Findings Of Fact Respondent, Carolyn T. Smith, holds teaching certificate number 105319, issued by the State of Florida, Department of Education. Respondent is certified to teach French and Spanish through the junior college level. Respondent has been employed as a French and Spanish teacher by Petitioner, School Board of Dade County (School Board) since 1961. From 1961 to 1966, Respondent taught at Mays Junior High School, and from 1966 through 1976 at Southwest Miami Senior High School. During the 1976-77 and 1977-78 school years Respondent was on a leave of absence. In 1978 Respondent resumed her teaching career and was assigned to Palmetto Senior High School (Palmetto). Respondent taught at Palmetto until her suspension from teaching at the conclusion of the 1982-83 school year. Respondent's annual evaluations extending from the 1961-62 school year through the 1978-79 school year were acceptable. It is Respondent's performance from the 1979-80 through 1982-83 school years which is at issue in these proceedings. During the 1979-80 school year the normal work day at Palmetto was 7:20 a.m. to 2:40 p.m. Due to personal hardship, however, Respondent was granted permission to alter her schedule to an 8:10 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. work day. Despite the accommodation afforded Respondent, on at least seven occasions between September 7, 1979 and February 21, 1980, Respondent was from five minutes to one hour and ten minutes late to work. Not only was Respondent late to her first class, she occasionally missed the class entirely as well as the beginning of her next class. On February 21, 1980 Respondent was formally observed by Elaine Kenzel, assistant principal at Palmetto. Ms. Kenzel's observation specifically apprised Respondent that she had been rated unacceptable in professional responsibility because of her tardiness. Ms. Kenzel's observation noted several other areas of performance in which Respondent was unacceptable or needed improvement. These matters were reviewed at conferences with Respondent on February 26 and 28, 1980. Portions of the conferences were attended by Francis Wargo, the principal at Palmetto. Among the topics broached at the conferences were Respondent's failure to properly maintain her grade book, her failure to follow proper grading procedures, her failure to properly assess each student's progress, her failure to use assessment techniques which motivate and enable students to learn, and lack of teacher-student rapport. Respondent's grade book for the 1979-80 school year was messy and, in large measure, incomprehensible to anyone other than Respondent. The grade book failed to indicate the grading period, failed to specify the grade source, failed to weight the grades for various tasks, and was uncoded. It depicted a poor professional image and failed to fulfill its basic purpose--to enable students, parents, replacement teachers and other authorized persons to review a student's achievement. Despite repeated critiques, Respondent's grade books showed little improvement during her tenure at Palmetto. Ms. Kenzel also counseled Respondent about her obligation to maintain a representative sampling of each student's work in her student folders. These samples were necessary to assess student progress, and should include graded tests, homework, classwork and reports. At the time of Ms. Kenzel's observation, six months into the 1979-80 school year, there were few samples of any student's work. What did exist were, in large measure, short quizzes of a vocabulary nature. The student folders were inadequate to assess a student's progress. Finally, Ms. Kenzel critiqued Respondent's instructional technique. Ms. Kenzel suggested that Respondent's students should not be simply repeating lessons in rote fashion, but should be involved in a variety of activities. This would improve student attention and enthusiasm, which Ms. Kenzel perceived was lacking. Final examinations for the 1979-80 school year were scheduled to commence at 7:30 a.m., June 9, 1980. The scheduling of examinations required a rearrangement of the normal class schedule. Fifth period, which normally began at 1:30 p.m., was scheduled for 7:30 a.m. This change required that Respondent report at 7:20 a.m. on June 9, instead of 8:10 a.m. The examination schedule was published, and discussed with Respondent at a faculty meeting. On June 9, 1980, Respondent failed to report for work until 8:15 a.m., 45 minutes after her fifth period examination was scheduled to commence. Respondent's tardiness created a poor testing atmosphere and was a cause of anxiety and frustration for her students. Respondent offered no explanation for her tardiness. On June 11, 1980, a conference for the record was held between Mr. Wargo and Respondent. Respondent's tardiness of June 9, 1980 was discussed, and she was reminded that her work day for the next year would be the same as other teachers, 7:20 a.m.-2:40 p.m. Respondent was told that disciplinary action would be recommended if she failed to observe the prescribed working hours. Respondent was also reminded that school policy forbade a teacher to permit a student to hand-carry any part of an examination to the office for duplication. Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1979-80 school year recommended Respondent for continued employment, but found her unacceptable in classroom management and teacher-student relationships. It is worthy of note that this evaluation was dated June 2, 1980, and therefore predated Respondent's tardiness of June 9, 1980 and the conference for the record held June 11, 1980. The 1980- School Year The 1980-81 school year produced few observations of Respondent's performance. During that year a massive rebuilding project was underway and the administration's attention was directed toward that project and coping with the upheaval it caused. Normal classroom assignments and instruction were often disrupted. Teachers were often moved in and out of classrooms on one day's notice. Consequently, a great deal of latitude was afforded all teachers, and all were rated acceptable. That is not to say Respondent's performance was unblemished. The evidence established two definite areas of deficiency again were present. Respondent's tardiness to school and to class continued, and Respondent was again deficient in her student assessments. In November 1981, Ms. Mona Sowers visited Respondent's class to discuss the progress of her daughter, Carolyn Ann. She was concerned because conversations she had overheard between her daughter and friends left her with the impression they were not being tested. Respondent's grade book demonstrated that no testing or grades were present for Carolyn Ann. Although she inquired of her daughter's progress, Ms. Sowers was not shown any papers, or any other work, which would objectively demonstrate her daughter's progress. Respondent's sole explanation was that she tested her students orally. There were no grades in the grade book for oral or written tests, however, and Respondent was unable to recognize Ms. Sowers' daughter as one of her students until prompted by Ms. Sowers. For the 1981-82 school year, Respondent was again scheduled to work the normal 7:20 a.m. to 2:40 p.m. work day. On the first day of class Respondent was 20 minutes late. During much of the 1981-82 school year Respondent was tardy in arriving, from two to five occasions each week. Teacher tardiness impacts directly on the quantum of education offered the students. While first period is scheduled to begin at 7:30 a.m., adherence to the 7:20 a.m. arrival time is essential if the teacher is to be prepared to start class promptly. Otherwise, 5-10 minutes of class time are wasted by the teacher in organizing herself for that day's lesson. Promptness is particularly crucial for first period since daily announcements, which can occupy up to five minutes of the period, are given at that time. Since each class period is 55 minutes in duration, a loss of only 10 minutes per day equates to a loss of one day of instruction each week. Respondent's tardiness deprived her students of valuable instructional time, and left them unsupervised--a condition not helpful to their safety. Respondent was formally observed on six separate occasions during the 1981-82 school year. Mr. Wargo's observations of September 25, 1981 and November 5, 1982, and Ms. Kenzel's observation of October 12, 1981, rated Respondent overall acceptable, but each noted some areas of unacceptable performance. The deficiencies noted in these three observations were similar to those observed in preceding years. Respondent was unacceptable in classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships and professional responsibility. Respondent wasted up to 20 minutes of class time on extraneous matters, failed to establish or enforce classroom policies on decorum or procedure, and her instruction evidenced a lack of planning. Respondent's classroom was messy and disorganized. Her tardiness continued. Each of these observations was critiqued with Respondent and suggestions to improve her performance were made. She was advised to start classes promptly, establish classroom policies and enforce them, vary her methods of instruction, and visit other classes and observe other teachers' performance. Respondent was reminded that her contract work day was 7:20 a.m. to 2:40 p.m. On February 2, 1982, Mr. Wargo stopped two students leaving Respondent's room. He discovered they had been visiting other students in Respondent's classroom, and that she was unaware of their presence. Respondent was observed passing out papers during a movie, and her students were talking and walking about. This occasioned Respondent's next formal observation. On February 4-5, 1982, Mr. Wargo formally observed Respondent's classes. He rated her overall unacceptable, and unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships and professional responsibility. Apart from Respondent's continuing tardiness, which accounted for her unacceptable rating in professional responsibility, the gravamen of her unacceptable rating in the other areas was basically inadequate planning and variety. Respondent's class was dull, her voice a monotone. Students responded in rote fashion to Respondent's singular questions. There was no variety of instruction or student feedback. Mr. Wargo directed Respondent to use the prescribed lesson plan form that had been developed at Palmetto. It was his opinion that if Respondent prepared a detailed lesson plan her classroom management would improve, student confusion would be avoided, and a more stimulating and organized presentation achieved. On February 9, 1982 Mr. Wargo held a conference with Respondent, Ms. Kenzel and Ms. Patrylo, Respondent's department head, to discuss the unacceptable observation of February 4-5, 1982, the incident of February 2, 1982, and ways to improve Respondent's techniques of instruction. During the course of that meeting, Respondent was advised that Ms. Wally Lyshkov, foreign language supervisor for Dade County Schools, would observe her class on February 19, 1982. On February 19, 1982 Respondent was formally observed by Ms. Lyshkov. While she rated Respondent overall acceptable, Ms. Lyshkov was of the opinion that Respondent's presentation was "staged" for her benefit. Her opinion was formed as a result of student comments that they did not usually do what they were doing, and by the lack of smoothness that results when activities are routine. Although "staged," Respondent's presentation indicates she knows how to teach effectively if she chooses to do so. Respondent had a very detailed lesson plan for the day Ms. Lyshkov observed her. Ms. Lyshkov reviewed Respondent's prior plans and found them to be sketchy. She recommended that Respondent continue to formulate detailed lesson plans, since Respondent's success that day proved their effectiveness. Respondent's last formal observation for the 1981-82 school year occurred on March 2, 1982. Mr. Wargo observed her classes for periods 1 and 2, and Ms. Kenzel observed for a portion of the same classes. Respondent was rated overall acceptable. The results of these observations establish that Respondent is capable of presenting a good lesson when she chooses to prepare herself. The 1981-82 school year evidenced other indications of Respondent's disposition. She was late turning in emergency lesson plans, lesson plans, course outlines and grade sheets. She was late to departmental meetings and to teacher workdays. She occasionally left her classes unsupervised. Despite her previous warning, Respondent continued to permit students to hand-carry examinations to the xerox room for copying. In May 1982 Mr. Wargo issued Respondent a letter of reprimand for unprofessional conduct in calling a student "trash." During the 1982-83 school year Respondent was heard to call various students "cabbage head," "stupid," "dumb," "disgusting," "fools," and "disgusting little creature." On May 27, 1982 Mr. Wargo completed Respondent's annual evaluation and recommended her for continued employment. While Mr. Wargo rated Respondent unacceptable in teacher-student relationships, he was apparently satisfied that she was improving her other areas of deficiency. Subsequent to the annual evaluation a significant number of serious problems surfaced which reflected on Respondent's performance and which caused Mr. Wargo to seriously question his recommendation for continued employment. Respondent was absent, without satisfactory excuse or authorization, from school during the final examination period of June 14 through June 17, 1982. According to Respondent it was not until 2:00 p.m. the preceding Friday that she first learned she would have to take her son, a 12-year-old junior high school student, to Talladega College, Talladega, Alabama, to enroll him in a "Super Stars" summer program she had selected. According to Respondent, her husband could not take their son because he was "on call" at his work. Respondent's explanation for abandoning her obligations is unpersuasive. Respondent had at least four weeks' notice that her son had been accepted for the program. Ms. Patrylo, Respondent's department head, was at school the Friday before exams until 2:45-3:00 p.m. At no time during the preceding four weeks, or on the Friday preceding exams, did Respondent advise the administration or her department head that she would need to be absent that week. Instead, Respondent "fulfilled" her obligations by "informing" the principal's and assistant principal's secretaries late Friday afternoon that she would be absent and left her final examinations in the office. Ms. Patrylo did not become aware of Respondent's absence until the morning of June 14, 1982. During the course of administering the French I final examination to Respondent's first period class Ms. Patrylo discovered a number of significant problems which reflected adversely on Respondent's competence. Respondent's French I examination was a travesty. It was not a French I examination but a French II placement test the department had previously prepared to gauge at what level an incoming student should be placed. Respondent had simply taken a copy of the placement test and written "French I Final" on it. Respondent had been previously instructed that the examination was to be thorough and cover a significant amount of the year's course content. Essay questions were to be included. The French II placement test which Respondent proposed to give her students was composed of 47 questions; no essay questions - were included. Over 50 percent of the test, 25 questions, dealt with the passe' compose', yet that grammatical structure had not been extensively taught. Twenty-five percent of the examination dealt with verbs in the past tense, yet Respondent's students had not studied the past tense. Moreover, the test only required the "bubbling in" of answers on a computer card and did not require any writing. While two hours were allotted for the examination, this exam could be completed in ten minutes. Respondent's classroom was in disarray. Maps valued at $300 were abused. Respondent's closet contained flash cards, audio visual materials, food and other materials haphazardly thrown about. The room was completely disorganized. Respondent left no instructions for completing her book inventory. Consequently, 56 of her textbooks, valued at $11.00 each, were never accounted for. When school started the next year the class was short of books. On June 18, 1982, the last day of school, Respondent was due at school at 8:00 a.m. She failed to arrive until 8:45 a.m. Because of Respondent's tardiness three members of her department had to record grades for four of her classes in order to assure timely delivery of the grade sheets to the computer center. In working with Respondent's grade book to establish final grades, these teachers noted several shortcomings. Respondent's grade book contained no code for weighting of grades, it was impossible to tell which student absences were excused or unexcused, and on some lines two students' names appeared, rendering it impossible to decipher which grades belonged to which student. On June 23, 1982 a conference for the record was held to discuss the shortcomings of Respondent's performance, which were revealed during the last days of the school year. During this conference Mr. Wargo addressed Respondent's historical and current problems in record keeping, tardiness, following district, area and school policies, and classroom management. Mr. Wargo advised Respondent, by memorandum dated June 28, 1982, that he would not recommend Respondent for continued employment for the 1983-84 school year unless she showed marked improvement during the 1982-83 school year in the following areas: Accuracy and completeness of required record keeping. Strict adherence to contracted working hours of 7:20 a.m.-2:40 p.m. You will be expected to be in your classroom no later than 7:25 a.m. Compliance with district, area, and school level directives and policies. Improved classroom management procedures to insure the following: Classroom organized and neat; Attendance and tardy procedures enforced. Seating charts available and up-to-date. Rules and procedures consistently applied. Teacher-student relationships resulting in mutual respect. Consistent classroom performance resulting in continuous acceptable ratings. Respondent agreed to follow Mr. Wargo's suggestions to improve her performance, and to cooperate with the department chairperson. She stated that she would work very diligently the next year, and promised that Mr. Wargo would see considerable improvement. The observations, evaluations, conferences and suggestions made over the preceding three years, and Respondent's commitment to improve her performance and cooperation during the 1982-83 school year, proved futile. From September 1982 through April 1983, Respondent's teaching was observed on one or more occasions by her principal and assistant principal, an area director of the Dade County public schools, and the foreign language supervisor of the Dade County public schools. Each concurs that Respondent's performance was unacceptable in preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques; the same reasons she was found unacceptable in previous years. The root of Respondent's poor performance was indolence. Although proficient in her languages, Respondent demonstrated an unwillingness to change her methods or to plan, deliver and critique her lessons. Throughout the 1982-83 school year, despite numerous conferences, prescriptions, and requests, Respondent's lesson plans were submitted late and evidenced no continuity of purpose. At best, they were sketchy, disorganized and unduly repetitive. At worst, they were incomprehensible and illegible. Their content and appearance compel the conclusion they were hastily prepared to superficially comply with the requirement that she have lesson plans, but without any attention to their content or purpose. Respondent's classroom management was unacceptable throughout the school year. Frequently, less than one-half of available class time was devoted to foreign language instruction. Students were often unruly and undisciplined. They were permitted, without censure, to read novels, listen to radios, gossip, and apparently sleep during Respondent's classes. Respondent's inability or failure to manage her classroom was in large measure a product of her failure to prepare her lessons. Because of the low cognitive level at which Respondent taught, her classes were dull and conducive to student disruption. Her techniques of instruction were unacceptable. Respondent emphasized memorization, recall and drill on a purely audio-lingual basis and ignored the variety and repetitive reinforcement benefits that could be derived from reading and writing a foreign language. Respondent's assessment techniques were unacceptable. After three months into the 1982-83 school year, Respondent's grade book reflected only one written test and her student folders contained no assessment of her students' reading and writing skills. This situation did not improve over the course of the year. At no time during the course of the final hearing did Respondent concede she needed improvement in her techniques. The evidence, however, renders it painfully apparent that a serious problem did exist. Respondent testified that she practiced the audio- lingual method of foreign language instruction, which emphasizes listening and speaking, through level III of a foreign language. Repetition, she says, is essential. Accordingly, Respondent concludes, the presence of repetition in her lesson plans was essential, and the absence of many written tests in her grade book, or student papers reflecting reading and writing skills in the student folders, not unusual. Respondent's explanation ignores some very salient factors, to which she was privy. The Dade County curriculum requires that the four skills-- listening, speaking, reading and writing--be taught at each level of foreign language instruction. Further, Respondent had received unsatisfactory ratings in student assessments during the preceding three years because of her failure to properly test and her failure to document her students' progress in the student folders. By her own testimony Respondent concedes she did not teach the prescribed curriculum. Because of that failure she was unable to assess her students' skills in reading and writing since she had not developed them. By neglecting the reading and writing skills, Respondent not only deprived her students of the skills themselves, but also of the stimulation such variety in technique would have brought to her classroom, the reinforcement that would have been achieved by developing those skills, and the positive impact it would have had on class management. Respondent's attendance history during the 1982-83 school year was poor. As early as September 1982 Respondent was admonished by her principal for her failure to observe the 7:20 a.m. to 2:40 p.m work day, yet she subsequently arrived, on a number of occasions, after 7:30 a.m. During the second semester her tardiness took a new twist. During this time period, while Respondent would apparently arrive at school by the mandated 7:20 a.m. deadline, she would not open her classroom door until 7:30 a.m. While apparently in her classroom at 7:20 a.m., Respondent would not turn on any lights and, consequently, neither student nor administrator could assure her presence. Ms. Patrylo, Respondent's department head, asked Respondent to leave a light on in the room so that Respondent's students would know she was there, and so Ms. Patrylo would not have to be concerned about her absence and the need to unlock the door to admit Respondent's students. Respondent refused Ms. Patrylo's request because "she did not want to run up the electric bill for the Dade County schools." Respondent's response to Ms. Patrylo is not indicative of a cooperative attitude. It is, however, indicative of a plan to frustrate the administration in its attempt to monitor Respondent's compliance with the contracted work hours. The evidence establishes, however, that Respondent failed to adhere to her contracted work hours for the 1982-83 school year. The administration of Palmetto Senior High School, and the School Board, went to considerable lengths in the 1982-83 school year to rehabilitate Respondent. Their efforts were, however, met by little or no effort by Respondent to improve herself. Respondent asserts, rather incongruously since she acknowledges no imperfection in her teaching techniques, that the cause of her failure to improve was caused by the observations and prescriptions themselves and because she had four preparations that school year. Respondent's assertions are unpersuasive. At no time during the 1982-83 school year did Respondent render any such objections. The number of preparations Respondent had was not excessive. Respondent could have obviated the necessity of any prescriptions, and most observations, by abiding the commitment she had given Mr. Wargo at the close of the 1981-82 school year--to improve her performance in these same areas. In short, Respondent's attempt to excuse her "failures," because of the administration's statutorily and contractually mandated efforts to assist her, lacks substance. While occasional improvement in Respondent's performance was seen over the course of the 1982-83 school year, it was sporadic and short-lived. Despite counseling, prescriptions, and workshops, Respondent continued to perform at an unsatisfactory level in the same areas as previous years. It was the consensus of opinion of the professional educators and experts who observed Respondent's classroom performance that she repeatedly failed to teach effectively and faithfully as required by Rule 6Gx 13-4A-1.21V, School Board of Dade County, and failed to communicate with and relate to the children in her classroom to such an extent that they were deprived of a minimum educational experience. The evidence compels the same conclusion. Respondent's tardiness further deprived her students of the minimum educational experience to which they were entitled and her frequent absences from the classroom could have placed her students in physical jeopardy. At the conclusion of the 1982-83 school year Respondent was suspended from her position as a classroom teacher in the Dade County school system.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED That: Petitioner, School Board of Dade County, enter a Final Order in Case No. 83-3067, sustaining Respondent's suspension from her employment, and dismissing Respondent as an employee of the School Board of Dade County; and Petitioner, Ralph D. Turlington, as Commisioner of Education, enter a Final Order in Case No. 84-0149 revoking the teacher's certificate of Respondent, Carolyn T. Smith, for two (2) years. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 1985, at Tallahassee Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 2nd day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Craig R. Wilson, Esquire The Law Building Suite 204 315 Third Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Ellen L. Leesfield, Esquire DuFresne and Bradley, P.A. 2929 S.W. 3rd Avenue Miami, Florida 33129 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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 issue is whether Respondent should be suspended from employment for twenty days without pay for misconduct and unprofessional conduct in violation of School District Policies 1.013 and 1.014, Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.001(3) and 6B-1.006(4)(b), (5)(a) and (5)(h), and School Board Bulletins #P-12542-CAO/COO-Count Day and Class Size Reduction Review, and #P-12519-CAO/COO-Florida Department of Education Student Enrollment Procedures.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Palm Beach County School Board (the Board or Petitioner), operates, controls, and supervises all public schools within the Palm Beach County School District (the District), as authorized by Subsection 1001.32(2), Florida Statutes (2008). The District School Superintendent, Dr. Arthur C. Johnson (Superintendent Johnson) is responsible for the administration, management, and supervision of instruction in the District, as provided in Subsection 1001.32(3), Florida Statutes (2008). Respondent, Dr. Gwendolyn Johnson (Dr. Johnson or Respondent) was the principal at Independence Middle School (Independence) during the 2007 to 2008 school year. In her thirty-five years with the District, Dr. Johnson was a principal for eight years, an assistant principal for eleven and a half years, a guidance counselor for approximately nine years, and, before that, an elementary and high school occupational specialist. At Independence, Respondent's assistant principals were Kathleen Carden, Martest Sheffield, and Scott Duhy. Although the projected enrollment was 1174, not the minimum number of 1201 required to justify having a third assistant principal, Dr. Johnson requested and, on May 15, 2007, received approval to keep the third assistant principal, Mr. Duhy, subject to reaching or exceeding the required enrollment by the time the count of students was taken on or about the eleventh day of school in the fall. The increase over the projection was possible because Independence was the 2007 receiving school for students whose parents transferred them from D- or F-rated schools under No Child Left Behind Act. For the 2007-2008 school year, Dr. Johnson assigned primary responsibility for maintaining a count of the student population to another one of the assistant principals, Dr. Carden. In addition to determining the number of assistant principals, the enrollment count is used by the District to determine other staffing, including the number of teachers, and guidance counselors assigned to each school. Attendance at Independence was reported by teachers each school day on bubbled attendance sheets. The sheets were scanned each day and the data stored in a computer program called the Total Education or Resource Management System (TERMS). The sheets were returned to the teachers who used them to record attendance for a two-week period before signing and submitting them, and receiving new computer-generated biweekly attendance scan sheets. On August 23, 2007, the District notified all principals, including Dr. Johnson, by memorandum (Bulletin # P- 12519-CAO/COO/FO/FTE), that any student who had never attended any period since the first day of school must have a withdrawn code entered into the TERMS program by August 27, 2007. Dr. Johnson e-mailed the Bulletin to her administrative staff and convened a meeting of that group to review it. Her secretary also e-mailed a reminder of the requirements to the staff on August 27, 2007. Teachers reported students who never attended school from the beginning of the year, the so-called "no-shows," by making handwritten notes or by drawing lines through the student's name on the attendance sheets, expecting those names to be removed from their rosters. Students who never showed up were not bubbled absent on the attendance sheets. A student aide in the student services office scanned the sheets, so the school's data processor, Angela Jones, did not see the teacher's notes and make changes in the computer. Once teachers kept getting biweekly attendance sheets with the names of no-shows and transfers on them, they started e-mailing or otherwise notifying Ms. Jones who began to keep a running list of no shows and transfers. Ms. Jones was not allowed to enter the withdrawal code in TERMS until authorized to do so by either Dr. Johnson or Dr. Carden, as shown by their e-mails. Rather than following the instructions in Bulletin # P-12519 to withdraw all no-shows by August 27, 2007, no-shows were treated like transfers and were not withdrawn until the student's new school requested their records. Dr. Johnson's claim that she was not aware that procedures outlined in the District's Bulletin of August 23, 2007, were not being followed by Ms. Jones and Dr. Carden, is not credible. She was present at the meetings in her office and her conference room, well after the August deadline, during which Ms. Jones continued to receive instructions to wait for approval to make withdrawals. On August 31, 2007, the District notified all principals, including Dr. Johnson, by memorandum (Bulletin # P- 12542-CAO/COO) that the District's enrollment count day was September 7, 2007, and that the count would be taken from TERMS. Dr. Johnson sent an e-mail to all teachers to count students, as directed in the Bulletin of August 23, by only including students who had been in attendance at least one period since school began on August 22, thereby excluding no-shows from the count. Prior to 2007, this would have been the enrollment number that the school faxed or e-mailed to the District. For the first time in 2007, the number used by the District was the number taken from TERMS summary enrollment screen that included no-shows at Independence. The District also relied on that data for its Full Time Equivalent (FTE) survey and report to the State Department of Education (DOE). The FTE count is used to determine per pupil funding by the State. The actual number of students at Independence on September 7, 2007, was 1188 but the number taken from the TERMS database and reported was 1214, a twenty-six student discrepancy that was later, after an audit, reduced to twenty-four. In October 2007, Dr. Johnson falsely verified the accuracy of the FTE survey that was, subsequent to the audit, determined to be an over-count of 23 students. Dr. Johnson testified that she verified the accuracy of the count relying on the work of Dr. Carden, Ms. Jones, Exceptional Student Education Coordinator Carol Lee, and ESOL Coordinator Ann Costillo. She denied attempting to fraudulently inflate the number to gain or maintain resources allocated by the District, but she knew there was a difference in the numbers based on a September report from Dr. Carden. She also knew that, if the teachers followed her instructions regarding how to count students, the "actual" number of 1214 from TERMS, written in by Dr. Carden, had to be incorrect. TERMS data also was uploaded to another program called Grade-Quick. When it was time to give grades at the end of nine weeks, Ms. Jones no longer had the ability to alter the rosters and teachers were required to give a grade to each student on their roster. David Shore was the Grade-Quick technical support person at Independence. At the suggestion of Dr. Johnson, he sought advice from the District's technical support person, Bruce Roland, who told him to have teachers give each no-show student a grade of "F" to avoid an error code. The uploaded grades for students who did not attend Independence, according to Mr. Roland, would be deleted from the District's mainframe. Fearing other consequences of giving "Fs," including the possibility of generating letters to parents whose children did not attend Independence, and doubting Mr. Shore's advice because he was relatively new in his position, some teachers refused to give "Fs" to no-shows. After discussions with Dr. Johnson, Mr. Shore instructed teachers to give a grade of "C" instead and to be sure also to give a conduct grade. One teacher apparently found a way to give a conduct grade, but no letter grade, to students who were not enrolled in her class and to somehow avoid a computer error code. Some time during the fall semester, anonymous complaints concerning the enrollment at Independence were made to the State Auditor General's Office, who referred the matter to an auditor in the District's office. In December 2007, the audit confirmed that the count at Independence was incorrect largely because no-shows and withdrawals were not withdrawn timely from the computer in TERMS before the District's initial count on August 27, 2007; before the District's eleven-day count on September 7, 2007; nor before Dr. Johnson twice verified the accuracy of the FTE count in October 2007. Dr. Johnson made no effort to make corrections, after she admittedly was aware of the errors in October, November, and December. Dr. Johnson blamed teachers who were unprofessional, racist, and disgruntled over her more strict adherence to the attendance rules for teacher planning and professional development days, and over proposed spending of A-plus money. She testified that they deliberately failed to bubble no-shows as absentees. That assertion contradicts the testimony of her witness that the proper procedure was followed by teachers who drew lines through the names of no-shows rather than bubbling them as absent. It also contradicts the instructions she gave in a memorandum to teachers, on October 5, 2007, telling them to write codes next to students' names on their rosters, NS for no- show, WD for withdrawn - If a student was present at least one day..., T for transfer, and A for add. Her memorandum instructs teachers to give the information to Ms. Jones on October 11, 2007. Ms. Jones said she did look at rosters for FTE reporting and she did make corrections. She too says her count was accurate at the time unless teachers withheld information. The teachers' rosters were maintained and, from a review of the class rosters, the auditor concluded that the error was made in not correcting TERMS to comply with teachers' reports. Dr. Johnson also blamed her supervisor, Marisol Ferrer, for sending a less experienced manager, Joe Patton, to attend a meeting, on October 11, 2007, with her of the Employee Building Council, a group that included some teachers who were antagonistic towards Dr. Johnson. It is true that only later did Mr. Patton recall that, after the meeting and after Dr. Johnson left, some of teachers told him there were problems with the student count at Independence. At the time, however, Mr. Patton did not tell Ms. Ferrer or Dr. Johnson about the comments. Dr. Johnson testified that, had she been told after that meeting on October 11th about the problems, she could have corrected the numbers before she submitted her verification of accuracy. She did know that Dr. Carden showed her two sets of numbers on September 7, 2007. Although she testified that she believed the fluctuations were normal because students come and go during the day for doctor's appointments or for other reasons, Dr. Johnson took no further steps to determine if that was in fact the cause of the discrepancy. After Dr. Johnson and Dr. Carden instructed Ms. Jones to begin making withdrawals after the October FTE report, some of the withdrawals were backdated showing the no-show students' withdrawal dates as the first day of school, August 22, 2007. The District submitted corrections to DOE before the deadline for incurring penalties, ultimately reducing the FTE count at Independence by 23 students.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida, enter a final order suspending Respondent for twenty days without pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 16th day of April, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick W. Ford, Esquire 2801 PGA Boulevard, Suite 110 Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 Sonia Elizabeth Hill-Howard, Esquire Palm Beach County School District 3318 Forest Hill Boulevard, C-302 Post Office Box 19239 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-9239 Dr. Arthur C. Johnson, Superintendent Palm Beach County School District 3318 Forest Hill Boulevard, C-302 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-9239 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500
The Issue Whether "just cause" exists to authorize Respondent's dismissal from employment with the Miami-Dade County School Board ("MDCPS"), for the violation(s) outlined in Petitioner's Amended Notice of Specific Charges.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented and the record as a whole, the undersigned makes the following findings of material and relevant fact. Stipulated Facts At all times material hereto, Petitioner was a duly-constituted School Board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Article IX § 4(b) Constitution of the State of Florida and section 1012.23, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed pursuant to a professional service contract at Campbell Drive K-8 Center, a public school in Miami-Dade County, Florida ("also known as LEOMHS"). At all times material hereto, Respondent's employment was governed by the collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") between Miami-Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade, as well as the policies of MDCPS and Florida law. Facts Established at the Hearing Respondent's Termination from the City of Aventura In 2000, Respondent was hired as a police dispatcher by the City of Aventura, Florida ("COA"). Respondent became a police officer where he served until March 24, 2011. Pet. Ex. 4A. On March 24, 2011, Respondent was called to a meeting with several Aventura Police Department ("APD") officials. At the meeting, he was confronted with evidence that he had purposely misrepresented the amount of overtime hours he had been working. At the meeting, Respondent's employment was terminated. Pet. Ex. 4D, p. 45. Respondent's manner or reasons for departure from APD became a point of contention in this case. In short, Petitioner alleged that Respondent falsified his application to work at LEOMHS, by leaving out certain information regarding his termination from APD. Petitioner further alleges that this served as an independent basis to terminate him from employment with MDCPS. At the final hearing, Respondent explained that he had mistakenly entered his overtime hours incorrectly at APD. According to the investigative report issued by APD, Respondent admitted to a fellow officer after his termination that a portion of the overtime hours he did not work was because "he got behind on his bills." Pet. Ex. 4D, p. 45.1 Following his termination at APD, Respondent filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in September 2011 and sued APD in May 2012. APD and Respondent settled the lawsuit. They entered into a settlement agreement in November 2012. The agreement contained a confidentiality provision. Pet. Ex. 4C, pp. 28, 32-33; Pet. Ex. 4A. There was no real dispute in this case that the express terms of the confidentiality provision, reasonably interpreted, prohibited Respondent from disclosing or discussing the facts of the case, the terms of the settlement or the circumstances surrounding the matter with any other person. Pet. Ex. 4C, pp. 32-33.2 The confidentiality provision with APD also provided that if it was breached by Stevens, a $2,000.00 liquidated damages penalty would be assessed against him, and injunctive relief and payment of the City's attorney's fees against Stevens could be awarded. Application for Employment at MDCPS In 2013, Respondent first applied for a position with MDCPS as an interventionist. As part of the application process, Respondent filled out an electronic questionnaire using the E-Recruiting system. Question Number 25 of that questionnaire asked Respondent the following: "Have you ever been disciplined, the subject of an investigation, reprimanded, suspended, non- 1 Regardless, it is important to note that Respondent's conduct at APD is not the crux or primary issue in this case, nor did his misconduct at APD form the basis for this termination. Rather, the issue here is whether Respondent improperly answered the relevant questions on his MDCPS applications; and, if so, whether this justifies his termination. 2 Petitioner has made no compelling argument to the contrary. reappointed for performance reasons, terminated, requested to resign through mutual agreement, or resigned in lieu of termination from an educational institution, the State of Florida or any other employer/organization, including the military?" In response to this question, Respondent answered "No." Pet. Ex. 10, p. 121. Sometime after filling out the first questionnaire, Respondent applied for a full-time position with MDCPS as a teacher. By this time, MDCPS was using a different employment application system called PowerSchool. This system required Respondent to fill out a questionnaire with a similar question. Question Number 3 asked: "Have you ever been disciplined, the subject of an investigation, reprimanded, suspended, non-reappointed for performance reasons, terminated, requested to resign through mutual agreement, or resigned in lieu of termination from any employer/organization, including the military?" In response to this question, Respondent also answered "No." Pet. Ex. 10, p. 124. Had Respondent answered either of these questions with a "Yes," his applications would have been forwarded to the Office of Professional Standards ("OPS") for further review. OPS would have gathered additional, follow up information. After reviewing this additional information, OPS would then make the decision of whether to hire. Carmen Molina ("Molina"), the District Director of OPS, testified that had Respondent answered in the affirmative to either question, "in his experience" Respondent would not have been hired.3 3 In light of testimony credited by the undersigned regarding Respondent's conversation with the new principal and assistant principal at LEOMHS about his confidentiality provision with APD, this speculative testimony by Molina carries limited weight. More directly, there was no affirmative and persuasive evidence offered for this specific case that Respondent's failure to answer the question in the affirmative would have resulted in him not being hired. The only thing that is certain is that it would have been referred to OPS for "further review." This evidentiary point and distinction are important. Someone's "experience" may prove to be At the final hearing, Respondent steadfastly denied being untruthful on the MDCPS application. He explained that he was initially uncertain of what the answer should be, in light of the binding confidentiality provision he had signed with COA. He understandably sought and needed advice from his prior counsel regarding his rights under the circumstances. After consulting with counsel, who investigated the matter, and upon his counsel's strict direction, he answered "No" to the application question. Added to this explanation, and perhaps more importantly, the undersigned credits Respondent's testimony that before he applied for the Interventionist position at LEOMHS, he met informally with Principal Chin ("Chin") and Assistant Principal, Dr. Lashinda Moore. Both were interested in meeting him after hearing about Respondent from mutual acquaintances. During this introductory meeting to discuss his experience and what he could offer to support the school's criminal justice program, he informed them both that he had a "non-disclosure agreement" with APD and that he had voluntarily resigned from that job. He also told them that the confidentiality provision prevented him from discussing the facts of his case against COA.4 After learning of Respondent's dilemma and the restrictions he was under, Chin informed Respondent that his dispute and confidentiality provision with APD would not be a problem. The principal was more concerned with whether his dispute with COA involved a felony conviction, a drug related problem, or improprieties involving children. Chin was satisfied true--but it may not. In this case, for instance, there are unique circumstances that may have resulted in Respondent being hired after OPS investigated and gathered additional information. At a minimum, the undersigned is left wondering what would have occurred? This is particularly true since the principal, an authorized representative of the District, was aware that Respondent had issues of some sort at APD, but told him it would not be an impediment to his hiring at LEOMHS, so long as his background check was passed. 4 This information he shared was accurate. See Pet. Ex. C, p. 28 of 124. with Respondent's explanation, so long as he could pass a criminal background check. Dr. Moore was offered at the hearing as a witness by Respondent. Although she admitted meeting Respondent at an introductory meeting consistent with his testimony, she did not "recall" discussing any confidentiality agreement with Respondent. However, she did not affirmatively testify that the discussion about Respondent's APD resignation did not occur. Unfortunately, former principal Chin was not called by either party to corroborate or refute Respondent's version of the pre-hiring discussion. Respondent offered distinct and clear testimony that the pair told him it was "not an issue" and they only cared if he could pass a background check. Based on the more detailed, clear, and specific recollection offered by Respondent, he established that he adequately disclosed to Chin and Dr. Moore that he had been involved in a workplace dispute with COA. Both were authorized representatives of Petitioner. In light of this, Respondent did not intentionally mispresent or fail to disclose any material facts to MDCPS concerning his dispute with COA. The Nature of the Education Provided at LEOMHS Principal Tony Ullivari ("Ullivari") began working at LEOMHS in the 2018-2019 school year. In addition to traditional high school subject matters, the school offers unique academic tracks in the areas of homeland security, law, and forensic science. The homeland security track offers students training in the areas of criminal justice and police dispatching. Respondent was the lead homeland security teacher and taught criminal justice and police dispatch classes to the students. The curriculum for the homeland security program was developed prior to Ullivari's arrival by Respondent and the prior administration. There was, however, a general framework for the topics provided by the state of Florida. Respondent developed the lesson plans for defensive tactics courses. As part of the coursework, Respondent developed a Defensive Tactics curriculum ("DT") and also a program Respondent came up with on his own referred to as "extended defensive tactics ["EDT"]." On a day-to-day basis, Respondent was the one who decided what would be taught in classes inolving DT and EDT. The program was conducted under a paramilitary command structure and emphasized discipline. Respondent described the DT program as a "system of controlled defensive and offensive body movements that are used by criminal justice officers around this country to respond to a suspect's aggression or resistance. It's a combination of boxing, martial arts and wrestling." There was no serious dispute that the DT program involved a sanctioned and frequent amount of close physical contact and maneuvers between students, and between students and trainers. The DT training ordinarily began in the students' sophomore year. However, any student could participate in the related Florida Public Service Association ("FPSA") competitions involving DT. According to Respondent, he developed EDT because he takes such training "very seriously" and believes it is important for a career in law enforcement and for self-defense. To ensure that the parents' of the students were aware of the training curriculum and defensive tactics that were taught, Respondent utilized a written permission form. Resp. Ex. 1 and 2. The form was approved by the administration and provided to the students and parents. The form was thorough and clearly disclosed to the parents that DT and EDT would involve a list of activities that included close physical contact. The form further explained that while defensive tactics were "inherently dangerous," they would be conducted in a "very safe and structured manner." According to Ullivari and several of Petitioner's witnesses, as well as some of Respondent's own witnesses, DT was supposed to be taught at several locations, depending on availability. The most ideal and preferred location was the DT room of the City of Miami police station, located in a building adjacent to the school. This room is entirely padded and was, therefore, the safest place for DT instruction. The second best place to conduct DT classes was the school gymnasium where there are ample mats for safety. A third, but acceptable choice, was Respondent's classroom where furniture such as desks and chairs would be moved out of the way and a mat would be placed on the ground to better ensure student safety. Respondent offered several photographs showing DT training being done within the confines of either a safe padded room, in controlled environments, or with the use of padded "Red Man" combat suits. Resp. Exs. 5-10. None of these photographs depict DT being done without matting (when the students would be engaging each other on the ground). According to one of Respondent's student witnesses, N.M., anytime DT took place in a classroom all the furniture would be cleared from the area to better ensure that it was "100% safe." Another of Respondent's witnesses, Jesus LaMadrid, testified that anytime DT tactics required the students to be on the ground in the classroom, it "never" occurred without the furniture being moved and mats being used. Respondent acknowledged that DT is a "high liability area [sic]" since it poses a greater risk of injury to his students. As a result, he took DT very seriously to help ensure that students were not injured. He testified that his emphasis on safety precluded him from permitting any "horseplay" whatsoever. He described the DT training as "very disciplined and structured." The undersigned credits Respondent's testimony and other evidence that he took active, sensible, and constant precautions to ensure, as best he could, that the DT was done in a structured and safe environment. What is equally, if not more, significant is that Respondent's DT training and tactics were open, obvious, and well known by the administration at LEOMHS. In short, the defensive tactics training program taught by Respondent was fully sanctioned and approved by the administration at LEOMHS. From the facts credited and their reasonable inferences, the undersigned also finds that MDCPS knew or should have known that high school students taking the sanctioned DT and EDT courses would likely engage in horseplay on occasion, especially those who were involved in DT training. Respondent controlled this to the best of his ability. The undersigned also finds it a bit disingenuous for the administration to sponsor and encourage risky physical DT contact training at LEOMHS, yet jump normal disciplinary steps and impose the most punitive sanction of dismissal against the employee without any persuasive evidence that other sanctions were considered. This seems particularly unfair when the employee had no prior discipline and there was no evidence to suggest that he ever received counseling, warnings, or corrective suggestions. The undersigned also finds that Respondent strove very hard to maintain control of his young and, frequently, rowdy and energetic students destined for careers in law enforcement. One has to ask: Did the administration seriously believe that occasional horseplay or other questionable physical contact would not occur within this environment? Finally, the undersigned heard no persuasive evidence that the administration actively monitored or observed Respondent's DT training or warned and counseled Respondent about his tactics or other horseplay as mentioned in the CBA. See infra. While these concerns do not excuse Respondent's failure to better control or prevent horseplay, it does support a conclusion that any penalty or discipline should fit the offense and take into account Respondent's lack of any prior discipline. Further, the undersigned was able to observe Respondent's demeanor and attitude at the hearing. He was articulate, well-mannered, controlled, and responsible during his appearance at the hearing. The reasonable inference from these observations is that he handled himself in a similar manner as the DT trainer at LEOMHS. Classroom Videos The witnesses presented by Petitioner described a classroom environment in Respondent's class that at times was disciplined and structured, but on occasion, devolved into "horseplay" between the students and Respondent, as well as each other. Pet. Ex. 8, pp. 106. Most of the horseplay was between Respondent and the male students, although females were sometimes involved. One of the student's also testified that they did not initially report the "horseplay" to the administration because the students were very fond of Respondent, and had just learned to accept this behavior from him. The witnesses presented by Respondent testified that Respondent conducted himself very professionally and the classroom was always very regimented and "horseplay" was never allowed. If it occurred, those involved would be subject to swift reactions by Respondent. Petitioner attempted to corroborate its allegations of "horseplay" by admitting into evidence two older cell phone videos. Pet. Ex. 11. In the first video, Respondent is involved in what can best be described as a "soft take down" of him by several male students. When the male students approach and take hold of him, Respondent does not resist or struggle. He goes along as he is slowly taken down to the floor by four or five male students. All the while students are laughing as they surround him and take him to the ground. Respondent ends up on his back on the floor for four to five seconds. As the students are getting off Respondent one-by-one, one of the male students stays pressed on top of Respondent--chest to chest. Notably, the student was not embraced or held down by Respondent. In this position the male student rapidly thrust his hips multiple times while on top of Respondent. Everyone breaks out in laughter, and Respondent is promptly helped to his feet by several friendly students. Significantly, Respondent is not being physically or verbally abusive to any of the students. They appear to be having fun with Respondent who reluctantly goes along with the maneuver and appears a little embarrassed by it all. In the second video, Respondent is videoed through a classroom door window. He is on the floor, perpendicular to and on top of a male student who is face down. Respondent is engaged in what appears to be a static defensive wrestling type hold and there was no movement by either. There are no other students present in the room, and there is no indication to determine if this was a part of any formal instruction. It does not appear, and there was no other evidence to prove, that the male student was struggling, thrashing about, or that he suffered any injuries. When confronted with these videos during the investigation, Respondent did not claim they were inaccurate, and told the investigating officer that he believed the videos had been shot approximately two years prior. At the hearing, Respondent explained the videos in more detail. As to the first video, he claimed he was trying to show a group of students how suspects can sometimes achieve "superman powers" that require a group of officers to take down a suspect. As to the second video, Respondent claimed he was doing EDT with a student that involved using loud verbal commands. The videos are reasonably consistent with the explanations offered by Respondent. Incidents with Certain Students Student Nayeli Aguilar During the course of the hearing, there were proven instances where Respondent's contact with several female students crossed the line, and was not appropriate. For instance, during the 2017-2018 school year, Nayeli Aguilar ("Aguilar") was a junior at LEOMHS. She participated in the FPSA program. As part of that program the students took a field trip to the Broward County Sheriff's Office ("BCSO"). She testified that on the bus ride either to or from the BCSO, she recalled that Respondent sat next to her. He placed his hand on her thigh and then slid it higher on her thigh before she grabbed his forearm to make him stop. Respondent then let go. There was no evidence that Respondent massaged or caressed her thigh. Aguilar was stunned by the incident and stated that she felt violated. She did not report the incident at the time because she was an officer in Respondent's class and did not want to violate the "code" by snitching on other law enforcement personnel. She was also too embarrassed. There were no other witnesses. During the 2018-2019 school year, there was another incident during which she and Jonathan Lavernia ("Lavernia") were doing paperwork in the back of Respondent's classroom. They spontaneously began to play fight with one another. Lavernia lightheartedly called for "backup" (Signal "3-15"), which alerted Respondent to come to the back of the classroom. Respondent participated in the play fighting by wrestling with her to the floor. Once on the floor, Respondent performed a "pressure point" on her thigh, leaving a minor bruise. Aguilar identified pictures she took of the bruise at the hearing and testified that she did not report this incident because she was too embarrassed. Pet. Ex. 7, p. 80. Even after these incidents, she still looked up to Respondent and went to his classes. But she felt that it was best to keep her distance from him because he had crossed the line and acted inappropriately with her. Student I.G. During the 2018-2019 school year, I.G. was a junior at LEOMHS. She had Respondent as a teacher in the FPSA program. One day during a lunch period in either October or November of the 2018-2019 school year, she was play fighting with Respondent, and he took her down to the ground. While she was on the floor, Respondent slapped her on the butt three times. According to I.G., she and other students had a comfortable enough relationship with him that they would push or shove him and play fight, but this time she felt it went too far. While the incident made her uncomfortable, she had an attachment to Respondent at the time, and just chalked it up to Respondent being himself. At the time of the school's investigation she believed the incident was being blown out of proportion, but suggested that Respondent had crossed a line he should not have. Pet. Ex. 8, p. 106. Shelsea Martin ("Martin"), a senior at LEOMHS, also testified. She witnessed this incident between I.G. and Respondent. The only significant difference between their testimony is that Martin believed there was one butt slap, which occurred while Respondent was lifting I.G. up from the ground. I.G. appeared to Martin to be shocked by what had happened. While Martin stated that play fighting with Respondent was common, the butt slapping was unusual and was "like a red flag" to her. Pet. Ex. 8, p. 105. She testified that she reported this incident to Ms. Joseph at some point in time, close to the day it occurred. There was no evidence presented to prove that during this incident Respondent squeezed, grabbed, or caressed I.G.'s buttocks. Student S.P. During the 2018-2019 school year, S.P. was a junior at LEOMHS and Respondent was her teacher. During the year she would play fight with Respondent in jest--playfully hitting and pushing each other. She testified that sometimes he would grab her thigh when she was sitting next to him. This occurred several times. Respondent applied a "pressure points" on her thigh and squeezed it. Initially, she was not affected by it because such behavior was "normalized [sic]" in Respondent's class, but eventually stopped play fighting with him. Pet. Ex. 8, p. 107. There was no evidence presented to prove that during this incident Respondent rubbed or caressed the female student's thigh.5 Student Eric Cardenas During the 2018-2019 school year, Eric Cardenas ("Cardenas") was a senior at LEOMHS. He testified that one day while entering Respondent's classroom late, the class was watching a video. As he entered the room Respondent spontaneously put him in the corner and grabbed at his crotch area. Cardenas also testified that Respondent would communicate with him via Snapchat while he was a student. On one occasion Respondent sent 5 It is noted that training, in the use of "pressure points," was listed on the parental permission form. Cardenas "what appeared to be" a picture of someone on a toilet that contained either human excrement or a penis. Whatever the picture was, it made Cardenas uncomfortable. He did not elaborate. As is customary with pictures sent via Snapchat, the picture disappeared after a few seconds. Pet. Ex. 8, p. 109. However, Cardenas did not attempt to keep a "screen shot" of the alleged Snapchat picture. His testimony regarding the contents of the picture was vague and indistinct. Despite a classroom full of students, there were no witnesses presented by Petitioner to corroborate the "crotch grabbing" incident that allegedly occurred during the video showing. Respondent unequivocally denied that either incident took place. The evidence from Cardenas was not credible or persuasive. The undersigned finds Respondent's testimony more credible and persuasive, and finds that the incidents were not adequately proven by Petitioner to have occurred. Student A.M. During the 2018-2019 school year, A.M. was a student at LEOMHS and participated in the FPSA program. During the school year she recalled two separate incidents between Respondent and her that she felt were inappropriate. She testified that after school one day, during the FPSA program, Respondent spontaneously laid her down to the ground with a leg move while in the hallway. He pinned her to the ground and slapped her butt. This made her feel uncomfortable. She claimed that another student, A.W., was present and she spoke to her about it. A.W. was not called as a witness to corroborate the incident. She only provided a brief written statement. A.M. wrote in her written statement submitted to MDCPS that she "laughed off the incident." Her written statement contradicted her testimony, in part. Unlike her live testimony, her written statement added that she tried to drop Mr. Stevens to the ground first, but couldn't. She said that during this second incident, while she was training for incident report writing, Lavernia pinned her to the ground and Respondent slapped her butt. T. pp. 182-183; Pet. Ex. 8, p. 110.6 She explained that she and the other students would joke about the things Respondent would do because they were not aware at the time that these were things a teacher should not do. A.M.'s testimony was vague and not persuasive. It does not support a finding that Respondent slapped her butt in this second incident. Jonathan Lavernia Respondent had a fairly close and personal relationship with one of his higher ranking officers, Jonathan Lavernia. That close relationship still exists today. On direct examination Lavernia testified that he had stayed at Respondent's home for a few days after Hurricane Irma. This was done with the approval of Lavernia's parents and due to disruption of services at his home. According to Lavernia, Respondent occasionally gave him rides to school in his private vehicle. Principal Ullivari never gave Respondent permission to either transport Lavernia in his car or let him sleep at his house and was unaware that this violation of MDCPS policy was occurring. Under the circumstances which existed, these limited instances of providing needed housing and transportation assistance to Lavernia, did not rise to the level of severe or serious misconduct by Respondent. 6 Interestingly, it was only after prompting during cross examination, that A.M. even mentioned a second incident. Other Relevant Facts Respondent was employed by Petitioner beginning in August 2013. Pet. Ex. 9. During that six-year period, there was no evidence presented that Respondent had ever been the subject of any prior disciplinary proceedings or misconduct. Therefore, these allegations of misconduct in office are Respondent's first instances of potential infractions or disciplinary action while at MDCPS. Based on the Findings of Fact, the nature of the physical contact inherent in the close contact DT training, and the testimony that there did not appear to be any significant physical or mental harm to the participants, the undersigned finds that any horseplay during classroom training did not constitute severe or serious misconduct. The horseplay involved does not justify Respondent' dismissal from employment under the progressive discipline policy in place at MDCPS. See generally, Quiller v. Duval Cty. Sch. Bd. 171 So. 3d 745 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) ("…[T]he progressive disciplinary policy mandated that the Board was required to follow progressive steps in administering discipline unless a severe act of misconduct warranted circumventing the steps.").
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board impose a 30 to 60 day unpaid suspension and order retraining as a fair and proper sanction under the unique circumstances of this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE 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 4th day of December, 2020. 7 MDCPS is best suited to make the final decision on the length of a suspension period. See generally, Dep't of Prof'l Reg. v. Bernal, 531 So. 2d 967, 968 (Fla. 1988); Gonzalez-Gomez v. Dep't of Health, 107 So. 3d 1139 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2012). COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761-1526 (eServed) Christopher J. La Piano, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132 (eServed) Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Richard Corcoran, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner has just cause, within the meaning of Subsection 1012.33(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2007),1 to terminate Respondent’s professional services contract for the reasons alleged in a letter dated November 18, 2008.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has taught in the Polk County School System since 2000. For the first four school years, Respondent taught drama at the Rochelle School of the Arts. The next school year, Respondent taught English for one year at Kathleen Middle School. Beginning with the 2005-2006 school year, Respondent taught middle school English at Gause Academy until January 13, 2009. The allegations at issue in this proceeding pertain to the 2007–2008 school year at Gause Academy. By letter dated November 18, 2008, the superintendent of the Polk County Public Schools notified Respondent that the superintendent was recommending that Petitioner terminate the professional service contract of Respondent. On January 13, 2009, Petitioner followed the recommendation of the superintendent. The letter dated November 18, 2008, is the charging document in this proceeding. The letter notifies Respondent of the alleged grounds for termination of her employment and provides Respondent with a point of entry into the administrative process. In relevant part, the stated grounds for termination of employment are: . . . excessive absenteeism, dishonesty, and ongoing gross insubordination. Progressive discipline, as specified in the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement, has been followed in this case, and the next step of progressive discipline is termination. A preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding of excessive absenteeism during the 2007-2008 school year at Gause Academy. It is undisputed that the absences for Respondent during the 2007-2008 school year totaled 43 days, of which many were before or after a weekend and resulted in three or four consecutive days. However, it is also undisputed that absences were due to illness and the remaining 14 absences were suspensions or leave time imposed by Respondent’s employer. During the 2005-2006 school year, Respondent missed days due to illness, and Petitioner determined that Respondent was a good, dynamic teacher who related well with students and worked well in the classroom. Petitioner did not show by a preponderance of the evidence any credible and persuasive reason why 30 absences for sickness during the 2005- 2006 school year were acceptable to Petitioner, but that 29 absences for sickness during the 2007-2008 school year warranted termination of Respondent’s professional service contract. The medical reasons for Respondent’s absences during the 2005-2006 and 2007-2008 school years were the same. Respondent has suffered debilitating migraine headaches from a very young age. When Respondent suffers a serious migraine headache, it is difficult for her to function. However, Respondent has managed to control the effects of her migraines. A preponderance of the evidence does not explicate persuasive reasons why 30 absences during the 2005-2006 school year did not prevent Respondent from doing her job satisfactorily, but that 29 absences during the 2007-2008 school year justifies the termination of Respondent’s professional service contract. The allegation of dishonesty relates to a form, identified as an Employee Application for Leave, that Respondent completed for absences from October 1 through October 3, 2008. The form provides that Respondent was sick and unable to leave her bed from October 1 through 3, 2008. Respondent signed the form on October 6, 2008, and the school principal approved the form on October 7, 2008. Sometime after October 7, 2008, the principal received information that Respondent had been arrested on October 1, 2008. The testimony of the principal during the hearing shows that he has no knowledge of the circumstances of the arrest, including the time of the arrest and the time Respondent was released and returned to her home. Nor does the principal have any knowledge of whether Respondent was ill with a migraine from October 1 through 3, 2008. Local law enforcement officers arrested Respondent at her home at 6:00 a.m. on October 1, 2008, on a charge that Respondent had issued a bad check. The officers took Respondent to the courthouse, the amount was paid, and Respondent was back home by 9:00 a.m. Between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. on October 1, 2008, Respondent’s mother called the school and told school officials that Respondent was ill and would not be in to work. Neither Respondent’s mother nor Respondent misrepresented Respondent’s illness. Respondent was ill with a migraine headache while she was at the courthouse and, upon her return home, was confined to bed for three days. The remaining allegation is that Respondent did not prepare adequate lesson plans. A preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding of inadequate lesson plans. At the conclusion of the 2006-2007 school year, the principal performed a Quality Performance Summary Assessment for Respondent, which is the equivalent of a year-end evaluation. The principal rated Respondent as “Needing Improvement” in the areas of Planning for Learning Communication and Professionalism and rated Respondent as “Unsatisfactory” in the area of Managing the Learning Environment. The principal indicated an appropriate Professional Development Plan (PDP) would be written for the 2007-2008 school year. The PDP was presented to Petitioner at the beginning of the 2007-2008 school year. The primary strategies identified for improving classroom planning included: maintenance of a plan book to be turned in at the end of each week to the assistant principal and participation in in-service training for expanded classroom strategies. The PDP identified a Professional Resource Team to assist Respondent in the implementation of the PDP. The team consisted of the assistant principal, guidance counselor, and dean of students. Lesson planning at Guase Academy is left to the discretion of individual teachers. There is no template for lesson plans. Each teacher is left to develop lesson plans in a manner that is appropriate for his or her purposes. The assistant principal and guidance counselor did not provide Respondent with meaningful assistance toward the PDP goals. The assistant principal instructed all teachers that they could use documents identified in the record as “curriculum maps” as lesson plans. Respondent relied on the assistant principal and utilized curriculum maps to develop her lesson plans. Respondent worked extensively with the dean of students to formulate and complete lesson plans in a manner that was satisfactory to the principal. Respondent also worked with three fellow teachers who evaluated Respondent’s lesson plans and found them to be sufficient. None of the lesson plans were ever satisfactory to the principal. Respondent met with the principal on numerous occasions during the 2007-2008 school year. At each meeting, the principal gave only a cursory review of the plans, concluded they were inadequate, and gave no explanation of a specific deficiency. Respondent never refused to provide lesson plans and never failed to submit lesson plans until after it was apparent that no lesson plan from Respondent would satisfy the principal.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order reinstating Respondent’s professional services contract with back pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of August, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 20th day of August, 2009.
The Issue Whether Respondent should be transferred from Glades Middle School to an opportunity school.
Findings Of Fact For the 1989-90 school year John Sarmiento was enrolled in the Dade County public school system and he was assigned to the eighth grade at Giades Middle School. On November 27, 1989, Petitioner administratively transferred him from Glades Middle School to J.R.E. Lee, an opportunity school. The stated basis for the transfer was the student's disruptive behavior and his failure to adjust to the regular school. As an opportunity school, J.R.E. Lee has a more structured program than a traditional school, such as Glades Middle School, and is designed to assist students with discipline problems. While attending Glades Middle School, John Sarmiento repeatedly engaged in disruptive conduct that interfered with his own learning and with the learning of others in his classes. This conduct resulted in his being referred to the assistant principal's office between five and ten times per week. On one occasion the student, while in class, threw a piece of chalk at another student. On another occasion, the student engaged in an argument with another student that almost resulted in a fight during class. On an almost daily basis, the student would wander around the class while making loud, boisterous comments. This student's misconduct would have merited his suspension according to the district code of student conduct. Instead of suspending this student, the school officials worked with him and with his parents in an effort to improve his behavior. Unfortunately the considerable efforts of the personnel at Glades Middle School to serve the student's educational needs did not succeed. The student needs the structured environment that the opportunity school can provide, and his educational needs will best be served by his transfer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order which approves John Sarmiento's assignment to the J.R.E. Lee opportunity school. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of April 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of April 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank R. Harder, Esquire 2780 Galloway Road, Suite 100 Twin Oaks Building Miami, Florida 33165 Maria Ruiz de la Torre, Esquire 7111 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite Three Miami, Florida 33138 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Paul W. Bell Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Notice of Specific Charges filed against him, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been employed by Petitioner as a high school teacher assigned to Miami Norland Senior High School. Respondent holds a continuing contract. Respondent began teaching for the Dade County Public Schools during the 1968-69 school year. During that school year, the annual evaluation form utilized by Petitioner provided that a score of below 3.5 indicated unsatisfactory work. During that, his first year of teaching, Respondent received a score of 3.2 on his annual evaluation. For the next 15 years thereafter, Respondent was rated as being acceptable on his annual evaluations for each and every year. During the 1984 summer session, an incident occurred between Respondent and one of his students. As a result of Petitioner's investigation into the allegation that Respondent had committed a battery on that student, conferences were held between Respondent and administrative personnel. Respondent requested a leave of absence for the 1984-85 school year due to personal reasons, and his request for leave of absence was granted. Respondent was required, however, to undergo a psychological evaluation prior to returning to his duties as a classroom teacher. During that school year while Respondent was on leave of absence, he was evaluated by Dr. Gail D. Wainger, a psychiatrist to whom he was referred by Petitioner. Respondent thereafter saw Dr. Albert C. Jaslow, a private psychiatrist, on two occasions. Dr. Jaslow submitted two reports which contained, inter alia, a recommendation that Respondent be transferred to a different school. Dr. Wainger reviewed Dr. Jaslow's reports and her own earlier report and, on May 21, 1985, submitted a report to Petitioner stating, inter alia, that there was no barrier to Respondent's being reinstated into active teaching. Based upon that evaluation, Petitioner permitted Respondent to return to the same teaching position previously held by him for the 1985-86 school year. At the conclusion of that school year, Respondent was rated as being acceptable on his annual evaluation. Respondent again received acceptable annual evaluations for the following two years, i.e., the 1986-87 and the 1987- 88 school years. On his annual evaluation for the 1988-89 school year Respondent was rated as being unacceptable in the area of classroom management, one of the six categories of classroom performance. Pursuant to the rules governing the TADS evaluation system, a rating of unacceptable in any of the categories covered by the annual evaluation instrument requires an overall rating of unacceptable. On his annual evaluation for the 1989-90 school year Respondent was rated as being acceptable in all six categories of classroom performance, including the area of classroom management. It was specifically noted on his annual evaluation form that Respondent had performed satisfactorily during both of the official observations made of his classroom performance. However, Respondent was rated as unacceptable in the non-classroom category entitled professional responsibility. That rating of unacceptable in that one category required that Respondent's overall rating be unacceptable. The basis for the unacceptable rating in the area of professional responsibility involved the determination that Respondent had been disrespectful to students on two separate occasions. On April 16, 1990, one of Respondent's students called another of his students who had an unusual skin pigmentation condition "two-toned." Respondent immediately told the offending student, "do not call the girl two-toned." A conference for the record was conducted with Respondent on April 30, 1990, and Respondent was given a supervisory referral to the Employee Assistance Program. During the week of May 7, 1990, one of Respondent's students was being verbally abusive to the other students, and Respondent told him to stop. That student thereupon began being verbally abusive toward Respondent and using profanity. Respondent then said to that student, "you should talk. You look like Mr. Spock from Star Trek." A conference for the record was conducted with Respondent, and he was issued a formal reprimand. The summary of the conference for the record dated June 1, 1990, prepared by the principal of Miami Norland Senior High School states that the student involved has physically-deformed ears. On his annual evaluation for the 1990-91 school year Respondent was rated as being unacceptable in the areas of classroom management, techniques of instruction, and professional responsibility. Accordingly, he received an overall evaluation of unacceptable. During the 1990-91 school year there were no reported incidents of Respondent allegedly making disrespectful remarks to students. That basis for being rated unacceptable in the area of professional responsibility during the prior academic year was cured. The rating of unacceptable in the area of classroom management was based upon a number of observations of Respondent during the school year wherein the observers noted a lack of control in the classroom, Respondent's failure or inability to re-direct students who were off-task, Respondent's failure or inability to enforce classroom rules, and Respondent's failure or inability to deal with students who were tardy in coming to his class. As to his techniques of instruction, observers during that school year noted that Respondent was teaching from sub-standard books (without noting whether that was a matter within Respondent's control), that the students were confused by Respondent's directions on several occasions, that the students did not understand the lessons being taught, and that on several occasions Respondent made errors in math when writing examples on the board. Some of the observers also noted that Respondent spent too much time on some of the lessons that he was teaching. Numerous prescriptions were given to Respondent during that school year to improve his instruction and to manage his classroom, such as reading sections of the TADS manual and observing other teachers. Respondent complied with each and every prescription given to him. As to being unacceptable in the area of professional responsibility, Respondent failed to properly maintain student folders reflecting their work to justify grades being given to the students, and there were errors in Respondent's gradebook. It also became apparent that Respondent was not making parental contact for students that were performing unsatisfactorily. By March of the 1990-91 school year Respondent was directed in writing to make parental contact as required by Dade County Public School policy. By memorandum dated June 3, 1991, Respondent was notified that he was required to produce within 48 hours a complete up-to-date gradebook, a parent contact log substantiating parent contacts for the entire school year, and all student folders substantiating Respondent's gradebook. He was advised that if he did not do so, he would receive an unsatisfactory rating in the area of professional responsibility. The principal and assistant principal understood the directive to mean that Respondent must produce those documents by noon on June 6, and Respondent understood the directive to mean that he was to produce the documents on June 6. At noon, the principal was not available to Respondent. Respondent did produce many of the documents later that day. There was, of course, no parental log for the entire year since one did not exist. At the end of the 1990-91 school year a recommendation for dismissal was made. Based upon that recommendation, the School Board of Dade County, Florida, suspended Respondent from his employment effective at the close of the workday on July 25, 1991, for incompetency and gross insubordination. In 1984 Respondent filed a grievance against Assistant Principal Wessel and Principal Fowler at Miami Norland Senior High School. The subject of the grievance was that Assistant Principal Wessel had in a loud voice and in a demeaning manner criticized Respondent's lesson plans in front of other teachers, staff and students. The grievance was also filed against Principal Fowler to enlist his assistance in making Wessel refrain from repeated conduct of that nature. The Union considered the grievance to be valid and processed it through the grievance procedures. Thereafter, Respondent was advised by Fowler and Wessel that he had made a big mistake and he would be sorry for having filed that grievance. Respondent began to believe that he had lost the support of the administration and that his job was in jeopardy. When Respondent returned to his teaching duties after his leave of absence during the 1984-85 school year he was moved to a classroom directly across from the main office. Respondent considered that action to be demeaning. He still achieved acceptable evaluations for that year and the following year. During the next school year, in the middle of February, the administration moved Respondent to an old metal shop room and gave his classroom to a new teacher. He still achieved an acceptable annual evaluation that year. For the following school year the administrators assigned Respondent to teach five low-level math classes using five different classrooms. For the last three years of his teaching career, the ones during which he received unacceptable ratings in different categories, Respondent was required to teach all low-level math classes. Although administrative personnel testified that some teachers like low-level classes, Respondent repeatedly made it clear that he did not want that assignment. Further, there is a specific contract provision between the Dade County Schools and the teachers' union prohibiting teachers from being locked into low-level classes year after year, as Respondent was. During the last several years while Respondent was achieving unsatisfactory ratings in some categories, while he was being switched from classroom to classroom, and while he was being required to teach only low-level classes year after year, the administrative staff actively undermined Respondent's authority and demeaned him in front of students and other teachers. They told teachers and students that they were trying to get rid of Respondent and that Respondent was a bad teacher. When Respondent referred disruptive students to the office, the administrative staff laughed or simply refused to take any follow-up action. On one occasion when Respondent referred a student to the office for throwing an eraser at another student, an assistant principal told the misbehaving student that he should have thrown the eraser at Respondent instead. Respondent "lost face" around the school. It became known that the students could misbehave in Respondent's classes with impunity. Even the students understood that Respondent was assigned only the most difficult of students. Although there was a new principal at Miami Norland Senior High School during Respondent's last year of teaching, the new principal, coincidentally, had been the principal for the 1984 summer session at Parkway Junior High School where Respondent had been involved in an incident with a student prior to taking his year's leave of absence from teaching. Under the new principal's administration, Respondent was retained in his assignment of five low-level math classes and was moved to the classroom directly across from the office. No evidence was offered that the new principal understood that efforts had been made to keep Respondent's authority undermined and to make him quit. It is clear, however, that no steps were taken to stop or reverse the damage to Respondent's reputation and ability to teach. In response to Respondent's referral to the Employee Assistance Program, Respondent did make the contact required of him. In fact, there were numerous contacts between Respondent and the personnel involved in that program. Additionally, Respondent was seen by Dr. Goldin, a mental health professional, on four occasions between April and June of 1990. Between June and September of 1990, he also saw an associate of Dr. Goldin eight times in individual sessions and four times in joint sessions with his wife. Respondent repeatedly requested transfers from his teaching assignment at Miami Norland Senior High School. Some of the requests were made to his principals and some of them were sent to the Office of Professional Standards. From the time that Respondent returned to his teaching duties after his leave of absence during the 1984-85 school year, he requested transfers each and every year. He requested a transfer at least twice during his last year of teaching. Some of the requests for transfer were hardship requests and others were normal requests. Additionally, both Dr. Jaslow in 1985 and Dr. Goldin in 1990 recommended to the Office of Professional Standards that Respondent be transferred to a different school. All requests for transfer were ignored. During the last years of Respondent's teaching career, in addition to the stress placed upon him by the administrative staff's efforts to undermine and ridicule him, he experienced additional stress as a result of his wife's serious illness. He told a number of the administrative staff about the problem at home. The difficulty under which that placed him was part of the reason for the referral to the Employee Assistance Program. During those last years, during conferences with administrative staff regarding his performance, Respondent exhibited anxiety and showed signs of stress. He accused the administration of undermining him and of treating him unfairly. He even attributed some of the problems he was experiencing in the classroom to the administrators. Their reaction to Respondent's accusations was to accuse Respondent of being paranoid.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered suspending Respondent without pay for the 1990-91 school year and reinstating him as a full-time classroom teacher thereafter at a school other than Miami Norland Senior High School. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of January, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of January, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 91-4936 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 4, 33, 35-37, 65, 67, 68, 72, and 74 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2, 3, 8, 11, 19, 32, 38, 58, 71, 75, and 77 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 5-7, 9, 10, 12-18, 20-31, 39-57, 59-64, 66, 69, 70, 73, and 76 have been rejected as being unnecessary in determining the issues involved in this proceeding. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 34 has been rejected as being contrary to the weight of the evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 4-11, 13, and 14 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 2, 3, 12, and 15 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. Copies furnished: Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Octavio J. Visiedo Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire 1450 N.E. Second Avenue, Suite 301 Miami, Florida 33132 William Du Fresne, Esquire Du Fresne and Bradley, P.A. 2929 S.W. Third Avenue, Suite One Miami, Florida 33129
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Petitioner, Pinellas county School Board, operated the primary and secondary public school system for Pinellas County, Florida. Respondent, Herbert Latimore, was employed by the Petitioner as a continuing contract teacher of physical education at Tyrone Middle School, a school operated by Petitioner. On August 25, 1993, very early in the school year, Respondent made a presentation to a group of sixth grade students in a physical education class. In prior years, Respondent had experienced a reluctance on the part of some students to take showers after physical education classes, and to forestall that problem, he indicated verbally that he did not want the boys to stand outside the showers looking at each other because, "...there were no faggots around here." He also told the students he expected compliance and that he did not want parents calling the administration about student shower misconduct because that created problems for him and would get him "pissed off." It is also alleged that in the course of his presentation he told a group of male students who were not paying attention that he spoke clearly and did not talk like a "nigger." Respondent, who is, himself, African-American, denies making that comment though, according to Mr. Valdes, the vice principal, Respondent admitted doing so to him in an interview the day after the alleged incident took place. It is found that Respondent did, in fact, use the word, "nigger" in his discussion with the students, but it can not be said, under the circumstances, that it was used in a racist or manner derogatory toward any student or group of students. One of the students in the Respondent's class to whom he made the comments complained of was Stephanie Zavadil, a young female who did not want to be in a physical education class in the first place and who was supposed to be in a music class instead. The incident took place the first day of school which was, coincidentally, the first day of middle school for the students in this particular class. After school that day, Stephanie, who was quite upset by the Respondent's use of the language alleged, told her mother what had happened and indicated she would rather go to summer school than be in Respondent's class. She also cried when recounting the story and indicated she was so afraid of Respondent, she would not appear to testify at hearing even under subpoena. Mrs. Zavadil, herself a high school teacher in the Pinellas County system, after discussing the matter with her husband, reported it to the school principal, Ms. Desmond. She also indicated she did not want her daughter in Respondent's class. There is no indication any other student or parent has indicated a similar objection, though as a result of the press' attendance at a School Board meeting at which this matter was discussed, an article appeared in the Clearwater edition of the St. Petersburg Times reporting the incident. Before she could call Respondent in to discuss the matter, Ms. Desmond was approached by him in the school cafeteria the following day. Ms. Desmond, who was on cafeteria duty at the time, told Respondent she would discuss the matter with him later, but he followed her to the side of the room, still trying to talk with her. When she finally had the quiet to talk with Respondent, she reported to him the substance of the complaint she had received from Mrs. Zavadil and told him that in her opinion his use of the words alleged was inappropriate and a demonstration of bad judgement. Respondent acknowledged he had used the words. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the office of the Superintendent of schools, where the matter was investigated by Mr. Barker who interviewed Stephanie and other students involved. He also spoke with Respondent who admitted the use of all words alleged except "nigger." Mr. Barker also reviewed Respondent's personnel file in which he found two prior disciplinary actions taken against Respondent. In 1982, Respondent was reprimanded for pushing a student, and in 1992, was again reprimanded for using poor judgement in making inappropriate statements in front of a student and the use of physical force with a student. On the basis of his investigation, Mr. Barker, utilizing the school board's unwritten progressive discipline policy, recommended that disciplinary action to include a suspension without pay for five days be imposed. His recommendation was based on his conclusion that Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher had been impaired by his use of the words alleged. Mr. Barker is of the opinion that teachers should comport themselves in a manner which causes students to look up to them. Here, Respondent's comments could affect the way students perceived him and also might frighten some students who, as a result, might not want to take classes from him. Respondent's use of the word "faggot", as alleged here, complicates the already existing problem schools have regarding the reluctance of some elementary and middle school children to dress out for physical education training. Mr. Barker's opinion regarding Respondent's effectiveness was reinforced by those of Dr. Hinesley, Ms. Desmond, and Mr. Valdes. Dr. Hinesley believes that teachers should be role models and Respondent's use of the language alleged was a violation of the Teacher Code of Conduct which could undermine public support for the educational process if left unpunished. Ms. Desmond agrees with the proposed suspension because of her belief that Respondent's language was both frightening to the students and inappropriate. Students and their families discuss what happens at the schools and if Respondent, because of his language, were to develop an unfavorable reputation within the community, it would make it difficult for him to establish credibility and would also impact the school's effectiveness in the community. Respondent does not contest his use of the terms "pissed-off" and "faggot" but claims he has heard them used many times by other teachers and had never been told by the principal or anyone else that they were bad words. He claims that had he considered the words to be inappropriate, he would not have used them. He also claims, and it is so found, that he did not call any student either a "faggot" or a "nigger", not did he claim to be "pissed-off" at any particular student. Respondent has three daughters and professes to love children, asserting he would never intentionally use bad language to hurt anyone. With regard to his alleged admissions to Ms. Desmond and Mr. Valdes, he claims neither one specifically asked him about his use of the words alleged. Mr. Barker did do so, however, and Respondent admitted to the use of "faggot" and "pissed-off." He has been a teacher for 18 years and during that time has never received a bad evaluation. He claims he has never been cautioned about his language, and the reprimand administered in 1992 relates more to the use of poor judgement in attempting to intimidate student rather than to the use of "inappropriate" language.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Herbert Latimore, be suspended from employment as a teacher with the Pinellas County School Board, without pay, for a period of five (5) days. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of April, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of April, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 93-5748 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. - 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14. & 15. Not relevant to the issues herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: ARGUMENT paragraphs, unnumbered, as treated in sequence. Not a Finding of Fact but a Conclusion of Law. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 4. Accepted as a correct comment on the state of the testimony. 5. & 6. Accepted as a correct comment on the state of the evidence. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not evidence but argument and statement of position. Accepted as an accurate recounting of Respondent's testimony. Accepted as an accurate comment on the evidence. Accepted as Respondent's position. COPIES FURNISHED: Keith B. Martin, Esquire Pinellas County School Board 301 4th Street, Southwest Largo, Florida 34649-2942 Lawrence D. Black, Esquire 650 Seminole Boulevard Largo, Florida 34640-3625 J. Howard Hinesley, Ed.D. Superintendent Pinellas County Schools 301 4th Street, Southwest Largo, Florida 34649-2942
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in the conduct alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges. If so, what action, if any, should be taken against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board is responsible for the operation, control and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Among these schools are Homestead Senior High School, South Dade Senior High School, and Dr. William A. Chapman Elementary School. The School Board provides 180 days of instruction for students during the regular school year. Respondent has been employed as a teacher by the School Board since 1983.1 She has a continuing contract of employment with School Board. From 1983 through the end of the 1992-93 school year, Respondent was assigned to Homestead Senior High School (Homestead). Respondent was reassigned to South Dade Senior High School (South Dade) for the 1993-94 school year. She remained at South Dade until 1997. At both Homestead and South Dade, Respondent taught mathematics. Donald Hoecherl was the principal of South Dade from 1994 until 1999. During his first year at South Dade, Mr. Hoecherl had "problems and concerns [regarding Respondent's] numerous absences from work and the fact that those absences seriously impacted the delivery of the education product" to Respondent's students. He reviewed Respondent's South Dade attendance records and discovered that there was a "pattern of absences": 102 absences during the 1993-94 school year and 74.5 absences during the 1994-95 school year, as of May 19, 1995. Mr. Hoecherl then prepared the following memorandum, and gave it to Respondent (on May 19, 1995), after discussing its contents with her: MEMORANDUM May 19, 1995 TO: Henrietta Dolega, Teacher FROM: Donald A. Hoecherl, Principal South Dade Senior High School SUBJECT: ABSENCE FROM WORK SITE DIRECTION Please be advised that you have been absent from the worksite during the 1994-95 school year for a total of 74.5 days. Additionally, during the 1993-94 school year you were absent from the worksite for a total of 102 days. The absences were listed as follows: sick-9, personal-1, contagious disease-7, leave without pay-24, hardship- 32, sick leave bank-18, and emergency leave- 11. Your absences from duty adversely impact the educational environment by: failing to provide support services for students, impeding the academic progress of your students, failure in providing a continuity of instruction and effective operation of this school. As a result of your continued absences from work you are advised of the following procedures concerning any future absences: Intent to be absent must be communicated directly to Mr. Hoecherl or Mr. Dawson and then to the appropriate secretary to secure a substitute in accordance with procedures delineated in the faculty handbook. Emergency lesson plans for twenty days on file with your department chairperson. Maintain the emergency lesson plans at 20 days upon return from absences. Absences for illness must be documented by your treating physician and a written medical note presented to Mr. Hoecherl or Mr. Dawson upon your return to work along with a medical release to return to full duties. If it is determined that future absences are imminent, leave must be requested and procedures for Board approved leave implemented. These directives are in effect upon the receipt of this notice and are necessary to prevent adverse impact to students and their academic progress, and to insure a continuity of the educational program. Additionally, these procedures are meant to maintain effective worksite operations. Please be assured that assistance will continue to be provided to facilitate your regular attendance. Non-compliance with the directives will be considered a violation of professional responsibilities. The directives contained in the memorandum were reasonable in nature and within Mr. Hoecherl's authority to give Respondent. Mr. Hoecherl required Respondent to have "[e]mergency lesson plans for twenty days on file with her department chairperson" because "there would often be that many [consecutive] da[ys] [that Respondent would be] out." On May 22, 1995, Mr. Hoecherl held a Conference-for- the-Record with Respondent to discuss Respondent's "excessive absences from work." Mr. Hoecherl subsequently prepared (on June 2, 1995) and furnished to Respondent (on June 7, 1995) a memorandum in which he summarized what had transpired at the conference. The memorandum read as follows: A conference for the record was held on May 22, 1995, in the office of the principal. The conference was attended by: Katrina Chinni, Union Steward, Henrietta Dolega, Teacher, Carol Brown, Assistant Principal and Donald A. Hoecherl, Principal. The conference as indicated in the notification dated May 19, 1995, addresse[d] your excessive absences from work. Please find attached the memorandum titled "Absence From [Work] Site Direction." The procedures outlined in that directive were reviewed during the conference. You are reminded that these procedures must be adhered to. Mrs. Chinni indicated that you felt two areas outlined in the absence from work site direction procedures were unreasonable and bordered on violating your contractual rights. The items were the requirement to have 20 days of emergency lesson plans on file with your department chairperson and direction to notify two people of your absences. After further review the established guidelines will remain as written in the "Absence From Work Site Direction." That memorandum, therefore is now a formal part of this summary of the conference for the record. Additionally, you were provided information regarding areas of assistance available to you through the Dade County Public School System. I am confident that the concerns identified can be corrected. You are reminded that you are entitled to attach a written response to be included as part of this process. In an effort to help Respondent improve her attendance, Mr. Hoecherl referred Respondent to the School Board's Employee Assistance Program on May 25, 1995. Respondent's attendance, however, did not improve. Furthermore, "she didn't always" follow the directives set forth in Mr. Hoecherl's May 19, 1995, memorandum. There were occasions when she did not have a 20-day supply of lesson plans on file with her department chairperson; neither did she consistently notify Mr. Hoecherl or Mr. Dawson of her intent to be absent. Accordingly, on December 19, 1995, Mr. Hoecherl held another Conference-for-the-Record with Respondent. Mr. Hoecherl subsequently prepared (on January 16, 1996) and furnished to Respondent (on February 28, 1996) a memorandum in which he summarized what had transpired at the conference. The memorandum read as follows: A conference for the record was held on December 19, 1995 at 9:05 A.M. in the office of the principal. The conference was attended by Katrina Chinni, Union Steward, Henrietta Dolega, Teacher, and Donald A. Hoecherl, Principal. The conference as indicated in the notification of the conference for the record dated January 15, 1995, addressed your continual absence from work. It was noted during this conference for the record that as of December 19, 1995 you have acquired twelve absences from work. It was noted that your absence disrupts the educational process for our students. Additionally, it was noted that as of December 19, 1995 you were out of all accrued sick leave. Also, you were reminded that on several occasions you failed to follow the prescription provided on May 19, 1995 in the Absence From Work Site Directi[on]. You were reminded that you must notify the Principal or the Principal's Designee in addition to Ms. Dafcik. Additionally, you were reminded that failure to comply with the guidelines outlined in the conference for the record and the Absence Form Work Site Directi[on] would result in additional administrative action. Please feel free to contact me if I may be of any help in providing any assistance in an effort to mediate this ongoing problem. You are reminded that you are entitled to attach a written response to be included as a part of this process. I am confident that the concerns identified in this conference can be corrected Ms. Chinni, on behalf of Respondent, submitted the following written response to Mr. Hoecherl's January 16, 1996, memorandum and requested that it be considered an "addendum" to the memorandum: In the summary of conference for the record for Henrietta Dolega held Tuesday, December 19, 1995, the following items were omitted: The conference was also attended by Ted Hennis, Assistant Principal. The union stated that Ms. Dolega had documentation for all of her absences and that she was actively trying to address her health problems. The union stated that Ms. Dolega had shown a pattern of intent to comply with the directive to inform Mr. Hoecherl when she was going to be absent. Respondent was absent a total a 46 days during the 1995-96 school year. From the beginning of the 1996-97 school year through October 24, 1996, Respondent had ten days of absences. Respondent also arrived late to work and failed to provide "emergency lesson plans" in accordance with Mr. Hoecherl's May 19, 1995, memorandum. Accordingly, on October 24, 1996, Mr. Hoecherl held another Conference-for-the-Record with Respondent to address these ongoing problems. Mr. Hoecherl subsequently prepared (on October 25, 1996) and furnished to Respondent (on October 28, 1996) a memorandum in which he summarized what had transpired at the conference. The memorandum read as follows: A Conference-for-the Record was held on Thursday, October 24, 1996 at 8:54 a.m. Present at the conference were Ted Hennis, Assistant Principal; Henrietta Dolega, Teacher; Donald A. Hoecherl, Principal; and Katrina Chinni, UTD Representative. This conference was held in compliance with the UTD Contract Article XXI and addressed: Absences from work. Lateness to work. Failure to provide emergency lesson plans as outlined in the work site directive. Absences from Work A review of your attendance indicated that in addition to your absences addressed during the Conference-for-the-Record held on January 16, 1996, you missed an additional twenty-seven (27) days for a total of 46 days during the 1995-1996 school year. As of this date, you have been absent a total of ten (10) days for the 1996-1997 school year. Additionally, you are currently out of accrued or personal leave. Furthermore, it has been noted that on several occasions you have been late to work. Your absences from duty and lateness to work adversely impact[] the educational environment by: failing to provide support services for students, impeding [t]he academic progress of your students, failure in providing a continuity of instruction and effective operation of this school Your failure to maintain the emergency lesson plan file is in direct disregard for the procedures established prior to and re- established during the Conference-for-the Record held January 16, 1996. In an effort to be clear, as this is a new school year, you are reminded that, as a result of your continued absences from work you are advised that you must continue to adhere to the following procedures concerning any further absences: Intent to be absent must be communicated directly to Mr. Hoecherl or Mr. Hennis and then to the appropriate secretary to secure a substitute in accordance with procedures delineated in the Faculty Handbook. Emergency lesson plans for twenty (20) days on file with your Department Chairperson and Mr. Hennis. Emergency lesson plans must be reviewed by Mr. Hennis prior to being placed in your emergency lesson plan file. Maintain the emergency lesson plans at a twenty (20) day level upon return from absences. Absences for illness must be documented by your treating physician and a written medical note presented to Mr. Hoecherl or Mr. Hennis upon your return to work along with a medical release to return to full duty. Any absence not documented as indicated above and outside of your six (6) personal days will be listed as unauthorized leave without pay. If it is determined that future absences are imminent, leave must be requested and procedures for Board Approved leave implemented. In regard to [the] Gail L. Grossman, Attorney at Law, request to reschedule the Conference-for-the-Record as she was unavailable to attend and provide representation[,] [y]ou were reminded that Article XXIV of the UTD Contract states "An employee ma[]y not be represented by a minority/rival union or by an attorney in a Conference-for-the-Record. This administrator asked if you had any comments and you replied that in regard to the lesson plans provided during one of your absences that the Department Chairperson misunderstood your references to the mixed review, thus not providing an adequate lesson for the day. The directives established are in effect as of this conference and are necessary to prevent adverse impact to students and their academic progress and to [e]nsure a continuity of the educational program. Additionally, these procedures are necessary to maintain an effective worksite operation. Also be assured that assistance will continue to be provided upon your request. In conclusion, failure to comply with these directives will result in additional disciplinary action. You are apprised of your right to append, to clarify or to expand any information recorded in the conference by this summary. Mr. Hoecherl again referred Respondent to the School Board's Employee Assistance Program on October 24, 1996, in a continuing effort to help her improve her attendance. Respondent's attendance, however, continued to be a problem. By February 24, 1997, Respondent had accumulated 40 days of absences for the school year (nine days of sick leave, two days of personal leave, 25 days of authorized leave without pay, and four days of unauthorized leave without pay). By memorandum, dated February 25, 1997, to Dr. Thomasina O'Donnell, a director in the School Board's Office of Professional Standards, Mr. Hoecherl requested a "determination of fitness" for Respondent. The memorandum read as follows: I am by way of this memorandum requesting the assistance of the Office of Professional Standards regarding Ms. Henrietta Dolega (employee # 143398). Ms. Dolega has a history of excessive absenteeism from the 1993-1994 school year to present. Ms. Dolega's attendance pattern has seriously impacted the students in her charge. At the present time, she is assigned to teach Algebra II for five class periods. Based on the information provided, I am requesting that a Determination of Fitness be conducted prior to Mrs. Dolega's return to South Dade High School. Please contact me at 247-4244 if you require any additional information. Appended to the memorandum was a "leave history that Mr. Hoecherl provided to Dr. O'Donnell" indicating the number and types of Respondent's absences from the 1993-1994 school year up to February 24, 1997. As of March 10, 1997, Respondent had been absent 28 consecutive days. On March 7, 1997, Respondent had requested, in writing, "a leave of absence without pay effective 2/24/97 through 3/10/97 (TENTATIVE)." On March 10, 1997, Mr. Hoecherl sent the following memorandum to the School Board's Leave Office requesting that Respondent's leave request be denied: I am requesting that the Leave Without Pay Request from Henrietta Dolega, employee #143398 be denied. As you can see from her request, Ms. Dolega is requesting leave from February 20 through March 10, 1997. Ms. Dolega has been absent from work a total of fifty (50) days this school year. Her latest absences began January 27, 1997, and as of March 10, 1997, continues for 28 consecutive days. This current request for Leave Without Pay comes to us after the fact. As a result, a permanent substitute could not be secured. Ms. Dolega continues to notify us on a weekly basis of her attendance status. Additionally, a review of Ms. Dolega's attendance history indicates that this is not a first time occurrence. . . . On March 14, 1997, Dr. O'Donnell held a Conference- for-the-Record with Respondent, at which it was agreed that Respondent would be placed on medical leave (without pay) until April 30, 1997. Dr. O'Donnell subsequently prepared (on March 19, 1997) and then mailed to Respondent a memorandum in which she summarized what had transpired at the conference. The memorandum read as follows: On March 14, 1997, a meeting was held with you in the Office of Professional Standards. In attendance were: Mr. Don Hoecherl, Principal, South Dade Senior; Ms. Julia Menendez, Director, Region VI; Ms. Yvonne Perez, Bargaining Agent Representative, United Teachers of Dade (UTD); and this administrator. This meeting was held to clarify your status in reference to returning to work and your future employment with Dade County Public Schools. Your attendance pattern over the past four years was reviewed as follows: 1993-94 102 total days absent 1994-95 75.5 total days absent 1995-96 46 total days absent 1996-97 55 total days absent as of 3-14-97 Despite the fact that you have provided documentation from your physician, your pattern of absences has caused serious problems with the delivery of an appropriate curriculum and the continuity of the educational program. You have been absent the past 35 consecutive days and you were notifying the school on a daily or weekly basis. Therefore, Mr. Hoecherl was not able to hire a full-time certified teacher to replace you. At this point, the following options were reviewed with you: be in attendance every day resign you position from Dade County Public Schools retire, if eligible request leave. Your pattern of absences and leaves is disruptive and must stop. A long term solution is vital. You agreed to request leave through April 30, 1997. By April 23, 1997, you will provide official written clearance by your physician or you will extend your leave through the end of the 1996-97 school year. Should you return this school year, Mr. Hoecherl will expect you to be in attendance every day. If you are absent, the school will take action. Also, you will be required to clear through the Office of Professional Standards prior to your return either in May or August 1997. You were reminded to follow the directive previously given you regarding absences. You must speak with Mr. Hoecherl or Mr. Hennis during work hours. Do not leave messages on answering machines or with anyone else. Further, you were directed to provide original notice from your physician rather than a fax. It is the desire of DCPS that you can resolve your health issues and return to work. However, if you cannot, a more permanent resolution must be reached. You agreed to provide to me the original leave form with an attached doctor's notice by March 24, 1997. Respondent, who suffered from adhesions, thereafter requested, and was granted, a series of extensions of her medical leave (without pay). After being on medical leave for three years, Respondent became depressed and started seeing a psychiatrist, Stephen Kahn, M.D. By letter dated March 30, 2001, Dr. Kahn "released [Respondent] to resume her position as full-time teacher without restriction." On April 25, 2001, Dr. O'Donnell held a Conference- for-the-Record with Respondent to discuss Respondent's return to the classroom. Dr. O'Donnell subsequently prepared (on April 26, 2001) and furnished to Respondent (on May 5, 2001) a memorandum in which she summarized what had transpired at the conference. The memorandum read as follows: On April 25, 2001, a conference-for-the- record was held with you in the Office of Professional Standards (OPS). In attendance were: Ms. Clemencia D. Waddell, Region Director, Region VI; Dr. Randy Biro, Bargaining Agent Representative, United Teachers of Dade (UTD); and this administrator. Service History As you reported in this conference, you were initially employed by Miami-Dade County Public Schools as a teacher in October 1983, and you were assigned to Homestead High School through June 1993. You were assigned to South Dade Senior High School from August 1993 through January 1997. You have been on Board approved leave since January 1997 through the present. You indicated that your teacher certificate is valid through June 30, 2004, in Elementary Education, Mathematics, and that you hold a Continuing Contract (CC) with the District. Conference Data Reviewed A review of your personnel file in the Office of Professional Standards reveals an extensive documentation of attendance and performance problems since 1984. On March 14, 1997 a conference-for-the-record was held in the Office of Professional Standards. On that date, your attendance pattern was reviewed from the prior four years and is as follows: Years Days Absent 1993-1994 102 days 1994-1995 78.5 days 1995-1996 46 days 1996-1997 55 days (prior to March 14th) At the March 14, 1997, conference-for-the- record held in the OPS, you were told that despite the extensive documentation provided from a variety of treating physicians, your absences are deemed to be excessive. You were advised that if you could not be in regular attendance to request a Board- approved leave of absence; which you did. A review of your leave history is as follows: Leave From Through Type October 8, 1992 December 16, 1992 Illness October 25, 1994 December 16, 1994 Illness February 2, 1994 May 31, 1994 Illness February 18, 1997 February 15, 2001 Personal As of this date, you have exhausted all leave options available to you through Miami-Dade County Public Schools and no further requests for any type of leave would be honored. You were asked if you understood this condition and you indicated that you did. You were told that your treating physician, Dr. Stephen Kahn, forwarded a statement which read, "Ms. Dolega is released to resume her position as full-time teacher without restriction." However, he did not respond to several requests from OPS to review the job descriptions for both elementary and secondary teacher. Dr. Randy Biro stated that you feel you can perform all of the responsibilities of a teacher. Ms. Clemencia Waddell informed the participants that you are assigned to William A. Chapman Elementary School with teaching duties within your area of certification. You were told that, from information provided by the payroll department, you would be granted four sick days upon your return. You were also told that taking into consideration your previous history with poor attendance that you would be referred to OPS if you were absent; you said that you understood. Action Taken You were reminded of the availability of services from the District's support referral agency. You were provided the option to resign your position with Miami- Dade County Public Schools. The following directives are herein delineated which were issued to you during the conference concerning future absences. Be in regular attendance and on time. Intent to be absent must be communicated directly to Ms. Paulette Martin, Principal, William A. Chapman Elementary. Site procedures for provision of lesson plans and material for the substitute teacher when absent must be adhered to in the event of any absence from the site. Should future absences exceed the number of days accrued, the absences will be considered LWOU and employment action will ensue. These directives are in effect as of the date of the conference and will be implemented to prevent adverse impact to students and their academic progress, the operation of the work unit, and to insure continuity of the educational program. Noncompliance with these directives will necessitate review by the Office of Professional Standards for the imposition of disciplinary measures. During the conference, you were provided with a copy of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A- 4E-1.01, Absences and Leave. You were advised of the high esteem in which teachers are held and of the District's concern for any behavior which adversely affects this level of professionalism. Ms. Martin, Principal, was apprised as to your return to the worksite on April 30, 2001, to assume classroom duties. Action To Be Taken You were advised that the information prescribed in this conference, as well as subsequent documentation, would be reviewed with the Assistant Superintendent in the Office of Professional Standards, the Superintendent of Region VI and the Principal of William A. Chapman Elementary School. Any noncompliance with the prescriptive directives issued would result in the recission of site disciplinary action and compel district disciplinary measures to include dismissal. Please be aware of your right to clarify, explain, and/or respond to any information recorded in this conference by this summary, and to have such response appended to your record. The directives given to Respondent at the April 25, 2001, Conference-for-the-Record (and "delineated" in Dr. O'Donnell's summary of the conference) were reasonable in nature and given with proper authority. The "[s]ite procedures for provision of lesson plans and material for the substitute teacher when absent" at Dr. William A. Chapman Elementary School (Chapman Elementary) required each teacher to have a folder containing lesson plans for a five-day period for use by a substitute in the event of the teacher's absence. Respondent returned to the classroom after more than a four-year absence on April 30, 2001. She was assigned to Chapman Elementary to teach a third grade class with 13 or 14 students. Paulette Martin is now, and has been since the 2000-01 school year, the principal of Chapman Elementary. In early May of 2001, shortly after Respondent's return to the classroom, her younger brother passed away. Too upset to come to work, Respondent took off from work the following day. Her absence was covered by accrued leave and authorized. Respondent took off from work one other day during the 2000-01 school year following her return to work. Feeling "bad[ly]" about her brother's death and her failure to have attended his funeral (in Maryland), Respondent had trouble sleeping at night. It "got to a point" where Respondent believed that, for the sake of her health, she needed to take a day off from work. That day was June 7, 2001. This second absence following her return to the classroom was also covered by accrued leave and authorized. Respondent was not assigned to teach summer school following the 2000-01 school year. Respondent returned to Chapman Elementary for the 2001-02 school year. In September and October of that year she was absent a total 12 days (September 4, 14, 27, and 28, and October 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 22, and 23). Six of these days of absences (September 4, 14, 27, and 28 and October 1 and 22) were covered by accrued leave and authorized. The remaining days of absences were not covered by accrued leave and they were unauthorized. These absences "had a negative impact on [the students in Respondent's] class." On October 30, 2001, Ms. Martin prepared the following memorandum, which she subsequently gave to Respondent: SUBJECT: NOTICE OF EXCESSIVE ABSENCES September 4 Sick September 14 Sick September 27 Sick September 28 Sick October 1 Sick It has been determined that you have been excessively absent during the 2001-2002 school year. To date, you have been absent on the following days: October 2 LWOPU[2] October 3 LWOPU October 4 LWOPU October 5 LWOPU October 10 LWOPU October 22 Sick October 23 LWOPU Your absences total twelve (12) days, exceeding the number of days you have accrued. As stated in the Summary of the Conference-for-the-Record of April 25, 2001, you were advised of past absences and directed as follows: Be in regular attendance and on time. Intent to be absent must be communicated directly to the principal. Site procedures for provision of lesson plans and materials for substitute teachers when absent must be adhered to in the event of absence. Should future absences exceed the number of days accrued, absences will be considered Leave Without Pay (Unauthorized) and employment action will ensue. You were also advised that noncompliance with these directives would necessitate a review by the Office of Professional Standards for imposition of disciplinary measures. Please be advised that this memorandum is being submitted to the Office of Professional Standards and the Region Director for Personnel for review and subsequent action. Ms. Martin brought to Dr. O'Donnell's attention that "once again [Respondent] was experiencing attendance problems and had been excessively absent." Accordingly, on November 16, 2001, Dr. O'Donnell held a Conference-for-the-Record with Respondent. Dr. O'Donnell subsequently prepared (on that same date) and furnished to Respondent a memorandum in which she summarized what had transpired at the conference. The memorandum read, in pertinent part, as follows: Conference Data Reviewed A review of the record included reference to the following issues: Attendance-to-date Leave/attendance history Previously issued attendance directives. You returned to the work site on April 30, 2001. You were absent two days before the end of the school year which ended on June 15, 2001. Your attendance for the current school year is as follows: Sick/Personal 6 Temporary Duty 1 Leave Without Pay 6 (Unauthorized) 13** **through October 23, 2001 15 days absence since your return from leave on April 30, 2001 You were asked if you wished to respond to this continuing pattern and you said that in reference to your absences last May, your brother passed away. You stated that you have had all of your teeth pulled and replaced and that is why you have been absent this school year. You were reminded of the directives regarding attendance that you have been previously issued. You were told that your dental problem should have been addressed during the summer or winter break or any time that would not interfere with the educational program of the students. You were then reminded of a meeting held with you in the Office of Professional Standards on March 14, 1997, which was held to review your absences and ability to return to work. The following options were reviewed with you at the meeting: Be in attendance every day Resign your position from Miami-Dade County Public Schools Retire, if eligible Request leave You effected a leave retroactive to January 1997 after the March 1997 meeting. You were reminded of your previous record of absences and leaves as reviewed at the conference- for-the-record held in the Office of Professional Standards on April 25, 2001 which was as follows: Years Days Absent 1993-1994 102 days 1994-1995 78.5 days 1995-1996 46 days 1996-1997 55 days** **through January 1997 when you effected leave. Leave From Through Type October 8, 1992 December 16, 1992 Illness October 25, 1994 December 16, 1994 Illness February 2, 1994 May 31, 1994 Illness February 18, 1997 February 15, 2001 Personal You were reminded that previously your absences had been deemed to be excessive. You were also reminded that you have exhausted all leave options and no further requests for any type of leave would be honored. You were asked if you wished to respond to this information and you declined comment. At the April 25, 2001 conference-for-the- record, which was held in OPS, your treating physician forwarded a statement which read in full, "Ms. Dolega is released to resume her position as full-time teacher without restriction." At that meeting, Dr. Randy Biro, your Member Advocate, stated that you are able to perform all teaching responsibilities. You were also reissued attendance directives. You have failed to comply with the directives which were issued to you by virtue of your six unauthorized absences during the current school year. Your actions are considered to be gross insubordination. You were asked if you had any statement to make regarding your continued pattern of excessive absences and you did not. Action Taken You were told that due to your history of excessive absences, you had been referred to OPS. On two previous occasions, as well as today's conference, you were issued the following directives: Be in regular attendance and on time. Intent to be absent must be communicated directly to Ms. Paulette Martin, Principal, William A. Chapman Elementary. Site procedures for provision of lesson plans and materials for the substitute teacher when absent must be adhered to in the event of any absence from the site. Should future absences exceed the number of days accrued, the absences will be considered Leave Without Pay Unauthorized (LWOU) and employment action will ensue. Pending further review of this case and formal notification of the recommended action of disciplinary measures to be taken, these directives are reiterated and will be implemented immediately to prevent adverse impact to the operation of the work unit and to the services provided to students, as well as to insure continuity of the program. Noncompliance with these directives will necessitate further review by the Office of Professional Standards for the imposition of (additional and immediate) disciplinary action. You were advised of the high esteem in which teachers are held and of the District's concern for any behavior which adversely affects this level of professionalism. Ms. Martin was apprised as to your return to the worksite. You were advised to keep the information presented in this conference confidential and not discus this with students or staff. Action To Be Taken You were advised that the information presented in this conference, as well as subsequent documentation, would be reviewed with the Superintendent of Region VI, Assistant Superintendent in the Office of Professional Standards, and the Principal of William A. Chapman Elementary School. Upon completion of the conference summary, a legal review by the School Board attorneys would be requested. Receipt of legal review with the endorsement by the Region Superintendent will compel formal notification of the recommended action or disciplinary measures to include any of the following: a letter of reprimand, Domain VII (PACES Professional Responsibilities Component) Professional Improvement Plan (PIP) which could impact the annual evaluation decision, suspension, or dismissal. Please be aware of your right to clarify, explain, and/or respond to any information recorded in this conference by this summary, and to have such response appended to your record. Respondent was not absent in November of 2001. Her next absence was on December 10, 2001. This absence was covered by accrued leave and authorized. A determination was made that Respondent "be recommended for dismissal for the following charges: gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty and incompetency." On December 12, 2001, Dr. O'Donnell held a Conference- for-the-Record with Respondent to discuss this recommendation. Respondent was given the option to resign or retire "in lieu of dismissal." Speaking through her union representative, Respondent declined the offer, claiming that her "absences were due to illness." On the days that she was absent following her return to the classroom on April 30, 2001, Respondent did not report to work because she believed that she was too ill to do so. Although she was well aware of the directive that she had been given to "[b]e in regular attendance," she felt that, because of her condition on these days, she was not able to come to work and properly discharge her classroom teaching responsibilities. At the beginning of the school year, Respondent cut her leg on her dishwasher and the wound did not heal properly. She consulted her physician, who prescribed two antibiotics for her. The antibiotics "knocked [her] for a loop" and she missed work as a result. Respondent also missed a day of work because she had a bout of diarrhea. On September 27 and 28, 2001, and October 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, 2001, Respondent was recovering from oral surgery (the extraction of all of her remaining teeth) that was performed on her after school on Wednesday, September 26, 2001. She was absent on these days because she was "taking pain pills and [she] was really in pain." The surgery that resulted in her absences on September 27 and 28, 2001, and October 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, 2001, was done to enable Respondent to receive full upper and lower dentures. Respondent had a long-standing need for such dentures. The dentures were necessary, as her dentist, Dr. Hans Sperling, testified (by deposition), because: [Respondent] ha[d] extensive decay in her mouth present to the point that the teeth were not restorable. She also had severe periodontal disease, extensive bone loss around the teeth, which will not render the teeth appropriate to use as [an] abutment to retain either a partial denture or fixed bridges. Dr. Sperling first noticed "extensive decay in [Respondent's] mouth" during her initial visit to his office on October 9, 1999. At that time, Dr. Sperling told Respondent that "she needed the extractions" and that they should be "done by an oral surgeon" because of the "extensive amount of teeth that need[ed] to be taken out." He further advised her "that she would need a complete exam before anything else was done." Respondent did not see Dr. Sperling again until April 6, 2001, when Dr. Sperling gave her a "complete exam," which revealed that she still had "severe decay in her teeth." Dr. Sperling also found that she had "severe periodontal disease." Respondent next saw Dr. Sperling on June 26, 2001. On that date, Dr. Sperling "took impressions of her lower and upper jaws," the first step in the process to provide her with dentures. Respondent was next scheduled to see Dr. Sperling on July 19, 2001, but she "broke[] this appointment." Respondent next saw Dr. Sperling on August 9, 2001. During this visit, Dr. Sperling "registered her bite so [he could] articulate the models on an articulator." Respondent's next visit to Dr. Sperling was on September 5, 2001, when she "tried . . . the [dentures] that she was going to be having." Her last pre-surgery visit to Dr. Sperling was on September 25, 2001, when she picked up the dentures that the oral surgeon was going to place in her mouth. Dr. Sperling advised Respondent that it would take approximately four days for her to recover from the oral surgery and suggested that she schedule the surgery for a Thursday so she would be able to return to work on the following Monday. Respondent scheduled the oral surgery for Wednesday, September 26, 2001. Respondent believed that, by having the surgery on this date, she would miss only two days of work and only one day with her students inasmuch as Friday, September 28, 2001, was a teacher planning day and she anticipated that she would be able to return to the classroom the following Monday, October 1, 2001. Respondent had enough accrued leave to cover this anticipated two-day absence. Respondent's recovery, however, took longer than anticipated and she was absent the entire workweek (Monday, October 1, 2001, through Friday, October 5, 2001) following the surgery. Dr. Sperling conducted a "post-operative evaluation" of Respondent on October 1, 2001. He observed that "the healing was within normal limits," although Respondent did complain to him that she was still experiencing pain. Respondent did not have the surgery done during the preceding summer, when she was not working, because she could not afford it at that time. The dentures that were placed in her mouth "are temporary[.] [E]ventually [she will] have implants." While Respondent's absences following her return to the classroom on April 30, 2001, were not contumacious acts, she did willfully disregard the directives given her that her "[i]ntent to be absent must be communicated directly" to Ms. Martin and that "[s]ite procedures for provision of lesson plans and material for the substitute teacher when absent must be adhered to in the event of any absence from the site."3 Respondent repeatedly failed to follow these directives despite having the apparent ability to do so (just as she had ignored similar directives when she was teaching at South Dade under Mr. Hoecherl's supervision). Respondent did not communicate her intent to be absent to Ms. Martin prior to any of her absences. Furthermore, Respondent did not maintain a folder containing lesson plans for substitute teachers to use in her absence. Respondent was verbally advised that she was not in compliance with the "[s]ite procedures for provision of lesson plans and material for the substitute teacher when absent." Nonetheless, to the detriment of the students in her class, she continued to wait until after the instructional day had begun (anywhere from 45 minutes to an hour and beyond) to provide (by facsimile transmission) lesson plans for the substitute teacher (rather than maintaining a folder with a five-day supply of lesson plans). At its January 16, 2002, meeting, the School Board took action to "suspend [Respondent] and initiate dismissal proceedings against [her] from all employment by the Miami-Dade County Public School, effective the close of the workday, January 16, 2002, for gross insubordination; incompetency; and willful neglect of duty."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a final order sustaining Respondent's suspension and terminating her employment as a continuing contract teacher with the School Board for her "gross insubordination" and "willful neglect of duty," as more specifically described above. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of June, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 7th day of June, 2002.
Findings Of Fact Thomas W. Bennett was employed by the Sarasota County School Board in the 1967-68 school year, and assigned Shop and Drafting at the Venice Junior High School. In 1968 he was assigned a satisfactory evaluation by his principal, Mr. Guy Rose, for this school year. Respondent continued to receive satisfactory evaluations from Mr. Rose, and acquired continuing contract status or tenure. By 1971 the principal, Mr. Rose, was becoming concerned about Respondent's behavior patterns involving both students and faculty. Specifically, he was cornered about Respondent allowing students on one occasion to ride on a flat bed trailer without guard rails, and about erratic behavior evidenced by notes to other faculty members left on light cords and other odd places which in tone and content sometimes irritated the recipients. On one occasion Mr. Rose was notified that some students were at the shopping center a few blocks from the school during school hours, and upon investigation he learned they were assigned to Respondent's class and had been sent out of the class because they did not have materials with which to work. On another occasion Mr. Rose found the shop area unlocked and Respondent not in attendance. This latter he considered a safety hazard both from the standpoint of potential injury to students due to unattended power tools, as well as a potential loss of small hand tools due to pilferage. At a meeting held on March 4, 1971 to consider Respondent's request for additional lumber for his classes, these concerns were discussed and Mr. Bennett was advised by Mr. Rose that his performance needed to improve. Exhibit 2 documenting the meeting held March 4, 1971 was admitted into evidence. In 1971 and 1972 two incidents came to light regarding Respondent striking or otherwise committing a battery on students. On one occasion he struck Douglas Letson on the back of the head with a small piece of plywood approximately 1/4" thick. While working in his shop class Letson carelessly drilled through the piece of plywood into the table. When he observed this incident Respondent said "God dammit, don't drill through my table", (or words to that effect), picked up the piece of plywood on which Letson had been drilling and hit Letson on the back of the head with sufficient force to cause contusions and a subsequent swelling. The skin was not broken. On another occasion a student with a bleeding scalp wound reported to the Assistant Principal (Mr. Guy Bennett) that Respondent Bennett had struck him. Respondent denies ever having touched this student and the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that a battery was in fact committed. In 1973, after Mr. Guy Bennett had succeeded to the position of principal at Venice Junior High School, he received a report of Respondent Bennett striking a student and had the Acting Assistant Principal investigate. Exhibit 18, the Affidavit of Brett Gordon Derby attesting to being battered by Respondent, was admitted into evidence. Shortly after Guy Bennett succeeded to the position of principal he prepared a Performance Agreement, Exhibit 13, for Respondent Bennett. Therein he listed those areas wherein he considered Respondent's performance below acceptable levels. Following the concept of positive thinking these deficiencies were phrased as Operational Objectives. One operational objective was "Teacher will demonstrate self control - VJA goal #12 (no striking of students)". Another was "Teacher will maintain mutual respect in classroom - VJH goal #22 (no profanity directed at students)". Those schoolwide goals are contained in Exhibit 15, extraction from the FIO Manual presented at the hearing. Mr. Guy Bennett was also concerned regarding Respondent's grading practices. On one occasion after the principal suspended a student on Respondent's recommendation the parents of the suspended student appeared with their son's report card showing Respondent had marked their son "A" in merit and "E" (for excellent) in citizenship. At times Respondent assigned grades recommended by the class. Principal Bennett considered the drop-out rate in Respondent's class to be much higher than it should have been, and that many more of his disciplinary problems should have been resolved in the classroom. Once Principal Guy Bennett had Respondent apologize to two visiting parents who heard Respondent, after being advised over the high school public address system that he had a telephone call, respond over the public address system "aw shit". In February, 1975, while assigned to bus duty, Respondent saw Annette Lanning, a 13-year-old 8th grade student, enter the line getting on a bus at a point near the beginning of the line. Annette Lanning and the bus driver both testified that she had been pushed out of the line and was returning to her rightful place when Respondent told her to go to the end of the line. She went near the end of the line where her older sister told her to get in the line along side her. Upon Annette's arrival at the bus door, Respondent pushed her out of the line with his hand on her throat some 6 to 10 feet to a fence. He pushed her against the fence several times and made threatening gestures with a clenched fist. The bus driver who observed the entire episode from inside the bus, rushed off the bus to pull Respondent back from Annette. When released Annette ran toward the bus. The bus driver, Mrs. Walsh, submitted a report of the incident immediately afterwards. This report was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 12, and the witness testified that the report accurately reflected what she observed and did. As a result of this incident Annette's parents filed criminal charges against Respondent Bennett. When Principal Bennett returned to Venice the evening of February 7, 1975 he was advised of the incident, and contacted the Lannings to request that they withdrew their complaint before a warrant was issued. After Principal Bennett convinced them that he could better handle the problem at the school level, the Lannings withdrew the complaint. A copy of the complaint report was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 11. In May 1975, a local businessman, Mr. Robert Anderson, gave Respondent permission to conduct his students on a field trip through Mr. Anderson's plant. During the visit and after ascertaining that smoking was not prohibited in the plant, Respondent advised the students they could light up. Mr. Anderson was sufficiently concerned about Respondent's permitting the smoking, which was in violation of school policy, that he wrote letters complaining about the incident, and testified at the hearing. Witnesses testifying on behalf of Respondent considered Respondent to be a good teacher who appeared well liked by his students. They never saw Respondent lose his temper, hit any students, or swear in their presence. They would not condone striking a student over the head with a board, or choking a student. Respondent acknowledged that he had hit Douglas Letson with the board through which Letson had drilled into the desk below. He further admitted that he sent students to the library when they did not have materials to perform shop projects, and he did not follow up to ascertain if they went to the library as he directed. With respect to the Annette Lanning incident, Respondent acknowledged pushing her from the line with his hand against her throat, but he denied choking her or threatening her with a clenched fist. He acknowledged signing the letter dated February 10, 1975, Exhibit 16, which was prepared by Principal Bennett but he has not sought professional help respecting his temper. In Exhibit 16 Respondent acknowledged that he overreacted in this situation.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED that he be dismissed as a teacher from the Sarasota County School System. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of December, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Richard W. Conney, Esq. Box 6167 Sarasota, Florida 33578 Louis Jackson, Esq. c/o Richard W. Cooney, Esq. Box 6167 Sarasota, Florida 33578 Sidney L. Matthew, Esq. 208 W. Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
