The Issue The issue in this case is whether just cause exists for termination of Respondent's contract of employment with the Seminole County School Board.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is responsible for hiring, monitoring and disciplining teachers for the School. The School Board is the governing board of the School District of Seminole County, Florida, pursuant to Section 4, Article IX, Florida Constitution, and Sections 1001.32, 1001.33, 1001.41, 1001.42 and 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2009). (Unless stated specifically otherwise herein, all references to the Florida Statutes shall be to the 2009 codification.) Respondent is a licensed school teacher, certified by the State of Florida. She began teaching in 1992; her employment at the School started in 2002. Respondent is certified as an Exceptional Student Education (ESE) teacher and an Emotionally Handicapped (EH) teacher for grades K through 12. In the 2008-2009 school year, Respondent was teaching social studies and math classes for mentally handicapped students at the School. On March 11, 2009, during her third period math class, Respondent engaged in an argument with one of her female students (J.P.). J.P. was a junior (11th grade student) at that time. The argument between J.P. and Respondent forms the basis of the School Board's decision to seek termination of Respondent's employment. On the date in question, another student (B.) had been disciplined by Respondent and sent to the dean's office, because the student lied to Respondent about why she was tardy to class. was upset about B. being disciplined, because B. was J.P.'s friend. After B. was sent to the office, there were five students remaining in Respondent's class. J.P. was observed by Respondent talking to one of the other students, L.S. Respondent told J.P. to stop talking and to do her work. J.P. took great offense to this and began to berate Respondent about not being an effective teacher. Up until this point in time, Respondent considered J.P. to be one of her favorite students. Respondent had taught J.P.'s brother in previous years and had taught J.P. for three years. The relationship between J.P. and Respondent had always been cordial, friendly, and positive. Respondent would purchase food for her students (including J.P.) and would subsidize her students' field trips out of her own funds. On the March 11, 2009, date, however, J.P. was very upset with Respondent and made several derogatory comments about Respondent. J.P. told Respondent that she (Respondent) did not teach well and did not help her students when they needed help. Among other comments, J.P. said that Respondent talked on the phone too much, did not go over work with students, and did not know how to teach. (There was no non-hearsay corroboration of these allegations by any other students at final hearing.) When J.P. first started talking, Respondent was calm and seemed amused by J.P.'s accusations. The discussion, however, then degenerated into a veritable shouting match between the student and the teacher. During that shouting match, ugly things were said by both Respondent and J.P. Respondent used several curse words that were inappropriate in the classroom setting. J.P. initiated the cursing between the parties, but Respondent, apparently in an effort to show J.P. that she was not going to be shocked by J.P.'s language, repeated the offensive words in response to J.P. Respondent made disparaging remarks bout J.P. and J.P.'s family and even made comments about J.P.'s mental capacity and inability to learn. The tone of the comments was very harsh. During the entire tête-à-tête between Respondent and J.P., there were other students in the classroom. While the debate was going on, some students were working on their assigned tasks. One student (L.S.) began taping the conversation at some point in time on her MP3 player. That recording was provided to administration at the School and formed the basis of an investigation by the School Board. The argument lasted for the majority of the class period on that date. The MP3 recording lasted 26 minutes and ended when the bell rang for the end of class. While the argument was going on, it seems that Respondent was moving around the classroom, but she was obviously not helping any students with problems at that time. Her entire energies were devoted to the argument with J.P. The tone used by Respondent and words she used were, she admits, inappropriate and wrong. It is clear the student was somewhat out of control, but engaging in a vicious debate with her was not the appropriate response from a teacher. Respondent is extremely remorseful about what transpired between her and the student on that day. Respondent had been previously reprimanded for using inappropriate words in a classroom setting in the 2003-2004 school year. In the 2004 incident, however, Respondent had written various curse words on the board after hearing a mentally handicapped student utter such a word. Respondent used that incident as a teaching moment to instruct her class that some words were not acceptable in the classroom or in public. For some reason, the School Board determined that the presentation of those words, even when intended to be instructional in nature, was wrong. (Apparently the only cursing condoned at all at the School is by sports coaches during practice times.) Respondent was issued a written reprimand for that incident and warned not to utilize those words in class again. During the March 11, 2009, argument with J.P. (five years after her prior reprimand), Respondent did utter some of the words she had been instructed not to repeat. Granted, her use of the words was in direct response to J.P.'s initiation of the words, but Respondent did technically violate her directive from the earlier reprimand. Besides the use of inappropriate language during the argument with her student, Respondent also overstepped the boundaries of professionalism in other ways. First, she disclosed certain confidential information about J.P. to other students. Respondent stated out loud that J.P. was seeking a special diploma, because J.P. was incapable of earning a regular diploma. Second, Respondent made disparaging remarks about J.P. and J.P.'s family, comments which were intended to embarrass or hurt J.P. The tone of the argument, though heated, carried an underlying hint of the long (and friendly) relationship between Respondent and the student. Respondent said she could not conceive of J.P.'s speaking that way to any other instructor; it was outside her normal behavior. J.P. apparently told the School administrators that she had never spoken to another teacher in that fashion. But J.P. obviously felt comfortable enough with Respondent to voice those opinions to Respondent in that manner. Respondent's tenure at the School has been generally positive. Her teaching skills have resulted in very laudatory annual evaluations. In September 2008, Respondent was provided an investigative summary of an incident, but there was no discipline imposed. A memorandum was issued by Assistant Principal Nash in May 2004 concerning an incident, but, again, no discipline was imposed. Respondent did receive a reprimand for the March 2004 incident concerning curse words mentioned above. Each of the students' parents who had met with Respondent and observed her teaching skills was complimentary about her. (The single parent testifying at the final hearing, who had negative comments about Respondent's working with ESE students, had never met Respondent, never attended his child's IEP meetings with Respondent, and had never had any communication with Respondent. Even that parent, however, said he believes Respondent "needs another chance.") Respondent has a good reputation with other educators and administrators. The School Board is seeking termination of Respondent's employment for the March 11, 2009, incident. The basis for the recommendation for termination seems to be that the argument was serious in nature and followed on the heels of a prior warning against using improper language in the classroom. However, other disciplinary cases against educators guilty of somewhat similar (though different in some respects) violations have resulted in much less severe punishment. For example: A letter of reprimand and two-day suspension without pay was given to an instructor who cursed at students in the stairwell of the school. A teacher who became upset over the change in her own son's schedule at the school simply left the campus, saying that she was sick of the place. She was charged with abandoning her classes and leaving the students without supervision. The teacher was docked pay for the time she was absent without leave and also suspended without pay for three days. A teacher who cursed at a school administrator in front of other staff members was disciplined with two days' suspension without pay. In the case of Respondent, it is clear that her actions are deserving of some form of discipline. Each witness who testified, including Respondent, agreed that some sort of discipline was warranted because Respondent's actions were wrong. At the time of the incident in question, Respondent's supervisor was Assistant Principal Cornelius Pratt. Respondent was considered by Pratt to be an exceptional teacher; he often used Respondent as a "lead" teacher, i.e., an experienced teacher, who could help new or struggling teachers succeed. Pratt considers Respondent's teaching style and skills to be first rate. Pratt, as Respondent's supervisor, was not asked to make a recommendation to the School Board as to what degree of discipline should be imposed on Respondent for this incident. Pratt believes termination is too severe a discipline based on Respondent's history, skills, and the fact that other teachers have been disciplined far less for similar violations. Respondent's behavior toward J.P. is contrary to her normal interaction with students. There is no evidence that Respondent ever acted in such a fashion prior to this incident. Respondent has been seen by a licensed mental health counselor, Dr. Trim. It is the opinion of Dr. Trim that Respondent would be able to safely return to the classroom and that, in the short term without any intervention, there is little likelihood of Respondent repeating her unprofessional behavior. (This is due to the amount of trauma experienced by Respondent as a result of her actions.) Dr. Trim further opined that Respondent could benefit from anger management counseling in order to ensure no further outbursts in the long term. The director of Human Resources for the School Board testified that in his experience, there was no other incident as severe as the one at issue in this proceeding. He recommended termination as the appropriate penalty. However, the director was not aware of the relationship between Respondent and J.P., he was not aware of the situation in Respondent's classroom as to the use of assistants (or lack thereof), and he had not talked to J.P. or J.P.'s parents. His recommendation, while reasonable based on his experience, lacks weight due to his unfamiliarity with other salient facts about the matter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Seminole County School Board: (1) finding Respondent's behavior to be inappropriate; (2) upholding the suspension without pay to-date; (3) reinstating Respondent as a classroom teacher; and (4) placing Respondent on probation for a period of two years. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 2nd day of February, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Bill Vogel Superintendent of Schools Seminole County School Board 400 East Lake Mary Boulevard Sanford, Florida 32773-7127 Dr. Eric Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Deborah Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Ned N. Julian, Jr., Esquire Seminole County School Board 400 East Lake Mary Boulevard Sanford, Florida 32773-7127 Tobe M. Lev, Esquire Egan, Lev & Siwica, P.A. Post Office Box 2231 231 East Colonial Drive Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue The issues in the case are whether the allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was employed as a seventh and eighth-grade drama teacher at Lakeview Middle School, a unit of the school system of Orange County, Florida. At the time of his employment, the Respondent held a Temporary Florida Educator's Certificate numbered 1019741. The Respondent's certification was for grades 6 through 12 drama and was valid from July 1, 2006, to June 30, 2009. The drama class historically produced two shows annually, one in the fall and another in the spring. The drama class teacher was responsible for selection of the theatrical material to be produced by the students. The Respondent was hired after the commencement of the school year, and course materials were already present in the classroom. Also included in the materials present in the classroom were scripts of a play titled "The Compleat Wks of Willm Shkspr (Abridged)." During the 2007-2008 school year, the Respondent distributed the scripts of "The Compleat Wks of Willm Shkspr (Abridged)" to the students in his drama class. The play, a script of which was admitted as an exhibit at the hearing, is a comedic re-telling of well-known excerpts from 37 plays written by William Shakespeare (Shakespeare). The cast of the play is composed of three male actors, who, as was the practice during the time the original plays were written, perform all the roles in the play. The actors also play "themselves," and there are improvisational opportunities in the material, allowing the actors to vary from the script. As written, the actors' dialogue includes recurring references to the supposedly diminutive size of Romeo's erect penis, as well as to sexual activity by characters in Shakespeare's plays (i.e. Romeo's efforts to "get into Juliet's pants," other characters "playing hide the salami," and participating in a "lovely bisexual animalistic orgy"). Additionally, the script contain numerous footnotes, apparently included for the amusement of the script reader, as there is nothing to suggest that the footnotes were to be performed by the actors. The footnotes include sardonic suggestions to the "children or teenagers who may be reading this book" to avoid alcohol and drug use ("Don't drink. And, if you drink, don't drive. Drinking is not cool." But "drugs, however, are great. Do lots of them."). The footnotes include sarcastic instructions to comply with parental authority ("Never question authority" and "Don't think for yourself and above all, don't have any fun.") and disparaging references to homosexuality ("butt-love," "rump- ranger," and "rear admiral"). Finally, the footnotes include a mocking religious reference, when, in asserting a belief that Shakespeare wrote all the works attributed to him, the footnote writer also states "the editor firmly believes that Jesus Christ was actually a transvestite sackcloth salesman from a small planet in the lesser spiral arm of the Andromeda Galaxy, so reader beware." One of the parents of a student in the Respondent's drama class obtained the script from the child, reviewed the material, and then, offended by the material, contacted Shirley Fox, the principal at Lakeview Middle School. Ms. Fox reviewed the material and determined it to be inappropriate, given the age of the students to whom the script was provided. Ms. Fox testified at the hearing that the material was harmful to the health and safety of the students who were required to read the script. She also testified that the material could expose the students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagements. After reading the material, Ms. Fox contacted the Respondent and discussed the issue with him. The Respondent subsequently resigned his employment, but his resignation was at least in part because he had obtained employment as a high school drama teacher and intended to leave the middle school in any event. At the hearing, the Respondent admitted he did not seek authorization from any school official prior to distributing the material to the students in his class. He testified that he believed that the text of the play had been approved for distribution to the students, because the script was present in the classroom materials when he arrived. At the hearing, the Respondent read into the record vaguely-erotic passages of various materials obtained from the Lakeview Middle School library, suggesting that the materials were no less offensive than the text and footnotes of the play he distributed to his students. However, nothing about the passages read by the Respondent was overtly offensive. More importantly, there was no evidence offered to establish that any student had been required to read the library materials.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission issue a final order reprimanding the Respondent for a violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and, otherwise, dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of August, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of August, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Ashley Jason Richards 13630 First Avenue Winter Garden, Florida 34787 Todd P. Resavage, Esquire Brooks, LeBoeuf, Bennett, Foster & Gwartney, P.A. 909 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida, 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact During the 1985-86 school year Respondent Gregory Hunter Stephens was a student in the tenth grade at Miami Sunset Senior High School. On April 18, 1986, during the lunch period Respondent drove into the faculty parking lot in his Corvette with the police following closely behind. It was determined that during his lunch break Respondent had been driving his Corvette in a nearby condominium development threatening residents and throwing beer cans on the lawns. The residents had summoned the police. An Assistant Principal held a conference with Respondent's father whose response was that the police should have better things to do than to bother his son for drinking beer and driving around during his lunch break. Respondent was given a three-day suspension. On May 22, 1986, Respondent got into a fight in class, a Group III violation of the Code of Student Conduct. A conference was held with Respondent's father, and Respondent was given a ten-day suspension. Although other informal discussions were held with Respondent's father during that school year, by the end of the third grading period Respondent's grades were one "C," one "D," and 4 "Fs." His absences from his classes during the third grading period alone ranged between 2 and 13. He received only a "3" for his effort in each and every class. During the 1985-86 school year, Respondent was absent 95 days out of the 180-day school year. On March 3, 1987, an Assistant Principal observed Respondent leaving the campus during Respondent's second-period class. He stopped Respondent and gave him a warning. A few minutes later he caught Respondent again attempting to leave. Respondent's mother was contacted, and Respondent was given a "work detail detention." On April 2, 1987, a fight broke out off campus between a group of Latin students and a group of Anglo students. On the following day Respondent admitted to an Assistant Principal that he was one of the participants. All of the students involved (including Respondent) were suspended for three days for that Group III Code violation. On October 19, 1987, Respondent was nearly involved in a collision in the parking lot. Respondent got out of his car and started pushing the other driver. A fight ensued. Respondent's parents were contacted, and he was given a ten-day suspension. By the time of the October 19th incident, Respondent had already been absent 6 days that school year. Further, although the Assistant Principal had two conferences with Respondent's father during the month of October, Respondent was receiving one "C," one "D," and five "Fs" in his classes. A Child Study Team was convened, and a meeting was held on November 3, 1987. Respondent and his parents refused to attend. The Team recommended that Respondent be transferred to Douglas MacArthur Senior High School-South, based upon the October 19, 1987, incident, his failing grades during the most-recent two years, and Respondent's chronic aggressive behavior which constituted a threat to the welfare of the other students. It was determined that Respondent required assistance a normal school could not provide and that a structured environment would be more appropriate since the educators at Miami Sunset Senior High School had unsuccessfully attempted to modify Respondent's behavior by conferences between Respondent and a counselor, meetings between Respondent's parents and assistant principals, indoor suspensions, outdoor suspensions, and work detail suspensions
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered assigning Respondent Gregory Hunter Stephens to the opportunity school program at Douglas MacArthur Senior High School-South until such time as his performance reveals that he can be returned to the regular school program. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 29th day of March, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 29th day of March, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: JOSEPH A. FERNANDEZ, SUPERINTENDENT SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY 1410 NORTHEAST SECOND AVENUE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132 FRANK R. HARDER, ESQUIRE 175 FONTAINEBLEAU BOULEVARD SUITE 2A-3 MIAMI, FLORIDA 33172 LANA STEPHENS 15490 S.W. 85TH LANE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33183 MADELYN P. SCHERE, ESQUIRE ASSISTANT BOARD ATTORNEY DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1410 NORTHEAST SECOND AVENUE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132 PHYLLIS O. DOUGLAS, ESQUIRE ASSISTANT BOARD ATTORNEY DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1410 NORTHEAST SECOND AVENUE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Lake County School Board Policy 2.71 as described in letters from the Lake County Superintendent of Schools dated January 2, 2007, and January 7, 2007, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The School Board of Lake County is the corporate body politic responsible for the administration of schools within the Lake County School District. At all times material to this proceeding, Paul Ogles was employed as an English/speech teacher at the Curtright Center of Eustis High School in the Lake County School District. Mr. Ogles, a Caucasian male, has been employed as a teacher for the District for nine years. At all times material to this proceeding, Ms. Bernetta McNealy, an African-American woman, was employed as a teacher at the Curtright Center of Eustis High School. Ms. McNealy's classroom is adjacent to Mr. Ogles' classroom. During the 2005-2006 school year, Ms. Tess Rogers was an assistant principal at Eustis High School and one of Mr. Ogles' supervisors. Mr. Michael Elchenko was Principal at Eustis High School during this time, and Ms. Rebecca Nelsen was the Director of Compensation and Employee Relations for Lake County School District. Mr. Ogles' first teaching position was as a teaching assistant with Project Outward Bound at Morris Brown College, a historically black college in Atlanta, where he prepared high school students for college. Mr. Ogles returned to teaching twenty years later after running his own textbook company. Mr. Ogles has received excellent evaluations during his employment by the Lake County School District. Once a teacher receives a rating or twelve (the highest rating possible) for two consecutive years, the educator may choose to participate in a PG-13 Appraisal of Professional Growth/Career Development instead of receiving the normal educator evaluation. Mr. Ogles qualified for this type of evaluation and successfully participated in the PG-13 appraisal process for several years. Mr. Ogles has sponsored or assisted with many school organizations such as the Beta Club; the Chess Club; the Key Club; the High Q Club; and the Speech and Debate Club. He used personal funds to support the students' activities, including paying $300.00 to rent a bus so students could attend a competition. Mr. Ogles was one of two Team Leaders on campus and in that capacity worked with the assistant principal to try to upgrade the quality of the school and to increase interaction between students and teachers. He also volunteered for bus duty before and after school. While performing bus duty, it was often Mr. Ogles' responsibility to enforce the school's dress code as students arrived on campus. Eustis High School has a policy of prohibiting students from wearing clothing with symbols or messages that may be considered disruptive to the learning environment. Students are not necessarily disciplined for wearing such clothing, but are requested to remove the offensive clothing, turn it inside out so as to hide the offensive message, put other clothing on over it or call home to have alternate clothing provided. The Confederate flag is one such symbol that is not allowed to be displayed on clothing worn to school. Dixie Outfitters is a line of clothing that sometimes bears the Confederate flag. Mr. Ogles was aware that the school policy forbade the wearing of the Confederate flag and he often was involved in enforcing the policy against students wearing the symbol. On or about May 19, 2006, Mr. Ogles was using his computer to search for project ideas for the following year while his students were taking a test. He was looking at a website called www.cagle.com, a political website from which he has gotten cartoons in the past. Several cartoons from this website are posted in his classroom, and there was no evidence presented to indicate that anyone had ever complained about their display. While viewing the website, he saw a cartoon that depicted a Confederate flag. However, instead of the traditional "stars and bars," the cartoon showed black arms crossed, with stars imprinted on them. The hands were extended beyond the flag, with the wrists shackled. The cartoon was originally published in approximately 2000, as a means of protesting the consideration by several southern states to display the Confederate flag at state buildings. When Mr. Ogles first saw the cartoon, he thought that it was "strong art" depicting the Confederate flag as a symbol of racism. In between classes, he showed the cartoon to Ms. McNealy. He asked her if she was familiar with students wearing Dixie Outfitters clothing. She indicated she was not. He stated that perhaps this cartoon could be placed on a new line of clothing for black students to wear in response to the "heritage" argument white students used to defend the wearing of the Confederate flag. The conversation was very short, as the bell was ringing for the next class to begin. Ms. McNealy did not respond to Mr. Ogles or give him any indication that she was offended or bothered in any way. There is also no evidence that she ever discussed her feelings about the cartoon with Mr. Ogles at any later time. Mr. Ogles testified, and his testimony is credited, that he believed that because the cartoon advocated a position against the display of the Confederate flag, that it would support what he believed to be Ms. McNealy's position on this issue. It is his view that African-Americans have as much ownership of the Confederate flag as anyone else, and should be able to use the image to express their views. While Ms. McNealy did not tell Mr. Ogles that she was offended by the cartoon, she did make her feelings known to Ms. Rogers, the assistant principal and Michael Rivers, a guidance counselor at the Curtwright Center, almost immediately. Ms. Rogers is Caucasian and Mr. Rivers is African-American. Both found the cartoon to be offensive. After speaking with Ms. Rogers and Mr. Rivers, Ms. McNealy left campus for the day. About an hour after he showed Ms. McNealy the cartoon, he was asked to come to the office and was informed by Ms. Rogers and Mr. Jones, another administrator, that Ms. McNealy was upset about the cartoon and had left campus. Mr. Ogles did not realize that Ms. McNealy would be offended by the cartoon and had he realized she would be offended, he would not have shown it to her. On May 22, 2006, Mr. Elchenko, the Principal of Eustis High School received a written complaint from Ms. McNealy about Mr. Ogles' showing her the cartoon.1/ Mr. Elchenko determined Mr. Ogles' conduct to be unprofessional and issued a Professional/Personal Action Report Relating to Work Experience (Appraisal II form) and Prescription/Assistance Form to Mr. Ogles. Both documents directed him to stop giving materials to co-workers that could be considered offensive. Mr. Ogles has complied with these directives. After Mr. Elchenko completed his investigation, Mr. Elchenko reported the allegations to the School Board's District office because he believed the allegations in Ms. McNealy's complaint rose to the level of racial harassment. Rebecca Nelsen conducted an investigation on behalf of the School District. Mr. Ogles was reassigned from his teaching position at Eustis High School to the County Copy Center by letter dated July 17, 2006, and remains in that placement today. Ms. Nelsen determined that Mr. Ogles' conduct created an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment on the basis of race, which is prohibited by School Board policy. Ms. Nelsen recommended to the Superintendent that Mr. Ogles' employment be terminated. A separate investigation was conducted for the School Board by a private entity called the Robert Lewis Group. The findings and recommendations of that investigation are not part of this record. By letter from the Superintendent dated January 2, 2007, Mr. Ogles was suspended without pay for the period from January 8, 2007 through January 12, 2007, and was directed to receive cultural sensitivity training for violating School Policy 2.71. There is no evidence submitted to indicate that the Superintendent's decision was approved or ratified by the Lake County School Board. Mr. Ogles served his period of suspension and successfully completed cultural diversity training. Before this incident, Mr. Ogles had never been accused of making any appropriate racial remarks and was not considered to be a racist individual. He had expressed the view that racism should hold no place in education. His principal did not question his competence as an educator.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing the charges against Respondent, and rescinding all discipline previously imposed. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 2007.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent inappropriately touched a female student in violation of Sections 231.28(1)(c), (f), or (i), Florida Statutes, or Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) or (e), Florida Administrative Code, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a Florida educator's certificate, number 700508. His certificate is valid through June 30, 2003, and covers the areas of varying exceptionalities, elementary education, English, specific learning disabilities, visually impaired, and primary education. During the 1995-96 school year, Respondent was employed as an exceptional student education (ESE) teacher by the Sumter County School District. Respondent was assigned to teach at the South Sumter Middle School. Respondent had taught at South Sumter Middle School since the 1994-95 school year. During the first year at the school, Respondent was the ESE math, science, and social studies teacher. During the 1995-96 school year, Respondent was the ESE team leader. During the 1995-96 school year, R. J. was an eighth- grade student at South Sumter Middle School. She was classified as emotionally handicapped (EH) and was assigned to an EH classroom. R. J. was not as disruptive as her EH classmates, so her teacher allowed her, after finishing her work, to leave the classroom and visit Respondent's classroom, in which the students were better behaved. R. J.'s teacher allowed R. J. to attend Respondent's class 1-2 hours weekly. While there, R. J. mostly tutored the other students. One day, in Mid-May 1996, while visiting Respondent's classroom, R. J. was watching a film with the rest of the class. She was seated in the back of the room with Respondent, who was doing some administrative work during the screening of the film. The room was half-lighted. At one point during the film, some servants were dressing a wealthy child. When they attached garters, one boy in the class shouted, "She's wearing a girdle." Respondent responded by saying that the garment was not a girdle, but a device to hold up socks. Sitting next to Respondent, R. J. asked him to explain further what a garter is. Respondent poked her knee to show her where the garter attached. Respondent did not move his chair closer to R. J.'s chair, nor did he run his hand up or down R. J.'s leg. Later the same day, the ESE department sponsored the weekly Coke Day. Respondent had started Coke Day because ESE students never went on field trips. Taking place late in the day on Fridays, Coke Day presented the opportunity for students who had behaved well during the preceding week to buy sodas donated by teachers, with the proceeds going to field trips. In addition to paying for ESE field trips and providing an incentive for good behavior, Coke Day also gave the ESE students a chance to socialize and receive praise for good work and good behavior. Toward the end of the time allocated to Coke Day, Respondent saw that someone needed to pick up discarded soda cans and other debris from the field where Coke Day took place. As Respondent was doing so, while the field was filled with students, R. J. approached Respondent closely and complained that another student had been flirting with her. Respondent told the other student to stop flirting with R. J. During this incident, Respondent was holding in one hand a plastic litter bag, into which he was placing empty soda cans. As he warned the other student to stop flirting with R. J., Respondent pushed her lightly on her hip with his hand holding the bag, as though to move her out of the way as he passed her. The bag may have also brushed against Respondent in the vicinity of her buttock thigh. Petitioner subpoenaed R. J. to testify in this case, but she refused to honor the subpoena. Petitioner therefore presented R. J.'s testimony in the form of a videotaped deposition taken on October 11, 1996, in the criminal case, which did not result in a conviction. In her deposition, R. J. testified that Respondent rubbed the tips of his fingers up one time and down one time along the front of her thigh when demonstrating the location of a garter. She also testified that Respondent lightly squeezed her buttock for two or three seconds on the field during Coke Day. Fifteen years of age at the time of the deposition, R. J. testified haltingly. Although not appearing overly nervous about testifying, R. J. required repeated prompting when asked to describe in detail the touches and, even then, her testimony was vague. At times, R. J.'s attempts to describe in detail what she claimed Respondent had done had an invented quality, as R. J.'s replication of Respondent's movements seemed to lack any real conviction or certainty. R. J. claims that she has been the victim of sexual abuse several times, naming as perpetrators her step-father and uncle, and she says that hugs from her father make her uncomfortable. R. J. also admitted that a friend had had sexual intercourse with her, while she was asleep after an evening of drinking. R. J. describes a troubled family life, testifying that her mother and step-father accuse her of being promiscuous. An eyewitness to the Coke Day incident, D. P., gave conflicting statements at the time of the investigation. At some point after the day of the incidents, D. P. became R. J.'s boyfriend. At the hearing, D. P. testified contradictorily about whether he saw any inappropriate touching. There is little doubt that he saw nothing. An agent of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement testified at the hearing. The agent is a coordinator of crimes against children. Shortly after the incidents, the agent visited the school. After speaking to a school administrator and possibly reading R. J.'s statement, but before talking to her, the agent interviewed Respondent. Not taping the interview, the agent misinformed Respondent that he had talked to R. J., and other students had joined in her claims of inappropriate contact. When Respondent denied any inappropriate contact, the agent, during this initial interview, accused Respondent of lying. The agent testified that Respondent admitted that he had pulled R. J.'s chair closer prior to demonstrating the location of a garter. This is something that he has later denied. However, the matter is inconsequential, even for the limited purpose of trying to assess Respondent's credibility. As for the Coke Day incident, the agent testified that Respondent said he might have touched, but did not grab, R. J.'s buttock. Absent additional detail, this admission does not establish an inappropriate touching or a lack of credibility The most significant part of the agent's testimony is his claim that Respondent admitted that he needed sexual counseling and asked what kind of deal he could get if he "told the truth." Respondent denied making these statements. Several possibilities exist concerning the agent's testimony describing these two statements. The agent may have misunderstood Respondent or may be misreporting what Respondent said. Respondent may have made these quoted statements. However, several facts are quite clear. First, nothing else in the record provides significant support for these statements, at least to the extent that they would also constitute implicit admissions of inappropriate touching. Second, the agent described Respondent as cooperative. Given the contrasting personalities of the agent, who is intense and focused, and Respondent, who is quiet-spoken to the point of passivity, it is quite possible that Respondent made statements substantially the same as reported by the agent in response to a coercive atmosphere perhaps inadvertently created by the agent. Although it is not possible to resolve the dispute in the testimony concerning the two statements that the agent claimed that Respondent made, it is clear that the record lacks clear and convincing evidence that Respondent touched R. J. in an inappropriate manner.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED THAT the Education Practices Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of June, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 J. Wiley Horton Booth & Horton, P.A. Post Office Drawer 840 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mark Herdman Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry W. Whitmore, Chief Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Respondent was reassigned to Douglas MacArthur Senior High School- North, an alternative school, on December 16, 1982, because of his unacceptable conduct in Grade 9 at North Miami Junior High School. Petitioner presented evidence of 16 incidents of conduct by Respondent which required disciplinary action in the year preceding his reassignment to the alternative education program. Additionally, his grades in all courses were unsatisfactory at the time of reassignment. Respondent did not accept the alternative school assignment and instead obtained employment at a restaurant. He is now living with his grandmother, Mrs. Helen Wood, who seeks his return to a regular junior high school program. She has discussed this proposal with the principal of Thomas Jefferson Junior High School and he apparently agrees with her. Respondent's evidence established that his family life was difficult and disruptive during the period of his misconduct. His situation has now stabilized and he is responsive to his grandmother's supervision. He should, therefore, be given an opportunity to return to the regular academic program (Grade 9) at Thomas Jefferson Junior High School.
Recommendation In consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order classifying Respondent as a disruptive student, but permitting him to attend the Thomas Jefferson Junior High School in a probationary status. ENTERED this 6th day of May, 1983, at Tallahassee Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, 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 6th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Valentine, Esquire 3000 Executive Plaza 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Mrs. Helen Ward 1000 Northwest 153rd Street Miami, Florida 33169 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Erron L. Evans, was a student at Miami Norland Senior High School (MNSHS) in Dade County, Florida during school year 1986-87. The school is under the jurisdiction of petitioner, School Board of Dade County (Board). During the first half of school year 1986-87, Erron was a thirteen year old ninth grade student. He turned fourteen on January 1, 1987. Between September 17, 1986 and January 6, 1987 Erron was the subject of at least five student case management referral forms for disruptive conduct in class or on the school premises. These forms are used whenever a student is referred to the principal's office for disciplinary action. They are used sparingly and only when the conduct is so "extreme" as to warrant their use. Such forms related to incidents occurring on September 17, October 3 and 27 and December 4, 1986 and January 6, 1987. On September 17, Erron and R. W., another male student, became embroiled in a fight after Erron provoked R. W. by calling him names. The encounter was eventually broken up by a teacher, and Erron earned a ten-day suspension from school for his misconduct. On October 3, or the day when Erron returned from his suspension, Louis Allen, a teacher and football coach at MNSHS, was in his classroom during lunch hour when three students entered the class and placed their books on empty desks. When Allen told them they could not leave their books in the classroom during lunch hour, one student responded they did it regularly. Allen said that was not true for he had never seen them do it before. The same student responded "You're a Goddamned liar." Not knowing the identity of any of the students, Allen took the three to the assistant principal's office where he learned from one of the three that Erron was the student who had used the profanity. Erron then became hysterical, began screaming, and made physical threats upon Allen. Erron briefly left the office, but returned a few minutes later shouting obscenities. It should be noted that this entire episode took place in front of several teachers, students and school employees and had the effect of undermining the authority of Erron's superiors. After leaving the office once again, Erron went to the classroom where the student who had identified him was sitting. He "stormed" into the classroom and backed the student against the wall. The teacher was forced to call another teacher to remove Erron from the classroom. Erron received a ten-day suspension for this misconduct. On December 4, 1986, Erron was written up again on a student case management referral form for disruptive behavior while in the classroom. For this, he received punishment in the form of a work detail at school. The final incident occurred on January 6, 1987 when Erron attempted to start a fight with a female student but ended up fighting with another male student. After Erron was brought to the administrative assistant's office to discuss the incident, the assistant telephoned Erron's mother. Erron briefly spoke with his mother, started screaming on the telephone, and slammed the telephone down. He then told the assistant "Fuck you assholes, I'm leaving the whole damn school," and departed the premises. Erron was thereafter given a ten-day suspension from school beginning on January 7. During the fall of 1986, Erron's academic record was also poor. For the grading period ending November 6, 1986 he received four F's and two D's in his courses, and his conduct and effort were rated very poor. During this same period, he was absent from school at least fourteen days, many of which were due to disciplinary suspensions. It was further established that in one class (mathematics) Erron was generally unprepared and did not bring class materials. He was also argumentative with his teacher and interrupted the normal workings of the class. This interfered with the other students receiving an educational benefit from the instruction. On October 17, 1986, a child study team at MNSHS convened to discuss Erron's situation. After reviewing his performance, behavior and attendance, the team recommended that Erron be reassigned to an opportunity school. Erron and his mother were invited to attend this conference. Whether they did so was not disclosed. In any event, Erron was given notice of transfer by letter dated October 30, 1986. That prompted the instant hearing. It is presumed (but not known) that Erron is now attending Douglas MacArthur Senior High School-North, an opportunity school in Miami. 2/ For disruptive behavior, Erron was previously assigned to an opportunity school for the last few months of school year 1985-86. While there, he showed remarkable progress over his prior performance in the regular school program. Indeed, his grades were better than a B average during the final grading period, and his effort and conduct were very good. This record prompted the team and ultimately the Board to reassign Erron back to MNSHS for school year 1986-87. Erron's mother has been personally contacted by MNSHS personnel on a number of occasions regarding his conduct. In addition, several teacher-parent conferences have been held. Despite this parental contact, no improvement in Erron's grades or deportment has occurred.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Erron L. Evans be reassigned to Douglas MacArthur Senior High School-North. DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of February, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 13th day of February, 1987.
The Issue Did Respondent Siebelts commit the offenses set forth in the petition for dismissal (Case No. 88-4697) and the amended administrative complaint (Case No. 89-0189) filed against her? If so, what discipline should she receive?
Findings Of Fact Based on the record evidence, the Hearing Officer makes the following Findings of Fact: Karen Siebelts has held a State of Florida teaching certificate since 1976. Her current certificate was issued May 1, 1986, and covers the areas of elementary education, elementary and secondary reading, and secondary social studies and psychology. For the past thirteen years Siebelts has been employed by the School Board of Broward County as a classroom teacher. During the early stages of her employment, she taught at Melrose Park Middle School. She then moved to Perry Middle School, where she taught a class of emotionally disturbed sixth graders. Her performance at these two schools was rated as acceptable. In November, 1979, Siebelts was assigned to teach at Charles Drew Elementary School, a neighborhood school located in the predominantly black Collier city area of Pompano Beach. The charges lodged against Siebelts are based on specific acts she allegedly committed while she was a Chapter I Reading/Math and Computer teacher at Charles Drew providing remedial instruction to students whose test scores reflected a need for such special assistance. On January 22, 1985, while seated with her fifth grade students at a table during a reading lesson, Siebelts inadvertently kicked one of the students in the shin. The incident occurred as Siebelts was moving her legs to a more comfortable position. The force involved was minimal and produced no visible injuries. The student immediately demanded an apology from Siebelts. Siebelts responded to this demand with silence. She neither apologized nor said anything to suggest that she had intended to kick the student. Earlier in the lesson, Siebelts had directed the student to stop talking. The student had defied the directive and continued to talk. It was not until approximately three minutes after the student's initial defiance of the directive, however, that the kicking incident occurred. Nonetheless, the student suspected that Siebelts had intentionally kicked her because of her failure to obey Siebelts' order that she not talk. When the student came home from school that day she told her mother that Siebelts had intentionally kicked her during class. The mother immediately reported the incident to the principal of the school, Hubert Lee. The matter was referred to the School Board's Internal Affairs Unit for investigation. The requested investigation was conducted. Following the completion of the investigation, a written report of the investigator's findings was submitted to the administration. No further action was taken regarding this incident until approximately three and a half years later when the instant petition for dismissal was issued. Siebelts was annoyed when she learned that the student and her mother had accused her of wrongdoing in connection with the January 22, 1985, kicking incident. On February 19, 1985, she expressed her annoyance in front of her fifth grade class and in their presence threatened to take legal action against those students and parents who had made libelous or slanderous statements about her or had otherwise verbally abused her. She told the students that they and their parents would be subpoenaed to court and if they did not appear they would be incarcerated. The principal of the school was informed of these remarks shortly after they were made, but it was not until the instant petition for dismissal was issued on August 22, 1988, that Siebelts was first formally charged with having made the remarks. Before coming to work on January 28 1986, Siebelts took a codeine pain medication that her physician had prescribed. When classes started that morning she was still under the influence of the medication. She was listless and drowsy. Her speech was slurred and she appeared incoherent at times. She also had difficulty maintaining her balance when she walked. Because Siebelts had been taking this medication "on and off" since 1979, she had been aware of these potential side effects of the medication when ingesting it on this particular occasion. A teacher's aide in Siebelts' classroom concerned about Siebelts' condition summoned the principal, Hubert Lee, to the classroom. When he arrived, Lee observed Siebelts seated at her desk. She was just staring and seemed "to be almost falling asleep." The students were out of control. They were laughing and making fun of Siebelts. After questioning Siebelts and receiving an answer that was not at all responsive to the question he had asked, Lee instructed Siebelts to come to his office. Siebelts complied, displaying an unsteady gait as she walked to Lee's office. In Lee's office, Siebelts insisted that she was fine, but conceded that she was "on" prescribed pain medication. Throughout their conversation, Siebelts continued to slur her words and it was difficult for Lee to understand her. Pursuant to Lee's request, Dr. Lorette David, Lee's immediate supervisor, and Nat Stokes, a School Board investigator, came to Lee's office to observe and assess Siebelts' condition. A determination was thereafter made that Siebelts was not capable of performing her instructional duties that day, which was an accurate assessment. She therefore was sent home for the day. Because of her impaired condition, rather than driving herself home, she was driven to her residence by Dr. David. Although she believed that she was not suffering from any impairment, Siebelts did not protest the decision to relieve her of her duties because she felt that any such protest would have fallen on deaf ears. Following this incident, Siebelts was issued a letter of reprimand by Lee. She also was referred to the School Board's Employee Assistance Program because it was felt that she might have a substance abuse problem. Siebelts agreed to participate in the program and received counselling. At no time subsequent to January 28, 1986, did Siebelts report to work under the influence of her pain medication or any other drug. During the 1987-1988 school year, Siebelts and two other Chapter I teachers, Rosa Moses and Mary Cooper, occupied space in Charles Drew's Chapter I reading and math laboratory. Their classrooms were located in the same large room and were separated by makeshift partitions. Siebelts is white. Moses and Cooper, as well as the aides who were assigned to the laboratory during that school year, are black. In October, 1987, Moses complained to Principal Lee that Siebelts was not teaching her students, but rather was constantly engaging in loud verbal confrontations with them that disrupted Moses' lessons. Lee had received similar complaints about Siebelts from others. He therefore asked Moses to advise him in writing of any future classroom misconduct on Siebelts' part. Siebelts continued to engage in conduct in her classroom which Moses deemed inappropriate and disruptive. On November 4, 1987, for the last five minutes of one of her classes, she loudly exchanged verbal barbs with her students. Her yelling made it difficult for Moses and Cooper to teach their lessons. On November 5, 1987, throughout an entire 45-minute class period, Siebelts was embroiled in a verbal battle with a student during which she made derogatory remarks about the student's size. She called the student "fat" and told her that she "shake[d] like jelly." The student, in turn, called Siebelts "fruity" and likened her to a "scarecrow." On that same day during a later class period, Siebelts took a student by the arm and, following a tussle with the student, placed him in his seat. Thereafter, she made belittling remarks to the other students in the class. She said that they were "stupid" and "belonged in a freak show." She also referred to them as "imbeciles." Siebelts further told her students that their "mothers eat dog food." On November 25, 1987, Siebelts commented to the students in one of her classes that they would be able to move around the classroom with greater ease if they were not so fat. As she had been asked to do, Moses provided Lee with a written account of these November, 1987, encounters between Siebelts and her students, but Lee did not take any immediate action to initiate disciplinary action against Siebelts. Although she did not so indicate in her report, Moses believed that the unflattering remarks that Siebelts had made to the students on these occasions constituted racial slurs inasmuch as all of the students to whom the remarks had been addressed were black and in addressing these remarks to the students as a group she had referred to them as "you people." Moses thought that "you people" had meant black people in general, whereas Siebelts had intended the phrase to refer to just the students in the classroom. At no time during any of these reported incidents did Siebelts make specific reference to the students' race, nor did she specifically attack black people in general. The target of her demeaning and insulting remarks were those of her students whose unruly and disrespectful behavior she was unable to control. Her efforts to maintain discipline and promote learning in the classroom had failed. She had become frustrated with the situation and verbally lashed out at her students. Unfortunately, these outbursts only served to further reduce her effectiveness as a teacher. On March 1, 1988, Siebelts was involved in an incident similar to the one which had occurred more than three years earlier on January 22, 1985. As on the prior occasion, Siebelts was sitting at a classroom table with her students. Her legs were crossed. When she repositioned her legs, her foot inadvertently came in contact with the top of the head of a student who was crawling under the table to retrieve a pencil the student had dropped. The student had been told by Siebelts not to go under the table but had disobeyed the instruction. She had been under the table for approximately a minute and a half before being struck by Siebelts foot. The blow to the student's head was a light one and produced only a slight bump. Nonetheless, after getting up from under the table, the student, a brash fourth grader who had had confrontations with Siebelts in the past, threatened to physically retaliate against Siebelts. Siebelts did not say anything to the student and the class ended without the student following through on her threat. Following this incident, Siebelts telephoned the student's mother at home to discuss the student's classroom behavior. The call was placed sometime before 9:00 p.m. The conversation between Siebelts and the mother soon degenerated into an argument. They terminated the discussion without settling their differences. Lee subsequently met with the mother. He suggested that a meeting with Siebelts at the school be arranged. The mother indicated to Lee that she would not attend such a meeting unless school security was present. She explained that she was so angry at Siebelts that she was afraid that she would lose her composure and physically attack Siebelts if they were in the same room together.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission issue a final order suspending Karen Siebelts' teaching certificate for two years and that the School Board of Broward County issue a final order suspending Siebelts until the reinstatement of her teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of June, 1989. STUART M. LERNER 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 29th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NOS. 88-4687 AND 89-0189 The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties: Commisioner of Education's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted and incorporated in substance in the Findings of Fact portion of this Recommended Order. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Siebelts was not charged with having made threatening remarks the day after the January 22, 1985, kicking incident. These threats were allegedly made, according to the charging documents, on February 19, 1985. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Insofar as it asserts that Siebelts engaged in name-calling on dates other than those specfied in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint otherwise, it is accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Furthermore, the witness whose testimony is recited in this proposed finding later clarified her testimony and conceded that Siebelts did not use the precise words quoted in this proposed finding. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence to the extent that it suggests that Siebelts made "racial comments" on the dates specified in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint. Insofar as it states that such comments were made on other occasions, it is rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. According to the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint, Siebelts threatened her students with legal action on February 19, 1985. This proposed finding, however, relates to alleged threats of legal action made by Siebelts during the 1987-1988 school year. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Siebelts' Proposed Findings of Fact First unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; sixth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Second unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Accepted and :incorporated in substance; sixth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; ninth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Third unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as subordinate; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as unnecessary; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; sixth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; ninth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Fourth unnumbered paragraph: Rejected as more in the nature of a statement of opposing parties' position than a finding of fact; second sentence: Rejected as subordinate; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; sixth sentence: Rejected as subordinate; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Fifth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; sixth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; seventh sentence: Rejected as subordinate; eighth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; ninth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; tenth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; eleventh sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; twelfth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Sixth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; sixth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Seventh unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony (The exculpatory testimony of Siebelts which is summarized in the first three sentences of this paragraph has not been credited because it is contrary to the more credible testimony of other witnesses) fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Eighth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; third sentence: Rejected as subordinate; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Rejected as subordinate; sixth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Rejected as subordinate; ninth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Ninth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Tenth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Superintendent of School's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted and incorporated in substance, except for the fourth sentence, which has been rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted and incorporated in substance except to the extent that it asserts that Siebelts "advised the students that they and their parents would be placed in jail because of the lies and the slander." The preponderance of the evidence reveals that she actually told them that they and their parents would be incarcerated if they did not appear in court when summoned. First sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Rejected as subordinate. Accepted and incorporated in substance. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Second and third sentences: Rejected as more in the nature of argument concerning relatively insignificant matters than findings of fact addressing necessary and vital issues. Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent that it suggests that Siebelts had alcohol on her breath. Any such suggestion has been rejected because it is contrary to the testimony of Investigator Stokes. Stokes, who has been employed by the School Board as an investigator for the past 20 years, testified that he was standing one or two feet away from Siebelts and did not detect the odor of alcohol on her breath. In view of his experience regarding the investigation of these matters, his testimony has been credited. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Accepted and incorporated in substance. To the extent that this proposed finding states that Siebelts made inappropriate remarks regarding the students' clothing or other matters on dates other than those specified in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint, it has been rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Insofar as it asserts that Siebelts made derogatory remarks about black people in general on the dates specified in these charging documents, it has been rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. To the extent that this proposed finding indicates that Siebelts otherwise insulted the students in her class on the dates specified in the charging documents, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. The "disparaging remarks" which are the subject of this proposed finding were purportedly made during the 1984-1985 school year. The "disparaging remarks" referenced in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint were allegedly made, according to these charging documents, during the 1987-1988 school year, more specifically, on November 4, 5, and 25, 1987. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. The "critical" remarks referred to in this proposed finding were allegedly made prior to the 1987-1988 school year. First sentence: Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial to the extent it references reactions to "disparaging" and "critical" remarks that were purportedly made prior to the 1987-1988 school year. Otherwise, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of the testimony of Siebelts' former students and colleagues rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent that it reflects that Moses actively monitored Siebelts classroom conduct "through December of 1987." The preponderance of the evidence establishes that such active monitoring actually ceased November 25, 1987; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent it indicates that Noses heard Siebelts tell her students that they "were dirty and needed baths." This comment was purportedly overheard, not by Moses, but by Margaret Cameron, a teacher's aide who had left Charles Drew prior to the commencement of the 1987- 1988 school year; fourth and fifth sentences: Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. These proposed findings are based on Cameron's testimony regarding offensive comments she had allegedly overheard while an aide in Siebelts' classroom. These pre-1987-1988 school year comments, however, are not mentioned in either the petition for dismissal or the amended administrative complaint. First sentence: As this proposed finding correctly points out, Siebelts' insulting comments only served to heighten the students' hostility and anger toward her. There is no persuasive competent substantial evidence, though, to support the further finding that these comments "resulted in several physical altercations between the students;" second sentence: Rejected inasmuch as there no persuasive competent substantial evidence that there was any "heated verbal exchange" on November 5, 1987, between Siebelts and the student which preceded their "altercation." The preponderance of the evidence establishes that the verbal battle with her students occurred immediately after this incident; third sentence: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Although she may used physical force during her encounter with this student, it is unlikely that she actually "tossed" him into his seat. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected inasmuch as there is no persuasive competent substantial evidence to support a finding that Siebelts telephoned the student's mother as a result of the incident near the air-conditioner. The preponderance of the evidence does establish that Siebelts did telephone the mother on a subsequent occasion, but there is no indication that Siebelts threatened the mother or otherwise acted inappropriately during this telephone conversation. Although the mother asked to have security personnel present during a parent-teacher conference with Siebelts, the preponderance of the evidence reveals that this request was not the product of any threats that Siebelts had made against the mother. First sentence: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Siebelts' testimony that the contact was unintentional is plausible and has been credited. The circumstantial evidence presented by Petitioners (including evidence of prior confrontations between Siebelts and the student) raises some questions regarding the veracity of Siebelts' testimony on this point, but such evidence is not sufficiently compelling to warrant the discrediting this testimony. Given her penchant for verbalizing to her students her thoughts about them, had Siebelts intended to kick the student as a disciplinary measure, she undoubtedly would have made this known to the student, rather than remain silent as she did; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent that it suggests that immediately after kicking the student, Siebelts had a "smirk on her face." To this limited extent, this proposed finding is not supported by any persuasive competent substantial evidence; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. First sentence: Rejected as not supported by any persuasive competent substantial evidence; second, third, fourth and fifth sentences: Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. To the extent that this proposed finding suggests that Siebelts' behavior at school on January 28, 1986, and her verbal attack of her students on November 4, 5, and 25, 198', reduced her effectiveness as a teacher, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. Insofar as it indicates that other conduct in which she engaged resulted in a reduction or loss of effectiveness, it has been rejected as either contrary to the greater weight of the evidence (other conduct specified in charging documents) or beyond the scope of the charges (other conduct not specified in charging documents). COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Whitelock, Esquire 1311 S.E. 2nd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Edward J. Marko, Esquire Suite 322, Bayview Building 4,1040 Bayview Drive Post Office Box 4369 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33338 Virgil L. Morgan, Superintendent Broward County School Board 1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Thomas P. Johnson, Ed.D. Associate Superintendent Human Resources Broward County School Board 1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Craig R. Wilson, Esquire Suite 315 1201 U.S. Highway One North Palm Beach, Florida 33408-3581 Karen B. Wilde Robert F. McRee, Esquire Executive Director Post Office Box 75638 Education Practices Commission Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue As to DOAH Case No. 12-2859TTS, whether Rhea Cohen (Respondent), a classroom teacher, committed the acts alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed by Robert Runcie, as Superintendent of the Broward County Schools (Superintendent) and, if so, the discipline that should be imposed against Respondent’s employment. As to DOAH Case No. 13-0704PL, whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed by Pam Stewart, as Commissioner of Education (Commissioner) and, if so, the discipline that should be imposed against Respondent’s teacher’s certificate.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the School Board has been the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Broward County, Florida; and Robert Runcie was Superintendent of Schools. At all times material hereto, the Commissioner has been the head of the state agency responsible for certifying and regulating public school teachers in the State of Florida; and Pam Stewart was the Commissioner. Respondent has been employed by the School Board since 2002 and holds a Professional Services Contract, issued in accordance with section 1012.33(3)(a). During the time relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was an ESE classroom teacher at Crystal Lake. During the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent was employed as an ESE classroom teacher at Atlantic West Elementary School teaching students on the autism spectrum. During that school year, the Education Practices Commission (EPC) reprimanded Respondent for sleeping in class while students were present and for using restraints inappropriately to control or manage autistic and exceptional student education students. The EPC imposed an administrative fine against her in the amount of $500.00. Thereafter, Respondent transferred to Crystal Lake. Respondent taught ESE students at Crystal Lake for the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years. The events at issue in this proceeding occurred during either the 2010-2011 school year or the 2011-2012 school year. Exact dates were available for some of the events, but unavailable for other events. Respondent’s classroom at Crystal Lake for those two school years was divided into two halves, separated by tables and rolling chalkboards that did not form a solid wall. For the 2010-2011 school year, Respondent taught her class of ESE students on one side of the divided classroom and a Ms. Knighton taught on the other side. For the 2011-2012 school year Respondent shared the classroom with Mr. Montalbano. On one side of the classroom was Respondent’s class, consisting of 11 ESE students. On the other side of the room was Mr. Montalbano’s class, consisting of seven ESE students. Mr. Montalbano’s class was smaller because his class functioned at a lower level than Respondent’s class. On October 4, 2011, student J., a non-verbal, wheel chair-bound boy, and student D., a boy with Down’s syndrome, were sitting next to each other in Respondent’s classroom. Student D. did something to irritate student J. Student J. balled up his fist as if to strike student D. Respondent, in front of the entire class, Lisa Phillips (an ESE paraprofessional), and Ms. Sorren, made the following statement: “So is the cripple [student J.] going to beat up the retard [student D.]”./4 Other students in the classroom laughed at student J. and student D. Student J.’s wheelchair is motorized. After making the statement quoted above, Respondent attempted to move student J. into a corner. When student J. moved the wheelchair away from the corner, Respondent unplugged the wheelchair’s battery and made the statement: “Now who has the power. I am in control, not you.” The other students laughed at student J. Respondent then moved student J. to the corner./5 On October 11, 2011, Respondent sent student J. to Mr. Montalbano’s classroom and commented that “he’s too much of a bother.” One day at dismissal, student J. asked Respondent three or four times to be taken to the bathroom. Respondent did not respond to student J. The bus arrived, but the driver refused to accept student J. because of his request to go to the toilet. Mr. Montalbano, who overheard student J.’s requests to Respondent, took over the responsibility for student J. Respondent became frustrated while helping student J. with the computer after student J. got the wires to the headphones tangled. Respondent ripped the headphones out of the back of the computer leaving the male connection in the female end of the computer. In a private discussion with Mr. Montalbano, Respondent referred to student D. as being a “moron.” Respondent sent her 11 students to Mr. Montalbano’s side of the classroom, which housed ten computers. There was a disturbance because one student did not have a computer. Respondent came to Mr. Montalbano’s side of the classroom and told student D. to give up his computer. Student D.’s first language is Bulgarian. When student D. muttered in protest, Respondent yelled at him to express himself in English. When student D. left the computer, his place was quickly taken by another student. Student D. began to cry. Respondent walked back to her side of the classroom, leaving student D. crying in Mr. Montalbano’s side of the classroom. On October 11, 2011, student Mi., an 11 year-old female on the autism spectrum, was playing with a puzzle during free time when she spotted an open computer. Student Mi. left the puzzle pieces out to go to the computer. Respondent noted the puzzle on the table and yelled out, “Who left this puzzle out?” Student Mi. hid under a table in reaction to Respondent’s statement. Respondent came to the table, roughly grabbed student Mi., and pulled her out from under the table. Respondent led student Mi. to the table with the puzzle and yelled in front of the class: “I don’t know what your mother teaches you at home, but you’re a little, spoiled brat and I am not going to clean up after you.” Respondent then took student Mi.’s doll away from her and put her in time out for the remainder of the day, approximately 30 minutes. On another occasion, Respondent had the other members of the class imitate student Mi., after student Mi. had engaged in self-stimulatory behavior. The other students laughed at student Mi. In October 2011, Ms. Hudson discovered Respondent and student Mi. in Mr. Montalbano’s half of the classroom with the lights dimmed. Ms. Hudson thought student Mi. had been crying. Ms. Hudson reported the incident to her principal, but she did not question Respondent, nor did Respondent volunteer to Ms. Hudson an explanation of the circumstances that resulted in Respondent being in the darkened classroom with student Mi. At the formal hearing, Respondent explained that student Mi. had run into traffic while waiting to be transported from school. Respondent testified, credibly, that she was trying to calm down student Mi./6 Ms. Sorren testified, credibly, that during the short time she was in Respondent’s classroom (approximately three school days), she heard Respondent address the students as morons, monkeys, jungle monkeys, and animals. That testimony was consistent with the other testimony as to the language used by Respondent in her classroom. Petitioners established that Respondent repeatedly yelled at her students to “shut up,” described a student’s behavior as being “stupid,” and called at least one student a “brat.” Student Mo., a female on the autism spectrum, was new to Respondent’s class. On an unidentified date, Respondent directed student Mo. to go to timeout. After student Mo. refused to go to timeout, Respondent shoved student Mo. into the timeout area. During the 2010-2011 school year, Respondent became upset with student C., a female, and ordered her out of her classroom. When student C. talked back to Respondent, Respondent threw student C.’s backpack and her shoes over the chalkboard that divided the classroom. Ms. Knighton and her class were in the part of the classroom into which Respondent threw the objects. Student C. became very upset. Respondent became upset with Ma., a male student. Ma. had a snack on his desk. Respondent knocked the snack to the floor and smashed it with her foot. Petitioners established that Respondent engaged in a pattern of misconduct. Respondent’s effectiveness in the school system has been impaired.
Recommendation The following recommendations are based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law: As to Case No. 12-2859TTS, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Broward County, Florida, enter a final order adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order uphold the suspension without pay of Rhea Cohen’s employment and terminate that employment. As to Case No. 13-0704PL, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order suspend Rhea Cohen’s educator’s certificate for a period of five years, to be followed by probation for three years with conditions to be set by the Education Practices Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of July, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 12th day of July, 2013.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment pursuant to Sections 231.36(1)(a) and 231.35(6)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been employed as a social studies teacher at Bell High School since 1988. He is employed under a professional services contract for instructional personnel. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent has received satisfactory performance appraisals. He was selected Bell High School Teacher of the Year and Gilchrist County Teacher of the Year in 1996. Respondent's competency as a teacher is not at issue here. It is undisputed that Respondent is an effective teacher except as alleged by Petitioner in this case. 1998/1999 School Year On January 26, 1999, Superintendent Thomas (Superintendent) wrote a letter recommending Respondent for the James Madison Fellowship Program. In the letter, the Superintendent stated that Respondent is an outstanding teacher who is academically strong in the field of social studies, American History, and American Government. The letter recounts Respondent's involvement as the senior class sponsor and in developing a cultural exchange program and a junior achievement program. Respondent was the senior class sponsor in the Fall of 1998. In the first days of school, Respondent prepared and presented the seniors with a detailed letter containing information, including, but not limited to, officer duties and responsibilities. The section on officer duties and responsibilities stated, in part, that the senior sponsor reserved the right to remove officers for incompetence or inappropriate behavior. Subsequently, a certain female student was elected senior class president. She and Respondent had a personality conflict from that time forward. Part of the problem involved the student's initiation of class projects without Respondent's approval, which was contrary to Respondent's procedures outlined in the letter referenced above. Respondent often found fault with the senior class president's performance of her duties and her inability to devote full time to her elected position because of extracurricular activities. On several occasions, Respondent made comments to the senior class president that embarrassed her in front of other students and teachers, embarrassing her to the point of tears. One time Respondent told the student that he was not going to chaperon "some damn carwash" and miss his football game. The student complained to her parents about the way Respondent treated her. In November 1998, the student and her parents requested a parent/teacher conference with Respondent. The assistant principal also attended the meeting. After Respondent offered to shake the father's hand, the conversation almost immediately resulted in a heated discussion between the student's father and Respondent. During the conversation, Respondent informed the parents that he had students in his class that were more important than their daughter's feelings and that if the daughter was going to complain to her parents, she was fired from her position as senior class president. The student's father then accused Respondent of being disrespectful of the daughter and objected to Respondent's use of curse words in front of the daughter. Respondent stated that he did not consider "damn" a curse word. On November 9, 1998, the parents made a written complaint about Respondent's conduct before and after the parent/teacher conference. They requested that the letter be placed in Respondent's personnel file. Respondent responded with a letter dated November 8, 1998. He claimed that he had been summoned to the office for a meeting with a hostile parent for which he had been completely unprepared. Respondent denied that he had ever cursed the student. Respondent stated that he did not ever intend to be "bushwhacked" again. Respondent later told the principal that the student was fired as class president. The principal said that she would not be removed from her elected office. Respondent then resigned his position as senior sponsor. In January 1999, Respondent wrote a letter to the Superintendent and members of the school board. The letter outlined a series of events and incidents alleged by Respondent to represent the inadequacies of the school system. For example, the letter includes, but is not limited to, the following: (a) allegations of nepotism and incompetent teachers; (b) allegations that a student broke the nose of Respondent's daughter after a coach told her to hit the student if he sexually harassed her again; (c) allegations that a coach had walked into the girls locker room while they were changing; and (d) allegations that the coach had retaliated against Respondent by falsifying his daughter's grades because Respondent complained about the locker room incident. Apparently the Superintendent did not reply in writing to Respondent's January 1999 letter or require any employee to write a letter of apology. Nevertheless, competent evidence indicates that the Superintendent investigated Respondent's concerns and properly resolved all issues, including the disciplining of employees where necessary. Respondent was responsible for the establishment of a World War II (W.W. II) Monument on the grounds of the Gilchrist County Courthouse in honor of the veterans who fought in that war. Respondent often invited veterans to speak in his class regarding their wartime experiences. Mr. Cody Bennett, a W.W. II veteran, spoke to Respondent's class approximately 16 times. On one occasion, the principal questioned whether Mr. Bennett had signed in at the office and whether Respondent had requested pre-approval of Mr. Bennett's presentation according to the school's policy. Bell High School policy requires a visitor to sign in at the main office and to be approved by an administrator. The policy states that guest speakers should be pre-approved by an administrator. Mr. Bennett's class presentation was not pre-approved by an administrator. Because Mr. Bennett had not signed in at the office before visiting Respondent's classroom, Respondent signed him in as he was leaving the campus. 1999/2000 School Term In the Fall of 1999, Respondent requested another male teacher to demonstrate something for Respondent's students. The male teacher agreed and went into Respondent's class. Respondent then requested his colleague to show the class the "three point stance" of a football player. After the teacher bent over with his hands on his knees, Respondent asked the teacher to spell the word "r-u-n." As the class burst out laughing, the embarrassed teacher quickly left the class. The teacher later realized that he had been requested to demonstrate a homosexual act in front of the class. Respondent made the same request of another male teacher. After asking his colleague to show the class a football lineman's position (knees bent ready for a block), Respondent requested the teacher to spell the word "r-u-n." Once again the class burst out laughing. The second teacher did not fully understand the inappropriate joke until he left Respondent's classroom. By letter dated October 22, 1999, the principal of Bell High School wrote a letter to Respondent reprimanding him for the inappropriate sexual implication of Respondent's behavior. The principal directed Respondent to write letters to the teachers, apologizing for his conduct that constituted extreme misconduct for a teacher. The principal warned Respondent that such conduct in the future could result in discharge. The principal noted in his October 22, 1999, letter that Respondent had shown a negative attitude toward the principal as Respondent's supervisor. The principal stated that he expected Respondent to show a more positive attitude in the future. The principal placed the letter of reprimand in Respondent's personnel file. As requested by the principal, Respondent wrote letters of apology dated October 22, 1999, to the teachers. Both letters stated Respondent's regrets for causing his co- workers embarrassment for the incident that he referred to as a "spontaneous practical joke." Respondent admits that the practical joke was in bad taste and demonstrated a lapse of judgment on his part. During the hearing, the teachers testified that they maintained good professional and personal relationships with Respondent despite the incidents. One day before class in April 2000, one of Respondent's students told him that she needed to leave his class early to attend a school softball game. Respondent was unnecessarily harsh and embarrassed the student when she reminded him during class that she had to leave the class. In chastising the student, Respondent emphasized that the student did not need softball to graduate but that she did need his class. The incident was videotaped because a group of students were about to make a class presentation at the time. The student's parent wrote a letter to Respondent, complaining about Respondent's treatment of the student. The complaint alleged, among other things, that Respondent had humiliated the student about her work and yelled and screamed at the student for interrupting class when leaving for the game. Respondent replied to the parent's complaint by letter dated April 28, 2000. Respondent objected to being slandered by a student. He stated that the student's grade for incomplete work would stand as recorded. Respondent admitted that he did not like interruptions in his class due to sports events. He said he would no longer give the student a "mild scolding" to enhance her performance. According to Respondent's letter, he felt the parent's letter was hostile, unfounded, and personally insulting. On May 1, 2000, the principal advised Respondent that he was transferring the student out of Respondent's class due to the strained relationship on the part of the student. The letter requested that Respondent furnish the principal with the student's grades and a copy of the videotape of the incident involving the student's interruption of class. Respondent complied with the principal's request to provide the principal with the student's grades. There is no persuasive evidence that Respondent altered the student's grades before doing so. However, there is competent evidence that Respondent never complied with the principal's request to produce the videotape. 2000/2001 School Term Petitioner requires its teachers to maintain a portfolio containing examples of assignments and student work samples. One purpose of the portfolio is to assist supervisors in assessing the teachers' performance at the end of the year. On May 2, 2001, the teachers at Bell High School were advised that their portfolios would be due on May 18, 2001. Respondent did not turn in a portfolio by the required date. Toward the end of the 2000/2001 school year, the fire alarm was activated at Bell High School. The record is unclear whether the alarm was the result of a planned fire drill or a false alarm due to recurring problems with the fire alarm system. In any event, Respondent did not interrupt his class to take his students outside as required by school policy. In June 2001, the assistant principal at Bell High School and Respondent met to review Respondent's end-of-the- year performance evaluation. Petitioner's signature on the evaluation would have indicated only that the assistant principal had reviewed it with Respondent. During the meeting, the assistant principal explained that Respondent's score would have been higher but for Respondent's failure to turn in a portfolio and his failure to take his class outside during a fire alarm during semester exams. Respondent disagreed with the assistant principal over his evaluation, in part, because a one-point higher would have resulted in an increase in Respondent's salary. The assistant principal responded to Respondent's objections stating, "You made it easy." Because he did not agree with the evaluation, Respondent told the assistant principal that he was wasting Respondent's time and that he did not "want to listen to any more of this." Respondent then requested that he be dismissed so that he could attend a school board meeting. Respondent started to leave the room. When the assistant principal requested Respondent to return to discuss the evaluation, Respondent stated, "Why listen to more of this bullshit?" Respondent then told the assistant principal that he was a "spineless lizard." Respondent then wrote "I do not concur" on the evaluation and without signing his name on the evaluation, left the room. By letter dated June 6, 2001, the principal of Bell High School reprimanded Respondent for his inappropriate, unprofessional, and insubordinate conduct toward the assistant principal. The principal reminded Respondent that he previously had been reprimanded for his attitude to the former principal. The principal stated that such conduct in the future could result in discharge. The principal's letter of reprimand directed Respondent to write a letter of apology to the assistant principal. Before the letter was placed in Respondent's personnel file, Respondent signed it, including the statement "I spoke only the truth." On June 6, 2001, Respondent wrote a one-sentence letter of apology to the assistant principal. The letter simply stated, "I am sorry." Respondent subsequently wrote a letter dated June 8, 2001, directed to the principal and others, including the Superintendent, but not including the assistant principal. Respondent's letter listed a number of incidents in which Respondent felt that he had been unfairly treated. Respondent's June 8, 2001, letter asserts that a teacher twice called him a "son of a bitch" without receiving a reprimand. That incident involved a situation where Respondent told a teacher that he was not going to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed person. The teacher then called him a "son of a bitch." Respondent asked his colleague to repeat what she said in front of witnesses and she did. The principal subsequently counseled with Respondent and the teacher, giving them both a verbal reprimand, and telling them not to make such inappropriate comments to each other in the future. In his June 8, 2001, letter, Respondent requested an investigation of each of the incidents. Respondent also stated in the letter that he was sorry if he hurt the assistant principal's feelings. The assistant principal never received a copy of the letter containing Respondent's apology. The Superintendent subsequently performed an investigation. By letter dated October 11, 2001, the Superintendent advised Respondent that the issues raised in his June 8, 2001, letter had been reviewed. Competent evidence supports the Superintendent's conclusion in the letter that the former or current principal at Bell High School had properly addressed each of Respondent's concerns. 2001/2002 School Term On August 6, 2001, the Superintendent signed and issued to Respondent a Professional Service Contract of Employment for Instructional Personnel of the Public Schools for the 2001/2002 school term. The contract states that Petitioner had determined that Respondent had satisfactorily completed all requirements of law for such a contract. On August 10, 2001, Respondent signed a form indicating that he had received a copy of Bell High School's Teacher Handbook. The handbook included an emergency plan that required teachers to keep their classroom doors locked each period of the day. The policy was created as a safety measure after the "Columbine" shooting spree. Respondent generally followed the locked-door policy. However, occasionally he would leave the door open so that students could go and come from the restroom without interrupting the class. Respondent also left his door open for about 10 or 15 minutes in the morning because one student from another school zone arrived late every morning and Respondent did not want the class interrupted. Despite the inconvenience to Respondent in having his class interrupted, leaving the door open was contrary to established policy. Sometime prior to August 15, 2001, Respondent extended an invitation to Brett Hillman to visit his class. Mr. Hillman was a former student of Respondent and on leave from active military service. When Mr. Hillman arrived on campus, he was arrested for trespassing on school property. Respondent subsequently wrote a letter dated September 14, 2001, to the county judge assigned to hear the criminal trespass case against Mr. Hillman. Respondent's letter explained to the judge that he felt responsible because he had neglected to have Mr. Hillman's visit to the campus approved through the office. An assistant state attorney subsequently wrote a letter dated October 18, 2001, advising the principal that Mr. Hillman's case was resolved in a deferred prosecution procedure. The assistant state attorney explained the problems associated with the prosecution not being aware of Respondent's invitation for Mr. Hillman to visit Respondent's classroom. One of Respondent's classes in the Fall of 2001 was an eighth-grade American History class. The students ranged in ages from 14 to 17. The following incidents occurred with students in that class. Several times Respondent asked students if they had a date for the weekend. If the student replied that he or she did not, Respondent would respond, "Oh, I didn't think so" or "Ha-Ha, I didn't think so." On one occasion, Respondent replied, "I figured not because you're so ugly." The regularity in which Respondent made these statements and manner in which the students understood them indicates that the students were not offended and understood that Respondent was joking. On at least one occasion, Respondent discussed the difference in Democrats and Republicans with two of his students. Respondent told the students that Democrats are asses, not donkeys, and Republicans are elephants. The evidence is not clear and convincing that Respondent made this comment intentionally to slander or make a profane statement about either of the political parties. At times, Respondent used inappropriate language in an attempt to motivate his students individually. For example, Respondent called one student who was rather large, "Bigun," meaning no disrespect to the student. However, on at least one occasion, Respondent told "Bigun" that he was lazy and should drop out and shovel shit if he did not want to stay in school. On another occasion, Respondent told "Bigun" to get his fat ass out of his (Respondent's) class. Respondent told a bashful student that if he did not want to participate in class, he could get the hell out of the class, drop out, and flip burgers. Respondent made this comment because the student did not want to read out loud in class. Respondent also made the following statements to students: (a) a student should drop out and get a job flipping burgers so she would not be on welfare for others to support; (b) a student should get out of school and stop stinking it up if they did not want to learn; (c) two students were a pain in the ass because they had not finished a report and did not want to learn; (d) it was bullshit for a student not to want to participate in a project; (e) a student should shut up; and (f) a student should get the hell out of here. Sometimes Respondent made inappropriate comments to the class at large. Respondent told the class he knew he was an asshole but the class would have to live with it because he did. Respondent also said he "could be a nice person, but just don't piss him off." Respondent would remind his class that if they dropped out of school and got a job, their boss would yell at them and tell them to get off their fat ass. Respondent made some of these comments in the context of a lesson on illiteracy. Nevertheless, Respondent's choice of words to make his point regarding the importance of an education in getting and keeping a good job was inappropriate. On two occasions, Respondent told a student to "get the hell out of this classroom" if the student did not want to learn. The second time that Respondent made this statement, the student left the class, spoke to the principal, and spent a couple of days in the In-School Suspension (ISS) room. When the student returned to Respondent's class, Respondent learned that the student had spoken to the principal. Respondent then stated, "All this crap is happening all over again." On another occasion, Respondent used the word "damn" in a conversation with a student. During the conversation, Respondent also stated, "[t]his is my class and I'm running the show here. And if you don't want to go along with it, you can get out." After making this statement, another student in the same area of the classroom started laughing and making fun of the first student. In discussing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Respondent told his students that they could say anything because they had a right to freedom of speech. To make his point, Respondent told the class that they could curse each other or him outside of class and he would not write them up because of their right to speak freely. However, there is no clear and convincing evidence that Respondent condoned student use of curse words in class. On September 11, 2001, the atmosphere in Respondent's class was emotionally charged as everyone learned about the attack on New York City. Later in response to a student's questions, Respondent used the words "rag heads," referencing the terrorists responsible for the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. Respondent used the same terms in discussing the terrorists with the principal. In the Fall of 2001, one eighth-grade student complained to his mother that Respondent was singling him out and embarrassing him in class. The mother told her son to tough it out for another week because Respondent might have been having a bad day. The student later complained again to his mother about Respondent's embarrassing treatment in the classroom. Based on the student's repeated complaints, the mother sent a message to Respondent asking him to call at his convenience. After receiving the message, Respondent immediately returned the mother's call. During the conversation, Respondent stated that the student was "not completing his work. I chewed him out really good yesterday so maybe he'll do something today." When the mother inquired about the student's allegations that Respondent was singling the student out in class and embarrassing him to the point of tears in front of the other students, Respondent replied, "Yes, that's true, but I am a hard teacher and I am not gonna cuddle and baby [the student] in my classroom. He either does what I say or he fails." When the mother questioned whether Respondent had told his students to quit school and stop wasting Respondent's and the school's time if they did not want to work, Respondent admitted that he had made such a statement. When the mother asked Respondent not to embarrass her son in front of the class, Respondent stated, "[y]ou wouldn't call up your doctor or your lawyer and harass them, and I don't expect you to do this to me." When the mother responded that she was just trying to find out what was going on, noting that Respondent was chewing her out, Respondent replied, "If there is nothing else, I have a class to teach so you can make an appointment like everybody else" then hung up the phone. Respondent appeared to be angry when he returned to the classroom after speaking with the mother. Respondent then requested to see the student's work folder. After making a derogatory comment about the work in the folder, Respondent told the student to get it organized and tossed it down on the student's desk, causing the papers to fall on the floor. There is no clear and convincing evidence that the folder hit the student in the chest, but the incident did cause the student embarrassment in front of his classmates. The mother subsequently called the assistant principal to complain about Respondent's unprofessional behavior. Specifically, the mother stated that Respondent had hung up on her and that she wanted her son removed from Respondent's class. After receiving written complaints from the mother and her son, both of which contained allegations that Respondent used curse words in class, the assistant principal gave the information to the principal. Based on the complaints from the mother and her son, the principal initiated an investigation on October 11, 2001. He first talked to several students in the class. The students did not know why they were being questioned. Without naming Respondent, the students were asked whether any teachers used profanity in the classroom. The students named Respondent as the only teacher who did so. Each student was talked to separately, sequestered, and asked to write a statement concerning Respondent's conduct in the classroom. There is no competent evidence that the students were unduly influenced or coached regarding the content of their statements. Two students, who did not want to get involved, were allowed to return to class. The student's initial statements and the mother's statement were submitted to the Superintendent. Because the statements warranted further investigation, the Superintendent appointed a committee to look into the matter. Respondent sent a memorandum dated October 16, 2001, to the members of the school board. In the memorandum, Respondent complained that he was being harassed because students from his at-risk class were being summoned from class to provide statements regarding his classroom activities without his knowledge. According to Respondent, the administration's current investigation was consistent with past personal attacks on Respondent. Respondent demanded that Petitioner provide him with all written statements by students, teachers, and parents and any notes in the possession of administrators but not included in his personnel file. He demanded that Petitioner refer the alleged harassment to the Educational Practices Commission. He insisted that he receive prior notification of any subsequent investigations. The Superintendent appointed an outside investigator as soon as he learned that Respondent believed the investigation was politically motivated and in retribution for Respondent running against the Superintendent in the most recent election. During the investigation, Petitioner once again pulled the students who had signed previous statements from class. At that time, Petitioner requested the students to sign affidavits that their initial statements were true. The only other times that Petitioner pulled students from class in relation to this case was to speak with an investigator or attorney in preparation for trial. On one occasion a student asked to call her father. At that point Petitioner's counsel stopped talking to the student. On or about October 15, 2001, Respondent called the Superintendent at home one night, demanding copies of all documents being considered in the investigation. During this conversation, Respondent told the Superintendent that the investigation was all a bunch of crap, that the principal at Bell High School was an idiot, and that he (Respondent) was not interested in the Superintendent's bullshit procedures. When the independent investigation was completed, the Superintendent reviewed all of the information. He considered Respondent's years of service, his satisfactory performance evaluations, and his personnel file, which contained two letters of reprimand. The Superintendent concluded that termination of Respondent's employment was appropriate after considering all aggravating and mitigating factors. By letter dated October 29, 2001, Respondent was invited to a meeting to discuss the allegations against him, which at that point included misconduct in office and/or gross insubordination. Specifically, the letter stated that Respondent had: (a) used profane or obscene language; encouraged or condoned student's use of profanity; intimidated and embarrassed students; and (d) continued refusal to obey direct orders from school board personnel. The Superintendent's letter advised Respondent of his rights under the Collective Bargaining Agreement, giving him a five-day notice of the meeting scheduled for November 5, 2001. The purpose of the meeting was to allow Respondent an opportunity to rebut the allegations against him. In a letter dated November 1, 2001, Respondent objected to the meeting scheduled for November 5, 2001, because it did not provide him with a five-day notice from the time that he received the October 29, 2001, letter. Respondent also requested that the Superintendent furnish Respondent with copies of certain documents, including his personnel file, all written complaints from students, parents, and teachers, and a copy of Petitioner's policies. Respondent's November 1, 2001, letter stated that the eighth-grade class had been exploited and that the student's affidavits had been solicited under duress. There is no persuasive evidence to support these allegations. Respondent claimed that the classroom was hostile and not conducive to effective education. Respondent asserted that he was not certified to teach the eighth-grade class because it was not a mainstream class. He requested that he be assigned to teach another class for that time block. By letter dated November 1, 2001, the Superintendent rescheduled the meeting for November 7, 2001, to ensure that Respondent was given adequate notice. The Superintendent also reminded Respondent that he had been furnished a copy of his entire personnel file and copies of affidavits obtained during the preliminary investigation. The Superintendent's letter enclosed a copy of the parent's letter that initiated the investigation. The letter sets forth the conditions under which a copy of Petitioner's policies would be made available to Respondent. Finally, the Superintendent's November 1, 2001, letter denied Respondent's request for reassignment as premature. However, that request was subsequently granted. On November 4, 2001, Respondent wrote a letter to the Superintendent. The letter states, among other things, that a student had called his home to tell him that his daughter was threatening other students. Respondent demanded a written explanation from the Superintendent regarding the persons who assisted the student in using the office phone to make the call and insisting that the Superintendent investigate the incident. There is no persuasive evidence that Respondent's daughter ever threatened her classmates. Respondent attended the meeting with the Superintendent on November 7, 2001. During the meeting, the Superintendent granted Respondent's request for additional time to respond to the allegations in writing. Respondent made his written response in a letter dated November 12, 2001. In Respondent's November 12, 2001, letter, Respondent apologized for using certain inappropriate words in class but argued that technically they were not defined as "profanity." He denied that he had ever disobeyed a direct order but apologized for offending the Superintendent in a heated conversation. He denied intimidating and embarrassing students, claiming that he only administered warranted admonishments. Respondent could not recall what he had said to students about the terrorists on September 11, 2001. He condoned the division of the word "assassination" into syllables to help the students learn to spell it. He denied that he called a student fat but admitted that he may have used the work lazy. Respondent accused a student of using the word ass instead of donkey to describe Democrats, stating that he thought nothing of the student's comment at the time. By letter dated December 7, 2001, the Superintendent suspended Respondent's employment with pay. The letter stated that the suspension would be effective until Petitioner's next board meeting on December 11, 2001. Respondent and another school employee ran against the Superintendent for the elected position of Superintendent of Gilchrist County Schools in 2000. The Superintendent was reelected in the first primary. There is no persuasive evidence that the Superintendent's investigation and ultimate decision to recommend suspension of Respondent's employment was politically motivated. There have been other incidents where the Superintendent has had to discipline teachers for using profanity. There has been no situation where the Superintendent has failed to take some disciplinary action against these teachers. The type of discipline in each incident was decided on a case-by-case basis, depending on the circumstances. Petitioner has a policy entitled "Profane or Obscene Language," which states as follows in pertinent part: Under no condition shall any School Board employee be permitted to use profane or obscene language in his or her relationship with students. Any employee who uses profane or obscene language while speaking to, communicating with or in the presence of students shall be guilty of misconduct in office, conduct which seriously reduces his/her effectiveness as an employee and failure to comply with a School Board rule. On every occasion in which a violation of this policy has been brought to the attention of the Superintendent, he has issued some form of discipline. There is no policy requiring the Superintendent to inform anyone about the discipline of another teacher. During the public input period of the hearing, the general public was given an opportunity to present oral or written communications. Five individuals spoke on Respondent's behalf. Some of these witnesses could not believe that Respondent would engage in the conduct of which he was accused but conceded that if Respondent had behaved in such inappropriate conduct, it might change their opinion of him. Two citizens testified on behalf of Petitioner during the public input period. One witness was a former student of Respondent who presented credible testimony that Respondent called him a "swinging dick" on one occasion and threw the student's shoe out the window on another occasion because the student had his foot on his desk. The other public input witness testifying for Petitioner was the father of a former student. This witness presented credible evidence that Respondent engaged in degrading and humiliating behavior toward his family, by insulting them during a parent/teacher meeting. During this meeting, Respondent accused the father of not having the ability to comprehend or deal with the situation and that the father was not mentally capable of carrying on a conversation with him. Respondent used many posters as visual aides in his classroom. For example, Respondent had pictures of every president of the United States up on the walls. One of Respondent's classes in 1992 hung President Clinton's picture upside down until the assistant principal required Respondent to turn the picture right side up in 1998. Respondent routinely placed a Groucho Marx nose on the picture of the President when the class was studying about that president. There is no clear and convincing evidence that Respondent used the nose to disparage one president over another. However, there is competent evidence that Respondent did not immediately remove the nose from President Clinton's picture when the assistant principal requested him to do so. In the Fall of 2001, the principal found one poster on the outside of Respondent's classroom door. The posted depicted a crying baby and a picture of the official seal of the United States Democratic Party, with the caption "Don't be a cry baby." The principal removed the picture from Respondent's door because the principal did not believe the poster was politically neutral. In prior years, the principal twice instructed Respondent to remove a car tag from his bulletin board. The car tag showed a person urinating on President Clinton's name. The second time that Respondent was directed to remove the tag, he covered the tag with a paper containing the word "censored" on it.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order dismissing Respondent from his employment as a teacher in the Gilchrist County School System. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of June, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 26th day of June, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Charlie Crist Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Don Thomas, Superintendent Gilchrist County School Board 310 Northwest 11th Avenue Trenton, Florida 32693-3804 William H. Andrews, Esquire Coffman, Coleman, Andrews & Grogan, P.A. Post Office Box 40089 Jacksonville, Florida 32203 Dan Taylor Post Office Box 657 Bell, Florida 32619-0657
