The Issue Whether Respondent should be terminated from her employment with the Seminole County School Board.
Findings Of Fact Mack has been employed by the School Board for six years. During the 2001-2002 school year, Mack was a school lunch assistant assigned to Seminole High School. Her immediate supervisor was John Caldwell (Caldwell). Mack received satisfactory evaluations of her work for Petitioner until April 2002, when she received an evaluation from Caldwell criticizing her in several areas. On April 12, 2002, a Friday, Mack was upset about her evaluation, showed her evaluation to fellow workers and loudly complained about her evaluation. She was becoming disruptive to the cafeteria operations. Caldwell called Mack into his office to discuss her behavior. She became loud, and Caldwell had to call the Assistant Principal. Mack was sent home. Caldwell did not tell her not to come back, and, at that time, did not tell her that he was going to recommend that she be terminated. On Monday, April 15, 2002, Mack called her workplace and said that she was sick and was going to the emergency room. On April 16, 2002, Mack called in and spoke to Janelle Harris (Harris), who was Caldwell's assistant. Mack told Harris that she had the flu and would not be coming to work. The policy for a food service worker at Seminole High School who was going to be absent from work because of sickness was that the worker was to call either Caldwell or Harris and notify them of the absence. The telephone in Caldwell's office has voice mail capabilities; thus, if Caldwell or Harris were not in the office, the sick employee was to leave a message on the voice mail. Caldwell and Harris were the only two persons who had access to the code to retrieve messages from the voice mail. On April 17, 2002, Mack was absent from work, but did not call in and give an explanation for her absence. Mack continued to be absent from work without calling in. On April 26, 2002, Mack came to the school office and picked up her paycheck. She did not go to the cafeteria and tell Caldwell or Harris why she had not been at work. Learning that Mack had gone to the school to pick up her check, Caldwell called Mack at her home. Mack told Caldwell that she had called in and left a voice mail. No messages were left on the voice mail by Mack between April 17 and April 26. Caldwell explained to Mack that she was required to call in unless she was in the hospital or could not talk. Daniel Andrews (Andrews), the Director of Food Services, prepared a letter to be sent to Mack under Caldwell's signature. The letter, dated May 2, 2002, advised Mack that she had continued to be absent without calling in to notify Caldwell of her absence and to provide a reason for the absence. The letter further advised her that three days of absence without leave required a penalty of termination. Mack was requested to contact Caldwell by noon on May 7, 2002, or the case would be referred to Andrews. Mack did not receive the letter until May 8, 2002; however, she never contacted Caldwell concerning the letter. By letter dated May 10, 2002, Andrews advised Mack that because of her continued absences without leave and her failure to provide justification for her absences that he would be requesting that her termination be recommended to the School Board. Mack received this letter on May 18, 2002. By letter dated May 20, 2002, Paul Hagerty, Superintendent of Public Schools for the School District of Seminole County, Florida, advised Mack that he would be appearing before the School Board on May 28, 2002, and recommending that she be suspended without pay. He further advised her that at the June 11, 2002, School Board meeting he would file a recommendation that her employment be terminated effective June 12, 2002. Mack contacted Andrews by telephone and left a voice mail. On May 21, 2002, Andrews returned her call, and Mack told him that she had gotten the voice mail when she tried to call Caldwell but did not leave any messages. Andrews would have accepted a reasonable explanation from Mack for her absences when she talked to him on May 21, but she did not provide any plausible reason for not notifying Caldwell of her absences nor did she ever provide any documentation from a doctor that she had been ill during her absences. Mack told Andrews that she did not care if her employment was terminated. By letter dated May 25, 2002, Mack requested a hearing on the decision to terminate her employment. Mack did not request a hearing concerning the recommendation for her suspension. On May 28, 2002, the School Board suspended Mack, effective May 29, 2002. Mack had a job at a local barbeque restaurant during the evening hours. While she was absent from her job at Seminole High School, she continued to work at the barbeque restaurant. The Non-Instructional Personnel of Seminole County Board of Public Instruction, Inc., and the School Board have entered into a collective bargaining agreement, effective July 1, 1997, through June 30, 2002, covering the wages, hours, and the terms and conditions of employment of the public employees within the bargaining unit. The collective bargaining agreement applies to Mack's employment with the School Board. Article VII, Sections 5, 11, and 15 of the collective bargaining agreement provide: Section 5. Regular employees who have been hired for a minimum of three (3) continuous years (without a break in service) shall not be disciplined (which shall include reprimands), suspended or terminated except for just cause. * * * C. An employee may be suspended without pay or discharged for reasons including, but not limited to, the following providing just cause is present: * * * 10. Improper use of sick leave. Section 11. Absence Without Leave Employees will be considered absent without leave if they fail to notify their principal, appropriate director or supervisor that they will be absent from duty and the reason for such absence. Absence without leave is a breach of contract and may be grounds for immediate dismissal. Section 15 Employees shall report absences and the reason for such absences prior to the start of their duty day in accordance with practices established at each cost center. An employee who has been determined to have been AWOL shall be subject to the following progressive discipline procedures: 1st Offense--Written reprimand and one day suspension. 2nd Offense--Five day suspension without pay. 3rd Offense--Recommend for termination. The School Board interprets the collective bargaining agreement to mean that each day an employee is absent without leave is a separate offense. At no time did the School Board issue Mack a written reprimand, one-day suspension, or a five- day suspension prior to her termination, as set forth in Section 15 of the collective bargaining agreement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Dorothy Mack was absent without leave, suspending her for one day, and issuing a reprimand. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 10th day of April, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas L. Johnson, Esquire Chamblee, Johnson & Haynes, P.A. 215 West Verne Street, Suite D Tampa, Florida 33606 Sandra J. Pomerantz, Esquire Seminole County School Board 400 East Lake Mary Boulevard Sanford, Florida 32773-7127 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 1244 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Paul J. Hagerty, Superintendent Seminole County School Board 400 East Lake Mary Boulevard Sanford, Florida 32773-7127 Honorable Jim Horne Commissioner of Education Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street Turlington Building, Suite 1514 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Respondent, Claudia Walker, was employed as a continuing contract teacher by Petitioner Broward County School Board. The Respondent taught from January 1979 through November 1, 1984 at Bright Horizons School. In November 1984, she transferred to South Florida State Exceptional Student Center and thereafter taught elementary school age children with behavioral problems. Among those assigned to her Self-contained classroom were some homicidal and suicidal students with low impulse control. During the time Respondent has worked for the Broward County School Board, her teaching evaluations have been good, to outstanding, to exceptional. She has never previously been cited or disciplined. Doris Seitner was employed by Petitioner as a teaching assistant from approximately September 3, 1985 to December 3, 1985 and was assigned to Respondent's class. On Thursday, November 7, 1985, Respondent and Seitner took the class of about 25 students on a field trip to the Metro Zoo. Prior to their departure on the bus, Ms. Seitner noticed Respondent entering the staff restroom. When Respondent emerged, a student immediately entered the restroom. Upon the student exiting the restroom, Ms. Seitner also entered the restroom where she found a small pink glasses case. Believing the case belonged to the student, the aide opened the purse and saw a plastic baggie containing a white powder, a small vial, a razor blade, and several cut up straws. Upon leaving the restroom, Ms. Seitner encountered the Respondent, who identified the case as hers and took it. At this point, the state of events was that Doris Seitner had seen a substance she thought was cocaine. Doris Seitner is not an expert on drug identification. She admits never previously having seen cocaine up close. Although she had seen some drug abuse classes at the school, she had no courses in cocaine and had never smelled or tasted it. She did not open the plastic baggie or examine its contents on November 7, 1985. However, believing that the case contained cocaine and drug related paraphernalia, Ms. Seitner confided what she had found, together with her suspicions to a number of people and sought their advice on how to proceed. Shawn Joseph, another teacher's aide, suggested Ms. Seitner inform the school officials of what she had found. Later in the evening, Ms. Seitner contacted Pam Tepsic, a teacher on task assignment, who suggested she advise the principal immediately. The acting principal, Kathryn Mangan, upon learning of the discovery, contacted Howard Stearns, Petitioner's Director of Internal Affairs, who referred her to William Bohan. At all times material, William Bohan was employed by Petitioner as an investigator for Internal Affairs and has been a certified law enforcement officer. On November 12, 1985, Mangan told Bohan about Ms. Seitner's belief that she had seen cocaine in Respondent's glasses case. Bohan instructed Mangan to take no action but to call him in case the glasses case was seen again. Bohan interviewed Ms. Seitner and instructed her to watch out for the case. On the morning of Monday, November 25, 1985, while Respondent was in her classroom, Ms. Seitner came in and asked if she could fetch lunch for Respondent. Respondent retrieved her purse from the back room of the self- contained classroom, a location called "the teacher planning area", wherein she normally isolates her purse from the students, and gave Ms. Seitner money to pay for her lunch. Doris Seitner sat at the desk, and looking down into the Respondent's unzipped purse, spotted the pink glasses case. Seitner notified Tepsic, who notified John Smith, acting principal, who notified Bohan, who came to the school. Bohan and Tepsic walked to Respondent's classroom. When they arrived there, Tepsic approached Respondent in the classroom; Bohan stationed himself at the door. Tepsic told Respondent that a man wanted to see her in the principal's office. Tepsic avoided responding to Respondent's repeated requests to know what was going on or answered Respondent that she did not know what was going on. Respondent walked with Tepsic to the door. Bohan asked Respondent if the purse by her classroom desk was hers. The Respondent answered, "yes" whereupon Bohan walked over, picked up the purse, and, retaining the purse, began walking with Respondent and Pam Tepsic to John Smith's office. On the way to Smith's office, Respondent told Bohan she could carry her own purse but Bohan responded that he could carry it. She repeated her questions to Pam Tepsic, asking what was going on and received the same evasions. In making the immediately preceding finding of fact, the testimony of Pam Tepsic, Investigator Bohan, and Respondent have been considered and weighed. While Investigator Bohan testified that Respondent said and did nothing to claim her purse after he seized it and Pam Tepsic initially related that Respondent said nothing about her purse at any time in the classroom or while walking over to the principal's office, Pam Tepsic's testimony as a whole reveals that she was particularly nervous during all these incidents and that at a point in time closer to the actual events, she had believed some such conversation took place between Bohan and Respondent, but that on the date of formal hearing she simply could not recall any conversation between Bohan and the Respondent, including Bohan's asking Respondent if the purse were hers and Respondent's reply, "yes", statements Bohan and Respondent each testified had been made. The Respondent's account of her request to carry her own purse is highly credible. It is simply not credible that any adult woman would not request return of such an intimate item as her purse, containing all her personal effects, including valuables and money, from a man whom she had never seen before in the absence of any explanation of what was going on. Bohan, Tepsic, and Respondent entered John Smith's office. Bohan placed Respondent's purse on Smith's desk in front of himself. Bohan told Respondent he had been informed she was in possession of an illegal drug and asked if she would consent to Bohan's searching her purse. Pam Tepsic's recollection of what happened next was that either Respondent said she would consent to the search or that someone else said Respondent had consented or said something like, "Well, then you consent," to Respondent. Respondent denies ever being asked to consent to a search of her purse. John Smith understood Bohan to ask permission to search the purse and understood that Respondent said "yes" to Bohan's request. Bohan relates an affirmative answer from Respondent. Before he started searching her purse, but after the question concerning consent/permission, Bohan asked Respondent did she have anything in her purse that might be a problem that she might want to tell him about before he searched her purse. Tepsic, Bohan, Smith, and Respondent are in agreement that Respondent replied, "yes" that she did want to tell Bohan what was in the purse. The explanation given at that time was that early that morning she had taken cocaine and other items from her estranged husband who had a drug problem. Bohan removed from Respondent's purse the pink glasses case; some other unrelated items; four small plastic bags containing a white powdery residue; four straws cut 2-1/4 inches to 2-3/4 inches long; one GEM single edge razor blade; one small, 3/4 inch empty vial; one piece of aluminum foil 2-1/2 inches by 3-1/4 inches; eight straws in Wendy's wrappers; one wooden toothpick; and one nickel. When Respondent persisted in her explanation that the drugs and paraphernalia were her husband's property and that she had taken them to protect him but in response to further questioning by Bohan, Respondent was unable to flesh out an explanation she had begun concerning the husband's drug counselling and treatment and her participation therein, Bohan told Respondent that her options were either jail in Fort Lauderdale via the Broward County Sheriff's Department or discussing the matter at Petitioner's Internal Affairs Office. Although Bohan asserted that he made no "threats," Bohan, Tepsic, Smith, and Respondent concur that these were the only alternatives Bohan provided Respondent during their confrontation in Smith's office. A subsequent laboratory analysis conducted on the items seized November 25, 1985 revealed the presence of cocaine only in the small plastic bag containing the white powder. The property in the purse was taken into the Internal Affairs Office for inventory. These items, including the cocaine, were described by Ms. Seitner as "similar" to the items she saw in the pink case on November 7, 1985. Respondent customarily keeps a razor blade in her purse to use for arts and crafts projects in her class. Other teachers at the center also use razor blades to perform art projects. The Respondent customarily keeps drinking straws in her purse to give to her three small children to drink with while they are riding in her car. Article XVIII, Section K, of the current collective bargaining agreement between the Broward Teachers Union and Petitioner provides: "No investigation of an em- ployee, beyond preliminary inquiry, by the Internal Affairs Department may be undertaken without written notice to the employee, such notice to include a statement of the cause giving rise to the investigation." No written notice was given to Respondent by Petitioner. A sign posted on the grounds of the school at the front gate notifies anyone entering that they are subject to being searched while on the grounds. (TR 149-150) Respondent accompanied Bohan to Internal Affairs where Bohan and Stearns interrogated her. Respondent again told them the drugs inventoried belonged to her husband. She further revealed to Stearns, apparently in hopes of receiving counselling instead of dismissal, that she had been clean of cocaine during the nine months of her recent pregnancy and clean recently until the immediately preceding Saturday night. (TR-205) After Internal Affairs finished questioning Respondent, Bohan took her to the Employee Assistance Program and then later to the Broward Alcohol and Rehabilitation Center. Respondent claims she was denied use of a phone to contact anyone until she reached the Employee Assistance Program, but she concedes there were public phones available at the school and she did not insist on using any. At hearing, Respondent testified that she had never used cocaine and would not have used it in November, 1985 because she was breastfeeding her new daughter. She also testified that the contraband items were taken from her husband the morning of November 25, however, rather than corroborating this story, the testimony of Wilton Johnson, her estranged husband, is contrary to Respondent's account of the incident in so many details as to adversely affect Respondent's credibility that the incident occurred. Respondent was suspended with pay November 26-28, 1985, the remainder of the school week. On Monday, December 2, 1985, she was permitted to resume her classroom duties until she was notified of suspension with pay, December 6, 1985. On December 19, 1985, Petitioner suspended Respondent without pay.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a final order dismissing Counts I and II, finding Respondent guilty as charged in Counts III and IV, and dismissing her from employment. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of September, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of September, 1986.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated sections 1012.795(1)(g), and (j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(c)1.,1 as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the appropriate penalty. 1 Unless otherwise noted, all citations to the Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code are to the 2017 versions in effect at the time of the alleged violations.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 784361, covering the areas of Educational Leadership, Emotionally Handicapped, English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), Physical Education, School Principal, and Specific Learning Disabilities, which is valid through June 30, 2021. Since 2001, Respondent has held a number of positions with Citrus County Schools, including positions as an ESE teacher, dean of students, assistant principal, and principal. At the time of the hearing, Respondent was working as an ESE teacher at Citrus Springs Middle School. During the time period pertinent to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint (the 2016-2017 school year), Respondent was employed as an assistant principal at Crystal River Middle in Citrus County Schools. Respondent began as an assistant principal at Crystal River Middle in 2015. At Crystal River Middle, Respondent worked closely with the ESE department, the ESE teachers, aides, paraprofessionals, and Cori Boney, who was the ESE specialist for Crystal River Middle. Ms. Boney had worked throughout Citrus County in a number of ESE- related positions before starting at Crystal River Middle in 2011 or 2012 as the ESE specialist. As the ESE specialist, Ms. Boney was responsible for preparing the individual education plan (IEP) paperwork for ESE students, mentoring the ESE teachers, preparing schedules for the ESE paraprofessionals, and working with the families of ESE students. According to Respondent, Ms. Boney was the “go-to” person to find out whether the proper educational and behavioral strategies were being appropriately carried out for ESE students in accordance with their IEPs. Respondent described Ms. Boney as “a guru professionalist, the know-it-all, that tells us when these things [IEP requirements] are happening and when they’re not.” Ms. Boney was considered part of the administrative team. Respondent did not supervise Ms. Boney. At the beginning of the 2016- 2017 schoolyear, administrators were provided a list of employees they supervised and evaluated. On that list, the principal of Crystal River Middle, Inge Frederick, was listed as Ms. Boney’s supervisor. Respondent never evaluated Ms. Boney’s performance, did not provide input on her evaluations, and did not collaborate with the principal on Ms. Boney’s evaluations. Respondent had no authority to discipline Ms. Boney and was not responsible for recommending whether Ms. Boney’s employment contract should be renewed each year. 2 In 2016, Respondent’s relationship with Ms. Boney became more than just a professional relationship. In May 2016, Respondent had double knee surgery. Ms. Boney called him and asked how he was doing. During school administrative meetings held in the early part of the 2016-2017 school year, the subjects of conversation between Respondent and Ms. Boney, as well as other school administrators and staff, would stray away from the business of education to television shows and other casual conversations that were not related to the business of education. Afterwards, Respondent and Ms. Boney would sometimes exchange text messages regarding TV shows. In some of those text messages Ms. Boney would give her opinion as to whether certain actors were handsome, and comment on other non-education related subjects. Over time, the texting and conversations between Respondent and Ms. Boney became more personal, involving subjects regarding Ms. Boney’s former husband, the people she was dating, and clothing she would wear. Respondent also gave Ms. Boney advice regarding her son, who was having trouble at school. Respondent talked to Ms. Boney’s son about how to make better decisions and, at least once, at Ms. Boney’s request, stopped by Ms. Boney’s house to talk to her son. 2 Section 1012.34(3)(c) provides in pertinent part, “The individual responsible for supervising the employee must evaluate the employee’s performance.” Having become somewhat familiar, on one occasion, Respondent told Ms. Boney while they were at school that he knew “her secret.” When he explained to her that he meant he could see her underwear under her clothing, she was embarrassed. But it did not cause an argument or disagreement between them. Respondent and Ms. Boney’s relationship became intimate in the fall of 2016. At the time, Ms. Boney was in a relationship with someone else and Respondent was married. In September 2016, Respondent stopped by Ms. Boney’s house, and while there, he gave her a kiss. It surprised Ms. Boney, but she did not protest. Later, after initially resisting suggestions from Respondent that they should lay together and that nothing would happen, Ms. Boney finally gave in. Contrary to Respondent’s suggestions that nothing would happen, they ended up having sex. After that, Respondent and Ms. Boney met and engaged in sexual intercourse on a number of occasions. Traveling in separate cars, they spent the night together at a motel in Tallahassee on November 23, 2016, and again during the weekend of April 7 through 9, 2017. They also met for two afternoons at a Quality Inn in Crystal River. On another occasion, they met at Respondent’s house. On Valentine’s Day, February 14, 2017, Respondent gave Ms. Boney a tanzanite bracelet. Their affair lasted until sometime in April 2017, when Ms. Boney decided to end it. Their relationship was consensual. While Ms. Boney testified that Respondent was resistant to Ms. Boney’s decision to end the affair and thwarted her attempts to limit contact with him, that testimony, in light of their continued relationship, is unpersuasive. Moreover, the evidence does not show that Respondent used his position as an assistant principal to either begin the affair or resist its end. Ms. Boney and Respondent continued to be friends after the affair. Ms. Boney sought a job in Marion County because she wanted a leadership position. Her application for the position in May 2017 lists Respondent as a reference. In approximately July 2017, Ms. Boney was hired for a new administrative position in Marion County as an ESE coordinator. Around the same time, Respondent was promoted to assistant principal at Crystal River High. Ms. Boney continued her friendship with Respondent. In July 2017, she stopped by Respondent’s office at Crystal River High and brought Respondent a gift. She visited him on more than one occasion at Crystal River High that year. When, in August 2017, Ms. Boney decided to move to Marion County, she asked Respondent for his assistance and Respondent helped her pack for the move. Throughout the 2017-2018 school year, Respondent and Ms. Boney remained friends and exchanged e-mails. On August 24, 2018, Ms. Boney sent a message to Respondent that said, “You can call my office anytime.” Less than 30 days later, in September 2018, Ms. Boney’s boyfriend, Josheau Fairchild, used an application on Ms. Boney’s cell phone and extracted text messages exchanged between Ms. Boney and Respondent evidencing their affair during the 2016-2017 school year. Mr. Fairchild angrily confronted Ms. Boney and demanded that she explain the relationship. When confronted, and at the final hearing, Ms. Boney portrayed her relationship with Respondent in a light most favorable to her. Although admitting her relationship with Respondent was consensual, she portrayed herself as always being uncomfortable with the relationship and trying to end it. Specifically, Ms. Boney testified that she repeatedly tried to stop the relationship, blocked Respondent on her cell phone, and texted Respondent to stop texting her. Ms. Boney further testified that she left Citrus County Schools for a position with the Marion County School District because Respondent made her feel alienated from other staff. Ms. Boney’s testimony in that regard is not credible and inconsistent with evidence clearly showing that Respondent and Ms. Boney had a friendly and cordial relationship before Mr. Fairchild extracted the text messages in question. Those text messages demonstrate that the relationship between Respondent and Ms. Boney was mutual and consensual. They provide no evidence that Ms. Boney was uncomfortable with their relationship or attempted to block off communications with Respondent prior to Mr. Fairchild’s discovery of the text messages. Notably, it was Ms. Boney’s boyfriend, Mr. Fairchild, who, after discovering the text messages, first contacted Citrus County School’s human resources department to complain about Respondent. At the time, Ms. Boney was no longer working for Citrus County Schools and her affair with Respondent had ended well over a year before the complaint. Although the evidence clearly showed that Respondent and Ms. Boney had an affair, it was insufficient to show that Respondent’s past relationship with Ms. Boney during the 2016-2017 school year reduced his effectiveness or ability to perform his duties. Rather, the evidence demonstrated that Respondent satisfactorily performed all of his job duties during the 2016-2017 school year. Both Respondent and Ms. Boney received final summative performance ratings of “Effective” and “Highly Effective,” respectively. The following year, Respondent was promoted to the position of assistant principal at Crystal River High for the 2017-2018 school year. Respondent received an “Effective” final summative performance evaluation for the 2017-2018 school year. Subsequently, Respondent was promoted to the position of principal at Crystal River Middle, the position he held when Ms. Boney’s boyfriend extracted the subject texts in the fall of 2018, which revealed Ms. Boney’s affair with Respondent that had ended over a year before. In addition to the allegation of the affair itself, the Administrative Complaint alleges, “When questioned about the incident, Respondent first admitted to the sexual relationship with the teacher. During the same interview, Respondent lied, and denied having a sexual relationship with the teacher.” Respondent was first questioned by the school district regarding his affair with Ms. Boney during a meeting held at the school district’s office on October 5, 2018, between Respondent, Suzanne Swain, and Brendan Bonomo. Respondent believed the meeting was going to be about an unrelated matter. Ms. Swain instead advised Respondent that complaints had been filed against him by both Joshua Fairchild and Cori Boney. At the time, not believing he would need representation, Respondent waived his right to representation. When told of Ms. Boney’s accusations at the onset of the meeting, Respondent became angry and hurt. He thought about the injustice of Ms. Boney’s allegations and how hard he had worked to obtain his position as a principal. He was upset and “not with it,” during the meeting. The evidence is unclear whether, during that meeting on October 5, 2018, Respondent was provided with the text messages that Ms. Boney’s boyfriend had extracted. According to Respondent, during that meeting, he admitted sending text messages to Ms. Boney of a sexual nature, but denied having sexual intercourse with her. In contrast, according to the testimonies and written statements signed by both Ms. Swain and Mr. Bonomo, Respondent first admitted and then denied having a sexual relationship with Ms. Boney. The interview was not recorded. At that October 5, 2018, meeting, Mr. Bonomo typed up a statement for Respondent stating: During the time that Cori Boney was under my supervision there was no sexual intercourse but there were inappropriate text messages. Respondent signed the typed statement under an acknowledgement stating that “I find the above statement to be true and correct. I certify that I have read it or it has been read to me.” Both Ms. Swain and Mr. Bonomo signed the typed statement as witnesses. On November 2, 2018, Respondent attended another meeting with Ms. Swain and Mr. Bonomo during which Respondent was given an opportunity to respond to evidence gathered during the school district’s investigation. At that meeting, Respondent was allowed to review the text messages extracted from Ms. Boney’s phone. The school district’s attorney, Tom Gonzalez, was also at the meeting. During the meeting, Respondent denied having a sexual relationship with Ms. Boney, denied giving her a tanzanite bracelet, and denied meeting her at hotels. Respondent reiterated these denials during his testimony at the final hearing. Then, at a later meeting with Ms. Swain and Mr. Bonomo held on November 14, 2018, Respondent was told that his employment as principal of Crystal River Middle was going to be terminated. To that, Respondent said something to the effect of, “After 20 years that’s it, I’m done?” Ms. Swain responded by asking Respondent whether he was requesting a position. When Respondent said yes, Ms. Swain left the room. When Ms. Swain returned, she told Respondent that he would be able to secure a position with Citrus County Schools if he drafted a written admission statement. Ms. Swain influenced the content of Respondent’s statement. She told Respondent that the statement would have to say that he had an inappropriate sexual relationship with Ms. Boney while he supervised Ms. Boney at Crystal River Middle. Respondent dictated a statement to Mr. Bonomo and Mr. Bonomo typed the statement for Respondent to sign. The statement, which was dated and signed by Respondent on November 14, 2018, states: Ms. Himmel and the Executive Team, I am formally requesting an instructional position with Citrus County Schools. I acknowledge that I had an inappropriate relationship with Cori Boney during the time she was an ESE Specialist at Crystal River Middle School while I was the Assistant Principal at Crystal River Middle School and I supervised Ms. Boney. I am remorseful for my actions and I want to extend my heartfelt apologies to Mrs. Himmel and the entire Crystal River Community. I appreciate Mrs. Himmel consideration with this request. Sincerely, /s/ Charles Brooks, Jr. After submitting his written statement, Respondent was offered, and he accepted, a position as an ESE teacher at Citrus Springs Middle. Respondent received an “Effective” final summative performance evaluation for his position as an ESE teacher for the 2018-2019 school year. Despite the fact that Respondent, in essence, was demoted from his position as a school principal to a classroom teacher, the Commissioner seeks a two-year suspension of Respondent’s educator’s certificate. A two-year suspension would result in Respondent’s loss of his current position and cause him significant hardship.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued finding that Respondent did not violate section 1012.795(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and dismissing the allegations of the Administrative Complaint in that regard, and further finding that Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by failing to maintain honesty in all professional dealings as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(c), but not imposing any further discipline against Respondent or his educator’s certificate, other than the demotion he has already received from the Citrus County School District. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of October, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III 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 October, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 (eServed) Branden M. Vicari, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. Suite 110 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North Clearwater, Florida 33761 (eServed) Lisa Forbess, Interim Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Respondent violated sections 1012.795(1)(d), 1012.795(1)(g), and 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2008),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a) and 6B- 1.006(5)(a), and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Dunn holds Florida Educator's Certificate 930668, covering the area of exceptional student education, which is valid through June 30, 2012. At all times pertinent to this case, Ms. Dunn was employed as a varying exceptionalities teacher at Seminole High School in the Pinellas County School District (School District). Deborah Joseph (Ms. Joseph), the director of School Partnerships for St. Petersburg College, hired Ms. Dunn for the Spring Semester of 2009 to supervise 12 student interns, teaching in various Pinellas County elementary schools. Ms. Joseph credibly testified that she asked Ms. Dunn what Ms. Dunn would do with her current employment as a Pinellas County teacher, if offered a job. Ms. Dunn stated that she would resign as a teacher. On January 30, 2009, during school hours, Ms. Dunn left the Seminole High School campus without permission from the school administration. When the school's assistant principal, Phillip Wirth (Mr. Wirth), questioned Ms. Dunn about her whereabouts, Ms. Dunn alternately claimed that she had been given permission by another principal to leave the campus and that she had been meeting with another teacher. Neither of Ms. Dunn's explanations was supported by the assistant principal or the teacher. Consequently, on March 9, 2009, Mr. Wirth gave Ms. Dunn a written reprimand for her conduct. The evidence clearly and convincingly shows that Ms. Dunn continued her employment as a teacher at Seminole High School while at the same time working a second job for St. Petersburg College, supervising student interns working in elementary schools. Unfortunately, Ms. Dunn's work hours at Seminole High School coincided with the student interns' work hours at the elementary schools. In order to work both jobs, the record shows that Ms. Dunn was routinely untruthful in her use of sick leave time and left the Seminole High School campus during school hours without permission. For example, the record shows that she requested sick leave on February 26, 2009; March 4, 2009; March 6, 2009; and March 17, 2009. On those very same dates, Ms. Dunn signed in to supervise interns at Pinellas Central Elementary School, Sandy Lake Elementary School, Plumb Elementary School, and McMullen Booth Elementary. Again, on one date, April 23, 2009, Ms. Dunn wrote in her leave request that "family and kids touch [of] flu" and that she was signing out for a doctor's appointment beginning at 9:30 a.m. The record shows on that same day Ms. Dunn miraculously recovered from the illness and was able to eat lunch at her husband's nearby restaurant at 11:50 a.m., and then supervise an intern at Pinellas Central Elementary School at 1:33 p.m. In addition to misusing sick leave, the record clearly showed that Ms. Dunn would leave the Seminole High School campus without permission or signing out and would falsify school records. For example, the record clearly showed that, on April 16, 2009, Ms. Dunn left the school campus without permission. The record shows that she signed out for lunch at 1:00 p.m. and that she returned at 1:30 p.m. However, the records also show at 1:45 p.m., that same day, Ms. Dunn signed into High Point Elementary in order to supervise an intern. Again, on April 22, 2009, Ms. Dunn left Seminole High School without permission or signing out at 9:46 a.m. Walter Weller (Mr. Weller), the principal of Seminole High School, credibly testified that co-teachers, like Ms. Dunn, are placed in exceptional student education classes in order to assist with the students' individual education plans and to help the students succeed. Further, he credibly testified that it was important that teachers remain on campus to keep classrooms covered, and it is a safety issue for the students. James Lott (Mr. Lott), an administrator in the Office of Professional Standards for the School District, credibly testified that the School District felt that progressive discipline was not appropriate in Ms. Dunn's case, because her actions amounted to stealing time and outright falsification of records. Ms. Dunn testified that she did not dispute that she had the second job and claimed that the collective bargaining agreement allowed her to work a second job. Ms. Dunn testified that she never used time off with pay and that the School District should have used a progressive discipline against her, rather than terminating her employment. Further, Ms. Dunn claimed that she and the School District had reached an agreement concerning her claim for unemployment compensation that the School District "would not go after my certificate." Ms. Dunn showed no remorse or acknowledgement of her many untruthful statements or wrongdoing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Ms. Dunn violated sections 1012.795(1)(d), 1012.795(1)(g), and 1012.795(1)(j) and rules 6B-1.006(3)(a) and 6B-1.006(5)(a), and suspending her educator’s certificate for two years followed by a period of three years' probation during which she shall be required, along with standard conditions utilized by the Education Practices Commission, to complete a three-hour college level course in ethics during the first year of her probation. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of April, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S THOMAS P. CRAPPS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of April, 2011.
