Findings Of Fact From September, 1990, and at all times material to this case, Karen E. Maroon (Respondent) was employed on an annual contract as a bus driver for the Lee County School District. "Bus referrals" are the method used by bus drivers to report student misconduct to appropriate school authorities. A referral consists of a multi- part form completed by the bus driver which identifies the name of the student alleged to have committed the infractions and a description of the offending behavior. The form is submitted to the school official responsible for addressing bused student misbehavior. The official reviews the report and completes the form by setting forth the action taken in response to the referral. At Bonita Springs Middle School, Assistant Principal Helen Hicks-Wiley is responsible for bus referrals. On March 3, 1993, the Respondent wrote several bus referrals alleging that three female students had acted improperly on the Respondent's bus. She did not turn them in at that time. The next day, the Respondent was absent from work. On the morning of March 5, 1993, the Respondent turned the referrals into the Bonita Springs school office. Ms. Hicks-Wiley reviewed the referrals and wrote "see me" on them. On the afternoon of March 5, 1993, the Respondent arrived at the Bonita Springs Middle School prior to 3:30 p.m. Upon her arrival, another bus driver delivered the Respondent's referral slips on which Ms. Hicks-Wiley had written "see me." The Respondent began attempting to locate Ms. Hicks-Wiley. Bonita Springs Middle School students are released from class in two sections. Bus students are released first. After buses have departed, the remaining students are released. At approximately 3:30 p.m., the Respondent located the school's principal and inquired of Ms. Hicks-Wiley location. He stated he did not know where she was. During that very short conversation, the Respondent was in a hurry and somewhat angry. At that time, the 3:30 bell signaling the first release of students was sounded. At 3:30 p.m., Ms. Hicks-Wiley was in front of the school at the site of the bus transport staging area. It was her usual responsibility to monitor the area while the students boarded the buses. At the 3:30 p.m. first release bell, approximately 500 students began exiting the building on their way to their buses. At approximately 3:31 p.m., the school fire alarm sounded. Smoke, from what was subsequently determined to be an overheated water cooler, was visible in one hallway. As the fire alarm sounded, the bus-riding students, already in the hallways and exiting the building, were joined by the evacuation of approximately 200 additional students. As the students became excited, the fire alarm compounded the typical confusion expected at the close of the middle school day. The students were more noisy than usual. The fire alarm continued to ring. Some of the buses, engines running, were waiting to depart. At about 3:32 p.m., the Respondent approached Ms. Hicks-Wiley in front of the school and inquired as to the "see me" notation on the referrals. Because Ms. Hicks-Wiley was otherwise occupied with the evacuation of students from the facility, she declined to discuss the referrals at that time and directed the Respondent to contact her on Monday. The Respondent was apparently dissatisfied with Ms. Hicks-Wiley's response and attempted to continue the conversation. Ms. Hicks-Wiley repeatedly declined to discuss the matter in front of the milling children and directed the Respondent to contact her on Monday. Ms. Hicks-Wiley's manner in declining to discuss the matter at that time was to use the "broken record method" during which she simply repeated again and again her direction to contact her on Monday. Ms. Hicks-Wiley attempted to walk past the Respondent so as to continue her supervision of the bus loading area. As Ms. Hicks-Wiley walked, the Respondent placed her hand on Ms. Hicks-Wiley's arm. The evidence is insufficient to establish that Ms. Maroon blocked Ms. Hicks-Wiley's movements. Ms. Hicks-Wiley lost her temper, throwing her hands into the air and stating "Don't touch me. Don't ever touch me." Ms. Hicks-Wiley's fingernails are exceptionally long. The Respondent, having lost her temper and apparently feeling threatened by the length of Ms. Hicks-Wiley's nails, threw her hands into the air and stated "Don't touch me. If you touch me, bitch, I will kick your ass." Beyond the Respondent's touching of Ms. Hicks-Wiley's arm, there is no evidence that either woman touched the other. Ms. Hicks-Wiley then directed the Respondent to get on her bus and complete her job duties. Ms. Hicks-Wiley, who was equipped with a portable transmitter radio also contacted the school's Resource Officer. He arrived at the site but was not required to intervene. The Respondent, upset by the situation, returned to her bus, and departed from the school with her load of students. The Lee County Superintendent of Schools directed an investigation of the incident. On March 10, 1993, a conference was held at which time the Respondent was provided an opportunity to respond to the allegations. She denied the allegations. On March 10, 1993, the Respondent was suspended with pay from her employment as a bus driver.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Lee County School Board enter a Final Order terminating the employment of Karen E. Maroon. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 17th day of February, 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 17th day of February, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-2937 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. Rejected, as to how the Principal "felt," irrelevant. 8. Rejected as to location of parties during incident, not supported by greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. Rejected, irrelevant. Rejected as to the extent of the explanation as to the reason the discussion would have to be postponed, irrelevant. It would have been obvious as to the reason. 14-15, 17, 19. Rejected, subordinate. 20-21. Rejected, not supported by greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. 22. Rejected, irrelevant. 25. Rejected, not supported by greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. 27. Rejected, subordinate. 28, 33-34. Rejected, unnecessary. Respondent The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 6-7. Rejected, unnecessary. The referral was addressed on the day it was turned in to the school office. Unusual circumstances at around 3:30 p.m. on that day prevented the appropriate school official from discussing the matter with the Respondent. Rejected, unnecessary. Rejected, as to the alarm not being cause for concern, contrary to the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. 11-13. Rejected, restatement of testimony is not appropriate finding of fact. 14. Rejected, subordinate. 15-21. Rejected, restatement of testimony is not appropriate finding of fact, contrary to the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. 23-26. Rejected, unnecessary. Rejected, contrary to greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence which fails to establish the precise location of parties during incident. Rejected, irrelevant. Rejected, testimony of other bus drivers is not found to be credible or persuasive except as otherwise set forth herein. 30-31. Rejected, contrary to the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Bobbie D'Alessandro, 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 32902
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, the Manatee County School Board (the "School Board"), may terminate Respondent's employment as a non-instructional employee for "just cause" as defined in Section 6.11 of the School Board's Policies and Procedures Manual, based upon the conduct alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed at the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 9, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Stephanie Waiters was hired by the School Board as a bus driver on August 6, 1996. In 2005, she was promoted to the position of area coordinator. The five "area coordinators" are first-line supervisors responsible for overseeing the daily operations of the buses within their assigned geographical districts. In December 2008, Terry Palmer was promoted from assistant director to the position of director of transportation. Upon his promotion, he was informed by the School Board that, due to budget constraints, his former position would not be filled, nor would the open position of operations coordinator. On January 23, 2009, Mr. Palmer issued a memorandum to all transportation employees regarding the additional duties that transportation department employees would be required to undertake in response to the budget cuts. Mr. Palmer's memorandum stated that, because he would not have administrative assistance, the area coordinators would report directly to him and would assume certain "additional responsibilities": The expanded role of the Area Coordinators will include: 1. employee evaluations; 2. parent conferences; 3. coaching and assisting employees on their buses; 4. observing bus operations at stops, schools etc. when needed; 5. following through on complaints from schools, parents and/or citizens and coordinating action with others inside and outside the department; 6. counseling employees on performance issues and documenting employee discipline; 7. ensuring all employees assigned to them have all of the training and coaching they need to succeed; 8. initiating, in conjunction with the director, involvement of the Office of Professional Standards on extreme issues of poor performance and/or misconduct. Ms. Waiters was the area coordinator for District 5, which includes Palmetto High School. Bus 537 was assigned to District 5 and ran routes to, among other schools, Palmetto High School. The regular operator of Bus 537 during the 2008-2009 school year was Carol Hindman. Ms. Waiters testified that there had been a lengthy history of student disciplinary problems on Bus 537. On Thursday, February 5, 2009, Ms. Waiters phoned Jose Rodriguez, a substitute bus driver employed by the School Board, and informed him that he would be driving Bus 537 on Monday, February 9, 2009.1 On the morning of Friday, February 6, 2009, Mr. Rodriguez rode Bus 537 with Ms. Hindman driving in order to familiarize himself with the route. Mr. Rodriguez testified that there were no problems on the bus until it reached the stop at 29th Street and 9th Avenue Drive East ("29th and 9th"). The students at this stop were rowdy and disregarded his instructions to put away their cell phones and iPods and to carry their backpacks in front of their bodies. From that stop onward, it became a "party bus," according to Mr. Rodriguez. The students informed Mr. Rodriguez that they run the bus, and that the "racist cracker bitch" Ms. Hindman just drives it. The students claimed to have hurt Ms. Hindman, and threatened to hurt Mr. Rodriguez if he attempted to control their behavior. One student began calling Mr. Rodriguez "Chico." Mr. Rodriguez testified that the situation was even worse on the afternoon route, with noise, screaming, radios playing and general horseplay making the situation dangerous. That night, Mr. Rodriguez phoned Ms. Waiters to tell her the Palmetto High School students on Bus 537 were "off the chain" and he was not sure he could handle the situation. She advised him to drive the bus on Monday and see how it went when he was alone. Ms. Waiters told Mr. Rodriguez to "write referrals" on the students who made trouble and she would back him up in any way necessary. Mr. Palmer explained the disciplinary authority of bus drivers and the related referral process as follows: From the standpoint of what they can do, is obviously they should try to work with the student on the bus, they can counsel them, they can move their seat, they can work with them on the bus. If that's unsuccessful, they then write a referral which is given to the school for processing, describing what the behavior has been that is disruptive or that is [in] violation of the safety rules, and then that's given to the school to take care of... Typically, [upon receipt of the bus driver referral,] the principal will assign the assistant principal or have parent liaisons that will meet with the individual students regarding behavior, talk about what that behavior is, why it's dangerous, and so forth, counsel them the first time, and then go through a series of progressive disciplinary steps which can lead to suspension from the bus and ultimately expulsion if it's not corrected. The referral form indicates the disciplinary action taken by the principal or his designee. (Section 1006.10(2), Florida Statutes, prohibits the principal from delegating to bus drivers the authority to suspend students from riding the bus.) If the student is to be suspended from riding the bus, the student's parent must first be notified. The school bus operator is also notified of the discipline resulting from the referral. Before a suspended student may ride the bus again, he is required to present the pink carbon copy of the referral form to the driver.2 Mr. Rodriguez drove Bus 537 on the morning of Monday, February 9, 2009. He testified that it was "the same routine" on Monday. Mr. Rodriguez said that he did not even attempt to control the students because his efforts to do so the previous Friday had been such a failure. Mr. Rodriguez stated that he was concerned for his and the students' safety at the three railroad crossings the bus had to traverse on the way to Palmetto High School. The proper procedure is to put on the signal flashers when the bus comes within 50 feet of the railroad crossing. Then, when the bus is within 25 feet of the crossing, the driver turns off everything but the motor to achieve as complete a silence as possible, because he must be able not only to see but to hear whether a train is approaching the crossing. Mr. Rodriguez testified that he tried to silence the students at the railroad crossings, telling them it was for their own safety. They laughed and carried on with their screaming and horseplay. After finishing the morning route, Mr. Rodriguez reported to Ms. Waiters, who told him to write referrals on the students for their behavior at the railroad crossings and the general mayhem described by Mr. Rodriguez. Ms. Waiters told Mr. Rodriguez to take a School Board vehicle and drive to Palmetto High School to turn in the referrals. Mr. Rodriguez testified that he went to Palmetto High School and gave the referrals to the assistant principal, Carl Auckerman. Mr. Rodriguez testified that Mr. Auckerman told him he would take care of the matter. Mr. Rodriguez testified that the situation was at least as bad on the Monday afternoon route of Bus 537. Ms. Waiters phoned him at home that evening, and advised him to write more referrals on the misbehaving students. She asked him if he needed someone else on the bus, but Mr. Rodriguez said he could handle the situation. Mr. Rodriguez testified that he wrote referrals on Monday evening. He drove the bus on Tuesday morning, experienced the "party bus" situation again, and then wrote more referrals. He testified that he and Ms. Waiters drove to Palmetto High School with the new referrals. They met with Mr. Auckerman and the SRO, Officer Douglas Marston of the Palmetto Police Department. Mr. Rodriguez testified that Mr. Auckerman told them he was going to issue bus suspensions of eight-to-ten days to all of the students who received referrals. Mr. Rodriguez and Ms. Waiters were satisfied with this outcome, and left the office. Ms. Waiters generally supported Mr. Rodriguez' version of the events occurring on Monday, February 9 and Tuesday, February 10. However, Mr. Auckerman, the assistant principal, testified that he did not know Mr. Rodriguez, did not meet with him on February 9 or 10, and received no referrals related to Bus 537 prior to February 11, 2009. Officer Marston testified that he knew nothing of the situation on Bus 537 prior to the morning of Wednesday, February 11. The testimony of Mr. Auckerman and Officer Marston was consistent and credible. The testimony of Mr. Rodriguez and Ms. Waiters was inconsistent. Their chronology of events constantly shifted and was unsupported by the documentary evidence, which was consistent with the testimony of Mr. Auckerman and Officer Marston.3 Mr. Rodriguez testified that he alone met with Mr. Auckerman on the morning of Monday, February 9. In a deposition, Ms. Waiters testified that she accompanied Mr. Rodriguez to Palmetto High School on February 9 and was in Mr. Auckerman's office with Mr. Rodriguez. At the hearing, Ms. Waiters testified that her only meeting with Mr. Auckerman on February 9 occurred that afternoon at the Palmetto High School bus loop. During cross-examination, when she was confronted with her contradictory deposition testimony, Ms. Waiters testified: With all the dates, the 9th, the 10th and the 11th, it's very vague, everything. I probably did, probably didn't, but I did go in to see Mr. Auckerman. I don't know if he came to the bus loop on Monday or whether I went, but I did go there two consecutive days with Mr. Rodriguez. The above quote is typical of Ms. Waiters' testimony at the hearing. She would make a definite, affirmative statement as to where and when an event occurred, but when pressed by opposing counsel or contradicted by her own prior statements, she would retreat into vagueness and uncertainty. During her interview with Debra Horne, the OPS investigator, Ms. Waiters stated that referrals were submitted to Mr. Auckerman on Tuesday, February 10 and Wednesday, February 11, then changed her story to state that the referrals were not submitted until Wednesday, February 11 and Thursday, February 12. Both versions contradict her testimony at the hearing that she oversaw Mr. Rodriguez' writing of referrals on Monday, February 9 and Tuesday, February 10. Ms. Waiters attributed her confusion to Ms. Horne's interviewing style.4 Mr. Rodriguez was similarly subject to confusion as to the timing of events. As noted above, he testified that he and Ms. Waiters met with Mr. Auckerman on Tuesday, February 10 and that at this meeting Mr. Auckerman announced that the misbehaving students would be suspended for eight to ten days. During cross-examination, Mr. Rodriguez was presented with the referrals that he claimed to have written on February 10, and was forced to concede that these referrals described events that actually occurred on Wednesday, February 11. He unconvincingly continued to claim that the meeting occurred on February 10, and that there existed other referrals that were actually written on February 9 and 10 that were not part of the documentary evidence. Mr. Rodriguez claimed to have his own copies of these referrals, but was unable to produce them at the hearing. In her interview with Ms. Horne, Ms. Waiters claimed that on the morning of Wednesday, February 11, she was enforcing bus suspensions issued by Mr. Auckerman at their meeting on the previous day. At the hearing, she conceded that she could not remember whether the meeting with Mr. Auckerman occurred on February 10 or 11, and further conceded that no student had been suspended from Bus 537 prior to Wednesday, February 11, 2009. Mr. Rodriguez testified that Bus 537 was worse than ever on the afternoon of Tuesday, February 10, because the students knew they had received referrals and had nothing to lose. He was afraid for his personal safety when crossing railroad tracks. On the phone that evening, Ms. Waiters told Mr. Rodriguez that she would be riding the bus on Wednesday morning. As to the events leading up to Wednesday morning, Ms. Waiters testified that Mr. Rodriguez had difficulty writing his initial referrals on Monday because, as a substitute driver, he did not know the names of the students. Ms. Waiters lives in the area served by Bus 537, and drove many of the same students on her bus when they were in elementary school. She suggested that they "pull the tape" from Monday morning so that she could name the misbehaving students for Mr. Rodriguez. The School Board maintains recording video cameras on its school buses. However, the video camera on Bus 537 was broken and in need of repair. A written repair request submitted by Mr. Rodriguez at 10:13 a.m. on Tuesday, February 10, 2009, stated, "Camera & tape don't work; tape pops out & stays out; no red light indicating camera is on." Nonetheless, Mr. Rodriguez testified that he and Ms. Waiters watched a video recording from Bus 537 on Monday, February 9. Ms. Waiters testified that there was no video tape from February 9 because the tape was "popped out," but that they were able to watch video after the morning route on February 10. She stated that "the tape was working fine, but the audio was totally messed up." No video tape documenting the events of the morning of February 10 on Bus 537 was presented at the hearing. The video camera was repaired and fully functional on the morning of Wednesday, February 11, 2009, and a video recording of the events of that morning on Bus 537 was entered into evidence.5 The undersigned viewed the videotape at the final hearing, and viewed a DVD version of the videotape twice more during the preparation of this Recommended Order. Ms. Hindman, the regular driver, drove Bus 537 on the morning of February 11. Mr. Rodriguez was already on the bus as the video commenced at 6:44 a.m. Mr. Rodriguez thought he was to drive the bus on Wednesday morning, but for some reason Ms. Hindman showed up and drove. Mr. Rodriguez decided to ride the bus because Ms. Hindman had no control over the situation, and he would be free to watch the situation and continue writing referrals on the troublesome students. Ms. Waiters testified that she decided to ride Bus 537 on Wednesday morning because Mr. Palmer had ordered her to "take care" of the situation, which she took as permission to do whatever was needed to bring order to the bus.6 At 6:47 a.m., Ms. Waiters boarded Bus 537 at the corner of 22nd Street and 2nd Avenue, one stop before 29th and 9th. As the bus proceeded, Mr. Rodriguez consulted Ms. Waiters as he attempted to identify some of the troublemaking students. He held a sheaf of papers. Ms. Waiters admonished him not to discuss what they were about to do in front of the students7 already on the bus, and stated her intent to move those students to the back of the bus before the students boarded at 29th and 9th. The bus was scheduled to reach the stop at 29th and 9th at 6:50 a.m. On February 11, 2009, the bus stopped at 29th and 9th at 6:53 a.m. When the bus came to a stop, Ms. Waiters directed the students already on the bus to move to the rear seats. After the bus had been stopped for approximately ten seconds, a student at the 29th and 9th stop, whom Ms. Waiters identified as J.P., knocked on the door. Ms. Waiters moved to the door and out of camera range, but could be heard stating authoritatively, "Get your hands off the window." At the hearing, Ms. Waiters testified that she suspected J.P. was carrying a weapon and that she feared for her safety and that of the students on the bus, but believed that the safest course was to allow him to board the bus rather than confront him about the suspected weapon. This testimony cannot be credited, as Ms. Waiters made no mention of such a suspicion to the Sheriff's deputies who were later dispatched to the bus, to Mr. Auckerman or SRO Marston when they arrived at the bus, or to Ms. Horne during the later investigation. Ms. Waiters' testimony that she did not reveal her suspicions due to fear of reprisals from J.P. or his confederates, based in part on an apparently unrelated and unsolved break-in that occurred at her home five years earlier, is not credited. After admonishing J.P., Ms. Waiters stated, "Everybody that rode yesterday, let's get on the bus, come on." Then, only seconds later, she stated, "Everybody who rode this bus yesterday still thinks they are going to get on the bus. They're not riding anymore." She stood just inside the door and began allowing a few students on the bus one at a time, directing them to their assigned seats. Ms. Waiters could be heard telling one unseen student, "Off the bus, off the bus," while his voice could be heard saying, "But I ride this bus." She began reading out names from a list provided by Mr. Rodriguez. The named students, apparently those who did not make trouble for Mr. Rodriguez the previous day, were allowed to board the bus.8 After these students were boarded and seated, Ms. Waiters directed them to move to the back of the bus. Then, Ms. Waiters began letting the rest of the students from 29th and 9th onto the bus. As they boarded, she said, "Enjoy this ride. This is y'alls last day riding the bus ever." The videotape shows that these students boarded the bus in orderly fashion and were seated without incident. As the students were boarding, Ms. Waiters stated that the bus would not be stopping at 29th and 9th any more. "You're within walking distance, you'll walk," she said to an unseen student. By 6:59 a.m., all of the students had boarded the bus at the 29th and 9th stop. The bus remained stopped. The students talked loudly among themselves, but were otherwise well behaved. Ms. Waiters phoned her dispatcher and told her to request that the Manatee County Sheriff's Office send deputies to the bus stop at 29th and 9th. At approximately 7:02 a.m., a male student attempted to disembark, telling Ms. Waiters that he had phoned his mother and she was coming to pick him up. Ms. Waiters told him to be seated because they had to wait for the Sheriff's deputies to arrive. The student complained, "What Sheriff? Nobody didn't do nothing," but obeyed Ms. Waiters' instruction. While they waited, the students in the front of the bus could be heard laughing and joking about what various parents or step-parents might do when they came to the bus, such as breaking the windows or tearing off the door.9 At approximately 7:06 a.m., Ms. Waiters spoke to some unseen parents through the closed door of the bus, saying, "Wait a minute. We'll release them in a second." A few seconds later, she addressed the students: "We'll either be releasing you to your parents or the Sheriff. So if you have a cell phone, you want to call your parents. You can go ahead and call them." At this point, no Sheriff's deputy had arrived at the scene. The evidence established that the first deputy to arrive, Deputy Kenneth Warner, was not even dispatched until 7:07 a.m. This fact is significant because during her interview, Ms. Waiters told Ms. Horne that law enforcement had directed her to tell the student to call their parents. At the hearing, Ms. Waiters testified that a Sheriff's deputy told her to have the kids call their parents, and that she was just repeating what the deputy told her. Ms. Waiters' testimony on this point is clearly not true. At approximately 7:07 a.m., Ms. Waiters stated to the students, "We're waiting to release you to the Sheriff or your parents." At this point, the students were still in high spirits, talking loudly to each other but not noticeably upset. At approximately 7:08 a.m., a call was made to the Sheriff's Office by a parent. The caller informed the dispatcher that her son had used his cell phone to call her from Bus 537. Her son told her that the students were locked on the bus and the driver refused to speak to parents who had arrived at the bus stop in response to their children's calls. Deputy Warner arrived at 29th and 9th at 7:10 a.m. His view of the situation, which is entirely supported by the videotape, was as follows: [The students] were all sitting in their seats, no one was up, but they were vocal, they were expressing their concerns about comments and stuff like that Ms. Waiters was stating... She was kind of instigating an issue. She was walking up and down, and making comments. Like if they made a comment to her, she would reply with a comment which would fire them up, and then they would all have comments back and forth... [The four or five parents who arrived] just didn't know what was going on, as me, I didn't know what was going on, either. They were wondering why they were getting calls from their children. So, I don't know. They were upset. Deputy Warner credibly denied that he gave any directives to Ms. Waiters, or indeed had much idea why he had been summoned to the scene: "It was my impression when I arrived that she just needed me there as support, and that she was handling the situation." The videotape shows Ms. Waiters meeting Deputy Warner at the door of the bus, and stating that this was a situation similar to the "one we had a couple of weeks ago that I took care of."10 She told the deputy that certain students on the bus must either be taken to the juvenile detention center ("JDC") or be released to their parents, because there have been "a lot of problems" on the bus. Ms. Waiters offered Deputy Warner no further details as to why the students could not ride the bus to school. Because he was confused by the situation, Deputy Warner radioed dispatch and requested that SRO Marston respond to his call. At 7:12 a.m., Ms. Waiters announced to the students, "You need to call your parents because you will not be riding the bus. The ones that have parents at work, you'll need to get your aunts or something, because you will not ride the bus." Ms. Waiters began releasing students whose parents were waiting outside the bus. At 7:20 a.m. and at 7:22 a.m., Ms. Waiters again told the remaining students that they needed to call their parents for a ride to school. Deputy Daniel Whidden was dispatched by the Sheriff's Office and arrived at the scene after Deputy Warner. Deputy Whidden, who was also a football coach at Palmetto High School and knew several students on the bus, testified that he gave Ms. Waiters no direction on how to handle the situation. Ms. Waiters told him that there had been problems on the bus the day before, and she was calling parents and having them pick up their children. At 7:23 a.m., Deputy Whidden boarded the bus and explained to the students that they were not allowed to disembark because the School Board was responsible for their safety. He told the students that SRO Marston was on his way to the bus stop to assist in transporting to school those students who were not allowed to ride the bus. Deputy Whidden testified that when he boarded the bus, the students were all in their seats. Some were protesting that they had done nothing wrong, but no one needed to be calmed down. This testimony is consistent with the evidence of the videotape. At 7:26 a.m., Ms. Waiters told Deputy Whidden that the students in the rear would be transported to school on the bus. As to the others, she stated, "I told them yesterday at the school they might as well find transportation in the morning. Well, they came here, and we can't leave them standing out at the bus stop." In conversation with Deputy Whidden, a female student confirmed that some of the students had been told they would not be allowed on the bus for the rest of the year.11 Officer Marston and Mr. Auckerman arrived at the bus stop at 7:31 a.m. When they arrived, most of the students had already disembarked. At no time did Mr. Auckerman tell Ms. Waiters that the students on the bus should call their parents or be transported by Sheriff's deputies. Ms. Waiters' testimony to the contrary is not credited. Mr. Auckerman, Officer Marston, and Deputy Whidden drove students to Palmetto High School. The bus began to run again at 7:37 a.m., 44 minutes after it stopped at 29th and 9th. The bus made only one more stop before arriving at Palmetto High School. This stop occurred at 7:43 a.m. Two students boarded the bus. Bus 537 is scheduled to make five stops after 29th and 9th. Because of the delay, Ms. Waiters called the driver of Bus 534 to cover some of Bus 537's stops. However, not all of Bus 537's stops were covered, and Bus 534 was 15 to 20 minutes late picking up some of the students. Further, Bus 537 was scheduled to make an elementary school run after it dropped off students at Palmetto High School. The bus made only one of its nine scheduled stops for elementary school students because the parents of most of those students had given up on the bus and either driven their children to school or had the children walk.12 During the 2008-2009 school year, classes began at Palmetto High School at 7:45 a.m. Bus 537 typically arrived at Palmetto High School at 7:20 a.m. On Wednesday, February 11, 2009, Bus 537 arrived at Palmetto High School at 7:57 a.m., twelve minutes after the final bell. After the bus arrived at Palmetto High School, Ms. Waiters and Mr. Rodriguez went into the school and spoke to Mr. Auckerman. They presented him with the list of names that they had used to identify the misbehaving students on Bus 537. Mr. Auckerman told them that he would need referrals before he could take any disciplinary action against the students. Ms. Waiters and Mr. Rodriguez submitted some referrals on Wednesday, February 11, then submitted additional referrals on Thursday, February 12. The referrals described student misbehavior, such as failing to be silent at railroad crossings and using cell phones, but gave no indication that either Ms. Waiters or Mr. Rodriguez ever feared for their safety on Bus 537. Mr. Rodriguez testified that the only time he feared for his physical safety was when he had to drive the noisy bus over railroad crossings. He did not fear any sort of physical assault by the students on the bus.13 Mr. Auckerman passed on the referrals to Palmetto High School's parent liaisons, Robert Kelly and Kevin Jackson. "Parent liaisons" are School Board employees responsible for general disciplinary referrals and communicating with parents regarding student behavior and discipline. The principal of Palmetto High School has delegated the authority to issue bus suspensions to the parent liaisons. On Friday, February 13, Mr. Kelly interviewed some of the students. He decided that the referred students would be suspended from riding the bus, commencing Tuesday, February 17. However, as Mr. Kelly and Mr. Jackson were about to finalize the suspensions by entering the referrals into the computer system, Mr. Auckerman halted the suspension process pending a School Board investigation into the events of the morning of February 11. Mr. Auckerman was reacting to parent complaints about Ms. Waiters' actions on Bus 537. Mr. Palmer, the director of transportation, also began receiving complaints. Mr. Palmer spoke with Ms. Waiters, safety officer John Searles, and school personnel, and was unsettled by the inconsistency of their stories. On or about February 18, 2009, Mr. Palmer referred the matter to the OPS. Ms. Horne then began her investigation of the incident. At the conclusion of her investigation, Ms. Horne presented a written OPS investigatory report to her supervisor and scheduled a meeting of all persons in Ms. Waiters' chain of command, up to Mr. Palmer, the transportation director. At a meeting on March 19, 2009, the School Board personnel met and recommended to the Superintendent that Ms. Waiters' employment with the School Board be terminated. The Superintendent concurred with the recommendation. Aside from contending that she was merely carrying out suspensions issued by Mr. Auckerman, which was completely at odds with the credible evidence produced at the hearing, Ms. Waiters' chief defense was that her actions on February 11, 2009, were consistent with the action she took in an incident that occurred on Wednesday, January 28, 2009, for which the bus driver received a laudatory write-up in the local newspaper and the praise of law enforcement and school officials. In the earlier incident, a substitute driver on a morning route to Lakewood Ranch High School pulled the bus over on State Road 64 and refused to continue because she believed the students' actions were placing her and the students in danger. In particular, the students were rocking the bus back and forth to the point that the driver feared losing control. Ms. Waiters drove out to the scene, followed shortly by at least six Sheriff's deputies. Ms. Waiters described the students as "out of control," "hanging out of the windows, yelling and cursing, throwing stuff out of the windows, rocking the bus." Ms. Waiters boarded the bus and was able to calm some of the students. The Sheriff's deputies called the parents of the troublemaking students and gave them the choice of picking up their children or having them taken to the JDC. According to Ms. Waiters, some students actually fought with their parents and had to be forcibly taken to the juvenile detention center. The next day, the local newspaper ran an article containing praise for the substitute bus driver. The principal of Lakewood Ranch High School and a spokesman for the Sheriff's Office were both quoted saying that she "did the right thing." Though Ms. Waiters was not mentioned in the article, it is clear from her testimony that she believed the praise was reflected on her. The differences between the incidents of January 28 and February 11, 2009, are clear. In the earlier incident, law enforcement was summoned to deal with an immediate, on-going dangerous situation. Sheriff's deputies took charge of the matter, with some assistance from Ms. Waiters, and concluded that the bus driver had done the right thing in stopping the bus when it became too hazardous to continue. In the February 11 incident, the videotape makes plain there was no danger whatever. Once allowed to board the bus, the students took their seats and talked among themselves. There were no threats, no disturbances, no rocking of the bus. Ms. Waiters' claim that she felt threatened was unsupported and not credible. The students, with good reason, appeared mostly puzzled as to what was happening. From the incident of January 28, 2009, Ms. Waiters apparently took the lesson that she was authorized to stop the scheduled running of a school bus for nearly an hour and to call out Sheriff's deputies to assist her in disciplining students for misbehavior that occurred on previous days. This was the wrong lesson. Ms. Waiters acknowledged that she did not have authority to suspend students from the bus, and claimed that she was not "suspending" the students; rather, she was restoring "order and control" on the bus for the students' safety.14 Ms. Waiters' actions might have been partially justified had there been some imminent danger such as that on the Lakewood Ranch High School bus on January 28, 2009, though even in that situation it was Sheriff's deputies, not Ms. Waiters, who removed the problem students from the bus. On Bus 537 on February 11, 2009, in the absence of any immediate threat or even untoward behavior by the students, Ms. Waiters took it upon herself to halt the bus and require students to phone their parents for rides to school well before law enforcement arrived on the scene. Ms. Waiters' actions were disproportionate to the situation on the bus, and constituted "suspensions" of the students under any reasonable understanding of that term. Ms. Waiters' actions on the morning of February 11, 2009, might merit discipline short of termination had Ms. Waiters fully and honestly cooperated in the subsequent investigation. However, Ms. Waiters stubbornly told a convoluted and contradictory version of events that made little sense on its face and was at direct odds with the consistent and credible testimony of School Board personnel and law enforcement officers who were present during the relevant events, and at odds with the direct evidence of the videotape from Bus 537. Ms. Waiters lack of candor throughout the process, coupled with the extremely poor judgment she employed in stopping the bus and suspending students without immediate cause or authority, fully justifies the School Board's decision to terminate her employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, the Manatee County School Board, enter a final order that terminates the employment of Respondent, Stephanie Waiters. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of February, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 1st day of February, 2010.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Susan M. O'Neill, was discriminated against by Respondent, Sarasota County School Board, in violation of the Human Rights Act of 1977, as amended, Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, on the basis of handicap, constituting an unlawful employment practice. Whether Petitioner has established a basis for, or entitlement to, an award of damages if, in fact, the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent, Sarasota County School Board, employed approximately 3,600 employees during the relevant school years and is an employer as that term is defined in Section 760.02(6), Florida Statutes. The Petitioner has been a teacher for approximately 31 years, having taught in Ohio, California and Florida. Petitioner was first employed by the Respondent as a classroom teacher for the 1974-75 school year. Petitioner was assigned as a classroom teacher to Sarasota Middle School beginning the 1982-83 school year and served as a classroom teacher at Sarasota Middle School until late April or early May, 1989. Performance evaluations for 1988 and 1989 show that the Petitioner capably performed her duties as a classroom teacher and received satisfactory evaluations. In April, 1989, Sarasota Middle School Principal, Mary Lou Moore, brought to Assistant Superintendent, Dr. Walter Pierce's attention inappropriate behavior by Petitioner, such as her refusal to meet with parents and leaving the classroom and school building without permission during school hours. In April, 1989, there was an incident with the Petitioner slapping a child on the buttocks and her refusal to meet with the child's parents. Dr. Pierce spoke to Petitioner about the incident on a Saturday, and instructed Petitioner that a substitute would be appointed for her on the following Monday. Petitioner was also instructed by Dr. Pierce to meet with Dr. Pierce and Principal Moore the following Monday. Petitioner disobeyed Dr. Pierce's directions and initiated a student study team meeting on the following Monday morning. Dr. Pierce called Dwight Logan, Executive Director of the Sarasota Classified/Teachers Union (SC/TU), to the school to assist in speaking with Petitioner. The Petitioner left the study team meeting and closeted herself in the media center. Logan went into the media center and counseled Petitioner. Petitioner then met with Dr. Pierce and agreed to obtain counseling. After which she left the school. With Petitioner's agreement, she was reassigned to non-teaching duties at the Board's Media Center for the remainder of the 1988-89 school year. Petitioner retained her teacher's salary while on this assignment. In May, 1989, pursuant to the terms of the collective bargaining agreement covering Board employees, Petitioner was referred for psychological evaluation and given a list of three doctors. Petitioner saw Dr. James Slocum on May 9, 1989. Dr. Slocum noted some paranoid characteristic in Petitioner's personality and recommended out-patient psychotherapy but did not prescribe any anti-psychotic medication at this time. Dr. Slocum diagnostic impression was acute paranoid disorder. Initially, Petitioner was assigned to Brookside Middle School for the 1989-90 school year as a classroom teacher. However, before the beginning of the 1989-90 school year, Dr. Pierce determined that it would be in the Petitioner's best interest to assign her to Gocio Elementary School for the 1989-90 school year. Therefore, Petitioner was to teach fifth grade at Gocio Elementary School for the 1989-90 school year. In October, 1989, Petitioner began exhibiting difficulties in her assignment at Gocio. Petitioner failed to remain in her classroom for school open house, inappropriately disciplined students, failed to show up for a scheduled professional day and left children unsupervised after repeated reminders to maintain supervision. Petitioner was granted sick leave after six weeks for medical reasons while Dr. Pierce and Barry Dubin, the new Executive Director of SC/TA, worked on resolving her work assignment. On December 14, 1989, Dr. Pierce wrote to Dubin confirming three assignment options that had been discussed with Dubin and Petitioner regarding the Petitioner's continued employment following her anticipated return from sick leave. Petitioner did not agree to any of the three assignment options. By letter dated March 5, 1990, Superintendent Fowler directed the Petitioner to undergo another psychiatric evaluation for the stated purpose of enabling the Board to make an informed decision regarding Petitioner's ability to continue teaching and to help in determining Petitioner's eligibility for disability retirement. The Petitioner voluntarily entered Palms Psychiatric Hospital in the spring of 1990. By letter dated June 1, 1990, Dr. Pierce informed the Petitioner that she would be accorded unpaid personal leave for the remainder of the 1989-90 school year. However, Petitioner was to contact Dr. Pierce before August 7, 1990 so that here would be sufficient time to evaluate the Petitioner's medical status and make a decision concerning her continued employment. While at Palms Psychiatric Hospital, Richard A. Greer, M. D., diagnosed the Petitioner as suffering from a paranoid disorder which would require medication and follow-up. Dr. Greer prescribed neuroleptic medication Prolixin as well as the antidepressant Prozac and mood stabilizing lithium. Dr. Greer noted that these medications could cause sedation and that the Petitioner's condition had improved while on these medications. During this period of time, Petitioner raised the issue of retirement and disability. Dr. Pierce responded to Petitioner's written request for retirement information. At the beginning of the 1990-91 school year, the Petitioner was assigned to Bay Haven School as a teacher's aide rather than as a classroom teacher. The Petitioner was physically shaky much of the period at Bay Haven School because her medication needed to be adjusted after several weeks. Petitioner began exhibiting inappropriate behavior such as failure to attend to assigned duties, leaving the campus without permission during school hours and having difficulty with correcting students' homework. The Petitioner was removed from her duties as a teacher's aide, and granted leave for the remainder of the 1990-91 school year for medical reasons based upon the recommendation of Dr. Slocum who was again treating Petitioner. Petitioner received disability benefits while on medical leave. Because Petitioner was an aide when she went on leave, she received disability payments based on the aide salary. Through Dr. Pierce efforts, Petitioner eventually received disability payments based on her teacher's salary. Also, due to Dr. Pierce's efforts, Petitioner received retroactive benefits in the amount of $22,800.00. While the Petitioner was experiencing problems related to her mental condition during 1989 and 1990, the Board attempted to and did take appropriate action to accommodate the Petitioner's disability. For example, the Petitioner was informed by the Board's personnel office that her services as a teacher's aide would not jeopardize her seniority as a member of the instructional unit. Likewise, there was never any action initiated to terminate the Petitioner's employment for cause due to her inability to carry out her duties. Dr. Pierce planned to allow the Petitioner to return as a teacher's aide for the 1991-92 school year provided that her condition stabilized and further indicated that the Petitioner would be permitted to return as a classroom teacher in the event she was able successfully to carry out her duties as an aide. Petitioner submitted the following handwritten letter to Dr. Fowler, Superintendent, Sarasota County Schools: July 7, 1991 Dear Dr. Fowler: It is necessary for me to take early retirement. I need the money - Bills are coming in with no income. My friend, Betty Crockett, just retired and can help with the procedure. Sincerely, /s/Susan M. O'Neill The normal procedure for requesting retirement by an employee of the Board is for the employee to make a written request of the Board for retirement. There is no designated form required for this request. The normal procedure for handling a retirement request by a Board Employee is, upon receipt of the retirement request, to place the request on the agenda for the next regularly scheduled Board meeting and have the Personnel Department process the request for Board action. Petitioner's retirement request was processed in this manner. The Board took action on Petitioner's request at its next regularly scheduled meeting on July 16, 1991. Earlier, in 1990, Dubin had convinced Petitioner not to retire. However, even though Dubin was aware of Petitioner's letter and the Board's intended action on the Petitioner's request for retirement prior to the Board meeting wherein the request was to be considered, Dubin did not make any attempt to contact Petitioner or the Superintendent's office or the Board concerning Petitioner's retirement request. On July 17, 1991, the Board advised Petitioner of the Board's acceptance of her request for retirement. On July 16, 1991, the Board sent Petitioner a notice concerning hospitalization benefits after retirement and on July 31, 1991, the Board forwarded Petitioner's personal check to Blue Cross for continued coverage. Since Petitioner had previously discussed both regular and disability retirement with Dr. Pierce and Dubin, individually and jointly, there was no reason for the Superintendent's office or the Board not to treat the Petitioner's letter as a normal request for retirement, nowithstanding Petitioner's mental condition at the time. There was insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that Petitioner was mentally incapable of making an informed decision about her retirement during the time she made her request and the Board considered her request. There is competent substantial evidence in the record to establish facts to show that Petitioner's mental disorder constituted a handicap within the meaning of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes. There is competent substantial evidence to establish facts to show that Petitioner was otherwise qualified to continue in her position as a classroom teacher but for periodic episodes where the mental illness or prescribed medication resulted in Petitioner being unable to function as a classroom teacher. There is competent substantial evidence to establish fact to show that Respondent took appropriate action and made reasonable accommodation in respect to Petitioner's handicap. There is insufficient evidence to show that Petitioner was treated in a disparate and adverse manner and that her handicap, or perceived handicap, was the motivating factor in the Board's decision to act on and accept Petitioner's request for retirement. There is competent substantial evidence in the record to establish facts to show that Petitioner was not discriminated against on the basis of her handicap, or perceived handicap, by the Respondent. Petitioner did not present any evidence in support of the charges of sexual harassment, fraud and other inappropriate action raised in her Petition for Relief.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Commission enter a Final Order finding that the Respondent's action in accepting, and affirmatively acting on, Petitioner's request for early retirement was not due to her handicap in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, and that the Petition For Relief be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of September, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 24th day of September, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-6333 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. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. The following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parenthesis is the Finding(s) of Fact which so adopts the proposed findings(s) of fact: 1(1); 2(2-3); 3(4); 4(5); 5(6-10); 6(11,12); 7(13); 8(14,15); 9-17(16,18,19,20,22,24,25,23 & 33, respectively); 25(30,33); 26(27); 30(6-20,24); 32(28) and 34(10,13,15,22,24,25 & 35). Proposed findings of fact 19, 20, 21, 23, 24 and 28 are neither material nor relevant. Proposed findings of fact 18, 27, 29, 31 and 33 are not supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. The first sentence of proposed finding of fact 22 is not supported by competent substantial evidence in the record, Petitioner had been advised earlier. The balance of proposed finding of fact 22 is neither material nor relevant. The first sentence of proposed finding of fact 35 is neither material nor relevant. The balance of proposed finding of fact 35 is not supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. The following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parenthesis is the Finding(s) of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding(s) of fact: 1- 12(3,6,7,8,9,11,12,10,10,13,14 & 15, respectively); 14-20(16,17,18,19,21,19,& 22, respectively); 21(20,22); 22-25(22,22,23 & 26, respectively); 26(27,28); 27- 29(27,28 & 29, respectively); and 31-34(30, 30,32 & 31, respectively). Proposed findings of fact 13, 30 and 35 are neither material nor relevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Stanley E. Marable, Esquire 1800 Second Street, Suite 715 Bradenton, Florida 34236 Jeanne S. Medawar, Esquire Matthews Hutton & Eastmore Post Office Box 49377 Sarasota, Florida 34230 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahasse, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent committed the offenses charged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is responsible for investigating and prosecuting complaints against individuals who hold a Florida educator’s certificate and who are alleged to have violated one or more provisions in section 1012.795 and implementing rules. Respondent holds Florida educator’s certificate 777352, covering the area of social science, which is valid through June 30, 2020. Prior to becoming a teacher, Respondent was in the military for 21 years, serving as a soldier and non-commissioned officer in the U.S. Army. Respondent describes himself as a “great leader,” a skill he believes he developed in the Army. Respondent was employed as a teacher for the Lee County School District (School District) beginning in 1998 or 1999.6/ He taught social science classes at Bonita Springs Middle School until 2009. A former student who attended that school between 2002 and 2004 spoke highly of Respondent as her teacher. That student has not been in a classroom with Respondent since 2004. Beginning in early 2005, Respondent’s record as a teacher at Bonita Springs Middle School became spotted with disciplinary measures being regularly taken against him. The matters for which Respondent was disciplined were similar, evidencing a pattern of inappropriate physical contact with students, angry outbursts, conflicts with principals, and inappropriate classroom conduct, including ridiculing, embarrassing, and yelling at students. In February 2005, at the request of the Bonita Springs Middle School principal, Respondent attended an in-service training on Anger Management and De-Escalation Training. Despite that training, between 2005 and 2009, Respondent received six letters of reprimand from three different principals and two different directors of the School District’s Department of Professional Standards and Equity (DPSE). The letters of reprimand were for incidents described as: pushing a student (letter of reprimand, March 2, 2005); inappropriate physical contact--putting his hands in the pants of a female student (letter of reprimand, September 27, 2005); shoving two students out of the classroom (letter of reprimand, March 2, 2006); shouting at students in the hallway in a very harsh and loud tone (letter of reprimand, September 22, 2006); exposing students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement (letter of reprimand, August 6, 2009); and kicking three students out of class, and yelling at the remaining students in the classroom, “You all are a bunch of idiots” (letter of reprimand, October 26, 2009). On December 8, 2009, Respondent was involved in another incident with a student, E.C., who was a seventh-grade female. Respondent had sent E.C. to a neighboring classroom, connected to his classroom by a vacant office. When E.C. tried to return to Respondent’s classroom through the vacant office to retrieve her things, Respondent stopped her and told her to return to the other classroom. E.C. was determined to get her things and disobeyed Respondent. When she tried to go around him to go back into his classroom, Respondent put his hand on her shoulder in an attempt to stop her. E.C. told him: “Don’t touch me.” She retrieved her things from Respondent’s classroom and then returned to the other classroom where Respondent had sent her. At that point, Respondent called the office for assistance. The District’s DPSE immediately began an investigation. Respondent was suspended from teaching with pay and benefits as of December 9, 2009, pending completion of the investigation. Following the investigation and a predetermination conference, the School District’s superintendent filed a Petition for Termination, alleging that Respondent was guilty of misconduct and other violations in connection with the incident on December 8, 2009. Respondent, represented by counsel, requested an administrative hearing to contest the proposed termination. Beginning March 9, 2010, the terms of Respondent’s suspension were changed to without pay pending resolution of the administrative proceeding. A DOAH evidentiary hearing was held on July 14, 2010. The resulting Recommended Order found Respondent guilty of misconduct and some of the other charged violations. The recommended penalty was suspension without pay from March 9, 2010, through January 1, 2011. The Recommended Order’s findings of facts, conclusions of law, and recommended penalty were adopted in a Lee County School Board Final Order rendered November 2, 2010. Lee County School Board v. Joseph Cofield, Case No. 10-1654 (Fla. DOAH Sept. 24, 2010; Lee Cnty. Sch. Bd. Nov. 2, 2010) (2010 Suspension Order). Detailed findings of fact were made in the 2010 Suspension Order regarding the history of disciplinary action taken against Respondent from 2005 through 2009, which went uncontested by Respondent through the grievance process available to dispute disciplinary action. See 2010 Suspension Order, RO at 3-7. The findings also describe the repeated warnings given to Respondent in the numerous letters of reprimand, which went unheeded; Respondent continued to engage in the same types of inappropriate behavior, despite the discipline and the warnings. Findings were also made in the 2010 Suspension Order regarding Respondent’s positive contributions as a teacher during the same time span as his patterned inappropriate behavior. These included: being honored in 2005 as Wal-Mart Teacher of the Year; being honored by Florida Gulf Coast University as College Reachout Program Coordinator of the Year; participating in a conference in January 2009 to discuss the Troops to Teachers Program; coordinating a computer give-away program in conjunction with a community organization that presented computers to Bonita Spring Middle School; and achieving success in Cadet and College Reachout Programs. See 2010 Suspension Order, RO at 11-12. The 2010 Suspension Order concluded as follows: The School Board did establish that Mr. Cofield placed his hand on a student’s shoulder without the permission of the student. Mr. Cofield has been warned and disciplined in the past for placing his hands on students without the student’s permission. Mr. Cofield chose not to heed those warnings. Mr. Cofield argues that placing his hand on E.C. was reasonable force needed to control his classroom. This argument is without merit. Mr. Cofield did not need to put his hand on E.C.; he could call the office for assistance. The School Board has established that Mr. Cofield’s conduct constitutes misconduct[.] * * * Mr. Cofield has performed outstanding work with the various programs designed to assist students, such as the computer give-away program, the Cadet program, and the College Reachout Program. This work mitigates against termination. However, placing a hand on a student without justification warrants a serious disciplinary action. 2010 Suspension Order, RO at 14-15. Respondent did not appeal the 2010 Suspension Order. Its findings, officially recognized herein, establish the backdrop of Respondent’s significant track record of discipline, and of the repeated warnings given in connection with disciplinary measures, from 2005 through 2009. No contrary evidence was offered. In October 2010, just before the School Board rendered the 2010 Suspension Order, Petitioner issued an Administrative Complaint against Respondent (2010 Complaint), seeking to take disciplinary action against Respondent’s educator’s certificate. The 2010 Complaint set forth Respondent’s “history of discipline related to conduct with students,” listing in summary fashion much of the same disciplinary history detailed in the 2010 Suspension Order. Respondent’s disciplinary history set forth in the 2010 Complaint was as follows: On or about March 2, 2005, Respondent received a Letter of Reprimand from [the] principal related to pushing [a] student. On or about September 27, 2005, Respondent received a Letter of Reprimand from [the] principal resulting from allegations that Respondent put [his] hand into [a] student’s front pocket. On or about September 25, 2006, Respondent received a Letter of Reprimand from [the] principal for yelling at Cadets in a loud and harsh manner. On or about October 9, 2009, Respondent received a Letter of Reprimand from [the] principal for, among other things, Respondent’s confrontational behavior towards [the] principal. On or about October 28, 2009, Respondent received a Letter of Reprimand from [the] principal relating to conduct with students. On or about December 9, 2009, Respondent received a Letter of Suspension from [the] principal related to allegations of [a] physical assault on a student. 2010 Complaint at 1-2 (Pet. Exh. 1). The 2010 Complaint added allegations of other incidents of inappropriate conduct by Respondent during the 2008-2009 school year, including the following: Respondent called students embarrassing names such as “knucklehead” and “fruitcake.” Respondent looked at female students in a manner that made the students feel uncomfortable and self conscious. Respondent threatened students telling them, “I will cut your fingers off,” or “I’ll smash your head into a wall,” or words to that effect. 2010 Complaint at 2 (Pet. Exh. 1). Respondent, represented by counsel, entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the charges in the 2010 Complaint, rather than contest them in an administrative hearing. Respondent signed the agreement on April 28, 2011. Pertinent terms of the settlement agreement were: Respondent neither admits nor denies, but elects not to contest the allegations set forth in Petitioner’s Administrative Complaint, which are incorporated herein by reference. Respondent agrees to accept a letter of reprimand, a copy of which shall be placed in his certificate file with the Department of Education and a copy of which shall be placed in his personnel file with the employing school district. Respondent agrees that he shall be placed on probation for a period of two (2) employment years. . . . As conditions of probation, Respondent: * * * shall, within the first year of probation, take a 3-credit hour college level course in the area of Classroom Management. . . . shall violate no law and fully comply with all district school board regulations, school rules, and State Board of Education Rule 6B-1.006 [transferred to rule 10A-1.081 in January 2013; see endnote 2]; and shall satisfactorily perform his duties in a competent, professional manner. * * * In the event Respondent fails to comply with each condition set forth herein, he agrees that the Petitioner shall be authorized to file an Administrative Complaint based upon the violation of the terms of this Settlement Agreement. Settlement Agreement at 1-2 (Pet. Exh. 1). By Final Order rendered on August 9, 2011, attaching and incorporating the 2010 Complaint and settlement agreement, the EPC accepted the settlement agreement and ordered Respondent to comply with its terms. Respondent did not appeal. Respondent was on probation, and subject to the specific probation conditions imposed by the EPC Final Order, for the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years. Meanwhile, Respondent completed the term of his suspension from teaching without pay imposed by the School Board’s 2010 Suspension Order on January 1, 2011; he was allowed to return to work on January 3, 2011. Respondent was not asked to return to teach at his former school, Bonita Springs Middle School. Instead, he was offered a teaching position at the Alternative Learning Center (ALC). The ALC principal, Ken Burns, was told to make a spot for Respondent to teach there, and he did. Respondent accepted the teaching position at ALC. He taught eighth grade social studies. ALC is an alternative school. Students are sent to ALC because they are having problems at other schools. Principal Burns describes the ALC students as kids who made bad decisions, but who are not bad kids. These students can present challenges for teachers and administrators. In classrooms, sometimes these students do not act properly. They can be disruptive. The teachers are responsible for managing their classrooms properly, in accordance with standards set by Florida law and regulations, and School District policies. Principal Burns described some of the methods used at ALC to deal with problems in the classroom. One tool in place is called Team Time Out. Specific teachers are scheduled to be in charge of Team Time Out for a period of time. If a student is getting unruly in a classroom, the teacher can send the student to the designated teacher in charge of Team Time Out. The student is allowed to cool down before returning to class. Another tool used is a regular Time-Out Room. If a student is disrupting a class, the teacher might send the student to the Time-Out Room, where the student can work on assignments. Regardless of the student problem being confronted, each teacher is expected to abide by the code of conduct established for the education profession. Rather than violate those conduct standards, if the teacher cannot otherwise handle a student problem, the teacher is expected to call administration or security for assistance. On November 30, 2012, while on his EPC-imposed probation, Respondent received a letter of warning, which is a form of disciplinary action, from the ALC principal. As described in the warning letter, a student reported that Respondent pushed the student out the door during a fire drill, and that the push nearly caused the student to fall. The incident described in the letter of warning is similar to the long list of prior incidents for which Respondent was disciplined and about which Respondent was repeatedly warned, including the incident for which Respondent had recently served a suspension without pay for nearly ten months. The November 30, 2012, letter of warning ended with a yet another reminder “to assist in correcting this conduct,” providing as follows: “From this point forward, please remember at no point should a student be physically touched. If you are having an issue with a student please notify the administration or security for immediate assistance.” Very shortly after that incident, the ALC principal received other complaints about Respondent’s behavior with students and his classroom temperament. The complaints came not just from students, but also from a paraprofessional (teacher’s aide) who was concerned about Respondent’s behavior that she had observed when she was in his classroom. The ALC principal consulted with the School District’s DPSE, collected statements from the paraprofessional and students, and passed on the information to the DPSE. By letter dated January 11, 2013, Respondent was informed that the DPSE was conducting an investigation into allegations of misconduct. Because the allegations involved issues of student safety, the notification letter informed Respondent that he was suspended from teaching with pay during the investigation. Andrew Brown, then-investigator for the DPSE, conducted the investigation of alleged incidents involving Respondent in December 2012 and January 2013, and prepared an investigative report. The complaints that were investigated were summarized in the report as follows: On or about December 20, 2012 (just before Winter Break), Mr. Cofield allegedly slammed a student’s fingers between the student’s desk and a binder the student was holding. In a separate incident [on] December 19, 2012, Mr. Cofield allegedly threatened a student by grabbing and holding a keyboard in a threatening manner. He allegedly slammed a door behind the same student as the student was leaving the room, making contact with the student’s arm. In a third incident [on] 1/8/12 [sic: 2013], Mr. Cofield allegedly embarrassed students by asking each one to sit separately on a stool at the front of the room and answer the question, “Do you have a teacher’s license?” before sending the same students out of the class. The investigative report noted that Respondent was “on probation” with the EPC “for similar allegations and conduct.” A predetermination conference was held on January 30, 2013, to allow Respondent to respond to the investigation findings and add any information he would want considered. Respondent was represented by union counsel at that conference. By letter dated February 5, 2013, Respondent was informed that the School District found probable cause for disciplinary action based on the allegations of misconduct investigated, and would be recommending termination of his employment.7/ As was done in 2009, the terms of Respondent’s suspension were changed to without pay, as of February 6, 2013. Before the School District could proceed with a Petition for Termination, Respondent submitted a letter of resignation on March 12, 2013. Respondent has disputed Petitioner’s contention that the resignation was in lieu of termination. When Respondent was deposed, he testified that he wrote his resignation letter to explain that this was a stressful situation for him. However, the letter makes no mention of a stressful situation. It simply reports that Respondent was taking the time for pursuit of higher education, to complete a master of arts degree and then seek a doctorate degree, and that Respondent had concluded: “I feel that it is time to resign in my career as a classroom teacher. I will peruse other opportunities that will be open to me as a result of obtaining my new graduate education.” Respondent testified that he did not think he had already been suspended from teaching when he resigned, and he thought he was still being paid. Contrary to Respondent’s recollection, he had not been teaching for nearly two months, having been suspended on January 14, 2013. He resigned six weeks after being confronted with the details of the DPSE’s investigation in a predetermination conference, and five weeks after he received a letter informing him that probable cause had been found and the recommendation would be made to terminate his employment. He had not been paid for five weeks when he submitted his letter of resignation. A fair inference from the timing is that he chose to resign when he did to avoid being terminated from employment and/or having to contest the charges in another administrative hearing. Pursuant to section 1012.796(1)(d), Florida Statutes, even though Respondent had resigned, the School District was required to report the alleged misconduct to the Department of Education, which then conducted its own investigation. Petitioner issued an Administrative Complaint against Respondent on March 9, 2015, and an Amended Administrative Complaint on December 3, 2015. The specific incidents alleged in both versions of the complaint, are as follows: On or about December 19, 2012, Respondent grabbed a keyboard from a computer being used by R.T., a fourteen year old, male student. Respondent held the keyboard over the head while glaring at R.T. and in a manner that made the student believe Respondent was about to hit him with the keyboard. On or about December 20, 2012, Respondent became angered when C.G., a thirteen year old, male student, tapped on his binder repeatedly. Respondent slammed C.G.’s binder with force, bringing the binder down on C.G.’s fingers causing pain to C.G. Respondent then threw C.G.’s binder in the trash. On or about January 7, 2013, Respondent called students in his class to the front of the room and individually asked them, in front of the class, if they had a license to teach. Respondent disputed the first allegation of a keyboard incident; Respondent admitted parts of the second allegation of a binder incident, while denying part of the allegation; and Respondent admitted the third allegation. No non-hearsay evidence was presented to prove the allegations regarding a computer keyboard incident on December 19, 2012. The student, R.T., did not testify; no other students or other eyewitnesses testified; and Respondent denied the allegations. R.T. provided a written statement about the incident, which is in evidence, but that statement is hearsay and cannot be used as the sole basis for a finding of fact. Petitioner did not argue that R.T.’s statement would be admissible over objection in a civil action, and the statement does not supplement or explain any non-hearsay evidence. Respondent admitted parts of the allegations regarding a binder incident on December 20, 2012. Respondent acknowledged that a student in his classroom, C.G., was tapping on, flipping, or otherwise playing with a notebook or binder when the class was supposed to be taking a test. Respondent admitted that he took the binder out of the student’s hands, and threw the binder across the room into the garbage can. As he testified: A: If there is a kid sitting in my classroom after I’ve given instructions of what to do and they still banging on a desk, yes, I have the right to go remove this noise away from these students that are trying to get ahead. If there is something wrong with that I don’t need to be in a classroom. Q: And throw this in the trash can? A: Sir, when I took -- as my statement says, I took the binder away from the child and I threw it across the classroom. If it went in the garbage can, sir, it went in the garbage can. I don’t -- I didn’t pay attention to where it went at. I stopped the negative behavior going on in my classroom. Q: So now your testimony is you took it and threw it across the classroom? A: Sir, I took the instrument away from the student and it went in the garbage can. Q: . . . [T]ell us what you told them at your predetermination conference. Didn’t you say you put it in the garbage? A: No, I put the binder in the garbage, that’s what it states. But we clearly know that that’s not . . . [t]here’s nothing false about that. What it means is the binder left the student’s desk and wound up in the garbage can. Q: It didn’t wind up there, you put it there, right? A: Yes sir, I put it there. (Tr. 131-132). In his deposition testimony, Respondent more clearly acknowledged that he intended to throw the student’s binder in the garbage can; he did not equivocate as he did at hearing: Q: Then you didn’t walk over to the trash can and, in a Frisbee-type manner, throw the binder into the trash can? A: Oh, I most definitely put it in the garbage can, sir. Q: You did? A: Yes sir, I did. Q: All right. Why did you do that? A: Because the student was disrupting – or, I mean, was interrupting a test environment. Q: Okay. A: and that – and that instrument was the thing that was causing all of that disturbment [sic]. (Pet. Exh. 11 at 39-40). The facts regarding this binder incident that were admitted by Respondent were supplemented and explained by a number of written witness statements by students who were present, including C.G. These statements confirm that Respondent got angry because of C.G.’s toying with his binder, and that Respondent snatched the binder out of C.G.’s hands, and then either went across the room and then tossed it Frisbee-style into the garbage can or tossed the binder Frisbee-style across the room where it landed in the garbage can. While Respondent may have had good reason to stop C.G. from disrupting the classroom, the manner in which he went about it was inappropriate and contrary to the repeated warnings he had been given over the prior seven years by no less than four different principals (including, most recently, the ALC principal) to avoid any physical contact with students. See 2010 Suspension Order (detailing past disciplinary warnings and identifying principals issuing them). Respondent did not admit to having smashed the binder down on C.G.’s hand before snatching it away from C.G., and there was no independent non-hearsay evidence to prove that aspect of the allegation. Nonetheless, Respondent’s admissions establish that he took C.G.’s binder away while C.G. was tapping on it, flipping the cover, or otherwise playing with it, as the means Respondent chose to stop C.G. from playing with his binder. The only reasonable inference is that Respondent forcibly removed the binder while at least one of C.G.’s hands was on, in, or under the binder--an inappropriate physical contact. Respondent’s explanation that he did this because the binder was the instrument being used to cause disruption is insufficient to justify the inappropriate physical contact that had to occur to remove the binder from C.G. while he was playing with it. Respondent’s additional acts of tossing C.G.’s binder like it was a Frisbee and throwing the binder in the garbage can were inappropriate responses that went well beyond the claimed objective of stopping the disturbance. These actions can only be explained as displays of anger, presumably because C.G. did not listen to Respondent’s instructions to stop playing with the binder. If Respondent were genuinely concerned only with stopping the disruptive behavior, he would not have reacted by causing an even greater disturbance by tossing the binder like a Frisbee into the garbage can. Instead, he would have, and should have, dealt appropriately with C.G. Moreover, it was irresponsible for Respondent to throw the binder in the garbage can, after he had wrested the binder away from C.G. The binder could have contained important schoolwork for Respondent’s class or another class. Despite being on probation for a string of similar incidents, despite having been suspended from teaching for nearly ten months for a similar incident, and despite having just received a letter of warning three weeks earlier, Respondent failed to heed the repeated warnings that if he had an issue with a student, he should contact security or administration for immediate assistance rather than inappropriately attempting to “control” the situation by making contact with the student. The evidence was clear and convincing that in this binder incident, Respondent did not act with the calm, professional demeanor expected of a teacher who is able to deal appropriately with a student disrupting the classroom by playing with a binder. Instead, Respondent acted inappropriately with a temper that made an all-too-regular appearance in the classroom. The ALC principal described Respondent as having a temper that would turn on and off like a switch. His testimony was credible and is credited. Ms. Lewis, the paraprofessional who spent time working in Respondent’s classroom during the 2012-2013 school year, observed the same thing: Respondent had a temper that greatly affected his classroom conduct. Set off by minor incidents of students talking or not listening, Respondent would get angry, yell at the students, use profanity (not the “f” word, but somewhat milder words),8/ and act in volatile ways, such as tossing text books so that they would slide on a table and stop just before they hit students. Respondent’s unpredictable outbursts caused concern for the students’ safety; sometimes when Respondent got angry, he would clench and shake his fists, trembling as if he was about to strike out. Respondent’s classroom temperament was unlike anything the paraprofessional observed from any other teacher in the other ALC classrooms where she also worked. While Respondent’s temper and classroom temperament, as described by the ALC principal and paraprofessional, were not set forth as the subjects of separate charges in the Amended Administrative Complaint, they tend to support the findings above that Respondent’s admitted conduct on December 20, 2012, was inappropriate, just as they undermine Respondent’s claimed justification. Respondent’s temper and lack of control also were on display on several occasions during the course of the hearing, adding even more credence to the findings. He raised his voice and got agitated while giving his sworn statement. He also accused the undersigned of having “belittled” him, without explanation as to why he said that. (Tr. 105). Respondent also admitted the third allegation describing his classroom conduct on January 7, 2013: Q: Did you do that on January -- on or about January 7, 2013, did you bring students up to the front of the class and ask them, “Do you have a license to teach?” A: I most – yes I did, sir. Q: All right. Good. So that, you admit? A: I clearly admit that, yes. Q: All right, good. A: And I –- and I will challenge anybody that -- that's in my classroom that’s trying to disrupt the class that don’t have a teaching license. (Pet. Exh. 11, p. 46). Respondent acknowledged to having engaged in that conduct on other occasions--indeed, as a matter of course: “I can guarantee you that I have asked all of my students over many periods of time do they have a license, because I’m the only person in that classroom with a teacher’s license.” (Pet. Exh. 11, p. 45). The paraprofessional working in Respondent’s classroom was an eyewitness to this conduct, which she described as very demeaning and embarrassing for the students. Respondent’s admissions and the paraprofessional’s eyewitness observations are corroborated by numerous written statements by students subjected to this conduct. Respondent sought to justify his conduct as legitimate teaching strategy. As he tried to explain it: It’s effective classroom management. If you have a bunch of students that do not have the ability to stop stopping their behavior, you have to ask them before you take them away from the classroom do they know what they’re doing. If the answer is yes, I know what I’m doing, then you need to send them out. If the person says no, I have no idea what I’m doing you need to work with that student until that student understands what is wrong with that behavior that you want to correct. (Tr. 129-130). Respondent’s explanation for his conduct does not square with his actual conduct. He is not being accused of asking unruly students whether they know what they are doing and then working with those students to correct their misbehavior. Instead, he is accused of demeaning these young teenaged students by isolating them one at a time at the front of the room, and requiring them to face their peers and announce that they are not licensed to teach, so that Respondent can remind them that he is superior. This has nothing to do with addressing unruly or disruptive behavior, questioning that behavior, or attempting to correct that behavior. Instead, Respondent dealt with disruptive students by belittling them, embarrassing them, and reminding them that he is better than them. As the ALC principal confirmed, there is no reasonable explanation for Respondent’s conduct as any form of legitimate teaching strategy. Instead, this is inappropriate conduct for a teacher. Respondent offered little by way of specific evidence in his defense. Instead, at times he claimed to not recall anything about his disciplinary track record, or about the incidents alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint.9/ He repeatedly challenged Petitioner to produce video evidence of the incidents, but never proved that any video evidence existed. If there had been video evidence, it would have been in the possession of the School District, but no video is identified in the investigative report as would be expected if it existed. Respondent could have taken steps to compel the production of any such evidence by the School District, but he did not. Respondent’s other defense was to attempt to challenge the credibility of Petitioner’s witnesses. These efforts were ineffective. Respondent made general sweeping statements that he was “shocked” by the testimony of Petitioner’s witnesses, which he repeatedly characterized as filled with lies, without proof of that characterization. Other than those broad generalizations, no specifics came to light as to why the testimony of Petitioner’s witnesses should not be believed. Respondent argued in his opening statement that the ALC principal “has seemed to have an axe to grind and has been on the greatest witch hunt to railroad a great educator.” (Tr. 17). That charge was wholly unsubstantiated. Instead, the ALC principal recognized the same pattern of behavior evident since 2005 when Respondent was first required to take anger management training by a former Bonita Springs Middle School principal. Respondent proclaimed himself a great leader while offering his view that with one exception, none of the principals he worked for in Lee County were good leaders. It is worth noting that according to the 2010 Suspension Order, the “one great principal” Respondent identified (Tr. 113) was the principal who had Respondent undergo anger management training in early 2005, and who issued Respondent’s first letter of reprimand for pushing a student. To the extent Respondent attempted to blame his disciplinary history and the allegations he is now facing on his principals, rather than excusing or explaining the conduct for which he was disciplined and for which he is subject to discipline in this proceeding, the impression given is that Respondent has had difficulty accepting the subordinate role of teacher vis-à-vis principal. Indeed, Respondent admitted that he “did tell the principal the one that write down these false things against me, I could do your job just as well as you can do it. And maybe that offend some people. . . .” (Tr. 115). Respondent also attempted to discount the significance of the EPC Final Order by alluding to various medical problems he was experiencing that caused him to enter into a settlement agreement, even though he claimed the charges were not true. Respondent offered no evidence to substantiate his claims, but stated generally that he “had just got over having a kidney removed” and that he “had prostate cancer.” He also said that he had taken his wife’s money to fight the allegations, and agreed to the settlement so he could get back to work. (Tr. 111). Notwithstanding Respondent’s testimony, the EPC Final Order cannot be collaterally attacked in this proceeding. Respondent accepted the terms of that Final Order, and knew full well that he was required to comply with the probation conditions or face more discipline for violating the terms of his probation. Respondent also claimed that he was set up for failure by being assigned to ALC, which was more than one hour away from his home instead of the ten-minute commute he enjoyed when teaching at the school where he earned a lengthy suspension, after a string of six letters of reprimand. Respondent did not contest the assignment, but accepted the teaching position at ALC. Respondent’s school assignment may have been a matter he could have raised in a grievance proceeding, but it is not a matter that explains his inappropriate conduct while teaching there, especially knowing he was on probation. Finally, in a seeming admission that his temper was erratic and his behavior volatile while he was teaching at ALC, Respondent testified that he was undergoing radiation treatment for prostate cancer, and that anybody undergoing that treatment “would have such mood swings some times.” Yet in the next breath, he said: “But it never affected my effectiveness in my classroom.” (Tr. 112). In his predetermination conference in which Respondent was informed of the investigation findings and allowed to respond to the allegations of misconduct, Respondent did not mention that he had been undergoing treatment that may have affected his behavior or his classroom conduct. If this was a legitimate reason that might explain or excuse, even in part, Respondent’s conduct in December 2012 and January 2013 that was the subject of the School District’s investigation, surely Respondent would have shared information about his treatment and how it might have affected him in a conference to determine if there was probable cause to proceed to terminate his employment. Without more to substantiate the relevance of any medical conditions, treatment, or other external factors alluded to by Respondent, including specifics as to the timing of such matters, they cannot excuse or explain Respondent’s improper conduct as found above. As in the administrative hearing that resulted in the 2010 Suspension Order, Respondent offered evidence of his positive contributions as a teacher, as mitigating evidence to consider in imposing discipline. However, most of Respondent’s evidence is old, pre-dating Respondent’s suspension, and in fact, duplicating the evidence of Respondent’s contributions, honors, and achievements considered and addressed in the 2010 Suspension Order. Respondent’s contributions and achievements in 2009 and earlier years were expressly credited as mitigating against a harsher result in the 2010 Suspension Order for his misconduct committed during the same timeframe as the contributions. Having already enjoyed the mitigating benefit of his pre-2010 achievements, honors, and contributions to lessen the consequences of his pre-2010 misconduct, Respondent’s older achievements are not considered again in this proceeding in mitigation of the appropriate penalty for Respondent’s post- suspension improper conduct. Respondent presented evidence that after he returned to teaching when his suspension was completed, he continued his participation in the computer give-away program, working with a community computer club sponsoring free laptop computers for selected students who wrote an essay explaining how they would benefit from a laptop. Respondent provided one such essay submitted by an ALC student. Respondent’s continued involvement in the computer give-away program while at ALC was a positive contribution for at least one ALC student who participated. The other post-suspension evidence offered by Respondent shows that he is bettering himself by pursuing higher education, obtaining an additional degree and a certificate, as he stated he would do in his March 2013 resignation letter when he stopped teaching. These are positive contributions by Respondent, but cannot be considered contributions by Respondent as an educator to mitigate the penalty imposed for Respondent’s improper conduct as an educator. Respondent has not worked as a teacher since he submitted his resignation letter to the School District in March 2013, but he has been pursuing the higher education described in that letter. It is unclear whether Respondent would otherwise be seeking work as a classroom teacher pursuant to his educator’s certificate. Petitioner’s witness for the School District testified that he could not imagine that the School District would consider hiring Respondent back to teach there. The ALC principal echoed that sentiment. The principal would be concerned because it is his job to make sure the school is safe for all students. He would not want Respondent back in a teaching role at his school because of his track record.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order: Finding Respondent guilty of violating section 1012.795(1)(j) and (1)(l), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 10A-1.081(3)(a), (3)(e), and (5)(p); Finding Respondent not guilty of violating section 1012.795(1)(g); and Revoking Respondent’s educator’s certificate no. 777352 for a period of three years. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of August, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR 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 1st day of August, 2016.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the Respondent held Teaching Certificate Number 570975 issued by the State of Florida, Department of Education, covering the area of physical education. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed by the Palm Beach County School Board and assigned to Santaluces Community High School. Incident to his teaching position at that school, Respondent also was one of the coaches for the male wrestling team and was a weight instructor. During the 1987-88 school year, Gina Marie Finnan attended the Respondent's third period personal fitness class at Santaluces Community High School. During the month of November, 1987, Finnan, then a sophomore born August 30, 1971, became a statistician for the school's wrestling team. As a statistician for the wrestling team, Finnan worked under Respondent and began to accept rides home from him following practice sessions and/or wrestling matches which were conducted either at the high school or at other sites within the community. The first physical encounter between Finnan and Respondent occurred at the conclusion of the Thanksgiving Sock Hop held at the school. Initially, Finnan had obtained possession of the Respondent's keys while they were in the school gym. The Respondent, in an attempt to obtain the return of his keys, made physical contact with her and ultimately ended up seated on the gym floor with his back resting against the bleachers and Finnan seated on his lap. With Finnan sitting on his lap, Respondent then placed his arms around her and kissed her. The only other person then present in the gym was Finnan's friend and classmate, Katherine Coffin. Coffin had been with Finnan for the sock hop and was prepared to proceed to lunch when she observed Respondent and Finnan "playing around" while fighting over Respondent's keys. During this time, several students attempted to enter the gym but were told to leave by Respondent. Respondent then went over and shut the doors to the gym, which caused the doors to automatically lock, thereby preventing anyone from entering the gym. Following this, Respondent and Finnan became silent, so Coffin walked around the bleachers and observed Respondent sitting on the floor with Finnan in front of him with her back to him. Respondent had his arms around Finnan. At that time, Coffin left the gym. Katherine Coffin did not feel that Respondent's conduct at the time was "right" for a teacher. The next time Respondent made physical contact with Finnan was near the end of November following a wrestling match on school grounds. At the time, all the equipment had been secured and the two of them were in the locker room Respondent kissed the student and touched her breasts and buttocks. This was followed by Respondent's offer to drive the student home. The student then called her mother to advise her that she need not come to school to pick her up in that Finnan had found another ride home. In route to the student's residence, Respondent parked his vehicle off the side of the road, and the two began kissing, with the Respondent "feeling" the student's breasts. This incident was followed by five or six other incidents when Finnan would accept rides home from the Respondent, and Respondent would kiss her and feel her breasts and buttocks. Shortly before the Christmas holidays, Finnan was approached by Respondent and advised that his wife would be away for the holidays and the student "should try to maybe stop by and see him and spend more time with him." Finnan solicited the help of another classmate, Robin Freedman, in hopes that she would help provide her with an alibi should the opportunity present itself for her to spend time with Respondent. This help consisted of Robin Freedman providing a "cover" for Finnan by telling Finnan's mother, should she call, that Finnan was there but unavailable to speak with the mother at the time. When Gina Finnan asked her to "cover" for her while she was visiting Respondent, Robin Freedman "didn't know what to say" in response to Gina's request so she went to her own mother for advice. During this time period, Gina Finnan received two letters from Respondent. Both of these letters were destroyed by Finnan, but, before their destruction, at least one of the two letters was shown to Katherine Coffin and to Robin Freedman. The one letter was described as a "fantasy letter" which talked about wanting to have sexual intercourse. Although the letters were not signed except for initials that did not correspond with those of the Respondent or Gina Finnan, Respondent, when questioned by Finnan, related to her that "it was in case anybody found them," and that Finnan was to throw them away.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the teaching certificate of Mark Miele be permanently revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of February, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 15th day of February, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 88-2841 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-15 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 16-18 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel or conclusions of law. The statements contained within the five unnumbered paragraphs of Respondent's proposed recommended order have been rejected as being contrary to the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig R. Wilson, Esquire 215 Fifth Street, Suite 302 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Mark Miele 5350 Rosemarie Avenue North Boynton Beach, Florida 33437 Martin B Schaap, Administrator Professional Practices Services 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Karen B. Wilde Executive Director Education Practices Commission 418 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Brooks of Bonita Springs II Petition to Establish a Uniform Community Development District [By Rule] (the Petition) should be granted.
Conclusions Under Section 190.003(6), Florida Statutes (1997), a "community development district" (CDD) is "a local unit of special-purpose government which is created pursuant to this act and limited to the performance of those specialized functions authorized by this act; the boundaries of which are contained wholly within a single county; the governing head of which is a body created, organized, and constituted and authorized to function specifically as prescribed in this act for the delivery of urban community development services; and the formation, powers, governing body, operation, duration, accountability, requirements for disclosure, and termination of which are as required by general law." Sections 190.006 through 190.046, Florida Statutes (1997) and (Supp. 1998), as amended by Section 35 of Chapter 99- 378, Laws of Florida (1999), constitute the uniform general law charter of all CDDs, which can be amended only by the Florida Legislature. Section 190.011, Florida Statutes (1997), enumerates the general powers of CDDs. These powers include the power of eminent domain inside the district and, with the approval of the governing body of the applicable county or municipality, outside the district for purposes related solely to water, sewer, district roads, and water management. Section 190.012, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1998), as amended by Section 35 of Chapter 99-378, Laws of Florida (1999), lists special powers of CDDs. Subject to the regulatory power of all applicable government agencies, CDDs may plan, finance, acquire, construct, enlarge, operate, and maintain systems and facilities for water management; water supply, sewer, and wastewater management; CDD roads meeting minimum county specifications; and certain projects within or without the CDD pursuant to development orders from local governments. After obtaining the consent of the applicable local government, a CDD may have the same powers with respect to the following "additional" systems and facilities: parks and recreation; fire prevention; school buildings; security; mosquito control; and waste collection and disposal. Section 190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1998), requires that the petition to establish a CDD be filed with FLAWAC and submitted to the County. The petition must describe by metes and bounds the proposed area to be serviced by the CDD with a specific description of real property to be excluded from the district. The petition must set forth that the petitioner has the written consent of the owners of all of the proposed real property in the CDD, or has control by "deed, trust agreement, contract or option" of all of the proposed real property. The petition must designate the five initial members of the Board of Supervisors of the CDD and the district’s name. The petition must contain a map showing current major trunk water mains and sewer interceptors and outfalls, if any. The Petition in this case meets all of those requirements. Section 190.005(1)(a) also requires that the petition propose a timetable for construction and an estimate of construction costs. The petition must designate future general distribution, location, and extent of public and private uses of land in the future land-use element of the appropriate local government. The petition must also contain a Statement of Estimated Regulatory Cost. The Petition in this case meets all of those requirements. Section 190.005(1)(a) also requires the petitioner to provide a copy of the local government’s growth management plan (the local government comprehensive plan). The Petitioner in this case has done so. Section 190.005(1)(b), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1998), requires that the petitioner pay a filing fee of $15,000 to the county and to each municipality whose boundaries are within or contiguous to the CDD. The petitioner must serve a copy of the petition on those local governments as well. The Petitioner in this case has met those requirements. Section 190.005(1)(c), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1998), permits the county and each municipality described in the preceding paragraph to conduct an optional public hearing on the petition. Such local governments may then present resolutions to FLAWAC as to the proposed property for the CDD. Lee County has exercised this option and has adopted a resolution in support of establishment of The Brooks II CDD. Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1998), requires a DOAH ALJ to conduct a local public hearing pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. The hearing "shall include oral and written comments on the petition pertinent to the factors specified in paragraph (e)." Section 190.005(1)(d) specifies that the petitioner must publish notice of the local public hearing once a week for the four successive weeks immediately prior to the hearing. The Petitioner has met those requirements. Under Section 190.005(1)(e), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1998), as amended by Section 35 of Chapter 99-378, Laws of Florida (1999), FLAWAC must consider the following factors in determining whether to grant or deny a petition for the establishment of a CDD: Whether all statements contained within the petition have been found to be true and correct. Whether the establishment of the district is inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the state comprehensive plan or of the effective local government comprehensive plan. Whether the area of land within the proposed district is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community. Whether the district is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the district. Whether the community development services and facilities will be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. Whether the area that will be served by the district is amenable to separate special-district government. Factor 1 In this case, all statements contained within the Petition have been found to be true and correct. Factor 2 In this case, it was found that the establishment of The Brooks II CDD is not inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the state comprehensive plan or of the effective local government comprehensive plan. Factor 3 In this case, it was found that the area of land within the proposed CDD is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community. Factor 4 In this case, it was found that The Brooks II CDD is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the CDD. Factor 5 In this case, it was found that the proposed community development services and facilities will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. Factor 6 In this case, it was found that the area to be served by The Brooks II CDD is amenable to separate special-district government. REPORT AND CONCLUSIONS SUBMITTED this 2nd day of September, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 September, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Ken van Assenderp, Esquire Young, van Assenderp & Varnadoe 225 South Adams Street, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Donna Arduin, Secretary Florida Land & Water Adjudicatory Commission Executive Office of the Governor 1601 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Carol Licko, Esquire Office of the Governor The Capitol, Room 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Cari L. Roth, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shummard Oak Boulevard, Suite 315 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Alfred Bragg, Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shummard Oak Boulevard, Suite 315 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Donna Marie Collins, Esquire Patrick White, Esquire Lee County Attorney's Office 2115 Second Street, Room 620 Fort Myers, Florida 33901
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Moses Green, holds Florida Teaching Certificate No. 232099, Graduate, Rank II. He served as dean of students at Boca Ciega School during the 1976-1977 school year. Thereafter he was reassigned as one of three deans of students at Pinellas Park High School, and he served in this capacity during the 1978-1979 school year. Moses Green has been in the field of education since his graduation from Florida A & M University more than 21 years ago. After teaching several years in South Carolina and Georgia he came to Boca Ciega High School in Pinellas County in 1964 where he started as a teacher. He served as dean of students at Boca Ciega High School from 1974 until 1977 when he was transferred to Pinellas Park High School as a dean of students. In October 1976 enroute from his home to school in a vehicle described both as a van and a motor home, Respondent stopped to give a ride to Jacqueline Blackshear and Stephanie Bellamy, two ninth grade students at Boca Ciega High School. When they entered the van Jackie sat on the housing covering the engine between the two front seats facing the rear of the van and Stephanie sat in the front right-hand passenger's seat. Enroute to school Respondent commented that Jackie was growing up and placed his hand on the inside of Jackie's thigh. At the time, Jackie was enroute to school for cheerleader practice and was wearing shorts. Jackie looked and moved towards Stephanie and Respondent removed his hand. Before arriving at school Respondent again placed his hand on Jackie's thigh and removed it when she moved. Upon arrival at school Respondent told Stephanie to get out as he wanted to talk to Jackie. When Stephanie left the van, Respondent was standing facing Jackie whose back was to the closed door. Respondent grabbed Jackie and attempted to kiss her. She pushed away, opened the door and left the van. When she left the van, Jackie was upset and Stephanie suggested she tell her parent. Near noontime Jackiie went to Gail Weston, a physical education teacher at Boca Ciega High School and told her about the incident in Respondent's van. Stephanie accompanied Jackie on this visit. Ms. Weston described Jackie as nervous and upset. After a few minutes of conversation Ms. Weston realized that it was not something she could handle and she told Jackie and Stephanie that they needed to tell their story at the Dean's office and she took them to Jean Johnson, a dean of students at Boca Ciega High School. There both girls told their story to Ms. Johnson who prepared a statement for them to sign. The story repeated to Ms. Johnson was essentially the same told to Ms. Weston. After typing up their statements, Ms. Johnson told Mr. Demps, the principal. He had the girls brought to him, where the story was again repeated. Demps called Respondent in and confronted him with the story. He also advised his area superintendent and the director of personnel, who investigated the allegations made by these two girls. Demps also arranged for a meeting with Jackie's and Stephanie's parents the following day. Following the investigation, Green, on October 19, 1976 was issued a letter of reprimand (Exhibit 1) for his role in the events that had come to the school's attention regarding the two girls noted above and warned that a recurrence of such conduct would result in dismissal. By letter dated 9 November 1976 Respondent was sent another letter (Exhibit 2) regarding a reported and inappropriate remark made by Green to another female student, which Respondent had denied, and the letter suggested Respondent and the girl take lie detector tests. By letter dated December 29, 1976 (Exhibit 3) the Superintendent of Schools advised Respondent that the results of the polygraph test he had voluntarily taken indicated his answers were deceptive, while the girl's polygraph test indicated her responses were honest. Respondent was placed on probation for the remainder of the 1976-1977 school year and for all of the 1977-1978 school year. Although his principal at Boca Ciega High School, Mr. Demps, considered Respondent's effectiveness at Boca Ciega High School seriously impaired by the notoriety given to the events involving Respondent in 1976, he remained at Boca Ciega High School for the remainder of that school year. For the school year 1977-1978 Respondent was transferred to Pinellas Park High School as dean of students. Upon his transfer to Pinellas Park High School, Demps gave Respondent a good evaluation report. During Respondent's first year at Pinellas Park High School, no incidents were reported to form the basis of any of the charges here considered. This school year 1977-1978 included the probation period set by Exhibit 3. The school year 1978-1979, while Respondent was dean of students at Pinellas Park High School, produced the majority of complaints and testimony at this hearing regarding improper comments made to female students by Respondent, improper contact of a sexual nature with female students by Respondent, and corroboration of this testimony by other witnesses. Ten female students who attended Pinellas Park High School during school year 1978-1979 testified against Respondent regarding incidents between Respondent and these students of a sexual nature. Some of these incidents involved contact or attempted contact such as hugging, kissing or attempting to kiss, touching breasts or attempting to do so, and rubbing the front of his body against students' backsides when passing them when adequate room for passing without contact existed. Several testified to improper comments made to them by Respondent such as "You have a nice set of tits," "I'd like to get in your pants," "You have a nice pair of legs," "Why don't we go to a motel," "You drive an old man crazy," "You have a nice butt and look good in those pants," "One of these days it's going to be you and me," and similar comments regarding female students' anatomy. Much of this testimony was corroborated by other witnesses who overheard the remarks or observed the bodily contact. Additionally, some of the witnesses had complained to their parents or to other faculty members shortly after the incidents. Others first came forward with their complaints when they learned the police were investigating Green's conduct at the school and they became convinced their isolated incidents wouldn't appear unbelievable. Some of these students tolerated and perhaps encouraged the comments to provide them leverage to insure a cover-up for numerous "skips" of classes. Some of these witnesses skipped classes without punishment due to Respondent's position as dean and to whom their infractions were referred. Respondent denied each and every testimonial utterance of misconduct on his part while admitting the situation described by the witnesses, in which the improper actions of Respondent were said to have occurred, were real. During his testimony Respondent referred to school records which would corroborate his testimony, but he made no effort to produce these records or to account for their non-production. Respondent was subjected to three criminal trials on charges stemming from allegations of fact similar to those testified to in these proceedings. He was acquitted on charges alleging battery and false imprisonment and convicted of the offense of attempting to contribute to the delinquency of a minor. Those trials resulted in considerable publicity and the allegations became well-known throughout the Pinellas County School System. Several witnesses testified that Respondent's effectiveness in the Pinellas County School System was totally destroyed by virtue of the notoriety gained by Respondent due to this adverse publicity.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Manatee County School Board (Petitioner or Board) has just cause to terminate the employment contract of Matthew Kane (Respondent or Mr. Kane).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a duly-constituted school board, charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the District. Respondent has been employed by the District since September 25, 1997. Respondent was a teacher at the District’s Lakewood Ranch High School from fall 2003 through spring 2007. Respondent became an assistant principal at Manatee High School (MHS) for the 2007-2008 school year, and served in that position through January 1, 2012. On January 2, 2012, Respondent became the MHS interim principal for the rest of the school year. Respondent returned to his prior position of assistant principal at MHS on July 1, 2012, when Don Sauer was hired as the new MHS principal. Respondent was an MHS assistant principal for most of the 2012-2013 school year; six weeks before the school- year end, he was transferred to an assistant principal position at the District’s Southeast High School. At the time of hearing, Respondent held an annual contract for an assistant principal position for the 2013-2014 school year. As a teacher, assistant principal, and interim principal, Respondent was at all times required to abide by all Florida laws pertaining to teachers, the Code of Ethics and the Principles of Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida (adopted as State Board of Education rules), and the Board’s policies and procedures that have been promulgated as rules (hereafter Board policies).5/ On August 1, 2013, Respondent was placed on paid administrative leave during the pendency of an investigation that ultimately led to this proceeding. On August 14, 2013, Respondent was charged with felony failure to report known or suspected child abuse, and with providing false information to a law enforcement officer. The latter charge was subsequently dismissed. By letters dated September 25, 2013, and October 4, 2013, hand-delivered to Respondent, the superintendent provided written notice of his intent to recommend termination of Respondent’s employment. The Complaint, with allegations and charges against Respondent on which the recommendation was based, was delivered with the October 4, 2013, letter. Respondent was also informed that the superintendent would recommend to the Board that Mr. Kane be suspended without pay pending final resolution of the Complaint. On October 14, 2013, during a Board meeting at which Respondent was represented, the Board adopted the superintendent’s recommendation to suspend Respondent without pay pending the outcome of any administrative hearing requested by Respondent. On October 24, 2013, Respondent served a Request for Administrative Hearing and Respondent/Employee’s Answer to Administrative Complaint. At issue in this proceeding is whether Mr. Kane was informed of alleged improprieties with female students by an MHS paraprofessional, Rod Frazier, who was an administrative parent liaison handling student discipline and a football coach. If so, the issue then becomes whether Mr. Kane violated obligations imposed by Florida law and Board policies related to protecting students, including the obligations to report suspected child abuse and to report allegations of misconduct by instructional personnel affecting the health, safety, or welfare of students. The core allegations in the Complaint are that Mr. Kane was apprised of prior alleged inappropriate incidents involving Mr. Frazier and female students, yet he did nothing to intervene, which allowed Mr. Frazier to remain at MHS, placing the safety and well-being of students at risk. Following Mr. Kane’s stint as MHS interim principal, a new principal arrived for the 2012-2013 school year, Don Sauer. Others--not Mr. Kane--were instrumental in bringing some of the allegations of Mr. Frazier’s improprieties to the attention of the new MHS principal in November 2012. The person who coordinated the effort to bring these matters to Mr. Sauer’s attention was Steven Rinder. Mr. Rinder is the coordinator of the student assistance program, which offers advice and assistance to students and families regarding non-academic issues that can affect students’ academic performance. Mr. Rinder credibly testified that over the few weeks preceding his communication with Mr. Sauer, he was approached independently by several MHS teachers and other instructional staff, including Mike Strzempka (teacher), Lynn Aragon (teacher), Stephen Gulash (administrative parent liaison), Keltie O’Dell (teacher), and Jackie Peebles (teacher), regarding their concerns about Mr. Frazier’s inappropriate interactions with students. Mr. Rinder found these independent reports unusual, indicative of a problem needing attention, and significant enough that he went to Mr. Sauer about the concerns. Mr. Sauer told Mr. Rinder to make a list of the allegations, without names, and Mr. Sauer would do what ought to be done with a “hot potato”: pass it on. Mr. Rinder put together a list of the allegations that had been conveyed to him. In addition, he obtained a list from Mr. Gulash of the incidents he had observed or had been informed of, and Mr. Rinder added those items to his list. Mr. Rinder then gave the document to Mr. Sauer, who passed the “hot potato” on to the District’s Office of Professional Standards (OPS). As witnesses uniformly agreed, there was no question that the list, taken as a whole, raised serious concerns about Rod Frazier’s conduct with female students that would amount to, at the least, employee misconduct. Several allegations, standing alone, raised serious concern of inappropriate touching of female students, such as Mr. Frazier behind closed doors with a female student sitting on his lap feeding him cake, and Mr. Frazier shoving a water bottle between a female student’s legs. Upon receipt of the Rinder list on November 14, 2012, OPS initiated an investigation of Mr. Frazier. A letter from the superintendent notified Mr. Frazier as follows: “Effective Thursday, November 15, 2012, you are being placed on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of our investigation of possible misconduct on your part.” On Thursday afternoon, November 15, 2012, OPS specialist Debra Horne went to MHS and interviewed four of the persons contributing to the list of allegations. Ms. Horne spoke with Mr. Rinder and Mr. Gulash and got some information regarding the names of the sources for each allegation, and the names of the students involved in the alleged incidents. Ms. Horne also interviewed Mike Strzempka and Lynn Aragon, sources for several allegations. Ms. Horne did not interview Jackie Peebles that day, but learned that Ms. Peebles was the teacher who walked in on Mr. Frazier in his office and found a female student sitting on his lap feeding him cake. Ms. Horne also learned that the female student on Mr. Frazier’s lap was D.K., a senior, no longer at MHS, but at the District’s Palmetto High School. Ms. Horne did not interview Keltie O’Dell that day, nor Rod Frazier, nor D.K. or any of the other students whose names she had. After those four interviews, Ms. Horne met with MHS principal Sauer and assistant principals Kane and Greg Faller, in Mr. Sauer’s office. She called her boss, Scott Martin, a District assistant superintendent, and he participated by speaker phone. The purpose of the meeting was to bring everyone up to speed as to where Ms. Horne was in the investigation. Although the testimony was conflicting, the credible evidence established that during this meeting, Ms. Horne and Mr. Martin discussed the contents of the Rinder list, if not line by line, then item by item, and Ms. Horne reported that each allegation was either unverified or old. As to the old allegations, Ms. Horne reported that the concerns had been brought to the attention of either former principal Robert Gagnon or one of the assistant principals, and those administrators had already addressed the concerns with Mr. Frazier. When Ms. Horne made that statement, the two assistant principals present and listening--Mr. Kane and Mr. Faller--expressed agreement by nodding their heads. At that point, Mr. Martin told Ms. Horne to wrap it up and return to their office. Strangely, despite Ms. Horne having learned that “old” allegations had been reported to and addressed by administrators, Ms. Horne apparently did not interview the administrators about their knowledge of the allegations or what had been done to address those allegations with Mr. Frazier, either on that day or at any other time before she left OPS in late January 2013. There was no documentation in Mr. Frazier’s file of any kind of discipline for inappropriate interactions with female students-- no documentation of any conferences with administrators, directives, warnings, reprimands, or suspensions. Mr. Kane acknowledged that at the meeting with Ms. Horne, the Rinder list itself was there; he skimmed the document, he did not read it item by item. It is difficult to imagine that as an assistant principal, Mr. Kane would not have been more interested in the specific allegations made against an instructional staff member, particularly when Mr. Kane nodded in agreement with Ms. Horne’s report that the allegations were old and had been reported to and addressed by administration. Mr. Kane did not offer any information to Ms. Horne about the allegations he had skimmed. At hearing, he explained that he thought he was required to stay out of the OPS investigation. Inconsistently, he volunteered information about three staff members contributing to the list of allegations, stating at the meeting that Mr. Gulash, Ms. Aragon, and Mr. Strzempka all had grudges against Mr. Frazier. Ms. Horne left MHS and returned to the District office to meet with Mr. Martin. Mr. Martin testified that he pressed Ms. Horne regarding whether she had gone down every rabbit trail, with the implication that he was satisfied that Ms. Horne had exhausted her investigative options by conducting only four interviews in the span of a few hours. Ms. Horne testified that she asked to interview D.K. and the other students whose names she had obtained, and also suggested conducting random interviews of students at MHS. Mr. Martin cut her off from this notion, stating that since no student “victim” had come forward, there was no reason to interview any students. Prior to meeting with Ms. Horne, Mr. Martin discussed the investigation with Mr. Gagnon. Mr. Gagnon was MHS principal until January 2, 2012, when he was promoted to an assistant superintendent position in the District office and Respondent became MHS interim principal. Mr. Gagnon’s message to Mr. Martin was that Mr. Frazier had been the subject of rumors before that had allegedly ruined his marriage, and that it would be bad if Mr. Frazier was still suspended by the next evening (Friday, November 16, 2012), because there was an important football game, and rumors would fly if Mr. Frazier was not coaching at the big game on Friday night. Mr. Gagnon also told Mr. Martin that the investigation should proceed and that if Mr. Frazier did what he was alleged to have done, then the District should “bury him under the school.” Mr. Gagnon characterized this latter message as the primary message. Nonetheless, at best he was sending a mixed message by suggesting that the District should thoroughly investigate, as long as it did so in one day so the coach could return to work in time for the big game Friday night. Apparently keying on the game-night part of the mixed message, Mr. Martin made the decision after meeting with Ms. Horne that the investigation was going nowhere. He directed that Mr. Frazier be removed from paid administrative leave and returned to work the next day, Friday, November 16, 2012. Meanwhile, Ms. Horne went back to MHS on Friday to complete at least a few of the obviously missing steps in the investigation, by interviewing Jackie Peebles, Keltie O’Dell, and Mr. Frazier. Ms. Peebles credibly testified that in her interview, Ms. Horne made it clear that she only wanted to hear about recent incidents, not old matters that had been reported in the past. Ms. Peebles found Ms. Horne more interested in allegations of grudges against Mr. Frazier than in allegations of inappropriate interactions with female students. Ms. Horne testified that she was surprised to learn that Mr. Frazier had been taken off paid administrative leave and returned to work Friday morning, because she believed the investigation was still ongoing. However, since Mr. Frazier was placed on leave pending the investigation’s “outcome,” by taking Mr. Frazier off leave and returning him to work on Friday, November 16, 2012, the implication was that the investigation had reached its “outcome” and was concluded. Consistent with that implication, if the investigation was not formally closed it at least went dormant after November 16, 2012. The investigation got a second life in early January 2013, when a letter written by D.K. was delivered to Mr. Sauer, detailing some of Mr. Frazier’s inappropriate interactions with D.K. while she was at MHS in 2010-2011 and 2011-2012. D.K.’s letter corroborated some aspects of the Rinder-list allegations, and described additional incidents, such as more closed-door meetings in Mr. Frazier’s office, when Mr. Frazier would hug her, rub her upper leg, and grab her thigh and buttocks. Mr. Sauer immediately sent the letter to OPS. With an alleged student victim now having come forward, OPS was compelled to resume the dormant investigation, and finally interview D.K. Shortly after D.K. was interviewed, Mr. Frazier was put back on paid administrative leave. This time, the allegations were shared with the Bradenton Police Department, which initiated its own investigation, culminating in criminal charges against Mr. Frazier for battery and interfering with school attendance. The Board issued an administrative complaint seeking to terminate Mr. Frazier’s employment, but Mr. Frazier resigned in lieu of termination proceedings. As an outgrowth of both the Board’s investigation into Mr. Frazier’s alleged misconduct and the Bradenton Police Department’s investigation of Mr. Frazier, both the Board and the Bradenton Police Department initiated investigations into the actions and inactions of Respondent and others. What Did Respondent Know And When Did He Know It? As the prelude above suggests, the underlying matters involving Mr. Frazier must be described in order to address the core allegations against Respondent. However, the focus of this proceeding is not on whether there is proof of the allegations against Mr. Frazier, nor is the focus on how the investigations were handled; neither Mr. Frazier nor OPS personnel are on trial. Instead, as charged in the Complaint, the focus here is on whether allegations of Mr. Frazier’s inappropriate interactions with students were brought to Respondent’s attention; if so, when; and if so, what he did or did not do in response. 2009-2010: Patting Behinds; Closed Door Meetings; Lingerie Party At MHS, assistant principals have a variety of duties; they may be assigned primarily to certain areas, with assignments changing from time to time. For the 2009-2010 school year, one of Mr. Kane’s primary duties was to serve as head of the MHS discipline office. The discipline office is staffed by administrative parent liaisons (liaisons). The liaisons are the school’s disciplinarians--they handle student disciplinary referrals, communicate with parents about student discipline, and teach/supervise students serving in-school suspensions and “time- outs.” The liaisons also monitor areas such as the courtyard, cafeteria, and parking lot. As discipline office head in 2009- 2010, Mr. Kane supervised the liaisons, including Mr. Frazier. L.S. has been a school bus driver for the District for ten years. In the 2009-2010 school year, L.S.’s daughter, R.S., was a senior at MHS and L.S. had an MHS bus route. On several occasions during the 2009-2010 school year, while waiting at MHS in her bus, L.S. observed Mr. Frazier patting female students on their behinds. Also during that year, L.S. occasionally went to Mr. Frazier’s office with student discipline referrals, and she would find Mr. Frazier in his office behind closed doors with female students. She found this conduct inappropriate, and reported it to Mr. Kane. L.S.’s daughter, R.S., frequently got in trouble, and was often in time-out. According to R.S., one day in February 2010, near Valentine’s Day, when she was in the time-out room supervised by Mr. Frazier, a female student, C.H., came in to ask Mr. Frazier if he would be attending her “lingerie party,” and Mr. Frazier responded that he would be there. The lingerie party discussion made R.S. uncomfortable, and she asked to go to the principal’s office. When Mr. Frazier refused, R.S. walked out and headed toward the principal’s office. R.S. testified that she was intercepted by Mr. Kane and Student Resource Officer Freddy Ordonez. R.S. said that she told them about the “lingerie party” dialog with Mr. Frazier, and Officer Ordonez told R.S. that she would be arrested if she kept making false accusations. R.S.’s testimony about her “lingerie party” report to Mr. Kane was inconsistent with a prior statement she gave during an investigation of Rod Frazier. In that prior statement, R.S. told the investigator that it was Robert Gagnon, then-principal of MHS, who was with Officer Ordonez when R.S. reported the “lingerie party” incident. Regardless of whom R.S. may have reported to that day, R.S.’s mother testified credibly that R.S. told her about the “lingerie party” incident when R.S. came home from school upset that day. L.S. then went to MHS to talk to Mr. Kane in his office to express her concerns about Mr. Frazier. In addition to relaying what R.S. had told her about the “lingerie party,” L.S. also told Mr. Kane about Mr. Frazier’s inappropriate conduct that she had personally observed on several occasions: L.S. told Mr. Kane that she had seen Mr. Frazier patting girls on their behinds, and that when she went to see Mr. Frazier in his office, she found him with female students and the door closed. Mr. Kane told L.S. that he would check into the allegations. At hearing, Mr. Kane testified that he has no recollection of the meeting L.S. described; he did not deny it occurred, saying only that he does not remember it and does not recall L.S.’s report about Mr. Frazier. Nonetheless, L.S.’s testimony was credible and is credited.6/ Mr. Kane’s testimony that he has no memory of L.S.’s allegations reported to him during the 2009-2010 school year means that, despite telling L.S. that he would look into her report about Mr. Frazier, Mr. Kane did nothing to document, investigate, or report the allegations. 2010-2011: Calling Girls Out Of Class; Cake Incident; Golf Carts Jackie Peebles has been a teacher at MHS for eight years. In the 2010-2011 school year, she taught remedial math. Ms. Peebles described how she noticed that Mr. Frazier tended to call female students out of class when they were dressed inappropriately. The students would leave for a while, and return wearing appropriate clothes. Ms. Peebles credited Mr. Frazier with doing his job to correct dress code violations. However, the calls increased in frequency, for one student in particular, D.K., in her remedial math class. Mr. Frazier would frequently call to ask Ms. Peebles to send D.K. to his office. At first, D.K. would leave class wearing short- shorts and return in sweat pants from lost and found, or she would leave wearing a tank top and return wearing Mr. Frazier’s football jacket. Again, Ms. Peebles thought Mr. Frazier was just doing his job, but she became concerned because D.K. had an attendance problem and needed to be in class. The problem got worse, with D.K. leaving when called to Mr. Frazier’s office and not coming back. Ms. Peebles confronted Mr. Frazier, telling him that she was going to keep D.K. in her classroom whether she was dressed right or not, because D.K. was falling further and further behind. Mr. Frazier stopped calling Ms. Peebles to release D.K. Instead, Ms. Peebles would hear D.K.’s telephone buzz, watch D.K. look at the phone, and then D.K. would announce that she forgot to tell Ms. Peebles that she has to go to Mr. Frazier’s office. Ms. Peebles reasonably surmised that Mr. Frazier was sending text messages to D.K. After this happened a few times, one day Ms. Peebles took D.K.’s phone, put it in her drawer, and kept teaching. The phone kept buzzing and buzzing. Ms. Peebles opened her drawer to turn off the phone, and saw a message on the screen asking why D.K. hadn’t come to his office yet, and that he heard she was wearing her short-shorts again. Ms. Peebles reasonably inferred that this message was from Mr. Frazier. Ms. Peebles testified that her concerns about Mr. Frazier calling girls (especially D.K.) out of class and texting were heightened by the rather alarming “cake incident,” which occurred shortly after the short-shorts text message. Ms. Peebles testified that one afternoon, she had broken up a fight between two students and escorted the students to the discipline office for referral to a liaison. Ms. Peebles found the discipline office’s secretary/receptionist, Aida Coleman, at her desk in the large outer area. Ms. Peebles looked around and found that the doors to the liaisons’ interior offices were all open and the offices empty, except that Mr. Frazier’s office door was closed. Ms. Peebles looked at Ms. Coleman with frustration because no one seemed available to help her with her disciplinary problem, but Ms. Coleman volunteered that it was all right, Mr. Frazier was in his office with a student. Ms. Peebles took this to mean that she could go in, so she left the two students in separated chairs, one by Ms. Coleman’s desk. Ms. Peebles walked the short distance (estimated at around twenty feet) to Mr. Frazier’s office door. She knocked and opened the door simultaneously, and stepped a few feet inside. She was shocked to find Mr. Frazier seated behind his desk with D.K. sitting sideways across his lap, feeding him cake. Ms. Peebles said that she yelled something like: “What the hell is going on in here?” Although she described it as a “yell,” when asked to gauge how loud she was by comparison to others speaking at the hearing, Ms. Peebles did not attribute a great deal of volume to her “yell”--it was more a matter of what she said than how loudly she said it. Ms. Peebles was troubled by the fact that Mr. Frazier and D.K. did not move, and both acted like nothing was wrong with their seating arrangement and activity. Ms. Peebles then told D.K. to “get off” Mr. Frazier’s lap. D.K. did so, but she only moved as far as Mr. Frazier’s desk, where she perched facing him. Ms. Peebles then told D.K.: “No, come around here and sit in a chair like a lady.” D.K. did as she was told. Ms. Peebles then told Mr. Frazier that she had a referral requiring his attention, with two students waiting outside. Mr. Frazier got up and went out with Ms. Peebles to address the awaiting disciplinary matter. Ms. Peebles reported this incident to Respondent the next day. Ms. Peebles had a clear recollection of her conversation with Respondent in which she described the cake incident, and Respondent assured her he would take care of it. Ms. Peebles was relieved, because she assumed she could count on Respondent to address the matter with Mr. Frazier. Ms. Peebles also told another liaison, Stephen Gulash, about the cake incident at some point shortly after it occurred-- her best recollection was that she told Mr. Gulash the next morning. Mr. Gulash corroborated that Ms. Peebles told him about the cake incident--he thought it may have been right after it occurred, because she seemed upset. Ms. Peebles does not recall being upset when she told Mr. Gulash about the incident. While Respondent suggests this is an inconsistency that undermines the credibility of both Ms. Peebles and Mr. Gulash, this minor difference in perception and recollection is immaterial and understandable. The incident itself was not a happy thing to observe or describe. Even a number of years later, Ms. Peebles seemed upset when describing the upsetting incident at hearing. When Ms. Peebles told Mr. Gulash about the cake incident, Mr. Gulash asked Ms. Peebles if she had reported the incident to Mr. Kane. Ms. Peebles told him either that she had just done so or that she was about to. The material details provided by Ms. Peebles--that the cake incident occurred as she described it, that she reported the incident to Respondent the next day, and that Respondent assured her he would take care of it--were credible and are credited. The most alarming aspect of the cake incident is that D.K. was sitting on Mr. Frazier’s lap feeding him cake in the privacy of his office, a clearly inappropriate and suggestive intimacy between this MHS staff disciplinarian and the female student he frequently called out of class to come visit him behind closed doors. D.K. provided credible corroborating testimony of this most troubling aspect of the cake incident, acknowledging that she was sitting on Mr. Frazier’s lap feeding him cake when Ms. Peebles walked in and was shocked. Respondent contends that Ms. Peebles’ testimony was undermined by D.K.’s testimony that she could not recall what, if anything, Ms. Peebles said when she opened the door and by Ms. Coleman’s testimony that she did not recall an encounter when Ms. Peebles was yelling at Mr. Frazier. Ms. Peebles’ verbal reaction to the shocking scene pales in significance to the scene itself. Moreover, the inability of D.K. and Ms. Coleman to recall did not effectively undermine Ms. Peebles’ clear, credible testimony. It is by no means clear that Ms. Peebles’ words to Mr. Frazier and D.K. (which D.K. might well want to forget or minimize), delivered while Ms. Peebles was standing a few feet inside the office with her back to the door, would have been heard by Ms. Coleman at her desk twenty feet away from the door, particularly since Ms. Peebles had deposited one of the fighting students in a chair next to Ms. Coleman’s desk. Respondent testified that he does not recall Ms. Peebles reporting the cake incident to him. He added that if she had reported the incident as she described it at hearing, he believes there is no way he would not have acted, by documenting the report in writing or having Ms. Peebles do so, bringing it to the principal’s attention, and confronting Mr. Frazier with what was plainly inappropriate, improper, unprofessional conduct. Ms. Peebles, however, was steadfast and credible in maintaining that she reported the cake incident to Mr. Kane the day after it occurred (corroborated by Mr. Gulash). Ms. Peebles also reported the cake incident to Mr. Faller a year later, after reporting another inappropriate Frazier incident to Mr. Faller (discussed below in school year 2011-2012).7/ Respondent attempted to undermine Ms. Peebles’ credibility by dwelling on the lack of clarity on insignificant points, including when the cake incident occurred, what Mr. Kane’s duties were at the time, and where Ms. Peebles and Mr. Kane were when she told him about the incident. Respondent’s attempt was not effective. For the purposes of this proceeding, it is enough to know that the cake incident took place either in the 2010-2011 school year or the 2011-2012 school year--the only two years that D.K. was a student at MHS. The incident most likely occurred in the 2010-2011 school year, when D.K. was in Ms. Peebles’ math class. Ms. Peebles could not recall exactly when the incident occurred; she volunteered early on in her testimony, and repeated often, that she has never been good at remembering dates.8/ Likewise, regardless of Mr. Kane’s duties at the time of the cake incident report, Ms. Peebles explained why he was an appropriate administrator for her to report to. Ms. Peebles testified initially that she thought Mr. Kane was head of discipline when she reported the cake incident to him. That was shown to be not true. Mr. Faller took over the assignment as discipline office head in the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years. However, Ms. Peebles added that after Mr. Faller assumed that role, Mr. Kane became Ms. Peebles’ direct supervisor (not disputed by Respondent), and that she may have reported the cake incident to him for that reason. Later still, Mr. Kane was MHS interim principal, and if the cake incident occurred then, she might have reported it to him for that reason. Ms. Peebles credibly summed it up this way: “Mr. Kane never left the realm of being someone I thought that I would go to.” (Tr. 568). As to the setting where Ms. Peebles reported the cake incident to Mr. Kane, Ms. Peebles offered her recollection that they were in the discipline office, in the corner interior office assigned to the assistant principal serving as head of the discipline office. But whether Ms. Peebles reported the cake incident to Mr. Kane in the office assigned to the head of discipline, as she recalled, or in an office in the adjacent building when he became Ms. Peebles’ direct supervisor, the setting is insignificant and the lack of clarity does not undermine the credible testimony regarding the material details. Ms. Peebles was genuinely troubled to be offering testimony adverse to Mr. Kane. Ms. Peebles likes and respects Mr. Kane as an educator and administrator, and spoke highly of his performance as an assistant principal and as her supervisor. Her general regard for him is why she was relieved to report the cake incident to him--she trusted him to follow through when he assured her that he would take care of it. Mr. Kane was equally complimentary of Ms. Peebles, describing her as one of the good teachers, and as someone who would not set out to hurt him. Respondent’s testimony expressing no recollection of Ms. Peebles’ cake incident report to him and offering hindsight assurance that he would have acted on such a report was not as credible as Ms. Peebles’ testimony and is not credited. Instead, Ms. Peebles’ report was the second time Respondent was informed of Mr. Frazier’s inappropriate closed-door sessions with female students--this time, with the added observation that Mr. Frazier was engaged in inappropriate physical contact with the female student in that particular closed-door session. As Respondent himself acknowledged, such a report should have spurred him to immediate action, but it did not. Moreover, because Respondent took no action in response to L.S.’s prior report, there was no record that this was the second report to Respondent of Mr. Frazier’s improprieties. As with L.S.’s report, this second report was also received and ignored, instead of being documented, investigated, and addressed with Mr. Frazier. Lynn Aragon is a teacher employed by the District. She taught at MHS for over ten years, until the end of the 2012-2013 school year, and is currently on a medical leave of absence. During the time period relevant to this proceeding, she served as the representative for the teacher’s union at MHS, and because of that role, teachers at MHS often would come to her with concerns. Ms. Aragon testified that during the 2010-2011 school year, a number of teachers came to her to express concerns about Mr. Frazier having female students in his office behind closed doors, calling female students to his office in the middle of class, texting female students in class, and going around in the courtyard on a golf cart with female students hugging him. Ms. Aragon testified that she reported these concerns to then- principal Bob Gagnon, but not to Mr. Kane.9/ Mr. Gagnon acknowledged that while he was still the MHS principal, he became aware of an issue with students on golf carts, although he did not say that Ms. Aragon was the source of his awareness or that Mr. Frazier was the subject of the “issue,” or complaint. Mr. Gagnon testified that he went out and told all of the staff using golf carts--not just Mr. Frazier--to stop allowing students on their golf carts. Several witnesses spoke generally about the legitimate use of golf carts by liaisons to monitor the parking lot and courtyard, and to transport a student when necessary. Often students congregate in the courtyard for lunch breaks, and it was not unusual, at least before Mr. Gagnon’s directive, for a student to sit on a golf cart with a liaison. However, as Ms. Peebles credibly explained, the student-on-golf-cart issue was decidedly different where Mr. Frazier was concerned. Whereas other liaisons and administrators might have a couple of students on a golf cart to sit and talk or to drive them someplace, Ms. Peebles described what she saw on Mr. Frazier’s golf cart: “[T]he students hanging around on Mr. Frazier’s golf cart mostly tended to be female students . . . more female students than could fit on the seats. There would be so many stacked on there that you literally couldn’t drive the golf cart anyplace.” 2011-2012: Groping At A Bar; More Golf Cart Issues; Horseplay Ms. Peebles testified that the year after the cake incident, another incident involving alleged inappropriate physical contact by Mr. Frazier was reported to her by MHS female student, A.P. Ms. Peebles told Mr. Faller about the allegations. When Mr. Faller seemed not interested, she told him about the prior cake incident, and she also told him that she had reported the cake incident to Mr. Kane. Ms. Peebles’ testimony was credible. Mr. Faller did not testify. Ms. Peebles did not say that she reported the A.P. incident to Mr. Kane. Nonetheless, Respondent offered A.P.’s testimony, apparently in an attempt to undermine the credibility of Ms. Peebles’ overall testimony. Instead, just as was the case with D.K., A.P.’s testimony corroborated the material facts, as reported by Ms. Peebles to Mr. Faller, regarding another troubling incident with Mr. Frazier. As A.P. testified, she snuck into a bar using fake identification, when she was still underage. She had a few drinks and was tipsy. Mr. Frazier approached her and grabbed her in “too friendly” a hug, putting his arms around the lower region of her back, or further down. Mr. Frazier had “his hands down there;” he was groping her and hanging all over her. Respondent attempted to elicit testimony from A.P. that she never told Ms. Peebles about being groped in a bar by Mr. Frazier. Instead, A.P. testified that although she could not say with certainty that she went to Ms. Peebles about this incident, it would make sense that she would have gone to Ms. Peebles: “I could see myself going to her[.]” A.P.’s testimony varied in some of the details from Ms. Peebles’ description of what A.P. told her. Ms. Peebles testified that she does not recall the word A.P. used in lieu of “erection,” she understood A.P. to be saying that Mr. Frazier had an erection and was rubbing himself against her buttocks. A.P. testified that she did not tell Ms. Peebles that Mr. Frazier had an erection; Ms. Peebles agreed that that was not the word A.P. used. Ms. Peebles also recalled A.P. showing her inappropriate text messages from Mr. Frazier regarding A.P.’s private body parts that Mr. Frazier inappropriately groped at the bar; A.P. denied receiving text messages from Mr. Frazier. Their testimony was in sync regarding Mr. Frazier’s inappropriate groping of A.P., who, at the time, was a minor and a student at MHS. Several years after the fact, the testimony by Ms. Peebles and A.P. is considered substantially and materially consistent. The variances do not undermine Ms. Peebles’ credible testimony. Not only was Ms. Peebles’ testimony regarding the bar- groping incident and her reports to Mr. Faller credible, but it highlights the problem of serial undocumented “isolated incidents.” An incident is reported to one administrator who ignores the report and takes no action; then when the next “isolated incident” is reported, the administrator receives that report as if nothing has ever been brought to his attention before, and again, takes no action; then when the next “isolated incident” is reported to a different administrator, there is nothing documenting that similar incidents had ever occurred before. Despite this pattern, Mr. Kane and Mr. Faller were the two administrators in the room nodding their heads in agreement when Ms. Horne reported to Mr. Martin that the allegations in the Rinder list were old news that had been reported to and handled by administrators. Two of the incidents on the Rinder list were the cake incident and the bar encounter. If brushing the allegations under the rug can be called handling them, they were, indeed, handled. While Mr. Kane was interim principal in 2012, two separate matters regarding Mr. Frazier were reported to him. In February 2012, Ms. Horne from OPS called Mr. Kane to inform him of an anonymous complaint received by the superintendent’s office regarding female students riding with Mr. Frazier on his golf cart and that it “didn’t look right.” At the direction of Ms. Essig, who was Mr. Kane’s immediate supervisor, Ms. Horne relayed the complaint to Mr. Kane, and asked him to look into it and speak to Mr. Frazier about it. Ms. Horne did not hear back from Mr. Kane within a reasonable time, so she called him back. Mr. Kane told Ms. Horne that he issued a verbal directive to Mr. Frazier to be professional in his dealings with students at all times. As Mr. Kane described it, he told Mr. Frazier to stop riding around with girls on his golf cart because others might perceive it to be inappropriate. Mr. Kane did not document his verbal directive to Mr. Frazier. The only evidence that there was a verbal directive comes from the hard-to-decipher scribbled note Ms. Horne made of her phone call to Mr. Kane to find out if he had responded to her request that he look into the complaint. There was no credible evidence that Respondent looked into the 2012 complaint at all, in the sense of trying to find out whether Mr. Frazier had conducted himself, with females on his golf cart, in a way that “did not look right” (such as by allowing so many female students to pile onto the golf cart with him that he and the females necessarily would be sitting on top of each other, as Ms. Peebles described). Instead, Mr. Kane apparently did not ask Mr. Frazier what he was doing with girls on his golf cart. Mr. Kane explained that because the complaint lacked details (such as names, dates, times, locations, or what exactly did not look right), he could not ask Mr. Frazier about the details because Mr. Kane did not have them. That explanation is unreasonable; a reasonable interim principal performing the duty of looking into a complaint asks questions to find out details. An absence of documentation about prior golf cart issues with Mr. Frazier resulted in yet another “isolated incident.” The absence of documentation of Mr. Gagnon’s student- on-golf-cart issue that caused him to tell all staff operating golf carts to stop letting students on the golf carts meant that the 2012 complaint about Mr. Frazier on his golf cart with female students and that it did not look right was never investigated as insubordination, for not following Mr. Gagnon’s prior directive. Also while Mr. Kane was interim principal, Mr. Gulash reported to Mr. Kane that Mr. Frazier shoved a water bottle between D.K.’s legs at the softball field. Mr. Kane had no recollection of Mr. Gulash reporting this incident to him. Mr. Gulash acknowledged that he mentioned the incident to Mr. Kane while they were walking together into the cafeteria; that he described the incident to Mr. Frazier as “horseplay”; and that he did not make a big deal of it. Nonetheless, one would expect that a description of “horseplay” involving a male liaison/coach placing anything between the legs of a female student would not only get the interim principal’s attention but also trigger immediate action. D.K. corroborated the occurrence of bottle-between-the legs “horseplay” by Mr. Frazier. She testified that Mr. Frazier had shoved water bottles or Gatorade bottles between her legs on more than one occasion, both at the softball field and while D.K. was hanging out with Mr. Frazier on his golf cart. While there were discrepancies in the details offered by Mr. Gulash and D.K., once again, their testimony was in harmony with regard to the troubling aspect of the incident they described--that Mr. Frazier engaged in a form of “horseplay” with a minor female student that involved him putting a plastic bottle between the student’s legs. Respondent claimed that Mr. Gulash was biased and not credible for several different reasons; Mr. Gulash responded with explanations. On balance, the undersigned accepts Mr. Gulash’s testimony, notwithstanding the attacks on his credibility. But even if Mr. Gulash did not tell Mr. Kane about the bottle- between-the-legs incident, those incidents should have, and would have, come to light much sooner than they did if Mr. Kane had responded appropriately to the reports of Mr. Frazier’s improprieties when they were made to him. D.K.’s credible testimony that one of these bottle-between-the-legs incidents occurred when she was on a golf cart with Mr. Frazier underscores the significance of the patterned failure to document or act on reports of Mr. Frazier’s inappropriate conduct with female students on golf carts. Likewise, D.K.’s description of Mr. Frazier’s inappropriate physical contact during closed-door sessions in his office underscores the significance of the patterned failure to document or act on reports of Mr. Frazier’s inappropriate closed-door meetings with female students.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Manatee County School Board, enter a final order terminating the employment of Respondent, Matthew Kane. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of September, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR 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 30th day of September, 2014.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto James E. Wilkins, Jr. was a continuing contract teacher employed by the Pinellas County School Board. He has been employed in the field of education since 1950 and has been employed by the Pinellas County School Board since 1964. During the school year 1983-84 Wilkins was employed as a guidance counselor at Tarpon Springs Middle School. During the school year 1984-85 Wilkins was employed as a biology teacher at Tarpon Springs High School. While serving as counselor at Tarpon Springs Middle School several girls in the sixth grade came to Wilkins for assistance in deterring one of their classmates from pilfering makeup and shoes from their lockers. They had previously gone to another counselor for help in the matter but she had declined to intervene. They were sitting in Wilkins' office with the suspected culprit. After listening to part of the girl's complaints and in order to assure accuracy in recreating the proceedings, if necessary, Wilkins took out his tape recorder, placed it on his desk, asked the girls if they objected to having the conversation taped and after receiving no objection turned on the tape recorder. Wilkins testified that he asked the girls as a group if they objected to their statements being recorded and no one objected. One of the students present confirmed that Wilkins, during the course of their discussion, took his tape recorder out of his desk and asked them if they had any objection to having their comments taped. All said no. Later the suspected culprit went to another counselor and complained that she was afraid she was going to get beat up and that Wilkins had tape recorded the meeting without her permission. During the investigation which followed Wilkins acknowledged that he had in fact tape recorded the session after asking them if anyone objected. He did not poll the students to ask each one individually if she objected to the tape recorder. All were aware the conversation was being taped. Harry Danielson, Supervisor of guidance, Pinellas County School System, also questioned Respondent regarding the taping incident. Danielson's testimony that Respondent admitted to him that he taped the girls without their permission was explained by Respondent as a misunderstanding on his part as he thought Danielson asked if he had obtained written permission to tape the conversation. Danielson testified that the code of ethics of the counseling profession proscribes taping students without their knowledge or permission and that counselors are usually advised to get permission in writing before taping students. Danielson also opined that a counselor should not become involved in investigating a theft. This incident constitutes a part of the letter of reprimand issued by the superintendent on November 20, 1984. While at Tarpon Springs Middle School, Wilkins hung on the wall of his office a Ph.D. diploma from Loyola University of Paris, France. Earlier Wilkins had heard that he could perhaps obtain such a degree and did not see this university listed as a diploma mill and as not accredited. He forwarded to Loyola University transcripts of all courses he had taken including more than sixty hours of courses he had completed subsequent to completing his master's degree. These curricula were "evaluated" by Loyola University and Wilkins was issued a Ph.D. degree. He presented the information to the school board clerk handling post graduate records for Pinellas County teachers and requested the information be sent to the Department of Education in Tallahassee for evaluation. The Department advised that Loyola was not recognized as an accredited school and the degree would not be recognized by the Department. Respondent took no further action but to ask the clerk if the transcripts submitted to Loyola should be removed from his personnel file. She told him that would not he necessary. Subsequently the principal at Tarpon Springs Middle School saw the diploma on Mr. Wilkins' office, checked some information that he had that described Loyola University of Paris as a diploma mill and reported the "spurious" diploma to Nancy Zambito, Director of Personnel Services, Pinellas County School Board. Ms. Zambito questioned Respondent about the degree. He readily acknowledged that he had not taken any courses at Loyola and the degree was issued based on transcripts he had sent to Loyola for evaluation. Ms. Zambito on May 31, 1984, issued Wilkins a letter of reprimand (Exhibit 1) for unethical behavior and poor judgment. This incident also constituted a ground for the reprimand issued to Respondent by the Pinellas County Superintendent of Schools on November 20, 1984 (Exhibit 4), and as one of the charges in the suspension letter dated June 25, 1985. James Gregory, principal at Tarpon Springs Middle School 1983-84, gave Respondent a less than satisfactory evaluation in two areas as a result of the taping of the meeting with the students and for obtaining the diploma from Loyola University. At the close of this school year Gregory recommended that Respondent be removed from a counseling position and returned to the classroom as a teacher. As a result of this recommendation Respondent was transferred to Tarpon Springs High School as a biology teacher for the 1984-85 school year. Gregory opined that investigating theft is not part of the duties of a counselor but belongs solely in the realm of the administrative assistants. (TR. p. 19 Vol. I) During school year 1984-85 Leroy Birch was sitting next to the projector in Respondent's class when slides were being shown. Someone had smeared one of the slides and Birch and others were laughing. Birch was not sitting fully in his seat. Respondent thought Birch had smeared the slides and put his hand on Birch's shoulder to push him back down in his seat. Birch told Respondent to "take his god damn hand off my shoulder." Respondent, when questioned by administrative personnel about this incident, acknowledged that he had placed his hand on Birch's shoulder near a "pressure point" but that he did not squeeze the pressure point. Birch testified to no numbness or pain resulting from a squeezing of the pressure point. Birch further testified that Respondent had disciplined him and that he hated Wilkins when he was disciplined. Birch was one of many who testified Respondent used "damn" and "hell" in class more than other teachers. Ann Marie Levy was a student in Respondent's class in 1984-85 school year. She was copying notes from the overhead as she was supposed to be doing when Respondent slapped her on the shoulder to get her attention when he thought she was writing a note to a classmate. Ann Marie was more surprised than hurt by this incident which was observed by others in the class. Respondent has no recollection of striking Ann Marie but, if he did, it was accidental when he was trying to get her attention and not as a punishment nor intended as a punishment. This incident was the other striking episode referred to in Exhibit Ann Marie also testified that she never liked Respondent and that he expected a lot from his students. Ronald Cohalla was in Respondent's class last year (1984-85) and testified that while he was talking to another student Respondent told him if he didn't be quiet he would "deck him". Ron also testified that Respondent threw an eraser at him twice and that Respondent used curse words more than other teachers. During both of these eraser "throws" Ron was sitting at his desk in the front row some four or five feet from Respondent and talking to another student. On neither throw did the eraser get beyond Respondent's desk. Respondent denies ever telling Cohalla he would deck him if he didn't be quiet. Respondent is 6'1" tall and weighs 350 pounds. He was once a wrestling coach and is obviously well coordinated for a man his size. Had he attempted to throw an eraser at Cohalla, it is quite certain he could have hit Cohalla from a distance of four feet. The same credence, none, is given to Cohalla's testimony that Respondent threatened to deck him as is given to the testimony that Respondent threw an eraser at Cohalla. Several witnesses testified that Respondent had called them stupid. On cross examination these students testified that in response to a question Respondent frequently said "that's a stupid question." Respondent denies ever calling a student stupid. Many of the witnesses called by Petitioner testified that Respondent used "damn" and "hell" more than other teachers in class, that he was short in patience and frequently raised his voice in class. Many considered him a strict and demanding teacher. Respondent acknowledged that he often raised his voice to quiet down an unruly or a noisy class but did not consider this to be different than other teacher's reactions to noisy classes. Amy Levinson, who thinks Respondent is not a good teacher acknowledged that when Respondent raised his voice in class it was because the class was unruly. Use of the words "hell" and "jackass" by Respondent in class was one of the charges in Exhibit 4. No evidence was presented that Respondent used the word "jackass" in class. During the 1984-85 school year while Respondent was teaching biology at Tarpon Springs High School, Kirsten Kissinger testified she was embarrassed by Respondent once when she had stomach cramps. She asked Respondent if she could go to the bathroom then changed her mind and asked if she could go to the clinic. Respondent asked her why and she told him she had cramps. Respondent asked her to repeat her reason which she did. Kristen felt embarrassed by having to repeat her reason and thought other students were laughing at her. Another student in the class with Kristen, Stephanie Salsgiven, has no recollection of the incident in which Kristen states she was embarrassed. Respondent has been teaching middle grade and high school girls in Pinellas County Schools for more than twenty years. His testimony that anytime a girl tells him she has cramps she automatically gets permission to leave the class is more creditable than is testimony that Respondent would intentionally embarrass a female student. During a biology class at Tarpon Springs High School a discussion about mammary glands was held and one girl asked what Respondent had said. Two witnesses testified they overheard Respondent reply to this question "mammary glands -- I hope you develop some soon." The student to whom this comment was allegedly made did not appear as a witness and Respondent denies ever making such a statement to one of his students. One of these accusing witnesses also testified that Respondent had responded to a black male in the class and in a remark to him Respondent referred to the black's flat nose. John Thompson, the person referred to, testified that no such incident occurred. Once during one of Respondent's classes one student, apparently trying to be facetious, asked Respondent what obese meant. Respondent patted his stomach and replied that is what I am as are a few others in the class. Cynthia Shindler testified that Respondent specifically named her and John Thompson as obese people -- much to her embarrassment. John Thompson testified Respondent did not refer to him by name as obese. Respondent denies referring to anyone other than himself as being obese. No evidence was submitted that Respondent ever sent students on errands with unopen notes about other students or that the taping incident involved another teacher as alleged in the dismissal letter. On one occasion while passing down the corridor at Tarpon Springs High School, as Respondent passed an area known as "Greek corner" he heard someone call out in a loud voice "fat ass." Respondent did not stop. When Respondent returned a few minutes later he stopped near Greek corner to talk to a student in one of his classes. He again heard someone call out "fat ass" and, from the tone of the voice suspected Philip Stavrakis who was in the group. When Respondent called Phillip aside to admonish him Philip became very abusive and disrespectful. Respondent took Philip to the office for discipline. When he arrived he was unable to find anyone in the Dean's office to take Philip. Respondent told Philip to sit down while he looked for a dean. Philip sat on a table instead of the chair indicated and continued his harangue with Respondent. Unfortunately Respondent had also become very angry at the disrespect and abuse he was receiving from Philip and also raised his voice trying to get Philip to do as he was told. Dr. Van Fleet heard the commotion outside and emerged from behind the closed door of her office to see Respondent and Philip facing each other near the table and yelling loudly. She moved between them and told Respondent she would take over and Respondent departed. Philip contended he was not the one who had called Respondent "fat ass" and resented being so accused. Philip Stavrakis told Respondent he would get Respondent in trouble.
