The Issue Whether Respondent violated provisions of Section 231.36(4)(c), Florida Statutes, as more specifically alleged in Superintendent, Pinellas County Schools, letters to John Beiletti dated July 26, 1991 and October 29, 1991; and provisions of Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, as more specifically alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated November 27, 1991.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, John J. Beiletti was employed as a social studies classroom teacher by the Pinellas County School Board and held Professional Teaching Certificate No. 121187 issued by the State of Florida, Board of Education. At the time the charges here involved arose, Petitioner was teaching World History at Northeast High School in St. Petersburg, Florida. Respondent taught for six years in Hillsborough County prior to being employed at Dunedin Senior High School in 1965 (Exhibit 14). Respondent's testimony that he holds three master's degrees and has been a teacher for 33 years was not rebutted. Respondent's evaluations were generally satisfactory, and he was considered to be a good to excellent teacher prior to 1981 when various complaints and requests for transfers from his classes were received from students and parents. These complaints led to meetings, investigations and letters cautioning Respondent about his conduct in class. By letter dated October 25, 1982 (Exhibit 3), Francis M. Freeman, Principal at Dunedin High School, notified Respondent that numerous complaints about him had been received, namely: That you yell at, embarrass, frighten, and intimidate young people. That many illustrations you use in teaching are somewhat crude or earthy in nature. That the amount of work you require in certain areas is too technical for students at the 9th grade level. That when parental conferences are held that you requested that students write you letters or come to see the principal to indicate to him what a fine teacher you are. On November 5, 1982, Hugh B. Kriever, Director of Student Discipline, Pinellas County School System, conferred with Respondent to discuss the problems he was having in his classroom. This meeting was memorialized in Exhibit 4. On December 1, 1982, James Shipley, Area Superintendent, Pinellas County School System, reprimanded Respondent for unprofessional conduct in leaving an obscenity written by a student on the blackboard in his classroom for two days after becoming aware it was there. (Exhibit 5). Despite these efforts on the part of the school system, the complaints continued. Robert Wright succeeded Freeman as Principal, Dunedin High School, and on November 14, 1983, a conference was held with Wright, Ficarrota, Assistant Principal, and Respondent to discuss the complaints. By letter dated November 16, 1983 (Exhibit 10), Wright notified Respondent the following acts for which complaints were made must cease at once: Profanity. Intimidation; yelling and embarrassing students. Playing music, (tape, radio or guitar) Controversial material being taught. Inappropriate procedures for handling student detentions. By letter dated March 10, 1984 (Exhibit 11), Wright advised Respondent that he had noticed Respondent's student aide recording grades in Respondent's grade book and informed the student this was not permissible. The letter reminded Respondent that the practice is absolutely forbidden and enclosed a copy of Rule 6Gx52-8.06, Pinellas County Schools Policy Manual. These problems led to attempts to involuntarily transfer Respondent to another school in 1982 (or 1983), which was successfully rebuffed by Respondent. (Exhibit 13). On March 28, 1983, a Joint Stipulation was entered into between Respondent and Scott N. Rose, Superintendent, Pinellas County Schools (Exhibit 15), in which Respondent agreed: To take a 10 day personal leave without pay; In his remarks to students and in his behavior in the classroom Respondent would adhere to material appropriate to the district's accepted curriculum; To promptly exchange matters of concern or complaint; and Respondent will be reassigned to another school in the 1984-85 school year. On November 28, 1983, a conference was held with Nancy Zambito, Director of Personnel Services for Pinellas County Schools; Bob Husbands, Classroom Teachers Association representative; and Respondent. (Exhibit 13) At this conference, Zambito advised Respondent that profanity, yelling at and/or embarrassing students, and inappropriate detention practices are not acceptable and will not be tolerated. Respondent said he would "try" to refrain from profanity and "hoped" he wouldn't slip. For the 1984-85 school year, Respondent was transferred to Northeast High School where he remained until suspended in 1991. On March 12, 1985, Tom Zachary, Principal at Northeast High School, conferred with Respondent regarding the latter's teaching procedures. At this conference, memorialized in Exhibit 21, they discussed Respondent's classes and weekly routine, and Respondent was told these procedures needed to be improved; considered his teaching procedures which also needed to be improved; his textbook approach which also needed improvement; and his casual dress deemed to be inappropriate in the classroom. During the period mid-March to mid-April, 1991, Sheila Keller, Curriculum Supervisor, Pinellas County Schools, observed five classes taught by Respondent during that period. Her report to the Assistant Principal, Northeast High School, is contained in Exhibit 25. That report confirms the allegations that Respondent strays from the subject of his lecture, discusses his personal health, marital status and specific religious beliefs, subjects he had been repeatedly told to omit from his classroom lectures. During the 1990-91 school year, Principal Charlie Williams at Northeast High School received a letter from the mother of a pupil in Respondent's class complaining of Respondent's conduct in the classroom. This complaint was forwarded to the Superintendent's office and investigated by Steven Crosby, Director of Personnel Services, Pinellas County Schools. As a result of that investigation, Respondent was suspended without pay based upon the allegations contained in the charging letter as noted in the preliminary statement portion of this Recommended Order and advised of his right to an administrative hearing. At the hearing, 11 students who had Respondent as a teacher at Northeast High School in the 1990-91 school year testified and I so find, that during the times they were in his classes, Respondent: Frequently yelled at them, used words like damn, hell and shit during his lectures; made racially disparaging comments; intimidated and embarrassed students by demeaning them in a manner the whole class could observe; told the class that sometimes he would lie to them; made remarks about religion that some students found to be disparaging to their religious beliefs; and rambled from his lecture nearly every time he lectured with inappropriate stories about his personal life. Further, many of these students felt they were not receiving a proper education in Respondent's class, and a petition was circulated requesting Respondent be replaced as a teacher at Northeast High School. When the student who received a grade lower than she thought she deserved went to a counselor to complain, Respondent later called her up to his desk and called her little miss honor student. This embarrassed her, and she called her mother who subsequently telephoned Respondent to complain of this incident, and wrote the letter that initiated the investigation leading to these charges. During a lengthy conversation with Respondent, this parent testified that Respondent suggested she have coffee with him and further suggested she have dinner with him. Respondent denies that he invited her to dinner or coffee and testified she invited him to her home for dinner, and her husband invited him to go out on the husband's boat--both of which Respondent declined. The testimony of the parent is deemed to be the more credible. Respondent called two witnesses who were in Respondent's class at Dunedin High School in 1969 and 1972-73. These witnesses found Respondent to be an excellent teacher while they were in his class. Two witnesses called by Respondent in his classes during the 1990-91 school year testified that Respondent used curse words and intimidated students when he yelled at them. In his testimony, Respondent denied intimidating students, but acknowledged that he frequently yelled at them to get their attention and improve discipline in the class, that he sometimes used words like damn and hell and could have used the word shit. Respondent denies he favors any religion, but prefers meditation and considers many religions too ceremonial. Respondent acknowledged that he told his pupils that history is not exact, but is slanted by the opinions of the writer and therefore is frequently untrue. In this context, he intimated to, if not directly told, the class that some of the history taught by him was lies. Respondent further acknowledged that he had one student enter grades in his grade book and presented other evidence that this practice was not uncommon at Northeast High School, although prohibited by the school system policy manual. With respect to the allegation in DOAH Case No. 91-7307, the evidence is unrebutted that on October 2, 1991, Respondent, from his home in Tampa, made a long distance call to the school administration building to inquire about the status of his health insurance. A new telephone system had recently been installed and considerable difficulty arose in routing Respondent's call to the correct person, as Respondent did not have the extension number of the person he needed to talk with. After several frustrating attempts, Respondent was accidently transferred to voice mail with a recorded message to leave his message and someone would get back to him. Respondent's temper flared, and he shouted obscenities into the voice mail recorded and threw the telephone upon the bed adjacent to where he was calling. A tape of these obscenities was admitted as Exhibit 32.
Recommendation Considering all of these factors, it is recommended that John J. Beiletti be dismissed from his position as a continuing contract teacher with the Pinellas County school system and that Teaching Certificate No. 121187 issued to John J. Beiletti be revoked. ENTERED this 17th day of March, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 this 17th day of March, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Proposed findings submitted by the School Board are accepted, except as noted below. Those proposed findings not excepted to or included in H.O. recommended order were deemed unnecessary to the conclusions reached. Rejected as hearsay unsupported by admissible evidence. Rejected as irrelevant since Beiletti was not charged with a violation involving lesson plans. Proposed findings submitted by Commissioner of Education are accepted, except as noted below. Those proposed findings not excepted to or included in the H.O. findings were deemed unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The papers graded by the student aide involved only true or false or selection from several options as correct and did not affect the teacher's assessment of the student's work. Proposed findings submitted by Respondent are accepted, except as noted below. Those proposed findings not excepted to or included below were deemed unnecessary to the conclusions reached. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected. While the language of the discipline imposed does not say suspension without pay, the result is the same. 11. Accepted. However, Ms. Zambito changed jobs in the school system after 1984. 12,13,14. Rejected. 17,18. Rejected as irrelevant. 37. Accepted. However, the tenor of Zambito's testimony was that she wasn't learning because Respondent was absent so much, and when he returned he criticized the class for not learning the subject matter that should have been covered during the period Respondent was absent. 41. Accepted as testimony of one student. 43-54. Rejected as self serving testimony of Beiletti. 57-58. Rejected. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire Pinellas County School Board Post Office Box 2942 Largo, FL 34649-2942 Margaret E. O'Sullivan, Esquire Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street 352 Florida Education Center Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Robert J. McCormack, Esquire Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, FL 33675-0638 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Dr. Raymond O. Shelton, Superintendent Hillsborough County School Board Post Office Box 3408 Tampa, FL 33601-3408
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Anna M. Brewer, holds Teaching Certificate Number 475518, issued by the Department of Education, State of Florida. Respondent is certified to teach in the area of elementary education, grades 1-6. From 1968 or 1969 until 1980, Respondent worked for the School Board as a teacher aide. As a teacher aide, she had approximately twelve years to view a wide variety of teaching strategies, methods, and teaching techniques in the approximately six different schools to which she had been assigned. While employed as a teacher's aide, Respondent attended Miami-Dade Junior Community College, North Campus, and studied Initial Elementary Education. She then completed Bachelor's Training at Nova University in 1979 and thereafter became employed as a classroom teacher with the Dade County School Board at the Elementary Level beginning in the 1980-1981 school year. Respondent has been employed as an elementary teacher by Petitioner School Board since the 1980-1981 school year. During all of that period, she has taught at Perrine Elementary School in Dade County, Florida. During all of the years Respondent taught, except for the first year, she had classes approximately half of a regular size class. This was because she has been teaching Title I/Chapter I classes. "Title I", renamed "Chapter I", classes refer to classes funded and mandated as part of the Education Consolidation Improvement Act which targets children who are deficient in certain areas and concentrates on bringing them into the mainstream of the education process by concentrated remediation in small, directed education classes. It is a "given" that many of these children are difficult to teach and to control. 1980-1981 SCHOOL YEAR On October 29, 1980 Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by her principal, Gloria H. Gray. Although rated overall acceptable she was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning and in assessment techniques. Although rated acceptable in techniques of instruction, Respondent was rated unacceptable in one subcategory thereof because the proliferation of students' questions concerning the work indicated to the observer that the Respondent did not give clear assignments and directions to allow ample time for completion of tasks. Respondent was next formally observed by Principal Gray on December 12, 1980. Although Respondent was rated overall acceptable, she was rated unacceptable in classroom management because Mrs. Gray found much off-task behavior on the part of students, and Respondent appeared not to notice it. Through no fault of her own, Respondent had a very difficult first year experience with many interruptions. She was the foreman of the Grand Jury and was absent every Wednesday. In addition, she had legitimate family and medical problems causing frequent absences. To the extent possible, principal Gray initiated and followed through on numerous attempts to remediate Respondent's deficiencies in teaching. Mrs. Gray also provided an aide for Respondent in order to be assured that the education of her students was not being sorely neglected. Respondent was in a large pod with two other teachers. They helped Respondent in putting work on the board clearly. They also helped her in getting and using instructional material. Although Mrs. Gray testified that she was, in the spring of 1981, of the opinion that there was a repeated failure on the part of Respondent to communicate with and relate to the students in her classroom to such an extent that they were deprived of a minimal educational experience, she nonetheless rated Respondent acceptable in all categories and gave Respondent an overall acceptable rating on her Annual Evaluation for the 1980-1981 school year. Mrs. Gray gave Respondent the benefit of the doubt because Respondent had improved her teaching skills during the year, she had a good attitude toward trying to improve, she took Mrs. Gray's recommendations and attempted to implement them, and Mrs. Gray expected further improvement from Respondent the following year. Mrs. Gray further recommended Respondent for re-employment as an annual contract teacher. 1981-1982 SCHOOL YEAR Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by her new principal Dr. Joan Hanley, on November 23, 1981. While Respondent was very devoted to self-improvement, she was nevertheless rated overall unacceptable and unacceptable in the category of preparation and planning because she did not have complete lesson plans for each of the following subjects she was responsible to teach: social studies, science, art, music, and physical education. Likewise, she did not have plans which could be used by a substitute in the event of her absence. Although she was rated acceptable in classroom management, Dr. Hanley offered suggestions for Respondent's improvement. It was not clear to Dr. Hanley whether Respondent's students were grouped for math. It is a standard instructional strategy to ascertain the ability levels of the students, group them accordingly, and plan separate instruction for the various groups. She also instructed Respondent to stand up and move between her groups of students in order to monitor the random activity that goes on. Respondent was formally observed in her classroom by Assistant Principal Ellen Supran on January 6, 1982. Although rated overall acceptable, Respondent was found unacceptable in one subcategory, techniques of instruction. This subcategory deals with the use of instructional strategies for teaching the subject matter. Her students were not grouped for math instruction and the subject matter was too difficult and too abstract for the students. Respondent was not getting feedback from them. During the remainder of the school year, Mrs. Supran assisted Respondent through informal visitations. On these occasions, Mrs. Supran was concerned about Respondent's lesson plans, her children being off-task, and the appropriateness of the tasks assigned to the students by Respondent. She spent time working with Respondent on lesson plans, materials, instructional strategies, grouping, and monitoring children's progress. Respondent had an accident during the 1981-1982 school year which resulted in extended sick leave. Dr. Hanley was unable to observe Respondent formally in the classroom for the remainder of that school year. Because Respondent was anxious to improve her teaching and because she had made a good start, Dr. Hanley felt that it was only fair to rate Respondent acceptable in all categories for her Annual Evaluation for the 1981-1982 school year. Therefore, for the school year 1981-1982, Respondent's second annual contract year, Respondent was found acceptable in all categories on her Annual Evaluation and was again recommended for employment. 1982-1983 SCHOOL YEAR Respondent's next formal observation was on November 23, 1982. Although rated overall acceptable, Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter, because the observer, Dr. Hanley, felt Respondent needed improvement in grammar, particularly verb usage. More specifically, Dr. Hanley observed poor grammar was utilized orally by Respondent in the course of teaching other subjects. Hers was a significant error because Respondent was teaching a resource class in compensatory education. This is a remedial class which addressed the reading, language arts, and mathematics needs of low- achieving students. In every type of class, it is necessary that a teacher set a good example in spoken English. Because elementary school children model the speech of their teacher, Respondent's grammatical errors, which were frequent and excessive, would impede the students' acquisition of appropriate language arts skills. In remedial classes, the effect is more pronounced and reinforces poor language arts skills because the children are already deficient in that area. Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by Dr. Hanley on December 7, 1982. Although rated overall acceptable, Respondent was again found unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she continued to make the same kinds of grammatical errors she had been observed making at the November 23, 1982 observation. The December 7, 1982 observation resulted in a prescription for remediation. Dr. Hanley suggested that Respondent record herself on a tape recorder so that she could become sensitized to verb forms. Respondent followed Dr. Hanley's advice and it helped on the subsequent observation, but she did not sustain the improvement as indicated below. Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by Dr. Hanley on February 10, 1983. She was rated overall acceptable and made only one grammatical error, saying "cent" sometimes instead of "cents." Note was made of excellent behavior modification. On Respondent's Annual Evaluation for the 1982-1983 school year, Dr. Hanley rated Respondent acceptable in all categories and recommended her for employment for the next school year as a continuing contract teacher. Respondent had achieved tenure. 1983-1984 SCHOOL YEAR Respondent was next formally observed in her classroom by Dr. Hanley on May 7, 1984. Although rated overall acceptable, she was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter and in a single subcategory of preparation and planning. She was rated unsatisfactory in the latter subcategory because her room was so cluttered that it was difficult to carry on her instruction. She was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she was again making the same grammatical errors she had made the year before. (See Finding of Fact No. 20 that improvement was not sustained). For example, the following statements were written on Respondent's chalk board: "Dorothy want to go back home", " . . . work that I have not finish." Dr. Hanley reminded Respondent that they had worked on the "ed" and "s" endings on verbs before. Nonetheless, Respondent was rated acceptable in all areas on her Annual Evaluation for 1983-1984 and was recommended for continued employment as a continuing contract teacher. 1984-1985 SCHOOL YEAR Through the 1983-1984 school year, the School Board utilized the standard evaluation system which was an undefined system that allowed observers maximum discretion, without any clear or consistent criteria. It was essentially geared toward making any end-of-the year employment decision. With the advent of the 1984-1985 school year, a new method of evaluating teachers was put into effect. Beginning with the 1984-1985 school year, Respondent's performance was assessed under a new form of evaluation which was thoroughly tested by the School Board and which was negotiated and agreed-to between the School Board and Respondent's union. This is the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS). TADS is a highly specific research-based clinical supervision system. State-of-the-art research has characterized certain teaching behaviors that are effective in a learning environment. TADS has grouped these into categories of assessment criteria. Required teaching behaviors are very precisely defined and there is very little room for discretionary interpretation by the observer. Ideally, the system is governed by decision rules which eliminate the potential of an arbitrary or capricious application of the criteria. The system is intended to further develop and upgrade teaching skills and assist the individual teacher to perform better. On the down side, TADS was characterized by the School Board's expert, Dr. Patrick Gray, as a clinical form of evaluation which primarily identifies teaching behavior which is simply acceptable, but it would not identify behavior of superior or excellent performance. (TR-II 47) Respondent's first formal classroom observation under TADS was on November 13, 1984. She was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because she only carried out a very small part of the lesson and because she did not follow the assessment item in her lesson plan. She was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she presented the information to the children inadequately. There was no background given to draw out the students' previous understanding; no introduction, reinforcement, and drill; and no form of assessment to ascertain what the children had learned when the lesson was completed. She was rated unacceptable in classroom management, because there was disorder a good part of the time and the class was not conducive to learning. Respondent and students arrived late. There were many delays during the class period. The cardboard coins utilized in the lesson on coin values became a great distraction and Respondent was unable to bring the coins into the lesson. She only got into the very introductory part of the lesson and rambled in her instruction. Respondent was not able to pull the students together into a group of attentive listeners. She was also rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she never fully instructed the students about her expectations regarding what they were to do at their desks. The coins became the major focus of the children's attention and they were tossing them and taking them from one another. Respondent was rated unacceptable in assessment techniques because there was no assessment of the teaching objectives. As a result, there would be no way to tie up a lesson or help a teacher plan subsequent lessons. In order to aid Respondent in improving her performance, Dr. Hanley prescribed help. Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent develop the skill of pacing her lessons so that she could complete the lesson within the allotted time; that Respondent seek help from Cynthia Muller, a PREP specialist, and that she also seek help from Dorothy Sissel, Chapter I Manager. Dr. Hanley also prescribed help in that she recommended that Respondent reorganize her room to make materials accessible for more efficiency. She recommended Mr. Holmberg, Assistant Principal, as a resource person. She also recommended that Respondent seek help from the Chapter I Specialist. Dr. Hanley recommended the Respondent seek help from Chapter I and PREP specialists because she felt that the on-the- spot classroom training by these very qualified people would be very helpful to Respondent. PREP stands for Florida Primary Education Program, a program mandated by the State of Florida pursuant to Section 230.2312, Florida Statutes. PREP mandates a diagnostic- prescriptive approach that enables each child to have an individualized program to permit development of that child's maximum potential and to achieve a level of competence by that child in basis skills. Pursuant to this approach, students are divided into three categories, with those developing at a normal level being taught with developmental teaching strategies, those having been identified as having potential learning problems, being taught with preventive teaching strategies, and those needing more challenging work, being taught with enrichment teaching strategies. The School Board has developed reading and math programs to comply with the statutory mandate. Respondent actually received help from Cynthia Muller, the PREP Specialist, in the areas of preparation and planning, classroom management and techniques of instruction. Mrs. Muller helped Respondent approximately on 9 to 10 occasions for a total of approximately 12 hours of assistance. She provided this assistance on November 7, 9, 26, 29 and December 4, 1984, and on February 7, May 28, June 6, and 11, 1985. In the course of her assistance, Mrs. Muller observed several problems with Respondent's teaching. There was a lot of off- task behavior. The children were jittery and walked around the classroom at will. They exhibited little motivation. Mrs. Muller found that much of the work was inappropriate for the students, above the level for which they were competent. That added to the off-task behavior. On November 26, 1984, Mrs. Muller did a demonstration lesson for Respondent showing her how the children could be motivated to stay in their seats and work quietly. She also demonstrated the use of the teacher manual in planning for the complete class period so that all of the children would receive their reading lessons within the prescribed timeframe. On another occasion, they also discussed the Total Math Program (TMP), Petitioner School Board's diagnostic-prescriptive program for math. TMP provides for pre- and post-testing of students and clustering students into particular groups. They discussed grouping students, assessing them, planning for them, and instructing them using a teacher's manual. Mrs. Muller also suggested a positive re-enforcement type of reward system. She also suggested that Respondent remove books and materials from the instructional area so that the class would have a clean place to work and place their books. Mrs. Muller also noticed misspelled words and improperly used words on the chalkboard e.g., "When he finish the book." Mrs. Muller's assistance, November 7, 1984 to June 11, 1985 overlaps several subsequent formal observations. Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by Dr. Hanley on December 7, 1984. Despite Mrs. Muller's assessment on November 7 and 11 that there was some improvement, Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning, classroom management, and techniques of instruction by Dr. Hanley on December 7, 1984. She was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because she had no assessment item in her lesson plan. Because Respondent told Dr. Hanley that she knew what was expected and she promised to do it in the future, Dr. Hanley did not make a further prescription in that area. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because her classroom was still very disorderly. Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent designate areas for specific subjects and tasks within her room. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because her lesson, again, was considered by Dr. Hanley to be a rambling one. Dr. Hanley found the lesson components not to be sequenced; Respondent did not accent the important points; Respondent was unaware of what her students were doing; she did not provide suggestions to her students for improving performance; she did not adjust her lesson when students were not understanding but went right on with what she was teaching rather than re-teach a concept. Dr. Hanley did not feel Respondent provided for closure of the lesson so as to help the children pick up the critical areas of the lesson and so as to be ready for the next lesson. Respondent continued to make grammatical and spelling errors, e.g., "...Santa Clause and other tradition." In order to help Respondent improve her performances Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent observe two fellow teachers whom Dr. Hanley felt had excellent techniques of instruction. A conference-for-the-record was scheduled for the Respondent in December, 1984, but due to Respondent's illness and impending surgery, it was rescheduled for February 13, 1985. A conference-for-the-record is an official meeting regarding a teacher's teaching performance. It is required so that the teacher is officially notified that her deficient performance has not been remediated. At the conference, administrators went over Respondent's classroom observations. Respondent was notified that if she was still under prescription at the time of her Annual Evaluation, she would not receive her annual teaching increment (pay raise). From February through May, 1985, Perrine Elementary School was visited at least once a week by the Chapter I Educational specialist, Tarja Geis. She helped most of the teachers each time she visited. Chapter I is a federally funded program which addresses reading and math deficiencies in children from low income areas. It uses a language experience approach. Ms. Geis' opportunities to observe Respondent were short and sporadic. Her observations were not "formal" observations. However, when Ms. Geis did observe Respondent in the classroom, she noticed Respondent's inattentiveness to some of the children's behavior. She suggested ways to Respondent to improve that, most of which were "boilerplate" suggestions. Ms. Geis also observed one of Respondent's lessons and did a demonstration lesson for her on May 22, 1985, in order to show Respondent the language experience approach used in the Chapter I program. Ms. Geis discussed and/or demonstrated techniques to improve class management, student behavior, student comprehension and student attitude. On March 15, 1985, Ms. Geis gave a workshop for Chapter I teachers. All teachers who would have been working that day would have been in attendance. It is probable that Respondent attended that workshop. She had missed an earlier one in February because of her absence. Respondent indicated at formal hearing that she was not aware that Tarja Geis was a resource person for her use, but her perception is illogical in that Ms. Geis is a Chapter I Educational Specialist and Respondent teaches in the category of Chapter I students. Respondent also testified that she was not given in-service learning experiences by Dr. Hanley and Mr. Holmberg when she requested them. The workshop given by Ms. Geis would seem to address this request, contrary to Respondent's assertion. Respondent concurs that she attended at least one such workshop. Respondent was next formally observed in her classroom by Dr. Hanley on March 21, 1985. By this time, Respondent had received help from Mrs. Muller and Ms. Geis. She may have also sought help from the two teachers at her school. By her own testimony, she sought assistance from Ms. Jackerson and by a course taught outside of the usual school day. She showed great improvement and was rated acceptable in every category. Respondent was next formally observed in her classroom on May 7, 1985, simultaneously by Dr. Hanley and the area director, Phyllis Cohen. Under TADS, this is an external or dual observation where two observers assess the same classroom performance. Its purpose is to assure objectivity and fairness. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because her lesson plans were not carried out. While Respondent attempted to work with one group, the other groups' lessons were not implemented. The students were not on task. The group at the listening station was not doing its work. The group doing independent reading did not open their books. At least half the students did not receive their directed reading lesson. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because her development of ideas and information was unclear and confusing. She would give insufficient definitions and did not reinforce with enough examples so that the students could understand the homework assignment. The lesson was not sequenced and Respondent was again using inaccurate language. The vocabulary words that the students were working on were not introduced to them and did not have any relationship to the lesson. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because her classroom was out of control and because of her problems in managing the transition time, getting and keeping students settled, and managing the different reading groups. Class started ten minutes late, and during transitions in the lesson, approximately twenty minutes were wasted. As the hour progressed, the noise crescendoed. Five to eight students were off-task at different times during the class. One student slapped another during the lesson. Respondent was not aware of the off-task behavior and did not redirect the students. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she did not introduce the lesson, provide opportunities for the students to practice, get feedback whether the students had obtained information, or provide reinforcement and follow-up. In other words the sequence was not appropriate. There was a lot of jumping around in the lesson. Respondent did not address the various learning styles of the students. Her communication was not precise enough for students to understand what she was trying to teach. She did not give the students feedback on their strengths and weaknesses. Although she used the teacher manual, she did not fill in between the questions with her own information. She asked the questions in a distorted manner. The students were unable to answer the questions and Respondent could not elaborate but went on to the next question. Her directions to the students were very poor, as were her explanations. She failed to rephrase explanations that were not understood. Her instructions to the listening station group were not specific enough. Her questions on the worksheet were not explained in a way that the students were able to proceed independently. They did not do the worksheet at all. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in assessment techniques because she did not assess what the students were learning at their levels. Material was presented at a low cognitive level. She did not seem to be able to ascertain whether the students were learning what she was teaching them. She did not walk around to determine what each group was doing. In order to help Respondent improve her teaching performance, Dr. Hanley recommended that she work with Mrs. Muller again on the execution of her lesson plans in order to facilitate a directed reading lesson for each of her reading groups. To help Respondent improve her teaching performance, Dr. Hanley recommended that she observe another Chapter I teacher during a reading lesson to hone in on the development of ideas and information in a sequential and meaningful manner. Two teachers were named as resources. To help Respondent with her classroom management, Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent work with Ms. Geis and the Assistant Principal to develop strategies for effective student management while beginning classes and during transition periods and that she work with an observer to sensitize herself to off-task, nonproductive activities on the part of students. It was also recommended that Respondent revamp her behavior modification plan to enhance student involvement. To help Respondent improve her techniques of instruction, Dr. Hanley recommended the Respondent again work with Ms. Geis and Mrs. Muller since she had improved after working with these two education specialists the prior year. Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent review the elements in a basal reading lesson, i.e., background, sequence, and closure. She also recommended that Respondent rehearse her reading lesson so that she would think ahead about the main points and key definitions. She recommended that Respondent work with the observers to sensitize herself to situations in which the students are confused, and that she develop strategies to improve clarification. Dr. Hanley was also available to Respondent as a resource. In order to help Respondent improve techniques of instruction, Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent have a person observe Respondent while she was teachings and help her on the spot when her students were not following the lesson. She suggested the Respondent develop assessment techniques which incorporated multilevel assessment activities. She also recommended that Respondent include development of summative assessment instruments in conjunction with these other activities. She recommended that Ms. Geis and the Assistant Principal be used as resources to help Respondent develop a sensitivity in identifying whether the students were on-track. On May 28, 19 85, Mrs. Muller discussed reading lessons with Respondent. She went over sequencing. She asked Respondent to rehearse her reading instruction. Mrs. Muller also gave Respondent a PREP teacher guide and a sample directed reading lesson. She referred her to a section on classroom organization and management. On June 6, 1985, Mrs. Muller was to visit Respondent's class and to observe a directed reading lesson. Respondent, however, was doing a different lesson. There was very little organization in the lesson. Mrs. Muller saw some improvement in the Respondent's teaching; however, considering the amount of time she had spent with the Respondent, she would have expected to have seen more progress. Although Respondent had demonstrated a willingness to receive suggestions for improvement and a willingness to work toward acceptable ratings, her Annual Evaluation for the 1984-1985 school year was unacceptable. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. Nonetheless, Respondent was recommended for continued employment for the next school year as a continuing contract teacher. It was Dr. Hanley's hope that Respondent would remediate herself during the next school year. Respondent remained on prescription and would not be entitled to her pay increment (raise) for the next school year while she was still on prescription. 1985-1986 SCHOOL YEAR On October 16 and 17, 1985, Respondent received more help from a fellow teacher, Joyce King. Ms. King discussed with Respondent the instructional processes of sequencing, interfacing subjects, and closure. Ms. King also demonstrated a reading lesson for Respondent. On October 22, 1985, Respondent received further help from another teacher, Doretha P. Thomas. Respondent observed Ms. Thomas during a developmental reading lesson in her class. Ms. Thomas also discussed with Respondent the amount of time used with the reading group, scheduling, and possible changes Respondent could make in her own planning. Respondent was next formally observed in her classroom by Dr. Hanley on October 30, 1985. The class was working on the Dade County required diagnostic-prescriptive reading curriculum known as RSVP. This curriculum contemplates that students are to be pretested and their deficiencies listed on individual profiles so that the teacher knows what specific skills to teach them. It is mandatory that the students' skills be profiled before the teacher attempts to work with them. Respondent had not completed the RSVP paperwork as of the date of this observation. I accept Respondent's testimony that she only had from October 18 until October 30, 1985 in which to complete these profiles; that she was under some disadvantage in preparing the profiles because of the administration's peremptory move of all her materials to a smaller classroom on Friday October 18; and that her observation rating was somewhat tainted by the temporary mess that resulted from the move. However, I find that the period involved would have been sufficient to complete at least the profiles if she had performed her tasks diligently in the intervening seven workdays. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management because the class was not well managed and the students were not working. After the midpoint of the period, three students did no work. In the last ten minutes of the periods, six students did no work. Many students completed worksheets during the first twenty minutes of the class and then colored pictures. These students of Respondent's were not re- directed by her. Respondent seemed to be unaware of the off-task behavior. In order to help Respondent with her classroom management, Dr. Hanley recommended the Respondent move among the students periodically. She also recommended the Respondent plan sufficient work for the instructional period and that she clarify to students what additional study and enrichment activities were available when work is completed. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she was not monitoring pupil performance. Students were doing work incorrectly on their worksheets, and Respondent did not circulate and catch the errors or clarify them. Therefore, incorrect material was being reinforced by the students in their work. Several of the students did not understand the follow- up worksheets. The students' confusion indicated that they were not being taught at their appropriate level. They were being taught on a hit or miss method since their profiles had not been completed. In order to help Respondent improve her techniques of instruction, Dr. Hanley recommended that she fulfill the requirements of RSVP by completing her profiles, grouping her children, and making a class profile chart. Dr. Hanley also recommended that the teacher aide assist Respondent with the pretesting. Dr. Hanley listed the area PREP specialist and herself to review grouping for instruction. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in assessment techniques because although she, as part of her school faculty, had been instructed every year as to the School Board requirements for maintaining student folders, her student folders were deficient. She had no papers dated after September 19, 1985 in them. In order to help Respondent improve her assessment techniques, Dr. Hanley clarified what was expected as far as classroom folders. Respondent must have at least one graded and dated paper per week in reading, math, and writing in each student's folder. Dr. Hanley listed herself and other classroom teachers as a resource for Respondent. Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by Assistant Principal, Herbert Holmberg. He rated her unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because she had grammatically incorrect information and statements on the chalkboard. Knowledge of subject matter was not exhibited as Respondent read verbatim from the teacher manual. She did not address various cognitive levels. In order to help Respondent improve her knowledge of subject matter, Mr. Holmberg recommended that Respondent prepare her material, information, and directions in advance and that her verbal and written usage be grammatically correct. He suggested more flexibility and elaboration during reading. He also suggested that the subject matter be presented at more than one level. As recommended resources, he listed the Principal, the Assistant Principal, and a peer teacher. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because she did not have a sequence in the lesson. The grammar on the board was incorrect. Her spelling was incorrect. There was no variety to her activities. There was no assessment of closure in the lesson. As resources for help, he recommended the Assistant Principal, the PREP specialist, and a peer teacher. Another conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent on December 9, 1985. Respondent's teaching performance was discussed. Dr, Hanley was hopeful the Respondent would be able to remediate her deficiencies; however, Respondent was put on notice that if she was not fully remediated by the close of the school year she would be recommended for termination for cause. Respondent was next formally observed by Charles Sherwood, Directors Basic Skills on December 13, 1985. She was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction and assessment techniques. Respondent testified that Dr. Sherwood orally indicated to her that her rating was satisfactory and created no problems but the business record of the school (P 30) shows that he rated her unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because all of the pupils received the same spelling lesson, despite the differences in their reading levels; and that he rated her unsatisfactory in assessment techniques because, although the school year was very close to being halfway over, Respondent still had not completed her PREP roster. Respondent was next formally and simultaneously observed in her classroom in another external observation on March 17, 1986, by Dr. Hanley and Mrs. Cohen, and she was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because there were a substantial number of errors in teaching the concept "1/2". The words "equal" and unequal" were not used, although they were key vocabulary words in the teacher's manual for the lesson. Respondent told the children that a whole with a line in it becomes one-half. She did not indicate that the line had to be in the middle of the whole in order for there to be halves. In order to help Respondent improve her knowledge of her subject matter, Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent use the teacher's manual for planning and delivering of instruction. It was requested the Respondent master the use of and use the words "equal" and "unequal" appropriately. She also recommended the Respondent use the area specialists, peer teachers, and the Assistant Principal as resources. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because the explanations of the concept of a whole, half, and fractions were not clear to the reviewer, and the reviewers felt the components necessary to address the key concepts were not effectively presented, thereby confusing she children, and an appropriate vocabulary was not used. They felt Respondent's lesson was again lacking in sequence. Additional resources and suggestions for improvement were prescribed to Respondent. Another conference-for-the-record was held with the Respondent on April 16, 1986. Some of Respondent's concerns regarding the TADS process were addressed. Respondent's improvement was discussed and Respondent was again notified that if she failed to be removed from prescription by the end of this second year of deficiency, recommendation of dismissal for cause would be made. Respondent was next formally and simultaneously observed in the classroom in another external observation by Dr. Hanley and Evelyn Evans, another area director. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because she made errors in subtracting. The errors which she made on the board were not corrected. She also made errors in the process itself. These errors were demonstrated on a chalkboard at formal hearing which was erased without being admitted in evidence, but the oral testimony and business records of this observation are sufficient to support this finding. Respondent did not correct student errors, used inappropriate terminology referred to the one's and ten's columns as the right column and left columns and thereby confused the children. Dr. Hanley found the deficiencies in this lesson very similar to the math lesson observed on March 17, 1986. Respondent was still using her own vocabulary. Despite the fact that most of the children in her class and certainly most of our society could understand Respondent's use of "take away" for "subtract" and use of similar colloquialisms, the School Board established the need for more precise and consistent language in teaching early math skills. Respondent did not show evidence of having mastered the subject matter. In order to help Respondent improve her knowledge of subject matter, Dr. Hanley again emphasized mastery of vocabulary and concepts in the teacher's manual and advised adhering closely to the recommended word usage and plan of instruction. Respondent was instructed not to use her own vocabulary and methods until she had total command of the material. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because of many errors. The lesson was not properly sequenced; the children did not have a basic understanding of subtracting without regrouping before beginning subtracting with regrouping; Respondent's use of her own vocabulary confused the children; Respondent did not clarify by rephrasing with different words, but rather, used the same vocabulary over again that the children had not understood the first time. Respondent blocked the chalkboard while she was demonstrating to the class, was inattentive to the need for a chair by one student, and required a reading level of the children in math for which they were not prepared. Respondent again demonstrated improper subject-verb agreement, e.g., "What is the numbers?" and dropping endings on verbs, e.g., "As time go on", "Three minus two leave one." In order to help Respondent improve her techniques of instruction, Dr. Hanley again recommended the Respondent work with another second grade teacher to understand and become proficient in following the sequence and the delivery of instructions to include introduction, background, and the other steps in sequencing. She was also instructed to master the vocabulary and instructional plans in the teacher's manual and to adhere to them while teaching. She was instructed to develop a method for re-teaching individual students who appeared not to understand the lesson. Another conference-for-the-record was held on June 6, 1986. Respondent's unacceptable teaching performance was reviewed. Respondent was advised that a recommendation for dismissal for cause would be made. Respondent was also given an end of the year prescription, as required by TADS. Although Respondent had improved her classroom management during the year, she was still unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction for the 1985-1986 school year. The two unacceptable categories are key categories in teaching. Improvement in these had either been slight or not at all, and Dr. Hanley had exhausted the school system's resources in attempting to assist Respondent. Respondent's testimony at formal hearing corroborates her supervisors' observations as to her failure to exhibit appropriate English grammar and usage with regard to subject-verb tenses. Gloria Jackerson, a retired teacher, testified on behalf of Respondent. Although this retired teacher of 21 years and a candid witness, she is Respondent's best friend. While this relationship may not have colored her favorable testimony, she admits that she has never observed Respondent teach in the classroom nor has she taught Chapter I students in Miami-Dade County under the present program. Therefore, her testimony with regard to Respondent's competency must be rejected. Evidence presented by several satisfied parents is all in Respondent's favors however, most had no training in classroom observation nor were they able to observe Respondent teaching in her classroom over any significant period of time. Their observations, therefore, were of minimal duration and purely subjective. No objective records showing whether their children were promoted or how their children progressed under Respondent's teaching were offered to substantiate their layman's viewpoint. With regard to the testimony of Robert Collins, a Learning Disability teacher in the Dade County School System, who requested that his child be placed in the Respondent's class and who had a brief opportunity to observe Mrs. Brewer in the classroom and who testified that her classes were well managed, his observation opportunities were so brief and so sporadic as to not outweigh the greater weight of the expert testimony of Petitioner's witnesses. The supportive evidence of Geraldine Townsend, another Perrine teachers is not helpful to Respondent in that this witness also had no truly meaningful observations of Respondent. The testimony of Mrs. Collins, a mother and also a teacher's aide, that some of the formal observers made Respondent's classes nervous and jittery is accepted, but this circumstance does not eliminate or seriously mitigate Respondent's responsibilities to teach effectively and to keep her students under control during observations. Respondent Brewer has worked hard to obtain her education and position. She is a deeply religious, compassionate, and caring individual. She has the type of supportive personality the young people of this society dearly need to know and relate to. She has good rapport with the young and communicates with them in loving and supportive ways. However, her personal qualifications and attributes do not outweigh the clear and convincing evidence of her incompetency as demonstrated by the foregoing Findings of Fact. On August 20, 1986, Petitioner School Board suspended Respondent, 55 years old, from employment, 2.20 years short of her attaining full retirement, and further initiated dismissal procedures.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner, School Board of Dade County, Florida, enter a Final Order sustaining the suspension, without pay, as of August 20, 1986, of Respondent, Anna M. Brewer, and dismissing Respondent Anna M. Brewer as a teacher in the Dade County Public Schools. That the Educational Practices Commission enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's Florida teaching certificate for five years or until she demonstrates competency pursuant to statute and ruled whichever occurs first. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of July, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOs. 86-3926, 87-0468 The following constitutes specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF). Petitioner School Board's PFOF Covered in FOF 1. Covered in FOF 2 and 3. Covered and corrected to reflect the record in FOF 5. Covered in FOF 6. Covered in FOF 7. 6-8. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary except as set out in FOF 11. Covered in FOF 8. Except to the extent it is subordinate and unnecessary, it is covered in FOF 9. Rejected as subordinate, unnecessary and cumulative. Partially addressed in FOF 11. Covered in FOF 10. Covered in FOF 11. Covered in FOF 12. Covered in FOF 13. 16-18. Covered in FOF 14. Covered in FOF 15. Covered in FOF 16. Covered in FOF 17. 22-23. Covered in FOF 18. Covered in FOF 19. Covered in FOF 20. Covered in FOF 21. Covered in FOF 22. Covered in FOF 23. Covered in FOF 24. Covered in FOF 25. Covered in FOF 26. Except to the extent it required expansion to fully conform to the record and except to the extent its proposals are subordinate and unnecessary, this proposal is covered in FOF 26. 33.-42. Covered in FOF 27-28. 43.-47. Except as contrary to the record for expression or subordinate, covered in FOF 29. Covered in FOF 30. Covered in FOF 31. Covered in FOF 32. Covered in FOF 33. Covered in FOF 34. Covered in FOF 35. Covered in F0F 36. Modified to more accurately reflect the record as a whole, in FOF 37. Modified to more accurately reflect the record as a whole, in FOF 38. Covered in FOF 39. Covered in FOF 41. Covered in FOF 42. , 62., 64., 66. and 68. are covered in FOF 43. , 63., 65., 67. and 69. are covered in FOF 44. 70.-73. Covered in FOF 45. Covered in FOF 46. Covered in FOF 47. Covered in FOF 48. Covered, expanded and modified so as to reflect the competent, substantial evidence of record as a whole in FOF 49. Covered in FOF 50. Covered in FOF 51. Covered in FOF 52. Covered in FOF 50 and 53. Covered in FOF 54. Covered in FOF 55. Covered in FOF 56. Covered in FOF 57. Covered in FOF 58. Covered in FOF 59. Covered in FOF 60. 89-91. Expanded and modified to reflect the competent, substantial evidence of record and to eliminate the subordinate and unnecessary in FOF 61. Covered in FOF 62. Except to the extent it is subordinate and unnecessary, covered in FOF 63 and 65. Covered in FOF 64. 95-96. Covered in FOF 65 except for cumulative and unnecessary material. Covered in FOF 66. Covered in FOF 67. Covered and expanded in FOF 68. Covered in FOF 69. Except to the extent it is subordinate and unnecessary or cumulative, covered in FOF 70. Covered in FOF 71. Covered in FOF 72. Covered in FOF 73. Rejected as cumulative. Covered in FOF 74. Rejected as cumulative. Covered and expanded in FOF 80. Petitioner Betty Castor's (EPC's) PFOF Since this petitioner adopted the PFOF of Petitioner School Board, the rulings are also the same. Respondent's PFOF Covered in FOF 1. Covered in FOF 2-3. Covered in FOF 4. There is no PFOF. Covered in FOF 7-13, most specifically in FOF 13. Covered in FOF 14-17, most specifically in FOF 17. Covered in FOF 18-22, most specifically in FOF 22. Covered in FOF 23-25, most specifically in FOF 25. 9-10. Covered in FOF 26. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. Rejected as not supported by the evidence and for the reasons discussed in FOF 75. Rejected as not supported by the evidence and for the reasons discussed in FOF 77. Rejected as not supported by the evidence and for the reasons discussed in FOF 76. Rejected as not supported by the evidence and for the reasons discussed in FOF 78. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard Britton, Superintendent School Board of Dade County 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Madeline P. Schere, Esquire Board Administration Building Suite 301 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 J. David Holders Esquire 211 South Gadsden Street Post Office Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William DuFresne, Esquire 2929 Southwest Third Avenue Suite 1 Miami, Florida 33129 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 =================================================================
The Issue The issue in this case is whether there is just cause for Palm Beach County School Board to suspend Deborah Stark for 10 days without pay based upon the allegations made in its Administrative Complaint filed on November 8, 2017.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the Palm Beach County Public School System. Art. IX, Fla. Const.; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Specifically, the School Board has the authority to discipline employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Stark was hired by the School Board in 2005. She is employed pursuant to a professional services contract with Petitioner. At all relevant times to this case, Stark was a teacher at Diamond View. She taught second grade. One of Stark's teaching responsibilities was to provide student information to the School Based Team ("SBT") such as conference/staffing notes,1 to assist the SBT in determining how best to support students who were having challenges or difficulties with reading. During Stark's last several school years with the School Board, Stark engaged in a pattern of misconduct. On June 1, 2015, Stark received, by hand delivery, her first written reprimand. She was disciplined for falsifying three memos by inappropriately using the School Board's letterhead and creating misleading and false documents under co-workers' names without permission. One problem area Respondent had was that she failed to keep her classroom organized and neat. Because of the disorganized book area and unkempt cluttered classroom, Respondent's classroom failed to be an environment conducive to learning and impacted the students' morale negatively. On September 30, 2015, Principal Seal, by memorandum, addressed two of Stark's work deficiencies. Seal pointed out to Stark that her classroom management did not correspond with the School Wide Positive Behavior Support Plan and that Stark's 2014-2015 Reading Running Records ("RRR")2 were not accurately and properly administered. Seal instructed Stark to sign up for a classroom management course through eLearning within a week and notify Seal of the enrollment. Seal even specifically suggested a two- day course that started on October 6, 2015, at the Pew Center. Seal also outlined Stark's RRR inaccuracies and deficiencies in the September memo, which included Stark's failure to provide an accurate report on September 25th for a student during a scheduled SBT meeting, improper use of school materials as a benchmark, and writing in the teacher materials with student's information inappropriately. As a result of Stark's RRR shortcomings, Seal directed Stark to sign up for the next RRR training available on either October 13, 14, 23, or 24, 2015, through eLearning and instructed Stark to verify the RRR training enrollment. The memo ended with the following: "Failure to comply with these directives will be considered insubordination and may result [in] disciplinary action to include up to suspension or termination of employment." On November 10, 2015, Seal specifically directed Stark to clean up her classroom and update her students' progress on the class bulletin board. Stark was provided a deadline of on or before November 24, 2015, to correct the performance deficiencies. Stark did not do so. In December 2015, Stark still had student work posted from August and her classroom was not up to date. On December 18, 2015, a pre-disciplinary meeting was held. In that meeting, Stark informed Seal that she went to training, but admitted that she did not provide the required documentation of attendance. Stark's performance with RRR had not improved. By February 2016, Respondent had failed to comply with Seal's directives of November 10, 2015. Stark's classroom was unacceptable and had not been cleaned up, updated, organized as directed. The closet was cluttered from the floor to the ceiling with boxes, papers, and books. Additionally, Stark's student work bulletin board still was not changed and up to date. On February 12, 2016, Seal met with Stark to address the issues and gave Stark a verbal reprimand with written notation. The verbal reprimand with written notation memo stated that Respondent was insubordinate for fail[ing] to comply with "directives given to her in the memorandums dated September 30, 2015, and November 10, 2015." On May 24, 2016, a pre-determination meeting was held with Stark and she acknowledged that she had fallen behind in the RRR and math/reading assessments but planned to catch up by the end of the year. On June 2, 2016, Seal held another disciplinary conference with Stark. Seal provided Stark a written reprimand by memo detailing that Stark exhibited: poor judgement, lack of follow up, inappropriate supervision of students, excessive absence without pay, failure to properly and accurately administer and record Reading Running Records as well as Math and Reading assessments, during the school year 2015/2016 with fidelity and insubordination. Seal also instructed Stark in the memo: Effective immediately, you are directed to provide the appropriate level of supervision to your students, follow your academic schedule, meet deadlines with respect to inputting reading and math date into EDW, accurately complete Running Reading Records, cease from taking unpaid time and follow all School Board Policies and State Statutes. Finally, pursuant to the CTA contract, I am directing you to provide a doctor's note for any absences going forward. This requirement will be in effect until December 22, 2016. Respondent failed to follow the leave directive of the written reprimand of June 2, 2016. Stark's duty day started at 7:50 a.m. On October 14, 2016, Stark notified Diamond View at 8:26 a.m. that she would not report to work because she had a ride to an appointment. On November 29, 2016, Stark notified the school at 7:40 a.m. by stating, "I have a meeting boo," as she took the full day off. On December 16, 2016, she notified the school at 6:24 a.m. that her husband requested a shopping day and family activities for the day. On February 10, 2017, Stark notified the school at 7:38 a.m., "I am going to a friend's house today to help them." On March 2, 2017, she notified the school at 7:14 a.m. that "I am finalizing a college class today." On March 7, 2017, Stark notified the school at 6:18 a.m. that Nationals verses Boston were at the new park and she would not be in to work. On April 5, 2017, Stark notified the school at 7:34 a.m. that she had a meeting and missed half the school day. Stark's absences of September 21, September 23, October 14, November 29, and December 16, 2016, were unauthorized leave and her leave of March 2, March 7, April 5, and February 10, 2017, were days without pay. Stark's excessive absenteeism disrupted the learning environment for her students and caused Respondent to miss out on valuable School Board resources she needed to perform her job duties and correct her work performance deficiencies. By missing work, Stark was neither able to obtain the needed available professional development nor obtain support from the Literacy Staff Developer. Stark's ineptness continued throughout the 2016-2017 school year. Stark failed to provide requested student information needed to assist in creating report cards for several former students, which adversely impacted the school and the students because, among other things, the school was not able to provide the students' new teachers with accurate data for placement. Stark was offered coaching services to improve her work performance through Peer Assistance Review ("PAR"). Stark failed to show up and meet with the trainers assigned to provide her support on January 20, February 1, and March 7, 2017. Stark failed to submit the required SBT documentation for five students timely. Stark's duties included meeting with the parents of each student to communicate the students' academic concerns. Stark did not meet with the parents. Instead, Stark submitted five untimely falsified student records indicating parent meetings that did not take place. She also forged translator Torres-Vega signature like she was present at the meetings, when Torres-Vega had not participated. On or about April 24, 2017, an investigation report was completed detailing Stark's misconduct for the 2016-2017 school year. The investigative summary concluded Stark failed to comply with numerous directives given by the principal and vice principal. Stark failed to complete and submit SBT documentation for five students who could have benefited from additional supportive services. Respondent falsified student records indicating she contacted and conferenced with the parents for each student. She also falsified that a translator had participated in the parent conferences. At the same time, Stark sent last minute notification emails to the principal as to why she would not be reporting to work, failed to notify Seal in a timely manner when she would not be reporting to work, and did not prepare substitute lesson plans. Stark's unexcused absences totaled approximately 40 hours without pay within a five month period and did not adhere to the 24 hour advanced notice requirement of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Respondent's absences from work also caused her to miss valuable School Board training and support. Ultimate Findings of Fact Stark failed to fulfill the responsibilities of a teacher by not preparing and submitting the documents to the SBT so that the students could qualify for the support and services after multiple follow-ups and reminders by her supervisors. Stark's actions of falsifying the five students' records with Torres-Vega's signature and indicating that she met with the parents when she did not was ethical misconduct, failure to exercise best professional judgment, failure to provide for accurate or timely record keeping, and falsifying records. Stark misused her time and attendance when she had exhausted her paid time, but continued to use leave without pay when her work was not up to date and after she had been reprimanded and warned regarding absences by Seal. Stark's explanation of her absences failed to fall in the category for extenuating circumstances and her absences disrupted the learning environment. Stark was insubordinate and also failed to follow procedures, policies, and directives of the Diamond View principal and vice principal. Stark never cleaned up her classroom and failed to protect the learning environment. She also did not update her RRRs as instructed by Seal. On February 1, 2017, Vice Principal Diaz had also instructed Stark to always follow and adhere to an academic schedule with the students in order to provide structured learning. Instead, Stark continued to constantly allow the students to walk around the classroom, draw and eat snacks, without an academic schedule. By letter dated September 19, 2017, Respondent was notified that the School Board was recommending she receive a 10 day suspension without pay because of her misconduct. On or about October 4, 2017, the School Board took action by voting to suspend Respondent for 10 days without pay. Petitioner ultimately filed charges against Stark by Administrative Complaint dated November 8, 2018, that alleged Stark violated the following School Board policies: Failure to Fulfil the Responsibilities of a Teacher pursuant to School Board Policy 1.013(4), Responsibilities of School District Personnel and Staff; School Board Policy 2.34, Records and Reports; Collective Bargaining Agreement with CTA, Article II, Section U, Lesson Plans Failure to Protect the Learning Environment pursuant to School Board Policy 0.01(2)(3), Commitment to the Student, Principle I-(formally 0.01(2)(c); 6A- 10.081(2)(a)(1), F.A.C., Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession Misuse of Time/Attendance pursuant to School Board Policies 3.80(2)(c), Leave of Absence; Collective Bargaining Agreement with CTA, Article V, Leaves, Section B Ethical Misconduct pursuant to School Board Policy 3.02(4)(b), (4)(d), (4)(f), (4)(h), and (4)(j), Code of Ethics; School Board Policy 3.02(5)(c)(iii), Code of Ethics; 6A-10.081(1)(c) and (2)(c)(1), F.A.C., Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida Failure to Exercise Best Professional Judgment pursuant to School Board Policy 3.02(4)(a), Code of Ethics; 6A-10-081(1)(b), F.A.C., Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida Insubordination: Failure to Follow Policy, Rules, Directive, or Statute pursuant to School Board Policy 3.10(6), Conditions of Employment with the District; School Board Policy 1.013(1), Responsibilities of School District Personnel and Staff. Respondent contested the reasons for suspension.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Palm Beach County School Board, enter a final order: Finding Deborah Stark in violation of all six violations in the Administrative Complaint; and Upholding Deborah Stark's 10-day suspension without pay for just cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of July, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY 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 25th day of July, 2018.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner was the subject of unlawful employment practice based on sex.
Findings Of Fact Since November 2006, Petitioner, Michael J. Pappas, was a male employee of Respondent, Bay County School Board. Initially, he was employed as a part-time substitute teacher at Patronis Elementary School (Patronis). Patronis has an “A” ranking under Florida’s school accountability program and was ranked as a Top 100 School in 2005. Eventually, Petitioner became a full-time para-professional (aide) assigned to work exclusively with an autistic child enrolled at the school. Ellie Spivey (female), the principal at Patronis, recommended Petitioner for the full-time position. Petitioner was hired under an annual contract. In addition to his employment with Respondent, Petitioner served as Captain of a Dolphin tour boat he operated out of Panama City. In his para-professional position, Petitioner worked with Art Beakley (male) and Mary Martin (female). Both were third grade teachers at Patronis. Mr. Beakley was Petitioner’s direct supervisor and, like Petitioner, had been recommended for his teaching position by Ellie Spivey. Petitioner’s performance as a para-professional was mixed. At best, both teachers indicated Petitioner’s performance was adequate, when he was present at the school. Often Petitioner was absent from school or left school early to go on dolphin tours. Petitioner often did not notify either teacher that he would be absent. Petitioner told Mr. Beakley that he could make more money as a boat captain on the dolphin tours. On the days Petitioner was absent, the autistic student’s mother would act as his caretaker during the day. Eventually, both teachers complained to the principal about Petitioner’s absences from school. The principal did not discipline Petitioner because the absences were taken on allowable personal leave days. However, Petitioner’s clear preference for working the dolphin tours as opposed to working at the school did not reflect well on his dedication or enthusiasm for a career at the school. Brooke Loyed, an Assistant Principal at Patronis, evaluated Petitioner’s employment based on her observations of Petitioner. She was unaware of Mr. Beakley’s and Ms. Martin’s complaints regarding Petitioner’s absences. On April 3, 2007, Petitioner received a good evaluation with no problems noted. However, funding for Petitioner’s para-professional position was not available for the next school term. In mid-to- late April 2007, Petitioner was advised his contract would not be renewed. That same month, after learning of the non-renewal, Petitioner asked Mr. Beakley and Ms. Martin for a letter of recommendation. Mr. Beakley reluctantly agreed to give Petitioner a letter of recommendation and drafted a letter highlighting Petitioner’s good-qualities. The letter did not mention Petitioner’s absences and lack of enthusiasm. Initially, Ms. Martin refused to sign the letter by making excuses about why she had not signed the letter drafted by Mr. Beakley. However, she finally signed the letter so that Petitioner would stop asking her to do so. Ms. Martin now regrets that she signed the letter. In May 2007, Ms. Spivey was developing classes and personnel pairings for the next school term. She asked Kara Powell, a teacher at Patronis, if she was willing to work with a full-time para-professional in her classroom. Ms. Spivey did not indicate to Ms. Powell who the para-professional would be. Ms. Powell was not aware that Petitioner’s contract would not be renewed for the next term. Ms. Powell told Ms. Spivey that she would not be interested in working with a para-professional in her classroom if that person was Petitioner. Ms. Powell told Ms. Spivey that Petitioner made her uncomfortable because he would sit very close to her in the lunchroom and that he sometimes made comments she did not care for. She also told Ms. Spivey that Petitioner had once invited her and some other female teachers to go on a dolphin tour in their bathing suits without their husbands. Ms. Powell felt the invitation was inappropriate and made for sexual purposes. The evidence did not demonstrate that Petitioner invited the teachers to go on a dolphin tour for inappropriate reasons. From Petitioner’s point of view, the invitation was made to a group of teachers sitting as a group in the cafeteria during a light-hearted conversation at the table. He invited his co-workers because he thought they might enjoy going on a dolphin tour. He limited the invitation to his co-workers because his boat was not big enough to take spouses or boyfriends. On the other hand, other teachers confirmed Ms. Powell’s story, and also indicated that Mr. Powell made them feel uncomfortable. Since the school year was through and Petitioner’s contract was not going to be renewed, Ms. Spivey did not investigate further and did not take any formal action against Petitioner regarding the reports of these teachers. Eventually, due to the lack of funds, Petitioner’s contract expired and was not renewed. There was no evidence that demonstrated the non-renewal of Petitioner’s contract was based on Petitioner’s gender. In the summer of 2007, Patronis had several open teaching positions. Respondent advertised the positions for 5 days. Eventually, the District Office developed an applicant list for Patronis and forwarded it to the school. There were over 90 applicants on the list, of which almost 95 percent were female. A minimum of five applicants was required to be interviewed by the school with the same questions and scoring form used for each candidate. In June and July 2007, interviews for the open teaching positions were held at Patronis. Ms. Spivey and Ms. Loyed selected Petitioner for an interview. Other candidates were Sarah Patterson, Jessica Kelley, Debra Holbrook, Kim Rogers, Sasha Aufschieider and Jana Jackins. Petitioner did not have a good interview and did not promote himself or his qualifications during the interview. He was not particularly enthusiastic or upbeat about teaching. Other than his application, Petitioner did not bring any letters of recommendation or updated resume to the interview. He did not provide the Bleakley letter discussed earlier. He did not discuss current teaching methods or techniques even though the interview questions provided him an opportunity to do so. Importantly, Petitioner did not appear to be current with those methods. From his application, it was clear that he had received his teaching degree over 20 years ago and had had no full-time classroom teaching experience since that time. Petitioner refused to be considered for a special education teaching position. The refusal did not reflect well on his dedication or enthusiasm for teaching. Petitioner also had no “English as a second language (ESOL)” experience or certification. ESOL certification is a desirable skill for teachers today. Because of the poor interview and given the recent allegations that he made other teachers uncomfortable, Petitioner was not offered any of the open positions at Patronis. The evidence did not demonstrate that the reasons for not hiring Petitioner were invalid or a pretext to mask discriminatory action. The successful applicants for the open positions at Patronis were Sarah Patterson, Jessica Kelley, Debra Holbrook, Kim Rogers, Sasha Aufschieider and Jana Jackins. All of the candidates hired for the open positions were female. However, that fact alone is not demonstrative of discrimination given the fact that the applicant pool was almost 95 percent female. The evidence demonstrated that all of these candidates were more qualified for the open teaching positions than Petitioner. All of the applicants had better interviews. All showed more enthusiasm and dedication to teaching. All demonstrated that they had knowledge of the latest teaching methods and techniques. Finally, all scored higher in the interview. Kim Rogers had three years of teaching experience at a Title I school. Her Title I experience was a good indication that she had experience in teaching at-risk children. Sarah Patterson had a year of classroom experience and ESOL certification. She also was known to be a very hard worker at school. Jessica Kelley and Debra Holbrook were new teachers who had recently completed their teaching internship at Patronis. Both were current in the latest teaching methods and techniques and had demonstrated such during the interview. Both were highly thought of by their teaching peers. Sasha Aufschieider was ESOL-certified. She also was highly recommended by her peers. Likewise, Jana Jackins was highly recommended by her teaching peers. When Petitioner discovered that he would not be offered a position, he complained to Dr. Richardson at the District Office. At the time, he did not indicate that he thought he had been discriminated against based on his sex. Instead, he indicated that he thought he had been promised a position. Dr. Richardson determined that the District hiring policies had been followed. She offered to help Petitioner and contacted the principals at Cedar Grove Elementary School, a Title I school, and Surfside Middle School. On July 19, 2007, Petitioner interviewed at Cedar Grove Elementary for a position involving remediation of students who failed the FCAT. The school and the position required an enthusiastic and motivated person who could work with high-risk, failing students. The interview was conducted by the principal, Billy May (male). Petitioner performed adequately in his interview with Mr. May. Petitioner was not selected for the position. The successful candidate, Heather Six (female), was more qualified for the position. She scored higher and had ESOL certification. Indeed, there was no evidence that demonstrated Petitioner was discriminated against based on his sex when he was not hired for the Cedar Grove position. Similarly, Petitioner was not hired for the position at Surfside Middle School. The interview was conducted by the principal, Sue Harrell (female). Petitioner again did adequately in the interview. The successful candidate for the position was Kenneth Stem (male). As with Cedar Grove, there was no evidence of discrimination or pretext in the hiring of Mr. Stem over Petitioner and the Petition for Relief should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of January, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 8th day of January, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael J. Pappas 6208 North Lagoon Drive Panama City Beach, Florida 32408 Robert C. Jackson, Esquire Harrison, Sale, McCloy, Duncan & Jackson, Chtd. 304 Magnolia Avenue Post Office Drawer 1579 Panama City, Florida 33402-1579
The Issue Whether Petitioner demonstrated entitlement to a Florida educator’s certificate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Pam Stewart, as Commissioner of Education, is authorized to issue Florida educator’s certificates to persons seeking certification to become school teachers in the state of Florida. Petitioner, Robert Grimsley, is a high school teacher who teaches liberal arts and algebra. He is in his first year of teaching and currently teaches at Washington High School in Pensacola, Florida. He seeks to obtain an educator’s certificate to continue teaching. On June 6, 2016, Petitioner submitted an on-line application for a Florida Educator’s Certificate in mathematics (grades 6-12). The application included a section for “Criminal offense record(s) (Report any record other than sealed or expunged in this section.)” Under that section, was the following question: “Have you ever entered into a pretrial diversion program or deferred prosecution program related to a criminal offense?” In his application, Petitioner answered affirmatively that he had entered into a pretrial diversion program related to a criminal offense. Based on the fields provided in the application, he disclosed the following criminal offense as indicated below: City Where Arrested State Date of Arrest Charge(s) Disposition Tallahassee FL 1/2015 Less Than 20 Grams Community Service Petitioner did not disclose any other offenses in the application. There was no definition of “arrest date” provided in the application. Mr. Kossec, program director of Professional Practices Services, testified that Petitioner could have included the dates for his Notice to Appear. However, the application did not indicate that such an option was available to applicants. On August 3, 2016, Professional Practices Services sent Petitioner a letter requesting additional information regarding his criminal offenses so it could conduct an investigation of his criminal history. He submitted documents reflecting two offenses for which he completed a pretrial diversion program. The submissions included the “No Information” for each offense, which disclosed the following: Case No. 14-000004MMA (related to January 31, 2013 offense); Disposition: No Information due to completed Misdemeanor Diversion Program (filed on February 24, 2014). Case No. 15MM00158 (related to January 20, 2015 offense); Disposition: No Information due to completed Diversion Program (filed on March 6, 2015). The parties stipulated to the following facts regarding Petitioner’s criminal history and application: On or about December 31, 2013, Applicant illegally possessed marijuana, as a result of the aforementioned conduct, the Applicant was issued a Notice to Appear by law enforcement for a criminal violation. Applicant was charged with Possession of Marijuana and entered into a pre-trial [sic] diversionary program. On or about January 20, 2015, Applicant illegally possessed marijuana, as a result of the aforementioned conduct, law enforcement arrested Applicant for possessing marijuana. Applicant was charged with Possession of Marijuana and entered into a pre-trial [sic] diversionary program. On or about June 6, 2016, Applicant submitted an application for an educator’s certificate. In said application, Applicant was asked the following question: “Have you ever entered into a pretrial diversion program or deferred prosecution program related to a criminal offense?” Applicant failed to disclose the fact that he entered into a pre-trial [sic] diversionary program for the December 31, 2013--Marijuana Possession arrest. There is no dispute that Petitioner had two criminal offenses for which he participated in a pretrial diversion program. At hearing, Petitioner testified that he did not list the December 2013 offense on the application because he received a Notice to Appear for that offense. Petitioner testified that he did not understand that being released with a Notice to Appear1/ was an arrest because he was not physically arrested. The two officers involved in the respective arrests testified at hearing and described their detainment of Petitioner. On December 31, 2013, Lt. King stopped Petitioner’s vehicle for driving in excess of the posted speed limit. He ultimately found marijuana in the vehicle. Lt. King read Petitioner his rights, issued him a Notice to Appear, and released him. Lt. King did not handcuff Petitioner at any point during the traffic stop. Lt. King testified that he explained to Petitioner that although he was not being physically handcuffed and transported to the local jail, he was placed under arrest. Petitioner did not recall any explanation that a Notice to Appear is still an arrest. Lt. King’s offense report, completed on the same date as the incident, did not reference any explanation to Petitioner that the Notice to Appear was an actual arrest. Petitioner’s testimony is found to be credible. The detainment for the second incident was different from the first. On January 20, 2015, Officer Andre Buckley, a FSU police officer, responded to a complaint of the smell of burnt marijuana coming from a restroom on the campus of FSU. Officer Buckley arrived at the suspected restroom and confirmed the smell of burnt marijuana. After discovering Petitioner in the restroom and in possession of marijuana, Officer Buckley placed Petitioner in handcuffs. Another officer transported Petitioner to the Leon County jail for booking. Despite Petitioner’s mistaken belief regarding the December 2013 arrest, he was indeed arrested. The facts here demonstrate that Petitioner did not understand that he was arrested for the December 2013 offense and, as a result, was confused regarding whether he should include the offense in the application. There was no effort to conceal his participation in the pretrial diversion program for the December 2013 offense because he submitted documents reflecting the information upon request. The undersigned finds that he simply made an error when completing the application. Both misdemeanor criminal offenses occurred while Petitioner was a college student. Since completing the diversion programs, he has earned his Bachelor of Science degree in Statistics. In his letter to the Professional Practice Services dated July 20, 2016, he indicated that he has discontinued using drugs. Further, he has taught for approximately one year without incident. Petitioner’s actions demonstrate that Petitioner had no intent to conceal his record, engaged in no fraudulent conduct in completing the application, and did not fail to maintain honesty in the submission of the application so as to warrant denial of an educator’s certificate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order granting Petitioner, Robert Eugene Grimsley’s, application for a Florida educator’s certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of April, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of April, 2017.
