The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Duval County Public Schools (DCPS), violated the rights of Petitioner, Katherine E. Otto, under the Florida Civil Rights Act, chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Otto filed a Complaint with FCHR, alleging race, sex, and age discrimination against DCPS, having been employed by the school district as a school teacher from December 2009 until September 2010. The Complaint alleges that Dr. Alvin Brennan, the principal of the Forrest High School, where Ms. Otto worked as a teacher: (a) announced at a staff meeting that he "prefers all black male young teachers"; (b) announced at another staff meeting that "anyone who takes off a Friday or a Monday . . . will be fired"; (c) verbally harassed Ms. Otto; and (d) discharged her for calling in sick. The face of the Complaint shows that it was signed by Ms. Otto on October 24, 2010 - only weeks after the last date of alleged discriminatory conduct on September 8, 2010. However, the "date stamp," which also appears on the face of the Complaint, shows that it was not received by FCHR until October 25, 2011. Notably, FCHR sent to DCPS a "Notice of Filing of Complaint of Discrimination" on November 10, 2011, which was stamped as received by DCPS on November 16, 2011. At the hearing, Ms. Otto could not explain the apparent delay of exactly one year and one day between the date she signed the Complaint and the date it was stamped as received by FCHR. Ms. Otto testified that she never actually typed the Complaint. Further, she stated the typed Complaint was inconsistent with a handwritten version she originally submitted to FCHR "a month or two before" October 24, 2010. Surmising at the hearing that "someone" at FCHR must have typed the Complaint, Ms. Otto testified that she signed and returned the document even though it showed that she was 11 years older than her actual age of 50 years. Ms. Otto's Petition for Relief contains accusations about harassment and "racists remarks" by Dr. Brennan, and adds that he and other DCPS personnel "committed purjery to [the Commission]" [sic] during its investigation of the Complaint. Unlike the Complaint, the Petition for Relief also states that Ms. Otto was "was fired for no reason" as opposed to being fired for calling in sick. At the final hearing, Ms. Otto testified that she did not know why she was fired, and it was only "possible" that she was fired due to her race, gender, or age. Ms. Otto testified that her Complaint and Petition were based on events in August and September 2010, shortly after Dr. Brennan became the principal of Forrest High School. By the end of the 2009-2010 school year, Forrest High School was identified as "critically low performing," having received consecutive "school grades" of "F" or "D" over the preceding school years. The District was, therefore, required to treat Forrest High School as a "turn-around school," and replace/"reconstitute" much of its staff and administrative team. Dr. Brennan, a veteran educator and administrator of 27 years, was selected by the superintendent to replace the principal at Forrest High School at the beginning of the 2010-2011 school year, since he had a successful track record for improving other low-performing schools. Dr. Brennan conducted various staff meetings just before and during the first two weeks of the school year. According to Ms. Otto, Dr. Brennan stated at one such meeting that anyone who took a Friday off would be fired. Ms. Otto testified that Dr. Brennan stated at another meeting that he prefers to hire young African-American men. Ms. Otto thereafter "felt like [she] was being harassed, discriminated against because [Brennan] was just going after white women." Despite these negative "feelings" about Dr. Brennan, Ms. Otto never made a complaint to the school district about him or his comments. Ms. Otto stated that she privately met with Dr. Brennan on only two occasions. During the first private meeting at the beginning of the 2010-2011 school year, Dr. Brennan "yelled" at Ms. Otto for speaking with state officials who visited Forrest High School due to its "turn•around" status. The second private meeting was on September 8, 2010, when Dr. Brennan purportedly "harassed" Ms. Otto for missing lesson plans, and "yelled" that she was fired. In the days leading up to the September 8 conference, Dr. Brennan and Assistant Principal Jeravon Wheeler visited Ms. Otto's class and warned her about missing lesson plans. At all times, Ms. Otto was aware that she was required to have lesson plans readily available in her class. During a scheduled classroom observation on August 31, 2010, Ms. Wheeler (once again) noted Ms. Otto's lack of lesson plans. A post-observation conference was to take place on Friday, September 1, 2010. There is conflicting evidence as to whether Ms. Otto was present on that date. The record contains a post-observation "teacher assessment instrument" which Ms. Otto apparently signed and dated on September 1, 2010. However, Ms. Otto claims to have called in sick after her observation and did not return to the school until September 8, 2010. When summoned to Dr. Brennan's office on the morning of September 8, 2010, Ms. Otto assumed he wanted to discuss her illness-related absence and her discussions with "people from the State." Ms. Wheeler also attended the September 8 conference with Ms. Otto and Dr. Brennan. Contrary to Ms. Otto's view, Dr. Brennan and Ms. Wheeler testified that the September 8 conference was actually called to: (a) discuss the classroom observation; present a "non-compliance letter" for Ms. Otto's repeated failure to provide lesson plans; and (c) place her on a "Success Plan" formulated to improve her overall teaching performance. Ms. Otto walked out of the September 8 conference before Dr. Brennan had the chance to provide her with the Success Plan and non-compliance letter. Dr. Brennan's contemporaneous handwritten notes on the non-compliance letter indicated that Ms. Otto abruptly quit during the September 8 conference and "walked off the job." Ms. Otto testified that she left the September 8 conference because Dr. Brennan was screaming at her and yelled that she was fired. She denied, however, that Dr. Brennan made any comments about race, gender, or age at that time. Dr. Brennan and Ms. Wheeler testified that Dr. Brennan neither raised his voice nor stated that Ms. Otto was fired during the September 8 conference. Rather, according to Dr. Brennan and Ms. Wheeler, it was Ms. Otto who became indignant during the September 8 conference, and who abruptly quit and walked out of the school after "throwing" her district-issued laptop on the desk of Dr. Brennan's assistant. Ms. Otto testified that she ultimately submitted lesson plans at some point after her August 31, 2010, observation, though that was disputed by Dr. Brennan. Regardless, Ms. Otto admitted during the hearing that she was "unprepared" during Ms. Wheeler's observation and the lesson plans entered into the record which she purportedly prepared for the August 31 observation were incomplete and inadequate. Dr. Brennan and Ms. Wheeler concurred that the lesson plans presented at the hearing were defective. Ms. Otto testified that she contacted a lawyer with the teacher's union immediately after the September 8 conference. Ms. Otto thereafter learned that Dr. Brennan did not have the authority to unilaterally fire her. Nevertheless, Ms. Otto advised the union lawyer that she would not go back to the school in any event because she was "allergic to it." Ms. Otto testified that the union lawyer gave her assurances that she would be reassigned to another school. These and other statements purportedly made by the union lawyer amounted to hearsay and were not corroborated by other, independent evidence. Shortly after the September 8 conference, Ms. Otto received from the school district a letter dated September 9, 2012, which indicated its recognition of Ms. Otto's resignation and encouraged her to contact the sender (Ms. Dawn Gaughan) with any questions. Ms. Otto did not respond to the September 9, 2012, letter, assuming that the union lawyer was securing her another teaching position in a different school. Ms. Otto testified that she called in substitutes on the days immediately following the September 8 conference using the school district's automated telephone system. However, she also stated that the personal identification number she needed to access the system was invalid at the time of her departure from the school. Having lost faith in the union lawyer's assurances, Ms. Otto testified that she eventually spoke with the school district human resources' personnel about the September 8 conference, but could not remember when that occurred. Ms. Otto subsequently filed a claim for unemployment compensation which was rejected on the grounds that she voluntarily resigned from her position. However, an Unemployment Compensation Appeals Referee ultimately determined that Ms. Otto was entitled to compensation because (during a telephonic hearing on the matter) the school district presented inadmissible hearsay to debunk Ms. Otto's assertion that she had been fired. At the hearing, Ms. Otto presented the testimony of Ms. Judith Julian, who claimed that she was "forced to resign" due to harassment by Dr. Brennan and Ms. Wheeler. Ms. Julian stated that Dr. Brennan "harassed" her by forcing her to park in the teacher's parking area, and Ms. Wheeler harassed her by "following" Ms. Julian on campus during a phone call. Ms. Julian had "no idea" whether such "harassment" was motivated by any animus toward her gender, age, or race, and also commented that she was "replaced" by a male Caucasian. According to Ms. Julian, lesson plans: (a) are "absolutely" important; (b) should be available at all times; and are part of a teacher's contractual duties. Ms. Julian testified that the only personal interaction she had with Dr. Brennan was during a classroom observation when Dr. Brennan stated that she was "a great teacher." Ms. Julian stated that she never heard Dr. Brennan make statements about Ms. Otto's race, gender, or age. Ms. Julian did not attend and, therefore, could not comment on the September 8, 2010, conference. She did, however, recall statements purportedly made by Dr. Brennan at a staff meeting regarding a preference to hire African-American teachers. Dr. Brennan and Ms. Wheeler testified that Dr. Brennan made no such announcement, though he did discuss the need for a staff which reflected the demographics of the community served by Forrest High School. Dr. Brennan also presented statistics showing that his hiring decisions had no appreciable impact on staff demographics at the high school. Rather, African-American staff members increased by only seven percent and the percentage of male teachers at the school actually decreased between the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years. Regardless, the testimony and evidence of record show that school principals do not have unilateral authority to terminate a teacher. The testimony offered by Dr. Brennan and Ms. Wheeler was consistent with contemporaneous notes and statements they prepared in September 2010 as well as other written statements they later prepared for the School District's Office of Equity and Inclusion in November 2011. The collective bargaining agreement between the school district and the teachers' union, Duval Teachers United (DTU), stresses the importance of lesson plans and the expectation that teachers shall have them at all times. The agreement also provides that insubordinate conduct and failure to prepare lesson plans merit discipline up to and including dismissal. Further, the collective bargaining agreement also contains school district policies against harassment and directions on how to process complaints. Ms. Otto was aware of these policies and procedures, but never lodged any complaints against Dr. Brennan with school district officials. Based on the testimony and evidence of record, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that Ms. Otto resigned from her position during a September 8, 2010, conference with Dr. Brennan and Ms. Wheeler. Further, the evidence shows that Ms. Otto failed to provide timely and complete lesson plans despite several warnings from her superiors. This failure alone would support dismissal, as would Ms. Otto's insubordinate conduct or abandonment of her post. The Employment Complaint of Discrimination, filed with FCHR by Ms. Otto appears to be signed and dated by her on October 24, 2010, only 46 days after the last incident giving rise to her claim occurred. However, the date stamp from FCHR on that document is for October 25, 2011, more than 365 days after the September 8, 2010 incident. No explanation was given for this discrepancy in the dates on the complaint giving rise to this matter. Ms. Otto testified at the hearing that she "didn't care which way this case goes" and was "happy" just to be there.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Katherine E. Otto's Employment Complaint of Discrimination and Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 2012, 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 28th day of December, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Katherine E. Otto Apartment 407 7740 Plantation Bay Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32344 Katherine E. Otto 785 Oakleaf Plantation Parkway, Unit 814 Orange Park, Florida 32065 David J. D'Agata, Esquire Office of the General Counsel 117 West Duval Street, Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Cheyanne Costilla, Interim General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Pinellas County School Board, (Board), was responsible for operating the public schools in Pinellas County, Florida. Respondent, Susan E. Brown, was employed as a plant operator at the 16th Street Middle School in St. Petersburg, a school operated by the Board. She had a son enrolled in Lynch Elementary School, operated by the Board. On or about November 9, 1995, Respondent's son, V.B., was sent home at the end of the regular school day with a referral slip, signed by Ms. Proper, the principal, which reflected that the child had used inappropriate language to a female student in the class that day. The language was, "Suck my dick." The alleged incident was discussed in a class meeting and the matter was referred to the principal as the result of a recommendation by the class. The referral slip was not enclosed in an envelope. The child's teacher had had prior conferences with Respondent regarding her child's academics and behavior. Mrs. Brown was very much upset by this referral, not only from the standpoint that such language was attributed to her son, but also because the referral slip was not enclosed in an envelope. As a result, early the next day, November 10, 1995, she arrived in the office at Lynch Elementary where she was met by Ms. Lemos, the data preparation clerk, at the front counter. Respondent loudly demanded to speak with the principal. When informed by Ms. Lemos that the principal was in an awards ceremony at the time but would be back shortly and would see her upon her return, Respondent nonetheless insisted on seeing the principal immediately. She also demanded to speak with the teacher involved. She was upset about the referral slip a teacher has written regarding her son. When informed that the offending teacher was in class and could not be interrupted at the time, Respondent said, "I'll interrupt her," and left the office, heading for the classroom. Ms. Lemos immediately used the intercom system to forewarn the teacher and also immediately called the intervention specialist. Ms. Robinson, the teacher in question, heard Ms. Lemos' warning over the intercom system and within a few seconds, Respondent burst into the classroom, waived a sheet of paper, later determined to be the offending referral sheet, in her face and said, "I don't want this shit again", along with other obscene words including the word, "fucking." Ms. Robinson asked Respondent to leave the classroom, but she refused. Respondent asked for "that ass-hole, Jonathan." Jonathan is another child in the class who, Respondent believed, is the one who made the offensive comment attributed to her son. Respondent's actions were upsetting the children. Some were screaming and others were crying. Ms. Robinson claims that even Respondent's son called for her to stop, but she did not. Respondent stated to the teacher, "If I have to come back, I'll kick someone's ass." Ms. Robinson continued to try to get the Respondent to leave the room and managed to get herself and Respondent out of the room and into the hall. At this point, Ms. Robinson tried to go back into the classroom and close the door with Respondent out in the hall, but Respondent forestalled this, slapping Ms. Robinson's hands away from the door. At one point in the altercation, apparently in the classroom or nearby but in sight of some of the children, Respondent pushed Ms. Robinson away from the door, using both hands to the teacher's upper arms or torso. As a result of the Respondent's actions, Ms. Robinson was emotionally and mentally affected. She was afraid for her life at the time of the incident because the Respondent appeared very angry and was physical with her. The teacher's professional and family life has been affected by this assault. She was afraid to go back into the classroom and missed several days work because of it. She did not seek psychological counselling or a physician and she has now returned to the classroom, but this incident has affected her teaching and she still has trouble sleeping at times. Based on what happened, Ms. Robinson would not want to work in the same school with the Respondent. The altercation involving the Respondent and Ms. Robinson was heard by another third grade teacher, Ms. McLaughlin, who had come to the third grade pod of four classrooms to get another student. As she walked toward the pod she heard someone using profanity, including the words, "Shit. How dare you write this?" After going into her own classroom to get the student she wanted, Ms. McLaughlin came out to see Ms. Robinson pinned with her back to the open door facing away from the classroom, and a parent, identified as the Respondent, up close to her face. She saw Respondent, who was very loud, push Ms. Robinson with both hands Ms. McLaughlin did not hear Ms. Robinson say anything but noted she was trying to close the classroom door. As Ms. McLaughlin watched, the intervention specialist, Ms. Mills came up and took control. Ms. Mills went to the room as a result of the request by Ms. Lemos. As she approached the pod, she heard loud yelling and saw Ms. Robinson with her back to the door and Respondent yelling at her, facing her. Ms. Mills yelled at the Respondent directing her to return to the office. At this point, Respondent turned toward her and yelled that some "shit had been written on [her] baby's paper." She wanted to talk with the principal and, according to Ms. Mills, threatened to "mess them all up." As the two women were walking toward the office, Respondent also allegedly called the staff "fucking crackers", and when advised by Ms. Mills to keep her voice down because children were present, said she didn't care. Ms. Mills claims some children were present as they went toward the office. As Ms. Mills and Respondent arrived at the school office the Respondent was still yelling. Ms. Mills directed her to leave the campus but she refused and continued to demand to see the principal. At this point, Ms. Mills advised the office staff to call the police. Upon the arrival of the principal, Ms. Mills left the office and returned to the classroom where she found the children frightened and upset. When the principal, Ms. Proper, arrived at the front office she told the Respondent to go into her private office because she was yelling so loud. Ms. Proper could hear Respondent from down the hall. When Proper got the Respondent into her office, she asked what was wrong and in response, Respondent waived the referral slip. Ms. Proper took it and looked at it and this had the effect of calming the Respondent down somewhat. However, when Ms. Proper explained why the referral had been written, Respondent exploded again and Ms. Proper told her to leave the campus. Before she could do so, the police arrived. According to Ms. Proper, Respondent's actions upset the awards ceremony, a teacher was made upset and required a substitute, the office staff was upset, and she had to spend several hours with the police. In addition, at least one parent has called the school and expressed concern about the incident. This was the parent to whose daughter the obscene comment was allegedly made by V.B., Respondent's son. At the time of the incident neither Ms. Proper nor anyone else involved knew that the Respondent worked for the school system. Respondent did not identify herself as a school employee nor was she wearing any kind of uniform which identified her as a Board employee. All of the children who testified at the hearing, whether for the Board or for the Respondent, indicated they had, to some degree or another seen and heard the incident. There is no doubt that Respondent physically battered Ms. Robinson at the doorway to the classroom. Whether she intended to injure her is doubtful, however. Respondent clearly used profanity in front of the children, but it is equally clear she did not address the profanity toward them. By the same token, it does not appear that Respondent threatened the children in any way. Though she denies having done so, it is found she did refer to one child, Jonathan, as an ass-hole, but she did not direct that comment to him directly. Respondent has worked as a plant operator, (janitor), for the school system for four years, starting at the 16th Street Middle School only shortly before the incident in issue. Her hours are from four in the afternoon to midnight. She has one child, V.B., who attended Lynch Elementary at the time in issue. Respondent recalls that on November 9, 1995, V.B. came home from school with a referral which was not in an envelope nor was it folded over. When she saw it she was upset over the way it was written. She felt that her son's alleged language could have been more discreetly put and she also felt the slip should have been put in an envelope for transmittal. The referral did not require her to come to school, but she went anyway to see why the slip had been written and transmitted as it was. She also wanted to know why she wasn't called about it. Consequently, on the morning of November 11, 1995 she went to the school office and spoke with the lady at the front desk. Respondent admits to using the word "shit" to describe the referral but denies she cursed anyone in the office. When she asked to speak with the principal she was told that she was in a ceremony and to come back later. Nonetheless, Respondent insisted on speaking with the principal but cannot recall what she said next. She remembers having the impression that the office staff did not want to see the referral, so she decided to go to her son's classroom to speak with the teacher about it. Respondent claims the office staff did not tell her not to go to the classroom. When she got there she asked the teacher why she sent the referral home without it being in a sealed envelope. When the teacher merely shrugged in reply, Respondent repeated the question and admits to again using the word, "shit". With that the teacher asked her to leave the classroom and she claims she started to do so with the teacher behind her. Respondent admits to using the word "shit" a third time but denies calling the teacher a bitch, and most specifically, she denies having cursed at any of the students. It has been found that she did not curse at the student. As she and the teacher were departing the classroom, Respondent indicates she again asked the teacher, in a voice louder than normal, why she had sent the referral home as she did. In doing so, she admits to holding the referral up in front of the teacher's face and claims that the teacher then pushed her hand out of the way. The teacher allegedly pulled on the door to close it and told Respondent to leave. Respondent claims she then turned away and pushed the door but denies having ever come into contact with the teacher. The overwhelming weight of the evidence indicates, however, that she pushed the teacher at least once, and it is so found. Respondent also admits to having used the word "shit" in front of the second lady who came to the room in a query about the referral. It was this individual, Ms. Mills, with whom Respondent walked back to the office. However, she denies having threatened her or stating that she or anyone else would be "messed up", and further denies having referred to Ms. Mills or anyone else as a "fucking cracker." She also denies having used the word "shit" with the principal, though it is clear she did. She claims, however, that the principal neither asked her to come into the private office nor gave her a reason for the referral. This is irrelevant, however. Respondent admits she was on her way back to the classroom from the office a second time but before she could do so, the police arrived and she talked with them. Respondent did not think she was frightening the children by her actions, but it is clear she was. She did not intend to do so. All she wanted was an answer to her question. She admits she was angry when she went to the office and when she went to the classroom. She admits to entering the classroom without knocking or without an invitation because the door was open even though the class was in session. However, she justifies her conduct as a result of having been upset. Respondent's work supervisor has never heard Respondent use profanity to her co-workers, to teachers or to students while on the job or otherwise. He has never received a complaint about her behavior from either students or teachers. He has heard other employees use profanity from time to time, but never in a direct confrontation with each other or in front of students or teachers. Mr. Morris has never disciplined any of his workers for using curse words but would do so for inappropriate conduct. He is aware of the Board's sexual harassment rule, but other than this is unaware of any Board rule which prohibits the use of curse words. Based on his limited experience with the Respondent, he has no concern over her working in an environment where she might come into contact with middle school students or teachers. When he hired her he knew of no record of prior discipline regarding the Respondent and apparently there is none. He agrees it is important not to use profanity around students and that students should feel safe in the school setting. In that regard, if he were to know that an employee did what Respondent is alleged to have done, he would feel that person should not be employed as a plant operator. James M. Barker, an administrator with the Board's Office of Professional Standards, investigated the allegations against the Respondent and concluded that they were accurate and constituted various violations of Board Policy 6Gx52-5.31 which outlines in writing offenses and penalty ranges for employee misconduct. He interviewed the teachers involved but not the students, and when he interviewed the Respondent, she denied all of the allegations. She admitted she was upset by the comments contained on the referral slip but denied either touching a teacher or using threatening language. Notwithstanding, Mr. Barker's investigation indicated to him that Respondent had improperly harassed a student, used inappropriate or disparaging remarks to students, improperly interacted with colleagues, and committed misconduct in office, all in violation of Subsections (l), (n), (p) and (v) of the policy. The aforementioned sections list not only the conduct which is considered actionable, but also suggests a penalty range for the imposition of discipline when misconduct is found to exist. In each case, the suggested penalty ranges from either a caution or a reprimand to dismissal. Section 3 of the same policy outlines aggravating or mitigating factors which may be considered when determining the appropriate penalty. In this case, Mr. Barker recommended dismissal of the respondent because he could find no factors in mitigation but did find aggravation in the severity of the offenses committed, the involvement of students, the potential for damage to the public and the actual emotional damage imposed upon Ms. Robinson and the students. Even though the Board's policy and general practice is to impose discipline progressively, here he recommended dismissal immediately because of Respondent's comments before students and her aggression toward Ms. Robinson. Mr. Barker is aware that Respondent has been employed by the Board for only a relatively short time and that she was not employed at the school where her misconduct occurred. He is also aware that Ms. Robinson did not seek medical of psychological help as a result of her contact with Respondent but does not know if any member of the public was involved. He considers Ms. Robinson and the staff at Lynch to be coworkers of the Respondent even though they are not employed at the same school and they did not know Respondent was a Board employee at the time of the incident. This is an overly broad interpretation. Mr. Barker's recommendation was based on his determination that the Board does not consider it appropriate for any employee of a public or private school to act as Respondent did in this instance. Teachers should not have to fear assault in class and students should not have to be exposed to conduct like that alleged here.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the School Board of Pinellas County enter a Final Order affirming the temporary suspension of Respondent with pay and her termination from employment with the Board as of December 14, 1995. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of May, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 29th day of May, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-6148 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. - 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein, except for the allegation that the Respondent pointed her finger at the students. - 33. Accepted and incorporated herein. 34. & 35. Accepted but not probative of any fact in issue. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. & 8. Accepted Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Keith B. Martin, Esquire Pinellas County Schools 301 4th Street, Southwest Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649-2942 Lydia S. Castle, Esquire Gulfcoast Legal Services, Incorporated 641 First Street South St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Dr. J. Howard Hinesley Superintendent Pinellas County Schools 301 4th Street Southwest Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649-2942 Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida Michael H. Olenick General Counsel 32399-0400 The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Otis Ward Carroll held a Florida Teacher's Certificate No. 169701, which was valid from July 1, 1972 until June 30, 1982. As a certificate holder Respondent was disciplined on August 7, 1979, when the State Board of Education entered an Order adopting a set of stipulated Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The Board's Order suspended Mr. Carroll's license to teach for sixty (60) days beginning on June 15, 1979. This discipline resulted from Mr. Carroll's numerous absences from school due to his drinking alcohol. The stipulation recited several arrests and numerous admissions to the Detox (detoxication) Center for disorderly intoxication. These instances occurred between 1976 and 1978. According to the stipulation Mr. Carroll voluntarily entered an alcoholic treatment program on December 4, 1978 for a period of six (6) months. During all times pertinent to the Amended Administrative Complaint Mr. Carroll was employed as a full-time science teacher by the School Board of Duval County at Fletcher Senior High School. On May 18, 1979, the Assistant Superintendent for Personnel of the School Board of Duval County, Florida, sent a letter to Mr. Carroll informing him that he would be employed for the next school year, but he was warned that, Any further indiscretion, however, such as public drunkeness or drinking while on the job will be reported to the Professional Practices Council and could result in a recommendation for your dismissal in accor- dance with the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act. May 1980 Absence During the 1979-80 school year, Mr. Carroll was absent from his teaching duties without prior approval for approximately one week in May, 1980. Before and during his absence Mr. Carroll failed to give notice of his absence as required by school policy. Upon his failure to appear for teaching as scheduled his principal, Dr. Knight, became concerned about his welfare and sent Mr. Daugherty, his administrative assistant, to look for Mr. Carroll. Mr. Carroll could not be found during the school day, but after work Mr. Daugherty, who was going to the grocery store with his wife, saw Mr. Carroll walking down the street. He was "in real bad shape" and was redolent of alcohol. When Mr. Carroll was offered a ride home he declined stating, "No, I want to go to the lounge." Mr. Daugherty then took Mr. Carroll to the Jax Liquor Store Lounge and promptly found a police officer. Mr. Daugherty explained his concern about Mr. Carroll to the officer. The officer picked Mr. Carroll up from the lounge and transported him to the Detox Center. Mr. Daugherty, who is now a school principal in Okeechobee, Florida, would not, if requested, hire Mr. Carroll as a teacher in his school. He believes that due to Mr. Carroll's drinking problem he could not be relied upon to appear as scheduled for teaching his classes. Dr. Knight has the same opinion. April 14, 1981 Arrest During the afternoon of April 14, 1981, a passing motorist notified Officer Russell of the Duval County Sheriff's Department that a man was staggering down the middle of East Point Road in Jacksonville, Florida. The patrolman went to the location described, and observed Mr. Carroll walking down the centerline of the street. Mr. Carroll smelled of alcohol and was unsteady on his feet. Because of his condition he was transported by Officer Russell to the Detox Center where he was later arrested. July 21, 1981 Arrest At approximately 1:15 a.m. on July 21, 1981, Officer Nixon, a patrolman with the Duval County Sheriff's Department, received a complaint from Mr. Carroll's sister that he was creating a disturbance in her home. She reported that Mr. Carroll was drunk and she wanted him to remain in the house because she thought his condition was too dangerous for him to be out in public. Upon his arrival the police officer attempted to talk with Mr. Carroll but he refused to respond at all. He was quite intoxicated and had to be physically assisted out of the house and into the patrol car. Mr. Carroll was charged with disorderly intoxication and taken to the Detox Centers. Spring 1981 Absences According to Fletcher High School policy teachers were required to either give advance notice of their absences or if such notice was not possible to call the school secretary before 7:00 a.m. of the date on which they would be absent. This notice was required because substitute teachers needed to be obtained as rapidly as possible. If a teacher is too late in giving notice of his absence, it is impossible to obtain a substitute. Other teachers are then required to cover for the absent teacher with the consequential disruption of their omen teaching schedules. During the months of February and March, 1981, there were numerous times when Mr. Carroll did not report his absence as required. He either gave no notice or the notice he gave came after 7:00 o'clock. As a result of his unauthorized absences it was discovered that Mr. Carroll left either inadequate lesson plans or no lesson plans at all for the substitutes who appeared to instruct his class. The failure of Mr. Carroll to timely submit his lesson plans substantially interfered with the ability of the substitutes to teach the appropriate subject material. During one of his absences due to drinking student grades for the third nine-week period were due. Mr. Carroll did not leave any grades with the school administration to be given in his absence. Initially, the administration was unable to obtain the grades from Mr. Carroll. When it appeared that no grades would be available, students were told that they would receive an "I" (Incomplete) grade. This possibility caused much confusion and consternation among the students' parents. It resulted in numerous explanations to them by Mr. Carroll's principal. At the very last moment Mr. Carroll's mother delivered his grade book to the school. The "I's" which were previously placed on the students' report cards had to be removed and the correct grades were then posted. Respondent's unauthorized absences were the result of his being an alcoholic. Frequently Mr. Carroll was unable to go to school because he was in the Detox Center. Finally Mr. Carroll was given a leave of absence beginning on April 21, 1981 in order to seek treatment for his problem. Effectiveness Mr. Carroll's effectiveness as a teacher has been seriously reduced by his alcoholism. He cannot be depended upon to appear at the required time for the instruction of his classes. In two instances he appeared at school with the odor of alcohol on his breath. 1/ Knowledge of and rumors about his alcoholism have reduced the respect accorded him by students at Fletcher High School. On March 12, 1981 Mr. Carroll received an official reprimand from his principal, Dr. Jim Ragans. The reprimand noted that Mr. Carroll had been delinquent in giving notice of his absences to the school administration. The reprimand also noted deficiencies in Mr. Carroll's lesson plans and his completion of the student attendance register. He was warned that any reoccurrences of the enumerated delinquencies would result in a recommendation for his dismissal from teaching.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order revoking the teaching certificate 2/ of Otis Ward Carroll for a period of two years pursuant to Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, and that once the revocation period has expired he be recertified only upon an affirmative demonstration that he is rehabilitated from alcoholism. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of September, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON 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 3rd day of September, 1982.
The Issue The issue presented for decision in these consolidated cases is whether Respondent’s employment with the Polk County School Board, first as an assistant principal, then as a teacher, should be terminated, as recommended by Glenn Reynolds, Superintendent of Schools, pursuant to Section 231.36(6), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is an African-American male who attended Florida A&M University and Jacksonville State, earning masters degrees in physical education and educational leadership. Respondent served ten years in the military prior to entering the field of education. Respondent has been employed by the School Board since 1988. From 1988 to 1993, he was a teacher. In 1993, Respondent was promoted to the position of Assistant Principal for Discipline at Boone Middle School ("Boone"). He served in that position until July 23, 1997. Eileen Killebrew was the principal at Boone and was Respondent’s direct supervisor throughout his tenure at Boone. Ms. Killebrew testified that Respondent did a "great job" during his first three years at Boone. Respondent testified that he believed he had a good working relationship with Ms. Killebrew until April 25, 1997, when the events that are the subject of this proceeding commenced. Respondent testified that Ms. Killebrew repeatedly told him he was the best assistant principal she had ever seen and expressed a desire to continue working with Respondent throughout her career. Ms. Killebrew testified that Respondent’s job performance began to suffer during the 1996-1997 school year. He seemed preoccupied and less focused than in prior years. He spent more time on personal telephone calls. Parents complained that they felt Respondent was not listening to their children in his role as Assistant Principal for Discipline. Ms. Killebrew stated that she attributed these problems to difficulties Respondent was having in building a new house and that she referred him to a lawyer who handled such matters. No documentation was produced to corroborate Ms. Killebrew’s testimony regarding Respondent’s performance in the 1996-1997 school year. She did not set forth her concerns in any evaluation or other contemporaneous notation. She testified that parents and teachers had come to her with concerns, but she did not name them and Petitioner did not produce any of them as witnesses. None of the other witnesses in this proceeding testified that they had noted any problems with Respondent’s performance during this period, or that Ms. Killebrew had mentioned her concerns to them prior to April 25, 1997. Respondent testified that throughout the 1996-1997 school year, Ms. Killebrew had been confiding in him regarding her ambition to move up to a higher administrative position in the school district. Ms. Killebrew told Respondent that she had applied for two area superintendent positions, and later that she was a finalist for one of those positions. Ms. Killebrew told Respondent on several occasions that she was convinced that if a woman were to get the job, it would be her. Knowing that Respondent was also ambitious of improving his position, Ms. Killebrew assured him that if she got the area superintendent job, she would recommend him for the position as principal of Boone. At some point in April 1997, Ms. Killebrew learned she would not get the area superintendent job. Shortly thereafter, she learned that she was being reassigned from Boone to Crystal Lake Middle School. Respondent testified that on the afternoon of her reassignment, Ms. Killebrew came into his office. She had tears in her eyes and clearly had been weeping. She told Respondent that she was going home, leaving him and Nancy Woods, the other assistant principal at Boone, in charge of the school for the remainder of the afternoon. The following morning, Ms. Killebrew again came to Respondent’s office. Respondent testified that she began telling him about the reassignment and broke down crying. Respondent testified that Ms. Killebrew was upset partially because she believed that Crystal Lake was the worst school in the district, with students from the worst families in the county, "white trash" and "rednecks." She asked Respondent to transfer with her to continue as her Assistant Principal of Discipline. After thinking about it for a day, Respondent declined Ms. Killebrew’s request to join her at Crystal Lake. He told her that he was in the pool for appointment to a principal’s position, and as one of only two African-American males in the pool, he believed his chances were good. Respondent also had been advised that his chances of getting a principal’s job would be enhanced if he obtained administrative experience outside his current area of discipline. Thus, he told Ms. Killebrew that if he were to spend another year as an assistant principal, he would attempt to become Assistant Principal for Curriculum at Boone. Frances Lee, a teacher at Boone for 32 years, testified that Respondent was a very fair, congenial person. She stated that he was also a very religious person and that she often talked about the Bible with him. Bill Podoski, the guidance counselor at Boone, testified that in his experience, Respondent had always behaved professionally. Raymond Dean Hunt, a teacher at Boone during the relevant time period, testified that he was always impressed with the professional conduct of Respondent. He stated that they had disagreements over the years, and "I’m not one to back down or be quiet . . . but I’ve been impressed with Mr. Mickens, the way he handled me, if you will, on these occasions." He testified that on these occasions, Respondent’s manner was assertive but professional. Rae Fields, a parent and daily volunteer at Boone during the relevant period, testified that Respondent was a very even-tempered person. She had never heard him raise his voice, and noted that he had to use a megaphone in the hallways to make himself heard. She testified that the students respected Respondent and that he could break up school yard fights by simply ordering the combatants to stop. She testified that children would come to him with their problems and that often in the morning there would be a line of students waiting outside his door to talk with him. She told her son that if he was ever in trouble, he should go straight to Respondent. Ms. Fields testified that the idea of Respondent yelling or even raising his voice at anyone would be "totally out of character." She added that she had seen parents "all over his desk, yelling in his face, carrying on," while Respondent sat quietly and listened. Irene Roberts, the PTA President at Boone and a daily volunteer at the school, testified that Respondent was always a gentleman, very polite, and very fair. She took her own child to Respondent, "which I would never have done if I had not felt that Mr. Mickens was fair in his dealings with all children, and that he would help my son and deal with him fairly." Ms. Roberts testified that Respondent treated all children alike and with respect. He never screamed or yelled at the students and was never threatening or rude. Ms. Roberts testified that Respondent was equally adept at dealing with parents: I was amazed, very often, to see this man never lose control. I saw parents come in who were so rude and cruel when they thought the punishment that was meted out to their child wasn’t fair, and I heard him called names and everything, and he never ever lost his temper. He always was polite to them and a gentleman. Ms. Fields and Ms. Roberts were less complimentary toward Ms. Killebrew. Ms. Fields testified that she got to know Ms. Killebrew fairly well as a volunteer at Boone, where she worked for several hours every school day. Ms. Fields characterized Ms. Killebrew as a "bully" who "liked to intimidate the parents. She liked to intimidate the students." More diplomatically, Ms. Roberts described Ms. Killebrew as "feisty." "It was her way or no way. She just didn’t . . . give very easily." When asked if Ms. Killebrew was open-minded, Ms. Roberts replied, "That all depended on what she wanted or what the occasion was." During Ms. Killebrew’s tenure at Boone, there was a certain amount of racial tension at the school. Much of the tension focused on the School Resource Officer ("SRO"), Ed Nixon. The SRO is a local police officer or sheriff’s deputy assigned to each middle school and high school in Polk County. Ms. Roberts, who is white, testified about Officer Nixon as follows: There’s no nice way to say this. I think he was a little bit biased, bigoted. He kind of was very heavy handed with Hispanic kids and sometimes the black children. He just . . . seemed to be a little heavier and hotter on them . . . He was kind of, he was rough with kids and he was especially rough with the Hispanics. Ms. Fields, who is African-American, agreed with Ms. Roberts’ assessment. She testified that Officer Nixon was different with different children, and not friendly with minority children. She testified that "If you were doing something, and you were black or Hispanic, you more than likely got drug [sic] into his office or into the main office for some type of action to be taken." She testified that Officer Nixon was more likely to let white children walk away with a scolding, unless the offense was too severe to overlook. Ms. Fields testified that she was also disturbed that Officer Nixon was actively involved in disciplining children for typical school yard infractions, when she understood the SRO’s job to be deterring illegal activity. Ms. Fields testified that she thought the school, not the SRO, was responsible for primary discipline of children, and she brought her concerns to the attention of Ms. Killebrew. Ms. Fields testified that Ms. Killebrew at first tried to mollify her with a recitation of Officer Nixon’s personal and professional virtues. When Ms. Fields persisted, Ms. Killebrew told Ms. Fields that she could take her child out of the school if she was unhappy with Officer Nixon. Ms. Fields testified that this was a typical reaction by Ms. Killebrew to parents’ expressions of concern. Ms. Killebrew testified that she could not recall whether Officer Nixon was contributing to problems on the Boone campus and that nothing to that effect had ever been reported to her. This testimony is not credible. Both Ms. Roberts and Ms. Fields testified that Officer Nixon tended to harass verbally certain students. Ms. Fields noted this to be especially the case with certain Hispanic children whom Officer Nixon characterized as "known gang members." Ms. Fields testified that the cause of much of the aforementioned parental "yelling and screaming" was Officer Nixon. Parents would come in to complain about Officer Nixon’s treatment of their children, and Mr. Mickens would have to deal with the problem. Respondent testified as to Officer Nixon’s treatment of one particular Hispanic student, J.G. Respondent stated that J.G. had a discipline record that included some time in an alternative school, and that Officer Nixon claimed to have information that J.G. was a "bona fide gang member." Respondent testified that Officer Nixon monitored J.G.’s activity constantly, and that he was always confrontational in his dealings with J.G. Respondent added: And I have to say, I got numerous complaints from Hispanic kids, from black kids . . . it was on a regular basis about how he handled them . . . . [J.G.] had complained to me himself about, you know, Officer Nixon, the way he said things, accusations and things, you know. If there may be some writing on the bathroom wall, or there may be a gang sign on a table, he was always . . . one of the individuals that Officer Nixon would automatically allege or assume had performed the misconduct, you know, without really any evidence. [J.G.] always complained that . . . Officer Nixon always came up and would be questioning him and breaking up their groups, you know, this type thing . . . "He’s not making these other people spread out. Why are we supposed to be gang members, and none of the other people are being accused . . ." And there was always comments about some of the kids’ parents being drug dealers or being, you know, gang members. The morning of Friday, April 25, 1997, was somber on the Boone campus. Ms. Rubio, an aide for special education students at Boone, had died suddenly. Ms. Rubio very well-liked by students and teachers and everyone on the campus was saddened at her death. April 25, 1997, was the date of her funeral. The funeral was scheduled for 11 a.m. at a local church. Respondent came to the campus early that morning. Ms. Killebrew was not on the campus that day. She testified that she was absent because she was at another middle school participating in preparations for a presentation to the School Board. However, she later testified that she remembered attending Ms. Rubio’s funeral. It is undisputed that Ms. Killebrew was not on the Boone campus that morning. Because of Ms. Killebrew’s absence, the two assistant principals met and decided that only one of them should attend the funeral. They decided that Respondent would go to the funeral and that Ms. Woods would stay in charge of the campus. In chatting with Officer Nixon, Respondent mentioned that he was going to the funeral. At that, Officer Nixon "just started crying. He told me that Ms. Killebrew told him that he could not go. He said that he had wanted to lead the procession, you know. He asked me to give his condolences, you know, to the family. And he . . . was just crying about it." Respondent went to the funeral, and returned to the Boone campus around noon. He headed for the patio outside the cafeteria to prepare for monitoring the eighth grade lunch hour. As usual, he carried his megaphone and a portable radio with which he communicated with Officer Nixon. Respondent testified that, as he entered the hallway adjacent to the cafeteria, he saw a student who, upon seeing Respondent, turned on his heels and headed in the other direction toward his class. At about the same time, Officer Nixon radioed Respondent. Respondent testified that he thought Officer Nixon’s message related to the student whom Respondent had just seen heading toward class. Respondent replied to Officer Nixon that all was well, the problem was taken care of. Respondent testified that he later found out that he had misunderstood Officer Nixon’s message. "I learned later on that he had called me to come over to the cafeteria, and I didn’t come. But I did not understand that that was the communication." Respondent testified that he was standing on the patio monitoring the eighth graders going into the cafeteria when Officer Nixon approached him from behind. Officer Nixon asked Respondent if he had disciplined J.G. for running in the bus zone a few days earlier. Respondent answered that he had forgotten. Respondent testified that Officer Nixon then said, "I’m going to handcuff him, slam dunk him, and haul him downtown." Respondent testified that this statement "got my attention," and that he told Officer Nixon to write up a referral on J.G. if he did something wrong. Respondent testified that Officer Nixon was upset, and continued to mutter, to no one in particular, "I’m going to haul him downtown. I’m going to haul his butt off campus." Respondent testified that, up to this point, he had an amicable working relationship with Officer Nixon. They had always been able to talk about Respondent’s concerns with Officer Nixon’s performance. "I treated him with the utmost courtesy, and vice versa. He listened to me. Several things he was doing that I had concerns about, he did proper research and he changed from doing. And we were making progress." Respondent testified that his goal was always to avoid "getting physical" with the children. Two years earlier, Respondent had seen a child handcuffed, thrown to the ground and manhandled, and had vowed that he was going to do everything possible to prevent that from happening again. Thus, when he heard Officer Nixon talking about "slam dunking" J.G., Respondent said, "I don’t want you picking on the kid." With that, Officer Nixon stepped away from Respondent, pointed his finger, and said, "You’re not my boss. You can’t tell me what to do." Respondent testified that he did not respond because there were still children in the area filing into the cafeteria. Officer Nixon then walked away toward the main office. Respondent waited for the children to finish filing into the cafeteria, which he estimated took a couple of minutes. He then asked another teacher to take over his monitoring duties and went to the office. Upon reaching the office, Respondent told Officer Nixon that they needed to speak. Officer Nixon shrugged dismissively and walked away from Respondent. Respondent again stated that he needed to speak to Officer Nixon and that if Officer Nixon would not speak to him, then Officer Nixon should leave the campus. Respondent testified that they were standing at the door of the office and that there were no threats of violence or belligerence of any kind. Only three other people were in the office area at this time: Bill Podoski and Raymond Dean Hunt, teachers who were in Mr. Hunt’s adjacent guidance office when Respondent and Officer Nixon entered; and the guidance secretary. Mr. Podoski heard the altercation from Mr. Hunt’s office and testified that he did not hear Respondent raise his voice. Mr. Hunt came out of his office and saw the two men. He testified that Officer Nixon was speaking loudly and belligerently, saying something to the effect that Respondent was not his boss and could not tell him what to do. Mr. Hunt stated that Respondent was speaking assertively but not as loudly as Officer Nixon. He testified that Respondent’s tone of voice was no louder than he had heard it in previous disagreements Mr. Hunt had had with Respondent, "assertive but professional." Respondent and Officer Nixon proceeded out the office door to a walkway outside the building. Respondent again told Officer Nixon that he should leave the campus. Officer Nixon responded that he was not going to argue with Respondent in front of students, then walked away. Respondent testified that there were a few students sitting on a bench along the walkway. He testified that he did not believe the bulk of the students sitting on the patio could hear his conversation with Officer Nixon due to the distance and to the fact that the patio was noisy with typical lunchtime activity. Respondent testified that at this point he was content to let Officer Nixon walk away, as he had duties to resume. He did not see Officer Nixon again that day. Respondent testified that Ms. Woods, the other assistant principal, came into his office some time later that afternoon. Ms. Woods told Respondent that she had spoken with Officer Nixon, who told her he was scared that Respondent was calling his boss about the incident. Ms. Woods executed a sworn statement on Monday, April 28, 1997. Her statement reads, in relevant part: I was at eighth grade lunch and Officer Nixon came over to where I was. He was very upset. He said that Mr. Mickens had yelled at him in front of students and told him to get off campus. I tried to calm him down. He went on out the back door of the cafeteria. I walked over to the door with him, still trying to calm him down. He said it wasn’t right for Mr. Mickens to do that in front of students. I went back inside and Officer Nixon went on down the sidewalk. * * * After lunch duty was over, Mr. Brickel and I were walking back to the office and Officer Nixon was standing out there by the wall. He was crying (not boo-hooing, but tears in his eyes). He was saying that Mr. Mickens was calling his chief. He said that several times. We tried to calm him down, and Mr. Brickel told him to get in his car and go off and have a cigarette to help him calm down. James Brickel, the teacher referenced in Ms. Woods’ statement, also provided a written statement that confirmed the essentials of Ms. Woods’ account, as well as Respondent’s testimony regarding the miscommunication over the radio between Respondent and Officer Nixon. Respondent testified that after the incident, he called the office of Carolyn Baldwin, the assistant superintendent, to let her know what he said to Officer Nixon. Respondent also called Angus Williams, the Director of Discipline for the school district, who served as the school system’s liaison to the SROs. Respondent attempted to call Lt. Raggs, who was the charge officer for SROs, or anyone else in authority at the Haines City Police Department, but could not reach anyone there. He instructed his secretary to call them continuously, but was never able to speak to them. Respondent testified that Ms. Woods told him that she would call Ms. Killebrew. Ms. Killebrew testified that Ms. Woods called her. Ms. Killebrew stated that Ms. Woods was upset and told her there had been a loud argument between Mr. Mickens and the SRO. Ms. Killebrew stated that Ms. Woods was concerned because students had heard the argument and were already talking about it. Ms. Killebrew stated that Ms. Woods asked her to come back to Boone quickly. Ms. Killebrew testified that Ms. Woods also told her that Chief Wheeler of the Haines City Police Department wanted Ms. Killebrew to call him. This fact indicates that the Haines City Police Department was aware of the situation and acting upon it, despite Respondent’s futile attempts to contact the police directly. Ms. Killebrew testified that she called Chief Wheeler from her car, and he was "very angry and upset." It was agreed that Ms. Killebrew would meet him at the police station. Ms. Killebrew testified that Chief Wheeler was so angry and upset that she called Mr. Williams, the SRO liaison, to go with her to the police station to help guide her through the meeting. Ms. Killebrew and Mr. Williams first went to Boone, where they heard Respondent’s account of the incident. Ms. Killebrew testified that Respondent was "very calm" as he described what happened. She stated that the one point of contention was Respondent’s statement that he asked Officer Nixon to leave the campus. Mr. Williams informed Respondent that the SROs were not employed by the school district and that school administrators lacked the authority to order them off campus. Ms. Killebrew testified that Respondent believed he should have such authority but that he expressed his disagreement in a calm manner. Respondent generally agreed with Ms. Killebrew’s version of the meeting. His recollection was that it was Ms. Killebrew, not Mr. Williams, who told him he lacked the authority to order Officer Nixon off campus. Respondent also recalled that Mr. Williams cut off the conversation during this disagreement and stated that "we’re going to let administration take care of" investigating the matter. Mr. Williams instructed Respondent to report to the school board offices on the morning of Monday, April 28, 1997. Ms. Killebrew and Mr. Williams then drove to the police station. She testified that Officer Nixon was there when she arrived at the police station. Chief Wheeler and Lt. Raggs told her that Officer Nixon was in an office writing up his statement of what happened. Officer Nixon’s unsworn statement reads as follows, in full: On Friday, April 25, 1997 I, Officer Nixon, was on duty at Boone Middle School (225 South 22nd Street) when I advised the Assistant Principal Ron Mikens [sic] that I was having a problem with a student, [J.G.], in the cafeteria. Mr. Mikens then refused to come to the cafeteria. 8th grade lunch then started and I went outside to speak to Mr. Mikens about the problem. I told Mr. Mikens that [J.G.] was accused of picking on [B.D.] and I asked him if he had done anything about an incident that occured [sic] earlier in the week when [J.G.] refused to leave the bus zone and Mr. Mikens told me he had not done anything. I then told Mr. Mikens that [J.G.]’s behavior was getting worse and I felt that a student may get injured if some action was not taken. Mr. Mikens then got agitated and raised his voice at me and told me that I was picking on the kids. Mr. Mikens then pointed his finger at me and said, "let me tell you something Officer Nixon." I then told Mr. Mikens that I do not work for him and walked away. I then went into the main office and walked down the hall when Mr. Mikens began yelling at me again and pointing his finger in my face. I told him again that I did not work for him and at that point he told me to leave the campus. I told him I would not leave the campus and I walked out the door to Student Services and he followed me out the door. Mr. Mikens then began yelling at me in the hallway adjacent to the 8th grade patio and he put his finger in my face and told me that I did work for him and I will leave the school. Mr. Mikens created a disturbance in front of several 8th grade students and Mr. Mikens also stated that he wished I did put my hands on him. I walked away from him again and told Assistant Principal Becky Woods of the situation. I then left the school to prevent any further incident. Officer Nixon did not testify at the hearing. Ms. Killebrew testified that Chief Wheeler was threatening to arrest Respondent. Mr. Williams interjected that he would go to the school and that he would handle the situation. On Monday, Respondent reported as instructed and was interviewed by Dale McDonald, the school district’s Personnel Investigator Specialist, along with William Londeree, the Director of Employee Relations and Noninstructional Personnel. Respondent testified that he wrote a statement at their request. Respondent then was sent home for the rest of the day. Besides meeting with Respondent, Mr. McDonald talked to roughly ten students and had each of them make a written statement. He testified that Respondent gave him the names of three or four students who might have observed the incident. Mr. McDonald did not indicate the source of the other names. Ms. Roberts, the PTA President, testified that she was in the office on the day the interviews were conducted. Mr. McDonald was calling students down to the office, and Ms. Roberts noted four or five students who were discussing what they were going to say when Mr. McDonald called them in. She also noted that four of these students were members of the "Explorers," a Boy Scout type organization focusing on police work. Officer Nixon ran the Explorers chapter at Boone. Ms. Roberts testified that she interrupted the students’ conversation and told them to cease discussing the matter. She ordered them to sit quietly, wait to be called in, and tell the truth to the investigator. In a subsequent written statement, Mr. McDonald reported that he asked each student interviewed if he or she was a member of the Explorers, and that they all told him they were not. Ms. Roberts, who was at Boone every day during that school year and logged more than 1,000 volunteer hours, was in a position to know that the students in question were members of the Explorers, regardless of what these students told Mr. McDonald, an outsider to the Boone campus. Mr. McDonald also took statements from four staff persons, including the statements of Ms. Woods and Mr. Brickel referenced above. Mr. McDonald did not take the statement of Mr. Hunt because "Mr. Hunt was apparently a witness to only the tail end of the conversation." Mr. McDonald’s reasoning is curious in light of the fact that several of the statements he deemed worth taking were from students who saw only the episode on the walkway, and who could hear nothing of what the two men were saying. The walkway episode occurred later than the scene witnessed by Mr. Hunt. Leaving aside questions of bias on the part of the student witnesses, their hearsay statements are unreliable on their face as the basis for findings of fact. The students claim to have heard statements and seen actions that neither participant made or took. One student claimed to have seen Respondent raise his fist as if to hit Officer Nixon. Given the self-serving tenor of Officer Nixon’s written statement, it is difficult to believe he would have refrained from mentioning such an action if it occurred. The students also placed statements in the wrong person’s mouth. Even Officer Nixon agreed that it was he who substantially stated, "You’re not my boss." Yet one of the students claims Respondent made that statement. Mr. McDonald took the statement of one student who saw nothing of the incident, but whose friends told her that Respondent and Officer Nixon were "mad at each other." Another student heard someone say, "Don’t put your hand on me," but did not know who said it. Mr. McDonald also apparently found some value in the following student statement, which reads in full: Last Friday I had just come out of the lunchroom and I went to go sit with my friends and [S.W.] was sitting down by me and I was starting to talk to him and he told me to be quiet he wanted to hear what Mr. Mickens, Officer Nixon, and Mr. Brickel was saying, so I turned around to see what they were doing and that is all I saw. I could not understand what they were saying. Mr. Mickens was talking, but he usually talks loud. None of the students testified at the hearing, further eroding the probative value of their cursory written statements. The students’ statements are useful as an impressionistic indication that the conversation was somewhat more heated than Respondent recalled. All of the students agreed that both men appeared angry. The statements are also useful to indicate that Officer Nixon was not merely the passive recipient of abuse as he claimed in his self-serving written statement. Finally, the student statements are of some value in corroborating Respondent’s testimony that the conversation was not conducted in loud tones. Some of the students frankly admitted they could not hear what the two men were saying. Others claim to have heard statements that appear to be their surmises of what the men must have been saying, given that they "looked mad." In summary, Respondent’s version of events is the only one made under oath and subject to cross-examination, and was corroborated in part by Mr. Hunt. Petitioner offered no testimony from any eyewitness to the event. Officer Nixon’s unsworn hearsay statement is patently self-serving, portraying him as the victim of an unprovoked tirade by Respondent. The student statements are unreliable, except as indicated above. Respondent’s version is consistent with the descriptions of his character and demeanor and of Officer Nixon’s character and demeanor offered at the hearing. It is found that Respondent’s version of the incident with Officer Nixon is essentially accurate, though it likely understates somewhat the heat of the conversation between the two men. It is found that the confrontation was entirely verbal, and that neither man ever threatened to escalate the matter to physical violence. Both men were in a labile emotional state due to the funeral of Ms. Rubio, which contributed to turning a minor misunderstanding into a confrontation. Respondent calmed down quickly, but Officer Nixon remained upset and fearful that Respondent would report his actions to his superiors. This caused Officer Nixon to preemptively go to his superiors with his one-sided version of events, which outraged Chief Wheeler and led him to demand retribution against Respondent. Returning to the chronology of events, Respondent was sent home on Monday, April 28, 1997, after his meeting with Messrs. Londeree and McDonald. On Wednesday, April 30, Respondent received a phone call from Ms. Baldwin’s secretary, telling him to come to a meeting at which Ms. Baldwin "was going to work this thing out." He was told nothing further about the substance of this meeting or even who would be present. Ms. Baldwin testified that the meeting was attended by herself, Respondent, Officer Nixon, Ms. Killebrew, Chief Wheeler, Angus Williams, and Tillman Sanders, who worked in the Superintendent’s office. Ms. Killebrew recalled that two or three police lieutenants were present along with Chief Wheeler. Respondent also recalled that at least one other police officer besides Officer Nixon and Chief Wheeler was present. All agreed that Ms. Baldwin chaired the meeting. Ms. Baldwin testified that the meeting was called at the request of Chief Wheeler because he was "very upset about what he perceived to be unprofessional treatment of a police officer on our school campus." Ms. Baldwin testified that her agenda for the meeting was to assure Chief Wheeler that the incident would not be repeated and to allow Chief Wheeler to speak directly to Respondent. She did not testify as to any effort made by her or her staff to inform Respondent of the purpose of the meeting. Ms. Baldwin testified that Respondent spoke at length, giving his version of events. She opined that he seemed "pretty defensive," and became upset with Officer Nixon’s version of events. Ms. Killebrew testified that she was instructed by Ms. Baldwin during the meeting to write a letter of reprimand to be placed in Respondent’s file. She stated that Respondent was upset by this instruction and continued to argue that such a letter was not in order. Ms. Baldwin also testified that she "recommended" to Ms. Killebrew that a letter of reprimand be written for unprofessional behavior in front of staff and students. Ms. Killebrew testified that Ms. Baldwin gave her detailed instructions as to the form and content of the letter. Respondent testified that he was puzzled throughout the meeting. He testified that Ms. Baldwin lectured him that he was not under any circumstances to order a police officer off the campus. He testified that Chief Wheeler was extremely angry at the statement he had written, which contradicted that of Officer Nixon. At some point, it became clear to Respondent that the purpose of the meeting was to give him a letter of reprimand, not to air the facts of the situation. He testified that he had never heard of any school employee receiving such a public reprimand. Respondent testified that Ms. Baldwin stated that she had not read Mr. McDonald’s report and was not interested in reading it. This was essentially confirmed by Ms. Baldwin, who testified that her basic understanding of the facts came by way of conversations with Ms. Killebrew. Ms. Baldwin testified that it was not her role to investigate the facts. As found above, Ms. Killebrew was not a witness to any of the events on the Boone campus. Thus, Ms. Baldwin’s version of the facts was a third hand retelling of Officer Nixon’s story and need not be repeated here. Ms. Baldwin testified that Ms. Killebrew assured her that "numerous" staff members at Boone confirmed her version of the story, essentially an adoption of Officer Nixon’s statement. Neither Ms. Baldwin nor Ms. Killebrew provided the names of these "numerous" staff members. Ms. Baldwin admitted she performed no independent investigation of the facts or of the credibility and emotional state of Officer Nixon. She was not made aware of teachers from Boone who disagreed with Ms. Killebrew’s version of the facts. Based upon all the testimony, it is found that the principal purpose of this meeting was to publicly reprimand Respondent in an effort to mollify Chief Wheeler of the Haines City Police Department. The testimony indicates that every school board employee at the meeting, except Respondent and Angus Williams, was aware beforehand that he or she was present for a public chastisement of Respondent, not for a fair hearing. Both Ms. Baldwin and Ms. Killebrew insisted that the reprimand had nothing to do with whether Respondent was right or wrong in the argument, but was based on his behavior in front of students and staff. Their testimony was that they were not required to choose between the stories of Respondent and Officer Nixon in order to reprimand Respondent. This testimony is belied by the actual text of the letter of reprimand, dated April 30, 1997, which states in relevant part: I regret that I must reprimand you for unprofessional behavior in the performance of your duties as Assistant Principal at Boone Middle School. This comes as a result of the incident that took place with School Resource Officer Ed Nixon on Friday, April 25, 1997. I am also requiring that you get counseling through the Employee Assistance Program in the hope that it may help you understand the situation better. Despite its use of the first person singular, the letter was signed by both Ms. Baldwin and Ms. Killebrew. The first paragraph of the letter is consistent with the testimony that Respondent was reprimanded for having an argument with Officer Nixon in front of students and staff, regardless of the motivation or whose version of the story Ms. Baldwin and Ms. Killebrew believed. However, in the second paragraph of their letter, Ms. Baldwin and Ms. Killebrew order Respondent to enter counseling. This order indicates that Respondent’s version of events was disregarded and that Officer Nixon’s was entirely accepted. If Respondent was confronting Officer Nixon to protect a student from harassment and possibly from physical abuse, counseling would hardly be necessary to help him "understand the situation." Counseling might be called for if Respondent had gone into an unprovoked rage in response to an innocuous question by Officer Nixon. The finding that Respondent’s story was disregarded is supported by the fact that no disciplinary action was taken against Officer Nixon, the other participant in the incident. Respondent was required to stay home for at least three school days while his supervisors contemplated a course of action. Officer Nixon returned to Boone on the Monday following the incident. It is understood that the school district apparently lacked authority to take direct disciplinary action against Officer Nixon. However, nothing in the record of this case indicates that anyone from the school district even suggested disciplinary action to Officer Nixon’s superiors, despite his participation in the incident and despite repeated complaints from parents about Officer Nixon’s methods and actions on the Boone campus generally. This supports the finding that Respondent’s superiors accepted wholesale the facts as stated by Officer Nixon. Ms. Baldwin testified that the words "I am requiring that you get counseling" did not mean that she was requiring Respondent to get counseling. She stated that the words actually meant that she was "requesting" Respondent to obtain an "evaluation" because of "some behaviors . . . which appeared to be unusual to the supervisory people." She admitted that the "supervisory people" she referenced included no one other than Ms. Killebrew, who testified that the counseling requirement was placed in the letter on Ms. Baldwin’s instructions. Ms. Baldwin’s testimony cannot be credited as anything other than an effort to finesse the fact that she ordered Respondent to enter counseling when she lacked the authority to do so. Petitioner offered no evidence that Ms. Baldwin, as East Area Superintendent, was authorized to require Respondent to obtain counseling through the Employee Assistance Program. Ms. Baldwin testified that it was her understanding that her "recommendations" in this regard must be affirmed by the Superintendent and that she could take no disciplinary action against Respondent for refusing to enter counseling. When asked point blank if she believed she had the authority to require Respondent to submit to the Employee Assistance Program, she answered, "I had the authority to say that I thought that was an appropriate recommendation." Dennis Dunn, the Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources Services, testified that area superintendents such as Ms. Baldwin only have authority to recommend participation in the Employee Assistance Program. He stated that it would be gross misconduct for an area superintendent to require an employee to do something she lacks authority to require. When confronted with the actual letter of reprimand, Mr. Dunn decided that he might be wrong about the area superintendent’s authority in these matters. Ms. Killebrew testified that when she gave Respondent the letter of reprimand, she advised him to drop the matter and "let it go," that with good performance the reprimand letter would "go away." She testified that she told Respondent not to discuss the incident at school because she did not want staff and students gossiping and taking sides in the matter. Respondent testified that Ms. Killebrew never instructed him not to discuss the matter with his co-workers or students. Under cross-examination, Ms. Killebrew conceded that she never "ordered" Respondent not to discuss the matter, and that there was no written directive from her on the subject. She stated that, "I asked him not to, in a professional manner." In early May 1997, Respondent returned to his duties at Boone. On May 8, 1997, two incidents occurred involving Respondent. The first involved a conflict over whether Respondent or Officer Nixon should respond to altercations in classrooms. Ms. Killebrew’s version of events, as she stated was relayed to her by her secretary, is that the secretary placed a call sending Officer Nixon to remove disruptive students from a class pursuant to Ms. Killebrew’s general instruction to always send Officer Nixon on such calls. Shortly thereafter, Respondent approached the secretary and told her that from this point forward she was to send Respondent, not Officer Nixon, to address classroom disturbances. Ms. Killebrew’s secretary did not testify at the final hearing. It is also noted that Ms. Killebrew’s written statement describing these events appears not to have been typed by her secretary. The other letters in the record signed by Ms. Killebrew were typed by her secretary. Ms. Roberts, the PTA President, told a different version of this event. She was in the office when the call came in. She testified that Officer Nixon had just come in the front door when Respondent exited to go to the classroom. She stated that Officer Nixon ran out and said, "I’ll take it, I’ll take it," but that Respondent was already gone. She testified that Officer Nixon returned to the office angry, and said, "That’s it, I’m calling Carolyn Baldwin. He’s fighting me every inch of the way." Ms. Roberts testified that she was puzzled as to what Officer Nixon was talking about, because in her view Respondent was just doing his job. The second incident was caused by the first. Ms. Killebrew testified that she went into Respondent’s office to discuss the ongoing friction between Respondent and Officer Nixon, and particularly the incident between Respondent and her secretary. Ms. Killebrew testified that she also wished to discuss an incident relayed to her by "a teacher," in which Respondent allegedly pulled a child out of class to ask him about the incident with Officer Nixon. Again, Ms. Killebrew did not identify this teacher, and Petitioner offered no corroboration for her hearsay testimony. Thus, this portion of Ms. Killebrew’s testimony cannot be credited. Ms. Killebrew’s written statement of the incident, which she verified as accurate at the final hearing, states in relevant part: I told him that the conflict with Officer Nixon has to stop and that we all have to work together until school is out. I also told him that the staff was becoming divided because he was continuing to discuss it. He responded that he was going to the school board because everybody had lied about him. I told him that was fine, but it needed to be kept away from the school. I reminded him that I had asked him not to discuss the incident when I gave him the letter. He said, "That’s a lie. You never told me that." I asked, "You’re calling me a liar?" He responded, "Yes, I am. After all I’ve did for you, you sat up in that meeting and told those lies . . ." At this point, I stopped him and told him that he needed to take the afternoon off. He continued to go on. Several more times I had to try to stop him and repeat myself. Finally, he acknowledged that he had heard me. Respondent’s version of the incident basically coincides with Ms. Killebrew’s, with some differences in the particulars. When she asked if he was calling her a liar, Respondent testified that his answer was, "Ms. Killebrew, if you said you told me that, yes, you are lying." Respondent testified that he did not say that Ms. Killebrew lied at the earlier meeting with the police officers, but he did reproach her for not supporting him at the meeting. Respondent’s testimony is consistent with Ms. Killebrew’s own testimony that she sat silently at that meeting. Respondent testified that, although he was surprised at Ms. Killebrew’s statements, he responded calmly. On the advice of Dr. Neriah Roberts, Executive Director of the Association of School Based Administrators, Respondent requested that Ms. Killebrew put in writing her order that he go home for the remainder of the day. After obtaining direction from William Londeree, the district’s Director of Employee Relations and Non-Instructional Personnel, Ms. Killebrew put her order in writing and Respondent went home. On the afternoon of May 8, 1997, Ms. Killebrew wrote the statement quoted above, in the form of a letter to Superintendent Glenn Reynolds. The letter concludes as follows: Due to Mr. Mickens’ insubordinate, disrespectful behavior to me, I am asking that you suspend him, without pay, from his duties as assistant principal at Boone Middle School. I am also asking that you consider reassigning him to another location. Not only has he compromised his working relationship with me, he has also put his effectiveness here at the school in jeopardy by failing to behave in a professional manner. Ms. Killebrew testified that she wrote this letter according to instructions given her by Ms. Baldwin, as she had the earlier reprimand letter. She testified that Ms. Baldwin instructed her as to the form and content of the letter, including the suspension recommendation. Ms. Killebrew testified that Ms. Baldwin told her that the School Board has progressive discipline. Ms. Baldwin told Ms. Killebrew that "He had been given a letter of reprimand. This would be step two, therefore I should ask for a suspension." As will be discussed more fully in the conclusions of law below, Ms. Baldwin was correct in stating that the Polk County School Board has progressive discipline. However, "step two" in the progression set forth in Section 3.005(II)(A) of the School Board policies is a "written reprimand," not a suspension. "Suspension or demotion" is step three in the progression. In their eagerness to pacify Chief Wheeler, the district administrators passed over step one in the School Board’s progressive discipline scheme, "verbal reprimand." It is found that Respondent was truthful in testifying that he did not understand Ms. Killebrew to have directed him to refrain from discussing these matters at school. Ms. Killebrew herself softened her recollection to testify that she had "asked" Respondent not to discuss the incident. However, it is also found that such an instruction should not have been necessary. Whether or not Ms. Killebrew said anything at all to Respondent, he should have understood that no good to the school could come from hallway discussions of the incident with Officer Nixon. Respondent did not deny talking about the incident upon his return to Boone. Ms. Killebrew’s testimony that she was hearing from staff that Respondent was discussing the matter is credited. Thus, Ms. Killebrew was justified in confronting Respondent about the matter. Whatever his feelings, Respondent was impolitic at best in accusing Ms. Killebrew of lying. Her immediate reaction in sending Respondent home for the rest of the afternoon was also justified. Tempers could cool and the matter could be addressed rationally at a later time. Nonetheless, it cannot be overlooked that Ms. Killebrew appears to have been pursuing a personal agenda against Respondent. Ms. Roberts, the PTA President, testified that she spoke with Respondent on the day he returned to the Boone campus in early May and offered to be a character witness for him. Shortly thereafter, she was approached by Ms. Killebrew: Eileen Killebrew came up to me and advised me not to talk to him and not to ask him questions about it or to be friendly, and she made the statement, I want him off my campus, or something to that effect . . . I said, Mr. Mickens, he’s so nice, he’s a nice man. And she said, oh, you don’t know, you don’t know. I want him out of here. The vehemence of Ms. Killebrew’s statements to Ms. Roberts cannot be explained by Respondent’s set-to with Officer Nixon, or by her vague comments that she had noted some slippage in Respondent’s performance during the 1996-1997 school year, even if those comments could be credited as more than after-the-fact rationalizations for her actions. Respondent noted that Ms. Killebrew’s change in attitude toward him coincided with his rejection of her request that he join her in transferring to Crystal Lake Middle School. The facts also demonstrate that Ms. Killebrew was well aware that parents and Respondent were concerned about the bullying methods of Officer Nixon and that Ms. Killebrew stood squarely behind Officer Nixon. It is found that these factors best explain why Ms. Killebrew would seize upon a brief argument that occurred behind closed doors as a pretext for attempting to have Respondent suspended from his job without pay and reassigned. She did not wait for tempers to cool, did not attempt to have a rational conversation with Respondent, or otherwise seek a less drastic remedy. Ms. Killebrew wanted an excuse to get Respondent "off her campus," and this incident could do the job. The following day, May 9, 1997, Superintendent Glenn Reynolds sent a letter to Respondent advising that he was placing Respondent on paid leave, effective May 12, 1997. The letter also stated that Mr. Reynolds was "requiring you to submit to a complete medical and psychological evaluation," and provided a list of physicians and psychologists from which Respondent could choose. The letter required Respondent to choose one physician and one psychologist and to inform the Employee Relations Office of his choices no later than May 14, 1997. Unlike Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Reynolds freely admitted that the word "requiring" in his letter meant "requiring." However, as with Ms. Baldwin, Petitioner offered no evidence to demonstrate that Mr. Reynolds had the authority to require Respondent to submit to a complete medical and psychological examination. Mr. Reynolds essentially contended that he had the inherent authority as Superintendent to require Respondent to submit to these examinations. The school district’s Contract of Employment for Administrators for the school year 1997-1998 contained a provision stating as follows: The Employee, at his expense, agrees to submit to the Board, if required, prior to the effective date of this contract written evidence of good health as required by Board policy. The Employee, at the expense of the Board, further agrees, upon request of the Board at any time during the school term, to submit to a physical or psychiatric examination by a qualified physician or physicians to be selected by the Employee from a list consisting of not less than three (3) names approved by the Board. The Employee further agrees to allow the report of the physicians to be submitted to the board with a copy being forwarded to the Employee. The quoted provision was not contained in the contracts for prior years, including the 1996-1997 school year that is the relevant time period for this hearing. Mr. Reynolds testified that he could not recall the particulars regarding this change to the employment contract. It is noted that even if the quoted provision had been in effect, the authority to require an employee to submit to a psychiatric examination is vested in the School Board, not the Superintendent. Respondent replied by letter dated May 12, 1997, informing Mr. Reynolds of his selection of a physician and a psychologist. Respondent’s letter also requested a conference with Ms. Killebrew and a reason in writing from Mr. Reynolds for the medical and psychological evaluation. By letter dated May 14, 1997, Mr. Reynolds responded as follows, in relevant part: I have required the evaluations to provide me with an independent, professional opinion as to whether there are stress-related or medical reasons for reported behaviors which had not been evidenced in your previous work experience. The information will help me in making decisions relating to behaviors which have been recently reported and/or investigated. Mr. Reynolds’ letter was silent as to Respondent’s request for a meeting with Ms. Killebrew. Mr. Reynolds use of "recently reported and/or investigated" in the statement quoted above is technically accurate but misleading in its implication that an "investigation" may have occurred. Mr. Reynolds in fact relied on Ms. Killebrew’s version of events as conveyed to him by Ms. Baldwin, along with the uninformative statements collected by Mr. McDonald and the self-serving written statement of Officer Nixon, which Mr. Reynolds inaptly termed a "deposition." Mr. Reynolds neither conducted nor ordered an independent investigation of the events at Boone. Respondent was dissatisfied with the reasons given for subjecting him to a psychological evaluation and met with Mr. Reynolds. Respondent testified that at the meeting, Mr. Reynolds would only say that he wanted an independent opinion regarding Respondent’s mental health and told Respondent that he would likely be terminated if he didn’t do it. Respondent testified that he was a former military officer, and if his superior ordered him to see a psychologist, he would see a psychologist. At the hearing, Mr. Reynolds was unable to recall lucidly the chronology of events. He justified ordering the psychological exam by reference to "threats" Respondent had made. Further inquiry revealed that the referenced "threats" related to events that allegedly occurred three months after Mr. Reynolds ordered the examination. Mr. Reynolds also suggested that he was acting to help Respondent and perhaps prevent a situation such as later occurred at Littleton, Colorado, and Conyers, Georgia. This suggestion was irrational, given that Respondent had been accused only of having a shouting match with a School Resource Officer and an argument with Ms. Killebrew. Mr. Reynolds frankly admitted he was relying on the word of Ms. Killebrew regarding the events at Boone and Respondent’s mental state. It is not surprising that someone relying entirely on Ms. Killbrew’s version of events would come away believing that Respondent was emotionally unstable, and come away knowing none of the details regarding Officer Nixon’s pattern of behavior at the school or Ms. Killebrew’s resentment of Respondent. Mr. Reynolds justified his reliance on Ms. Killebrew’s word by saying, "We have to assume that our administrators are going to be honest, be straightforward." He failed to explain why Respondent, also an administrator, did not enjoy the benefit of the same assumption. It is found that Mr. Reynolds lacked a sufficient factual basis for taking the serious, potentially stigmatizing step of ordering Respondent to submit to a psychological examination, even if it is assumed that Mr. Reynolds had the authority to do so. The only facts before Mr. Reynolds were that Respondent had arguments with Ms. Killebrew and Officer Nixon, plus Ms. Killebrew’s vague impressions that Respondent appeared to be under stress. Mr. Reynolds made no independent investigation of the situation. He expressed no curiosity as to whether there were personal grudges or emotional issues on the part of Officer Nixon and Ms. Killebrew, even after a group of parents and teachers including Ms. Fields, Ms. Roberts, and Mr. Hunt met with him to state their support of Respondent and their concerns about Officer Nixon’s behavior on the Boone campus. Respondent submitted to the psychological exam on June 11, 1997. Respondent testified that the psychologist presented him with release forms and asked Respondent to sign them. Respondent refused his consent to allow any examination report to be turned over to the school district. Discussions ensued between Respondent and Messrs. Dunn and Londeree of the school district over the release of the examination report. Respondent testified that the psychologist refused to go over the results of the examination with him unless he would sign the release forms. Respondent testified that Mr. Dunn later phoned him to say that he had spoken with the psychologist and arranged for Respondent to go back in and sit down with the psychologist to go over the report. Respondent returned to the psychologist, who told him that he had not written a "report" and did not intend to do so. Respondent testified that the psychologist said to him, "Your problem is not with me, it’s with the Superintendent of Schools." Respondent testified that he next received a call from Mr. Londeree, who wanted to make a deal. Mr. Londeree asked Respondent to permit the psychologist to send a copy of the report to the school district at the same time a copy was sent to Respondent. Respondent testified that his answer was, "I don’t make deals." Respondent testified that Mr. Londeree told him that if the school district did not receive a copy of the psychologist’s report, then it would go to "Plan B." Respondent stated that he and Dr. Roberts puzzled over what "Plan B" might be. Respondent testified that, in retrospect, he assumed "Plan B" was to transfer him to McLaughlin Middle School, because the transfer occurred immediately after he confirmed his refusal to release his records. By letter dated July 23, 1997, Mr. Reynolds informed Respondent that he was reassigned to the assistant principal position at McLaughlin Middle School, effective immediately. Mr. Reynolds testified that Respondent’s refusal to release the exam results played no part in his decision to transfer Respondent, though he offered no alternative explanation for the timing of his decision. The same alleged facts were before Mr. Reynolds on May 9, 1997, when he suspended Respondent with pay, yet more than two months lapsed before this reassignment, just after Respondent’s refusal to release the records of a psychological examination he should not have been required to take. Ronald Rizer, the principal of McLaughlin Middle School, testified that he could not remember the date he was told that Respondent would begin work at his school. He remembered that Ms. Baldwin called him and asked if he would be willing to swap his current assistant principal for Respondent. Mr. Rizer testified that he told Ms. Baldwin he would work with her and the Superintendent in any way he could. Mr. Rizer did not testify as to whether Ms. Baldwin or Mr. Reynolds briefed him on the previous spring’s events at Boone or gave him their opinion of Respondent’s mental and emotional state. Respondent took a few days’ personal leave, then reported at McLaughlin on Tuesday, August 5, 1997. Classes had not begun, but the faculty had returned to prepare for the approaching school year. Mr. Rizer testified that he greeted Respondent and told him he would introduce him to the faculty via the intercom. He told Respondent that he had no basic assignments for him that day and that Respondent should spend the day getting acquainted with the faculty. Alan Jostes was the Dean of Students at McLaughlin. He testified that he learned that morning there was a new assistant principal, and went to Respondent’s office to introduce himself. He testified that Mr. Rizer had assigned him to prepare the duty assignment list, and that he began going over the list with Respondent. Mr. Jostes testified that Respondent saw his name on the list for morning bus duty and immediately became "very upset, yelling at me, ‘Why is my name on this? I don’t do any duties.’" Mr. Jostes told Respondent that he had simply plugged Respondent’s name into the spots on the list that had been filled by the previous assistant principal the year before. Mr. Jostes testified that Respondent became very angry with him: "I felt very threatened at that point. Accusing me of, you know, being insubordinate and not doing my job, when I was asked by the building Principal." Respondent testified that he never yelled at anybody. He stated that when he saw Mr. Jostes had assigned him to bus duty five days a week, he told Mr. Jostes, "I’m a rover. I have to do student, teachers, parent conferences in the morning. I have to check the teachers’ duty stations." Respondent told Mr. Jostes to take the morning bus duty until Respondent could evaluate the personnel and assign someone to the duty on a permanent basis. Mr. Jostes testified that things calmed down as he took Respondent for a tour of the various duty stations, but that Respondent again became agitated when he saw his name on the assignment list for eighth grade cafeteria duty. Mr. Jostes testified that Respondent became "very confrontational" and yelled at him. Mr. Jostes stated that at this point the conversation was going nowhere and he asked Respondent if he needed anything else. Respondent asked Mr. Jostes to show him the classrooms. They walked down the sixth and eighth grade hallways, after which Respondent said, "That’s all I need. You may go back to your office." Respondent agreed that Mr. Jostes took him around the campus. He testified that when he saw Mr. Jostes had put him down for one hour’s duty in the cafeteria, he informed Mr. Jostes that "I pull lunch duty all three hours. I said this is my time to be proactive with the students. I explained all this to him. And I said, Mr. Jostes, [you’re] really talking to me in a condescending manner. [You’re] talking to me like you’re the assistant principal. Mr. Jostes just kind of turned his head." Respondent testified that he then asked Mr. Jostes to show him the sixth and eighth grade wings, after which he told Mr. Jostes that was all he needed. Respondent’s version of these events is credited as a more objectively accurate statement, though it is found that Mr. Jostes’ honestly perceived that Respondent was "yelling" at him. In his demeanor while testifying, Mr. Jostes appeared to be a soft-spoken, sensitive, somewhat timorous gentleman. Respondent does not speak in a loud voice, but his voice does carry conviction and assertiveness. Respondent is also sensitive to what he perceives as condescension, and likely took on a stern tone when he felt Mr. Jostes was talking down to him. This in turn intimidated Mr. Jostes, who considered it "yelling." Supporting the finding that Mr. Jostes’ reactions do not provide an accurate measure of Respondent’s "anger" and propensity for "yelling" is the testimony of Gene Carroll, the in-school suspension instructor at McLaughlin. Over the course of two days, Respondent and Mr. Carroll engaged in serious discussions over the direction of the discipline program at McLaughlin. There were times when the two men were at loggerheads over changes that Respondent wished to make in the program. Despite these serious disagreements, Mr. Carroll testified that Respondent "always had a good attitude, I thought. Very pleasant to speak to, and I like him real well as far as [that]. I just didn’t like his program." Mr. Jostes testified that the next afternoon, he went to Respondent’s office at Respondent’s request. Mr. Jostes then stated: When I arrived back about 12:30, I went directly to his office. And I said, "Is now a good time?" And he’s sitting at his desk, and he said, "You need to shut both doors," after I walked into the office. The conversation in his office turned to, "You have an attitude. You’re very insubordinate to me," and it went from nothing to yelling and screaming at me. I mean, it was not a directive voice, it was yelling and screaming. "You’re insubordinate. You’re very . . . you have an attitude. And if you don’t like the way I do things around here, I’m going to find someone else for the job, and I will get you out of here." And he said, "Do you have any questions?" And before I could even answer that, he says, "And if you don’t like what I’m saying, we’ll get Mr. Rizer in here." And at that point, I said, "I think that would be a good idea." Respondent’s recollection of this incident was markedly different: I guess a little bit before 1:00, I called Mr. Jostes into my office, and I want to go over and want to make sure that he was prepared to, you know, take part, you know, in the afternoon [teachers’] meeting. Mr. Jostes [sat] down . . . and my door was here. I asked him, I said would you please close the door. He just [sat] there. And he said, I think we need to see Mr. Rizer. Q. Had you had a conversation? A. No. He said, I think we need to go see Mr. Rizer. So I said, all right, let’s go see Mr. Rizer. Respondent’s version of this encounter is credited. It appears that Mr. Jostes confused statements that Respondent made during the subsequent meeting with Mr. Rizer with statements made in Respondent’s office. It is also more plausible that Mr. Jostes would be the person to suggest taking their dispute to Mr. Rizer, because Mr. Jostes had a long-standing working relationship with Mr. Rizer. Respondent had met Mr. Rizer only the previous day. The two men went to Mr. Rizer’s office. Mr. Rizer testified that they came in because of Respondent’s concerns that Mr. Jostes was being insubordinate and trying to tell him what to do. Mr. Rizer testified that Mr. Jostes had already reported to him the difficulties he was having with Respondent. This supports Respondent’s testimony that it was Mr. Jostes who suggested a meeting with Mr. Rizer. Mr. Rizer testified that he attempted to explain to Respondent that he had assigned Mr. Jostes the duty assignment list, but had difficulty getting a word in edgewise. He testified that Respondent repeatedly interrupted him. Mr. Rizer testified that he became irritated and slammed his hand down on his desk and said, "Wait a minute. I’m the Principal here and I’m the boss. You’re not, and you’re going to do things my way." Mr. Rizer testified that Respondent settled down at that point and listened. Mr. Rizer testified that the latter portion of the meeting was productive. He explained to Respondent that he had carved out a special role for Mr. Jostes to further his career goals, and that role was somewhat different than that of the typical dean of students. Mr. Rizer testified that he felt there was a meeting of minds as to the way he had established things as principal of McLaughlin Middle School. Mr. Jostes and Respondent generally agreed with Mr. Rizer’s testimony regarding their meeting. Mr. Jostes agreed that the meeting ended calmly and positively. He also stated that he and Respondent returned to Respondent’s office after the meeting, and "we actually had a very productive communication." Respondent testified that in the early part of the meeting, he complained about the lack of cooperation from Mr. Jostes and told Mr. Rizer that "I can carry it by myself until we can bring in somebody who wants to cooperate and be my Dean of Students." Respondent did not recall Mr. Rizer's slamming his hand on the desk, but agreed there came a point at which Mr. Rizer asserted control of the meeting and Respondent listened to what he said. Respondent testified that by meeting’s end, all three participants seemed happy. Mr. Jostes agreed that Respondent seemed better to understand the situation on the campus at the end of the meeting. Respondent said to Mr. Jostes, "Let’s get out of here and go to work." They returned to Respondent’s office and prepared for the afternoon meetings, then sat together in those meetings for the rest of the afternoon. Gene Carroll was in charge of the In-School Suspension ("ISS") program at McLaughlin. On the afternoon of August 5, he introduced himself to Respondent and showed him a copy of the written protocols for the ISS program. Mr. Carroll testified that Respondent handed the paper back to him and said that he did not want a concrete program because he preferred flexibility in making disciplinary decisions. This commenced a substantive dispute, the narrow details of which are unnecessary to recite in this Order. In essence, Respondent had been in charge of discipline at Boone and had run it with a measure of personal discretion in meting out punishment. The program at McLaughlin was a more lockstep system of progressive punishment. Mr. Carroll conceded that Respondent’s program worked well at Boone, but testified that he and Mr. Rizer believed the stricter program was needed at McLaughlin because of its larger and more diverse student population. Respondent believed that his methods were in keeping with school district policy, and that McLaughlin was out of step with the district’s disciplinary philosophy. Mr. Carroll believed that Respondent was "coming on a little strong" in light of the facts that he had just been assigned to the school, that he was unfamiliar with the McLaughlin community and problems, and especially that the McLaughlin ISS program had been developed by Mr. Rizer when he was Assistant Principal for Discipline. However, Mr. Carroll stated that his differences with Respondent were philosophical, not personal. The only point of contention was Mr. Carroll’s testimony that at one point in the discussions, Respondent told him that he would do it Mr. Rizer’s way for a while, but then would run the program as he saw fit. Mr. Carroll testified that he told Respondent that he needed to talk to Mr. Rizer and straighten things out. Respondent testified that Mr. Carroll misunderstood his comments. He was trying to convey to Mr. Carroll that as disciplinarian, he believed he had to personalize the program. He testified that he was willing to do things in any way Mr. Rizer saw fit. Respondent stated that he told Mr. Carroll to do exactly what Mr. Rizer told him to do. Mr. Carroll agreed that Respondent accepted the ISS program once he understood it. Mr. Carroll’s written statement of events concluded, "I left with a very good feeling that everything would be fine and we would continue our successful program." On Friday, August 8, 1997, Respondent attended a semi- annual district-wide meeting of assistant principals, school resource officers, and deans of students. The purpose of these meetings is to discuss code of conduct and other disciplinary issues. The meeting was chaired by Robert Bondurant, Director of Discipline and Security for the Polk County School Board. During the meeting, Respondent raised his hand during a question session. Mr. Bondurant recognized him. Respondent asked if the district could provide a written definition of the duties and scope of authority of assistant principals and school resource officers. Mr. Bondurant testified that this was a prudent request and agreed to provide the requested definition. While he had the floor, Respondent also spoke for several minutes about his own dispute with Officer Nixon regarding the scope of the SRO’s authority on the Boone campus, and the response of district administrators to the dispute. Mr. Bondurant characterized this portion of Respondent’s remarks as an unprofessional "lambasting" of district administration for its handling of Respondent’s situation. Mr. Bondurant did not believe that what took place between Respondent and his principal or district administration was a proper subject for this meeting, even though it provided the factual context of Respondent’s request for written definitions of duties. Mr. Bondurant conceded that his was a subjective judgment, and that another witness might have no objection to Respondent’s statements. Mr. Jostes was present at the meeting and agreed with Mr. Bondurant that Respondent’s comments were inappropriate. He opined that Respondent was "airing out a lot of anger and frustrations that should have been done in a one-on-one situation with . . . the powers that be in the county." Mr. Jostes, too, conceded that this was his subjective assessment of Respondent’s statements. Patricia Barnes is an assistant principal at Mulberry High School, and was present at the meeting. She testified that Respondent spoke for a long time, but that he spoke in a professional manner and that his statements were relevant to the audience of assistant principals, deans of students, and school resource officers. Keith Mitchell is a 17-year veteran of the City of Bartow Police Department. He was present at the meeting and testified that Respondent spoke in a professional manner and that his statements were relevant to the subject matter of the meeting. On the afternoon of August 8, 1997, a coordinated letter writing effort began. It is unclear precisely who instigated this effort, but the testimony of Dennis Dunn, the Assistant Superintendent for Human Resource Services, makes it clear that Mr. Rizer was instructed by someone in the Superintendent’s office to write a statement. Mr. Dunn testified that he could not recall the precise date when the instruction was given or whether the instruction came directly from Mr. Reynolds or from an associate superintendent. He conceded that the instruction had to have been given some time between Tuesday, August 5, when Respondent commenced work at McLaughlin, and Friday, August 8, when the letters were written. In any event, on August 8, 1997, Mr. Rizer wrote a three-page memorandum to Glenn Reynolds in which he repeated, as fact, the accusations of Mr. Jostes and Mr. Carroll concerning events which Mr. Rizer did not witness. He also repeated comments made by "a teacher," who allegedly told him that "a lot of other teachers" had "concerns" about Respondent. One of these "other teachers" "wondered how many personalities Mr. Mickens has." Mr. Rizer stated that "he was told" that Respondent "seemed not to have his act together" while speaking at a faculty meeting. Mr. Rizer skipped the faculty meeting to write the memorandum. Most damaging to Respondent was the following statement in Mr. Rizer’s memorandum: I personally have some concerns about Mr. Mickens; one minute he is calm and the next minute he is very angry. This man has a lot of anger and I feel something serious could happen when he is in his angry state. I do not feel comfortable him being here. Mr. Rizer spent a total of two to three hours in the same room as Respondent. He estimated that he spent about a half-hour with Respondent in a one-on-one basis. He claimed to have seen Respondent become angry one time and testified that Respondent calmed down after Mr. Rizer asserted himself and that they went on to have a productive meeting. Mr. Rizer had no factual basis for the opinion quoted above, plainly implying that he believes Respondent is a danger to the school. He witnessed nothing that would lead a rational person to fear that Respondent might do "something serious." His sources of information were the exaggerations of Mr. Jostes and some hallway gossip by unnamed teachers. Even Mr. Carroll testified that there was no problem with Respondent’s behavior. At the hearing, Mr. Rizer denied that his memorandum was an attempt to portray Respondent as an emotionally unstable person. In fact, this appears to have been his precise purpose. In addition to writing his own memorandum, Mr. Rizer secured written statements from Mr. Jostes, Mr. Carroll, and Russell Aaron, a teacher at McLaughlin. Also on August 8, Mr. Bondurant wrote a letter to Mr. Reynolds concerning Respondent’s comments at the assistant principals’ meeting, a further indication that the Superintendent’s office was coordinating this effort. The letters from Mr. Jostes and Mr. Carroll recapitulate their testimony outlined above. Mr. Carroll states that he is writing his letter "at the request of Mr. Rizer." The letter from Mr. Aaron to Mr. Rizer, dated August 8, 1997, states, in full: After your phone call this evening about the situation with Mr. Mickens, I felt I should write this letter about an incident that took place last week. On Friday, August 1, 1997, I was riding by the school and saw Mr. Hardee [the former Assistant Principal at McLaughlin] standing in front of the school. I had already been informed that he was leaving our school so I stopped to tell him goodbye. He was talking to another man and when I walked up he introduced Mr. Mickens to me. I asked Mr. Hardee [why] he was leaving McLaughlin Middle and he said Mrs. Baldwin asked him to. At that Mr. Mickens said "Carolyn Baldwin, that Fat Bitch, I’m suing her, Glenn Reynolds and all those Bitches over there. I got my Due Process, they didn’t give me my Due Process. I’m gonna get all of them." At that point you walked out of the door and he (Mr. Mickens) stopped talking and walked back in the building with you. Mr. Aaron testified at the hearing. Mr. Hardee did not. Despite the statement that he was writing this letter "After your phone call this evening about the situation with Mr. Mickens," Mr. Aaron testified that it was he who called Mr. Rizer, on a Friday evening a week after the alleged incident occurred. When asked why he waited a week before calling Mr. Rizer about this incident, Mr. Aaron stated, "I think maybe we had talked about it at school, and then we talked about me putting it in writing, and I had called him that night or something, about how I was supposed to go about doing that. He knew about it before that week was out." This testimony cannot be credited. The letter itself indicates that Mr. Aaron was solicited by Mr. Rizer on Friday evening, not vice versa. Given the opprobrious hearsay that Mr. Rizer saw fit to include in his own memorandum to Mr. Reynolds, it is implausible to believe he would not have included this incident had he known of it on Friday afternoon. Mr. Aaron testified that he had never met Respondent before this incident. He testified that Respondent made his statements at the mention of Ms. Baldwin’s name. He testified that neither he nor Mr. Hardee used any profanity during this conversation. Mr. Aaron’s testimony is credited to the extent that Respondent made some sort of derogatory comments about Ms. Baldwin and Mr. Reynolds. Given the prior testimony regarding Respondent’s character and manner, it seems unlikely that he would have erupted with such vehement language, particularly in front of a complete stranger and without so much as a nudge from those in his company. Under the circumstances of the conversation, it also seems unlikely that Respondent was the only person present who made derogatory remarks about district administrators. Mr. Aaron’s credibility is compromised by his equivocations about the phone call from Mr. Rizer, and by the fact that he did nothing for a week and apparently required some coaxing to write his letter reporting the incident. These findings are also influenced by the fact that Mr. Hardee did not testify to corroborate Mr. Aaron’s story. It is found that Mr. Rizer’s actions on August 8, 1997, were out of all proportion to the minor incidents that occurred on the McLaughlin campus, which a rational person might attribute to a new assistant principal’s over-eagerness to take control and make a good impression and to the natural resistance he would meet from entrenched employees less than eager to change their established methods of doing business. The testimony of Respondent, Mr. Carroll, Mr. Jostes, and even Mr. Rizer himself, indicated that Respondent was beginning to settle in to a smooth working relationship with his peers at McLaughlin after an admittedly rocky start. Mr. Rizer’s actions are made even more irrational by the fact that, though he was contemplating action that he hoped would remove Respondent from the campus, he never mentioned to Respondent that there was even a problem. Respondent testified that he believed things were going well at McLaughlin. He presided over an open house on the morning of Thursday, August 7, 1997, and over teacher meetings all that afternoon with Mr. Jostes. He testified that these were "great" meetings. Respondent testified that after he returned from the assistant principals’ meeting on Friday, Mr. Carroll approached him and told him "point blank" that he would work with Respondent in every way. Respondent testified that he liked Mr. Carroll very much, and that Mr. Carroll seemed to like him. Mr. Rizer had given him a project to complete by Friday. He intervened in a situation in which a parent had a "heated, profane argument" with a school secretary, and resolved it such that the parent left the school "super happy." He made a short presentation to the teachers on Friday afternoon, then completed a video for a presentation he planned to make on Monday. Counsel for Respondent pressed the theory that the transfer to McLaughlin was a set-up from the outset, that the Superintendent’s office planned from the beginning to move Respondent there for a short period before cooking up some reason to terminate him. Based on the evidence presented, it would be fair to reach this conclusion. However, a more plausible explanation of events is that, at the time Ms. Baldwin asked Mr. Rizer about the trade of assistant principals between Boone and McLaughlin, she or someone else in the Superintendent’s office fully briefed Mr. Rizer about the events at Boone and their aftermath. It makes sense that anyone in Mr. Rizer’s position would ask why Ms. Baldwin wanted to make this switch and that she would respond with a recitation of the Boone events according to Ms. Killebrew. If Mr. Rizer "knew" on August 23 that he was getting an emotionally unstable, insubordinate, over-stressed employee who had been ordered to visit a psychologist and refused to release the results, then his disproportionate response to Respondent’s actions and the fearful tone of his letter become understandable. Nothing in the record directly indicates that Mr. Rizer had been briefed about Respondent before he arrived, but that is a rational explanation for his actions. Respondent had no idea of the machinations going on between Mr. Rizer and the Superintendent’s office until the morning of Saturday, August 9, 1997. Dennis Dunn phoned Respondent and told him not to report to the school on the following Monday. Rather, Respondent was told to report to the district office. Respondent reported to the district office on Monday, August 11, 1997. He was told to turn in his keys and handed a letter from Mr. Reynolds that read, in relevant part: Based upon reports of your misconduct in office and gross insubordination, which are grounds for suspension or termination of your employment as provided in Section 231.36(6)(b), Florida Statutes, please be advised that I am suspending you with pay effective August 11, 1997 pending the completion of an investigation. You will be given an opportunity to give your explanations regarding the accusations and will be notified of the results of the investigation. As with the incidents at Boone, there was no "investigation" of the events at McLaughlin as that term is commonly used, i.e., an independent effort to ascertain the relevant facts. Mr. Reynolds and his subordinates simply took at face value the materials provided by Mr. Rizer and others, then met to decide on a course of discipline for Respondent. This is borne out by Mr. Reynolds’ letter to Respondent of August 14, 1997, stating, "Enclosed are letters and reports of incidents upon which I could impose disciplinary action." In other words, the "investigation" lasted less than three days, and the investigative report consisted of the letters from Messrs. Rizer, Jostes, Carroll, Aaron, and Bondurant. Mr. Reynolds testified that he met with Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Londeree, Mr. Dunn, and his legal counsel, Donald Wilson, Jr., to deliberate action against Respondent. This meeting was not noticed or open to the public. Respondent was given no notice or opportunity to attend. Mr. Reynolds solicited and received the advice and recommendations of those present at the meeting. He received legal advice from Mr. Wilson. Mr. Dunn testified that the group "collectively" participated in the decision-making process. On August 29, 1997, Mr. Wilson wrote a letter to Respondent’s lawyer, which stated in relevant part: I am writing this letter at the direction of the Superintendent. It is the Superintendent’s opinion that Mr. Mickens’ actions constitute misconduct in office as an assistant principal and that generally his ongoing conduct and repeated actions are wholly incompatible with the standard of conduct the Superintendent reasonably requires from school based administrators. Further, Mr. Mickens’ actions at both Boone Middle School and McLaughlin Middle School and his conduct toward and statements to members of the staff at those schools have made it impossible for him to continue to effectively perform the duties of an assistant principal. In summary, the Superintendent has concluded that Mr. Mickens has specifically engaged in misconduct in office as an assistant principal and that his conduct generally is so serious as to constitute just cause for termination of his position as an assistant principal. The Superintendent will be recommending to the School Board at its regular meeting on September 9, 1997 that Mr. Mickens be removed as an assistant principal. He will continue to be suspended with pay until that time. Mr. Mickens holds a professional services contract pursuant to Section 231.36(3), Florida Statutes, and the Superintendent’s recommendation regarding his contract as an assistant principal is not intended to affect his professional services contract. Accordingly, if the School Board should act favorably on the recommendation on September 9th, Mr. Mickens will be asked to report on September 10, 1997 to Assistant Superintendent Denny Dunn to available teaching positions to determine an appropriate position to which Mr. Mickens will be assigned. It is noted that Mr. Reynolds’ suspension letter of August 11 also accused Respondent of "gross insubordination." Mr. Wilson’s letter mentions only "misconduct in office." The reference to "Mr. Mickens’ actions at both Boone Middle School and McLaughlin Middle School and his conduct toward and statements to members of the staff at those schools" is as close to a formal statement of factual allegations as Respondent ever received in this process. No formal charging document enumerating the facts upon which the Superintendent based his recommendation was ever provided to Respondent or this tribunal, even after Judge Cave directed the School Board to provide a statement of factual allegations at the motion hearing of February 25, 1999. No charging document was ever filed setting forth the particular provisions of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession, Rule 6B-1.001, Florida Administrative Code, or the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, Rule 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code, that Respondent was alleged to have violated. In fact, Petitioner’s first mention of those rules in this case occurred in its Proposed Recommended Order. At its meeting of September 9, 1997, the School Board took up the Superintendent’s recommendation. Mr. Reynolds addressed the School Board, reciting that Respondent "has engaged in a series of actions which constitute misconduct in office as an Assistant principal, and that his ongoing conduct and repeated actions are generally and wholly incompatible with the standard of conduct we reasonably require from school based administrators." Mr. Reynolds did not state any factual allegation against Respondent. During the lengthy deliberations that ensued, at least two members of the School Board voiced concerns over being asked to vote on a matter without knowing any of the underlying facts. The School Board’s lawyer was Steven L. Selph. Mr. Selph advised the School Board that it would be "inappropriate" and possibly "prejudicial" for the board to hear the alleged facts of the case because the board would later be required to enter a final order. Mr. Selph advised the board that its only choices were to vote on the Superintendent’s recommendation in a factual vacuum, or to hold a full evidentiary hearing before the board itself. Mr. Selph stated that "the main thing the board has to consider is whether the recommendation is based on just cause for the purpose of approving it subject to the outcome of a hearing." Mr. Selph did not explain to the inquiring board members how they could determine "just cause" when they did not know what Respondent was alleged to have done. Mr. Selph assured the School Board that its adoption of the Superintendent’s recommendation was a mere formality necessary to trigger Respondent’s right to a formal administrative hearing. Comments by School Board members prior to their vote indicate that they accepted Mr. Selph’s opinion that the vote was essentially procedural, a necessary step to secure Respondent’s right to an administrative hearing, and thus the board did not need to know the factual allegations. Mr. Selph did not explain that the School Board’s vote to accept the Superintendent’s recommendation would become final agency action if Respondent did not timely request an administrative hearing. On the basis of the Superintendent’s recommendation that Respondent committed misconduct in office, the School Board voted to terminate Respondent from his assistant principal position and to place Respondent into a teacher’s position during the pendency of any administrative hearing. It is found that the School Board’s action was a perfunctory ratification of a decision made earlier by Mr. Reynolds in consultation with his subordinates and lawyer. While there was a lengthy discussion of procedural matters at the School Board meeting, no discussion of the ultimate facts alleged to constitute misconduct in office, or of any facts at all, was allowed. Thus, the School Board did not and could not assess the merits of Mr. Reynolds’ probable cause determination. The School Board’s vote was simply a vote of confidence in Mr. Reynolds. The undersigned viewed a videotape of the School Board meeting. Respondent addressed the board concerning the denial of due process he believed was about to occur. It is noted that Respondent’s presentation was forceful and articulate, but not disrespectful, loud, angry or abusive. It is also noted that Mr. Reynolds testified that Respondent was "agitated." By letter dated September 10, 1997, Mr. Reynolds formally notified Respondent that his employment as an assistant principal had been terminated and that he would be returned to an appropriate teaching position for the remainder of the 1997-1998 school year. Mr. Reynolds’ letter also made reference to a statement made by Respondent to Mr. Dunn that he could not return to a teaching position at that time and desired to use his accumulated sick leave. The letter informed Respondent that he could use the leave if he provided medical certification from a physician that he was unable to work and the anticipated amount of time he would be away from work. Mr. Dunn, the Assistant Superintendent for Human Resource Services, testified that Respondent was placed in a teaching position because "my hands were tied" by the fact that Respondent had a continuing contract that had to be honored. By letter dated September 14, 1997, Respondent requested an administrative hearing regarding his termination as an assistant principal. The letter also stated that Respondent would provide the requested medical certification. On November 5, 1997, Mr. Wilson wrote on behalf of Superintendent Reynolds to Respondent. Mr. Wilson reminded Respondent of his September 14, 1997, letter promising medical certification to justify his sick leave and of a conversation he had with Respondent on November 3, 1997, during which Respondent indicated he had a doctor’s appointment to obtain the certification on November 17. Mr. Wilson informed Respondent that the physician’s certification must be received by Mr. Londeree on or before November 20, 1997, and that failure timely to file the certification would be deemed an abandonment of Respondent’s employment with the Polk County School Board. Respondent never provided the physician’s certification. Mr. Dunn and Mr. Londeree testified as to a conference call with Respondent, during which Respondent conceded that he was not sick but that he could not come back to work under the circumstances. Respondent confirmed that he did not accept the teaching position because his reputation had been destroyed. He believed that he could not be effective in the classroom because people were afraid of him. By letter dated December 12, 1997, Mr. Reynolds notified Respondent that he had been determined to have abandoned his teacher’s position and that Mr. Reynolds would recommend to the School Board that Respondent’s employment be terminated. At its meeting of January 13, 1998, the School Board voted to terminate Respondent’s employment.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order reinstating Respondent for the remainder of his assistant principal contract for the 1997-1998 school year, and enter into assistant principal contracts with Respondent for the 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 school years. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of March, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald H. Wilson, Jr., Esquire Boswell & Dunlap, LLP 245 South Central Avenue Post Office Drawer 30 Bartow, Florida 33831 Timothy G. Schoenwalder, Esquire Hopping Green Sams & Smith, P.A. 123 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Glenn Reynolds, Superintendent School Board of Polk County 1915 South Floral Avenue Bartow, Florida 33831-0391
Findings Of Fact Ronald E. Boyd is a teacher in the State of Florida, licensed by the Department of Education under Certificate No. 370632, covering the area of physical education. At the time of the events alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, Mr. Boyd was employed by the Escambia County School District as a teacher at Ransome Middle School in Pensacola, Florida. On about November 10, 1983, Respondent was apprehended while in possession of more than 20 grams of cannabis, a felony under Florida law. On November 10, 1983, Sgt. Joel Mooneyham of the Escambia County Sheriff's Department, searched the residence of John and Daniel Driggers, who were suspected of being involved in the sale of drugs. During the search, Mooneyham discovered Mr. Boyd sitting on the floor of the bedroom in the midst of a large quantity of marijuana, which was apparently being manicured or cleaned for sale. Mooneyham saw Mr. Boyd sitting among a number of marijuana plants with scissors and other items necessary for the manicuring of the plants. Approximately 187 pounds of marijuana was seized at that time. Mr. Boyd was arrested and charged in the Escambia County Circuit Court with the crime of possession of a controlled substance, to wit: more than 20 grams of cannabis in violation of Section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes. Subsequently, the charges against him were amended to include conspiracy to possess and distribute marijuana. The circumstances of Mr. Boyd's arrest resulted in newspaper publicity in the Escambia County community which was adverse to Mr. Boyd. On the day and at the time of Mr. Boyd's arrest, he was scheduled to be at Ransome Middle School teaching. However, on that day Mr. Boyd had apparently called in a substitute teacher to take his place. After his arrest, Mr. Boyd failed to contact his school or to make any effort to advise the school of his situation. Mr. Boyd has been absent without leave from his teaching position since that time. Dwight D. Leonard, Principal of Ransome Middle School, testified that as a result of Boyd's conduct, Mr. Boyd's effectiveness as an employee of the school board has been substantially reduced. Additionally, Mr. Leonard testified that the School Board did not give employment consideration to any applicant for employment if the applicant had a record similar to that of Mr. Boyd. The acts of Mr. Boyd have seriously reduced his effectiveness as a teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Mr. Boyd's teacher's certificate No. 370632 be PERMANENTLY REVOKED. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of July, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of July, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald E. Boyd 9181 N. Palafox Pensacola, Florida 32504 Wilson Jerry Foster, Esquire 616 Lewis State Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Donald Griesheimer Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Fl. 32301
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Robert David Ferris, holds Teacher's Certificate No. 172775 issued by the State of Florida, Department of Education, on May 11, 1977. This certificate covers the areas of elementary education, administration/supervision, and junior college. In 1983 the Respondent was employed as an elementary school teacher, and taught at Jefferson Davis Middle School in Palm Beach County until his termination which was effective on September 19, 1983. Some time between June 1 and September 16, 1983, the Respondent unlawfully killed his wife, Kathleen Ferris, by strangulation. The Respondent was charged with first degree murder, and was convicted of this crime by the Circuit Court in Palm Beach County, Florida. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. This conviction is presently being appealed. The Respondent was also charged with the murder of his son, George Ferris, but this charge was dismissed subsequent to the Respondent's conviction for murder of his wife. There was extensive news coverage of the arrest of the Respondent, of the Respondent's trial, and of his eventual conviction on the charge of murder. These events appeared in the newspaper and on the television continuously. During the investigation stage, police officers were in the Jefferson Davis Middle School constantly, making inquiries of both students and teachers about the Respondent. As a result, the students were adversely affected, and the morale of the teachers was low. The nature of the Respondent's act of killing his wife, together with the awareness of the incident on the part of the students, parents, staff and the community due to the notoriety it received, so impaired the Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher and employee of the school board, that the Respondent could not be re-employed in any capacity in the Palm Beach County public schools.
Recommendation Based on he foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order permanently revoking Teacher's Certificate No. 172775 held by the Respondent' Robert David Ferris. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER ENTERED this 26th day of June, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of June, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire 1311 S.E. Second Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Robert David Ferris DOC 103324 Baker Correctional Institution P. O. Box 500 Olustee, Florida 32072 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education. The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sydney McKenzie, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Marlene T. Greenfield Administrator Professional Practice Services Section 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Room 418 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was on an annual contract with the School Board of Pinellas County (Exhibit 5). On November 14, 1987, Respondent was arrested by the St. Petersburg police and charged with possession of cocaine (Exhibit 5). An Information was filed against Respondent in the Circuit Court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit in Pinellas County on December 24, 1987, charging her with possession of controlled substances and drug paraphernalia. Case CR 87- 13779 CFANO-1 (Exhibit 2). On December 16, 1987, Respondent, by and through her attorney, entered a plea of not guilty to the charges under which she was arrested (Exhibit 3). A pre-trial hearing in Case 87-13779-CF is scheduled for February 15, 1988 (Exhibit 4).
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was employed as a classroom teacher by Petitioner under a continuing contract. Respondent has been a classroom teacher for nineteen (19) years, and has been employed by Petitioner for the last eighteen (18) years. Petitioner taught primarily at elementary school level but, at various times, she has also taught at the high school level. Respondent was awarded a continuing contract of employment by Petitioner in 1973. Respondent has never been, other than this proceeding, the subject of any formal disciplinary proceeding during the time she has been employed by the Petitioner. On September 25, 1957, Respondent brought three (3) students to Helen Ramsey, Assistant Principal, Port St. Joe High School, for discipline due to their alleged misbehavior in the Respondent's classroom. The more credible evidence shows that Respondent insisted that Ramsey discipline the students in her presence. The reason for Respondent's insistence was that students previously sent by Respondent for discipline had bragged to other students that no punishment had been administered and this created further disciplinary problems in her classroom. Ramsey requested that Respondent leave and let her "handle the situation." Due to Respondent's insistence, Ramsey discussed the matter with Respondent alone in Ramsey's office. After this discussion, Ramsey agreed to question the students. Two (2) students admitted misbehaving in the classroom and were paddled. The third student denied misbehaving in the classroom and Ramsey refused to proceed any further until she had questioned the student without Respondent being present. After further discussion, and with Ramsey refusing to proceed any further, Respondent left. There is insufficient evidence to show that Ramsey ever gave Respondent a direct order to leave her office or the reception area but only requested that Respondent leave and allow Ramsey "to handle the situation" which Respondent did, after a lengthy and heated discussion with Ramsey. Ramsey had not experienced a problem, such as this, with Respondent before and, although Ramsey saw no apparent reason for Respondent's "unusual" attitude, Ramsey did not question Respondent at any time concerning her attitude. The entire incident between Ramsey and Respondent lasted about thirty (30) minutes, including the five (5) to ten (10) minutes Respondent spent with Ramsey without the students in the beginning and the ten (10) to fifteen (15) minutes Respondent was in Ramsey's office while Ramsey discussed the matter with students and paddled two (2) of them. On September 25, 1986, Edwin Williams, (Williams) Principal, Port St. Joe High School, was away from school, and therefore Ramsey reported the incident to Superintendent Walter Wilder (Wilder). When Williams returned on September 26, 1987, Ramsey reported the incident to him. On September 26, 1987, when Williams, became aware of the incident, he sent an aide, Ellie Padgett (Padgett) to Respondent's room to ask Respondent to report to Williams' office and for Padgett to stay with Respondent's class. Upon receiving the message from Padgett, despondent advised Padgett that she would go to Williams' office the next period which was her free period. While Padgett was in Respondent's room, Juanita Powell (Powell), Williams' Secretary, paged Respondent on the intercom and there was credible evidence that Respondent informed Powell that she would come to Williams' office shortly. After Padgett returned to Williams' office, Powell went to Respondent's room to inform Respondent that Williams wanted to see her. Respondent told Powell that she had planned on giving treats to her students at the end of the period and would come when she finished. After Powell returned to Williams' office, Williams went to Respondent's room and told her he wanted to see her in his office. There was credible evidence that Williams was angry with Respondent and expressed his anger when he demanded that she come to his office right away. Respondent went to Williams' office in about five (5) minutes after he demanded that she come. This gave Williams time to return to his office and "cool-off." No one advised Respondent what Williams wanted to speak to her about or that the matter needed immediate attention. Upon arrival at William's office, Williams confronted Respondent with the report of the incident regarding the students given to him by Ramsey. A heated discussion ensued and Williams told Respondent to leave his office and the school, and then Williams proceeded to Wilder's office. After Williams left, Respondent went to her classroom to gather up her personal things. While gathering up her personal things, Respondent was advised by Mr. Osborne, a school employee, to report back to Williams' office. Respondent reported to William's office and shortly thereafter Williams and Wilder arrived. Wilder advised Respondent that they were dealing with "what was potentially a serious disciplinary problem." At this juncture, Wilder directed Respondent to respond to a series of questions concerning the Ramsey incident which Respondent declined to answer, but addressed her remarks to Williams concerning what Respondent felt was Williams' unfair treatment of her during this incident. Respondent continued to discuss the matter with Williams even after he again directed her to leave the school premises. However, Respondent did leave the school in about ten (10) to fifteen (15) minutes. Respondent was not offered an opportunity to have another teacher present to witness the conversation during this meeting with Williams and Wilder. Respondent did comply, although belatedly, with: (a) the request from Ramsey to leave her office; (b) Williams' request to leave his office and the school premises and, (c) Williams' request to report to his office. There was credible evidence that Respondent's failure to notify the school secretary of her absence from duty on September 12, 1983, was due to Respondent's belief that her husband, Clarence Monette, had advised the secretary of her absence. There was credible evidence to show that Respondent was dividing her time between Highland Elementary School and Port St. Joe High School on May 22, 1986, and that Respondent's reason for not reporting to Highlands on May 22, 1986, was due to her staying at the high school to attend an art festival with the children. There was credible evidence that on September 23, 1986, Respondent was absent but made arrangements to have her lesson plan delivered to the school secretary and for a substitute teacher; however, Respondent failed to notify school authorities that she had engaged a substitute teacher which resulted in the school engaging a substitute teacher also. Respondent has had an annual formal evaluation for each of the eighteen (18) years she has taught in the Gulf County School district and, during that entire time, no school administrator has ever indicated that she was guilty of insubordination or that she had willfully neglected her duties. There was insufficient evidence to show that Respondent intended to violate school policies or to disobey an order of her superiors. There was insufficient evidence to show that Respondent's material acts and omissions were willful.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, School Board of Gulf County, enter a Final Order dismissing all charges filed against the Respondent, Audrey Monette and that Respondent be restored to her position as a continuing contract employee of the Gulf County School Board, and that she receive back pay for the entire period she has been in a non-pay status because of these charges. Respectfully submitted and entered this 2nd day of July 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 2nd day of July 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-4471 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. First and second sentence adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 12 and 13 except for that part of second sentence regarding Respondent ignoring Williams' orders which is rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The balance of paragraph 3 adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 14 and 16 except for that part of the fifth sentence concerning Respondent calling Williams an "Uncle Tom" and that part of sixth sentence concerning Respondent charging Williams with believing Ramsey in preference to her which I reject as immaterial and irrelevant. Reject that portion of paragraph 4 concerning Respondent's refusal to leave Williams' office as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The balance of paragraph 4 is adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 17. 5-6. Covered in background material. 7-8. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent 1-2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 6 and 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Not stated as a finding of fact but as recitation of testimony. However, it is covered in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 7. Not stated as a finding of fact but as a recitation of testimony. However, it is covered in Finding of Fact 6. 10-11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. 14-15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. 16-17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 18-19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 20-22. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Findings of Fact 14 and 15. Adopted in Findings of Fact 14 and 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 27. Adopted in Findings of Fact 16 and 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Not stated as a finding of fact but a recitation of testimony but covered in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 17. 31-32. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 22. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 25. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil G. Costin, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 98 Port St. Joe, Florida 32456 Philip J. Padovano Post Office Box 873 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 B. Walter Wilder, Superintendent Gulf County School Board Port St. Joe, Florida 32456 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact Since August 16, 1972, and at all times material to this case, Alfred Gorton (Respondent) was employed as a member of the Lee County School District instructional staff by a continuing contract with the Lee County School Board. In February, 1993, the Respondent was teaching a Social Studies class during third period at Dunbar Middle School. The Respondent had recently been moved into the classroom and much of his instructional material remained boxed. While his students were working on an assignment, the Respondent began to search for a book in his possession which had been requested by another teacher. He intended to deliver the book upon its discovery. As he went from box to box, he chanted, "ennie meenie miny moe...ennie meenie miny moe." Upon opening a box and locating the book, he exited the classroom and completed his "ennie meenie miny moe" chant while standing just outside the classroom door by saying "catch a nigger by the toe." Immediately upon making the statement, he realized his error. He delivered the book to the teacher and returned to his classroom. Upon entering his classroom, he was confronted by some of his students who had heard the remark. Some of the students took offense at the statement and the connotation of disrespect towards black persons. At that time, the Respondent engaged the class in a brief discussion during which he attempted to explain his statement. He stated that, in his opinion, the word "nigger" could be applied to white or black person, apparently believing that no one should be offended. The Respondent testified, and there is no evidence to the contrary, that he had not previously used the term "nigger" in the classroom other than as to the history of slavery. He further testified that he did not intend to offend anyone. He stated that the rhyme was one he learned as a child, and that he was reciting it apparently absentmindedly while searching through the boxes. One student took specific offense at the remark. Several days after the incident, the Respondent discussed the matter with both the student and his father and apologized for his statement. The student's father suggested that the Respondent should also apologize to the entire classroom. The Respondent discussed the matter with the school's principal. Because of the lapse of time since the incident, the principal thought it better to let the matter rest and directed the Respondent to refrain from further classroom discussions regarding the statement. The school principal testified that he does not condone the use of the word "nigger" and does not believe the Respondent's behavior was appropriate. In discussions with the school board officials, the principal recommended that the Respondent receive a written reprimand for his behavior. On April 13, 1993, the school board suspended the Respondent without pay and benefits for twenty (20) working days.,
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Lee County School Board enter a Final Order rescinding the suspension of Alfred Gorton and providing for back pay and benefits for the 20 day period of suspension. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 10th day of January, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 10th day of January, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-2936 The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 5-8, 10-12, 20-23, 25-26. Rejected, subordinate, unnecessary. Respondent The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 8. Rejected, subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. James A. Adams, Superintendent School Board of Lee County 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3988 Marianne Kantor, Esquire School Board of Lee County 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3988 John M. Hament, Esquire Kunkel & Hament Suite 785, 1800 Second Street Sarasota, Florida 34236 Robert J. Coleman, Esquire 2300 McGregor Boulevard Post Office Box 2089 Fort Myers, Florida 33902
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent's teaching certificate should be disciplined for alleged violation of various provisions of Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B
Findings Of Fact Respondent Clayton McWilliams holds Florida teaching certificate number 653517, covering the area of substitute teaching, which is valid through June 30, 1994. He is 27 years of 1989, from Valdosta State College in Valdosta, Georgia. After a few brief months employment in retail sales in Tallahassee, Florida, Respondent returned to Madison, Florida, where he was born and lived prior to attending college. Respondent returned to Madison in August of 1989, after being contacted by the high school coach there regarding the possible employment of Respondent as an assistant coach at the high school from which Respondent graduated. He was employed in the 1989 County School Board. Subsequently, he was employed by the Board during the 1990 high school. Respondent served as an assistant coach during this period. While serving as a substitute teacher during the 1989 Respondent was responsible for a ninth grade science class. Female students M.B., R.B., J.D., and R.C., were in a group surrounding Respondent's desk, talking with Respondent. All the students in the group were curious about Respondent and asked him such questions as what are you going to coach, are you married, do you have a girl friend, and why did you come back to Madison? Respondent knew many of the students on a first name basis and, in the course of bantering with the group, responded at one point to the students' questions about his private life by asking the students about their social lives, if they kissed their boy friends with their mouths open, and if they used their tongues. There was general laughter from the students, although R.B. didn't think the question was "any of [Respondent's] business." This was the only question or comment that Respondent ever made that bothered R.B. R.B. regarded Respondent's conduct in the ensuing two years as "flirting" and "didn't ever think anything bad about it." The next year when R.B. was in the tenth grade (1990 photograph. Respondent later told R.B. that he stared at the photograph every night. When R.B. was in the eleventh grade and not a student in a class taught by Respondent, Respondent jokingly asked R.B. in the presence of D.C., her boyfriend at the time and an athlete with whom Respondent enjoyed a rapport, why she wanted to date such a "big, old dummy." There were other times that Respondent would see R.B., tell her that she looked nice, wink at her and blow her kisses. During the 1990 M.B., by asking her if she kissed with her mouth open, and would she teach Respondent how to do this. Respondent also told M.B. that she looked beautiful. M.B. was not a student in a class taught by Respondent. During the 1991-1992 school year, M.B. was a high school junior and a varsity cheerleader. Respondent continued to speak to M.B., although she was not his student, when he saw her on the school campus or at sporting events. He continued to ask M.B. about kissing with her mouth open, whether she would teach Respondent how to do this, and when could she teach him. M.B. declined to specify any time or place to meet with Respondent. M.B. did not disclose Respondent's behavior to anyone at this time. On one occasion, M.B. and other eleventh grade students, including her boyfriend, were in the high school library, ordering their class rings. Respondent became involved in conversation with the students and asked M.B. again about teaching him to kiss open would lose his job for M.B. Although he heard these comments, M.B.'s boyfriend considered Respondent to be joking. In the fall of the 1991 Wakulla County for a game which would determine whether the team could compete in the district championship playoff. Upon boarding the bus after the game for the trip home, Respondent was asked by M.B. if he was going to sit with her on the bus. He replied that he would if she saved him a seat. Respondent stored the athletic equipment which he was carrying, returned to the forward section of the bus and assumed the vacant seat beside M.B. Since the team had lost the game, most passengers on the bus were despondent. In the course of the trip, M.B. and Respondent leaned their heads against the back of the seat in front of them and Respondent talked about college and how being from a small high school had been difficult when he had attended the University of Florida before transferring to Valdosta State. Respondent had his hands between his knees as he talked and at one point placed it on M.B.'s knee or patted her knee. She, feeling discomfited by the gesture, brushed his hand away. This was the only time that Respondent touched a student where such touching was interpreted by a student to have sexual significance. Respondent testified that he patted M.B. because she acted as though "something had been bothering her" and characterized the pat as something he would give "football players or baseball players at school." Eventually, M.B. became sleepy and rested her head against the bus window. Respondent in a normal tone of voice offered to let her place her head on his shoulder, but M.B. declined. During the 1991 photographs. On the back of his photograph, Respondent wrote: M., I remember when I first saw you, you struck me as beautiful. I really think you are. You are truly special to me. Please know that I love you. Stay sweet and pretty. Love, Clayton. P.S., Please teach me sometime. Mary Rice, a teacher at the high school, began teaching there at approximately the same time as Respondent. Rice, like Respondent, was single. Rice, like Respondent, enjoyed informal relationships with some students, such as the cheerleaders for whom she served as staff sponsor. The cheerleaders, similar to many students who called Respondent by his first name, referred to Rice as "Mary". She became engaged in October of 1991 to Scott Alley, another teacher who occasionally substituted at the school. Rice and Respondent had a normal collegial relationship. Prior to Christmas of 1991, Rice and Respondent were in the school office discussing what they were getting their significant others for Christmas. Respondent told Rice that he would tell her what he was getting his girl friend for Christmas if Rice would have sex with him. Later in the day, Respondent got down on his knees in the hallway outside of Rice's classroom in the presence of students and asked Rice to "go with me before you get married". While Respondent meant that he wanted to have sex with Rice, he did not explicitly state such in the hallway. Later, Respondent sent Rice a note containing four blanks for letters. According to Rice, the note stated that Respondent would tell Rice what he was getting for his girlfriend for Christmas if Rice would " ". Rice assumed the four blanks to represent a sexually suggestive word. Rice stored the note in her desk drawer. She determined not to tell anyone about the note. In February of 1992, her fiancee, Scott Alley, discovered the note in the desk while he was substituting for Rice. He showed the note to Debra Wetherington, a school secretary, and later asked Rice about the note. Rice was startled that Alley had found the note and became upset. Later, in a telephone conversation initiated by Respondent, he discussed the note with Alley. Respondent apologized to Alley for any misunderstanding about the note, stating that he had written it merely to get a laugh from Rice. Respondent told Alley that he, Respondent, just flirted with everyone and that was "how I broke the ice with everyone." After Respondent's apology, the two men agreed to remain friends. Subsequently, the note was destroyed by Alley. Debra Wetherington, the secretary at the high school, frequently interacts with the teaching staff. Initially, Respondent and Wetherington enjoyed a good working relationship no different than those she shared with other teachers. She had known Respondent all of his life. Over a period of time, Respondent began to flirt with Wetherington, asking her about open mouth kissing. At these times, Wetherington ignored his remarks or laughed them off as a joke. When his behavior persisted, she told him that his conduct bothered her and that he should stop. She never told her husband or any one else about Respondent's attentions, hoping to resolve the matter without confrontation and embarrassment. On or about February 25, 1992, Respondent came into the school office and physically put his arms around Wetherington in a "bear" hug and, according to Wetherington, tried to put his tongue in her ear. Also present in the room were the school resource officer and another office worker. No eyewitness corroboration of Wetherington's allegation that Respondent attempted to put his tongue in her ear was offered at the final hearing and she had not reported this detail in an earlier affidavit regarding the incident. Respondent denies he attempted to put his tongue in her ear. Respondent's testimony is more credible on this point and it is not established that he attempted to put his tongue in Whetherington's ear. Wetherington later complained about Respondent's conduct to Lou Miller, the school principal. Miller called Respondent into her office, discussed the incident with him, and directed him to have no such contact with Wetherington in the future. Respondent apologized for his conduct, both to Miller and Wetherington. While Respondent and Wetherington had no further contact, Wetherington later asked another teacher, Tony Stukes, if Respondent was angry with her since she had not seen or heard from him lately. On or about March 24, 1992, Respondent saw M.B. in the hallway outside the door of his classroom while classes were changing. Respondent spoke to M.B. and told her that he had a dream about her. M.B. went to see Mary Rice, the cheerleading sponsor, who had earlier asked M.B. if she was having any problems with a teacher. Rice had taken this action following the discovery of Respondent's note in Rice's desk by Rice's fiancee. M.B. had confided in Rice about Respondent's previous flirtatious behavior toward her. Rice told her to write down future incidents. After relating to Rice the comment of Respondent about having a dream, M.B. was asked by Rice to go back to Respondent and find out more about the dream. M.B. went into Respondent's class where the students were working on a geography project. An overhead projector displayed the continent of South America on a board. Some students were tracing the projection on the board, preparatory to cutting the shape out of the board. Other groups were cutting out other continents. The lights in the room were turned on. Respondent was sitting at his desk, cutting out the Asian continent. M.B. went to a chair by Respondent's desk and sat down. M.B. was on her lunch break and was not a student in the class. However, in the context of the situation, her entry into the classroom was not that unusual. Respondent had on previous occasions entered an art class where M.B. was a student and had spoken with her or, on some of these occasions, had also spoken with the teacher in the class. After seating herself by his desk, M.B. asked Respondent to tell her about his dream. Respondent replied that he couldn't, but M.B. persisted. Finally, Respondent wrote on a piece of paper, "I had a dream about you and me." M.B. then wrote on the paper, "Well, what happened?" The rest of the written exchange is as follows: Respondent: "Well, all I remember is you were teaching me." M.B.: "Teaching you what?" Respondent: "Guess." M.B. "I don't know. Why don't you tell me what I was supposedly teaching you." Respondent: "How to kiss with my mouth open. I liked it, too. I woke up sweating and holding my pillow to my mouth." M.B. then took possession of the piece of paper on which she and Respondent had been writing, left the class and went back to see Mary Rice. M.B. discussed the matter with Rice. After this discussion, M.B.'s feelings about Respondent solidified and she determined that she detested Respondent. At Rice's suggestion, she then went to see Principal Miller. Miller and School Superintendent Eugene Stokes confronted Respondent with the note. Respondent stated he meant no harm by his conduct, recognized that he had a problem and needed help for his aberrant behavior. After a discussion of options, including suspension or resignation, Respondent thought about the matter overnight and submitted his resignation to Stokes on March 27, 1992. Respondent was told that the matter must be reported to the Professional Practices Commission. Respondent was, however, under the impression that his resignation would conclude the necessity for any further proceedings of a disciplinary nature. Until the time of his resignation, Respondent had received good evaluations. His contract was renewed annually. However, as expressed at final hearing by Miller and Stokes, they would not rehire Respondent in view of his past behaviors which now, in their opinion, would reduce his effectiveness as a teacher at Madison High School. Subsequently, Respondent was informed on May 28, 1992, that an investigation regarding alleged misconduct been instituted by the Professional Practices Commission. In August of 1992, Respondent sought and was appointed to a teaching position in Hawthorne, Florida, at the combined junior/senior high school in that city for the 1992 completion of course work for issuance of a five year teaching certificate from the State of Florida which he received in October of 1992. Dr. Lamar Simmons, the supervising principal at the school in Hawthorne, Florida, where Respondent is presently employed is acquainted with Miller. Simmons contacted Miller at the Madison High School, prior to employing Respondent. Miller informed Simmons that Respondent had been a satisfactory employee. Miller did not disclose Respondent's alleged misconduct to Simmons because she assumed Respondent was receiving professional help for his problem and that the issuance of Respondent's five year certificate indicated that further disciplinary proceedings by the Professional Practices Commission had been abandoned. Respondent later disclosed the instant disciplinary proceeding to Simmons. To date of the final hearing, Respondent continues to teach at the school in Hawthorne without apparent incident.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the third, fourth, and fifth count of the Administrative Complaint, and placing Respondent's teaching certificate on probation for a period not to exceed three years upon reasonable terms and conditions to be established by Petitioner, including the following requirements: That Respondent present himself for psychological evaluation by a qualified professional selected by Petitioner. That Respondent complete such course of psychotherapy as may be prescribed as a result of that evaluation. That Respondent assume the cost of such evaluation and subsequent therapy, if any. That Respondent enroll and complete a minimum of six hours of continuing education courses in the area of professional conduct for educators. That in the event that Respondent fails to comply with any of the terms and conditions of probation, Respondent's teaching certificate shall be subjected to a period of suspension not to exceed two years, and that compliance with these conditions of probation serve as the prerequisite for any reinstatement of Respondent's teaching certificate in the event that suspension for noncompliance with these conditions occurs. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of June 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 1st day of June, 1993. APPENDIX In accordance with provisions of Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, the following constitutes my specific rulings on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties: Petitioner's proposed findings 1.-12. Accepted. Rejected as to D.C.'s feelings, hearsay. Accepted. (Note: this is the second finding numbered 13.) Rejected as to "two or three times", accepted as to touching on the knee one time, on the basis of resolution of credibility on this point. (Note: this is the second finding numbered 14.) Accepted. Accepted in substance, not verbatim. 16.-18. Accepted. Rejected as to tickling reference since no sexual significance was ascribed by M.B. to this action, she did not supply a point in time when this occurred and inclusion would imply a significance not proven at the final hearing. Rejected, unnecessary. 21.-23. Rejected, subordinate to Hearing Officer findings on this point. 24.-42. Accepted, but not verbatim. 43. Accepted as to bear hug, remainder rejected on basis of creditibility. 44.-57. Accepted, but not verbatim. Respondent's proposed findings 1.-20. Accepted, but not verbatim. 21. Rejected, unnecessary. 22.-23. Accepted, but not verbatim. Rejected, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Margaret E. O'Sullivan, Esquire Department of Education 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Thomas E. Stone, Esquire Post Office Box 292 Madison, Florida 32340 Karen Barr Wilde Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practice Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Sidney H. McKenzie, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
