Findings Of Fact Respondent and the Alternative Learning Center Respondent In 1974, at 22 years of age, Respondent earned his Bachelor of Science degree in social studies from Florida Memorial College, an historically black college in Miami. In his freshman year, he was named the Outstanding Freshman from Southwest Florida attending historically black colleges. At various times during his last three years of college, Respondent worked in inner-city ministries in St. Louis and New Orleans. For about five years following graduation, Florida Memorial College employed Respondent, first as Associate Director of Admissions and then as Director of Alumni-Church Relations, assistant basketball coach, head baseball coach, and head volleyball coach. After moving from Miami to Lee County, Respondent worked for a short time outside of education. At the start of the 1986- 87 school year, Respondent returned to education by accepting employment with the Lee County School District (District) as a social studies teacher at Cypress Lake High School, where he remained for two years. While at Cypress Lake High School, Respondent also served as head girls' basketball coach, head girls' track coach, assistant volleyball coach, and assistant baseball coach. While employed by the District, Respondent helped with the fathers' program at LAMP, which is an educational program operated by the District at the New Directions Center. The LAMP program provides high-school instruction for teenage mothers. Respondent also headed the District's first mentor program, which finds mentors, without regard to race, to encourage minority students to excel in an academic setting, such as in gifted and honors courses. In 1988, Respondent earned his Master of Science degree in educational leadership from Nova University. Then-Superintendent Engle named Respondent to serve as principal-on-assignment for the 1988-89 school year to recruit minority teachers for the District. Respondent was the second minority person assigned to an administrative position in the District. At the time, a federal court had entered a desegregation order against the District. In the ten years prior to Respondent's new assignment, the District had hired about a dozen minority teachers. In one summer, Respondent recruited 30 minority teachers. After completing his assignment in minority teacher recruitment, Respondent returned to Cape Coral High School as Dean of Students. He served in this position for the 1989-90 school year. Following the 1989-90 school year, Respondent was appointed the Coordinator of Educational Equity and Reassignments, in which capacity Respondent served for five years. When he assumed the job, he received a $5000 raise to about $40,000 annually. A coordinator is the lowest level of management in the District office. Coordinators are subordinate to assistant directors or, if none, directors. Directors are subordinate to assistant and associate superintendents, who are subordinate to the Superintendent. The Superintendent is appointed by the Lee County School Board. As Coordinator of Educational Equity and Reassignments, Respondent monitored the district's desegregation efforts. Due to the nature of his responsibilities, Respondent, even though only a coordinator, had direct access to the Superintendent and School Board attorney. Working closely with then-Superintendent Adams, who became Respondent's mentor, Respondent helped redraw school- attendance zones to desegregate schools. Respondent also handled racially based complaints from staff, including teachers, and generally tried to assure that poorer schools received the same resources as those enjoyed by wealthier schools. Respondent became the focus of considerable controversy while Coordinator of Educational Equity and Reassignments. One day, his young daughter answered the phone at home and heard an unidentified caller threaten, "Your nigger father is a dead man." Shortly after the murder of Superintendent Adams, Petitioner, then serving as Interim Superintendent, informed Respondent that she was removing him from his coordinator position. She created a new position for Respondent as Director of Adult Education and Dropout Prevention. Respondent received a raise from $48,000 to $55,000 annually and assumed his new duties in November 1994. Petitioner disclosed that she made the change based on concerns for Respondent's safety and complaints that she had received from the School Board and parents related to Respondent's rezoning decisions. Three months after Petitioner created Respondent's new position, she eliminated it and suggested that Respondent apply for other administrative positions with the District. Respondent and Petitioner discussed an opening at the New Directions Center. The New Directions Center occupies a three-year old facility owned and operated by the Lee County School Board. The New Directions Center comprises three separate programs: the LAMP program, the Academy, and the Alternative Learning Center (ALC). The Academy, which includes the Employment Skills Program, provides alternative education by offering its students different types of teaching strategies than are typically available at conventional schools. Academy students are not behaviorally much different from students attending regular schools in the District. Prior to the 1995-96 school year, each program at the New Directions Center had an assistant principal, and a supervisory principal was in charge of the entire New Directions Center. When she mentioned the opening at the ALC, Petitioner informed Respondent that she intended to appoint a separate principal for each of the three programs starting the 1995-96 school year. In May 1995, Petitioner appointed Respondent to serve as the new ALC Principal, starting July 1. As ALC Principal, Respondent was also the head District administrator at the juvenile detention center, Price Halfway House, and Lee County boot camp. At the time of assuming his new responsibilities, Respondent had served nine years in the Lee County School system: two years in the classroom, one year in administration at a school, over five years in administration involving minority matters at the District office, and less than one year in Adult Education and Dropout Prevention. Respondent received no training in preparation for his new assignment as a school principal. As of February 19, 1996, Respondent's District personnel file contained nothing negative, aside from some isolated suggestions recorded on classroom observation sheets. This was the file that Respondent and his attorney examined after giving the District three days' notice of their intent to examine and copy Respondent's personnel file. Discussed below is Petitioner's contention that two missing items should have been included in the file. Respondent's evaluation for his first year of teaching notes: "Excellent start as a beginning teacher in Lee County." This 1987 evaluation states: "Outstanding teacher. Should be considered for advancement to administration as soon as possible." The 1988 evaluation reports: "Excellent year-- Promoted to dean of students, Cape Coral H.S." The first administrative evaluation of Respondent is in 1989 and covers his work in minority-teacher recruitment. The 1989 evaluation states that Respondent is "an asset to our team." The 1990 evaluation, which addresses Respondent's year as Dean of Students, reports: "Charles has demonstrated his concern for young people and has spent many hours above and beyond the call of duty working with and for kids." For the first year in which Respondent was responsible for desegregation efforts, the 1991 evaluation notes that Respondent has only partially achieved a goal--namely, learning desegregation issues. However, the 1991 evaluation, which was prepared by Dr. Mary Nell Gunter, states: "Charles Daily [sic] demonstrates talent and skill in dealing with people. He is eager to do a good job and I appreciate his professional outlook." A memorandum from Dr. Gunter commends Respondent for his "positive attitude" and work in specific programs. The memorandum suggests, though, that Respondent needs to develop his skills in "facilitative leadership," which he demonstrates in "many instances," but perhaps insufficiently when dealing with "principals and school-based people." Respondent's evaluation for the 1991-92 school year is missing from Respondent Exhibit 13, which is his District personnel file. The missing evaluation apparently was completed with no remarkable comments. Respondent's evaluation for the 1992-93 school year is noteworthy because it was prepared by Petitioner, who was not yet Superintendent. This 1993 evaluation finds that Respondent has fully achieved all of his goals, one of which is: To establish effective communication to the public that would assist in dealing with the increasing cultural, demographic and social change effecting [sic] our students and community. Petitioner's narrative comments on the 1993 evaluation are: Charles Dailey is an extremely valued and important member of the Division of Administrative Operations. He has demonstrated outstanding leadership during the Desegregation process. He is a role model for every administrator in his work ethic, committment [sic], teamwork and educational values. Petitioner found that Respondent reached an effective level of performance (the only satisfactory rating offered on the evaluation form) in all categories. Categories include judgment issues, including making good decisions based on law and policy, and sensitivity issues, including tact, effective dealing with people over emotional issues, exhibiting a positive professional attitude, and perceiving the needs and concerns of other persons. Petitioner concluded the 1993 evaluation as follows: Charles must work under stress everyday in his office due to our desegregation process. He has handled this in an outstanding manner. The evaluation for the 1993-94 school year should have been performed by Dr. James Browder, who is now principal of Cypress Lake High School. Dr. Adams was murdered on February 7, 1994. Another administrator was responsible for Respondent's evaluation until April or May of 1994. Given the understandable disruption resulting from the sudden death of Dr. Adams and the administration reorganization that followed, Respondent's evaluation for the 1993-94 school year was never prepared. However, Dr. Browder testified that he had perceived no problems with Respondent of sufficient seriousness to document in an evaluation. The evaluation for the 1994-95 school year should have been performed by Assistant Superintendent Dr. Mary Santini. She assumed that position in January 1995 and may have felt unable to evaluate Respondent by the time the evaluations are due in May. Respondent has been recognized repeatedly in the educational community. The past three years, Respondent was a finalist for the Ida S. Baker award, which is given to the outstanding minority educator in Florida. Respondent was named in 1995 the administrator of the year for the southeastern United States by the Southeast Desegregation Assistance Center. During this period, Respondent has been serving as a consultant and expert witness in the Rockford (IL) School District desegregation case. The ALC In general, the ALC is the District's last-chance school for students whose disciplinary problems have resulted in their removal from their geographical schools. ALC students are the most difficult to manage in the District. Nearly all ALC students are enrolled in the ALC as an alternative to expulsion from the Lee County School System. A few students are assigned to the ALC through the juvenile justice system. Almost all of the ALC students have had serious problems with criminal activity, seriously disruptive behavior in school, and school attendance. At any given time, roughly 10-20 students attending the ALC have been convicted of felonies. On a cumulative basis for the 1995-96 school year, excluding exceptional student education (ESE) students, 80 students enrolled in the ALC sometime during the 1995-96 school year were guilty of felonies, 91 were guilty of the possession of drugs or drug paraphernalia, 29 were guilty of armed burglary or grand theft, 36 were guilty of assault or battery against a teacher or administrator, 68 were guilty of fighting with other students, 38 were guilty of possession of weapons, and numerous others were guilty of other offenses ranging from "sexual misconduct" (7) to "peeing in a bottle" (1). (Some of these students were guilty of more than one offense, and some students entered the ALC more than once during the school year, so their offenses would be counted more than once in each category.) Prior to the 1995-96 school year, the Supervisory Principal of the New Directions Center was Jeananne Folaros. The ALC Assistant Principal was Richard Hagy. The LAMP Assistant Principal was Carolyn McCollum. And the Academy Assistant Principal was John Wortham. For the 1995-96 school year, Ms. McCollum and Mr. Wortham retained their prior positions except they became principals, and Mr. Hagy and Ms. Folaros were reassigned. Respondent and the ALC When Respondent arrived at the ALC, student behavior and academics were both in need of improvement. Perhaps the most dramatic indicator of the situation was that in the prior school year Mr. Hagy had twice required hospital treatment for injuries he had received from being struck by ALC students. The school was the scene of frequent fights with students wandering in the halls and often in possession of drugs, making it hard for motivated students to work. In an effort to reduce the number of suspensions, the ALC had retained some extremely disruptive students, who sometimes threatened even the teachers. Frightened by these students, some teachers had resorted to a policy of appeasement, allowing difficult students to sleep or play cards in the classroom with academic activity going on around them, or sending these students to a separate timeout room, where they slept and played cards without the distraction of academic activity going on around them. When Respondent was first appointed as ALC Principal, he spoke with middle- and high-school principals and learned of their concerns that the ALC was a "revolving-door" program. They said that the ALC disrupted regular academic programs at their schools and inadequately served the needs of the students assigned to the ALC. District principals and ALC teachers and students reported that the ALC offered a poor educational program where students could easily avoid academic challenge. One of Respondent's first moves was to select Beth Smith as the assistant principal for the ALC. Respondent recognized that their strengths and weaknesses were complementary. She was a curriculum specialist, and he was an effective disciplinarian. After hiring Ms. Smith, Respondent formed a curriculum team consisting of her, a guidance counselor, a school psychologist, and a peer-counseling teacher to address curriculum changes. Respondent reimplemented the 45 good-day policy. This policy meant that the ALC would not return a student to his geographical school until he had 45 days of punctual attendance, good behavior, and successful academics. Respondent developed and enforced a dress code, prohibited sleeping and card games in class, and required teachers to stiffen their academic requirements. Respondent's disciplinary plan eliminated the separate timeout room, where misbehaving students had enjoyed freedom from academics. Respondent instead introduced a multi-step intervention system where the teacher first warned the misbehaving student in the classroom, then warned the student in the hallway, then placed the student in timeout in the classroom, and then sent him to Respondent, who would warn the student, assign cafeteria duty, or suspend him, depending on the seriousness of the offense. In all senses of the word, Respondent was a "hands-on" principal. Sondra Saldana, an ALC guidance counselor, best described Respondent's style when she testified that he meets students where they are. Undoubtedly, Respondent models good behavior in numerous ways. But he does not stop there. With passionate intensity, Respondent readily reveals his love and expectations for each student and satisfaction or dissatisfaction with each student's behavior. Respondent is direct and frank, not oblique or diplomatic. He demands the respect of all of his students, and he earns the respect of nearly all of them because they see that he cares about them in a vital and effective way. Many of the ALC students probably would not have responded to Respondent's disciplinary innovations without clear evidence of Respondent's belief in their academic potential. More than anything else, Respondent wanted "to keep turning on lights for students," according to his favorite expression. Refusing to allow ALC students to think of themselves or be treated like academic or cultural outcasts, Respondent made the ALC more like a regular school, not so that he could have the experience of running a regular school, but so that the ALC students could have the experience of attending and succeeding at a regular school. In giving ALC students more positive opportunities than they had had in the past, Respondent introduced to the ALC student assemblies, a literary magazine, school plays, and other activities typical of regular schools. Respondent ordered the physical education teacher to make the ALC students play sports besides basketball, just like the physical education students were doing at the regular schools. (After hearing the concerns of the physical education teacher about placing bats in the hands of certain students, Respondent agreed to drop softball.) Respondent personally conducted entrance interviews, so he could explain the rules and purpose of the ALC to each new student and any parents or guardians accompanying him. Respondent made the exit process--merely an exercise in paperwork in prior years--an experience that would bring some closure to the ALC experience and prepare the student for a more successful reentry into his geographical school. There is no doubt that Respondent was markedly successful in improving the atmosphere at the ALC. Respondent's immediate supervisor, Herbert Wiseman, the District Director of Secondary Operations, twice during the fall of 1995 complimented Respondent on how well run the ALC was. The latter compliment took place on December 15, 1995, when Mr. Wiseman, with whom Respondent had a good relationship, told Respondent that he was running the ALC well. Mariner High School Principal Michael McNerney described in detail a visit he made to the ALC in November 1995. He was greeted quickly and professionally at the office, rather than allowed merely to walk into the school. Respondent took him to 8-10 classrooms where Respondent and students spoke freely. Respondent knew each of his students and which of them were from Mariner High School. He even knew when each student was due to return to his geographical high school. Jill Culligan, an ALC teacher who was disaffected with Respondent, noted the positive changes in writing on December 5, 1995: Under [Respondent's] system of discipline interventions and sensitivity to individual student needs, the students appear to be exhibiting the better behavior expected of them. Fights are no longer tolerated. More opportunities for assemblies are getting them ready for re-entry into the regular schools. But Respondent always balanced his academic innovations with disciplinary innovations, recognizing that behavior and academic achievement among ALC students are inextricably linked. Respondent personally led the effort to restore and maintain order at the ALC. It was a considerable, ongoing effort, made more difficult by the fact that the most troublesome students were no longer warehoused in the timeout room or banished from school by suspension. A key element of Respondent's relationship with the most difficult of these most difficult students is that he literally was not afraid to touch a student. Respondent was unafraid to place an arm around such students and hug them close to his body. The hug conveyed affection and physical constraint. While holding the child firmly, Respondent would then typically say that he had to calm down. In many instances, this approach was successful; in some instances--disproportionately represented in the next section--this approach was not. There were always clear limits to Respondent's disciplinary efforts. As noted below, he did not believe in striking students, and never did so except one time at the behest of a parent, who sought to avoid the more burdensome punishment of a suspension. Respondent scrupulously tried to get all significant information before taking any disciplinary action. Though a strong believer in discipline, Respondent was never inflexible. To the contrary, it appears he was always willing to fashion the most appropriate penalty under the circumstances--such as pushups or cafeteria duty--and was often willing to modify a penalty upon request of a parent or guardian or even the student himself. During Respondent's tenure, which ended with his suspension on January 11, 1996, there was a fight every three weeks among students. After his suspension, there was a fight everyday. During Respondent's tenure, the police were present at school every other week. After his suspension, the police were present every other day. Despite Respondent's success at the ALC, he encountered some resistance and engendered some resentment among staff. Clearly, disgruntled staff was the source of many of Respondent's problems, causing management problems at school and, more importantly, conveying misinformation to the District office. In general, at least two-thirds of the ALC staff supported Respondent even after he was suspended. Some staffmembers were neutral. Among staffmembers vocally opposed to Respondent, some were doubtlessly put off by Respondent's assertive personality. But there were other reasons for the vocal disaffection of some staffmembers, and some of these reasons have a material bearing on the credibility of these persons as witnesses and the weight accorded their testimony. In some cases, the source of staff disaffection may have been professional, such as when Respondent selected Ms. Smith over Jim Nassiff, an ALC teacher, for the position of assistant principal. Mr. Nassiff was unhappy with Respondent for choosing Ms. Smith over him. Most disaffected staffmembers had job-performance problems, which were exacerbated by the demands that Respondent placed upon them in terms of academics and discipline. Teachers in this category included Kenneth Vitale, Pamela Minton, Cheryl Gruenefeld, and Ms. Culligan. To varying degrees, teachers in this category manifested an unwillingness or inability to adapt to the changes implemented by Respondent. The sources of disaffection of Mr. Vitale and Ms. Culligan are described in connection with incidents involving them. However, two staffmembers were involved in a number of incidents. Lisa Krucher, a security guard, was notable for the extent of her dissatisfaction with Respondent and her inability to perform her job. She defied Respondent's efforts to ban smoking from the ALC building. She was unable to break up fights and lax in enforcing discipline. She eventually became the eyes and ears of Petitioner by daily reporting incidents to Mr. Wortham, who passed them on to Dr. Santini. Her job-related deficiencies were such that--despite her loyalty--Ms. Krucher was transferred to the Academy after Respondent's suspension. Ms. Smith offered a more balanced perspective on Respondent than did Ms. Krucher, and the source of Ms. Smith's disaffection with Respondent is more professional. Previously a guidance counselor in a middle school and dropout prevention program, Ms. Smith is an articulate exponent of the modern disciplinary theories of positive reinforcement and behavior modification. She deemphasizes more traditional, coercive methods of discipline, such as punishment for wrongs-- which of course awaits those ALC students who, having already failed to take their behavioral cues in the setting of the regular schools, continue misbehaving until they encounter the criminal justice system. Respondent does not advocate the more traditional, coercive disciplinary method of punishment for wrongs to the exclusion of more modern techniques of behavior modification. However, his more intense style of personal involvement with misbehaving students bore little resemblance to Ms. Smith's more restrained style. Ms. Smith was disturbed by her perception of how Respondent handled certain misbehaving ALC students. The record is less clear in revealing her methods of modifying the behavior of such students. In any event, her reactions to the misbehavior and Respondent's attempts to correct it were entirely sincere. She was frustrated to the point of tears at times, believing at times that students who continued to misbehave simply had not been exposed to sufficient positive reinforcement. The problem is that Ms. Smith lacked experience with the kinds of students who can be found at the ALC. She was still developing effective means of handling the most dangerous and disruptive of these students when Respondent was suspended. At that time, Ms. Smith still had nothing approaching Respondent's experience in dealing with young persons who, with little if any warning or provocation, explode into a violent frenzy, seriously injuring anyone in their immediate vicinity. Following Respondent's suspension, Petitioner appointed Ms. Smith as Acting ALC Principal. On February 20, 1996, Petitioner replaced Ms. Smith with Mr. Hagy as Acting ALC Principal. Respondent and Students Spring 1995 Visits to ALC: Paragraphs 33 and 35 At the urging of Petitioner, Respondent visited the ALC shortly after Petitioner named him the new principal. He visited the school three times in the spring of 1995 before assuming his duties there on July 1, 1995. On his first visit, Respondent met briefly with Mr. Hagy and discussed how the school operates. On this visit, Respondent saw students loitering in the halls and cursing loudly. Respondent saw the timeout room, where staff had hung plastic to cover the holes that students had punched in the walls. Respondent saw students were sleeping rather than studying. Respondent and Mr. Hagy came across a student who was walking out of the class during the school day very upset, using abusive language. Mr. Hagy asked him to stop, but he ignored Mr. Hagy and walked out. In another class, taught by James Nassiff, Respondent found the class watching an entertainment movie. Mr. Hagy escorted Respondent into several classrooms. These visits were brief. Respondent later made a second visit, without Mr. Hagy, to observe the classes in session. These visits were somewhat longer. In each classroom during the second visit, Respondent introduced himself as the new ALC principal. He warned the students that things would be changing. He promised that he would suspend any student who talked back to a teacher, swore, or fought. Respondent ordered the students not to call male teachers "man" and female teachers "woman"; teachers would be called "Mr." and "Mrs." Respondent told the students that he would not tolerate sleeping or card playing in class. In a lighter tone, Respondent added that the students should tell their friends and family that there was a new sheriff in town and the ALC was going to be about education. Respondent then flashed his badge. The badge is a small shiny badge that designates Respondent as an Honorary Deputy Sheriff for the term of Sheriff McDougal, who remains in office. Respondent understands that the badge confers on him no special power to arrest persons. He has never tried to arrest anyone using the badge, and he has never displayed the badge on the occasions that he has actually summoned law enforcement officers. In Ms. Gruenefeld's class, Respondent found students sleeping. He approached one student who had his head down on the desk and did not look up when Respondent entered the room. Respondent told him to look at Respondent when he was speaking, or Respondent would suspend the student. Ms. Gruenefeld tried to justify the student's behavior on the grounds that he was a good student and had been working very hard. She believed that the student, who was Hispanic, did not engage in eye contact for cultural reasons. Nothing in the record supports the assertion that Hispanics disfavor eye contact. Absent an undisclosed medical condition, the student should have been able to raise his head off the desk and make eye contact with the new principal, who had entered the classroom to introduce himself to the students. There is no indication that Respondent's first or second visits to the ALC destroyed any instructional momentum in the classrooms. Obviously, the students were off-task for the time that Respondent was in the classroom, in most cases due to Respondent's presence. However, the students did not remain off-task for long and soon returned to whatever they were doing before Respondent entered the classroom. At most, Respondent's comments about changes at the ALC might have caused some harmless confusion among those students who were about to be returned to their geographical schools. There is no evidence that students were intimidated by Respondent's announcement or his display of a badge. Some students laughed after Respondent's announcement. Some responded more seriously, wanting to know if he were really going to be the new principal. In general, the students listened thoughtfully to Respondent's statement. Respondent made a third visit to meet with the faculty at the request of an ALC guidance counselor, who had called Respondent and told him that the faculty wanted to meet him. In this meeting, Respondent repeated the ground rules that he had given the students a few days earlier. Respondent invited each teacher to prepare a wish list for the ALC and a list of any concerns that he or she may have. Ending a positive meeting, Respondent introduced the teachers to his favorite expression, "We need to turn lights on for kids." Following Respondent's visits, Ms. Folaros telephoned Respondent and asked him what had taken place. He explained that he wanted to meet the students at that time because summer school would start before he assumed the role of principal. Respondent added that he wanted the students whom he met to tell other students that he would not tolerate students sleeping and misbehaving, as they had been doing in the past. Other Incidents of Flashing the Badge: Paragraph 33 In September or October, 1995, M. P. enrolled at the ALC. M. P. is a 14 year-old ninth grader, who started the year at Lehigh High School. M. P. was sent to the ALC after he urinated in the middle of class into a glue bottle because his teacher had refused him permission to use the bathroom. M. P. was accompanied by his mother and sister on the day that he enrolled--a process that took about 20 minutes. During the entrance interview, Respondent informed M.P. of the rules of the school. They discussed the dress code, the prohibition of drugs on campus, and M. P.'s misbehavior at Lehigh High School. During the conversation, Respondent flashed his badge and warned M. P. not to do anything wrong. M. P. testified that he was scared at the sight of the badge. This testimony is discredited. It takes more than a badge to frighten M. P.. M. P.'s mother saw Respondent flash the badge, and she decided, based on this meeting, that Respondent would be a good role model for her son. Respondent flashed the badge on other occasions. One time, four middle-school girls assaulted another student in the cafeteria. They ignored Respondent when he tried to talk to them, so he flashed the badge and warned them that he could have them arrested. They took him more seriously and listened after that. Another time, Respondent displayed the badge to a boy who was misbehaving in Respondent's office. Again, Respondent warned that he could have the student arrested. Respondent displayed the badge several other times and warned misbehaving students that he could have them arrested. Some of the students took him seriously; others did not. The ability of Respondent to have students arrested did not depend on his possession of the badge, and ALC students understood that. Flashing the badge unlikely intimidated anyone. M. P.'s Other Incident: Paragraph 29 After the entrance interview, M. P.'s mother spoke privately with Respondent about M. P. She described him as emotionally troubled over her recent divorce. She warned that he was quick to anger and especially intolerant of females because he blamed the divorce on his mother. He also resented females because of a gender issue in the family and the teacher who had refused him permission to go to the bathroom at Lehigh High School was a female. While in April Pepin's class, M. P. walked out of the classroom without permission. Ms. Pepin sent him to Ms. Smith's office. Talking to Ms. Smith, M. P. denied that he had left the classroom without permission and gave Ms. Smith trouble. Ms. Smith determined that he had misbehaved in Ms. Pepin's class, decided to suspend M. P. for one day, and called M. P.'s mother. M. P.'s mother asked Ms. Smith to have Respondent reinforce the point with M. P. Ms. Smith preceded M. P. to Respondent's office and explained the situation to Respondent, stating that M. P.'s mother wanted Respondent to talk to her son and that Ms. Smith was having trouble dealing with him. Respondent summoned M.P. into the office, leaned over his desk toward M. P., and raised his voice in an authoritative manner. Respondent warned M. P. that he could not act up at Respondent's school and that, if Ms. Smith told him something, it was like Respondent telling him something. M. P. elected not to listen to Respondent either and tried to walk out of his office. When he turned to walk around the chair, Respondent stopped him by grabbing his arm. Respondent was worried that he might be going after Ms. Smith. Respondent was also intent on not allowing M. P. to disobey Ms. Smith and Respondent by coming and going as he pleased, especially after his mother had asked repeatedly for Respondent's help in dealing with her son. After grabbing M.P.'s arm, Respondent told him to go up against the wall for a search, and, when he did not do so, forced him up against the wall. When Respondent tried to pat down M. P. for weapons, M.P. lost his composure and began to fight with Respondent. M.P. brought his arms down hard on Respondent and struck him. Respondent wrestled M. P. down to the floor and shouted for someone to call the police. Arriving a few minutes later, the police officers had to bind M.P. by the ankles and drag him to the police car, where he tried to kick out the car window. M. P.'s mother then had M. P. admitted to Charter Glades Hospital, a psychiatric treatment facility. M. P. remained hospitalized for ten days and remained on homebound instruction for two months. Charter Glades treated M. P. for an anger disorder. M. P.'s mother blames Respondent for M. P.'s hospitalization. She is understandably worried about her son, but the evidence does not in any way suggest that Respondent initiated, and the greater weight of the evidence does not prove that Respondent exacerbated or unreasonably triggered, M. P.'s obvious behavior disorder, which had manifested itself before his assignment to the ALC. Ms. Smith felt that Respondent overreacted to the situation, but she was unaware of the details or extent of M.P.'s behavior disorder prior to the incident. Under the circumstances, Respondent was justified in reacting quickly to prevent M. P. from leaving the office and precluding the possibility that the student might strike Ms. Smith. Pushups: Paragraphs 20 and 21 Respondent sometimes gave the option of pushups to male students whose misbehavior otherwise warranted suspension. (For female and other male students, Respondent would sometimes offer cafeteria duty.) On at least two occasions, students chose to do the pushups. Respondent demanded 50 pushups and sometimes called out the count himself, starting fast and ending slow. If a student could not do 50 pushups, Respondent allowed him to do as many as he could; in no event would Respondent suspend him for failing to reach 50. On one occasion, three students were doing their pushups in Respondent's office when a faculty meeting was about to start. The teachers were supportive of the students, cheering them on. When finished, the students, taking the matter in good humor, thanked Respondent for not suspending them. There is absolutely no evidence that any of the students choosing to do pushups were humiliated, injured, or exposed to a risk of injury. Presumably, as alleged by Petitioner, their arms shook and, for the white boys, their faces reddened. These things happen with pushups. Spankings: Paragraphs 18 and 19 There were two student spankings during the fall of 1995. One of them took place in October 1995 and involved O. B., who is 13 years old. O. B. lied to Respondent about not being involved in a fight. Based on O. B.'s word, Respondent was about to suspend another boy. After discovering the truth, Respondent went down to O.B.'s classroom and found the class watching a movie. Respondent said, loud enough for the teacher, Mr. Vitale, and other students to hear, "Son, you've lied to me. You've lied to me." O. B. answered, "Man, I don't know what you're talking about." Respondent then grasped O. B. firmly by the back of the neck and walked him down to Respondent's office. In the office, Respondent suspended O. for five days, called O. B.'s father (his biological grandfather who had adopted O. B.), and told him that he needed to pick up his son. O. B.'s classmates already knew that O. B. had lied about the incident. O. B. was not embarrassed by the manner in which Respondent removed him from class, nor was he hurt by the grasp of Respondent. When O. B.'s father arrived, he said to Respondent that O. B. had just been suspended and had been out of school more than he had been in. The father asked Respondent if there were another alternative, like a spanking, and suggested that Respondent spank the child. Respondent said he did not like to spank students. The father asked if he could, in order to avoid another suspension. Respondent said that was acceptable to him, so the father took his belt and applied it to O. B.'s buttocks five or six times. O. B. cried a little, so Respondent suggested that the father take him home for the rest of the day, rather than return to the classroom after having cried. The father did that. Respondent, O. B., and O. B.'s father were the only persons present during the spanking. The blinds were drawn in Respondent's office during the spanking. The other spanking involved J. N., who is also 13 years old. One day, J. N. repeatedly misbehaved. His teacher, Mr. Nassiff, talked to him several times without effect. J. N. got angry at another student and was about to get into a fight. Another teacher told him to be quiet and he refused. School Resource Officer Fred Jackson and Ms. Krucher also intervened, but failed to calm J. N. J. N. demanded to talk to Respondent. After a brief discussion, Respondent said that he was going to have to suspend J. N. if he misbehaved again that day. Respondent allowed J. N. to return to his class. J. N. returned to class and immediately caused trouble by getting into an argument with another student. Mr. Nassiff sent him back to the office. Respondent called J. N.'s mother and said that he was being suspended. J. N.'s mother asked Respondent to spank her child instead. She explained that she could not afford to arrange for someone to care for J. N. while he was out of school. He had just finished a suspension two or three weeks earlier, and his mother lacked the funds to hire another babysitter. After expressing some reluctance, Respondent agreed to the spanking, but required J. N.'s mother to come to the office to serve as the witness. She did, and Respondent, behind closed blinds and a closed door, hit J. N. six times with a belt on the buttocks. The spanking did not hurt and J. N. did not cry out. Lee County School Board Policy 5.16 addresses corporal punishment as follows: Subject to the provisions of law, if a teacher or school administrator feels that corporal punishment is necessary, at least the following procedures shall be followed: Reasonable alternatives have been used and documented. Written permission has been obtained from the student's parent or guardian at the beginning of each school year, and a call to the parent or guardian for each specific incident involved prior to using corporal punishment. The use of corporal punishment shall be approved by the principal or designee before it is used. The use of corporal punishment shall be administered only in the presence of the principal, another administrator, or a teacher. The principal, other administrator, or teacher shall, in the presence of the student, be informed of the reason for the punishment before it is administered. A principal, or designee who has administered corporal punishment shall, upon request, provide the student's parent or guardian with written explanation of the reason for the punishment and the name of the administrator or teacher who was present. Policy 5.16 is inapplicable to the O. B. spanking because O. B.'s father, not an employee of the District, spanked the child. Policy 5.16 is inapplicable to the J. N. spanking because--consistent with his disciplinary philosophy--Respondent never determined that corporal punishment was necessary. Such a determination is the precondition stated in the flush language of Policy 5.16 for the remaining conditions to apply. Respondent had determined to suspend J. N. Policy 5.16 governs spankings initiated by District employees, not by parents. Respondent merely acceded to the mother's requests that he substitute for suspension the lesser punishment of a mild spanking and that Respondent perform the spanking for her, in her presence--in effect as her agent and not an agent of the School Board. Violation of Dress Code: Paragraph 31 In September 1995, Respondent noticed an unidentified female student exiting a school bus on her way to class at the ALC. She was wearing a top that exposed her midriff, in violation of the ALC dress code. In the presence of District Transportation Coordinator Janet Harris, Respondent told the girl, "Get your ass into my office and call your mother. We don't allow those kinds of tops." Petitioner did not call the improperly clad student as a witness. There was no sexual content to Respondent's ill- chosen word, voiced in the presence of a female employee of the School Board who was a stranger to Respondent. Ms. Harris was not so startled by the comment as to report it at the time to anyone. She first mentioned it the next month to Mr. Wortham. Absent additional proof of the circumstances surrounding Respondent's isolated remark, including the student's reaction, Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent's momentary lapse disparaged and embarrassed the student. C. L. Incident: Paragraph 22 C. L. was a 200-pound female student at the ALC with a history of violent outbursts where she would leave school and not return home for a couple of days. C. L.'s mother asked Respondent, when he became principal, not to allow C. L. to continue to leave school whenever she wanted. Previously, if she were resolved to leave school, no one would try to stop her. One day at school in September or October 1995, C. L. was out of control, trying to leave the school. Gerald Gilmore, a security guard, was trying to stop her when Respondent approached. Respondent took one of C. L.'s arms, and she suddenly dropped on him. Respondent and Mr. Gilmore each took an arm and walked her to the office, talking to her the whole way in an attempt to calm her. Respondent summoned Officer Jackson to help calm C. L. In the office, Respondent and Mr. Gilmore placed C. L. in a chair. Each time she popped out of the chair, they returned her to the chair. Eventually, C. L. calmed down, and they let her return to class. D. C. Incident: Paragraph 26 One morning in October 1995, Respondent saw D.C. smoking marijuana off-campus before school. When D. C. entered the school, Respondent asked him to come down to the office. D. C. was belligerent. Respondent placed his right arm around the back of the D. C., who was about Respondent's height, and grabbed his right arm, while holding his left arm close to the boy's side. Respondent then walked D.C. down the hall, side-by-side, to the office. Respondent frequently used this hold on students who were noncompliant. It does not hurt the student, but gives Respondent control over the student's movements. In particular, Respondent can sense immediately if a student is going for a weapon. Respondent's use of this hold and his readiness to search students (which is also part of his effort to keep drugs off campus) are prompted by Respondent's justified concerns for the safety of students and staff. The ALC has no metal detector and weapons are a constant worry. In the fall of 1995, Respondent found one student at school carrying a .25 caliber pistol with 18 rounds of ammunition in it. Once in the office, D. C. voluntarily leaned against the wall in Respondent's office so Respondent could search him with an electronic beeper. Respondent did not find any marijuana, but found a tobacco cigarette with half of the tobacco removed from the cigarette. Students smoking marijuana often removed part of the tobacco from a tobacco cigarette and replaced it with marijuana to avoid detection. Respondent suspended D. C. from school and contacted D.C.'s probation officer. D. C. subsequently violated the conditions of his probation and is now missing. ESE Student and Housing Project: Paragraph 32 In November 1995, Respondent spoke to an unidentified female student who was repeatedly being suspended for disciplinary reasons. The student lived in a public housing project. Respondent warned the student that, if she continued to get suspended, stay home, and cause trouble around the project during school hours, she and her mother could be evicted from the project. The student calmed down and behaved appropriately after that. Respondent was a commissioner of public housing for the City of Fort Myers at the time. He understood the rules of the housing projects, which permit the eviction of tenants whose unsupervised school-age children cause trouble in a project during school hours. Slightly Built Child: Paragraph 25 Petitioner presented no significant evidence on this allegation. It probably refers to another incident, such as the S. P. incident discussed below. M. B. Incident: Paragraph 28 In November 1995, M. B. was involved in a fight in the classroom. Respondent gave him the option of a suspension or working in the cafeteria, where he would clean up trays and take out the trash. He chose cafeteria duty. Shortly after arriving in the cafeteria, M. B. so infuriated the cafeteria manager that he called Respondent and told him that M. B. was the most arrogant boy he had ever seen, and he did not want the student back in the cafeteria again. Respondent left his office to retrieve M. B. and found him walking toward the office. Respondent said, "Son, come here." M. B. approached Respondent, who asked him what was his problem. M. B. said that he refused to empty any "God damned" trash. Respondent placed his arm around M. B.'s back and escorted him to the office. M. B. wanted to go straight home, and Respondent would not allow him. Respondent asked him to lean against the wall so Respondent could check him for weapons and drugs. M. B. did so. Respondent then called M. B.'s grandmother and warned her that, if M. B. continued to fight, he could be expelled for two years. She asked him not to suspend him. Respondent agreed not to suspend him, and M.B. completed the school day without further incident. L. S. P. Incident: Paragraph 23 S. P. is a 12 year-old male. He is about five feet one inch tall and is slightly built. He fights constantly. S.P. was sent to the ALC last year for fighting and insubordination. He was transferred from the ALC to his geographical school last Christmas, but, by the time of the final hearing in the present case four months later, he was back at the ALC. On the day of his testimony, S. P. had a black eye from fighting. On his first day at the ALC, S. P. got into a fight. He had not even reached his classroom when he started fighting with another student while still in the office. Respondent saw the fight and put his arm around the child's back, grasped the student's right arm, and hugged the boy close to Respondent. Respondent tried to calm him, warning that he did not want to have to suspend S. P. before he was even enrolled. S. P. tried to escape Respondent's grasp, but Respondent would not release him until S. P. said that Respondent was choking him. Respondent released him then, even though he was not choking the student. When S. P. remained noncompliant, Respondent grasped him again in the same manner as before. Respondent warned S. P., as he hugged him close to Respondent, "Son, you can't continue to fight. You're going to force me to suspend you." However, S. P. swore at Respondent, who replied that S. P. was suspended for the day. After telling S. P. that he was suspended, Respondent walked S. P. to the bench outside Respondent's office and sat him down. S. P. was upset and, after Respondent walked away, began crying. M. T. R. Incident: Paragraph 27 J. B. is an 18 year-old female who attended the ALC in the fall of 1995. From the third day of her attendance at the ALC through the remainder of the fall term, she was sexually harassed and physically threatened by T. R., who is another student at the ALC. On three occasions, J. B. complained of the harassment and threats, including actual touching, to Ms. Krucher, who did nothing about J. B.'s complaints. The first two complaints were early in the fall term and the last complaint was in January 1996. The day after her last complaint to Ms. Krucher had resulted in no action, J. B. complained directly to Respondent. After interviewing J. B., Respondent sent her back to class and summoned T. R. from his class. Terry Smith, a security guard, escorted T. R. to the office. Respondent told T. R. that he should not talk to or look at J. B. If he saw her walking down the hall, he should go in a different direction. Above all, T. R. was not to touch her anymore. T. R. denied any knowledge of who J. B. was. Respondent sent for J. B., who came to Respondent's office and stood in the doorway. When T. R. was told this is who was complaining about him, he jumped up, screaming to J. B., "What the hell are you doing telling people I did this?" He then lunged toward a visibly frightened J. B. Ms. Krucher pushed J. B. safely out of the doorway and escorted her back to the classroom. Respondent got to T. R. before he got to J. B. and pinned him against the wall. T. R. struggled, hitting Respondent while he tried to control T. R.'s arms. Mr. Smith assisted Respondent, who had T. R.'s upper body, by grabbing T. R.'s legs, and the two men wrestled T. R. to the floor. Ms. Krucher returned, and Respondent told her to call the school resource officer, so T. R. could be removed from the campus. In the meantime, Respondent and Mr. Smith tried to calm T. R. by talking quietly to him. Before the school resource officer arrived, T. R. calmed down and pleaded with Respondent not to send him to jail. T. R.'s girlfriend was pregnant, and he had criminal sex abuse charges pending. Respondent agreed to suspend T. R. for the rest of the day and not have him arrested. Respondent and Teachers Culligan Incident: Paragraph 41 At a faculty meeting early in the 1995-96 school year, Ms. Culligan addressed Respondent's decision to eliminate the timeout room. Ms. Culligan endorsed the previous policy where a teacher sent a student to the timeout room for a short period the first time, a longer period the second time, and the remainder of the day the third time on the same day. She said that she typically would not have to send a student back a second or third time. Respondent answered that that was not what the records showed. He implied that teachers had routinely sent students to the timeout room for long periods of time. He did not state that Ms. Culligan had resorted to the timeout room more than did the rest of the teachers, although she likely had. Respondent had considerable difficulty with Ms. Culligan. At the start of the 1995-96 school year, Ms. Culligan sent more students to the office for minor offenses than did other teachers. By memorandum dated September 21, 1995, Respondent directed Ms. Culligan to follow the interventions that "have been explained to you countless times." The memorandum reviews the intervention plan in detail and concludes: Failure to follow this directive violates the rights of the student in the academic setting when it has been clearly stated in writing, that this school will follow that particular policy. This is the third occasion that I've had the opportunity to address this particular policy with you and am therefore directing you to follow this policy to the letter. If I can be of assistance, please feel free to contact me. After receiving this memorandum and the assistance of Ms. Smith in improving her cultural sensitivity, Ms. Culligan reduced her office referrals to an acceptable level. But her claims of humiliation and embarrassment over Respondent's informative reply at the faculty meeting, as well as her testimony concerning other incidents, are largely the product of the early difficulties that Ms. Culligan experienced with Respondent's new, more demanding discipline plan. Nassiff Incident: Paragraph 41 During another faculty meeting, Respondent was discussing an assembly that was to take place in the next day or two. The assembly, which featured drug-detecting dogs from the Port Authority, would be attended by ALC students. This was to be the first assembly ever for ALC students. Respondent was discussing the logistical aspects of moving the students into and out of the assembly and explaining how the assembly was part of the academic rehabilitation of ALC students. Suddenly, Mr. Nassiff raised his hand and asked who would be responsible for watching his students. They were in physical education at the time of the assembly, and Mr. Nassiff thought that the physical-education teacher should continue to watch Mr. Nassiff's students during what was Mr. Nassiff's planning period. Respondent had told the teachers that they could leave school early that day to make up for their lost planning time. Upon hearing Mr. Nassiff's question, some teachers groaned audibly. Respondent replied by asking Mr. Nassiff, "You're an administrator-in-training. How would you respond to that question?" Mr. Nassiff answered Respondent's question by saying, "I'd give me my planning period." Respondent replied, "That's not an appropriate answer. If you want to be an administrator, you wouldn't ask a question like this. Let me see you after the meeting." After the meeting, Respondent explained to Mr. Nassiff the importance of teamwork. Mr. Nassiff conceded that he had said the wrong thing and knew it the moment he had said it. Respondent first gave Mr. Nassiff an opportunity to extricate himself gracefully from the awkward situation created by his question. When Mr. Nassiff persisted, Respondent answered him, directly but not in a hostile tone. Most teachers found nothing inappropriate in Respondent's handling of this situation. Mr. Nassiff and the few teachers who felt otherwise evidently preferred that Respondent handle privately an issue that Mr. Nassiff raised publicly. But Mr. Nassiff invited a public response, and Respondent's handling of the matter was entirely suitable. Announcement Incident: Paragraph 39 One day early in the 1995-96 school year, the students misbehaved badly. The next morning, during the morning announcements, Respondent stated that he expected students to act appropriately in an academic setting. He noted that too many students were coming down to his office and that they needed to do what teachers tell them to do. Respondent added words to the effect that teachers would continue to follow the intervention plan. The effect of such an announcement, nominally addressed to the teachers, was to notify the students that their teachers had no choice but to follow the intervention plan and, if the students objected to the plan, their problem was with Respondent, not with individual teachers. By this comment, Respondent was trying to take some of the pressure off the teachers for enforcing the new intervention plan, which, as noted above, imposed greater burdens on teachers than the previous policy with its excessive reliance on the timeout room and suspension. The meaning of Respondent's announcement does not lend itself to contrary interpretations. Two of the three witnesses who testified that the announcement demeaned the teachers testified about a number of incidents. The testimony of these witnesses--Ms. Culligan and Ms. Minton--must be doubted based in part on the fact that their claimed reaction to Respondent's announcement appears disingenuous. Holzborne Incidents: Paragraphs 36 and 37 Kathleen Holzborne is the lead communications teacher at the Academy. One school day, Ms. Holzborne saw Respondent opening classroom doors in the Academy looking for someone. This was innocuous. Respondent was likely looking for someone or checking on nearby classrooms after a disturbance. Another school day, Ms. Holzborne saw Respondent admitting drug dogs and their handlers into Academy classrooms while Mr. Wortham was elsewhere in the building. Respondent was doing this under the authority of Mr. Wiseman, who was also in the building. Another school day, Respondent and Ms. Holzborne were in the cafeteria while the Academy students were eating lunch. Respondent said she did not need to stay, adding, "Daughter, everything will be fine here." Respondent is from a family of ministers. He sometimes speaks of persons as sons and daughters, meaning they are sons and daughters of God. He used "daughter" in speaking to Ms. Holzborne in a personal, nonsexual manner not intended to intimidate or offend. Had she objected, he would have apologized and explained his innocent use of the word. However, Ms. Holzborne did not complain to Respondent or anyone else until, months later, she mentioned the comment during Petitioner's investigation. Testifying, Ms. Holzborne seemed much more upset over Respondent's alleged failure to return promptly a piece of a tripod, but Petitioner has not charged Respondent with this omission. Intimidation Incident(s): Paragraph 38 Respondent did not intimidate his teachers or staff. To the contrary, he was supportive of teachers and staff, although he demanded that they work hard and smart. At the time of Respondent's suspension, faculty morale was good. A small number of teachers were dissatisfied with Respondent, but not many. The greater part of the faculty got along with each other and Respondent. A reliable portrayal of Respondent's supportiveness comes from Lisa McKeever, an ALC teacher who displayed an unusual degree of independence for a witness in this controversial case. She testified to tell the truth, unaffected by any fear of retribution from Petitioner or Dr. Santini or from the community of supporters of Respondent. Answering a question about whether she supported the Charles Dailey Foundation, which was organized to help pay Respondent's legal fees, she testified that, if she had money to give away, she would first give it to her children and then to literary or musical organizations before she would give it to the Dailey Foundation or any political organization. On two occasions, students threatened Ms. McKeever while she was seven months pregnant. In one case, a boy pushed her up against a chalkboard. Respondent asked Ms. McKeever what she wanted him to do about it. Ms. McKeever did not want him suspended, so Respondent dealt with him, but did not suspend him. In another case, a girl approached her with a clenched fist, threatening Ms. McKeever by saying, "You stupid flat-assed white bitch. Get out of my fucking face." Ms. McKeever was frightened by this assault, and Respondent expelled the student, who that night was arrested after attacking family members with a knife. Respondent and Administrators, Law Enforcement Officers, Guardians, and School Board Policies A. Overenrollment: Paragraph 51 The overenrollment issue arose at the start of Respondent's tenure as ALC Principal. Dr. Santini arranged a meeting on June 20, 1995, among the three new principals at the New Directions Center. The purpose of the meeting was to divide responsibilities among the principals. Ominously, Dr. Santini testified that she had had lots of experience with Respondent not cooperating. It is not entirely clear what specific ALC enrollment policies were advocated by Dr. Santini and Respondent at the June 20 meeting, or even that either of them advocated a specific policy. Dr. Santini stated that the ALC was a short-term program. Respondent wanted the same flexibility that the ALC administrators had had in the past in deciding when to return students to their geographical schools. The ALC enrollment policy from the preceding school year had been the 45 good-day policy described above. In general, Dr. Santini wanted to limit enrollments due to safety considerations. Overcrowding at the ALC became a bigger problem once the new school year got underway due to the introduction of more students from regular schools, as a result of a new zero-tolerance policy in the regular schools, and increased referrals from the juvenile detention center. Respondent's argument for greater enrollment flexibility was based on behavioral and academic factors. Behaviorally, an ALC student might need more than 45 days before he is ready to return to his geographical school. Academically, an ALC student might have difficulty returning to his geographical school due to the differences in the calendars at the ALC and regular schools. The high schools are on a seven-period daily schedule, and the ALC is on an 18- day modular schedule where one class is taught for 18 days. A behaving, attending ALC student could only take two and one-half classes in 45 school days, so that, when returned to his geographical school, he would be behind his classmates in most of his classes. After the meeting, Dr. Santini spoke with Respondent privately and told him that his behavior during the meeting had bordered on the insubordinate. Respondent countered that Dr. Santini was discriminating against him on the basis of race. Respondent's continued implementation of the 45 good- day policy at the start of the 1995-96 school year did not violate any directive that Dr. Santini had given him. Their disagreement during the June 20 meeting was probably limited to a disagreement over general philosophy. Most likely, Dr. Santini had decided to see the effect on ALC enrollment levels of Respondent's implementation of the 45 good-day policy. On October 20, 1995, Dr. Santini conducted another meeting concerning ALC enrollments. This time she met with Respondent and Mr. Wiseman. She called the meeting after receiving a telephone call that a student had remained at the ALC since April 1995. She was also concerned with current ALC enrollment levels under Respondent's approach. During this meeting, Dr. Santini told Respondent that the ALC building was designed for a maximum of 270 students. She told him to cap enrollment at 250 students. Dr. Santini testified that she told Respondent that she approved of the 45 good-day policy. She also testified that Respondent was angry at the meeting. If Dr. Santini approved the 45 good-day policy at the October 20 meeting, the only reason why Respondent would have angered at the meeting would have been a disagreement over the application of the policy; after all, Respondent wanted the 45 good-day policy. Perhaps, Dr. Santini believed that she was approving the 45 good-day policy, but in fact she was not, as evidenced by their closing comments and her October 25 memorandum, described below. At the end of the October 20 meeting, Dr. Santini promised written guidelines and asked Respondent if he wanted any input. Dr. Santini testified that Respondent said that the only thing that he disagreed with was, if a student must be returned to his geographical school at the end of 45 days, ready or not, that those schools would be prepared to help him in the transition. Mr. Wiseman promised to adopt or modify the PASS program to help with this transition. The significance of Respondent's comment, as recounted by Dr. Santini, is as additional proof that Dr. Santini had not approved the continuation of the 45 good-day policy and Respondent was resigned to following her new enrollment policy. The comment tends to prove the elimination of the 45 good-day policy because, if the ALC were permitted to retain students until they were ready to return to their geographical school, there would be little need for the geographical school to help with the transition. The comment proves the obedience of Respondent because he had disagreed was more than the issue of the preparedness of the geographical school to help the former ALC student. Respondent had tried and failed to win Dr. Santini's approval for the 45 good-day policy, so that the ALC students returning to their geographical schools would not need any special assistance from the geographical schools in the transition. But this comment proves that he was giving up on the 45 good-day policy. Dr. Santini sent a memorandum dated October 25, 1996, to Respondent with copies to Petitioner, Mr. Wiseman, and all principals in the District. The memorandum largely memorialized what Dr. Santini had said at the meeting five days earlier. Dr. Santini testified that the only change between the October 25 memorandum and what she had said at the October 20 meeting was that she had eliminated the 45 good-day policy. She explained that she did not want Respondent to be the sole person to decide what good days were. However, the omission of the 45 good-day provision from the memorandum is strong proof that Dr. Santini never approved the 45 good-day policy at the October 20 meeting. There were less drastic means of eliminating Respondent's discretion in applying the 45 good-day policy, without eliminating the policy itself. Dr. Santini could have reserved such authority for these decisions to Mr. Wiseman, herself, the principal of the geographical school, or some combination of the above. The October 25 memorandum states in its entirety: The following plan is to be implemented immedi- ately as a result of our meeting on Friday, October 20, 1995. High school, middle school and ESE students will be returned to their home schools at the end of a quarter after approximately 45 days at the Alternative Learning Center (ALC). In most cases, those students entering the ALC during the first three weeks of a quarter would be eligible for return at the end of that quarter. Those students entering after the first three weeks of a quarter would remain at the ALC until the end of the following quarter. In rare cases a student may be returned to a different high school when recommended by the home school principal and agreed to by the receiving principal. All high school principals have agreed to alter their PASS program to accommodate an orderly reentry of students into the high schools. The ALC will not exceed 250 students. When full capacity is reached the student who has made the most progress will be returned to his/her home school when a new student arrives at the ALC. The above procedures would not prohibit a principal from requesting an earlier return or an extended stay at the ALC. The ALC will continue to function in its capacity as a special center serving the high schools, middle schools and special schools with an ongoing influx and reflux of students. It is understood that the school principals and the ALC principal will main- tain open and direct communication in a spirit of cooperation to best help students. Ultimately, the length of a student's stay at the ALC is dependent upon the nature of the original offense and the sound judgment of the principals involved. There are two possible interpretations of the October 25 memorandum. Either it is a consistent expression of an inflexible enrollment cap with the final sentence as a general surplusage to other, more detailed provisions to the contrary. Or, if the last sentence is to be given real effect, the memorandum is contradictory and meaningless. Paragraph 1 of the October 25 memorandum states clearly that the duration of a student's enrollment at the ALC is 45 days. As mentioned above, there is no requirement that these be good days. The word "approximately" does not restore any discretion to the ALC principal or anyone else; rather, like Paragraph 2, the word "approximately" allows for some minor flexibility in shortening or lengthening the 45-day enrollment based on the end of the academic quarter. More importantly, Paragraph 5 of the October 25 memorandum unconditionally limits the enrollment of the ALC to 250 students and supplies a simple procedure for the release of students when the enrollment exceeds 250 students. The student making the most progress when enrollment exceeds 250 students is returned to his geographical school. The returned student is not necessarily prepared for the transfer; he is only the most prepared among the ALC students. Paragraph 6 grants some discretion to the principal of the geographical school, not the ALC, to shorten or extend the stay of a student at the ALC. But the provision gives no guidance as to when stays should be lengthened. Nothing in this provision conflicts with the preceding provisions of the October 25 memorandum. The last sentence of the flush language at the end of the October 25 memorandum seems to ignore the preceding, more- detailed provisions of the memorandum. The last sentence abruptly introduces some discretion to the ALC and geographical school principals as to the length of a student's stay at the ALC. Respondent could not afford to read his supervisor's memorandum as contradictory and meaningless. His reading of the memorandum was guided by what Dr. Santini had told him at the October 20 meeting, which was that the 45 good- day policy was no longer in effect. When enrollment reached 250 students, Respondent had to return the students who had made the most progress. As promised, Mr. Wiseman sent a memorandum dated November 1, 1995, to the eight high school principals stating: Please send to me immediately, above your signature, a statement that you will provide the opportunity for returning students from the ALC to make up their work, and not be denied the chance to pass their classes. Return your memo to me by Wednesday, November 8, 1995. The principals did so. Shortly after receiving the October 25 memorandum, in compliance with her directive, Respondent returned 75-80 students to their geographical schools. Included in this number was A.B., whom Respondent returned to Mariner High School. Respondent had serious reservations as to A. B.'s readiness to return to a less-structured school setting. Even the student shared these misgivings. When he learned he was to be returned to Mariner High School, A. B. told Respondent that he was worried that he was not ready to return to a regular school. He had been apprehended with drugs or drug paraphernalia twice previously and was undergoing counseling. Three weeks after he was returned to Mariner High School, A. B. was apprehended with marijuana. On December 13, 1995, a Board-appointed hearing officer conducted A. B.'s formal expulsion hearing. Witnesses at the hearing, including Respondent, were sworn to tell the truth and subject to cross examination. Petitioner was represented by counsel, and A.B. was represented by his father, who has been a law enforcement officer for 21 years and is currently employed with the Cape Coral Police Department. Petitioner charged that A. B. had been in possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia on November 28, 1995, and was a repeat offender. Petitioner sought to expel A. B. for the remainder of the 1995-96 school year and the following year-- evidently, the maximum penalty allowed by law. A. B. had attended the ALC on at least two occasions. His more recent ALC enrollment was from April 17, 1995, through November 6, 1995. In his opening statement at the expulsion hearing, A.B.'s father admitted that A. B. had been caught possessing marijuana and stated: But the point of the issue too is that he was sent back to Mariner. He was in the ALC. He was flourishing in ALC for the first time. Whatever Mr. Dailey sparked in him was the first time since he's ever been in school. He was bringing books home and everything else, which is not heard of from ALC. When he was alerted to come back to Mariner, he went to Mr. Dailey and told him he wasn't mentally or physically ready to go back. Because the other problem that if he's offered a joint, he can't say no. And Mr. Dailey agreed and that's when that fell apart less than four weeks later. The hearing officer asked A. B.'s father if he wanted A. B. to return to the ALC. The father responded by saying, "Yes, sir. I never wanted him to leave. . . . And the result of this too which I wish people would take into consideration, the night that this happened, because of this, my wife tried to commit suicide." A. B.'s father continued in his opening statement: In ALC Dailey sparked four point something and he was studying. He was getting high grades. His grade point average went up. He didn't want to leave. He did not have the problem. Four weeks--it wasn't even four weeks after he was back that this happened. .... I'm not totally blaming [Mariner High School]. A[.] is at fault with that too. And that's what we are addressing through the counseling. But to put him out in the street or expel him I don't think is the answer either. Especially since for the first time in his life he showed an interest in school. Petitioner's second witness in the expulsion hearing was an assistant principal at Mariner High School. He testified in response to a question directed toward the propriety of the handling of A. B. at Mariner High School: Our position there is that Mr. Dailey is a competent expert, that he handles the people and when he recommends for us to come--for someone to come back, we take that individual. . . . Answering the question whether he would have handled A.B. differently if he had known that he had not successfully completed the ALC program, the assistant principal testified: . . . You know, we have to accord him his rights like all the kids who complete the program at the Alternative Learning Center. Once he's paid his debt and satisfied them that he's capable, then they send him to us. I don't know of any students they send to us that they don't feel like has made the improvement that the school was set up to start with. Do you understand what I'm saying? So when they come to us, their staffing to exit over there is telling us that they feel like they had--now the kid has shown improvement and he's now corrected what it is and he's ready to return. Petitioner's last witness at the expulsion hearing, John Hennebery, who is the District Director of Student Services, testified that the ALC Principal determines when the student is to be returned to his geographical school. A. B.'s father called Respondent as his sole witness. In response to a question as to A. B.'s progress at the ALC, Respondent testified: . . . I noticed, number one, he tends to be completely honest and tells the truth. That's the experience I have had with him. He is begin- ning to come around in terms of when he feels someone is making up evidence or getting to that point, he would seek out--attempt to seek out in terms of trying to find some assistance rather than jumping in first. But that again is a kind of structured environment that we have at the Alternative Learning School. Q: In your professional opinion, do you believe that [A.] at this point in time still needs that structure of school? A: I most certainly do. Q: At the time when he was requested from the School Board to go back to Mariner, did [A.] approach you in reference to this? A: Yes, he did. Q: And in what aspect did he? A: The usual policy of the district was that on a first offense there was a 45 good day policy. That means that the student has the responsi- bility of spending 45 good days there, good days, which are defined as attendance, punctu- ality, academic and discipline. And on the second offense it's a ninety day offense. Q: Uh-huh. A: Then this year the rules are changed. In the middle of the semester. I was given a directive from the Assistant Superintendent, along with other Principals were informed of it; that the students were called by numbers. At the Alternative Learning School were addi- tional programs of juvenile justice, programs dealing with the number of felons that we were having come into school; that our numbers were getting too large and we had to--I had to send students back. [A.] was one of the students that had been there a period of time and that based on the period of--on the time that he had spent there, that we have to send him back to Mariner. [A.] had some concern about that and spoke with me in great detail about going back and being under those pressures. Now my conversation with [A.] was that because if he had done well at the Alternative Learning School, that my expectations with [A.] would be that he would go over there and do well and make good decisions at Mariner High School. So that in terms of that's the type of conversa- tion that we had and that's where it led. Now did [A.] complete his stay? No, he did not. And he is not one that I would have automatically sent back to Mariner because I was not yet convinced of his ability to deal with the pressures that he was going to have to face at Mariner High School. * * * Q: But your general concerns that the peer pressure is basically--or the pressures in the school itself that he couldn't handle was also [A.]'s concerns too when he came to speak to you about going back? A: Yes, those were [A.]'s concerns but those would be anyone's concerns as relates to going back to the regular school once you have been at the Alternative for a long period of time. You get the anxiety of going back and wanting to do well. So it's not out of the ordinary for students, I might say, to be excited. I have students right now that actually do something wrong so they won't have to go back. So [A.]'s concern or his emotions that he expressed were not unordinary. I felt at that time that because I was given a directive, that it was my responsibility as a Principal to assist him in moving in that direction and I had all the confi- dence in the world in the Mariner staff that they would assist him in moving in that direction. There is an issue that I must be very honest is that the decisions that [A.] makes is [sic] [A.]'s decisions and once in fact--and this is what we teach them at the Alternative School; that once in fact you see that kind of situation present, then you must not go to the situation. You must remove yourself from the situation. And, you know, I'm one that's trying to be very fair and equitable in this hearing and in telling you that this is a situation that, yes, he should have known not to go near that, should have backed off from it. Q: Did he? A: No, sir, he didn't. Was I ready to release him? No, I wasn't. I'd like to concur with Mr. McNerney. I'd like to see [A.] back at the Alternative Learning School for ninety days with the approval of the-- with some kind of documentation showing that he has completed his drug testing and after that, then backing up Mr. McNerney's decision in attendance at the school. And I'm being very honest. The preceding excerpts from the transcript represent all of Respondent's material testimony. Petitioner conducted limited cross examination, devoted to an exposition of the District's drug policy. A. B.'s father introduced into evidence a letter dated December 12, 1995, from Licensed Mental Health Counselor Beverly Barbato, Ph.D., stating that it is in A. B.'s best interest to return to the structure of the ALC. On December 18, 1995--working without a transcript in the interest of time--the hearing officer summarized the testimony of the witnesses, commending each of them for some aspect of their participation in the hearing. As to Respondent, the hearing officer stated: "Mr. Dailey should certainly be commended for his honesty and his ability to assess the situation in a very diplomatic manner." Acknowledging that Petitioner sought expulsion for the maximum time permitted by law, the hearing officer stated that he "sense[d] that both Mr. Hennebery and Mr. McNerney felt that reinstatement should occur in the 1996-1997 school year or upon [A.] completing a successful drug rehabilitation program pursuant to Florida Statutes." Never mentioning old or new enrollment policies at the ALC in his discussion, the hearing officer accepted the recommendations of Respondent, A. B.'s father, the treating health care professional, and A. B. that A. B. be placed on probation for the remainder of the 1995-96 school year at the ALC, subject to additional conditions. In no way did the hearing officer's recommendation rely on Respondent's brief testimony about the transfer of A. B. under the new ALC enrollment policy. The court reporter finished the transcript on December 26, 1995. In Exceptions filed January 8, 1996, Petitioner requested that A. B. be expelled at least for the remainder of the 1995-96 school year. The record does not indicate what action the School Board took on the hearing officer's recommendation. The expulsion transcript reveals that the Assistant Principal at Mariner High School construed the ALC enrollment policy to ensure that students would not be returned to their geographical schools until they were ready to return. The Director of Student Services shared this misinterpretation, at least to the extent of thinking that the transfer decision was made by the ALC principal. The expulsion transcript reveals that Respondent told the truth that B. had come to Respondent and said he was afraid he was not ready to return. Respondent told the truth that he too shared these concerns. And Respondent told the truth that the current policy was that he had no choice but to return unprepared students when ALC enrollments reached the cap. In one respect, Respondent's testimony may have reflected a misunderstanding of a portion of Dr. Santini's policy. He testified that the new policy meant that "the students were called by numbers." Numbers triggered the necessity to return some students. But the new policy did not require that students be returned on a first in, first out basis. Rather, the students to be returned were to be those most prepared to be returned. Respondent's testimony seems to indicate that he interpreted the new policy as providing that he return students on a first in, first out basis. He implied that he selected for transfer the students who had been enrolled the longest at the ALC. In his next sentence, Respondent mentioned "numbers" in connection with the enrollment at the ALC getting too high as trigger for the need to transfer some ALC students. This suggests that his reference to "numbers" was not to the determination of who to return to their geographical schools. But in his next sentence, Respondent implied that the decision to return A. B. was based strictly on how long he had been at the ALC. However, two sentences later, Respondent recounted how A. B. had done well at the ALC, implying that he had at least made some progress, although without any mention of his progress relative to the progress of the other ALC students. Close analysis of Respondent's testimony does not reveal the basis on which he selected the students to be transferred. However, even if Respondent returned A. B. on a first in, first out basis, this action, although not consistent with the better reading of the October 25 memorandum, would have been consistent with Paragraphs 1 and 2, which imply that the sole criterion of enrollment duration is the length of the student's enrollment. Although close scrutiny of the October 25 memorandum permits a reconciliation of Paragraphs 1, 2, and 5--though not also the last sentence of the flush language-- Respondent cannot be expected to perform such textual analysis to discern meaning from such careless wording. In any event, Respondent's testimony at the expulsion hearing did not dwell on the inflexible enrollment cap ordered by Dr. Santini. He mentioned it briefly, then proceeded to describe, almost as briefly, his application of the policy in A.B.'s case. He cast his testimony in a light favorable to Petitioner by explaining that many ALC students are worried about their ability to survive in a regular school, A. B. had made some progress at the ALC, Respondent had encouraged A. B. to behave at Mariner High School, and A. B. must bear final responsibility for his poor choices. After receiving Dr. Santini's memorandum, Respondent was doing the best he could to implement the new enrollment policy. Probably unknown to Dr. Santini at the time, Respondent called Mr. Wiseman around Christmas vacation and asked if he should transfer 112 students then or wait until the end of the semester in January. Mr. Wiseman told Respondent to retain the students until the semester break. Dr. Santini never tried to clarify her confusing memorandum to Respondent or assist him in its implementation. In response to questioning during a School Board meeting from a School Board member concerning the conflict between Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the October 25 memorandum, Dr. Santini issued a memorandum of clarification dated January 5, 199[6.] The January 5 memorandum was issued to all middle- and high-school principals. The first four paragraphs are identical to the October 25 memorandum, except for the addition of a sentence to the fourth paragraph mentioning some new software to facilitate the transition of students back to their geographical schools. The new fifth paragraph states: The ALC will not exceed 250 students unless there are special circumstances with individual students that may warrant extended time. The principal of the geo-school will discuss these circumstances with the ALC principal. When extended time is recommended, the ALC principal will then compile a short report to the Secondary Operations Director that includes the following: the time already spent at ALC by that student, the original offense committed by that student, and any other justification that may warrant extended time (i.e., parent request). The Secondary Operations Director will consider all above factors and then give approval or disapproval on any requested extended time. Dr. Santini also revised the last sentence of the October 25 memorandum to reflect that the length of a student's assignment to the ALC is dependent on the nature of the original offense and the sound judgment of the principals and-- now--Director of Secondary Operations. The overenrollment issue did not end here. Dr. Santini conducted a meeting with Respondent and Mr. Wiseman on January 9, 1996, but this is addressed below in connection with another issue. However, one more fact has a bearing on the issue of overenrollment itself. Respondent never violated the ALC enrollment policy as Dr. Santini applied it to Respondent's immediate successors, Ms. Smith and Mr. Hagy. During the 77 days of Respondent's tenure, the average student enrollment was 265 students. During the 73 days of his successors' tenure, the average student enrollment was 253 students. After adjusting for actual attendance, there were 184 students present on average under Respondent's tenure and 189 students present on average under his successors' tenure. Improper Voluntary Enrollment and ESE Procedures: Paragraph 52 At the end of July 1995, Respondent called Mr. Hennebery and asked if he could voluntarily enroll two students. Mr. Hennebery explained that ALC administrators had made voluntary enrollments before deciding to discontinue the practice one or two school years ago. Since that time, Dr. Santini or Mr. Wiseman had approved all voluntary enrollments. Mr. Hennebery was not Respondent's direct or indirect supervisor. Mr. Hennebery lacked the authority to accept voluntary enrollments, or to make policy on this issue. At no time did Respondent's direct supervisors, Dr. Santini or Mr. Wiseman, instruct Respondent as to voluntary enrollments. The issue of voluntary enrollments is not, in any event, of major importance. Of the hundreds of students enrolled at the ALC during Respondent's tenure, not more than 18 of them were voluntarily enrolled. Most if not all of the students whom Respondent voluntarily enrolled were exceptional cases who were ineligible to return to their geographical schools or enter the Academy. During Respondent's tenure, six ESE students were transferred from the ALC without individual educational plans. Respondent relied on Mr. Vitale, who was the ESE department head, and Ms. Smith to handle ESE paperwork, as Respondent candidly admitted at the hearing that he was unknowledgeable about ESE procedures. Five of the six students left the ALC and entered Adult Education. These were obviously older students for whom an individual educational plan is of less importance than it would be for students with many more years in the educational system. Ultimate responsibility for ensuring compliance with ESE procedures at the ALC rests with Respondent. However, the circumstances suggest only an innocent mistake on Respondent's part, not incompetency, misconduct in office, or gross insubordination. Student Visits to Hi Tech Center Central: Paragraph 55 One day in late November 1995, Ms. Saldana had arranged for two students to visit the District's High Tech Center Central, which is a vocational school. When they returned, they told her that, at the end of the day, the counselor at High Tech Center Central had refused to talk to them because they were ALC students. Ms. Saldana called High Tech Center Central Director Ron Pentiuk, who confirmed that he would not allow ALC students to enroll directly from the ALC or even to visit his campus while still enrolled at the ALC. He said that this had been his agreement with Ms. Folaros. Ms. Saldana explained that, in the case of three to five students, they could not first return to their geographical schools because they were graduating early. If they could not enroll in High Tech Center Central directly from the ALC, they could not attend the vocational school. Mr. Pentiuk refused to consider the request, insisting the students still had to spend six to nine weeks at their geographical schools before they could enroll at the vocational school. He said someone in the District office told him not to accept any more ALC students. By letter to Respondent dated December 19, 1995, with copies to Dr. Santini, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Wortham, and others, Mr. Pentiuk restated his position: "no ALC students will have direct access to High Tech Central programs. . . . [A]ll visitations shall come from the student[']s geo school and not ALC directly." The letter cites as authority for this policy a meeting that took place at the start of the 1994-95 school year between representatives of High Tech Center Central and the New Directions Center. The implicit reason for this policy is that Mr. Pentiuk wanted someplace to send a student if he failed to perform at High Tech Center Central. By memorandum dated January 10, 1996, to Mr. Pentiuk, Respondent memorialized a discussion at a principals' meeting earlier that day. The agreement appears to allow ALC students who are ready to be returned to their geographical schools, but have not yet been returned, to visit the High Tech Center Central. The record reveals only that Respondent tried to send ALC students to the High Tech Center Central for visits. When they were treated rudely by Center personnel, Respondent and Ms. Saldana discovered an unreasonable policy that emanated not from the District office, but from an understanding reached by Mr. Pentiuk and Respondent's predecessor. This agreement had little logic to commend it. It delayed and, in some cases, denied ALC students access to important vocational training. Mr. Pentiuk explained that he could not deal directly with ALC students because he needed to have a place to which to return them if they misbehaved. However, his concern does not address the aspect of the policy prohibiting even campus visits by ALC students. And his concern fails even to address the remainder of the policy, as the record does not explain why Mr. Pentiuk could not expel students back to the ALC as easily as to their geographical schools. In any event, Respondent and Ms. Saldana rectified the situation, achieving a much-improved policy than the one that preceded Respondent's involvement. Refusal to Reenroll J. M.: Paragraph 50 In September 1995, Respondent refused to reenroll J.M. when his grandmother brought him back to school after an unexcused absence. J. M.'s father had called Respondent and complained that his mother was interfering with J. M., her grandson. The boy was skipping school with the father's brother, who was also of school age. J.M. asked Respondent not to let the grandmother return the boy to school or supply a legal excuse for his absence. When J. M.'s grandmother brought the boy back to school one day, Respondent did as the father had directed him. Respondent told the grandmother, "Ma'am, you can't bring your child back. I got a call from your son, and he is the legal guardian. Call your son and get it straight with him. I shouldn't even be talking to you about J. M." E. Arrest of W. S.: Paragraph 49 On November 1, 1995, W. S. tried to leave the cafeteria without permission. She has a history of violent outbursts. Riley Ware, a teacher, tried to stop her. W. S. asked him who he thought he was with that crooked gold tooth. Mr. Ware responded by telling her to sit her "big-lipped" self down. (Respondent later reprimanded Mr. Ware for this comment.) W. S. swore at Mr. Ware, calling him, among other things, a "black bitch." Teacher Christine Peete then intervened. She said, "Young lady, you've been very inappropriate." Gently placing her arm on W. S.'s shoulder, Ms. Peete added, "Come with me until you cool off." W. S. angrily responded by slinging Ms. Peete's arm off of her shoulder. She shouted, "Get your hands off me, bitch. I'll dip on [beat up] all of you. Ms. Peete had to return to her class, so she asked Ms. Krucher to escort W. S. to the office. Ms. Peete found Respondent in the middle-school area and told him that he needed to deal with W. S. Respondent returned to his office to find W. S. leaving. He greeted her by saying, "Well, daughter, Ms. Peete tells me that you called her a bitch." S. said she called Mr. Ware a bitch, but she did not call "that bitch" (Ms. Peete) a bitch. Respondent told her she was suspended for five days, and W. S. replied, "I don't give a fuck about five days." Respondent raised the suspension to seven days, and W. S. lunged toward Respondent and Ms. Peete, who was standing next to him. W. S.'s initial lunge threw Respondent, herself, and a computer to the floor. Respondent wrestled his way to the top, and W. S. demanded that he get his "big belly" off her. She scratched him or snapped his suspenders, causing his chin to bleed. She grabbed his tie and choked him. She tried to bite and kick him. Respondent ordered a nearby staffperson to call the police. Officer Garrett Kusienski of the Fort Myers Police Department responded to the call and arrived at the school in a three or four minutes. When he arrived at the ALC office, Respondent and W. S. had just gotten off the floor, and Respondent and several male staffmembers were escorting her into the office. Respondent approached Officer Kusienski and asked him to arrest W. S. Officer Kusienski asked why, and Respondent directed him to handcuff and remove her. Officer Kusienski refused to do so until Respondent explained why. Officer Kusienski's police report, which is credited, states Respondent answered that, if Officer Kusienski were not going to do his job, "I needed to get off his campus." Officer Kusienski asked again what happened, and Respondent "stated that he would give all the details to Chief Hart when he was contacted, to get the hell off his campus if I wasn't going to arrest anyone." Officer Kusienski left the building, but returned a few minutes later, spoke with W. S. and possibly others, and took her into custody. The police report notes that another officer, who had arrived on the scene as backup, took statements from witnesses. At the hearing, Officer Kusienski testified that Respondent said, "If I'm not going to do my fucking job to get the fuck off this campus." Officer Kusienski did not explain at the hearing why he deleted one "fuck" entirely and replaced another with "hell" in his police report. It is unlikely that Officer Kusienski was graciously sparing Respondent any embarrassment in the report because he also noted that Respondent became "very disorderly toward me." The only other evidence that Respondent said "fuck" is Ms. Krucher, who testified that Respondent said it to Officer Kusienski once, not twice as Officer Kusienski testified. However, her testimony is contradicted by numerous other witnesses, who testified that she was not there and they did not hear Respondent say "fuck" to the officer or otherwise during the incident. Ms. Krucher's testimony has not generally been credited on grounds, among others, that she harbored considerable ill-will toward Respondent. The testimony of Officer Kusienski is countered by the testimony of Officer Jackson, also of the Fort Myers Police Department. Officer Jackson testified that Respondent did not use foul language toward Officer Kusienski. There is no preponderance of the evidence as to what Respondent said to Officer Kusienski. Respondent Late to Work: Paragraph 54 On November 16, 1995, the parent of a student at Cape Coral High School called Respondent and asked him to attend a meeting for the purpose of determining whether to transfer the parent's child to the ALC. The parent did not want the child transferred to the ALC and asked for Respondent's help at the meeting. Seeing a chance to help control the ALC enrollment, Respondent agreed to attend the meeting, which was scheduled for 7:00 a.m., and try to help the student remain at his geographical school. Respondent's intent was to speak first and then drive back to the ALC, which was about 20-30 minutes away at that time of day. Respondent reasonably expected that he would arrive at the ALC between 7:30 a.m. and 7:45 a.m. Respondent typically arrived at school at 7:30 a.m. and took cafeteria duty until school starts at 8:00 a.m. The evening of November 16, Respondent called Mr. Ware and told him to cover the cafeteria the following morning in case Respondent was late. Ms. Smith was on personal leave on November 17. However, Respondent and LAMP principal McCollum had an agreement that, if one of them was absent from the campus, the other would serve as acting administrator to be called upon by teachers or staff as needed. Their agreement--which was a necessity for Ms. McCollum because she lacked an assistant principal--did not require that either give the other advance notice of his absence. Unfortunately, Respondent did not get to speak first at the meeting, which ran longer than Respondent had expected because the student had been charged with drug possession, not merely disrespect to a teacher, as Respondent had been told. From the meeting at Cape Coral High School, Respondent called someone--probably Mr. Ware--and told him that he would be later than he had anticipated the prior night. Respondent returned to the ALC between 8:30 a.m. and 8:45 a.m. When Respondent did not appear at school by 8:00 a.m., Ms. Krucher told Mr. Wortham that Respondent had left the ALC without an administrator. Mr. Wortham called Dr. Santini and told her. The same afternoon, Dr. Santini or her designee called Respondent and asked him where he had been that morning. Dr. Santini and Mr. Wiseman met with Respondent on November 20 to discuss Respondent's tardiness on November 17. This meeting is described in the following section. By memorandum to Respondent dated November 28, 1995, with copies to Petitioner and Mr. Wiseman, but not to Respondent's personnel file, Dr. Santini concluded as to the incident: As per our conversation of November 20, 1995, I am reminding you that I consider the fact that you were not in school on November 17, 1995 until 8:45 A.M. with no assistant present, a serious offense. The students at ALC need constant monitoring and supervision and to have the school unstaffed by any administrator, even for forty minutes, could lead to a catastrophe. I do not expect this to happen again. By letter dated December 8, 1995, to Dr. Santini, with copies to Petitioner and Mr. Wiseman, Respondent acknowledged receipt of her November 28 "letter relating to your concerns of me not being present in my building without an assistant." The letter explains that, once at the Cape Coral High School meeting, Respondent learned that the student had not only threatened a teacher, but had also used drugs. The letter states that Respondent had previously covered for Mr. Wortham and Ms. McCollum. Respondent's letter concludes: This is not to say that I don't concur with you. I most certainly agree with you whole heartedly that not only in ALC but all schools, we must have an administrator on duty. An administrator was on duty, as I had informed you verbally. Mrs. McCollum and I had total agreement relating to coverage without any problems. Your letter gives the perception that I was purposely avoiding my responsibility and was irresponsible in fulfilling my duty as a principal. I would like the record to show that I was fulfilling my duty as an educator, as a principal and as a community leader. Through my efforts, I was able to at least save the life of a young man that we could have possibly lost to drugs. This is one I don't have to look over and he not look back. Thank you for your concern and I accept your letter of concern and would vow that I will continue to work with you and to make the ALC the best learning environment that I can. Dr. Santini's November 28 letter is not a letter of reprimand, nor did she intend for a copy of the letter to be included in Respondent's personnel file. Her intent is inferred from the absence of the letter from Respondent's personnel file in mid-February, the omission from the letter of any express notation of copies to Respondent's personnel file (as contrasted to the January 2 letter described below), and the failure of Dr. Santini to respond to Respondent's subsequent characterization of the letter in his letter of December 8. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent violated any policy of the District in effect on November 17. The record reveals no prohibition against having another administrator, such as Ms. McCollum, cover for Respondent for a short time, even in the absence of advance notice. November 20, 1995, Meeting: Paragraph 42 Three days after Respondent was late to work due to the meeting at Cape Coral High School, Dr. Santini and Mr. Wiseman visited Respondent to discuss the incident, as well as charges of heavy-handed dealing with students, yelling at teachers, and leaving campus early. Dr. Santini and Mr. Wiseman dismissed as unfounded all charges except for Respondent's tardiness on November 17. Around this time, Ms. Krucher, who had been talking to Mr. Wortham daily, began contacting Dr. Santini and possibly Petitioner, whom Dr. Santini testified that she had suggested Ms. Krucher call. The purpose of these calls was to supply, on a confidential basis, unfavorable information about Respondent. If the information resembled her testimony, nearly all of it was unreliable. One incident illustrates the lengths to which unidentified persons would go to fabricate evidence unfavorable to Respondent. By two-page, handwritten letter dated February 17, 1996, from Ms. Pepin to Ms. Minton, Ms. Pepin objected to a statement attributed to Ms. Minton in the newspaper to the effect that she spoke for all of the ALC staff when she criticized Respondent. In her letter, which is entirely supportive of Respondent, Ms. Pepin admitted that, last June, she had not much liked Respondent entering her classroom and giving his "new sheriff in town" speech. But the letter continues to state that she now understands the effectiveness of Respondent's style. Someone--not in the office of Petitioner's counsel-- fraudulently altered Ms. Pepin's letter and sent it to Petitioner's counsel. By careful folding, whiting out, and photocopying, this person reduced the two-page letter to five and one-half lines and moved Ms. Pepin's signature beneath these lines, so as to make the letter look like a short note objecting to the "new sheriff" speech. This person then passed the counterfeit note as a gross distortion of Ms. Pepin's views-- literally out of context. It is highly unlikely that such fraud would be perpetrated by someone in the District office. The record does not reveal who had access to the letter after it was received by Ms. Minton. But the incident reveals indisputably the unreliability of at least some of the information that Dr. Santini and Petitioner received about Respondent. In any event, toward the end of the November 20 meeting, Respondent demanded that Dr. Santini tell him who had made the allegations against him. The request was not unreasonable given the inaccuracy of most of the charges. Dr. Santini refused to divulge the name or names of these persons. She explained reasonably that, if she were going to do something about the charges, she would tell him, but she was not going to do anything about them. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent was rude in the November 20 meeting. Dr. Santini's November 28 memorandum makes no mention of any rudeness. Petitioner's counsel did not inquire of Mr. Wiseman as to Respondent's behavior at the November 20 meeting. Dr. Santini's testimony was not detailed in its description of Respondent's behavior at the November 20 meeting. On direct, she testified only that Respondent exhibited an "insubordinate attitude," and "we couldn't talk to him for his continuing to talk to us." Dr. Santini did not use the word "shout" or "yell" to describe Respondent's manner of speaking. On cross, Dr. Santini added only that Respondent was "insubordinate, rude, and unreceptive." Gate Incident: Paragraph 43 Immediately after school on December 12, 1995, a boy hit a girl near the front gate of the New Directions campus. Respondent, Mr. Ware, Mr. Gilmore, Mr. Smith, Ms. Krucher, Mr. Nassiff, Mr. Wortham, and other adults immediately went to the scene. At first, the two students refused to tell Respondent what had happened. A group of boys outside of the gate had seen the altercation. Respondent motioned them to enter the school grounds, but, before he could talk to them, Mr. Nassiff told Respondent that he had seen the altercation. Not needing to speak to the group of boys, Respondent motioned them to go back. However, two or three of them were already inside the gate. A security guard was in the process of locking the two front gates, so Respondent told Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith to escort the two or three boys off campus through the back gate, which was closer to their homes. Unknown to Respondent, the remaining boys from the group had just told Mr. Wortham that they were going to beat up the next student whom they saw. Respondent, the two students involved in the altercation, and other staff, except for Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith, walked toward the ALC where Respondent could deal with the two students. Respondent saw Mr. Wortham signalling to Ms. Krucher, and Respondent asked her what he wanted. She replied that he wanted her to close the back gate. Respondent told her not to close the back gate because he had just sent Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith with some students to let them out the back gate. He reminded her that he, not Mr. Wortham, was her boss. At the time, Respondent was unaware that some Academy students were preparing Christmas decorations inside the back gate, which typically remained open before and after school for deliveries. Respondent was also unaware that Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith had not gone to the back gate because they had been able to get the students through one of the front gates before it had been locked. After Respondent returned to the ALC building, the group of students walked around the side the school to the back gate, where one or more of them beat up an Academy student so badly that he required hospitalization. As soon as Respondent learned of the incident in the back, Respondent called Mr. Wortham, who said he was angry and had some concerns. Respondent invited him to discuss them, but he declined, saying he would instead call Dr. Santini. Respondent suggested that he take his concerns directly to Petitioner in that event. Respondent then found out from Mr. Nassiff and Ms. Krucher what had happened. Respondent asked Mr. Nassiff to explain to Mr. Wortham that Respondent had not known that there were students in the back inside the gate and that Respondent had sent two teachers back there to escort students out of the campus. Shortly after that, Respondent went to the Academy building to speak to Mr. Wortham. Respondent explained what had happened from his perspective, and Mr. Wortham acknowledged that he had later found that out, but, by that time, he had already called Dr. Santini. Petitioner did not call Mr. Wortham to testify about the gate incident, even though Petitioner claims it was his order that Respondent countermanded. Under the circumstances reasonably known to him at the time, Respondent behaved responsibly throughout the gate incident. He did not know he lacked crucial information when he told Ms. Krucher not to go to the back gate. But he reasonably assumed that he had more information than did Mr. Wortham. He knew that he had already sent two men to the back. Even had he known that the boys wanted to beat someone up and that an Academy student was in the back, Respondent would reasonably have relied on Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith to prevent the attack. When Respondent told Ms. Krucher that he, not Mr. Wortham, was her boss, he was merely emphasizing his direction that she not close the back gate. He was not stating the cause for the direction. The cause was that he had sent two men to the back gate. Respondent's comment about who was Ms. Krucher's boss was thus not an act of insubordination or lack of cooperation. I. Respondent's Police Interview About Gate Incident: Paragraph 48 Mr. Nassiff witnessed the police interview of Respondent concerning the gate incident. In the interview, Respondent did not state that he countermanded Mr. Wortham's order to Ms. Krucher to go lock the back gate. Respondent did not withhold material information from the police, who were investigating the beating of the Academy student, not Respondent. The direction that Respondent gave Ms. Krucher was entirely appropriate under the circumstances as reasonably understood by Respondent at the time that he told her not to close the back gate. There was no reason for Respondent to mention this minor point to the police. J. January 9, 1996, Meeting: Paragraph 44 Three days after the gate incident, Dr. Santini asked Respondent to come to her office that day. He said that he was helping students deliver Christmas food baskets to the needy and could not, so they set up a 7:00 a.m. appointment for the following Monday, December 18. When Respondent arrived at the meeting, expecting it to be between him and Dr. Santini, he found Mr. Wiseman and Mr. Wortham, who had prepared a written statement. Dr. Santini said she wanted to hear both sides of the gate incident. Respondent objected that the meeting was unfair because he had not had the chance to prepare a statement. Dr. Santini replied that she had not asked Mr. Wortham to prepare a statement, and Respondent said that at least he had known what the meeting was about. Mr. Wortham and Respondent each stated what happened. Mr. Wiseman asked Mr. Wortham if he had disclosed to Respondent the threat by the group of boys in the front, and Mr. Wortham admitted that he had not. Dr. Santini said that she would speak to Ms. Krucher to obtain a statement, but refused Respondent's request that she also speak to Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith. Respondent was worried that he was being set up and informed Dr. Santini that he would be requesting a meeting with Petitioner to complain about the discriminatory treatment that he was receiving. Respondent contacted Petitioner's office to set up a meeting. Petitioner contacted Respondent during Christmas break, and, at her request, the two of them met for two hours on December 28 at a local restaurant. They discussed the ALC enrollment policy, Respondent's testimony at the expulsion hearing, Respondent's claims of harassment by Dr. Santini, Dr. Santini's practice of invariably bringing Mr. Wiseman with her on visits with Respondent, Respondent's good relationship with Mr. Wiseman whenever he was separated from Dr. Santini, and the gate incident. Petitioner told Respondent that he needed to return to school after Christmas break and work more closely with his supervisors, as well as Ms. McCollum and Mr. Wortham. Petitioner promised to set up a meeting among her, Respondent, and Dr. Santini. This meeting was later scheduled for January 9, 1996, at 3:00 p.m. By letter to Respondent dated January 2, 1996, with copies to Petitioner, Mr. Wiseman, and Respondent's personnel file, Dr. Santini stated that she had completed her investigation into the gate incident and had spoken with Respondent, Mr. Wortham, and Ms. Krucher following the meeting of December Dr. Santini concluded: the key issue is the fact that after Mr. Wortham asked your security guard, Lisa Krucher, to run to the back of the school and lock the gate because he felt the boys who were threatening to harm someone would come in through the back gate, you instructed Lisa Krucher not to lock the gate because she worked for you and not Mr. Wortham. I consider this action on your part a poor judgment call and a lack of cooperation with other adminis- trators on campus. * * * I am directing you from this point on, to work together with Mr. Wortham for the benefit of the children in the school. The attitude that employees work for one principal and not another is an attitude that can cause disruption and, as we have seen with regard to this incident, harm to a student. Dr. Santini's letter misstates an important fact. Respondent did not redirect Ms. Krucher "because she worked for you and not Mr. Wortham." He redirected her because he had sent two able staffpersons to the back gate, and there was no need to send a third person. Dr. Santini evidently discredited an important element of Respondent's version of the gate incident. She could not have determined that Respondent countermanded Ms. Wortham's order for the sole reason of showing Ms. Krucher who was her boss, unless Dr. Santini had eliminated the possibility that Respondent countermanded the order because he had already sent two men back there. Whether Respondent sent the two men to the back or not is a difficult fact question. Although Dr. Santini might reasonably have concluded that Respondent, Mr. Ware, and Mr. Smith were lying, her factual determination is deficient as long as she refused to talk to Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith. Respondent was reasonably concerned with Dr. Santini's fairness when she talked to Mr. Wortham's corroborating witness, but refused even to talk to Respondent's corroborating witnesses. On January 5, 1996, which was the date that Dr. Santini issued her letter clarifying the October 25 memorandum on the ALC enrollment policy, Dr. Santini contacted Respondent's office to set up a meeting for January 8, which was the day prior to their meeting with Petitioner. She had by now seen the transcript of the expulsion hearing and wanted to discuss this matter with Respondent. Taking the advice of Dr. Cecil Carter, an administrator in the District, Respondent called Dr. Santini's office back and asked the purpose of the meeting. Dr. Santini relayed the information through someone in her office that they were going to discuss Respondent's "deposition." The only deposition with which Respondent was familiar was in connection with his testimony in the Rockford, Illinois desegregation case. Dr. Santini inadvertently used "deposition" to mean Respondent's testimony at the A. B. expulsion hearing. However, Respondent assumed that she was going to discuss some aspect of desegregation with him. Around 2:00 p.m. on January 8, Respondent told his secretary to call Dr. Santini's office and cancel the meeting. He told his secretary that he was ill and going home directly after school, but told her to tell Dr. Santini that she could call Respondent at home and they could at least talk on the phone. Dr. Santini did not call Respondent at home. Instead, she and Mr. Wiseman appeared, without prior notice, in Respondent's office between 8:00 and 8:30 a.m. on January 9, 1996, which was the day of the meeting with Petitioner. Respondent said he was busy with school duties, and they waited until he could see them. In a few minutes, Respondent, Dr. Santini, and Mr. Wiseman met. Dr. Santini started the meeting by saying, "Charles, I'm going to talk to you about this deposition." She showed him the transcript of the A. B. expulsion hearing. She stated, "The way this looks, I'm going to have to write you up." Understandably worried that Dr. Santini had already made her decision to discipline him, Respondent asked for permission for his secretary to attend the meeting as a witness. Dr. Santini said no. Respondent then asked to tape the meeting. Dr. Santini agreed. As Respondent left to find a tape recorder, Mr. Wiseman said, "Mary, you're going to have to give him a chance to tell his side of the story." Unable to find a tape recorder, Respondent returned to the meeting. Dr. Santini pointed to a page of the transcript and, without discussing the testimony directly, declared that Respondent had testified that numbers were more important than students. Respondent tried to interrupt, but Dr. Santini would not allow him. Respondent stated, "You can't accuse me of things and expect me not to respond." Dr. Santini replied, "You are going to listen to me." Dr. Santini accused Respondent of talking to A. B.'s father. In fact, Respondent had told him to work with Mr. Hennebery's office. Suddenly, Respondent told her that the meeting was over until we meet Petitioner. Dr. Santini slammed a book and told Respondent that he had "disrespected me and Mr. Wiseman." Respondent answered, "My dear friend, how have I disrespected you?" Dr. Santini stated, "That's it." She turned and walked out the door. Mr. Wiseman was still seated when she left. He then jumped up, shook Respondent's hand, and said, "See you later, baby boy." Alone among the key participants in this case, Mr. Wiseman appears to have maintained his sense of humor. During this brief meeting, for example, Mr. Wiseman was the only person not to have raised his voice. Later on the day of January 9, the meeting with Petitioner took place with Respondent, Dr. Santini, Mr. Wiseman, Dr. Carter, Dr. Counsel, and an administrative assistant in attendance. Respondent began the meeting by reading a letter from him to Petitioner dated January 8, 1996. The letter reviews the condition of the ALC when he was appointed principal, the changes that he has made, and the problems posed by the ALC enrollment policy stated in the October 25 memorandum. The participants discussed the ALC enrollment policy. Respondent objected that it appeared that they had met with other principals and not him. Mr. Wiseman admitted that they had met and had excluded Respondent because he had threatened another principal. There is no evidence of such a threat. After the discussion about ALC enrollments ended, Petitioner said that she was out of time and everyone would have to return to finish their discussion. Petitioner told Respondent that she had sent Dr. Santini and Mr. Wiseman to see him, and she did not want him calling off meetings with her staffmembers, such as he had done that morning. Respondent understood that he should not do that. Respondent complained that he had thought that he was doing an outstanding job and could not understand what the problem was with his job performance. Dr. Santini disagreed with him about the job he was doing. Respondent stated that no one had ever sufficiently spelled out a problem so that he could address it. He asked who was complaining about what. He asked Dr. Santini directly if she had any complaints. Dr. Santini said she had one complaint, but would not disclose it to Respondent, even after being urged to do so by all of the other participants, except the administrative assistant. Dr. Santini said that the attorneys had told her that she did not have to disclose it. She then said to Petitioner, "Bobbie, the problem is he will listen to you, not me." Respondent and Dr. Santini began to argue about the meeting earlier in the day. In anger, Respondent said he would not follow Dr. Santini's directions, but go directly to Petitioner. He also admitted that he was afraid of Dr. Santini. Petitioner closed the meeting by promising to check with the attorneys and see if she could supply Respondent with a copy of the complaint to which Dr. Santini had referred. Two days later, on January 11, Petitioner sent a letter to Respondent suspending him with pay due to "your conduct in a meeting with Mr. Herb Wiseman . . . and Dr. Mary Santini on January 9, 1996." The letter adds: "you should know that other allegations have been made against you that are currently being investigated by the District." V. Conclusion Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, or immorality. Petitioner never trained Respondent to serve as a school principal. Respondent's previous administrative roles provided valuable experience, but they had also permitted Respondent to become accustomed to serving in a close relationship with a Superintendent who was also a mentor, working outside the normal hierarchical channels of the District office, and alienating numbers of parents, teachers, and administrators in making tough rezoning and equity decisions. But Respondent's qualifications were obvious. As Petitioner wrote in one evaluation, Respondent was a "role model" for other administrators in, among other things, teamwork. Despite the gaps in his experience, Respondent employed vast stores of energy, enthusiasm, and commitment to make the ALC work for its students. He intelligently assessed the situation at the ALC and devised strategies for exploiting the available resources. Fully aware of his own limitations, for instance, he hired Ms. Smith for her knowledge of curriculum. In a short time, he had produced dramatic results at the ALC. Respondent complied with Dr. Santini's directives, although before adoption he argued with those of them with which he disagreed. The October 25 memorandum, as well as the October 20 meeting, set an enrollment cap. Respondent acceded to Dr. Santini's decision. He closed the October 20 meeting with a plea that geographical schools be prepared to finish the job that the ALC would not have time to finish. He transferred 75-80 students out by early November. He asked Mr. Wiseman around Christmas break if he should transfer another 112 students back to their geographical schools. And his average enrollment exceeded the enrollment of his successors by 13 students--while his average actual attendance was five students less than the average actual attendance of his successors. By mid-December, Dr. Santini, misinformed by unreliable information from Ms. Krucher and possibly other informants at the ALC, was concerned about whether Respondent would work out as the ALC Principal. This concern may have influenced her gate investigation and reaction to Respondent's testimony at the expulsion hearing. The situation rapidly deteriorated when Dr. Santini visited Respondent, unannounced, on the morning of the day that they had a meeting with Petitioner and began the meeting by saying that she would probably have to write up Respondent for his testimony. A supervisor should always be able to conduct a meeting with a subordinate. Respondent should not have abruptly terminated the meeting with Dr. Santini. Supervisors terminate meetings, not subordinates. However, this was an isolated action by Respondent, who had never before terminated a meeting with a supervisor. Respondent had understandably felt that Dr. Santini had treated him unfairly in the gate incident, heard her announce at the start of this meeting what looked like a decision, and decided to deal with all of this at the meeting with Petitioner later that day. Under the circumstances, Respondent's imprudent decision to end the meeting did not rise to gross insubordination. In the final analysis, as Petitioner testified, it is good practice to document problems with employees before terminating them. And, as Petitioner testified, her staff did not do so here. Clearly, Respondent and Dr. Santini have a serious communications problem, for which each bears some responsibility, even though, by the nature of things, a communications problem is typically a bigger problem for the subordinate employee than it is for his boss. But as Dr. Council and Dr. Gunter testified, there was no reason for this case to proceed this far. And the case would not have come this far if District staff had tried to help Respondent or even treated this case as a performance case--where, under the law, District staff would have had to identify Respondent's deficiencies and help him eliminate them.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Lee County enter a final order dismissing the Petition, reinstating Respondent, and awarding him back pay as provided by law. ENTERED on June 28, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on June 28, 1996. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1: adopted or adopted in substance except as to date of initial employment. 2-3: adopted or adopted in substance. 4: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, to the extent of the implication that these behaviors were more than isolated or represented significant problems. 5: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 6-7: adopted or adopted in substance. 8-9: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 10 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance, as to the back of the neck. 10 (remainder)-12: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 13 (through "end"): adopted or adopted in substance. (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (through "classroom"): adopted or adopted in substance, except as to throwing C. L. into the chair. (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (through "credited"): adopted or adopted in substance. 16 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 17: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 18 (first sentence): rejected as subordinate. 18 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 19: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 20: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that O. B. complied with Respondent, who did not apply force to move him. 21: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. The testimony of Ms. Culligan is not credible. 22 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 22 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 23: rejected as subordinate. 24: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 25: adopted or adopted in substance, except that Ms. Krucher did not witness the entire incident. 26: adopted or adopted in substance, except that Ms. Krucher did not step between J. B. and T. R., nor did she witness the rest of the incident. She prevaricated the portion of the incident that she missed while returning J. B. to her classroom, J. B. testified that Ms. Krucher returned her to her classroom. J. B. also testified that Ms. Krucher even tried to convince her than T. R. had not lunged at J. B. Ms. Krucher's credibility as a witness is very poor. 27: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that T. R.'s testimony was stricken after several vacillations demonstrated that, as to this incident, he could not distinguish between the truth and fiction. 28: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 29 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. 30 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 31: Respondent's testimony that he feared M. P. was on drugs is not credited, at least to the extent of attempting to create a well-founded fear in Respondent's mind that the mental state of M. P. was so altered as to render him dangerous. However, Respondent intervened with M. P. to stop him from leaving and preclude the possibility that this student, who obviously is afflicted with a serious behavior disorder, might strike Ms. Smith. The remainder of this proposed finding is rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 32 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (except last sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. There is no need to resort to Ms. Keel's testimony about the "rat's ass" remark. 33 (last sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 34: adopted or adopted in substance, except as to crediting Ms. Krucher's testimony and as to any harm to the student's mental health. 35 (except last sentence): adopted or adopted in substance, except that the displaying of the badge never frightened or intimidated anyone and no student believed that Respondent had extraordinary arrest powers by virtue of the badge. When Respondent spoke to the class, they presumably were off-task, but he did not destroy any instructional momentum. 35 (last sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 36: adopted or adopted in substance, except that Respondent did not badger the student or mistreat him in any way. 37: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 38: adopted or adopted in substance, although Respondent appropriately dealt with the student, who should have raised his head to meet the new principal. 39: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that Respondent threatened the student with suspension if he did not make eye contact and listen to him. 40 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. 40 (third sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 40 (fourth sentence): rejected as irrelevant and unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 41: rejected as recitation of evidence and unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 42: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that on rare occasions Respondent opened doors to Academy classrooms. 43-45: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 46: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except to the extent of findings in the recommended order. 47-48 (except last sentence): adopted or adopted in substance, except Respondent did not say, "her record." (last sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 49 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 50-51 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 51 (remainder)-52: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 53: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 54 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 54 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Respondent had not made a prior arrangement with Ms. McCollum, but Petitioner failed to prove that he was required to. 55: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 56 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. 56 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 57: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 58: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that Respondent terminated the meeting. The behavior was inappropriate, but did not constitute either insubordination or, more to the point, gross insubordination. 59 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. 59 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 60: adopted or adopted in substance. 61: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, as to no reason to arrest W. S. at the time. However, the altercation had ceased, and Respondent should have answered the reasonably inquiry of the officer. But his behavior did not constitute misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetency, or immorality. 62: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Petitioner never accounted adequately for Officer Kusienski's omission of the word "fuck" from his police report or, less importantly, the discrepancy between Ms. Krucher and Officer Kusienski as to the number of times that Respondent uttered the expletive. Another problem for Petitioner was the contrary testimony of another officer of the Fort Myers Police Department. 63: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 64 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance, at least as to the effect that the grandmother could not serve as the legal guardian of J. M. because she was not. 64 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence and hearsay. 65-66: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 67 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 67 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that Respondent voluntarily admitted up to 18 students. 68: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 69 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 69 (second sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 69 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, as to Respondent's role in the failure to obtain individual educational plans constituting misconduct in office, incompetency, or gross insubordination. 70-71: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-13: adopted or adopted in substance, although there is some uncertainty as to the dates of Respondent's early employment with the District. The findings in the recommended order are guided by the dates and job descriptions contained in the evaluations. 13A: rejected as irrelevant. 14-15: adopted or adopted in substance, except that M. P. was not fearful. 16-29: adopted or adopted in substance. 30: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. The incident did occur. 30A-43: adopted or adopted in substance. 44: adopted or adopted in substance, but Respondent's brief conversation with Ms. Krucher more closely resembled the version in the recommended order, rather than the more elaborate version in the proposed finding. 45-46: adopted or adopted in substance. 47 (first sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Dr. Santini never reviewed several lines of the testimony. She focused only on one phrase. (remainder)-48 (through "Wiseman"): adopted or adopted in substance. (remainder): adopted or adopted in substance, although it is unclear the extent to which they discussed the January 5 memorandum itself, as opposed to the ALC overenrollment issue generally. 49-55: adopted or adopted in substance. 56-57: rejected as subordinate, except to the extent described in the recommended order. 58-62: adopted or adopted in substance, although the fact that Respondent's enrollments were no higher than the enrollments of his successors suggests that Respondent's enrollments did not exceed the cap or the cap as applied. 63: rejected as subordinate. 64-68: adopted or adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Superintendent Bobbi D'Allessandro The School District of Lee County 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3988 John M. Hament Kunkel, Miller and Hament 1800 Second Street, Suite 882 Sarasota, Florida 34236 Harry A. Blair Blair & Blair, P.A. 2138-40 Hoople Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901 The Honorable Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Respondent Robert L. Collins has been employed by the School Board of Dade County, Florida as a teacher for the last twenty-four years and is on continuing contract. For approximately the last seven of those years, Respondent has been teaching Industrial Arts at Miami Killian Senior High School. Between late September 1983, and November 23, 1983, Jonathan Wright was a student in Respondent's Plastics class. On November 23, 1983, Wright came into Respondent's Plastics class wearing a hat, which is against school rules. Respondent directed Wright to remove his hat which he did. Later in that same class Respondent saw Wright sitting by the engraver again wearing that hat. Respondent removed the hat from Wright's head and advised Wright that if he put the hat on another time Respondent would send him to the principal's office. At approximately 5 minutes before the end of the class period, Respondent instructed the students that it was time to clean up the shop area. Wright and some of the other students began gathering at the door. Respondent motioned to those students to come back into the classroom and away from the door, which some of them did. Wright, however, did not. Respondent then specifically directed Wright to get away from the door. Instead of obeying, Wright put up a hand and a foot in a karate type posture but clearly in a playful manner. As a normal reaction in the context of the situation, Respondent did likewise. Respondent then turned back toward the class at which time Wright grabbed him by the legs and pulled him down to the floor. Respondent and Wright were rolling around on the floor in a small alcove area, and Respondent was unable to get loose from Wright's grip. Respondent was afraid that he, Wright, or the other students might be severely injured in the small alcove by the door or on some of the machinery located in the Plastics shop classroom. Unable to free himself, Respondent bit Wright on the back. Wright released Respondent and got up off the floor. After the bell rang, Wright left the classroom. Wright was transferred to the Plastics class of teacher Gerald Krotenberg where he remained for the rest of the school year. On several occasions Krotenberg was required to admonish Wright because Wright often resorted to "horse play" with other students. On occasion Wright would come into the classroom and would "bear hug" the girls, "jostle" the boys, and be disruptive so that Krotenberg could not take attendance or conduct the class. Although Krotenberg followed his normal technique of chastising the student in public, and then chastising the student in private, those techniques did not work and Krotenberg was required to exclude Wright from class on probably two occasions, for two days each, due to Wright's inappropriate behavior with other students. During the two months that Wright was in Respondent's class, Wright had come up behind Respondent on one or two occasions and lightly put his arms around Respondent in the nature of a bear hug. Respondent counseled Wright that that was not appropriate behavior. The only touching of Wright that was initiated by Respondent himself occurred in the form of Respondent placing his hand on Wright's shoulder while discussing a project being worked on at the moment or perhaps a light slap on the back in the nature of encouragement or praise for a job well done. Not all teachers, however, agree that it is appropriate to occasionally give a student an encouraging pat on the back. Although Wright had on one or two occasions given Respondent a playful hug and although Respondent had on several occasions given Wright an encouraging pat on the back or touch on his shoulder, no physical combat ever occurred between them. Although Wright often engaged in "horse play" with other students, no "horse play" occurred between Wright and Respondent. None of Respondent's annual evaluations during the years he has been teaching in the Dade County public School, including the annual evaluation for the the 1983-1984 school year, indicates that Respondent has had any problems with either maintaining good discipline in his classes or that Respondent is anything other than acceptable in the area of classroom management.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered reversing Respondent's suspension, reinstating him if necessary, and reimbursing him for back pay-if he was suspended without pay. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of July, 1985 at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas H. Robertson, Esquire 111 SW Third Street Third Floor Miami, Florida 33130 Michael D. Ray, Esquire 7630 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 202 Miami, Florida 33138 Phyllis 0. Douglas Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools 1410 N.E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent School Board of Dade County 1410 NE Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The basic issue in this case is whether there exists "just cause" within the meaning of Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes, to terminate the professional services contract between the School Board of Gadsden County, Florida, and John C. Buckley. The School Board seeks such a termination on the basis of allegations that John C. Buckley engaged in various forms of inappropriate conduct during the course of a science fair trip. Briefly summarized, the allegations are that John C. Buckley (a) permitted students to smoke cigarettes, (b) purchased alcoholic beverages in the presence of a student, (c) consumed alcoholic beverages in the presence of students, (d) provided alcoholic beverages to students and permitted them to consume such beverages, and (e) inappropriately touched one or more female students. At the hearing, the parties presented the testimony of several witnesses, including the testimony of Respondent. Following the hearing, a transcript of the proceedings was filed and all parties thereafter filed timely proposed recommended orders. The parties' proposed recommended orders have been carefully considered during the formulation of this recommended order. All findings of fact prepared by the parties are specifically addressed in the appendix which is attached to and incorporated into this recommended order.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence received at the hearing and the admissions of the Respondent, I make the following findings of fact: At all times material, the Respondent, John C. Buckley, was employed as a science teacher at the James A. Shanks High School in Gadsden County, Florida. At all times material, the Respondent was employed under a professional service contract as defined in Section 231.36(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1987). The Respondent accompanied a group of Gadsden County high school students to Jacksonville to attend a science fair on April 13, 1988, through April 16, 1988. There were three other adults present during the trip; Oscar Rogers, a school bus driver employed by the Gadsden County School Board, Cynthia B. Clark, a science teacher from Carter Parramore Middle School, and Betty Williams, a chaperon. On the way to Jacksonville, the following three female students rode with the Respondent in his personal car: Ginger Godwin (10th grade), Twanna Scott (12th grade), and Yvonne Dunson (12th grade). The other students and adults rode in a school bus. During the drive to Jacksonville, two of the students in Respondent's car were smoking cigarettes. The Respondent knew these two students intended to smoke in his car and he did not prohibit either student from smoking in his car. During the evening of April 13, 1988, the Respondent drove in his car to a liquor store in Jacksonville, where he purchased some beer, some bottled wine coolers, and a small bottle of bourbon. Twanna Scott, a student, rode in Respondent's car to and from the liquor store, but she did not get out of the car when the Respondent went into the liquor store. During the evening of April 13, 1988, the Respondent consumed several beers, probably three or four. Some of the Respondent's consumption of beer took place in the presence of some of the students, specifically at a time when the students and the adults on the trip were eating pizza for their evening meal. The Respondent did not, on April 13, 1988, or any other time, provide any alcoholic beverages to any of the students, nor did he permit any of the students to consume alcohol. Later, on the evening of April 13, 1988, the Respondent entered the motel room in which Ginger Godwin, Twanna Scott, Yvonne Dunson, and Precious Anderson were staying. At the time the Respondent entered the room, Godwin, Scott, and Dunson, and several other people were also in the room. During the time the Respondent was in the room a door that connected to the next room was open. The next room was the room in which Cynthia B. Clark, a teacher, was staying with two other female students. While the Respondent was in the room, Twanna Scott complained of a stiff back and the Respondent sat on the edge of the bed and gave Twanna Scott a brief back rub. At the time of the back rub, the only other people in the room were Ginger Godwin and Yvonne Dunson. Following the back rub, the Respondent left the room. The Respondent did not touch any part of Twanna Scott's body other than her back. The Respondent did not touch either of the other female students who were in the room. On the evening of April 14, 1988, while the Respondent was away from the motel with some of the students, Ginger Godwin, Twanna Scott, and Yvonne Dunson told Cynthia B. Clark, one of the teachers, that they wanted to spend some time watching television in the motel room of some insurance salesmen they had recently met at the motel. Mrs. Clark agreed to let them do so, subject to some ground rules which included: the door to the salesmen's motel room had to remain open, the curtains had to remain open, and the girls had to check with Mrs. Clark every 30 minutes or so. At about 9:45 p.m. during the evening of April 14, 1988, Mrs. Clark walked by the salesmen's room and observed Ginger Godwin drinking a beer. Mrs. Clark told Ginger Godwin that she did not approve of such conduct and Ginger Godwin acted indifferent to the disapproval. Mrs. Clark told the girls that they needed to be back in their own rooms by 10:30 p.m. Sometime between 10:30 and 10:45 p.m., Mrs. Clark returned to the salesmen's room and tried to get the three girls to return to their own room. They essentially ignored her and remained in the salesmen's room. The Respondent returned to the motel sometime shortly after 11:00 p.m., at which time Mrs. Clark told him about the three girls in the insurance salesmen's room. Mrs. Clark and the Respondent then went to the salesmen's room and the Respondent told the girls they had to return to their own room. After some argument, the three girls eventually complied. Later in the evening the salesmen were down tapping on the window of the girls' motel room and the girls were talking to the salesmen through an open window. When this was brought to the Respondent's attention, he went to the girls' room, told them they should go to bed and tried to get the salesmen to leave. The three girls and the insurance salesmen all rebuffed the Respondent's efforts, and the Respondent ultimately had to call the motel security guard. At about that time, Ginger Godwin got into a heated argument with the Respondent, during the course of which there was some yelling and shouting back and forth. Apparently there were further heated arguments the next day about the salesmen. At some point in the arguments, Ginger Godwin threatened to retaliate against the Respondent as a result of his interference with the relationship between the three girls and the insurance salesmen. The threats made to the Respondent included statements such as, "I know how to get you," "I'm going to take care of your job Monday," and "I'll get even with you and I'll take care of you Monday when I get back." Upon returning home, Ginger Godwin, Yvonne Dunson, and Twanna Scott reported to school authorities that the Respondent had engaged in improper conduct during the science fair trip. They accused the Respondent of, among other things, improper sexual touching of Dunson and Scott. The allegations of improper sexual touching were false. School rules prohibit the use of tobacco substances at school campuses, activities, or field trips. School rules prohibit the consumption of alcoholic beverages on School Board premises, at school activities, and on school field trips. School rules prohibit the consumption of alcoholic beverages by teachers in the presence of students, during school field trips. When supervising field trips, teachers have 24-hour supervisory responsibility over the students on the field trip. The Respondent had been previously warned to curtail his smoking in front of students by Janey DuPont, an Administrator employed by the Petitioner. Respondent had also been specifically warned by Janey DuPont not to consume alcoholic beverages in the presence of students. The Respondent knew or should have known that he was not supposed to be drinking alcoholic beverages in the presence of students under his supervision.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, I hereby recommend that the administrative charges against the Respondent Buckley be dismissed and that the Respondent be reinstated as a professional service contract teacher with full back pay. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 3rd day of November, 1988. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of November, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following are my specific rulings on all findings of fact proposed by the parties to this case. Findings proposed by Petitioner: Paragraph 1: Accepted Paragraphs 2 and 3: Rejected as unnecessary recitation of procedural details. (Findings have been made incorporating the substance of the conduct admitted by the Respondent.) Paragraphs 4 and 5: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10: Accepted. Paragraph 11: Rejected as irrelevant to the issues in this case. Paragraphs 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17; Accepted. Paragraphs 18 and 19: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 20, 21, 22, and 23: Accepted, with some unnecessary details omitted. Paragraphs 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Covered in preliminary statement. Paragraph 29: Accepted. Paragraphs 30 and 31: Rejected because there is no clear and convincing evidence that any inappropriate touching of female students occurred on this occasion and, absent any inappropriate touching, the proposed details are subordinate and unnecessary. Specifically, there is no persuasive evidence that the Respondent made several attempts to bite Twanna Scott on her ear. Ms. Scott's testimony to that effort is unconvincing. The Respondent's denial is accepted. Paragraphs 32, 33, 34, and 35: Rejected as not supported by credible evidence. I reject as unworthy of belief the testimony that the Respondent provided alcoholic beverages to three students. I accept the Respondent's denial that he provided alcoholic beverages to any student. Paragraph 36: Rejected as irrelevant because the Respondent has not been charged with this conduct and, in any event, there is no evidence that Respondent consumed sufficient alcohol to impair his ability to drive safely. Paragraph 37: First fourteen words rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; I have rejected the testimony that Respondent provided alcoholic beverages to any students. Next seven words rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary because there has been no showing that the Respondent consumed sufficient alcoholic beverages to impair his judgment. The remainder of this paragraph is accepted. Paragraph 38: First sentence rejected as vague and inaccurate; the subject student was wearing a robe and was on the bed watching television. Second sentence accepted in substance with a few clarifying details. Paragraphs 39, 40, and 41: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. In view of all the circumstances, the Respondent's denials and the Respondent's version of what occurred is more believable than the testimony of Yvonne Dunson, Twanna Scott, and Ginger Godwin. Yvonne Dunson, Twanna Scott, and Ginger Godwin are not credible witnesses. Paragraph 42: Rejected as inaccurate; the girls made a report when they returned, but it was a false report. Findings proposed by the Respondent Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 7 and 8: Rejected as constituting summaries of testimony rather than proposed findings of fact. Further, the subject matter of these paragraphs is irrelevant because in the hand holding in the car is not the "inappropriate" touching with which the Respondent has been charged. Paragraph 9: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 10: Accepted. Paragraphs 11, 12, 13, and 14: I have not made any findings on the subject matter addressed by these paragraphs because there is no clear and convincing evidence that any inappropriate touching of female students occurred on this occasion and, absent any inappropriate touching, the proposed details are subordinate and unnecessary. Paragraph 15: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 16: First sentence accepted. Second sentence rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 17 and 18: Rejected as constituting summaries of testimony rather than proposed findings of fact. On this subject, I have found that the greater weight of the evidence is consistent with the Respondent's denial. Paragraph 19: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 20, 21, and 22: Rejected as constituting summaries of testimony rather than proposed findings of fact. (The summarized testimony has not been credited.) Paragraph 23: First sentence accepted. Second sentence rejected as not supported by persuasive evidence; I seriously doubt that Ginger Godwin told the other two girls anything about any "incidents" on Wednesday night. I believe the three girls (Ginger Godwin, Twanna Scott, and Yvonne Dunson) fabricated their stories at a later date. Paragraph 24: Rejected as constituting a summary of testimony rather than proposed findings of fact. I have, however, made findings of fact consistent with the Respondent's version of this incident. Paragraph 25: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 26: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, and 37: Accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED TO: CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON, ESQUIRE RUDEN, BARNETT, MCCLOSKY, SMITH, SCHUSTER & RUSSELL, P.A. 101 NORTH MONROE STREET MONROE-PARK TOWER, SUITE 1010 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 PHILIP J. PADOVANO, ESQUIRE POST OFFICE BOX 873 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32302 ROBERT H. BRYANT SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS SCHOOL BOARD OF GADSDEN COUNTY POST OFFICE BOX 818 QUINCY, FLORIDA 32351
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner may terminate Respondent's contract for immorality, in violation of Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-4.009, Florida Administrative Code; misconduct in office, in violation of Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-4.009(3), Florida Administrative Code; and incompetency, in violation of Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-4.009(1), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Respondent came to the United States from British Guyana in 1977. In 1988, Respondent obtained an educator's certificate and began teaching in Dade County. Petitioner hired him in 1992 and assigned him to Silver Lakes Middle School. For several years, Respondent taught language arts, which is the area in which he is certified, to all grades. Petitioner later assigned Respondent to teach students in the dropout prevention program at Silver Lakes Middle School. The students in the dropout prevention program typically represent greater academic challenges to a teacher than do their counterparts in regular education. For the past five or six years, Respondent taught dropout prevention at Silver Lakes Middle School. His teaching approach is to try to develop rapport with the students during the first nine weeks of the school year while, at the same time, identify specific areas of weakness within each student that may require attention during the school year. On October 17, 2001, Respondent administered a diagnostic test to identify areas in which students needed work. Unable to answer some of the questions, some students asked Respondent for help. Respondent declined to help because his assistance would destroy the purpose of the test. Some of the students began to misbehave. After several attempts by Respondent to control these students, they threatened to go to the office and complain about Respondent. Respondent invited the students to go to the office and complain about him. He wrote passes for several students, and several more students joined the others to visit the office, rather than take the test, and complain to an administrator about Respondent. The principal received the students in her office and listened to their complaints, which appear to have been the source of the allegations in this case. The principal took statements from the students and then returned with them to Respondent's classroom. While in the classroom, the principal helped the students with the diagnostic test that Respondent had been administering. Recognizing that the diagnostic value of his test was lost, Respondent then joined the principal in helping the students with their diagnostic test. Prominent among the students' complaints to the principal was that Respondent had struck a student, J. H. Petitioner produced little direct evidence supporting this allegation. Twice, J. H. ignored subpoenas to testify in this case. Respondent testified that J. H. later admitted to him that other boys in the class made him lie and say that Respondent hit him. J. H.'s failure to comply with subpoenas is consistent with Respondent's testimony. Absent J. H.'s testimony, it is difficult to determine exactly what, if anything, happened with him and Respondent. The most likely scenario is that J. H. succumbed to the pressures of other students in the class and lied that Respondent had hit him, knowing that the only contact that had taken place between Respondent and J. H. was incidental contact during a minor incident of horseplay. Three of the four student witnesses whom Petitioner called to substantiate the charges were unconvincing. The fourth--J. G.--was vague and unable or unwilling to supply evidence against Respondent, whom he described as "the nicest man." Student D. S. testified at the hearing that Respondent ignored the students' questions in class about classroom material, called J. H. "peanut head," called "Jarvis" "bumbleclot," told D. S. that he lacked motivation and was lazy, and told other students that they came to school looking like a "bum." "Bumbleclot" appears to be a derogatory term in a Jamaican patois, although the record does not establish the intended or actual effect that any use of the word would have in Respondent's class. When handed a previous statement, D. S. added to his complaints that Respondent often said "bloody" in class and would . . . like nudge [J. H.], like, hit him in the arm." D. S. also recalled that Respondent said "cock-eyed" in class. D. S. admitted that he never heard Respondent threaten to "pop" a student. Discrepancies exist between D. S.'s testimony and his prior statements. First, he initially omitted the most significant allegation--that Respondent struck J. H.--and, when he later mentioned it, he downplayed it to a "nudge." Likewise, D. S. initially omitted any mention of Respondent's use of "bloody." Also, D. S. never mentioned Respondent's use of "bumbleclot" in his previous statements. D. S.'s testimony establishes the unlikelihood that Respondent actually hit J. H. or that he ever threatened to "pop" a student in class. Student J. P. testified that she heard other students say that Respondent pushed D. V. out the door of the portable classroom after ejecting him from class. Due to J. P.'s admitted failure to have observed the incident, the Administrative Law Judge struck the testimony. However, despite admitting that she did not see this incident, J. P. stated that she went to the office with other students and informed the principal of the incident. J. P. also testified that Respondent often said "bloody" and refused to explain all of an assignment to her after she missed school, which she admitted happened frequently. Lastly, J. P. complained that Respondent issued her a referral for going to the bathroom. In addition to missing school, J. P. was often tardy when returning from various errands, and many times she did not do her work. J. P.'s testimony establishes only that Respondent may have said "bloody" a few times in class. Student J. G. testified that he recalled Respondent using "hell or damn" in class, although, on cross-examination, he denied any recollection of any use of either of these words. J. G. testified that he heard Respondent say something about knocking a student into next week, although he could not recall whether the latter comment was made in jest. J. G. added that he saw Respondent give J. H. "a little hit." Student D. V. testified that he saw Respondent hit J. H., although his description of the conversation accompanying the incident was materially different at the hearing than in a previous statement. D. V. testified that Respondent threatened to "pop" students and told them to "shut [their] bloody mouths." D. V. added that he asked Respondent one time if he could call his mother to bring his medication for attention deficit disorder, and Respondent denied him permission to make the call. D. V. also testified that Respondent, while sitting beside the door, pushed D. V. on the shoulder to get him out of the classroom, and D. V. responded by warning that he would get his sister to "kick [Respondent's] ass." Although D. V.'s testimony is not undermined by the inconsistencies plaguing the testimony of D. S. and J. P., D. V. shares the antipathy of these other two students for Respondent. Each of these students resented Respondent's efforts to discipline and teach them. Each of these students betrayed a desire to act in concert to get Respondent in trouble, as they felt he had gotten them into trouble. Respondent called as a witness one student, W. L., who testified forcefully that she heard the other students coercing J. H. to say falsely that Respondent had hit him. W. L. testified that the only improper word that she heard Respondent use was "bloody" and that Respondent and J. H. engaged in some horseplay in class. Perhaps the most useful witness was an assistant principal at Silver Lakes Middle School. At the end of the 2001-02 school year, the assistant principal completed an evaluation of Respondent in which he assigned him a satisfactory rating, which is the highest, in all categories, including classroom management. It is clear from the testimony of the assistant principal that he gave the complaints of Respondent's students exactly the weight that they deserved. Respondent admitted that he used "bloody" in class, but the record fails to develop the appreciation of his students for the intensity of this word in certain non-American cultures. Respondent admitted that he once used the phrase, "pop you one," but the record fails to develop the context so as to preclude the likelihood that Respondent said these words in jest. Respondent admitted that he used "cock-eyed," "skinny boy," and "bony boy," but, again, the record fails to establish a context as to permit a finding that these terms were abusive or disparaging. Respondent, who is black, mentioned that he had been called "black nugget" and "kiwi," but only as part of an effort to develop tolerance for names among students eager to take offense. Respondent ejected D. V. from the classroom for legitimate reasons. According to D. V. himself, any followup contact was with Respondent in the seated position, so as not likely to have been significant. According to another student, D. V. grabbed Respondent. At most, the record depicts an angry, disruptive student who has stubbornly refused to comply with his teacher's ejection of him from the classroom, so that other students have a chance to learn. Likewise, D. V.'s complaint that Respondent denied him the chance to call his mother for his attention deficit medication suffers for the lack of context. Undoubtedly, D. V. joined in ongoing efforts to disrupt the class and avoid receiving instruction. The only context for this request provided by the record is that D. V. asked for permission immediately after returning from lunch, when he would have had ample opportunity to call his mother. Although it is possible that D. V. first thought of the missing medication after lunch, it is at least as likely that he thought of the missing medication as a convenient excuse to extend his mid-day respite from learning. For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent was guilty of misconduct in office, incompetency, or immorality.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of April, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Franklin L. Till, Jr. Superintendent Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-3125 Honorable Jim Horne Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel 325 West Gaines Street 1244 Turlington Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Carmen M. Rodriguez Law Offices of Carmen Rodriguez, P.A. 9245 Southwest 157th Street Suite 209 Miami, Florida 33157 Mark F. Kelly Kelly & McKee, P.A. 1718 East 7th Avenue Suite 301 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638
The Issue The issues posed for decision herein are whether or not the Respondent, during the Spring of 1977, supplied beer and marijuana to female students of Seminole Middle School; whether he smoked or permitted them to smoke marijuana in his apartment during this period and whether such conduct constitutes acts violative of Chapter 231.26 and 231.09, Florida Statutes, and Rules 6A-4.37 and 6B-1 of the State Board of Education, Florida Administrative Code. Based on the testimony of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, including the entire record compiled herein, I make the following:
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is the holder of a Graduate Rank III teaching certificate number 318622 and has been employed as a teacher for approximately five years. During school year 1976-1977, he was assigned as a teacher at Seminole Middle School. By letter dated September 2, 1977, from Gus Sakkis, Superintendent of Schools for Pinellas County, Respondent was advised that he was suspended, without pay, from his duties at Seminole Middle School beginning August 24, 1977, and was further advised that it was the Superintendent's "intention to recommend to the School Board of Pinellas County at their regular meeting of September 28, 1977, that it sustain the suspension and that [Respondent's] contract with the School System be cancelled." Respondent was also advised that he was being charged with misconduct in office pursuant to Section 231.36, Florida Statutes. As stated, the acts which comprise the alleged misconduct in office by Respondent involve the giving/selling of alcoholic beverages and marijuana, to- wit: beer and marijuana to certain eighth grade students in the Seminole Middle School, Pinellas County, Florida, during the 1976-1977 school year and the summer months of 1977; that the Respondent smoked marijuana in the presence of the same students on several occasions and that Respondent drank beer and/or other alcoholic beverages with the students. To substantiate the allegations contained in the Petition for Revocation of Respondent's Teaching Certificate, the Petitioners presented the testimony of four female students: Stacey Soper, Terri Cotterman, Donna Lombardi and Genine Buckley. Petitioners also presented witnesses Lois Beacham, Douglas McBriarty and Ruth A. McNutt, all employees in the Pinellas County school system. Stacey Soper, a fifteen year old ninth grade student at Seminole Middle School was an eighth grade student during the 1976-1977 school year. She testified that she lived in the same apartment complex as the Respondent and saw him on numerous occasions at the apartment complex, the swimming pool and at football and baseball games. She has smoked marijuana before and drank beer. She recalled having smoked marijuana supplied by Respondent on at least three occasions along with two other students, Terri Cotterman and Genine Buckley. She recalled this incident as having occurred during the Spring of 1977, in addition to one other occasion in which she drank beer with Respondent. She testified that on one occasion she asked Respondent to sell her a "joint" for which she paid seventy-five cents. (She recalled at least one other occasion during the Spring of 1977, when she asked Respondent to give her some "pot." She testified that when the marijuana was smoked, Respondent and two or three other students were engaged in smoking one "joint" at a time. While so doing, she testified that Respondent would close the door to his apartment. Respondent kept marijuana in a plastic bag in a desk drawer in his coffee table. She testified that these smoking sessions lasted from one to one and one half hours. The witness reiterated her familiarity with marijuana and beer as she has drunk beer and smoked marijuana on numerous occasions prior to the subject occasion with Respondent. Terri Cotterman, a fifteen year old ninth grade student at Seminole Middle High School recognized Respondent and noted that Respondent taught her for one week during her seventh grade school year and was her regular English teacher during her eighth grade school year. Cotterman also had smoked marijuana with Genine Buckley (Genine) and Stacey Soper (Stacey) during the Spring of 1977. She testified that she, along with Genine and Stacey, smoked marijuana with Respondent and another former instructor in the school system, a Mr. Asbury, who brought them home after they smoked marijuana at Respondent's apartment. She recalled that on one occasion, after they finished smoking marijuana and was sitting around the apartment, there was a knock on the door and two individuals, later identified as Alvin Philpot and Margaret Croskey, visited Respondent's apartment. She testified that when they entered the apartment, Mr. Asbury advised Respondent that "you'd better get them out of here." They all left and Mr. Asbury drove them home. She specifically recalled that the marijuana had been smoked when Philpot and Croskey came to Respondent's apartment. Witness Soper testified that she asked Respondent to purchase a six- pack of beer for them sometime during the 1977 Memorial Day weekend. She testified that while she remembered Respondent purchasing the beer for them, she failed to recall which brand was purchased or whether the beer was in glass or metal containers. Donna Lombardi, also a student, recalled being in Respondent's apartment complex on approximately two occasions and recalled one time when Respondent bought herself, Terri and Stacey a six-pack of beer (TR. 151). She testified that Respondent was outside washing his car when Donna, Terri and Stacey asked Respondent to buy them some beer. Respondent agreed, purchased the beer and they drank it in Stacey's apartment. Lois Ann Beacham, an Assistant Principal at Seminole Middle School, has known Respondent as a coworker since approximately 1973. Ms. Beacham recalled two conferences in which she had, prior to the subject incidents, warned Respondent of the "hands-off" policy in effect at the school as it related to instructors and preadolescent students. She testified that the first incident stemmed from an occasion in which a student, Wendy Aydlett, cuddled up to Respondent at a table in the library and moved her chair closer to him. This occurred during the months of October thru December, 1976. Another incident occurred during November 1976, when a student whose last name was Vega, rode her bicycle over to Respondent's apartment and her mother later learned of this, became highly upset and brought the matter to the attention of Mrs. McNutt, the head of the eighth grade sub-team. Ms. Beacham and Mrs. McNutt met with Respondent the following day and they discussed the matter. According to Ms. Beacham, Respondent received the advice given him during the conferences in a graceful manner and thanked them for the manner in which the incidents were handled. No similar incidents occurred. Douglas McBriarty, Director of Instructional Personnel for the Pinellas School System, is involved on a day-to-day basis in the handling of teaching problems, hiring, leave problems and investigation and handling of complaints filed against teachers for improper activities or misconduct in office. He has held this position for approximately eight years. Mr. McBriarty became involved in Respondent's case when Mr. Zachary, Principal at Seminole Junior High School, called him and advised that a detective Howe from the Pinellas County Sheriff's Department had approached him about statements from three students (Soper, Cotterman and Buckley) which had originated from a diary found by a mother which made references to Respondent having drank beer and smoked marijuana with students. Dr. McBriarty approached Respondent about the allegations and he essentially denied that any of the allegations were true. Dr. McBriarty asked Respondent if he and Mr. Zachary could examine his apartment which Respondent agreed to. They visited Respondent's apartment and found no traces of marijuana or any paraphernalia associated with the smoking of marijuana. Dr. McBriarty testified that he examined a coffee table which was alluded to by the students in their statements and found nothing. Dr. McBriarty voiced his opinion that Respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the School Board had been reduced based on the incidents brought about as a result of the School Board's investigation and stated this was reinforced by his talks with parents of the students involved. He testified that at all times Respondent was cooperative and responded to questions asked of him. Prior to Dr. McBriarty asking Respondent if he and the principal could visit his apartment, he (Respondent) had no knowledge that an investigation of him was ongoing. Based on Dr. McBriarty's investigation, he made a recommendation to Dr. Sakkis, Superintendent, that Respondent should be suspended based on acts which in his opinion, amounted to misconduct in office. It was based on this recommendation that Respondent was suspended by the above referenced letter of the School Board dated September 2, 1977, and it was this action which prompted the investigation and Petition for Revocation by the Professional Practices Council. Respondent's Defense At the outset of the Respondent's defense, counsel moved for a dismissal of the charges arguing essentially that, assuming arguendo that the complaint allegations are true, the record was barren of any evidence tending to show that the Respondent's effectiveness had been reduced as per the teaching of BOYETTE v. STATE, PROFESSIONAL PRACTICES COUNCIL, 346 So.2d 598 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1977). Additionally, Respondent's counsel urged that the proof falls short of showing that the alleged acts and/or conduct allegedly engaged in by Respondent as testified to by Petitioners' witnesses, failed to establish any official misconduct within the meaning of Chapter 231.36, Florida Statutes. This Motion was denied based on the undersigned's opinion that the Petitioners had established a prima facie case. The Respondent denied that he had either given or sold beer or marijuana to Seminole Middle School students as alleged or that he engaged in any of the alleged acts complained of herein. Additionally, in support of his position, Respondent offered the testimony of witnesses Alvin Philpot and Margaret Croskey. They denied that they witnessed any marijuana being smoked at the Respondent's apartment when they visited him on the occasion when students Soper, Buckley or Cotterman were present. They also stated that they only witnessed one beer can present in Respondent's apartment and that they did not smell any marijuana in the apartment. Finally, they testified that the students left shortly after they arrived. An analysis of the testimony of witnesses Croskey and Philpot was not at all viewed as contradictory of the testimony of student witnesses Soper, Cotterman, Buckley or Lombardi. As a matter of fact, the student witnesses testified that when witnesses Croskey and Philpot arrived, they had finished smoking the marijuana. Contrasting the testimony of witnesses Soper, Cotterman, Lombardi, Buckley and McBriarty, with that of witnesses Croskey and Philpot (as well as the Respondent) the testimony of the witnesses offered by Petitioners i.e., Soper, Cotterman, Lombardi, Buckley and McBriarty, is more creditable. While there were some minor discrepancies in the student witnesses testimony respecting dates, they all testified without contradiction that they in fact smoked marijuana with Respondent which at times was supplied by him either free or for monetary consideration and that he purchased beer for them. Significantly, all of the students had high regards for the Respondent as an instructor and no ulterior motive was advanced by Respondent which would tend to show that the student witnesses would have any basis to fabricate their testimony. Noteworthy too, is the fact that these factors did not come to light until one of the students' parents learned of the activities by reading her daughter's diary. This hardly resembles a situation where student witnesses are out to "get their teacher." That a public school teacher would permit such a blatant violation of the law [Section 893.13(1)(f), F.S.] to take place under any circumstances is totally incomprehensible and raises serious questions concerning his fitness to continue in a teaching capacity. By such acts and conduct, it is, therefore, concluded that Respondent performed acts constituting misconduct in office as alleged. However, the Petition (Complaint) allegations wherein it is argued that the Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher has been reduced by his acts and conduct as set forth hereinabove, presents a more difficult issue. Here, as in Boyette, supra, the second element of the charge, i.e., that Respondent's effectiveness as a school teacher was seriously reduced as a result of the conduct complained of, was based almost entirely by the Petitioners upon the opinion testimony of Dr. McBriarty. While the record clearly reveals that the Respondent's acts and conduct herein were misguided, they fail to demonstrate that he was unfit to continue as a teacher. The testimony of those instructors who had any knowledge of Respondent's abilities indicated that he is a competent teacher and that he had not been seriously disciplined in the past. Under these circumstances, I, accordingly, find that the Petitioners failed to establish that necessary quantum of proof to support the allegations that the Respondent's effectiveness as a school teacher was reduced as a result of the conduct complained of herein.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended that the Petitioner, Pinellas County School Board's, suspension of Respondent without pay be sustained for a period of two years. Additionally, it is further recommended that the Petitioner, Professional Practices Council, place the Respondent's teaching certificate under suspension from the date of the Pinellas County School Board's letter initially suspending him thru the 1978-79 school year. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of June, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
The Issue The issue presented for decision in this case is whether Petitioner, St. Petersburg Junior College, should dismiss Respondent from his employment and terminate his continuing contract.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is an instructor in computer programming and networking at the College. Respondent has been an instructor at the College since 1983. Since the 1986-87 academic year, Respondent has worked under a continuing contract of employment. A continuing contract is tantamount to a tenured position, entitling the instructor to maintain his position from year-to-year unless terminated by mutual consent, by the instructor’s resignation, or by the suspension or removal of the instructor for cause pursuant to the statutes and rules of the State Board of Education. Respondent has received at least above-average evaluations of his job performance both from the institution and from his students during his tenure at the College. Respondent has not been subject to disciplinary proceedings of any kind prior to or since the incidents giving rise to this proceeding. Kimberly Zemola, a married woman in her late twenties, was a student in Respondent’s classes during Session II and Session III of the 1994-95 academic year. In January 1995, while she was a student in Respondent’s class, Ms. Zemola wrote an anonymous note to Respondent suggesting that they commence a relationship and that Respondent should indicate his interest by wearing a certain sweater to class on a certain day. Respondent wore the sweater as suggested in the note. Respondent testified that his purpose in doing so was not to initiate a relationship, but to identify the author of the note, discover her problem, and direct her into obtaining assistance. Respondent and Ms. Zemola met. Their testimony was consistent in describing that they were both involved in troubled marriages, spent a great deal of time discussing their problems with each other, and, over a period of weeks, became close friends and confidants. During the period of January through May 1995, the relationship was not sexual, though there was some holding of hands and kissing during their meetings. During the summer session of 1995, while Ms. Zemola was a student in Respondent's class, Respondent and Ms. Zemola engaged in consensual sex. Both Respondent and Ms. Zemola testified that this occurred on only one occasion, in June 1995. Respondent and Ms. Zemola continued their relationship until December 1995, at which point Ms. Zemola ended it. Ms. Zemola testified that in January 1996, after she ended the relationship with Respondent, she was diagnosed as clinically depressed. She testified that she believed Respondent took advantage of her depressed condition in pursuing a relationship with her. Respondent testified that Ms. Zemola mentioned suicidal thoughts on one occasion in late 1995, and that she revealed to him that she had been addicted to drugs and was a victim of child abuse. Nonetheless, Respondent testified that he had no knowledge Ms. Zemola was fighting depression during the period of their relationship. In January 1996, John Zemola, the husband of Kimberly Zemola, phoned Myrtle Williams, Associate Provost of the Gibbs Campus, to complain that Respondent had an affair with his wife. Ms. Williams testified that Mr. Zemola was very agitated, so she invited him to her office to discuss the matter. Mr. Zemola met in person with Ms. Williams, and a little later in the day had a second meeting with both Ms. Williams and Charles Roberts, the Provost of the Gibbs Campus. Ms. Williams and Dr. Roberts testified that Mr. Zemola was very agitated and upset, expressing a great deal of anger toward Respondent. Mr. Zemola repeatedly demanded to know what the College was going to do about the situation. Shortly after his meeting with Mr. Zemola, Dr. Roberts called Respondent and asked him to come over to his office. Dr. Roberts testified that his main concern in calling Respondent was to warn him of Mr. Zemola’s angry and agitated state. Dr. Roberts also alerted campus security of the situation. At this meeting with Dr. Roberts, Respondent openly and voluntarily acknowledged his relationship with Ms. Zemola, including the romantic aspects thereof. The only discrepancy was that Respondent recalled the sexual encounter as having occurred after Ms. Zemola was a student in his class, whereas Ms. Zemola recalled that it occurred when she was a student in Respondent’s class. Ms. Williams and Dr. Roberts investigated the matter further, attempting to set up a meeting with Ms. Zemola herself. It took them roughly ten days to two weeks to set up this meeting, which finally occurred in Dr. Roberts’ office. Present at the meeting were Dr. Roberts, Ms. Williams, and the Zemolas. At this meeting, Ms. Zemola acknowledged the relationship with Respondent, and acknowledged that it was she who initiated it. Both of the Zemolas were adamant that Respondent should not be permitted to continue teaching at the College. \ 18. Mr. Zemola in particular seemed intent on seeing Respondent punished. Ms. Williams testified that Mr. Zemola telephoned her “all the time talking about what are we going to do about Mr. Brooks.” Mr. Zemola’s threatening demeanor led Ms. Williams to move Ms. Zemola’s classes to a different campus, so that Respondent and Ms. Zemola would not be in each other’s presence. Ms. Williams testified that this precaution was taken, not because of Respondent or Ms. Zemola, but because of John Zemola. No evidence was presented that Respondent ever attempted to contact Ms. Zemola after she ended the relationship. In January 1996, Ms. Williams began attempting to get Ms. Zemola to sign an affidavit stating the facts of the situation. Ms. Zemola initially declined to do so, her stated reason being that she feared Respondent’s influence in the local market could jeopardize her academic future. No evidence was presented that Respondent ever took any action to adversely affect Ms. Zemola’s academic standing or career, either within or outside of the College setting. In a memorandum to Respondent, dated February 8, 1996, Dr. Roberts recounted the details of the charges leveled by the Zemolas, as well as Respondent’s admissions regarding his relationship with Ms. Zemola. The memorandum recited portions of the College’s “Sexual Harassment Policy and Definitions” (the “Policy”). Under the Policy, “sexual harassment” is defined as: An employee’s or a student’s unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, sexually related jokes, display of pornographic material in the workplace or an academic or student setting (An academic or student setting includes all settings on campus, off-campus clinical programs, off- campus courses, and off-campus college- sponsored events), when submission to such conduct is made explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s employment or an individual’s treatment as a student; submission or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions or the treatment of a student affecting such individual; or such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work or a student’s academic performance or creating a sexually intimidating, hostile or offensive working or academic environment. The definition quoted above does not apply to the conduct alleged against Respondent, though a later section of the Policy, labeled “Instructor-Student Relationships,” appears to broaden the definition, as indicated in the relevant portion quoted below: This rule applies to instructor-student relationships. In the instructor-student context, the term sexual harassment has a broader impact. The fundamental element of such behavior is the inappropriate personal attention, including romantic and sexual relationships with a student by an instructor or staff member who is in a position to determine a student’s grade or otherwise affects the student’s academic advancement. Because the instructor-student relationship is one of professional and client, the above inappropriate behavior is unacceptable in a college; it is a form of unprofessional behavior which seriously undermines the atmosphere of trust essential to the academic setting. Both President Kuttler and Dr. Roberts testified that, in their opinion, the language quoted in the preceding paragraph broadened the definition of “sexual harassment” as applied to the instructor-student relationship, such that any form of romantic or sexual relationship between an instructor and a student constitutes sexual harassment, at least when the instructor is in a position to determine the student’s grade or otherwise affect the student’s academic advancement. The Policy also forbids retaliation against any person who has filed a complaint or complained about sexual harassment. No evidence was presented indicating that Respondent took any retaliatory action against Ms. Zemola. The Policy states that discipline for violation of its provisions “will depend on the nature of the incident,” but that the range of such discipline is from admonishment to dismissal. The February 8, 1996, memorandum goes on to state that, because of the seriousness of the alleged violations and because a violation of the Policy could lead to a recommendation of suspension or dismissal, Dr. Roberts was scheduling a meeting on February 13 with Ms. Williams, Martha Adkins, who was the Assistant Director of Business Technologies, and Nevis Herrington, Vice President of Human Resources, for the purpose of permitting Respondent to tell his side of the story in full. Ms. Williams was the only witness who testified as to the February 13 meeting, but her recollection was unclear as to the details of this meeting as distinguished from others involving Dr. Roberts, Respondent, and her. She recalled generally that Respondent was made aware of the Policy and potential penalties for violation thereof. Some delay ensued in the disciplinary process, because Dr. Roberts and Ms. Williams were waiting for the affidavit from Ms. Zemola, which was not forthcoming as spring turned into summer of 1996. At length, Dr. Roberts issued a memorandum to Respondent, dated August 13, 1996, and titled “Reprimand.” In the memorandum of reprimand, Dr. Roberts found that the facts to which Respondent had already admitted, characterized by Dr. Roberts as “a romantic relationship, including sexual relations, following the time that the student was a student in your class,” were sufficient to warrant a written admonishment. The memorandum stated that there were certain mitigating factors that caused Dr. Roberts not to recommend suspension or dismissal: that the student’s initiating the contact led to the relationship; that, according to Respondent, no romantic relationship or sexual relationship occurred while Ms. Zemola was Respondent’s student; and that Ms. Zemola had thus far refused or failed to provide her version of the facts in writing. However, Dr. Roberts’ memorandum went on to state: On the other hand, if the student had confirmed in an Affidavit what she originally advised us took place, I do not believe that I would have any choice but to consider recommending dismissal since such conduct would be a gross and direct violation of the College’s Sexual Harassment Policy. Such conduct would not only be in violation of the College’s Sexual Harassment Rule and Procedure but it would be unprofessional, immoral and constitute misconduct in office. Should confirming or additional information come forward to support the verbal statements we were given by the student and her husband, further consideration of an additional discipline including up to dismissal will be necessary. (Emphasis added.) The August 13, 1996, memorandum placed dispositive emphasis on the timing of the romantic and/or sexual relationship between Respondent and Ms. Zemola. As of August 13, Dr. Roberts accepted Respondent’s version of the facts, i.e., that the romantic and sexual aspects of the relationship occurred after Ms. Zemola was a student in Respondent’s class. Dr. Roberts found that this version, while contrary to the spirit of the Policy, and constituting misconduct in office and immorality, merited only a written admonishment. Dr. Roberts testified that “the power relationship is there whether the student is a student in that individual’s class or not,” somewhat contradicting the distinction he drew in his memorandum regarding the timing of the affair and its impact on the proposed discipline. Dr. Roberts testified that the admonishment was based on his judgment that Respondent’s relationship with the student violated the Policy “in terms of creating a threatening or offensive or intimidating environment.” He testified that Ms. Zemola had clearly complained that she felt intimidated and reluctant to take classes. Dr. Roberts’ conclusion in this regard was based on Ms. Zemola’s subjective apprehensions. No evidence was produced, at any point in these proceedings, that Respondent engaged in any behavior that could have caused Ms. Zemola to feel “intimidated” or “reluctant to take classes.” Ms. Zemola testified that she heard students at other campuses discussing the incident, and that an instructor in one of her classes talked about the case in front of the class. She believed that Respondent was the source of these persons’ knowledge of the situation. Ms. Zemola offered nothing more than her suspicions in this regard, and Respondent resolutely and credibly denied having discussed the affair with students or fellow instructors. In fact, the weight of the credible evidence leads to the finding that John Zemola was the likely source of any campus gossip regarding the incident. On at least one occasion, Mr. Zemola disrupted a College class by writing accusations against Respondent on the blackboard. Dr. Roberts’ August 13 reprimand memorandum left open the possibility that further disciplinary measures might be taken, should Ms. Zemola come forward with a sworn affidavit confirming her version of the timing of the romantic and sexual aspects, i.e., that they occurred while she was a student in Respondent’s class. In a sworn affidavit dated October 24, 1996, Ms. Zemola attested that, while she was a student in Respondent’s classes during Session II, 1994-95, they had an affair which consisted of “a great amount of time talking, and some time kissing, hugging, and holding hands.” She attested that during Session III, 1994- 95, while she was still a student in Respondent’s class, Respondent told her that “if our affair did not go any further, then it had to end.” She attested that at this time she was constantly fighting suicidal thoughts, and believed that if she lost Respondent, the only person she could talk to, she might no longer be able to fight those thoughts. Therefore, during Session III, 1994-95, she engaged in a single sexual encounter with Respondent. By memorandum dated December 11, 1996, Dr. Roberts informed Respondent that the affidavit has been filed and offered Respondent an opportunity to meet with Dr. Roberts and two other officials “to respond to the allegations and share your side of the story.” There is no record evidence that this meeting ever took place. On May 8, 1997, the College filed the Petition. The essential allegation was framed as follows: The faculty member entertained romantic and sexual relations with a student while that student was in the faculty member’s class. This relationship continued after the student was no longer in the faculty member’s class for a period of several months while the student continued her course of education at the College. Such conduct therefore occurred during a time when the faculty member could influence and affect the student’s academic advancement. In addition to the allegations regarding Respondent’s romantic and/or sexual relationship with Ms. Zemola, the Petition alleged: The faculty member thereafter encouraged students of his to pressure the woman with whom he had had the romantic relationship to refrain from stating charges against him in order that it not jeopardize the faculty member’s career. Petitioner offered no evidence to support this allegation, and it is thus assumed that it has been dismissed. The remaining factual allegations contained in the Petition are for the most part conclusions alleged to arise from Respondent’s conduct: Said conduct seriously undermines the atmosphere of trust essential to the student/instructor relationship, and further is inconsistent with the standards of public conscience and good morals, and was sufficiently notorious so as to disgrace the faculty member’s profession and impair the faculty member’s service to the community and to students. The faculty member’s conduct had serious adverse consequences upon the student, the student’s relationship with her husband, as well as adverse impact on other students, faculty, staff, and upon members of the community, impairing his effectiveness. The effect of the faculty member’s aforesaid conduct was the creation of an intimidating, hostile and/or offensive educational environment for the student and others. No evidence was presented of any “adverse consequences” to other students, faculty, staff, or members of the community, caused by Respondent’s actions. None of the College administrators who testified could recall receiving any complaints regarding Respondent. Dr. Roberts recalled an inquiry from the campus newspaper, but testified that no article ever ran in that or any other newspaper regarding this situation. Ms. Zemola testified that she heard some gossip around the campus, though none of it mentioned the parties by name. Such talk naturally affected Ms. Zemola, but could not be said to have had any other adverse impact. Ms. Zemola’s relationship with her husband was plainly affected by this incident. However, testimony from both Respondent and Ms. Zemola indicated that neither of their marriages was happy at the outset of their relationship. In fact, their testimony indicated that mutual unhappiness in their marriages was one of the main reasons they were drawn together in the first place. No evidence was presented to demonstrate that Ms. Zemola’s grades or academic advancement were in any way compromised by her affair with Respondent. Ms. Zemola received grades of “A” in both classes she took from Respondent. Both Ms. Zemola and Respondent testified that these grades were earned by Ms. Zemola based entirely on her work in those classes. Respondent has continued to work as an instructor at the College since the affair and subsequent disciplinary proceedings. His work has been performed competently and completely without incident. The episodes of disruption and/or diminished effectiveness cited by the College’s administrators were in fact caused by John Zemola, not by Respondent. When asked for evidence that Respondent’s effectiveness as a teacher has been diminished as a result of the relationship, President Kuttler related an incident in which John Zemola disrupted a class to inform the students about Respondent’s situation, and another incident in which John Zemola harassed Respondent at his home, telling Respondent’s neighbors about the incident. President Kuttler concluded that Respondent’s effectiveness was diminished by the fact that it became known on the campus that there was a teacher/student sexual relationship. However, all the credible record evidence indicates no one involved in the incident or the subsequent disciplinary proceedings other than John Zemola ever publicly disclosed the relationship. Respondent cannot fairly be blamed for the actions of Mr. Zemola in publicizing the incident. Several of Respondent’s colleagues testified to attest to Respondent’s outstanding ability in the classroom. All opined, based on their experience as instructors at the College and their knowledge of Respondent’s character and abilities, that Respondent could continue to perform as an effective instructor at the College. No evidence was presented to demonstrate that Respondent’s actions created “an intimidating, hostile and/or offensive educational environment for the student and others.” Respondent acknowledged the impropriety of his actions, and the impact they have had on his personal life, but testified that it has had no impact on his professional life.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Board enter a final order finding that Respondent violated the “Instructor-Student Relationships” portion of the College’s Sexual Harassment Policy, and suspending Respondent from his position at the College for a period not to exceed one Session. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Maria N. Sorolis, Esquire Shannon Bream, Esquire Allen, Norton and Blue Hyde Park Plaza, Suite 350 324 South Hyde Park Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman and Sakellarides 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Tampa, Florida 34684 Charles L. Roberts, Provost St. Petersburg Junior College St. Petersburg/Gibbs Campus Office of the Provost St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 District Board of Trustees St. Petersburg Junior College Post Office Box 13489 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 Carl M. Kuttler, Jr., President St. Petersburg Junior College Post Office Box 13489 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733
Findings Of Fact On October 29, 1984, Bruce E. Beneby, Respondent, was on the instructional staff at Dixie Hollings Senior High School as band instructor. Dennis Hale, a detective in the Pinellas County Sheriff's Department, went to Dixie Hollings Senior High School around 5:00 p.m., October 29, 1984, to pick up his son after band practice and to ask Respondent why he had thrown Hale's son's textbook in the garbage. Upon his arrival at the school in the vicinity of the bandroom, Hale observed Beneby running around the building with his shirt off. One of the milling students told Hale that Beneby was about to fight a student. When Hale arrived at the scene he observed Beneby holding a pair of scissors in a threatening manner toward the student, Ellis Tedrick. Tedrick had a six-foot length of drain pipe. Neither struck the other. Hale told both to stop but was not obeyed until he produced his sheriff's badge. Earlier, after band practice, Tedrick asked Beneby why he had thrown some of the girls off the Re Belle squad. He and Beneby got into an argument and Beneby picked up a band stand with which he threatened Tedrick. Other witnesses testified regarding Beneby's aggressiveness on other occasions. Testimony respecting Beneby having a gun in his briefcase to protect himself from the parents of students in his class is disregarded. No charge of this nature was made against Respondent as reason for his dismissal. No evidence was presented by any witness that observed Respondent destroy or throw away school property such as textbooks.
Findings Of Fact Respondent in this proceeding is Lloyd Wright. At all times pertinent to these proceedings, he was a social studies teacher employed by the St. Lucie County School District on a professional contract status and assigned to Westwood High School. He holds Florida Teaching Certificate No. 395537. On February 17, 1987, Respondent was suspended from his duties as a teacher for the school district. After an administrative hearing on issues relative to his employment, final order dismissing Respondent from his employment was issued by the school district on September 8, 1987. James Andrews is the principal of Westwood High School. Andrews has known Respondent as a friend, and as a member of the teaching staff at the school, for many years. On February 4, 1987, Andrews was at home with his ill son. His secretary telephoned him regarding allegations being voiced against Respondent by a female student. That student's allegations, and statements of other students alleged to be witnesses, were reduced to writing at Andrews' instruction and reviewed by him upon his return to the office on February 5, 1987. That evening he met with the complaining student, Tenecia Poitier, and her father. He assured them that the matter would be taken up with his superiors. On the morning of February 11, 1987, Andrews brought the allegations to the attention of the school district's Director of Secondary Education during a visit by the director to the Westwood Campus. That afternoon, the director telephoned Andrews and requested that additional statements be obtained from the students. Pursuant to those instructions, Andrews met with the students who had given the previous statements and instructed them to provide the additional statements to him. He forwarded these statements to the district school board office. Andrews has been the principal at Westwood High School for seven and a half years. He holds a master's degree in guidance and counseling and has completed course work in the areas of administration and supervision in excess of 30 academic credit hours. He has served in the educational system for approximately 35 years. Service in the positions of classroom teacher, guidance counselor, assistant principal and principal are included in the scope of his experience. Andrews regularly instructed the staff at the school to refrain from using slang in the classroom, becoming familiar with students or putting their hands on students unless necessary to prevent injury to a student or others. This admonishment by the principal was applicable to all students without regard to race or sex. He does not think it appropriate for a teacher to use the word "fuck" or the phrase "I am going to fuck your brains out" in the classroom. Andrews also finds the use of the phrases "Girl, I want that thing" and "Girl, I'm going to take you to the bushes" inappropriate for a male teacher to use in conversation with a female student. He would not want a male teacher who touched female students intentionally on the buttocks or thighs, or used such words or phrases in the classroom, on his teaching staff. Tenecia Poitier graduated from Westwood High School in 1988. In the 1986-87 school year, she was a student in Respondent's World History class. On one occasion, Respondent pushed Poitier against the wall of the classroom with other students present and told her "One of these days, I'm going to fuck your brains out." Once, when she was going to the school cafeteria, Respondent told her "Girl, I want that thing." Respondent touched Poitier on the leg and buttocks on other occasions and made suggestive statements to her. In response, Poitier rejected Respondent's advances by cursing him and, on one occasion, striking him. Another incident occurred when Respondent seated himself in front of Poitier's desk and propped his feet on her desk in a crossed fashion. The result of Respondent adopting this seating posture meant that Poitier had to look between Respondent's legs when she looked up from her desk work. Poitier got out of her desk, struck Respondent with her notebook, cursed him and told him to get his legs off her desk. Poitier did not observe Respondent engage in this seating conduct with other students. JoAnna McGee was a ninth grade student when she had Respondent as her teacher for World History. Respondent saw McGee walking down the street one day. He sounded his automobile horn at her. Later, when he saw her in the classroom, he told her that if he saw her walking on the street again he would take her "in the bushes." Respondent hugged McGee and other female students on occasion. Tony Lee was a student in Respondent's World History class, along with Poitier. Lee was aware of Respondent's joking and bantering with students. Female students would congregate around Respondent's desk when these sessions occurred. On one of these occasions, female students laughingly said they needed some candy to suck, and Lee heard Respondent reply "I've got something to suck on right here." Lee also heard Respondent make the statement "fuck your brains out" during an exchange with students. Lee overheard Respondent using the phrase "pull your clothes down" in a conversation with Poitier. Lisa Frazier was also a classmate of Poitier during the World History class taught by Respondent. She observed Poitier curse Respondent and strike him with her notebook. Frazier also testified that Poitier had a reputation for disruptive behavior and that Respondent used slang language with students. Respondent admitted using slang expressions, including the phrases "take you to the bushes" and "take you to the woods," in classroom settings with female students. Respondent admitted to a practice of hugging male and female students. Respondent also testified that he never told Poitier that he wanted to "F--- her brains out." When confronted with his sworn testimony from a previous proceeding that he did not recall making the statement, Respondent explained that his previous answer was made upon advice of his counsel at that time. Respondent's denial in this proceeding that he never made such a statement to Poitier, along with his testimony that hugging of students was an unintentional result of previous coaching experience, is not credited in view of his demeanor while testifying. Further, his testimony that his use of the phrases "take you to the bushes" or "take you to the woods" resulted from a film observed in the class and were meaningless slang terms devoid of sexual innuendo, is not credible. Also, the testimony of students Lee and McGee corroborates Poitier's version of Respondent's behavior and further discredits Respondent's testimony, including his explanation that Poitier's complaint against him resulted from Respondent writing up Poitier for academic and disciplinary reasons. Other students were also written up as often as Poitier.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered revoking Respondent's teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of November, 1988. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's proposed Findings 1.-2. Addressed. Unnecessary to result reached. 4.-12. Addressed. 13. Unnecessary to result. 14.-15. Adopted in substance. 16. Unnecessary to result reached. 17.-21. Addressed. 22.-24. Unnecessary to result reached. Addressed in part, remainder unnecessary to result. Unnecessary to result reached. 27.-28. Addressed. 29.-30. Adopted in substance. 31. Unnecessary to result reached. 32.-33. Addressed. 34.-35. Unnecessary to result reached. Addressed. Rejected as a conclusion of law. Respondent's Proposed Findings 1.-2. Addressed. 3.-6. Unnecessary to result reached. 7.-8. Cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary to result. 9.-13. Unnecessary to result reached. 14. Addressed. 15.-17. Unnecessary to result reached. Rejected as cumulative. Rejected, contrary to weight of the evidence. Rejected as a conclusion of law. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. Unnecessary to result reached. Addressed in substance. 24.-25. Unnecessary to result reached. 26.-27. Addressed in substance. 28. Unnecessary to result. 29.-30. Addressed. COPIES FURNISHED: Betty J. Steffens, Esquire Post Office Box 11008 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Lorene C. Powell, Esquire 208 West Pensacola St. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sydney H. McKenzie, Esquire. General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Hon. Betty Castor Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 =================================================================
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent, Diane Velez, violated section 1012.795(1)(g) and (j), Florida Statutes (2017), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the demeanor of the witnesses, the testimony given, and the documentary evidence received, the following Findings of Fact are made. Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 789520, covering the areas of Elementary Education, English for Speakers of Other Languages, (ESOL), and Exceptional Student Education (ESE), which is valid through June 30, 2020. At all times relevant to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as an ESE teacher at Stillwell Middle School (Stillwell) in the Duval County School District. She has been teaching for approximately 20 years, with no prior discipline. Respondent teaches in a wing at Stillwell that is referred to as the SLA Unit, which stands for Supported Level Academics. The students in the SLA Unit are cognitively delayed and have all of their classes in this self- contained unit. The SLA Unit is located in a wing at the back of the school, near the bus loop. If someone is looking down the hall from the doors closest to the rest of the school, there are female and male bathrooms for students to the left and right, respectively, closest to those doors. From those bathrooms, there are five classrooms on each side of the hall. Ms. Velez’s classroom is the third classroom on the right-hand side of the hallway. There are additional restrooms in the wing, all congregated in the area between the third and fourth classrooms on the left hand side of the hallway. At least one of those bathrooms is entered from within a classroom. Stillwell had a policy that if a student was given permission to leave the classroom, the student should not be gone for more than eight to ten minutes without the teacher calling for assistance to locate the student. Teachers could call for assistance from Ronald Messick, the lead ESE teacher; send a paraprofessional to look for the student; or call the front office or a resource officer. The eight-to-ten minute window was not a written policy, but was discussed during pre-planning meetings at the beginning of the year, as well as at faculty meetings. While attendance logs from pre-planning and faculty meetings were not introduced to establish that Respondent was present during faculty meetings or pre-planning meetings, no evidence was presented to indicate that she was absent. In addition, the 2017-2018 Faculty Handbook (Handbook) for Stillwell had more than one section that addressed supervision of students. For example, under the caption “Supervision of Students,” beginning on page 12 of the Handbook, it states:1 It is the responsibility of the school to provide supervision for students in attendance. It is the teacher’s responsibility to make sure that students in his/her charge are supervised at all times. Teachers should be aware of the legal and progressive discipline aspects of failure to provide adequate supervision. Students should always have adult supervision. Under the caption “Hall Passes,” on page 16 of the Handbook, it states: Hall passes are to be used for emergencies only. In an effort to reduce the number of students out of class during instructional time, each classroom will have either a lime/orange vest or a Colored clipboard. Students needing to leave the classroom are required to wear the vest or carry the clipboard. Please make sure students continue to sign-out when leaving/returning to your classroom so if the vest/clipboard disappears, you will know who was in possession of it last. Only one student per class may be on a hall pass at any given time. If it is necessary that a student leave your classroom to go to an Administrative Office and your vest/clipboard is already being used, security will need to escort student(s) to and from the classroom. While it is our desire that no student be in the halls during instructional time, there are absolutely NO hall passes for any reason during the first/last 30 minutes of each class and NO hall passes during 2nd block each day unless called by an Administrator. Students who are found out of class during the first/last 30 minutes of the block will have the vest or clipboard taken and given to the Assistant Principal for you to retrieve. Students who are out of class, unaccompanied by security, and do not have a vest/clipboard will be 1 All italics, underlining, and bold used in the quoted material is as it appears in the Handbook. considered skipping and appropriate consequences will be assigned. The teacher will also be held accountable if not following school procedure. Finally, under the heading “Hall and Campus Monitoring,” it states in all capitals and bold letters, “STUDENTS SHOULD NEVER WALK BY THEMSELVES.” On or about January 11, 2018, J.L. was an 11-year-old female student in the sixth grade. J.L. was assigned to Respondent’s classroom, and has an Individual Education Plan (IEP). J.L. was a student in a class containing students who functioned cognitively at the lowest level for students at Stillwell. While those who testified could not state definitively what the IQ level was for the class, it was generally around 67-70. Ms. Velez described the class as one for which there was “a need to have eyes on them.” J.L. was new to the school during the 2017-2018 school year. On August 22, 2017, Ronald Messick sent an email to J.L.’s teachers, including Respondent, stating that J.L. could not be left alone and that she would “leave with a complete stranger.” He advised that when J.L. uses the restroom, she likes to play in it, and directed that the teacher who has J.L. the last period of the day needed to make sure she used the restroom. J.L.’s mother had called Mr. Messick the first week of school with concerns that J.L. had been unsupervised in the bus pick-up area. Her mother explained her concerns to Mr. Messick regarding J.L.’s need for constant supervision. The email referenced making sure that J.L. went to the bathroom before boarding the bus simply because she would have a long ride home from school. An IEP meeting was conducted for J.L. on October 12, 2017. Mr. Messick was present as the LEA (lead educational agency) representative, along with Ms. Velez, who wrote the IEP, and three others. J.L.’s IEP states that “[s]he has Williams Syndrome which is a developmental disorder that affects many parts of her body.” The IEP also states that J.L. “is a very trusting child and will walk away with a stranger. She does not distinguish friend from stranger and this causes danger to her safety,” and that J.L. “needs increased supervision to ensure her safety.” The statement that J.L. needs increased supervision to insure her safety is included in two separate sections of her IEP. Respondent was J.L.’s case manager. As her case manager, Respondent reviews, completes entries, and inputs other appropriate data in J.L.’s IEP. She was aware of the information contained in J.L.’s IEP. On January 11, 2018, J.L. was present in Ms. Velez’s classroom during the last period of the day. At approximately 2:05, she asked for, and received, permission to go to the bathroom. Ms. Velez allowed J.L. to go by herself. No adult or other student accompanied her. Allowing J.L. to go the restroom alone was not permitted by her IEP. Further, it appears to violate the policies outlined in the Handbook, which prohibits allowing hall passes for the first 30 minutes of each class. The final class of the day began at 2:05.2 It also runs afoul of the email sent by Mr. Messick at the beginning of the school year, which specifically directed that J.L. not be left alone. After J.L. was permitted to leave the classroom, T.B., a male student in Respondent’s class, also asked to go the bathroom, and was allowed to leave the classroom. Ms. Velez did not check to see where J.L. was before letting T.B. leave the classroom. T.B. was also unaccompanied. J.L. was absent from the classroom for approximately 24 minutes. There are no credible circumstances presented at hearing by which a student should be absent from the classroom for that length of time, regardless of 2 The Administrative Complaint does not charge Respondent with violating this policy, and no discipline is recommended for apparently doing so. It is included simply to show that there were multiple guidelines in place to prohibit allowing J.L. outside of the classroom alone. their mental capacity, the policy contained in the Handbook, or any policy discussed at faculty meetings. T.B. returned to the classroom before J.L. After he entered Ms. Velez’s classroom, T.B. apparently told Ms. Velez that J.L. was in the boys’ bathroom. Ms. Velez testified that she was about to look for her when J.L. returned to the classroom. Ms. Velez testified that she noticed J.L. had “a lot of energy,” and was breathing hard and her hands were shaking. Ms. Velez asked J.L. if she had been in the boys’ bathroom, and testified at hearing that J.L. responded that she did not want to get in trouble. J.L. became upset and asked to speak with the school nurse. Ms. Velez allowed her to go to the nurse’s office, this time accompanied by an eighth grade girl. While Ms. Velez described the child who accompanied J.L. as “very responsible,” it is noted that she was also a child in this classroom of children who represented the lowest functioning students at Stillwell. Lana Austin was the school nurse at Stillwell, and her office was down the hall from Ms. Velez’s room in the SLA wing. She testified T.B. was in her office when J.L. arrived. It was not explained at hearing whether T.B. had also asked Ms. Velez to go to the nurse’s office or just how he came to be there. When she arrived at the nurse’s office, J.L. was crying and somewhat distraught, and T.B. was also getting upset. Ms. Austin tried to get J.L. to tell her what was wrong, and J.L. kept saying they were trying to get her in trouble. J.L. wanted to call her mother, and Ms. Austin let her do so, because she believed it would calm her down. A paraprofessional came into Ms. Austin’s office while J.L. was on the phone with her mother. So while the paraprofessional was in the office with the students, Ms. Austin contacted Ms. Raulerson, the principal at Stillwell, and notified her there might be a problem so that someone could look at the hallway video and find out if anything happened. Ms. Austin knew that J.L. was a student who needed to be escorted. She was always brought to the nurse’s office by an adult. On this occasion, there was no adult. Jennifer Raulerson was the principal at Stillwell during the 2017-2018 school year. She is now the executive director for middle schools in Duval County. Ms. Raulerson testified that J.L.’s father came to the school immediately after J.L.’s telephone call home, and started asking questions. Because of the nature of his questions, consistent with school protocols, Ms. Raulerson contacted Stillwell’s school resource officer (SRO), Officer Tuten, as well as Mr. Messick and Ms. Hodges, who was the dean of students, to discuss with J.L.’s father what needed to be done to investigate what actually happened.3 The following morning, Ms. Raulerson, Ms. Hodges, and Mr. Messick spoke to J.L., T.B., and M.N., another student in the hallway, about what happened the day before. Based on their answers, Ms. Raulerson gave Ms. Hodges a basic timeframe, and asked her to check the cameras to see if she saw anything that would indicate that something happened involving J.L. and T.B. Ms. Hodges testified that a person can type in a date and time on the computer and look at a specific timeframe on the video, which is what she did. Once she viewed the video and realized how long a student had been out of the classroom, she went to Ms. Raulerson and they looked at the video again. Mr. Messick also watched the video with them. Administrators at the school could access the surveillance video on their computers. The surveillance video software has dates and times from which you can retrieve a time period to watch. However, when you download 3 Although they were under subpoena, neither J.L. nor J.L.’s father appeared to testify at hearing. Any statements attributed to them cannot support a finding of fact for the truth of the matter asserted. § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. Statements by J.L. that are included in this Recommended Order are not intended to establish the truth of her statements, but rather, to explain why teachers and administrators took the actions they did in response to the situation. a section of the surveillance video, the downloaded portion does not include the timestamp. When Ms. Raulerson viewed the surveillance video on the computer screen, she could see the time stamp. While the video in evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 17E does not contain the time stamp, Ms. Raulerson credibly testified that it is the same video she and the others viewed to determine whether J.L. and T.B. were out of the classroom and how long they were out of the classroom. Petitioner’s Exhibit 17E is a type of evidence commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent persons in the conduct of their responsibilities as a school administrator. There is no evidence that the tape itself has been altered, edited, or tampered with in any way. The lack of a time stamp is not all that important. What is important is not so much the time of day when J.L. and T.B. were absent from Respondent’s classroom, but the length of time that they were absent.4 Ms. Velez admits that she allowed both students to leave her classroom on January 11. She simply disputes how long J.L. was gone. The surveillance video is 39 minutes and 53 seconds long. The times given in the summary of the video activity below are based on the times recorded on the video, as opposed to the time of day. A comparison of those timeframes with the timeline made by Ms. Austin and Mr. Messick shows that the timelines are essentially the same. The video shows the following: 4 Respondent claims she is prejudiced by the admission of the video, because she was not able to view it with the time-stamps to verify that it was, in fact, the video for January 11, 2018. It is noted that Respondent initiated no discovery in this case. Petitioner filed an exhibit list that included a reference to a video as early as July 24, 2020, some three weeks before hearing. Moreover, the Order of Pre-Hearing Instructions specifically requires not only a list of all exhibits to be offered at hearing, but also any objections to those exhibits and the grounds for each objection. Respondent did not note any objection in the Second Amended Joint Pre-Hearing Statement to the admission of any of the videos admitted as Petitioner’s Exhibit 17. At eight minutes, 17 seconds, J.L. leaves Ms. Velez’s classroom and heads down toward the girls’ bathroom at the end of the hall.5 She is wearing an over-sized jacket, but is not wearing a vest or carrying a clipboard. At nine minutes, 15 seconds, she comes out of the girls’ bathroom and speaks to an adult in the hallway, and then heads back to the bathroom. At the 13-minute, 4-second mark, T.B. walks down the hall from Ms. Velez’s classroom and, curiously, walks over toward the girls’ bathroom before going over to the boys’ bathroom. At 14 minutes, 39 seconds, T.B. comes out of the boys’ bathroom and walks over toward the girls’ bathroom a second time. After approximately ten seconds, he exits the area near the girls’ bathroom and heads back to the boys’ bathroom. At approximately 15 minutes into the video, and almost seven minutes after leaving Ms. Velez’s classroom, J.L. comes out of the girls’ bathroom, peers down the hallway in both directions, and goes over to the boys’ bathroom. At this point, she is still wearing her jacket. At approximately 18 minutes, 16 seconds into the video, a second male student, later identified as M.N., walks down the hall. M.N. is not in Ms. Velez’s class during this class period. He also goes toward the girls’ bathroom first, and then stands in the hallway outside the boys’ bathroom. After approximately 30 seconds, he walks down the hall and back, before going toward the boys’ bathroom and out of sight at 19 minutes and 40 seconds. At 20 minutes, 16 seconds into the video, other students start lining up in the hallway. Approximately four classes line up in the hallway, with no one coming out of the boys’ bathroom. At approximately 29 minutes, 5 Respondent established at hearing that one cannot actually see students enter and exit the bathrooms from the surveillance video. The sight line for the video stops just short of the doors to the two bathrooms. However, the only other alternative to going in the bathrooms would be for students to exit the SLA unit through the doors near the bathrooms. If that were the case, J.L. would be subject to harm as well, given that the doors lead to the rest of the school and the bus loading zone. 26 seconds, girls in line outside the bathroom are seen looking toward the boys’ bathroom and appear to be laughing. J.L. comes out of the boys’ bathroom at the 29-minute, 53-second mark, followed by T.B. J.L. is not wearing her jacket, and her belt is undone. T.B. throws J.L.’s jacket on the floor and walks down the hallway with his hands up in the air. Both J.L. and T.B. walk down the hall toward Ms. Velez’s room, and then turn around and return to their respective bathrooms. At the 31-minute, 53-second mark, J.L. comes out of the bathroom with her shirt tucked in and her belt fastened. She is still not wearing her jacket, a small portion of which can be seen on the floor of the hallway. She does not pick it up, but stays in the hallway until T.B. comes out of the bathroom, then both go down the hall toward Ms. Velez’s class, with T.B. running and J.L. walking. J.L. re-enters Ms. Velez’s classroom at 32 minutes, 21 seconds into the video. Finally, at 32 minutes, 30 seconds, M.N. comes out of the boys’ room, picks up J.L.’s jacket and heads down the hall. Based on the surveillance video, J.L.was out of the classroom for slightly over 24 minutes. T.B. was absent from the classroom for over 18 minutes. Ms. Velez is never seen in the hallway. There is no admissible evidence to demonstrate what actually occurred during the time that J.L. appeared to be in the boys’ restroom. Regardless of what actually happened, no female student should be in the boys’ bathroom, and a female student already identified as needing increased supervision should not be allowed to be unsupervised outside of her classroom at all, much less for such a lengthy period of time. The potential for harm was more than foreseeable, it was inevitable. Ms. Velez did not go in the hallway or send Ms. Kirkland, the paraprofessional present in her classroom that day, to check on J.L. or T.B. She did not call the SRO, the front office, or Mr. Messick to ask for assistance in locating either child. She also did not contact Ms. Raulerson, Mr. Messick, or J.L.’s parents after T.B. told her that J.L. had been in the boys’ restroom. She testified that, while J.L. certainly should not be in the boys’ restroom, there was nothing that led her to believe or suspect that there could be neglect or abuse. Ms. Velez acknowledged that she allowed J.L. to go to the bathroom unsupervised, and stated that she was training J.L. to go to the bathroom by herself. If that was the case, doing so was directly contrary to Mr. Messick’s email of August 22, 2017, and to the requirements of J.L.’s IEP. Ms. Velez had approximately 18 students in her classroom. Her focus, according to her, was on providing instruction to the students in her class. She denied losing track of time, but stated that once the students were engaged, she took her time with the lesson, which “led me to not noticing what time it was as normally as I should,” and she “possibly got distracted.” She did not take any responsibility for her actions. Instead, she blamed the situation on the fact that, at the time of the incident, she did not have a full- time paraprofessional assigned to her classroom. While the paraprofessional position for her class was not filled at the time of this incident, Ms. Kirkland traveled with the class and was present in Ms. Velez’s class when J.L. was allowed to leave the classroom. Ms. Velez also appeared to minimize the importance of providing increased supervision for J.L., and claimed that she was training her to go to the bathroom by herself. Yet, she described the class as a whole as one that needed “eyes on them” at all times. Further, J.L.’s parents clearly felt the increased supervision was crucial, and called early in the school year to make sure that staff knew J.L. was not to be left alone. Ms. Velez gave no explanation as to why she would “train” J.L. to leave the room unsupervised (and one wonders what training could be taking place, if the child is allowed to go alone outside the classroom), when she knew that to do so was clearly contrary to J.L.’s parents’ wishes. On January 22, 2018, the Duval County School District (the District) began an investigation into the incident concerning J.L. that occurred on January 11, 2018. During the District investigation, Ms. Raulerson notified the Department of Children and Families (DCF) and law enforcement of the incident. Both entities conducted investigations. The results of those investigations are not part of this record. On March 16, 2018, the District reprimanded Respondent and suspended her for 30 days for failing to provide adequate supervision of her students. The School Board’s approval of the suspension and the basis for it was reported in the press.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j) and rule 6A- 10.081(2)(a)1. It is further recommended that Respondent pay a fine of $750, and that her certificate be suspended for a period of one year, followed by two years of probation, with terms and conditions to be determined by the Education Practices Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of October, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of October, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 (eServed) Stephanie Marisa Schaap, Esquire Duval Teachers United 1601 Atlantic Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 (eServed) Lisa M. Forbess, Interim Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
