparing lesson plans. Unfortunately, the record shows that Mr. Ferrier did not take full advantage of the help being offered to him. Mr. Lechner’s testimony also provided examples from classroom observations that demonstrated Mr. Ferrier’s poor instructional methods and lack of understanding of the material he was supposed to teach. For example, Mr. Lechner described a laboratory experiment conducted by Mr. Ferrier. Mr. Ferrier attempted to conduct an experiment demonstrating how an object could change physical states by melting a candy bar. During the experiment, Mr. Ferrier did not use safety gloves when attempting to melt the chocolate bar. Because the chocolate bar did not melt quickly, Mr. Ferrier left the experiment and never came back to it or the concept behind the experiment. According to Mr. Lechner, Mr. Ferrier modeled poor safety for the students by not using safety gloves and leaving the flame on the candy bar while he moved to another subject, and Mr. Ferrier did not teach the concept behind the experiment. The record showed that Mr. Ferrier would use ineffective methods to teach, such as relying on videos. In one instance, Mr. Ferrier used videos of Michael Jackson and throwing a wadded-up piece of paper in order to demonstrate motion. Finally, in December 2009, during an observation, Mr. Lechner observed Mr. Ferrier teach the students a wrong formula concerning distance over time, which was not corrected until the error was pointed out by a student. Mr. Ferrier did not manage work assignments and tests and failed to properly record grades. The record shows that students would turn in work, but the work would not be graded or posted into the school’s computer system so that parents and students could access the information. Further, parents and students complained to Mr. Lechner about erroneous grades, missing grades or assignments, or no grades for tests that had been completed, as well as grades which were either excessively high or excessively low. Mr. Ferrier failed to respond to parental inquiries and was unprepared and untimely when attending parent-teacher meetings. One parent testified about attending a parent-teacher conference, with Mr. Lechner, where Mr. Ferrier failed to show up. Mr. Ferrier’s disorganization resulted in him failing to turn students’ answer sheets for mandatory progress monitoring tests into the district office. As Ms. Lamy explained, the state required school districts to turn in students’ answer sheets from the test to the Department by December 15, 2010. When the School District started receiving feedback from the tests, Ms. Lamy learned that Mr. Ferrier had not turned in the answer sheets. Subsequently, Mr. Ferrier turned in the answer sheets on or near January 6, 2011. Based on Mr. Ferrier’s actions, the School District was not in compliance with the state-ordered mandate. On January 19, 2011, after the 90-day probation period, Mr. Lechner evaluated Mr. Ferrier as not meeting the minimum expectations for teaching. Mr. Ferrier did not meet expectations in 23 of 25 categories, including the areas of subject knowledge, instructional methods, respect for students and parents, engaging students, use of technology, classroom discipline, and organization. Further, Mr. Lechner noted, based on his observations, that Mr. Ferrier continued to be disorganized, his directions were not clear, he was causing confusion, and he was returning papers to students without feedback. The record shows that well into the 90-day probation Mr. Ferrier finally sought assistance, at the insistence of Mr. Lechner, from the Professional Development and Improvement Network to help him become a better teacher. Unfortunately, the record shows that Mr. Ferrier’s teaching ability did not improve and that he continued with many of the same problems that he had at Pinellas Park. The record shows that Mr. Ferrier has no prior disciplinary history with the Florida Education Practices Commission.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Mr. Ferrier violated sections 1012.795(1)(c), 1012.795(1)(g), and 1012.795(1)(j) and rules 6B-1.006(3)(a) and that Mr. Ferrier’s educator’s certificate be revoked for two years followed by a period of three years’ probation under terms and conditions deemed appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of March, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S THOMAS P. CRAPPS 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 9th day of March, 2012.
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
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Moses Green, holds Florida Teaching Certificate No. 232099, Graduate, Rank II. He served as dean of students at Boca Ciega School during the 1976-1977 school year. Thereafter he was reassigned as one of three deans of students at Pinellas Park High School, and he served in this capacity during the 1978-1979 school year. Moses Green has been in the field of education since his graduation from Florida A & M University more than 21 years ago. After teaching several years in South Carolina and Georgia he came to Boca Ciega High School in Pinellas County in 1964 where he started as a teacher. He served as dean of students at Boca Ciega High School from 1974 until 1977 when he was transferred to Pinellas Park High School as a dean of students. In October 1976 enroute from his home to school in a vehicle described both as a van and a motor home, Respondent stopped to give a ride to Jacqueline Blackshear and Stephanie Bellamy, two ninth grade students at Boca Ciega High School. When they entered the van Jackie sat on the housing covering the engine between the two front seats facing the rear of the van and Stephanie sat in the front right-hand passenger's seat. Enroute to school Respondent commented that Jackie was growing up and placed his hand on the inside of Jackie's thigh. At the time, Jackie was enroute to school for cheerleader practice and was wearing shorts. Jackie looked and moved towards Stephanie and Respondent removed his hand. Before arriving at school Respondent again placed his hand on Jackie's thigh and removed it when she moved. Upon arrival at school Respondent told Stephanie to get out as he wanted to talk to Jackie. When Stephanie left the van, Respondent was standing facing Jackie whose back was to the closed door. Respondent grabbed Jackie and attempted to kiss her. She pushed away, opened the door and left the van. When she left the van, Jackie was upset and Stephanie suggested she tell her parent. Near noontime Jackiie went to Gail Weston, a physical education teacher at Boca Ciega High School and told her about the incident in Respondent's van. Stephanie accompanied Jackie on this visit. Ms. Weston described Jackie as nervous and upset. After a few minutes of conversation Ms. Weston realized that it was not something she could handle and she told Jackie and Stephanie that they needed to tell their story at the Dean's office and she took them to Jean Johnson, a dean of students at Boca Ciega High School. There both girls told their story to Ms. Johnson who prepared a statement for them to sign. The story repeated to Ms. Johnson was essentially the same told to Ms. Weston. After typing up their statements, Ms. Johnson told Mr. Demps, the principal. He had the girls brought to him, where the story was again repeated. Demps called Respondent in and confronted him with the story. He also advised his area superintendent and the director of personnel, who investigated the allegations made by these two girls. Demps also arranged for a meeting with Jackie's and Stephanie's parents the following day. Following the investigation, Green, on October 19, 1976 was issued a letter of reprimand (Exhibit 1) for his role in the events that had come to the school's attention regarding the two girls noted above and warned that a recurrence of such conduct would result in dismissal. By letter dated 9 November 1976 Respondent was sent another letter (Exhibit 2) regarding a reported and inappropriate remark made by Green to another female student, which Respondent had denied, and the letter suggested Respondent and the girl take lie detector tests. By letter dated December 29, 1976 (Exhibit 3) the Superintendent of Schools advised Respondent that the results of the polygraph test he had voluntarily taken indicated his answers were deceptive, while the girl's polygraph test indicated her responses were honest. Respondent was placed on probation for the remainder of the 1976-1977 school year and for all of the 1977-1978 school year. Although his principal at Boca Ciega High School, Mr. Demps, considered Respondent's effectiveness at Boca Ciega High School seriously impaired by the notoriety given to the events involving Respondent in 1976, he remained at Boca Ciega High School for the remainder of that school year. For the school year 1977-1978 Respondent was transferred to Pinellas Park High School as dean of students. Upon his transfer to Pinellas Park High School, Demps gave Respondent a good evaluation report. During Respondent's first year at Pinellas Park High School, no incidents were reported to form the basis of any of the charges here considered. This school year 1977-1978 included the probation period set by Exhibit 3. The school year 1978-1979, while Respondent was dean of students at Pinellas Park High School, produced the majority of complaints and testimony at this hearing regarding improper comments made to female students by Respondent, improper contact of a sexual nature with female students by Respondent, and corroboration of this testimony by other witnesses. Ten female students who attended Pinellas Park High School during school year 1978-1979 testified against Respondent regarding incidents between Respondent and these students of a sexual nature. Some of these incidents involved contact or attempted contact such as hugging, kissing or attempting to kiss, touching breasts or attempting to do so, and rubbing the front of his body against students' backsides when passing them when adequate room for passing without contact existed. Several testified to improper comments made to them by Respondent such as "You have a nice set of tits," "I'd like to get in your pants," "You have a nice pair of legs," "Why don't we go to a motel," "You drive an old man crazy," "You have a nice butt and look good in those pants," "One of these days it's going to be you and me," and similar comments regarding female students' anatomy. Much of this testimony was corroborated by other witnesses who overheard the remarks or observed the bodily contact. Additionally, some of the witnesses had complained to their parents or to other faculty members shortly after the incidents. Others first came forward with their complaints when they learned the police were investigating Green's conduct at the school and they became convinced their isolated incidents wouldn't appear unbelievable. Some of these students tolerated and perhaps encouraged the comments to provide them leverage to insure a cover-up for numerous "skips" of classes. Some of these witnesses skipped classes without punishment due to Respondent's position as dean and to whom their infractions were referred. Respondent denied each and every testimonial utterance of misconduct on his part while admitting the situation described by the witnesses, in which the improper actions of Respondent were said to have occurred, were real. During his testimony Respondent referred to school records which would corroborate his testimony, but he made no effort to produce these records or to account for their non-production. Respondent was subjected to three criminal trials on charges stemming from allegations of fact similar to those testified to in these proceedings. He was acquitted on charges alleging battery and false imprisonment and convicted of the offense of attempting to contribute to the delinquency of a minor. Those trials resulted in considerable publicity and the allegations became well-known throughout the Pinellas County School System. Several witnesses testified that Respondent's effectiveness in the Pinellas County School System was totally destroyed by virtue of the notoriety gained by Respondent due to this adverse publicity.
