The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges and, if so, a determination of the appropriate penalty for such violations.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board is responsible for the operation of the public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times material to the facts of this case, the Respondent was a teacher employed by the School Board and was assigned to a public school within the district, Hialeah Senior High School (Hialeah High). The Respondent has been a teacher employed by the School Board for years. Respondent possesses a professional service contract pursuant to Section 1012.33, Florida Statutes. The Respondent is a business education teacher. Prior to the incident giving rise to this case, the Respondent had not been the subject of any disciplinary action by his employer. Prior to teaching at Hialeah High, the Respondent had been teaching adult students at another school. The adult students were highly motivated to learn and provided little in the way of classroom discipline problems. In December of 2003, the Respondent was assigned to teach English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) classes to high school age students at Hialeah High. At Hialeah High the Respondent's classes were populated primarily by students who had very limited proficiency in the English language and who, for the most part, had very limited experience in an American classroom setting. Many of the students had only recently arrived from a variety of Spanish-speaking countries, including Mexico and many Central and South American countries. These students, both because of their limited English language skills and their limited exposure to an American classroom, presented more than the usual discipline challenges. At the time of the incident giving rise to this case, the Respondent had been teaching the ESOL classes at Hialeah High for only a few weeks. A frequently recurring problem in the Respondent's classroom was that some of the students would use the classroom computers to play music CDs and would interrupt the rest of the class by turning up the volume through the external speakers on the computers. This problem apparently came to a head on January 27, 2004, when an honor student asked the Respondent if it was necessary for the class to be interrupted by the students who were playing music CDs on the classroom computers. After school on January 27, 2004, the Respondent decided to solve the music problem by cutting the audio wires that ran from the monitor to the external speakers on each of the classroom computers. The Respondent chose to cut the audio wires because the wires were hardwired into the computer monitors and could not readily be unplugged. He cut the speaker wires on at least 25 of the computers in his classroom. The Respondent's conduct in this regard was not for the purpose of damaging school equipment, but was a misguided and poorly thought out effort to prevent further music playing by the misbehaving students. The cutting of the speaker wires was an inappropriate way in which to address student misconduct in the classroom. More appropriate ways to have prevented such misconduct or to have addressed such misconduct after it occurred would have been to take such measures as implementing and enforcing classroom rules when he first began teaching the ESOL classes, making disciplinary referrals, seeking assistance from the school administration, or assigning misbehaving students to indoor suspension. Although the computers are operable, they have no external speakers and, therefore, cannot make loud sounds. The inability to make loud sounds compromises the extent to which the computers can be used for certain applications. The Respondent's acts of cutting the speaker wires were intentional acts that damaged the computers. Damage to the computers caused by intentional acts is not covered by the warranties on the computers. A representative of the Dell computer company examined the damage to the computers and stated that Dell did not make repairs to that type of damage. The best solution the Dell representative could propose was to replace all of the monitors with cut speaker wires with new monitors that had new external speakers attached. The Dell representative stated that such replacement would cost $129.00 per computer. The damage caused by the Respondent's cutting of the computer wires can be readily and inexpensively repaired. The parts necessary to repair the computers cost about $2.00 for each computer. The time necessary to repair the damaged computers is approximately five minutes per computer. The Respondent has already purchased with his own funds the parts necessary to repair all of the computers in his classroom, and he has delivered those parts to the principal at Hialeah High. The Respondent volunteered on several occasions to perform the work necessary to repair the computers he damaged. The Respondent's offers to perform the repair work were declined. For reasons not adequately explained in the record in this case, the computer technicians at Hialeah High have not yet repaired the subject computers. It would take approximately two hours of technician time to repair all of the computers in the Respondent's classroom. The damage to the computers caused by the Respondent could have been repaired within a very few days of the date on which the damage occurred. When asked about the damage to the computer wires, the Respondent readily admitted what he had done and readily acknowledged that it was a foolish and inappropriate thing for him to have done. He did not hesitate to accept responsibility for the consequences of his conduct and, as mentioned above, bought the necessary parts and offered to do the necessary repair work. Respondent’s intentional destruction of School Board property failed to reflect credit upon himself and on the school system, and showed a lack of professional judgment. On September 21, 2004, the Respondent’s principal and the assistant superintendent who had authority over Hialeah High recommended a 30-work day suspension without pay. The School Board, at its regularly scheduled meeting of December 15, 2004, took action to suspend the Respondent without pay for 30 workdays.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case suspending the Respondent without pay for one week and requiring the Respondent to pay for the cost of the repairs made necessary by his foolish conduct. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 12th day of April, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Rudolph F. Crew, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable John Winn Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Background Respondent is a teacher certified in English, which he has taught while employed by Petitioner. He was first employed by Petitioner during the 1984-85 school year. In 1987, he was awarded a professional service contract. He has six years' teaching experience outside Highlands County. Principals or assistant principals routinely conduct annual teacher evaluations. The evaluation form contains two sections. Section 1 contains 14 categories that are marked based on one or more classroom observations. Section 2 contains 15 categories that are marked based on classroom observations and experience with the teacher. The back of the evaluation form explains the marks as follows: Mark Description Commendable (C) Indicates exceptional performance of the identified behavior(s). Satisfactory (S) Indicates satisfactory performance of the identified behavior(s) Needs Improvement (NI) Indicates a need for the employee to strengthen/improve performance of the identified behavior(s). Must Improve (MI) Indicates a need for the employee to remediate deficient behavior(s). If the deficiency is not corrected, the employee's contract status could be affected. The back of the evaluation form explains the "NEAT Procedure/Due Process": When an employee is evaluated as Must Improve, remediation procedures must be implemented as follows: Notice--The employee has the right to receive full written notification of the identified deficient behaviors. Explanation--The employee has the right to receive a full explanation for the reason behaviors are considered deficient. Assistance--The employee has the right to receive assistance in remediating the deficient behavior. Time--The employee has the right to a reasonable amount of time to achieve remediation. Various documents exist to normalize the evaluations of teachers. However, a degree of subjectivity necessarily remains in the evaluation process. Petitioner has prepared a booklet entitled, "Performance Appraisal System for Instructional Personnel" (Appraisal Booklet). The Appraisal Booklet introduced into evidence is dated October 5, 1992, but, judging from the cover letter from the superintendent, was in effect for the entire 1992-93 school year. The Appraisal Booklet contains, at page 12, a section describing the assessment process. The booklet states in part: When a competency or behavior is marked "NI-Needs Improvement," the appraiser shall provide counseling and/or resources whereby improvement may occur. For each competency or behavior which is marked "MI--Must Improve," a remediation procedure must be designed and implemented. The procedures will be described in a Professional Development Plan, as called for in the NEAT procedures. Each deficient item shall be addressed in a separate [Professional Development Plan]. The plan shall include the following: Area to be improved: specify the identified problem. Specific desired improvement: write as a measurable goal or objective. Action to be taken: describe action the involved parties will complete to achieve desired improvement. Assistance plan: List and describe who will provide assistance, showing role of each participant. Time line: specify dates for each activity to be completed and evaluated. Evaluation: describe how and when evaluation of progress or success will occur. Consequences: specify consequences if improvement is not achieved satisfactorily. The Appraisal Booklet contains, at page 15, a section entitled, "Use of Assessment Data for Personnel Decisions." This section requires written comments for every C, NI, or MI. Under a subsection entitled, "Unsatisfactory Ratings," the Appraisal Booklet states in its entirety: For every MI assigned, the assessor will conduct a follow-up of the Professional Development Plan to determine if the appraisee accomplished the required improvement and/or when that competency will be reassessed. Failure to improve within the expected time may be grounds for returning to annual contract for an employee holding a Professional Service Contract or a Continuing Contract. If the deficiency is not corrected during the second year, it may be grounds for non-renewal. (See NEAT) If the appraisee receives two consecutive unsatisfactory annual evaluations, the superintendent shall notify the Department of Education as required by statute. On [the evaluation form] three or more ratings of MI . . . will constitute an "unsatisfactory annual evaluation" for purposes of reporting to the DOE. The Appraisal Booklet discusses C's. Nothing in this section of the booklet explicitly addresses NI's except, as noted above, that comments must accompany each NI. The contract between Petitioner and the teachers discusses evaluations, but not in such detail as to address the meaning of NI's and MI's. Concerning remediation, the contract states: Where deficiencies are brought to the teacher's attention by his/her supervisor, the teacher shall be responsible for taking the necessary steps for improving his/her skills to an acceptable level as determined by the principal. Assistance shall be offered the employee and such assistance for improvement shall be noted in writing and a signed copy be retained by the appropriate supervisor and the employee. Following remediation, reassessment shall be accorded the employee in compliance with the procedures of Article XI. If the final assessment report fails to note specific deficiency, it shall be interpreted to mean adequate improvement has taken place. The professional judgment of the evaluator shall not be subject to the grievance procedure. The contract acknowledges that it shall not be interpreted to abridge or in any way usurp the authority or power of [Petitioner] as established by constitutional provisions or state Board of Education regulations or statutes existing at the time of the [contract]. And further, [Petitioner] shall be relieved of compliance with any term or condition of this [contract] if such compliance is contrary to any constitutional provision or state Board of Education regulation or statute in effect or enacted subsequent to the signing of this [contract]. Petitioner has no clear written or unwritten policy regarding whether a performance deficiency evidenced by an MI is corrected by an NI, rather than a C or an S. The determination whether a teacher has corrected performance deficiencies depends on the circumstances. The Lake Placid Teacher Handbook for the 1992-93 school year, a copy of which was given to Respondent at the beginning of the year, notes that teachers are to administer their assertive discipline plan and enforce all school rules. Regarding student control, "teachers must not argue with students, use profanity or sarcasm, and must keep hands off students." Petitioner's Code of Student Conduct for the 1992-93 school year describes the teacher's role in the maintenance of discipline as starting with the preparation of a classroom assertive discipline plan, which outlines a series of increasing consequences for disciplinary problems. Under the first step, the teacher will follow his or her plan, which may contain consequences such as withholding a privilege, isolation, counseling, detention, extra work, task assignment, or a parent conference. Under the second step, if the misconduct is repeated, the teacher shall try to contact the parent and record the result. Under the third step, the teacher will refer the matter to the social worker, school nurse, Guidance Committee, or School Attendance Review Committee for positive intervention. Under the fourth step, if the problem persists or the misconduct becomes a major disruption, the teacher will complete a student disciplinary referral form and a school administrator will determine the appropriate punishment. Evaluations Prior to 1991-92 School Year Respondent's evaluation dated November 13, 1985, contains all S's with the exception of an NI for circulating and assisting students. The evaluation was prepared by Donn Goodwin, an assistant principal at Sebring High School where Respondent was then teaching. Respondent's evaluation dated March 5, 1986, contains all S's except for C's in demonstrating friendly, positive attitude toward all students; maintaining academic focus; using effective questioning techniques; providing for practice; dependability; and punctuality/attendance. The evaluation contains one NI for parent/community relations. The comment accompanying the NI is obscured, but suggests that Respondent did not schedule enough parent conferences, although he did a good job with those that he conducted. The evaluation was prepared by James Bible, the principal of Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated September 4, 1986, contains all S's except for C's in demonstrating effective communication skills, presenting subject matter effectively, maintaining academic focus, arranging physical features of the classroom for a safe learning environment, dependability, work attitude, and commitment. A note at the bottom of the evaluation states that Respondent maintained an "excellent class." The evaluation was prepared by Michael Agner, an assistant principal at Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated February 25, 1987, contains all S's except for C's in maintaining academic focus and maintaining effective classroom control and an NI in using specific academic praise. The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. Respondent's evaluation dated April 6, 1988, contains all S's except for C's in demonstrating effective communication skills, having materials ready, maintaining academic focus, using effective questioning techniques, punctuality/attendance, quantity/quality of work, commitment, and professional behavior/ethics. The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. Respondent's evaluation dated February 28, 1989, contains all S's. A comment under parent/community relations notes: "Need to continue working in this area. Parental support helps your teaching." A comment under student/staff relations adds: "Need to be mindful of backing students in corners with no alternatives." The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. Respondent's evaluation dated October 17, 1989, was obscured in the copying process. It appears to contain all S's with some C's in Section 1. The evaluation was prepared by Thomas Knowles, an assistant principal at Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated October 3, 1990, contains all S's. The evaluation was prepared by Ruth Hatfield, then an assistant principal at Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated February 20, 1991, contains all S's except for C's in having materials ready and circulating and assisting students and NI's in punctuality/attendance, student/staff relations, personal appearance, and receptiveness. Among the comments under Section 1 is that the observer did not see Respondent's assertive discipline rules posted. Section 2 comments are that Respondent was often late and "very defensive--refuses criticism." Under student/staff relations, the comment is: "Alienates students. Backs up kids in corners. Need to be aware of this." Another comment suggests a need to dress more professionally. The final comment states: "Need to work on areas that deal with students and parents." The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. A letter dated May 13, 1991, memorializes a conference that took place on May 9, 1991, between Respondent and Rebecca Clark, another assistant principal at Sebring High School. The letter states that Ms. Clark had noticed Respondent leaving his class while two guest speakers were making a presentation. Upon questioning, Respondent said that he had to run a quick errand and would be right back. Ms. Clark remained in the classroom until the end of the period, at which time Respondent returned. The letter warns Respondent that he must remain with his class and may not leave campus without prior authorization from an administrator. Evaluations During 1991-92 School Year A new principal, Calvin Smith, replaced Mr. Bible at Sebring High School for the 1991-92 school year. Mr. Smith conducted Respondent's next evaluation, which was dated December 2, 1991. Based on an observation taking place during a 50- minute period on November 26, 1991, Respondent received all S's in Section 1 except for a C in presenting the subject matter effectively and an NI in using specific academic praise. In Section 2, Respondent received S's in only five categories: keeping accurate records, punctuality and attendance, initiative, student evaluation, and professional growth. Receiving no C's in Section 2, Respondent received three NI's in personal appearance, receptiveness, and commitment and seven MI's in dependability, work attitude, parent/community relations, student/staff relations, quantity/quality of work, planning, and professional behavior/ethics. The comments for the NI's are brief and in handwriting. Under receptiveness, the comment is: "seem[s] to be afraid of dealing with a problem. I am only trying to make you a better teacher." The comment under commitment states: "dedicate yourself to your job. You have too much talent to waste." Each MI is treated in a separate Professional Development Plan. The Professional Development Plans, which are attached to the December 2 evaluation, consist of several parts: "area to be improved," "desired improvement," "action to be taken," "who will provide assistance," "time line for achieving objectives/goal/improvement," "evaluation process to determine improvement," and "consequences if improvement is not satisfactorily achieved." Under parent/community relations, the desired improvement is: "When dealing with parents you must exhibit an air of professionalism but be understanding." The action to be taken is: "Schedule parent conferences as needed to resolve situations with students. Apologize for your actions if need be and start over with the situation." Under dependability, the desired improvement is: "Should show he is able to be counted on without constant badgering." The action to be taken is: "Submit lesson plans on time. Supply I[n] S[chool] S[uspension] students with work when requested. Meet with parents without being directed to do so. Learn to deal with students as an adult rather than getting into shouting matches, etc." Under student/staff relations, the desired improvement is: "Show you understand students by working with them in correcting deficiencies." The action to be taken is: "Don't get in students['] faces and yell at them. Don't allow things to go on and then establish a rule of the next one goes to the office. Learn to deal with student problems rather than expecting the office to handle the problem." Under work attitude, the desired improvement is: "Show that you like what you do. Turn students on to your subject. Work on faculty relations." The action to be taken is: "Be cooperative in dealing with parents, students, and faculty members. Present an atmosphere of enthusiasm that is contagious and infectious to those around you." Each Professional Development Plan states that assistance or training would be provided if requested by Respondent. For student/staff relations, the plan states: "Inservice will be provided by administrators as requested and a workshop may be recommended." Similar language is contained in the plan for work attitude. Under time line for achieving objectives/goal, improvement, each Professional Development Plan states: "Should show some immediate improvement but enough improvement must be shown prior to evaluation in 92/93 school year to remove the MI." Each Professional Development Plan describes the evaluation process to determine improvement as: "List kept of ineffective behaviors. [Respondent] will be given a copy of each item placed in folder." Each Professional Development Plan warns that, "if improvement is not satisfactorily achieved," there will be a "recommendation to place [Respondent] back on annual contract." By letter dated December 16, 1991, Mr. Smith refers to the evaluation and the evaluation conference that took place on December 5, 1991. The letter notes that one of the Professional Development Plans required Respondent to supply in-school suspension students with work when requested. The letter acknowledges that Respondent had said at the conference that he would take care of all of the MI's. The December 16 letter notes that Respondent had already failed to provide make-up work for five named students who had been sent to in-school suspension. Students punished by in-school suspension are prohibited from attending their classes, but are sent to another part of the school. It is important for their teachers to provide their assignments, so the students can study the same materials that the teacher is presenting to their classes. The December 16 letter concludes: "Repeated cases of this problem will lead to my recommendation to the superintendent that you be suspended without pay for five (5) days for gross insubordination." Respondent received a second evaluation from Mr. Smith during the 1991-92 school year. Dated March 3, 1992, the second evaluation is slightly worse than the first. Section 1 contains the same C for the presentation of the subject matter and NI for using specific academic praise. A new NI appears in Section 1 for demonstrating friendly attitude toward all students, and a new MI appears for maintaining effective classroom control. The new MI rating appears to be based in part on Respondent's allowing several students to have food and drink in the classroom after telling one student to dispose of his food or drink. In Section 2, Respondent received five S's, as he did in the first evaluation, as planning went from MI to S and punctuality/attendance went from S to NI. Work attitude improved from MI to NI, but personal appearance and receptiveness went from NI to MI. A written comment states that dependability improved some, but not enough to remove the MI. The MI's on the March 3 evaluation are again the subject of attached Professional Development Plans. Under dependability, the desired improvement is: "Show you are able to be counted on without constant badgering." The action to be taken is: "Learn to deal with students without being sarcastic or getting into shouting matches. Student and parent complaints are numerous." Under parent/community relations, the desired improvement is: "Exhibit an air of professionalism in meetings with parents." The action to be taken is: "Schedule parent conferences as needed to resolve situations with students. Apologize for your actions if need be and start over. Show parents you care about their child." Under student/staff relations, the desired improvement is: "Work with students in correcting deficiencies." The action to be taken is: "Learn to deal with student problems. Be more friendly. Be consistent in your discipline but be fair." Under receptiveness, the desired improvement is: "Be able to listen to constructive criticism and follow suggestions made by administration." the action to be taken is: "Follow rules and regulations established for personnel and students at Sebring High School rather than defying directions given by an administrator." Each of the Professional Development Plans states that the administration will provide assistance or training if requested to do so by Respondent. The time line for achieving objectives/goal/improvement is now "immediate" for the cited areas. There is no longer any mention of the removal of MI's, except that the Professional Development Plan for student/staff relations requires: "Immediate improvement--MI must be removed prior to October 92 visitation." The consequence of Respondent's failure to remove the MI's remains returning him to annual contract. The March 3 evaluation is followed by a letter dated March 9, 1992, from Mr. Smith to the superintendent. Mr. Smith writes that Respondent has not improved since the December 2 evaluation and recommends that Respondent be placed on annual contract for the following school year. The Grievance Process On March 13, 1992, Respondent filed a grievance seeking a list of specific remedies for each MI in the March 3 evaluation, adherence to the NEAT procedure, a reconfirmation of the deadline stated in the December 2 evaluation of 1992-93 "for remediation," withdrawal of the recommendation that Respondent be returned to annual contract, and transfer of Respondent to another position where he could be evaluated by someone not part of the current Sebring High School administration. Mr. Smith responded to the grievance with two documents, both dated April 7, 1992. In a three-page memorandum, Mr. Smith recounted the December 2 evaluation, noting that Respondent's "statement to all of this (as he signed the assessment and the PDP's) was, 'You mean all I have to do is correct these and I will get satisfactories?'" The April 7 memorandum notes that the March 3 evaluation was worse than the December 2 evaluation. Despite the fact that, with one exception, the March 3 evaluation did not equate correction with the removal of MI's, the April 7 memorandum states: "[Respondent] still has until the 1992-93 assessment to remove the MI's from his assessment. However, if he does not, he will be notified of non-renewal of a contract for 1993-94." Attached to the April 7 memorandum are "Specific Remedies for Must Improve." These remedies track the areas receiving MI's in the evaluations and discussion in the Professional Development Plans. Under maintaining effective classroom control, the April 7 attachment informs Respondent that he is to ensure that his students follow the rules. Under dependability, the April 7 attachment gives 12 examples of assignments that Respondent must perform. These include timely providing grades for meetings of the School Attendance Review Committee, remaining current with printed attendance sheets, submitting in-school suspension assignments when requested, arriving and leaving on time, not leaving the classroom unattended, and not allowing the students to break the rules. Under parent/community relations, the April 7 attachment states that Respondent should meet with parents at his initiative rather than waiting until irate parents demand a conference after hearing their child's complaints. Also, the attachment advises Respondent to be "gentle" with parents and not be negative. The attachment suggests that Respondent return parents' telephone calls. Under student/staff relations, the April 7 attachment warns Respondent not to back students into a corner. The attachment notes that many reports indicate that Respondent uses sarcasm with students and then disciplines them when they reciprocate with sarcasm. The attachment recommends, "Work on your personality to be more accepting and understanding of students." Under quantity/quality of work, the April 7 attachment suggests that Respondent spend more time on grammar rather than literature alone. The attachment suggests that Respondent should become involved with students' activities so that they know that he cares about them, as well as about what they learn. Under receptiveness, the April 7 attachment notes a lack of desire by Respondent to change his attitude about the providing in-school suspension assignments. Under professional behavior/ethics, the April 7 attachment recommends that Respondent not retaliate against students. It is unclear exactly what Mr. Smith means by "retaliate"; it may mean confront the students in class or respond to the students' sarcasm with sarcasm. By letter dated May 13, 1992, Deputy Superintendent John Martin decided the grievance by determining that Petitioner would grant Respondent a subsequent year of employment, under a subsequent year or annual contract, to correct the indicated deficiencies, and, if Respondent "corrects the indicated deficiencies," he would be given a new professional service contract. The May 13 letter also states that Respondent would be transferred, as he had requested. Respondent chose not to pursue additional grievance procedures available to him, so the grievance was resolved at this point. On May 15, 1992, Petitioner informed Respondent that he had been appointed for a "subsequent year of employment . . . on annual contract pursuant to Florida Statute 231.26(3)(e)." On June 23, 1992, Petitioner and Respondent executed a contract for a "'subsequent year of employment,' as that term is used in 231.36(3)(e), Florida Statutes . . .," for the 1992-93 school year. The 1991-92 School Year During the 1991-92 school year at Sebring High School, Respondent experienced problems in his relationship with the students and parents and in his inability to fulfill certain important responsibilities imposed on each teacher. With students, Respondent was often sarcastic. When the students returned in like kind, Respondent took offense and disciplined them, often with a disciplinary referral to the office. Mr. Smith witnessed a half dozen confrontations between Respondent and students in the main office where Respondent made derogatory remarks to the students. With parents, Respondent often failed to behave professionally in parent/teacher conferences. He walked out on one conference involving a parent who was also a teacher at Sebring High School. He often responded negatively to parents and sometimes failed to follow through on conferences or even return parents' telephone calls. Respondent was often late in fulfilling his duties. He was frequently late in getting his grades or attendance sheets to the Student Attendance Review Committee, which consisted of a guidance counsellor, an administrator, student's teachers, and student's parents who met periodically to discuss a student's attendance problems. Respondent consistently failed to submit assignments for students who had been assigned to in-school suspension. Each of the deficiencies described in the preceding paragraph interfered materially with Respondent's performance as a teacher. With respect to each of these deficiencies, Respondent was materially worse than his fellow teachers at Sebring High School. The resulting evaluations were the worst ever given by Mr. Smith, who describes himself as a hard evaluator. Evaluations During the 1992-93 School Year As Respondent demanded in the grievance, Petitioner transferred Respondent to Lake Placid High School for the 1992- 93 school year. He was assigned to teach English to all of the ninth grade students except those in honors and dropout prevention. On November 3, 1992, Respondent received his first evaluation at Lake Placid High School. He received all S's except for C's in demonstrating effective communication skills, and student evaluations and NI's in maintaining academic focus and maintaining effective classroom control. The evaluation was prepared by David Robinson, who was an assistant principal. On February 25, 1993, Respondent received a second evaluation for the 1992-93 school year. This evaluation, which was prepared by the principal, Roger Goddard, was worse than the first. There were no C's, and there were NI's in demonstrating friendly attitude toward all students, maintaining academic focus, parent/community relations, student/staff relations, receptiveness, and professional behavior/ethics. Under the comments in Section 1 of the February 25 evaluation, a note reads: "Needs skills in [knowing] when to use in-class discipline or office referral." The handwritten comments under Section 2 note that Respondent "had difficulty dealing with parents in conferences an/or returning phone calls" and "lack[s] rapport with students, staff, and administration." The handwritten comments state that Respondent is "many times defensive during conferences with administrators" and "needs a better procedure with make-up work utilizing school policy." By letter dated March 19, 1993, Dr. Goddard informed Respondent that he would be unable to reappoint Respondent for employment at Lake Placid High School for the following school year. Respondent asked Dr. Goddard to perform another evaluation, and Dr. Goddard did so on April 23, 1993. There were fewer NI's than in the February 25 evaluation, but the evaluation was not much better. Under Section 1, Respondent received all S's except for an NI in demonstrating a friendly attitude toward all students. An anecdotal comment adds: "There have been over 70 referrals for discipline during the year. This is as many as 20 other teachers combined." Under Section 2, Respondent received all S's except for three NI's in parent/community relations, student/staff relations, and receptiveness. Accompanying handwritten notes state that Respondent "still shows difficulty in dealing with parent conferences," "still lacks understanding of role of assistant principal [and] staff," and "many times still defensive regarding suggestions from administration." By letter dated April 26, 1993, Dr. Goddard advised Respondent that he could not change his original recommendation given on March 19. The letter states that the recommendation is based on the need for a change in the ability to handle discipline effectively within the classroom, handle parent conferences without conflict, and be receptive to administrative suggestions without a defensive attitude. By letter dated April 30, 1993, to Dr. Goddard, Respondent states, in part: . . . Some administrators are possessed by a sort of spectral indifference, and look at their fellow beings as ghosts. For them, teachers and other staff members are often merely vague shadowy forms, hardly distinct from the nebulous background of such a life, and easily blended with the invisible. But you, Dr. Goddard, are an honorable man and I believe, from our conversations, that you really care about the parents, staff, and students of our school. . . . Respondent's letter to Dr. Goddard discusses the preceding evaluation and asks for an opportunity to continue teaching. By letter dated May 25, 1993, Superintendent Richard Farmer states that Dr. Goddard had informed Mr. Farmer that Respondent had not successfully removed all deficiencies from his evaluation. The letter advises Respondent that his annual contract was expiring, Dr. Goddard had decided not to issue Respondent another annual contract, and, according to Section 231.36(4), Florida Statutes, Petitioner would not issue him a new professional service contract. By notice to the Florida Department of Education dated June 2, 1993, Dr. Goddard advised that, after two consecutive unsatisfactory annual evaluations, Respondent's employment with Petitioner was being terminated or not renewed. The 1992-93 School Year Despite the absence of MI's on the 1992-93 evaluations, the problems Respondent had experienced with students, parents, and administrators in 1991-92 worsened in 1992-93. With respect to relations with students, the basic problem is that Respondent reverted to sarcasm at Lake Placid High School, and his students reciprocated, just as his students at Sebring High School had done the prior year. Sarcasm bred sarcasm, which bred disciplinary referrals--125 of them in fact. Respondent outdistanced his nearest competitor in disciplinary referrals by 2.5 times. On two separate days, Respondent submitted more than 10 disciplinary referrals--more than most teachers submitted all year. As Dr. Goddard's comment notes, Respondent issued more disciplinary referrals than a score of his colleagues. The huge number of disciplinary referrals did not mean that Respondent was maintaining firm control of his classes. To the contrary, he was not able to maintain firm control of his classes, partly due to the atmosphere of mutual disrespect that his sarcasm engendered. The number of disciplinary referrals indicated that Respondent had lost control of the situation and tried to shift to the administrators the job of regaining control of his classroom. A major part of the problem, in addition to Respondent's sarcasm, was his inability to adhere to his own assertive discipline plan. Respondent's assertive discipline plan, which was duly posted in his classroom, contains the following consequences in increasing order of severity: warning, contact parents, detention, and office referral. Sometime during the school year, Respondent switched the second and third consequences, so that he would place a student on detention before he would contact the parents. This change was duly posted in the classroom. Respondent's assertive discipline plan is satisfactory, but he never adhered to it. Sometimes he gave detentions, but then failed to appear at the location where the students were to serve the detentions. Sometimes Respondent simply placed the offending students in the hall where they remained, unsupervised, in violation of school rules. Sometimes Respondent gave warnings, and often he gave disciplinary referrals. But he displayed an aversion to parent/teacher conferences by almost invariably omitting the step that required him to contact a parent. Nearly all disciplinary referrals were made prior to this step taking place, and many were made prior to giving the student a detention. Respondent clung doggedly to his sarcasm despite all efforts to free him from this habitual behavior. Dr. Goddard intervened at one point during a parent/teacher conference and prevailed upon Respondent to stop using sarcasm against the student who was the subject of the conference. Respondent's response was to post a sign in his room indicating a "moratorium" in the use of sarcasm--intentionally implying that the cessation in sarcasm would be temporary. At times, Respondent lashed out at students with hurtful remarks lacking even the thin veneer of humor. He told one student that he would be a serial killer. He told another student that he would never be rich and successful. He repeatedly referred publicly to one student as a witch and asked if she had taken her Midol. In front of another student's mother, as well as other teachers and Mr. Robinson during a parent/teacher conference, Respondent referred to a girl as "bitchy." Respondent refused to accommodate valid student needs, such as the unusual demands placed on one child by a disabled brother. The regressive effect on students of Respondent's embittered and embittering classroom presence was unwittingly reflected in another student's class journal. His early entries demonstrated an emotional vulnerability as he depicted his simple, rural lifestyle; his later entries were defiantly copied out of textbooks, magazines, or encyclopedias. As a result of Respondent's poor relations with students, more than one student quit Respondent's class, even if it meant taking English in summer school or another school or dropping out of high school altogether. One parent checked her son out of school just long enough that he would not have to attend Respondent's class. By the end of the 1992-93 school year, morale among Respondent's students and their parents was a very serious problem. Respondent's relationship with parents was, if possible, even worse than his relationship with students, although his contact with parents was less frequent. During one meeting with a father in the main office, the parent and Respondent had a heated exchange. Mr. Robinson intervened and diplomatically tried to end the conference. After the parent had started to walk away, Respondent restarted the argument and approached the parent until their noses were touching. Mr. Robinson again broke up what had transformed from a conference into a confrontation, and again Respondent reinitiated the engagement. Again, Mr. Robinson had to break up the argument. Mr. Robinson attended another parent/teacher conference in which the mother, according to Respondent, looked at him with "eyes . . . like daggers." (Tr 541) The mother observed that her daughter had no problems in any other classes but Respondent's class. The parent charged that Respondent's class was out of control. Respondent saw that Mr. Robinson was not "going to fulfil his role as mediator," so Respondent got up, announced that "I'm not going to take this damn stuff anymore," and walked out of the conference. (Tr 542) At first glance, Respondent's relationship with the administrators seems better than his relationships with the students and parents, but this is due to the professionalism of Dr. Goddard, inexperience of Mr. Robertson, and uninvolvement of Ms. Hatfield. For different reasons, each administrator at the school responded differently to Respondent's increasingly bizarre behavior and in no case did any administrator at the school ever lose his or her composure in dealing with Respondent. Respondent believes that he has been unfairly treated by every administrator at Lake Placid High School, and at least two at Sebring High School. Interestingly, Ms. Hatfield had given Respondent his last evaluation-- in October, 1990--without an NI or MI. However, without any evident provocation, Respondent demanded that the other assistant principal, Mr. Robinson, handle Respondent's evaluations and disciplinary referrals. Respondent was apprehensive that Ms. Hatfield might be biased due to her past service at Sebring High School. In November, 1992, Ms. Hatfield had a conference with Respondent and cautioned him that she was receiving a number of student complaints about his use of sarcasm. Respondent's reaction was to request that he be evaluated by Mr. Robinson, who was in his first year of service as an assistant principal. In retrospect, Respondent's demand proved unwise. As evidenced by his treatment of another teacher, Mr. Robinson displayed a heightened sensitivity toward humor directed at students, even if the humor did not seem sarcastic at all. Thus, Mr. Robinson's concern about Respondent's sarcasm was not due to bias against Respondent, but was due to Mr. Robinson's concern that students be treated with dignity and respect. But, as noted above, even without Mr. Robinson's heightened concern about humor, Respondent's sarcasm exceeded the wildest imaginable limits. Dr. Goddard intervened after the first evaluation. Respondent's concern about bias defies reason and logic when applied to Dr. Goddard, who counselled Respondent and gave him an opportunity to discover for himself the shortcomings of his defensive style of dealing with students, parents, and administrators. To imply that Dr. Goddard's evaluations were orchestrated by individuals at Sebring High School or the district office is to ignore reality. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the very lack of coordination presents legal problems that could have easily been avoided with the smallest amount of coordination. Respondent had trouble with nearly every administrator. And Respondent consistently found himself the blameless target of unwarranted persecution. His paranoia interfered with his ability to do his job. This fact is best illustrated by the time that Dr. Goddard instructed the teachers to clean up their rooms in preparation for a visit that night by the school board. Respondent wrote the following on his chalkboard to be read by the school board members: "The fact that you're paranoid doesn't mean that they are not out to get you." In addition to problems with students, parents, and administrators, Respondent continued to display an inability to fulfill his important responsibilities. He failed to appear at ninth grade orientation at the beginning of the school year, despite the fact that he was a new teacher at the school and taught most of the ninth graders. Respondent routinely failed to supply grades to students for whom guidance counsellors were trying to prepare weekly progress reports in order to monitor the students' progress more closely than is possible with report cards. Respondent was routinely resistant to assigning make- up work. Students would have to pursue him for days to get assignments, until finally Respondent decided to write these up on the chalkboard. On more than one occasion, Respondent's solution--when pushed by parents or administrators--was to avoid the extra work imposed upon him by grading additional materials; rather than assign make-up work or tests, Respondent would simply not penalize the student for the missed assignment, such as by doubling the weight of the next grade. There is no evidence that the administration at Lake Placid High School learned of Respondent's 1991-92 evaluations at Sebring High School until Respondent mentioned them when he received his first evaluation at Lake Placid High School. There is no evidence that the actions taken by the administration at Lake Placid High School were influenced by anything except the Respondent's performance during the 1992-93 school year. Respondent was warned about his problems in evaluations going as far back as the 1980's when Respondent was evaluated by Mr. Bible. The March, 1986 evaluation identifies Respondent's reluctance to deal with parents. The February, 1989 evaluation suggests that Respondent lacked the support of parents and was placing students on the defensive. In the February, 1991 evaluation, Mr. Bible warned Respondent that he needed to improve in several areas, including student/staff relations and receptiveness to criticism from administrators. Again, Mr. Bible pointed out that Respondent was alienating students. Respondent's problems, which culminated in the exceptionally bad evaluations during the 1991-92 school year, largely represented a continuation of problems that had been identified in one manner or another for the preceding five years. But instead of correcting the problems, Respondent had allowed them to get worse. These problems were described in greater detail in the 1991-92 and 1992-93 evaluations due to the deterioration of Respondent's behavior. Petitioner provided Respondent with reasonable assistance in remediating his performance deficiencies. Dr. Goddard made numerous additional visits to Respondent's classroom, and he and other administrators routinely talked to Respondent. After the first evaluation in November, 1992, Mr. Robinson twice recommended to Respondent that he rely on his assertive discipline plan because he was referring too many students to the office. After discovering how poorly Respondent handled parent conferences, administrators ensured that appropriate persons participated in Respondent's conferences to model suitable behavior. In early February, 1993, Mr. Robinson gave Respondent a set of assertive discipline tapes to view to assist in imposing proper discipline in his class. This intervention preceded the February 25 evaluation by almost three weeks. About one week prior to the February 25 evaluation, Mr. Robinson suggested that Respondent attend a workshop on parent/teacher conferences. Respondent attended the workshop. Evidently arranged prior to the February 25 evaluation, Respondent went to a high school in another district to observe a ninth-grade English teacher. The practical effect of this assistance is attenuated by the fact that the February 25 evaluation preceded the visit, although the visit preceded the March 19 non-appointment letter, April 23 follow-up evaluation, and April 26 follow-up letter. The extent of the assistance effectively offered Respondent must be evaluated in the context of Respondent's problems. He was not an ineffective teacher due to an inadequate grasp of the course material or inability to present material imaginatively. To the contrary, Respondent is a highly intelligent, literate individual who is intellectual capable of being an outstanding teacher. If his problems were in his understanding of the material or an inability to find the methods to convey the material to his students, a program of assistance and inservice workshops probably could be designed to provide meaningful help. Instead, Respondent needed to stop disparaging students. He needed to stop confronting parents. He needed to stop ignoring administrators who were trying to stop Respondent from disparaging students and confronting parents. But Respondent simply refused to change his ways, and no amount of videotapes, inservice workshops, school visits, evaluation follow-ups, and informal discussions were going to help. Respondent was given a second chance when he was transferred to Lake Placid High School. But instead of addressing the source of the problem-- himself--he attacked students, parents, and administrators. He avoided performing rigorously all of his teaching duties, such as enforcing his assertive disciplinary plan and its graduated response to misbehavior, promptly providing make-up work, and sending interim grades when needed. Instead, he inexplicably continued to bicker with the students, provoke the parents, and defy the legitimate demands of the administrators.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Highlands County enter a final order not issuing Respondent a new professional service contract. ENTERED on January 13, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on January 13, 1993. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-6: adopted or adopted in substance. 7-8: rejected as irrelevant. 9-18: adopted or adopted in substance. 19: rejected as irrelevant. 20-35: adopted or adopted in substance. 36: rejected as irrelevant. 37-39: adopted or adopted in substance. 40: rejected as irrelevant. Nothing requires that Petitioner make "every effort" to help Respondent through the means cited. 41: adopted or adopted in substance. 42: rejected as subordinate. 43-44: adopted or adopted in substance. 45: rejected as irrelevant. 46: adopted or adopted in substance. 47-48 (first three sentences): rejected as irrelevant. 48 (last sentence)-53: adopted or adopted in substance. 54-56: rejected as irrelevant. 57-59: adopted or adopted in substance. 60-61: rejected as irrelevant. 62: adopted or adopted in substance. 63: rejected as irrelevant. 64-65: adopted or adopted in substance. 66: rejected as subordinate. 67-69: adopted or adopted in substance. 70: rejected as subordinate. 71-74: adopted or adopted in substance. 75-76: rejected as subordinate. 77-78: adopted or adopted in substance. 79: rejected as hearsay. 80-85: adopted or adopted in substance. 86: rejected as irrelevant. 87-92: adopted or adopted in substance. 93: rejected as subordinate. 94: rejected as irrelevant. 95-100: adopted or adopted in substance. 101: rejected as irrelevant. In fact, to permit either student to leave the classroom would violate Paragraph 11 of the Classroom Management section of the Teacher Handbook. 102: rejected as irrelevant. Mr. Smith wore sunglasses indoors during part of the hearing. 103-04: rejected as irrelevant. 105: rejected as subordinate. 106-17 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 117 (second sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 118: rejected as irrelevant and subordinate. 119: rejected as hearsay. 120-34: adopted or adopted in substance. 135-37: rejected as irrelevant. 138: adopted or adopted in substance. 139: rejected as irrelevant. 140: adopted or adopted in substance. 141: rejected as irrelevant. 142-43: adopted or adopted in substance. 144: rejected as subordinate. 145-46: adopted or adopted in substance. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-7: adopted or adopted in substance. 8-10: rejected as irrelevant. 11-14: adopted or adopted in substance. 15-17 (first sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 17 (second sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 18-19: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 20: adopted or adopted in substance. 21-22: rejected as subordinate. 23-24: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 25-26: rejected as subordinate. 27-28 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 28 (second sentence)-29: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 30: adopted or adopted in substance. 31: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 32: rejected as subordinate. 33: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 34: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. This provision governs only when Petitioner must refer matters to the Department of Education. 35: rejected as subordinate. 36: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 37-39: adopted or adopted in substance except as to meaningful follow-up conferences. 40-41: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 42: rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Superintendent Richard Farmer Highlands County School District 426 School St. Sebring, FL 33870-4048 Commissioner Doug Jamerson Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 James F. McCollum James F. McCollum, P.A. 129 S. Commerce Ave. Sebring, FL 33870-3698 Anthony D. Demma Meyer and Brooks, P.A. P.O. Box 1547 Tallahassee, FL 32302
The Issue The issues for determination are whether Respondent threatened to shoot students with a firearm located in his vehicle that he parked on campus, and whether the acts proved during the administrative hearing constitute just cause to terminate Respondent's professional services contract pursuant to Subsection 1012.33(6)a), Florida Statutes (2006).1
Findings Of Fact Respondent has taught diesel mechanics at the Ridge Vocational Technical Center (Ridge Center) in Polk County, Florida, for over 12 years. Respondent teaches diesel mechanics pursuant to a professional services contract. By letter dated May 14, 2007, the Superintendent of the Polk County Public Schools notified Respondent that she was suspending Respondent from his employment with pay. The letter also states that, on June 12, 2007, the Superintendent would recommend to Petitioner that Petitioner terminate the professional service contract of Respondent. On June 12, 2007, Petitioner followed the recommendation of the Superintendent. The letter dated May 14, 2007, is the charging document in this proceeding. The letter notifies Respondent of the alleged grounds for termination of his employment and provides Respondent with a point of entry into the administrative process. In relevant part, the stated grounds for termination of employment are: On May 11, 2007, an investigation revealed that you had a 9mm pistol in the front seat compartment of your personal vehicle. When asked if you understood that it was against School Board policy to bring a weapon on campus, you indicated that you were aware of the policy. You were arrested by the Winter Haven Police Department for having a weapon on campus. The arresting officer also indicated that further charges may be made against you regarding threatening comments that you allegedly made to the students. * * * Your conduct in this situation is aggravated by the fact that you made reference to the weapon and threatened to use it against students and by the fact that you admitted you were aware that bringing the weapon onto campus was a violation of both state law and Board policy. This was a knowing, intentional act on your part involving students and constitutes just cause for termination. It is undisputed that Respondent possessed a firearm on the Pine Ridge campus on Friday, May 11, 2007. On the morning of May 11, 2007, Respondent placed a 9mm pistol into its holster and put both items into the center console of his truck. Respondent drove the truck to work and parked the truck in the Ridge Center parking lot. The truck was parked approximately 25 feet from the school. The pistol was securely encased and not readily accessible for immediate use within the meaning of Subsections 790.001(16) and (17). The possession of a firearm on the Ridge Center campus violated the written policy of Petitioner. In relevant part, the policy provides: It is the expressed policy of the Polk County School Board that no weapons/firearms shall be taken upon school property by any one other than law enforcement personnel. . . . Petitioner's Exhibits 8 and 10. The charging document notifies Respondent of several aggravating factors that are alleged as grounds to support a finding of just cause to terminate Respondent's employment. The document alleges that the violation of the written school policy was a knowing and intentional act; that Respondent made reference to the weapon and threatened to use it against students; and that the possession of the firearm by Respondent was unlawful. The violation of the written school policy was knowing and intentional. Respondent knew of the written school policy prohibiting the possession of firearms on campus but brought the firearm to school in his truck to take with him that night to a weekend job discussed in subsequent findings. Respondent did not make reference to the firearm and threaten to use it against students. The accusing student complains that Respondent referred to the firearm and threatened to shoot students on May 10, 2007. However, there is no evidence that Respondent possessed a firearm on campus on May 10, 2007. The weight of the evidence does not support the testimony of the accusing student that Respondent threatened to retrieve his firearm from his truck and shoot Pine Ridge students on May 10, 2007. On the afternoon of May 10, 2007, Respondent was grading papers in his classroom at the Ridge Center. Several male students outside of the classroom were using long broom handles to "sword-fight." Respondent readily admits that he yelled words from his classroom on May 10, 2007, to the effect that, "I'm going to shoot all of you guys one of these days if you don't straighten up." Respondent did not make reference on May 10, 2007, to the firearm he possessed on campus on May 11, 2007. The admitted statement was not a threat to shoot students and did not expose any student to conditions harmful to his or her physical or mental health. Respondent continued grading papers, and Respondent and the students remained on campus until shortly after the school day ended at 2:00 p.m. One of the students playing in the hall on May 10, 2007, testified that Respondent said, "The next one of y'all that breaks a broomstick, I'm going to go to my truck, I'm going to get my nine and come back and shoot you." The student further testified that he asked Respondent, "You're going to shoot them?" and that Respondent replied, "Yeah, I'm going to shoot them." The testimony of the accusing student is not credible and persuasive and conflicts with material facts in the record. Respondent did not possess a firearm in his truck on May 10, 2007, when he allegedly threatened to fetch the firearm. A finding based on the testimony of the accusing student would require the trier of fact to ignore the weight of the other evidence as well as the candor, forthrightness, and cooperative nature of the testimony of Respondent. The accusing student is an older high school student with a history of discipline problems at the Ridge Center. The accusing student did not return to the Ridge Center after May 10, 2007, and, on the date of the hearing, was no longer pursuing a trade or degree in any school. He is hoping to enter a military academy within five months of the date of the hearing. Testimony from the accusing student that he did not return to the Ridge Center for fear of Respondent is not persuasive. The accusing student was a problem for other teachers and administrative staff at Pine Ridge, and the testimony of teachers and administrators shows they preferred that the student had never attended the Ridge Center. Petitioner did not prove that possession of the firearm on campus on May 11, 2007, was unlawful. Rather, the evidence and relevant legal authority discussed in the Conclusions of Law shows that the firearm was in Respondent's truck on Friday, May 11, 2007, for a lawful purpose pursuant to Subsection 790.115(2)(a)3. Respondent was scheduled to work that weekend on a truck delivery route that would take him into Liberty City, Florida, between midnight and 5:00 a.m. Respondent drove directly from the Ridge Center to his weekend job and took the firearm on his truck delivery job for self defense. Local law enforcement officials arrested Respondent for allegedly committing a third degree felony in violation of Section 790.115, Florida Statutes (2006).2 At the conclusion of the criminal investigation, not only were additional charges for threats against students not filed against Respondent, as alleged in the charging document in this proceeding, but the state attorney refused to prosecute Respondent on June 12, 2007. It is unclear from the record whether Petitioner knew of the decision of the state attorney on June 12, 2007, when Petitioner terminated Respondent's employment, in relevant part, for the unlawful possession of a firearm on May 11, 2007, and alleged threats against students. The criminal investigation began on May 10, 2007, when local law enforcement officials received an anonymous telephone complaint sometime concerning the alleged threat by Respondent. On May 11, 2007, an officer from the Winter Haven Police Department (Department) visited the Ridge Center to investigate the complaint against Respondent. The police officer questioned Respondent on May 11, 2007, and Respondent acknowledged that he had a pistol holstered and securely encased in his truck in the campus parking lot. Respondent took the officer to the truck, directed the officer to the location of the firearm in the center console, and otherwise fully cooperated in the investigation. The police officer arrested Respondent for possessing a firearm on a school campus in violation of Section 790.115. The Department conducted a full investigation, Respondent fully cooperated in the investigation, and the state attorney dismissed the charges against Respondent on June 12, 2007. Relevant legal authority is discussed further in the Conclusions of Law. At the hearing, Petitioner submitted evidence intended to prove the presence of several aggravating factors that the charging document does not allege. These un-alleged aggravating factors are that Respondent previously possessed an unloaded hunting rifle on campus in Respondent's truck; violation by Respondent had impaired Respondent's effectiveness as a educator; and Respondent failed to protect students from conditions harmful to their physical or mental health. The charging document does not provide Respondent with notice that Petitioner intended to submit evidence at the hearing of the un-alleged aggravating factors. However, Respondent did not object to questions asked during the hearing pertaining to the un-alleged aggravating factors. The ALJ admitted the relevant evidence and considered the evidence in this proceeding. The evidence supports a finding of only one unalleged aggravating factor in this proceeding. Sometime before May 11, 2007, Respondent possessed an unloaded hunting rifle in the back of his truck while the truck was parked on the campus of the Ridge Center. The events of May 10 and 11, 2007, and the prior possession of a hunting rifle did not expose any student to conditions harmful to his or her physical or mental health and did not seriously impair Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher. The testimonies of the director of the Ridge Center and a fellow teacher show that Respondent has consistently been an effective and competent teacher at the Ridge Center. Respondent has no prior discipline in his employment history.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2007, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of December, 2007.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact: Claudio Senan, date of birth, September 18, 1967, was assigned to the Henry H. Fowler Jr. High School as an eighth grader during the 1982-83 school year. By letter dated March 16,1983, Petitioner, Claudio Senan's parent, Ms. Otero, was advised that the Petitioner was being assigned to the Jan Nann Opportunity School, North, based on a recommendation of the principal and a school screening committee of the Department of Alternative Education Placement based on the student's disruption of the educational process in the regular school program. Evidence reveals that during October through December, 1982, the Petitioner was continuously defiant which resulted in his being referred for indoor suspensions on more than three occasions. This pattern continued during the period January through March, 1983. In all of these incidents, Petitioner disrupted his school classroom activities. During early March, 1983, Petitioner was stopped by the Hialeah Police Department and assigned to truant officers. The Petitioner has received only minimal credits since his enrollment in the regular school program. As example, during the 1980-81 school year, Petitioner enrolled for 12 credits and earned 8 credits. During the 1981-82 school year, Petitioner again enrolled for 12 credits and earned 5. During the 1982-83 school year, the Petitioner earned no credits. Efforts to curb the Petitioner's disruptive activities while enrolled in the regular school program have not been successful. Further, Petitioner is not earning credits or otherwise benefiting from the education process being afforded him due to his disruptive conduct in the regular school program.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, School Board of Dade County, Florida enter a Final Order assigning the Petitioner, Claudio Senan, to an alternative educational placement. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Maria Otero 1140 W. 29th Street, Apt. 26 Hialeah, Florida 33012 Jesse J. McCrary, Jr. , Esquire and Mark Valentine, Esquire 300 Executive Plaza, Suite 800 3050 Biscayne Blvd. Miami, Florida 33137
The Issue Whether the Petitioner demonstrated just cause for the dismissal of the Respondent from employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact In a Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation, the parties agreed to the following facts: At all times material hereto, Respondent, Marlon J. Pearce was employed by Petitioner as a school teacher within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida, assigned to Lawton Chiles Middle School. Respondent was employed by Petitioner pursuant to the Contract between the Miami- Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade, and subject to the rules and regulations of the State Board of Education and of the School Board in accordance with § 1012.33(6)(a), Fla. Stat. (2002). 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 § 4(b) of Article IX of the Constitution of the State of Florida and § 1001.32(2), Fla. Stat. (2002). On November 5, 2000, a conference-for- record (CFR) was held with the Respondent by the principal at North Glade Elementary School. On March 7, 2001, another CFR was held with the Respondent by the principal at North Glade Elementary School. On March 15, 2002, a CFR was held with the Respondent at the School Board's Office of Professional Standards. On May 28, 2002, a meeting was held with the Respondent at the School Board's Office of Professional Standards. At its regularly scheduled meeting of June 19, 2002, the School Board took action to suspend and initiate dismissal proceedings against the Respondent. John Schoeck is currently and for the last two years has been the Principal of North Hialeah Elementary School. For the preceding five years, he was the Principal at North Glade Elementary School. While at North Glade, Mr. Schoeck hired the Respondent, Mr. Pearce, to teach physical education. (Tr. 13) After a November 5, 2000, conference-for-record (CFR) with Mr. Pearce, Mr. Schoeck issued certain directives to Mr. Pearce. Among those directives were the requirement for professional conduct with parents, students and staff, and prohibitions on using profanity, on making verbal or physical threats to parents, students or staff members, and on having verbal or physical confrontations with coworkers. (Tr. 18, 208- 209, P-6) Mr. Schoeck also referred Mr. Pearce to the Employee Assistance Program based on interpersonal behavior observed on the job. (Tr. 9, P-5) An allegation that the Respondent hit a student in the back with his fist was unsubstantiated, in March 2001. The Respondent testified that the student was loud, easily influenced and had an attitude. (Tr. 185) Another student at North Glade Elementary School became involved in a rock-throwing incident with the Respondent. The Respondent described the student as defiant. He testified that after the student threw a rock and hit him, he grabbed her arm to make eye contact, but after she "started going wild and shaking," he let her go and she fell to the ground. There was testimony that her shirt was torn when she reached the principal's office, but the Respondent denied that it was ripped when she left him. (Tr. 186-188, 212-213) On March 7, 2001, Mr. Schoeck held another CFR with Mr. Pearce, as a result of certain allegations by a student and his mother that Mr. Pearce called the student a "punk." Mr. Schoeck found Mr. Pearce insubordinate and reiterated the directives issued after the November conference. (Tr. 24-25, 209-210, 215-216, P-9) The Miami-Dade Schools Police Department ("the school's police") investigated several students' complaints alleging that Respondent had subjected them to corporal punishment. The police found the complaints to be unsubstantiated. Each time there was an incident, the Respondent was reminded of the School Board's policy prohibiting corporal punishment. (Tr. 32-33) Late in the 2000-2001 school year, the Respondent was reassigned to the region office and, subsequently, for the 2001- 2002 school year to Lawton Chiles Middle School (Tr. 33 and Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation) On November 7, 2001, a charge of verbal abuse, for calling a student "stupid," was substantiated against the Respondent. (Tr. 219, P-17) The Respondent testified that what he said was "stop acting stupid" because the student was loud and saying she knew why he had been fired from his other job and was quoting the Bible. (Tr. 197-198) He also said that, in the heat of the moment, he also called her stupid. (Tr. 200) On November 8, 2001, the Respondent violated the School Board policy against "unseemly conduct, or the use of abusive and/or profane language in the workplace," by using the word "nigga." (Tr. 60-67 and P-16) The Respondent testified that the racial slur was made "under his breath" and not intended to be heard by students. He testified that what he said was "you're going to drive a nigga crazy," and that the comment was directed to himself, not the student. (Tr. 195) The Respondent testified that he told a student "If I was your dad, I would ring your neck," because the student was disruptive, defiant and not following directions. (Tr. 195-196, 218-219) In December 2001, a student was playing with a toilet valve and water was squirting out on the floor in the boys' locker room. After the student left the stall and walked over towards him, the Respondent grabbed him by the neck and shoved him. After an investigation by the school's police, the charge was found to be substantiated. (Tr. 69-88, 113-117 and P-18) The Respondent testified that he grabbed the student's shoulder but did not push him. (Tr. 201-202) Although the student had stopped spraying water at the time he confronted him, the Respondent considered his intervention appropriate because the wet floor created a safety concern. (Tr. 205, 214-215, 217-218) At the same time, other students began slamming locker doors in the locker room. The Respondent called the students involved "a bunch of assholes," and said "If you do this one more time, I could lose my job for hurting you." (Tr. 69-88, 113-117 and P-18) About the same time, the Assistant Principal at Lawton Chiles Middle School, Alberto Iber, received a complaint from the parents of another student. While he was playing with an injured student's aluminum walker, the Respondent grabbed him to try to retrieve the walker and pushed him to the ground. He also said to the student "fuck you." Charges of corporal punishment and the use of profanity were substantiated. (Tr. 93-112 and P-19) The Respondent admitted that he pulled the student down after saying "This is going to be the final time I ask you to sit down." (Tr. 204) He said he used the "f" word under his voice. (Tr. 205) When the Respondent was first assigned to Lawton Chiles Middle School, the Principal, Karen Robinson met with him to discuss the previous incidents at North Glade Elementary School and to discuss expectations that he would abide by the School Board's rules. Each time there was an incident involving the Respondent, Ms. Robinson called the District's Professional Standards Office which referred the matters to the school's police to conduct the personnel investigations. (Tr. 119-133, 219-220) After the fourth personnel investigation at Lawton Chiles Middle School, Ms. Robinson contacted the personnel director for the region. She was concerned that the incidents involving the Respondent were escalating from inappropriate verbal to more serious physical interactions with students. As a result, she recommended that Respondent's employment be terminated. (Tr. 135-136 and P-21) Barbara Moss, the District Director in the School Board's Office of Professional Standards, agreed with Ms. Robinson's and the region personnel director's recommendations to terminate the Respondent's employment. (Tr. 164-165, P-22 and 23) Ms. Moss, in turn, recommended that the School Board terminate Respondent's employment. She met with Respondent to notify him of the proposed action. (Tr. 165-166) The Superintendent of Schools also recommended that the School Board take action to terminate Respondent's employment and notified the Respondent of that recommendation. (P-24 and 25) The Superintendent also notified the Respondent when the School Board, at its meeting on June 19, 2002, took action to suspend and initiate dismissal proceedings against him for misconduct in office, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, and violation of School Board Rules 6Gx13-4.108, on Violence in the Workplace; 6Gx13-4A-1.21, on Responsibilities and Duties; and 6Gx13-5D-1.07, Corporal Punishment - Prohibited. Notice of the availability of an administrative hearing to contest the action was also included. (P-24 through 26)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order sustaining Respondent's suspension without pay on June 19, 2002, terminating Respondent's employment, and denying the Respondent back pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELEANOR M. HUNTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of May, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Merritt R. Stierhelm, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 1244 1244 Turlington Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Luis M. Garcia, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Leslie A. Meek, Esquire United Teachers of Dade - Law Department 2200 Biscayne Boulevard, 5th Floor Miami, Florida 33137
Findings Of Fact Fred W. Turner, Petitioner, was employed as an instructor and principal by the Holmes District School Board, Ponce de Leon High School, on September 23, 1940. By virtue of this employment, he became a member of the Teachers' Retirement System (TRS), Chapter 238, Florida Statutes. Petitioner was inducted into the Armed Services during 1942, leaving his duties as principal while on military leave from 1942 through October, 1945. On September 28, 1942, Petitioner withdrew from teaching and certified to his employer: "I am not now teaching and do not intend to teach again in the public schools of Florida." Additionally, Petitioner certified that: "I am not now employed and do not expect to teach again in the public schools of Florida." Finally, Petitioner acknowledged that: "I do hereby waive for myself, my heirs, and my assigns all my right, title and interest in the said Annuity Savings Fund and in any and all funds under the care and control of the Board of Trustees of the Teachers' Retirement System of Florida." (See Attachment 4 to Petitioner's Brief which is contained in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1.) Petitioner received an Honorable Discharge on October 14, 1945, from the Separation Center at McPherson, Georgia. After his discharge from military service in October, 1945, Petitioner reapplied for his position with the Holmes District School Board and was advised at that time by the Superintendent that he would not be rehired until the beginning of the following school year in 1946. This advice was given Petitioner based on the fact that the School Board had let a contract for the principalship by the Superintendent to another employee. Based thereon, the Petitioner enrolled as a graduate student at the University of Florida. During the school year of 1946, Petitioner returned as principal of Ponce de Leon High School in Holmes County, Florida. Petitioner was subsequently allowed to purchase retirement credit for his military service, pursuant to Section 238.05(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1947 Supplement). He now claims the right to purchase "leave-of-absence" credit for the portion of 1946 when he was enrolled at the University of Florida. The Petitioner, in support of his position, argues that when he was not reinstated following his separation from the military services in 1945, he accepted the Superintendent's offer of the position and advised him (Superintendent) that he was going on involuntary leave. He states that during the time when this "leave" was granted, it was then customary to accept Chairperson's word as his bond. He testified that during this period of time, it was uncommon for employees to question those in positions of authority. He also argues that he was discriminated against because other employees in similar situations had been granted after-the-fact "leave" and that this was not uncommon and accepted by Respondent under TRS. During the hearing, Respondent acknowledged that after-the-fact leave- of-absence notices are occasionally accepted by Respondent but only in cases where: (1) the member obtained prior approval by his School Board for a leave of absence and this fact could be documented by reference to the official Board Minutes; and (2) the member did not withdraw from the Retirement System by obtaining a refund of his contributions. Inasmuch as the Petitioner satisfied neither of these criteria, his request to purchase retirement credits for .85 percent of a year, i.e., the period between his military discharge in October of 1945 until he was restored to his pre-military service position as school principal in September of 1946, was denied. It was noted that the 1943 amendment to Section 238.05(3)(a), Florida Statutes, allowed for the purchase of the retirement credit for military service even though such persons, such as Petitioner, had not opted to participate in the Retirement System during such military service. There was no amendment or changes which authorized the purchase of leave-of-absence credit. In view thereof, and in the absence of any other competent and substantial evidence tending to show that the Respondent was authorized to or had permitted such purchase of retirement credit for regular leave of absences in the past, I shall recommend that the action of Respondent in denying the Petitioner an opportunity to purchase retirement credit for the period in question was supported by competent and substantial evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, I hereby recommend that the agency action as outlined herein next above, be SUSTAINED. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of December, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: J. Robert McClure, Jr., Esquire McClure, Wigginton, Owen & Maynard 502 East Jefferson Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Keith L. Pafford, Esquire Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Robert L. Kennedy, Jr. Director Division of Retirement 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION DIVISION OF RETIREMENT FRED W. TURNER, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 78-974 DIVISION OF RETIREMENT, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact Respondent has taught business education at Horace Mann Junior High School for the past three and one half years. On November 17, 1982, she was teaching a business class during which a student, Rhetta Allen, was struck on the face and cut by a staple gun. The stapler was thrown by Respondent at or in the direction of Allen, who refused to take her seat as directed by Respondent. Respondent testified that she was moving across the classroom and was tripped by a student causing her to lose her balance and accidentally throw the stapler. This claim was not corroborated. Rather, the testimony of Allen and three other students who witnessed the incident established that Respondent was angry, that she did not lose her balance, and that she threw the stapler intentionally. It was not established whether Respondent intended to strike Allen with the stapler or whether she merely threw it in Allen's direction. At best, she threw the stapler in disregard of Allen's safety.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of misconduct in office in violation of Subsection 231.36(6), Florida Statutes (1981) and affirming her 30-day suspension. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Jesse J. McCrary, Esquire 3000 Executive Plaza 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Elizabeth Du Fresne, Esquire 1782 One Biscayne Tower Two South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Ellen Leesfield, Esquire 2929 S.W. Third Avenue Fifth Floor Miami, Florida 33129 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County School Board 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent should be terminated from his employment with the Leon County School Board based upon the charges in the Notice of Final Disciplinary Action.
Findings Of Fact After serving ten years with the United States Marine Corps, Respondent Lester L. Hall became a firearms instructor for a Maryland police department. He also began to work with at-risk children. After he returned to Leon County, Florida, in 1996, he began working with at-risk children at DISC Village and worked there until 2005. In 2003 Respondent began his college education at Tallahassee Community College. He is now in his last year at Flagler College, which has a satellite branch on the community college's campus. He is majoring in elementary education and exceptional student education. Sometime in 2006, Respondent began working as an instructional aide at Gretchen Everhart School. Everhart is a special day school with approximately 250 students. Those students are primarily moderately to severely mentally handicapped, and some are also physically handicapped. On July 26, 2006, Respondent was promoted to assistant director of the Students Motivated in Learning at Everhart (SMILE) after-school program. He was terminated from his position as of October 13, 2006, for reasons unrelated to the allegation which gives rise to this proceeding. In January 2007 Respondent began working at DeSoto Trail Elementary School as an instructional aide. Renee Gadson has worked for the Leon County School Board as a substitute teacher since 1992. During the 2006-07 school year and thereafter she worked at several different schools within Leon County, including Everhart. On September 13, 2008, Gadson saw Respondent at Everhart talking with some adults and then helping to load a student into a van. The next day she again saw Respondent at Everhart. After seeing Respondent at Everhart two days in a row, she then went to Pam Jameson, the site coordinator for the SMILE program, demanding to know why Respondent was at the school and why he was allowed to be near children. Jameson inquired as to why Gadson was so upset. Gadson related to Jameson that two years earlier, Gadson had gone to Everhart to pick up her nephew from the SMILE program and upon entering the classroom saw a young female with her head in Respondent's crotch area. Jameson told Gadson to report this to the Principal. Late that day Gadson spoke with Principal Jane Floyd- Bullen. Gadson told the Principal what she had told Jameson. According to Gadson, Respondent was standing just three feet inside the open classroom door and that in addition to the young female and Respondent, two other students were present in the classroom: Gadson's nephew and another boy who was in a wheelchair. She further explained that as she and Respondent made eye contact, Respondent pushed the girl away, turned away from Gadson, and adjusted his clothing. Respondent then turned to Gadson and began talking to her about how her nephew's day had gone. A few minutes later, the pregnant mother of the boy in the wheelchair arrived to pick up her son, and Gadson left the classroom. She said that she looked for program director Jameson, but Jameson was not there so Gadson left the school. Gadson explained that after a few more days she did not see Respondent at Everhart any more so she assumed the problem had been taken care of until she saw him there two years later. Floyd-Bullen asked Gadson if she had reported what she saw to anyone at the time, and Gadson said she thought she had but could not remember to whom she had spoken. Since it was late Friday afternoon when Gadson came to her, on Monday morning Floyd-Bullen contacted James Parry, the School Board's Chief of Labor and Employee Relations to report this conversation. Two investigations ensued: one by the School Board's Department of Safety and Security and one by the Leon County Sheriff's Office. On September 17, 2008, Respondent was given a letter telling him he was being placed on administrative leave with pay pending resolution of an investigation. Respondent was not told the subject of the investigation until he was summoned to the Sheriff's Office for questioning and was told then. Investigating Gadson's allegation was difficult because it was two years later, and the date of the incident she reported could only be narrowed down to late-September or early- October 2006. Further, although it was easy to identify the boy in the wheelchair, identifying the young girl was difficult. Gadson made the identification based upon looking at pictures in the most-recent Everhart yearbook. She identified a girl who had an unusual gait. The girl identified by Gadson has an I.Q. of 24 or 25 and is non-communicative, as are Gadson's nephew and the boy in the wheelchair. The girl she identified was not in the SMILE program during the time period of the alleged incident but "could" have been there if no one was at her home when the school bus delivered her there and if the bus driver had returned her to Everhart and taken her to the SMILE classroom. During the investigation Gadson remembered that she had reported the incident in 2006 to Joanne Kilpatrick, an employee at Everhart. When questioned, Kilpatrick did not remember any such conversation. During the investigation Gadson described what the girl was wearing, what Respondent was wearing, and what she was wearing two years earlier. She explained that she was wearing tennis shoes so her footsteps walking to the classroom made no noise and that the electric-powered doors to the hallway where the classroom was located were partially opened and so she opened them manually, thus preventing the motor to make its usual noise. She admitted that she had not seen Respondent's penis and the little girl was not moving during the incident which she described. During the investigation Gadson was asked by the detective investigating the case to take a computerized voice stress analyzer test. Among the questions she was asked during the test were two very specific questions which included Respondent's name, her nephew's name, and the classroom as the location. Her answers were considered to be "non-deceptive" by the person who administered the test and the person who read the computer print-out. When Respondent was informed of the allegation against him, he became extremely upset and frightened. His demeanor varied during the interview among being calm, being frightened, being angry, and crying. He denied the allegation but was unable to tell the detective why Gadson would make such an allegation if it didn't happen. He asked if he could be given a lie detector test and was offered the computerized voice stress analyzer test. Among the questions he was asked, the only two relevant questions were general in nature, unlike the very specific questions asked Gadson. Respondent, who was then a 43-year-old, unmarried, full-time college student, was asked: "Have you ever exposed your penis to a student?" and "Have you ever had a student perform oral sex on you?" His answers were determined to be "deceptive" by the person who administered the test and the person who read the computer print-out. At the final hearing Respondent explained the physical location of the SMILE classroom, the second classroom on the left, in a hallway with other classrooms and with an outside entrance to the building at the rear and another in the front of the building. At the time of the alleged incident, there were 17 students enrolled in the SMILE program, which ended at 6:00 p.m. Between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 6:00, the time of the alleged incident, the classroom is busy with parents, staff, and students coming in and going out. The mother of the boy in the wheelchair regularly brought her young daughter with her when she picked up her son. Respondent had a teasing relationship with the girl and even had a nickname for her. Since her mother was 8 1/2 months pregnant at the time and moved slowly, the girl would usually arrive at the classroom before her mother. Respondent thinks it is possible that the girl ran into the classroom and hugged Respondent just as Gadson appeared in the doorway and saw a girl with her head in Respondent's crotch area. That girl was the age of the girl described by Gadson, but the girl identified by Gadson was several years older than the age of the girl Gadson described. At the conclusion of the Sheriff's Office investigation, the State Attorney's Office declined to prosecute. Although Gadson, as she repeats her story, is credible, it is determined that her allegation has become true to her over time, but was not true at the time of the alleged incident. Her behavior at the time is inexplicable if she saw what she now says she saw. She came into the classroom through its open door. She said and did nothing to confront Respondent about what would constitute not just child abuse but a serious crime. She did nothing to comfort the girl or remove the girl from Respondent's presence. She simply chatted with Respondent for a few minutes and left, assumedly leaving the girl with Respondent. When she was unable to find Jameson, she simply left the school without contacting anyone at the School Board, calling the abuse hotline, or contacting the police. In short, she did not report what she now says she saw to anyone in a position of authority to do something, including the principal at Everhart who testified that Gadson regularly came to her to voice concerns about other matters. Her testimony that she assumed Respondent had been dealt with since she didn't see him at Everhart after a few more days is also strange for two reasons. First, the conversation she says she had with Kilpatrick which Kilpatrick doesn't remember was simply saying that Respondent had done something inappropriate. Thereafter, since no one ever asked her what she had seen, it would have been clear to a reasonable person that there was no one looking into her vague report. Second, her testimony means that she was not bothered by the fact that Respondent was still at Everhart after the alleged incident, even for a few days. Gadson's behavior on the day of the alleged incident and thereafter can only be justified if she didn't think at the time that she had seen an abusive and criminal act taking place even though she has apparently convinced herself she had two years later. Gadson has been an educator for many years, and it is beyond belief that she would react as she did if she believed that she had witnessed what she later described and yet simply left the child to be alone in the classroom with Respondent when the mother removed her son in the wheelchair. After Respondent quit his job at DISC Village, he filed a complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations alleging discrimination. An evidentiary hearing was conducted by this forum and resulted in a Recommended Order recommending that Respondent's complaint be dismissed. That recommendation was adopted by the Commission. (DOAH Case No. 06-1052, Final Order entered October 12, 2006). The findings of fact in the DOAH Recommended Order entered July 20, 2006, reflect that an investigation of Respondent was about to commence when Respondent left his employment. There is no evidence that an investigation was already underway. When Respondent was terminated from his position as the assistant director of the SMILE after-school program, he filed a complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. An employee there conducted an investigation and determined that there was no reasonable basis for believing that an unlawful employment practice had occurred. Respondent did not pursue his claim any further. Respondent's March 8, 2007, application for employment by the School Board of Leon County in Section III asks for employment history. Respondent left blank the reason(s) for leaving his prior positions. In question numbered 2 Respondent answered in the affirmative that he had been terminated in October 2006. Questions numbered 3 and 4 asked if he had left a job by mutual agreement or under unfavorable circumstances. While it can be argued that Respondent's answers to these questions in the negative were technically correct but conceptually incorrect, his answers do not reflect on his credibility in this proceeding. Despite his only-arguably- incorrect answers, Respondent's testimony is more credible than Gadson's.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing the charges against Respondent and reimbursing him for lost wages and benefits from the date of termination until the effective date of his non-reappointment. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of July, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT 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 27th day of July, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Lester L. Hall 810 Wadsworth Street, Apartment 113-B Tallahassee, Florida 32304 J. David Holder, Esquire J. David Holder, P.A. 1400 Village Square Boulevard, Suite 3-196 Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Jackie Pons, Superintendent Leon County School Board 2757 West Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
