The Issue Whether the Respondent's employment with the School Board of Dade County should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Dade County School Board is responsible for operating, controlling, and supervising all public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Section 4(b), Article IX, Florida Constitution; Section 230.03, Florida Statutes (1997). Ms. Scott is employed by the School Board as a custodian. She began working for the School Board in 1990 as a part-time food service worker at South Dade, and, in early 1992, she began working at South Dade as a full-time custodian. Custodians are classified by the School Board as maintenance workers, and Ms. Scott was a member of AFSCME at all times material to this action. The school's head custodian is responsible for overseeing the day-to-day performance of the custodians, which includes assigning duties to each custodian and developing a schedule for each custodian identifying the tasks that must be accomplished during specified blocks of time. The schedule is approved by the principal of the school. John Alexander is, and was at all material times, the head custodian at South Dade and Ms. Scott's immediate supervisor. Ms. Scott's job responsibilities and duties included "policing" 2/ all ten girls' restrooms after each class change; policing the girls' locker room; policing certain other areas, including designated corridors, the auditorium lobby, the clinic, and the band area; cleaning five girls' restrooms after 2:00 p.m.; cleaning designated cafeteria windows; removing graffiti from walls, mirrors, and corridors as needed; cleaning and disinfecting the drinking fountains in all corridors; cleaning graffiti off walls and doors in the ten girls' restrooms; and cleaning, dusting, and mopping the audio-visual room. Ms. Scott was also expected to respond to emergencies. These duties were the same as those assigned to the female custodian whom Ms. Scott replaced and as those currently being performed by the woman who replaced Ms. Scott at South Dade. Ms. Scott's training consisted, first, of working for several weeks with the female custodian she was hired to replace. Then, after Ms. Scott's predecessor retired, Mr. Alexander worked with her for approximately two weeks. Mr. Alexander noticed problems in her job performance shortly after Ms. Scott began working as a custodian. In a memorandum dated May 12, 1992, Mr. Alexander identified two specific incidents when Ms. Scott refused to follow his instructions. He notified Ms. Scott in the memorandum that he would recommend her termination as of May 19, 1992, during her probationary period, for lack of motivation and failure to perform her job responsibilities. As a result of this memorandum, on May 19, 1992, Ms. Scott, Mr. Alexander and Dr. Paul Redlhammer, the principal of South Dade at that time, met to discuss Ms. Scott's job performance. After this meeting, Dr. Redlhammer sent Ms. Scott a "Memo of Understanding: Job Performance," in which he summarized the reasons for the concern about her job performance and notified her that Mr. Alexander would work with her for two weeks to help her improve her job performance. Mr. Alexander did not notice any improvement in Ms. Scott's work during the two-week period or thereafter. On February 3, 1993, Mr. Alexander had a discussion with Ms. Scott about leaving work early, failing to empty the trash cans in her areas, and failing to clean the floor in the audio- visual room. On May 21, 1993, Mr. Alexander issued a Notification of Written Warning to Ms. Scott regarding her unsatisfactory performance, which included insubordination, disrespect, and improper behavior. Mr. Alexander proposed that Ms. Scott's file be reviewed and that she be given an opportunity to explain her performance. Mr. Alexander intended to recommend her termination from employment. From September 24, 1993, through October 27, 1993, Mr. Alexander kept a log of the time Ms. Scott reported for work and left work each day. The log reflected that Ms. Scott left work thirty to forty-five minutes early on fifteen days during that period, that she took a forty-minute morning break one day, and that she reported for work between one hour and forty minutes and two and one-half hours late on three days. In Ms. Scott's November 15, 1993, annual evaluation, Mr. Alexander rated Ms. Scott poor in the categories of taking lunch and breaks at the proper times, cleaning bathrooms, washing windows, following orders, following work schedules, and working well with other custodians. Mr. Alexander discussed the evaluation and her deficiencies with Ms. Scott, and she acknowledged by her signature that she had seen the written evaluation. Ms. Scott's job performance did not improve during the 1994-1995 school year. Despite being told repeatedly not to do so, Ms. Scott spent inordinate amounts of time talking with school security monitors in the school's corridors and in the school's north parking lot, sometimes spending an hour or more a day in these conversations. During most of that time, Ms. Scott was not on authorized breaks or lunch period. At the same time, Ms. Scott often did not properly police the girls' bathrooms or clean the areas for which she was responsible, and, on several occasions, she refused to obey direct orders from Mr. Alexander. In September 1994, Orlando Gonzalez, the assistant principal at South Dade, scheduled an informal conference with Ms. Scott to discuss the deficiencies in her work performance, including an incident in which Mr. Gonzalez observed Ms. Scott watching television at 9:30 a.m. in the audio visual room. Ms. Scott left the school before the scheduled conference without permission. As a result of this behavior, Mr. Gonzalez requested that Donald Hoecherl, the new principal at South Dade, schedule a formal conference for the record to discuss "serious deficiencies in her job performance." Mr. Gonzalez later withdrew the request for the conference on the record because he thought he could accomplish more by counseling with Ms. Scott informally to help her improve her job performance. Nonetheless, a conference for the record was held by Mr. Hoecherl in November 1994 for the stated purpose of addressing "continuous incidents of insubordination, failure to complete assigned work, and leaving work early." Ms. Scott was advised by Mr. Hoecherl that, if the problems were not resolved, another conference for the record would be held and that he would formally request her dismissal. Ms. Scott refused to sign the conference summary. Ms. Scott's job performance did not improve after the November 1994 conference for the record. Mr. Hoecherl tried to work with Ms. Scott on an informal basis, but his efforts to improve her job performance were not successful. In April 1995, Mr. Gonzalez received complaints from two parents about the lack of cleanliness in the ladies' restroom in an area which Ms. Scott was responsible for cleaning. Mr. Gonzalez told Mr. Alexander to direct Ms. Scott to clean that restroom. The next day, Mr. Gonzalez found that the restroom had not been cleaned. Mr. Gonzalez prepared a memorandum to Ms. Scott directing her to clean the restroom. In June 1995, a Notification of Written Warning was directed to Ms. Scott because she refused to obey direct orders from Mr. Alexander. Ms. Scott's job performance deteriorated during the 1995-1996 school year. On October 5, 1995, a Notification of Written Warning was issued for "[f]ailure to follow and complete assigned work." On November 8, 1995, a conference for the record was held and was attended by Ms. Scott and two representatives of AFSCME, as well as by Mr. Hoecherl, and Mr. Gonzalez. Three issues were discussed: Ms. Scott's direct and implied insubordination when she refused an order by Mr. Alexander to clean up the clinic area after a student became ill and when she twice refused to comply with Mr. Hoecherl's request that she step into his office to discuss the incident; Ms. Scott's pattern of failing to complete her job assignments; and her pattern of loitering on the job by talking to the security monitors in the corridors and in the north parking lot. The written summary of the conference for the record, dated November 13, 1996, included the following: In an effort to resolve these issues the following directives were outlined: Comply with all requests and directives issued by your immediate supervisor or administrator. . . . In regard to this issue failure to comply with the direction of an administrator or immediate supervisor constitutes insubordination and will result in additional disciplinary action. Follow your job assignments as given to you prior to this conference and again at this conference. The cleaning must be performed in a satisfactory manner meeting the requirements to maintain a clean and healthy school setting. Failure to complete your job assignments will result in additional disciplinary action. Refrain from loitering while on the job. You are reminded that you may spend your break and lunch time in dialog with others if you wish. You are not entitled to spend an inordinate amount of time talking and not performing your job assignments. Failure to meet this condition will result in additional disciplinary action. Ms. Scott refused to sign the written summary of the conference. Ms. Scott's job performance did not improve after the conference, and she did not follow the directives outlined for her. She continued to talk with other employees at times when she had no scheduled break; she failed to perform or inadequately performed her assigned tasks; and she engaged in a pattern of arriving at work late without authorization, taking time off during her shift without authorization, and leaving work before the end of her shift without authorization. On or about February 16, 1996, Mr. Alexander attempted to discuss these problems with Ms. Scott. She became angry and belligerent. Mr. Alexander stood in front of his office door to prevent Ms. Scott from going out into the corridor because the students were changing classes and he felt it would not be appropriate for them to see her in that frame of mind, but she left his office anyway. Ms. Scott was immediately summoned for a meeting with Mr. Hoecherl and Mr. Alexander. During the meeting, a school police officer arrived in response to a 911 call, which Ms. Scott had made, accusing Mr. Alexander of restraining her against her will. The police officer determined that there was no basis for this charge, and Ms. Scott left the meeting in an angry and belligerent manner. Mr. Hoecherl referred this incident to the School Board's Office of Professional Standards. An administrative review was ordered, and Mr. Hoecherl was assigned to investigate the February 16 incident. On March 25, 1996, at Mr. Hoecherl's request, he and Ms. Scott met in his office. Mr. Hoecherl explained to Ms. Scott that he was trying to learn what had happened and wanted her to tell him her version of the incident. Ms. Scott became very agitated and left Mr. Hoecherl's office, slamming the door behind her. Her behavior as she left his office was very disruptive, but he nonetheless followed her to her car and asked that she return to his office to discuss the February 16 incident. Her response was belligerent and defiant, and Mr. Hoecherl told her to go home and not return to South Dade for the rest of the day. On the morning of March 26, Ms. Scott reported to work at South Dade. She was told that she had been reassigned to the Region VI administrative office and that she was not to return to the South Dade campus. In accordance with directions he received from the School Board's Office of Professional Standards, Mr. Hoecherl instructed Ms. Scott to report to the personnel director at the Region VI office. At approximately 8:00 a.m. on March 27, Ms. Scott appeared at the custodial office at South Dade. Mr. Hoecherl again told her to report to the Region VI office and provided her with written notification of her reassignment. Ms. Scott reported to the Region VI office, but, a short time later, she left and returned to South Dade. Ms. Scott was again told to leave the school grounds and informed that failure to do so would be considered gross insubordination; she refused to leave South Dade despite repeated orders from Mr. Hoecherl and the school police. Ms. Scott was belligerent and disruptive, and she was placed under arrest by the School Board police. She was escorted out of the school building in handcuffs; Mr. Hoecherl covered her shoulders with a jacket to hide the handcuffs from the students, but Ms. Scott attempted to shrug it off. In a memorandum dated March 28, 1996, to the Office of Professional Standards, Mr. Hoecherl detailed Ms. Scott's poor job performance from January 12, 1996, through March 25, 1996. A conference for the record was scheduled for March 29 at 2:00 p.m. by James Monroe, the Executive Director of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards. Ms. Scott failed to report for the conference even though she was contacted at her home by telephone shortly after 2:00 p.m. and told that they would wait for her for one hour. The conference for the record was rescheduled for April 4, 1996, and the topics to be discussed were identified in the notice as follows: "[Y]our failure to report for a conference on March 29, 1996, at 2:00 p.m., as previously directed . . .; failure to comply with site directives; unauthorized departure from the work site; attendance/performance related issues; medical fitness for continued employment and your future employment status with Dade County Public Schools." During the conference, Ms. Scott was advised that her employment status would be reviewed in light of the facts discussed at the conference, and she was directed to report to the Region VI office pending formal notification of the decision of the Superintendent of Schools and to perform all tasks and duties assigned to her. During the time she was assigned to the Region VI office, from April 1996 until September 1996, Ms. Scott disregarded instructions and directives from her supervisors, she failed to perform her job responsibilities or performed them inadequately, and she was absent from work a number of times without authorization. From September 1995 to September 1996, Ms. Scott was absent from her job without authorization for 20 days. She was absent from her job without authorization for three consecutive workdays from March 28 through April 1, August 23 through September 5, 1996. 3/ Ms. Scott was suspended by the School Board at its September 11, 1996, meeting. Mr. Alexander, Mr. Gonzalez, and Mr. Hoecherl tried for several years, through numerous informal memoranda and discussions, to help Ms. Scott bring her job performance up to an acceptable level. Ms. Scott was given several formal written notifications and warnings about the deficiencies in her job performance, and three formal conferences for the record were held to put Ms. Scott on notice of the perceived job deficiencies and of the complaints about her work and to allow her to explain the situation from her perspective. Ms. Scott did not comply with the directives for corrective action developed during the conferences for the record, and her attitude and job performance generally deteriorated from 1992 until September 1996, when she was suspended and dismissal proceedings instituted. The evidence presented by the School Board is sufficient to establish that Ms. Scott's job performance was deficient in that she failed to perform or inadequately performed her assigned job responsibilities; that on numerous occasions she refused to comply with requests and direct orders from the head custodian, from the assistant principal, and from the principal of South Dade; that she accumulated excessive unauthorized absences; and that she abandoned her position with the School Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County issue a final order terminating Gale Scott's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of July, 1998.
The Issue The issued posed herein is whether or not the Respondent School Board of Dade County's reassignment of Petitioner/student, Valerie Patrice McDonald, from Miami Springs Junior High School to the Jan Mann Opportunity School North, should be upheld.
Findings Of Fact Valerie Patrice McDonald, Petitioner, is a student enrolled in the Dade County Public School System. Petitioner was enrolled in Miami springs Junior High School in August of 1978. Petitioner's guidance records indicates no serious behavioral problems and that her attendance at school is excellent. Her academic progress has been a steady B and C average since enrolling in the public school system. Petitioner was referred to the guidance office of Miami Springs Junior High School on numerous occasions during the 1978-1979 school year for various disciplinary problems. For example, on September 25, 1978, Petitioner was referred by her mathematics teacher for playing and not working in class. For this referral, she was counseled. Again, on October 25, 1978, she was referred by the social studies teacher for "being involved in a classroom disturbance with another student wherein pencils were broken, books were thrown out the window and the students began kicking each other. A parent conference was requested." On November 3, 1978, Petitioner was referred by the physical education teacher for "striking another student in the locker room for no apparent reason. Petitioner counseled and warned by principal." Again, on November 16, 1978, Petitioner was counseled for being loud and for refusing to remain quiet when requested. Petitioner was placed outside the classroom door by her English teacher. This pattern of disruptive behavior continued through March of 1979 when Petitioner was involved in a fire incident in the girl's physical education locker room. Based on this incident and the culmination of the prior behavioral problems, an administrative placement was requested by the school board for Petitioner to be assigned to the Opportunity School, which request was approved on April 3, 1979. Since that time, Petitioner has been attending the Jan Mann Opportunity School. Charles W. Bales, principal of Miami Springs Junior High School, testified that the assignment of Petitioner to the Opportunity School is beneficial inasmuch as it permits the student to utilize the benefits of smaller class settings, better individualized instruction; smaller class enrollments; better counselor to pupil ratio and basic educational program which enables a "disruptive" student to succeed in an individualized instructional setting. (TR 18-20) Testimony also reveals that the Opportunity School has a full-time visiting teacher who serves as the contact person for resolving any individual problems such as attendance or other behavioral problems for students at the Opportunity School. Ms. Helen Wilson, Petitioner's mother, requested that Principal Bales reassign Petitioner from three of her teachers due to matters which Ms. Wilson considered to be personal in nature. Principal Bales explained that there were approximately 1500 students at the school and that it was impossible for him to reassign students when personal differences of opinions exist between their teachers. Additionally, Principal Bales testified that students reassigned to the Opportunity School may request a transfer back to the regular school program following the close of the grading periods. Inasmuch as Petitioner has been attending the Jan Mann Opportunity School since March, 1979, it appears that she will be eligible for a reassignment to the regular school program provided that her grades, attendance, and behavioral pattern is such that she can function normally in the regular school program.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner's petition filed herein be dismissed. Additionally, it is requested that the Respondent give full consideration to Petitioner's request that she be reassigned to the regular school program when such a request is properly filed with the school board. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of August, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of August, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Helen Wilson 3311 North West 52 Street Miami, Florida 33142 Michael J. Neimand, Esquire Dade County School Board Lindsey Hopkins Building Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The basic issue in this case is whether the Respondent should be dismissed from his employment as a teacher. The Petitioner seeks such dismissal pursuant to Section 231.36, Florida Statutes, on the basis of allegations that the Respondent is guilty of: (a) violation of the Principles of Professional Conduct, (b) immorality, (c) misconduct, (d) willful neglect of duties, and (e) moral turpitude. The Respondent denies any misconduct.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence received at the hearing and on the parties's stipulations, I make the following findings of fact: Facts stipulated to by the parties Virgil L. Morgan is the duly appointed Superintendent of Schools of Broward County, Florida, and is legally authorized to represent to the School Board of Broward County, Florida, pursuant to statute, that any member of the instructional and/or administrative staff be dismissed from or with the Broward County School System. The address of Virgil L. Morgan is 1320 Southwest Fourth Street, Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida. The address of the School Board of Broward County, Florida, is 1320 Southwest Fourth Street, Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida. The Respondent, Marion Wright, is an employee of the School Board of Broward County, Florida, holding a continuing contract of employment since December 5, 1968, and has currently been employed at Nova High School, 3600 College Avenue, Davie, Broward County, Florida, as an American History and Geography teacher. The last known address of the Respondent is 151 Northwest 33rd Terrace, Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida. Other general facts While employed at Nova High School, the Respondent was also the coach of the girls junior varsity basketball team. Facts regarding motor vehicle operations The Respondent's ex-students and assistant coaches often moved his car from one place to another on the Nova campus during the school day. These ex- students and assistant coaches were licensed drivers. The Respondent sometimes also permitted several students who were seniors and who were licensed drivers to move his car while it was on campus. It is not unusual for teachers at Nova High School to permit students to drive their cars. There is no credible competent substantial evidence in this case that the Respondent permitted unlicensed students to operate his motor vehicle. On January 22, 1988, Andrea Session and Kim Williams, both students at Nova High School who were also members of the girls basketball team, went to the Respondent's classroom shortly after first period began. Neither of the two girls had a driver license. Kim Williams asked the Respondent for the keys to his pickup truck in order to retrieve her school books which were locked in the truck. The Respondent gave the keys to the two girls and they left. It was not uncommon for the girls to leave their books in the Respondent's truck or car, because the Respondent would frequently drive these two girls (and others) from their home to early morning basketball practice before school. They would often leave their school books in the Respondent's vehicle during basketball practice and pick them up later. On January 22, 1988, while in possession of the keys to the Respondent's pickup, Kim Williams attempted to move the pickup and ran into a parked car in the school parking lot. The Respondent did not authorize Kim Williams to drive his pickup truck on January 22, 1988. Facts regarding taking students out of class The Respondent never requested that Kim Williams, Andrea Session, or any other student or member of his basketball team be excused from other classes, except as was consistent with being excused from class on game days. The Respondent did not write passes requesting that students be excused from other classes. Nor did he usually permit students without passes to remain in his classroom. When Kim or Andrea would come to the Respondent's class without a pass, the Respondent would usually ask them to return to their class. On occasion, Kim and Andrea would skip classes and not go to the Respondent's classroom. There is no credible competent substantial evidence in this case that the Respondent arranged for the unauthorized or illegal removal of any student from scheduled class periods. There is no credible competent substantial evidence in this case that the Respondent provided females students on his basketball team with passes to remove them from their regular scheduled classes on the days that basketball games were scheduled in order for them to rest or relax for the game. Facts regarding transportation of students off campus and to liquor stores The Respondent frequently transported students from their homes to early morning basketball practice. The Respondent has taken adult female assistant coaches to the Double Feature Liquor Store, and to other liquor stores, and has purchased beer for them on occasion. There is no credible competent substantial evidence in this case that the Respondent took students to a liquor store, bought alcoholic beverages, and consumed alcoholic beverages with students. There is no credible competent substantial evidence in this case that the Respondent took students off campus on personal errands during the students' scheduled class periods. Facts regarding soliciting false statements and submitting a false affidavit After the Respondent became aware that he was being accused of providing alcoholic beverages to two students, he went to see Ms. Bonnie Session, the mother of one of the students. The Respondent told Bonnie Session about the situation he was in and asked her to sign a statement on his behalf. Thereafter, Adrienne Session, an older daughter of Ms. Session, called the Respondent and told him she had something for him from her mother. Adrienne gave the Respondent a written statement that purported to be signed by Bonnie Session. The Respondent took the statement to a notary public and asked that it be notarized. The notary called on the telephone and spoke to someone she believed to be Bonnie Session. The person to whom the notary spoke acknowledged having signed the statement. The notary then notarized the document and gave it back to the Respondent. At a later date, under circumstances that are not at all clear, Bonnie Session and her two daughters went to the same notary, after having been guided there by the Respondent, and had some additional documents notarized. The Respondent made some efforts, directly and indirectly, to obtain exculpatory statements from several people, but the nature of those efforts cannot be discerned from the credible evidence in this case. There is no credible competent substantial evidence in this case that the Respondent encouraged any students to falsify their accounts of any matters related to the issues in this case. There is no credible competent substantial evidence in this case that the Respondent intentionally distorted, or caused to be misrepresented, any facts regarding an affidavit that was purportedly signed by Bonnie Session.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Broward County issue a final order in this case dismissing all administrative charges against the Respondent, Marion Wright, and reinstating him with full back pay. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of June 1989. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-4734 The following are my specific rulings on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. To facilitate an understanding of the rulings which follow, attention is directed to the fact that, for the most part, the testimony of the two principal witnesses against the Respondent has been found to be unworthy of belief and to be an insufficient basis for findings of fact. The two principal accusers have both, while under oath, changed major portions of their stories on more than one occasion. The credibility of their stories is also impaired in large part by the fact that the stories told by the two principal witnesses are inconsistent in a number of telling details, and those stories also conflict with the testimony of other witnesses who are much more worthy of belief. It is also noted that the candor of Respondent's testimony was not without its own tarnish in places. While the Respondent's denial of the charges against him has been accepted in substance, this is largely because of the absence of believable evidence in support of the charges rather than because of any great reliance on the Respondent's candor. Findings proposed by Petitioner: Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2: Rejected as not supported by credible competent substantial evidence and as contrary to the greater weight of the believable evidence. Paragraph 3: First sentence rejected as not supported by credible competent substantial evidence and as contrary to the greater weight of the believable evidence. Second sentence accepted. Paragraph 4: For the most part, rejected as not supported by credible competent substantial evidence and as contrary to the greater weight of the believable evidence. It is accepted that there was an on-campus accident involving Respondent's vehicle. Paragraph 5: Rejected as irrelevant in light of other evidence in the record. Paragraph 6: Rejected as constituting legal argument rather than proposed findings of fact. Paragraph 7: Rejected as irrelevant. [The presentation of the testimony of the Assistant State Attorney appears to have been primarily for the purpose of vouching for the truthfulness of the other witnesses against Respondent. Such vouching is an inappropriate form of proof. See Fuller v. State, 450 So.2d 182, 184 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).] Paragraph 8: Rejected as not supported by credible competent substantial evidence and as contrary to the greater weight of the believable evidence. Findings proposed by Respondent: Paragraph 1: First sentence rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Remainder accepted in substance with a few unnecessary details omitted. Paragraphs 2 and 3: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 4: Accepted in substance with some unnecessary details omitted. Paragraphs 5 and 6: Accepted in substance with some unnecessary details omitted. Paragraph 7: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 8: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than proposed findings of fact. In any event, the subject matter of the summary consists of subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 9, 10, 11, and 12: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 13: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 14 and 15: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 16 through 30: Rejected as constituting, for the most part, a summary of the history of many of the reasons for not making findings of fact rather than actual proposed findings. (Many of the details in this summary form the basis for the conclusion that the testimony of the two principal witnesses against the Respondent is unreliable.). COPIES FURNISHED: Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Whitelock & Moldof 1311 Southeast Second Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Thomas W. Young, III, Esquire General Counsel, FEA/United 208 West Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Virgil L. Morgan, Superintendent Broward County School Board 1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, and on the deposition testimony received in evidence, I make the following findings of fact: On October 30, 1985, the Florida Department of Transportation ("FDOT") received and opened sealed bids on State Project Number 72270-3431, in Duval County, Florida. Five bids were submitted for this project. The lowest bid, in the amount of $6,235,948.35, was submitted by Hubbard Construction Company ("Hubbard"). The amounts of the other bids were as follows: the second low bidder, $6,490,796.91; the third low bidder, $6,519,447.90; the fourth low bidder, $7,470,941.74; and the fifth low bidder, $7,477,038.49. All bids submitted were more than seven per cent over FDOT's estimate of the project price. The two lowest bids also appeared to be unbalanced and, as set forth in more detail below, the Hubbard bid was in fact unbalanced in several particulars. It is FDOT policy to give special review to bids that are more than seven per cent above the estimated price of the project. All bidders were made aware of this policy by the following language on the first page of the Notice To Contractors: Bidders are hereby notified that all bids on any of the following projects are likely to be rejected if the lowest responsive bid received exceeds the engineer's estimate by more than seven per cent (7 percent). In the event any of the bids are rejected for this reason, the project may be deferred for readvertising for bids until such time that a more competitive situation exists. Upon review of the bids submitted on the subject project, FDOT decided to reject all bids. By notices dated December 6, 1985, all bidders were advised that all bids were rejected. The stated reasons for the rejection of all bids were as follows: All bids were too high; the apparent first and second low bidder's bids were unbalanced and the apparent first low bidder failed to meet the WBE Requirements. Hubbard submitted its formal written protest to the FDOT regarding the proposed rejection of its bid on the subject project on January 3, 1986. This protest was made pursuant to Section 120.53, Florida Statutes (1985), the instructions to bidders and bid information provided by the Department, and rules of the Department, including Rules 14-25.04 and 14-25.05, Florida Administrative Code. Unbalancing occurs when a contractor puts a higher price on a particular item of work in the project in anticipation of using more of that item than the FDOT has estimated will be required. Unbalancing can also occur when a lower than estimated price is placed upon a particular item. When a bid appears to be unbalanced, the bid is submitted to the Technical Awards and Contract Awards committees for review. In this case, the FDOT's preliminary estimate personnel discovered six items that were unbalanced within Hubbard's bid. The first item of concern was an asphalt base item for which the FDOT's estimate was $4.00 per square yard and the Hubbard bid was $19.29 per square yard. The second item was clearing and grubbing for which FD0T's estimate was $50,000 and Hubbard's bid was $200,000. The third item was removal of existing structures for which FDOT's estimate was $190,762 and Hubbard's bid was $38,000. The fourth item was installing new conductors for which FDOT's estimate was $251,000 and Hubbard's bid was $141,000. The fifth item was removal of existing pavement for which FDOT's estimate was $78,000 and Hubbard's bid was $153,000. Finally, the sixth item was surface asphalt items for which FDOT's estimate was $98,000 and Hubbard's bid was $169,000. The FDOT has a policy that any bid that is seven per cent or more over the estimate will go before the Awards Committee for review. Further, the FDOT has a policy that whenever the bids are more than seven per cent higher than the estimate, the FDOT's Bureau of Estimates will then review their estimate and the apparent low bidder's bid to determine whether the original estimate was correct. The FDOT maintains a Women's Business Enterprises ("WBE") program. The FDOT's program requires that successful bidders provide for participation of women owned and controlled business in FDOT contracts. The program is implemented by the setting of so-called "goals" for certain projects. The goal is stated as a percentage of the total dollar bid for each project. Thus, the WBE goal for a project requires that the bidder utilize FDOT certified WBE's in constructing the project to the extent that the FDOT's goal is a percentage of the total bid. The FDOT has implemented rules to effectuate its WBE program. Rule 14- 78, Florida Administrative Code (amended effective May 23, 1984). In submitting a bid, the rules offer the bidder the option of meeting the WBE goals or submitting proof of a good faith effort to meet the goal and if a good faith effort is sufficient, the FDOT may waive the goal. The FDOT's bid package and specifications, as furnished to contractors, in no place referred to the Department's rule providing that only 20 percent of the amount of subcontracts with WBE suppliers shall count toward the goals on Federal aid projects. The specifications clearly state that WBE suppliers may be counted toward the goals. The specifications as furnished by the Department also imply that the 20 percent rule applies only to non-federal aid jobs. The project in question in this case is a Federal aid project. There is a conflict between the rule and the language of the specifications which creates an ambiguity in the specifications, as well as a trap for the unwary bidder who overlooks the requirements of the rule. The FDOT is in the process of amending the specifications to make them conform to the rule. The Special Provisions contained within the bid specifications established certain minority participation goals for this project--ten per cent for Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) and three per cent for Women Business Enterprises (WBE). FDOT personnel analyzed the bid documents submitted by Hubbard according to the criteria set forth at Rule 14-78, Florida Administrative Code, and determined that Hubbard exceeded the DBE goal but failed to meet the WBE goal. Hubbard's WBE participation was two per cent. All other bidders on the project met both of the DBE and WBE goals. When Hubbard submitted its bid on this project, Hubbard thought that it had complied with the three per cent WBE goal by subcontracting 3.5 per cent of the contract price to WBE certified firms. However, 2 per cent of the contract price was to be subcontracted to a WBE for supplies to be furnished by a WBE who was not a manufacturer. Accordingly, when the 20 per cent rule discussed above was applied to that 2 per cent, the total amount of WBE participation which could be counted toward Hubbard's compliance with the rule was approximately 2 per cent, which was less than the 3 per cent goal. Once it was determined that Hubbard had failed to meet the WBE goal, FDOT personnel analyzed Hubbard's good faith efforts package pursuant to Rule 14-78, Florida Administrative Code. Hubbard's good faith efforts package failed to demonstrate that Hubbard had taken sufficient action in seeking WBE's to excuse its failure to meet the WBE goal for this project. Similarly, Hubbard's evidence at the hearing in this case was insufficient to demonstrate that Hubbard had taken sufficient action in seeking WBE's to excuse its failure to meet the WBE goal for this project. Most telling in this regard is that all four of the other bidders on this project were successful in meeting or exceeding the DBE and WBE goals.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Florida Department of Transportation issue a Final Order rejecting all bids on Federal Aid Project No. ACIR-10-5 (76) 358 (Job No. 72270-3431). DONE AND ORDERED this 24th day of March 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 24th day of March 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN DOAH CASE NO. 86-0O24BID The following are my specific rulings on each of the proposed findings of fact submitted by each of the parties. Rulings on findings proposed by the Petitioner, Hubbard Construction Company The substance of the findings of fact proposed by the Petitioner in the following paragraphs of its proposed findings have been accepted and incorporated into the findings of fact in this Recommended Order: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8. The substance of the first sentence of paragraph 6 is accepted. The remainder of paragraph 6 is rejected as an unintelligible incomplete statement. Paragraph 7 is rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. (The Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction were not offered in evidence.) Paragraph 9 is rejected for a number of reasons, including not being supported by competent substantial evidence, being to a large part irrelevant, being predicated in part on an erroneous notion of which party bears the burden of proof, and constituting in part legal argument rather than proposed findings of fact. The first and third sentences of paragraph 10 are accepted in substance. The second and fourth sentences of paragraph 10 are rejected as irrelevant. The last sentence of paragraph 10 is rejected as irrelevant and as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Paragraph 11 is rejected as irrelevant and as including speculations which are not warranted by the evidence. Paragraph 12 is rejected as irrelevant and as including speculations which are not warranted by the evidence. Paragraph 13 is rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence and as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rulings on findings proposed by the Respondent, Department of Transportation The substance of the findings of fact proposed by the Respondent in the following paragraphs of its proposed findings have been accepted and incorporated into the findings of fact in this Recommended Order: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Paragraph 9 is rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: John E. Beck, Esquire 1026 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry D. Scott, Esquire Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Thomas Drawdy, Secretary Department of Transportation Mail Station 57 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064
The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2017),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. and 8., as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Uncontested Facts by the Parties Respondent holds a valid Florida Educator’s Certificate No. 1046827, covering the area of Biology, which is valid through June 30, 2020. At all times pertinent to this matter, Respondent was employed as a Biology teacher at Miami Palmetto Senior High School (“MPHS”) in the Miami-Dade County School District. Respondent knew A.T. was a student at MPHS during the 2015-2016 school year and had tried out for the school’s lacrosse team in late January 2016. Respondent sent a text message to A.T. on December 19, 2016, stating, “How are you?” Respondent sent and exchanged text messages with A.T. in March 2017. Respondent met and engaged in sexual intercourse with A.T. in late March 2017. Respondent resigned from his employment with Miami-Dade County Schools on May 3, 2017, citing “personal reasons.” Additional Findings of Fact Petitioner, as Commissioner of Education, is responsible for investigating and prosecuting complaints against individuals who hold Florida educator certificates, and are alleged to have violated provisions of section 1012.795. Respondent is a highly effective educator who, over the course of his ten-year career, has earned the respect of his former principal and science department head, as well as parents and students with whom he has come in contact. The allegations of misconduct in this case have not altered the high professional regard in which Respondent is held by Principal Victoria Dobbs; Science Department Head Pamela Shlachtman; parent and lacrosse team booster club president Nicola Rousseau; and former student, lacrosse player, and the daughter of Nicola Rousseau, Samantha Rousseau. Each of these witnesses testified that their knowledge, observations, and experience working with Respondent led them to believe that he never would have had any type of relationship with a woman he believed to be a high school student. Each of these witnesses testified that, to the best of their knowledge, they had never seen or heard reports of any inappropriate conduct between Respondent and a student. Principal Dobbs bragged in a letter about Respondent and the support of his peers in voting him Science Teacher of the Year. She testified that in her 12 years of service at MPHS, the last three of which she was principal, she had no concerns with Respondent regarding inappropriate relationships with students. To the contrary, she recalled him as a very good teacher, who participated in many school activities and field trips. He also served as coach for the girls’ lacrosse team. Principal Dobbs further testified that she was never informed that Respondent had been accused of having an inappropriate relationship with a student at her school. She was only made aware of a request by the school district for Respondent’s computer. She testified that if she had believed Respondent had an intimate relationship with a high school student, she would not have employed him. Ms. Shlachtman has been employed at MPHS since 2001 and has been a teacher since 1984. She affirmed her previously written statement supporting Respondent, and testified she had participated in the hiring and selection of Respondent ten years previously as a marine biology teacher. She stated that he had “the soul of an educator.” As a member of Ms. Shlachtman’s staff, Respondent had chaperoned multiple field trips, including extended travel with students and staff for the Enviro Team, and to state and national competitions in Montana and Toronto, Canada. Having seen Respondent react with both male and female students on seven- and ten-day trips, she never had a concern or received a complaint. She also knew girls on the lacrosse team and had never heard a concern reported from there. She noted that Respondent had the opportunity to be alone with students on multiple occasions, and no concerns or inappropriate behavior was ever reported. She would rehire Respondent on her staff again, if given the opportunity. Ms. Rousseau, the mother of three daughters who trained with Respondent at his CrossFit gym, also served as president of the girls’ lacrosse team booster club. She affirmed her previous letter of support for Respondent and testified about her commitment to Respondent as a trainer for her three daughters at his gym, which she said would continue. Additionally, Samantha Rousseau, Nicola’s daughter, and a full-time student at the University of Florida, confirmed her support for Respondent. While a student at MPHS, she had served as assistant captain of the girls’ lacrosse team during her senior year (2014), while Respondent was the team coach. She had known Respondent since she was a sophomore student in his Television Production class; she had traveled with Respondent to Los Angeles as part of his class; and had ridden numerous times on the team bus with Respondent. She testified that she believed Respondent would not have been involved with A.T. had he known she was a high school student. Respondent first encountered A.T. during MPHS lacrosse tryouts in late January 2016. A.T. was a junior at that time. Respondent had no further contact with A.T. until he sent her a December 12, 2016, text stating, “Hi! How was your weekend? You missed out on Saturday morning [referring to a workout designed for lacrosse players at CrossFit gym].” A.T., still a student at MPHS at the time of this text message, never replied to it. On March 15, 2017, Respondent sent another text message to A.T., stating, “Hey, what’s up? How have you been?” The remaining text messages sent by Respondent to A.T. were undated, but were sent between March 15 and their sexual encounter in late March. The text messages were sexually graphic. The messages sent by Respondent included explicit photographs, and while those sent by A.T. had explicit photographs, they were removed to protect her privacy. A.T. was a student at MPHS through December 2016. On January 12, 2017, the Miami-Dade School District conducted a conference to formulate an Individual Education Plan (IEP) for A.T. She was placed in a hospital/homebound program at that time and graduated from the virtual school in June 2017. She did not attend college during this time. Respondent never denied the one-time sexual encounter he had with A.T. On the day when the encounter took place, March 19, 2017, A.T. texted Respondent and asked if she could see him that night. A.T. was driven by a friend to Briar Bay Park where she met Respondent, who was already there and waiting for her in his car. She had sexual intercourse with him in his car. After their liaison, Respondent drove her home. A.T. and Respondent had no contact after that time. A great deal of testimony was elicited about whether Respondent texted or phoned A.T. and discussed her status as a student in March 2017. At different times during the investigation into the sexual encounter between A.T. and Respondent, he said he texted, instant messaged, or telephoned A.T. about her school. Respondent believed her to be taking courses at Miami Dade College (“MDC”) during the spring semester of 2017. In fact, she was a student at Brucie Ball Education Center (“Brucie Ball”), a virtual school where she took online courses to complete her high school education, graduating in June 2017. Respondent consistently believed, at the time of his interview by Detective Ochoa, during his deposition, and at hearing, that A.T. was in college and testified he was never told she was at Brucie Ball. A.T.’s memory is less clear. She testified she could not recall telling Respondent she was taking college courses, but there is no doubt she was enrolled at Brucie Ball during her final semester of high school and not at MDC. She remembers that she received a social media invite from Respondent to attend his CrossFit boot camp in December 2016. She recalls communicating back and forth via social media after that time, especially when Respondent texted her about missing her at boot camp. She and Respondent testified to multiple additional conversations via social media or texting, but many of those were not produced as evidence. When a three-month gap between their messaging occurred, Respondent testified that A.T. told him she had been backpacking in Africa with friends and, according to what he recalled she told him, she was taking courses at MDC. She did not recall having told him she was taking courses at MDC, but “guessed he knew” she was still a high school student because the previous year she had been a junior at MPHS. “It never came up,” she testified. While she could not recall having told Respondent she had been to Africa and was taking courses at MDC, A.T. testified she recalled many more text messages between Respondent and her that were not printed from her phone and introduced into evidence at hearing. According to A.T., she had not talked to Respondent about her upcoming 18th birthday on March 2, 2017. Yet, she invited him to the celebration at a club called “Do Not Sit on the Couch.” She also shared with him that she and her friends often visited another club called “Little Hoolies,” and invited Respondent to join them. Both of these clubs serve alcohol and are for adults over 21. Respondent did not join them at either club. A.T. did not recall any of these conversations at hearing. A.T. declined to be interviewed by Petitioner’s Professional Practices Services investigator. At hearing, she could not recall a request to be interviewed. Respondent assumed A.T. was older than 18 when they met at the park for sex, since he believed her to be taking classes at MDC; she hung out with her friends at two adult clubs; and she brought alcohol, a vapor pen, and THC oils with her when they met in the park. He did not believe this to be typical high school behavior. Respondent also believed A.T.’s absence from social media for three months before they had their encounter at the park was explained by her telling him she had been backpacking in Africa where he assumed she did not have readily available access to the Internet. He also believes this supported his understanding that A.T. was in college at that point, since three months of backpacking does not usually occur as part of a high school experience. Respondent consistently testified, from his statements to law enforcement to his appearance at hearing, that had he known A.T. was still a high school student, regardless of whether she was at the school where he taught, he would have never had an intimate relationship with her. Moreover, law enforcement never asked Respondent for his phone at the time of the investigation. After he learned A.T. had been a high school student in March 2017, when they had their one-time sexual relationship, on May 3 of that year he resigned his position as a teacher at MPHS for “personal reasons,” based upon advice he received from union representatives and an investigator, and to spare embarrassment to his school, colleagues, and family. At the time A.T. had entered into an IEP with Miami- Dade, her school was listed as South Miami Senior High School, not MPHS. This explains why Respondent never saw her again at MPHS in her final semester. There was no evidence presented that Respondent knew A.T. had not graduated from MPHS or that she had enrolled in either South Miami High School or Brucie Ball when she did not return to MPHS for the spring semester of 2017. Respondent’s assertion that he was unaware of A.T., an 18-year-old, still being in high school at the time of their March 2017 encounter, along with his cooperation with the investigation and admission at all times pertinent to it that he had a sexual relationship with A.T., renders his testimony more credible than A.T.’s concerning what Respondent knew about her status as a student. No evidence was produced that Respondent ever had an improper relationship with A.T. while she was under the age of 18. A.T.’s lack of candor and lack of cooperation with Detective Ochoa, the investigator on the case, as well as her incomplete memory of the various text messages with Respondent bring into question her truth and veracity when testifying against Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order dismissing the charges against Respondent in their entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of May, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 23rd day of May, 2018.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The Board is responsible for the operation of the public schools within the Dade County School District. Teachers assigned to the various schools are recommended to the Superintendent for employment or contract renewal by their respective principals. The Superintendent, in turn, presents a recommendation regarding the teacher's employment to the Board. At all times material to the disputed facts of this case, Respondent was a teacher employed by the Board and assigned to a public school within the district. Teachers employed by the Board are evaluated pursuant to the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS). This system records deficiencies which may have been observed during the evaluation review and provides a prescription (a plan) for performance improvement. At all times material to this case, the TADS method was employed to evaluate the Respondent's performance. Respondent began employment with the Dade County public schools in September, 1961, and taught until February 13, 1963. She returned to teaching in March, 1982, and was employed pursuant to a professional service contract. During the 1986-87 school year, Respondent was assigned to a second grade class at Ojus Elementary School (Ojus). Jeanne Friedman was the principal at Ojus and was primarily responsible for Respondent's TADS evaluation. At the conclusion of the 1986-87 school year, Respondent was given an annual evaluation. This evaluation found the Respondent deficient in four of the seven areas of evaluation. Specifically, Respondent was found to be in need of remediation in the following categories: knowledge of the subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relations. A prescription was devised to assist Respondent improve in the areas deemed to be deficient, and she was informed that should she not improve in the areas noted by the end of the next year, that she would not be recommended for employment for the 1988-89 school year. The evaluation for the 1986-87 school year was predicated on observations which had been conducted on December 5, 1986, January 22, 1987, and March 2, 1987. On December 5, 1986, Jeanne Friedman conducted a TADS evaluation of the Respondent. Ms. Friedman met with Respondent on December 11, 1986, to review the evaluation and to assist in the implementation of the prescription. On December 18, 1986, a conference for the record was held to address the Respondent's performance and her future employment status. At this meeting, Respondent was reminded of the suggestions given to correct the deficiencies noted in the evaluation conducted December 5, 1986. Those deficiencies were related to Respondent's preparation and planning. On January 22, 1987, Respondent was evaluated in follow-up to the December review. This observation was discussed with the Respondent on January 23, 1987. Respondent's prescription for the deficiencies noted in this evaluation required corrections to be implemented by February 2, 1987. The deficiencies were in the area of preparation and planning. On March 2, 1987, Respondent was evaluated by Jeanne Friedman and Emilio Fox. The evaluations were performed during the same class period, language arts, but the evaluators did not communicate with one another nor compare their notes regarding Respondent's performance. Both evaluators found the Respondent to be deficient in three of the areas of evaluation: preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, and techniques of instruction. Respondent had failed to follow the lesson plan book for the entire class time, had failed to plan the activity which was conducted, wrote several erroneous items on the class board, and did not explain the nature of the lesson to the class. Several of Respondent's errors were brought to her attention by the students (second graders). Margaret Roderick and Leeomia Kelly evaluated Respondent on April 27, 1987. These TADS assessments found Respondent deficient in the areas of knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. On May 29, 1987, a conference for the record was held regarding Respondent's poor performance year. At that time, Respondent was advised that if she failed to remediate the areas noted to be deficient by the end of the 1987-88 school year, she would not be recommended for continued employment. At her request, Respondent was assigned to a kindergarten class at Ojus for the 1987-88 school year. Approximately 30 students were initially enrolled in Respondent's section. A second kindergarten section was taught by Ms. Kramer. A TADS evaluation conducted by Leeomia Kelly on September 17, 1987, found Respondent to be acceptable in all categories reviewed. After this evaluation, several parents wrote to Ms. Friedman asking that their children be moved from Respondent's class to Ms. Kramer's section. The number of students enrolled in Respondent's class dropped to approximately 23. On October 22, 1987, Jeanne Friedman conducted an observation of the Respondent's class. This evaluation found the Respondent deficient in the area of classroom management. Ms. Friedman met with Respondent on October 23, 1987, to go over the prescription for improvement and outlined a time deadline for each suggested resource. A second evaluation conducted on November 30, 1987, also found the Respondent deficient in the area of classroom management. On December 11, 1987, a conference for the record was conducted to review Respondent's performance. Respondent was reminded that a failure to correct deficient areas would result in termination of employment. Doretha Mingo and Leeomia Kelly conducted evaluations of Respondent on March 1, 1988. These evaluators found Respondent deficient in the areas of classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. On March 9, 1988, a conference for the record was held to summarize Respondent's work performance. At that time Respondent was given an annual evaluation which found her to be unacceptable in the following areas of performance: classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher- student relationships. Respondent was notified at this conference that the principal would be recommending nonrenewal of the employment contract. Respondent was observed on April 13, 1988, by Ms. Friedman and Michael Conte. Both evaluators found Respondent to be deficient in the areas of classroom management and techniques of instruction. In each of the TADS reviews given to Respondent, conclusions of deficiency were based upon objective observations made during the class period. For example, students found to be off task were observed to be disregarding Respondent's instructions and findings of inadequate planning were based upon inadequacies found in Respondent's plan book (not describing the lesson taught or incompletely stating the subject matter). In each instance, Respondent was given a prescription as to how to correct the noted deficiency. Respondent was given copies of the evaluations at the time they were reviewed with her. Further, Respondent was given copies of the memoranda kept regarding the conferences for the record. Resources were offered to Respondent to assist her to make the corrections required. On April 25, 1988, Respondent was notified that the subject of her continued employment would be raised at the Board meeting to be conducted April 27, 1988. Respondent was advised that the Superintendent intended to recommend nonrenewal of Respondent's contract which, if accepted, would preclude future employment. This letter was written by Patrick Gray, Executive Assistant Superintendent. The Board accepted the Superintendent's recommendation and acted to withhold a contract from Respondent for the 1988-89 school year. On April 28, 1988, Patrick Gray wrote to Respondent to advise her of the Board's action. In each of the years for which she received unacceptable evaluations, Respondent's students performed satisfactorily on school-administered standardized tests. Such tests were not, however, gauged to measure the subject matter which Respondent had been responsible for teaching in those years. During the 1987-88 school year Respondent failed to correct the deficiencies in performance which had been identified during the 1986-87 school year. Respondent repeatedly failed to perform the duties which were expected of her despite many attempts to assist her with any remediation needed. Further, by her failure to remediate in the areas of classroom management and techniques of instruction, Respondent failed to communicate with her students to such an extent that they were deprived of a minimum educational experience.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the School Board of Dade County enter a final order sustaining the decision to terminate Respondent's employment by the nonrenewal of her contract. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 20th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of March, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2798 RULINGS ON PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Paragraphs 1 through 3 are accepted. The first 3 sentences of paragraph 4 are accepted. The last sentence is rejected as irrelevant commentary. Paragraphs 5 through 12 are accepted. The first two sentences of paragraph 13 are accepted. The last sentence is rejected as irrelevant commentary. Paragraphs 14 through 19 are accepted. With the deletion of the phrase "sometime in February, 1988," and the following qualification, paragraph 20 is accepted. The opinions expressed by the parents were based upon the observations made and not necessarily the comment of their children. The parents drew the conclusions based upon their observation but no conclusion is reached by the undersigned as to the accuracy of those conclusions. It will suffice for the purposes herein that the-parents believed their conclusions to be correct. No time was clearly established for the parental comments regarding Respondent's ability or performance. Paragraph 21 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 22, with the following qualification, it is accepted. The opinion expressed by Conte that students "were not comprehending what they were doing or what they were supposed to be doing ..." Such comments have not been considered as Mr. Cote's ability to read the minds of the children. Rather, such comments have been read to more accurately mean: based upon his experience and expertise, "the students did not appear to comprehend, etc." The last sentence of paragraph 22 is rejected as argument. Paragraphs 23 through 25 are accepted. Paragraphs 26 through 28 are rejected as irrelevant, argument, conclusions of law or comment not appropriate for a finding of fact. Paragraphs 29 and 30 are accepted. RULINGS ON RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AS SET FORTH IN THE AMENDED RECOMMENDED ORDER (HAVING PRESUMED IT SUPERSEDED THE EARLIER FILED RECOMMENDED ORDER): Paragraph 1 is accepted as to Respondent's age but the balance is rejected as unsupported by the record. The weight of the evidence established Respondent has not taught for 32 years. She has been a teacher by profession that long but not working all that time. Paragraphs 2-4 are accepted. Paragraph 5 is rejected as argument or a conclusion of law not accurate under the facts of this case. Paragraph 6 is accepted to the extent the subject matter is qualified and addressed in finding of fact paragraph 22, otherwise is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or irrelevant to the conclusions reached herein. Paragraphs 7 and 8 are rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence presented. Paragraph 9 is accepted. Paragraph 10 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank Harder Twin Oaks Building, Suite 100 Dr. Joseph A. Fernandez 2780 Galloway Road Superintendent Miami, Florida 33165 School Board of Dade County 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue William DuFresne Miami, Florida 33132 DuFRESNE AND BRADLEY 2929 South West Third Avenue, Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Mrs. Madelyn P. Schere Assistant School Board Attorney School Board of Dade County Board Administration Building, Suite 301 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Orange County School Board (School Board), established "just cause" to terminate Respondent's employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is responsible for the operation, control and supervision of free public schools in Orange County, Florida. The School Board's responsibilities include the hiring and termination of school personnel. In December 2012, Ginchereau was teaching mathematics at Maitland Middle School. He has been a teacher in the Orange County Public School District for approximately 14 years, and holds a professional services contract with the School Board. Ginchereau's employment is governed by the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the School Board and the local teacher's union, the Orange County Education Association, Inc. Pursuant to Article XII section (A)(2), the Collective Bargaining Agreement, a teacher may only be discharged for "just cause." The School Board has a specific policy concerning the private use of internet and social networking, Management Directive A-9, Employee Use of Technology.2/ Management Directive A-9 informs School Board employees that they should not engage in social media with Orange County Public School students, unless the student is their child or the social media contact is related to “class, athletic or extracurricular activity,” and that employees are to access the School District’s technology resources and databases “for assigned responsibilities.” Orange Cnty. Pub. Sch. Dist. Mgmt. Directive A-9, §§ 2(e)(i), (ii) and 3. On the morning of December 13, 2012, Ginchereau opened his Facebook page, and read a general post from Elaina J., a former student that Ginchereau had taught at Avalon Middle School during the 2010-2011 school year.3/ Based on the general age of middle school students in eighth grade as 13 or 14 years old, it is reasonable to conclude that at the time of this incident, Elaina J. was either 15 or 16 years old in December 2012. Ginchereau’s unrebutted testimony is that he accepted a friend request from Eliana J., at a time when he knew she was no longer a student in the Orange County Public School system. The School Board failed to introduce competent evidence showing that on December 13, 2012, that Eliana J. was an Orange County Public School District student.4/ The Facebook exchange between by Elaina J. and Ginchereau is the following: E.J.: Good morning, woke up in a good mood. Who's going to be the first to ruin it? G.: Not me! E.J.: Never you!!! You always made my mornings G: Awww! Thank you! Mrs. Melodie Robelo still talk about you often. Hope you are doing well. E.J.: Awh I miss you two so much, ill come visit soon ? hope you both are doing well also G: Cool ....but you should know we aren't at Avalon anymore. We both moved to Maitland Middle. E.J.: Is that far from Avalon? G.: Not too bad . . . you can google it . . . 1901 Choctaw Trail Maitland 32751 E.J.: Okay I promise ill come see you soon! The only evidence showing when these postings occurred is from Ginchereau. Ginchereau testified that he initially responded to Eliana J.'s post in the morning before school started, and later between his first and second period classes. Beside the text exchange between Ginchereau and Eliana J. are the "thumbnail" photographs from Elaina J.'s and Ginchereau's Facebook pages. These small photographs are present to the left of the message in order to show who is writing the message. Ginchereau's thumbnail photograph shows a photograph of him with an eighth grade football team that he coaches. Eliana J's thumbnail photograph shows a picture of her and a friend in bikinis. Ginchereau's first two classes on December 13, 2012, were Algebra I Honor classes. At the conclusion of the first class, the bell rang and the students had approximately four minutes to go to their next class. Between the first and second class periods, Ginchereau opened his Facebook page in order to post a message to Elaina J., for the purpose of providing her the address of Maitland Middle School. Ginchereau's explanation that he went on his Facebook page in order to provide Elaina J. with information so that she could "volunteer" in his classroom is not credible. The text exchange between Ginchereau and Eliana J. does not mention any student "volunteer" activity. Rather, Ginchereau was providing Eliana J. his and another teacher’s work location in order to facilitate a visit. Unknown to Ginchereau, when he opened his Facebook page, the screen from the computer was projected onto the classroom's smartboard, and visible to the students inside the classroom, including the thumbnail photographs. Some of the students entering the classroom remarked that they did not know that Ginchereau had a Facebook page. In response, Ginchereau quickly closed the Facebook page and placed school work on the smartboard. Ginchereau, thinking the incident was behind him, moved to the classroom door to monitor the hallway. While standing in the hallway, Ginchereau heard one of the students state that Ginchereau had a Facebook page with the picture of a "nude girl." Realizing that such a claim would be toxic, Ginchereau quickly disputed the statement. Further, he decided to show exactly what was displayed on the smartboard in order to dispel any ill-founded rumor before it left the classroom. Ginchereau signed onto his Facebook account and went to Eliana J.'s Facebook page. However, instead of showing the Facebook messaging with the thumbnail photographs, Ginchereau went to Eliana J.'s Facebook page and scrolled on the photographs to find the correct photograph. Some of the photographs showed Eliana J. wearing short "shorts," clothing exposing her midriff, and lying on a bed. As he scrolled through approximately four to six photographs, one of the 13-year-old boys, in a manner consistent with an immature adolescent boy, hooted and went to the smartboard pretending to touch the girl in the photograph. As he attempted to find the correct photograph, Ginchereau told the boy to sit down, and then remarked, while at his desk, "if [the boy] liked this photograph, then he will love the next one." Finally, Ginchereau identified the correct photograph with two young girls in bikinis projected onto the smartboard, but unlike a thumbnail, the photograph now filled the smartboard. While the photograph dispelled the notion that the girl was nude, Ginchereau heard one of the students state that "if she dressed like the girl, her mother would call her a slut." As these events escalated, Ginchereau made the decision to have a "teachable moment." According to Ginchereau, he stated: Look, you don’t know this girl and I just heard, you know, comments like “slut” and “whore” coming out of your mouths. You guys don’t know the history of this girl, you don’t know about her taking care of her brother when her mom had surgery. Ginchereau then informed the students that it was important to be careful about the photographs that one posts on social media sites. He cautioned the students that employers or college admission people could make incorrect judgments about them based on the photographs. Further, Ginchereau talked about dress code and why it was important, even though students sometimes disagreed with it. In order to demonstrate his upholding of the dress code, Ginchereau referenced that the girl in the photograph had once attempted to volunteer as an assistant in his class, but had shown up in the class wearing a white shirt that was clinging to her body, after being caught in a rain storm. Ginchereau sent the former student home because her clothing did not meet the middle school dress code. Finally, during his "teachable moment," Ginchereau stated that the student pictured on the board had been a poor student in his class, but still considered him a favorite teacher. This regrettable turn of events occurred approximately for the first three to five minutes of the algebra class. Because Ginchereau's discussion occurred while students were transitioning into the class, some of the students did not hear the full discussion. After closing the Facebook page, Ginchereau taught the class without further incident. After the class, Ginchereau decided to inform the principal of the school, Mr. Ronald Maxwell (Principal Maxwell), about the Facebook incident. Ginchereau called Principal Maxwell's office, but was told that he was not available. Later in the day, Ginchereau attempted to call or see Principal Maxwell again, but was again told that he was not available. The next day, on December 14, 2012, Ginchereau sent Principal Maxwell an e-mail that outlined what had occurred in the class the day before. Ginchereau sent the e-mail before he learned about any parent complaint concerning the Facebook incident. That same day, Principal Maxwell received a parent complaint concerning the Facebook incident, and he directed Dr. Paul Wilhite (Dr. Wilhite), the assistant principal, to take students' statements about what had occurred on December 13, 2012, in Ginchereau's class. Dr. Wilhite collected 19 student statements concerning what occurred in the classroom. The statements ranged from students who did not see anything to students describing how Ginchereau stated that if his daughter dressed like the one in the photograph “he would kill her.” Some of the students indicated that they found the photographs displayed in the classroom "inappropriate" and they felt "uncomfortable" about the pictures and discussion while others did not care. Ginchereau met with Principal Maxwell and Dr. Wilhite and provided an explanation that was consistent with his earlier e-mail. Further, Ginchereau provided Principal Maxwell with a copy of the Facebook exchange and showed him the photographs shown in the classroom. At all times, Ginchereau was cooperative and accepting responsibility for his error. Ginchereau’s social media messaging with Eliana J. violated Management Directive A-9 by using the school’s internet for personal use, rather than his assigned responsibilities. Ginchereau's showing of the photographs from Eliana J.'s Facebook page was inappropriate within the context of a middle school classroom and showed poor judgment. Ginchereau's "teachable moment" showed poor judgment and exacerbated his mistake of accessing Facebook between the class changes. Ginchereau has been a teacher with the Orange County Public School District since 1999. He holds certificates in teaching mathematics, language arts, and special education students. Further, it is undisputed that Ginchereau has no prior disciplinary history in his teaching career.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Orange County School Board established “just cause” to discipline Mr. Ginchereau’s employment as a teacher. The undersigned recommends that Ginchereau’s suspension without pay be upheld to date; and that he be returned to his professional services contract, and given remedial education on the proper use of the School District’s technology. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S THOMAS P. CRAPPS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 2013.
The Issue The issue presented herein concerns the Respondent's through the person of his parents appeal of the School Board's assignment (of Respondent) to Youth Opportunity School South - an alternative school placement.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact. By letter dated November 8, 1983, Petitioner, the School Board of Dade County, Florida, advised the Respondent, Carlos Alberto Giralt, an eighth grade student attending Glades Junior High School, that he was being administratively assigned to the opportunity school program based on his "disruption of the educational process in the regular school program and failure to adjust to the regular school program." Carlos Alberto Giralt, date of birth December 6, 1969, was assigned to Glades Junior High School as an eighth grader during the 1983-84 school year. During October of 1983, Carlos' brother was involved in a physical altercation with another student and Carlos came to his brother's aid by using a stick to physically strike the other student involved in the altercation. Initially, Carlos was given a ten-day suspension and thereafter the suspension was changed to the administrative assignment to the alternative school placement which is the subject of this appeal. 1/ Carlos' father, Salvador Giralt, was summoned to Glades Junior High School and advised of the incident involving Carlos and the other student in the physical altercation. Mr. Giralt was advised of the policy procedures in effect at Glades and was assured that Respondent would be given the least severe penalty, which was the ten-day suspension originally referred to herein. The Giralts are very concerned parents and have voiced the concern by complaining of Respondent's assignment to the Petitioner's area office. In keeping with this concern, the Giralts have requested that their son, Carlos, be reassigned to his original community school, Glades Junior High School. Respondent does not have a history of repeated defiant conduct as relates to School Board authority. According to Petitioner's Assistant Principal at Glades Junior High, Gerald R. Skinner, Respondent was last disciplined approximately two years ago. No showing was made herein that Carlos was either disruptive of the educational process or has failed to adjust to the regular school program.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended that the School Board of Dade County enter a Final Order transferring the Respondent to Glades Junior High School or other appropriate regular school program. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of May, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May, 1984.
