The Issue Whether there is just cause to suspend Respondent, George Young (Respondent), as alleged in the letter of the superintendent of schools dated June 9, 2008.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a duly constituted entity charged with the responsibility and authority to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within the Indian River County Public School District. As such, it has the authority to regulate all personnel matters for the school district, including those personnel decisions affecting the professional teaching staff. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent, George Young, was an employee of the School Board and was subject to the disciplinary rules and regulations pertinent to employees of the school district. At all times material to this case, Respondent was assigned to teach at Sebastian River High School and served as head baseball coach for the varsity team. For purposes of this case, all acts or omissions complained of were in connection with Respondent’s responsibilities as a baseball coach. By way of background, the allegations of this case evolved from an underlying incident that must be disclosed in order to put the proper perspective on Respondent’s role and responsibility in connection with the allegations. During March of 2008, Respondent scheduled his team to participate in a baseball tournament held in Broward County, Florida. The tournament location and schedule made it convenient for the team to remain near the site for one night of the tournament. This was not the first over-night venture for Respondent and the teams he coached. Prior to tournaments it was Respondent’s policy to instruct the team that they were representatives of the school. Respondent encouraged the students to refrain from horseplay, roughhousing, or misbehavior that could discredit them or the school. In short, the team members were to conduct themselves as gentlemen. Nevertheless, some of the students did engage in poor conduct. More specifically, several of the players began to wrestle in one of the hotel rooms. Some unspecified number of the players turned on their teammate, H.C. Without Respondent’s knowledge or consent, the players wrestled H.C. (the victim) to a bed, pulled down his pants, and placed a plastic soda bottle at or near his rectum. It is unknown whether the bottle actually penetrated the victim, but the fact that an assault was perpetrated by the student players is certain. After the assault, the victim escaped the room and fled to another hotel room. Several team players observed the victim to be quite upset. Moreover, at least one player believed that the student was so upset he was crying. Word spread among some of the players that something bad had happened to the victim. The details of the assault were not general knowledge. At least two adults who accompanied the team on the trip were also made aware that something untoward had occurred to the victim. At least one of the parents told Respondent that night that something had occurred. No specifics of the incident were disclosed to Respondent. He knew, however, that wrestling had occurred and that someone was upset. Respondent made no effort to personally discover what had happened to the victim that night. Presumably, he chalked it up as adolescent roughhousing. The next morning Respondent called a team meeting before the team left the hotel. It was his custom to speak to the team before checkout but on this morning he had the additional task of attempting to find out what had occurred the night before. Not surprisingly, no one disclosed the full details of the assault. From the hotel the team went on to a meal and played in the tournament. Respondent did not pursue further inquiry into the assault. Respondent did not question anyone individually regarding the events. Approximately one week later the victim's parents heard about the assault. A parent telephoned them to share information that something had occurred on the tournament trip. They were stunned and surprised to learn of the incident. They questioned their sons (both of whom were on the tournament trip) and decided something needed to be done to punish the students who committed the assault. To that end, they went to Respondent's home and asked him about the incident. Respondent was surprised to learn of the details of the assault and represented that something would be done to appropriately discipline the perpetrators of the deed. The weight of the credible evidence supports the finding that on the night of the parents' visit to Respondent's home, Respondent knew that the victim had been wrestled to the bed, had had his pants pulled down exposing his buttocks, and that a bottle may have been involved at or near the student's rectum. The bottle portion of the assault was stated as a possibility as the victim's parents at that time had not confirmed whether or not the bottle was used or merely threatened. Nevertheless, when Respondent reported the incident the next day to the athletic director, the possibility of a bottle being involved in the assault was omitted. Since Respondent did not disclose the full details of the assault, including the fact that a bottle may have been involved, to the athletic director, the punishment initially to be administered to the student perpetrators did not satisfy the victim's parents when they learned what would be imposed. Instead, they demanded that more harsh consequences befall the students who were involved in the assault. Their report of the incident conflicted with Respondent's story to the athletic director. It soon became clear that while the parents may have been willing to spare their son the embarrassment of the bottle portion of the story when they believed the penalty imposed against his attackers would be great, they were not going to let the perpetrators skate by on the penalty initially chosen. Thus Respondent's willingness to leave out the bottle portion of the assault became critical to the matter. In fact, the omission of the bottle portion of the incident became the key allegation against Respondent. The superintendent's letter setting forth the allegation against Respondent stated, in part: On April 8, 2008, you told Athletic Director, Michael Stutzke, that an incident occurred during an out of town baseball tournament that involved wrestling with someone's pants being pulled down. When you made that statement you knew that was not the complete story, because the night before, you met with a student's parents who told you their son's (the victim) pants were taken down and a bottle put near his rectum during the course of this incident. This is the same incident you described to Mr. Stutzke as mere wrestling and someone's pants pulled down. The credible weight of the evidence supports the finding that Respondent knew he had not given Mr. Stutzke the complete story of the incident. Although Respondent at that time may not have known for a fact that a bottle was used in the commission of the assault, he knew that the rumor of the bottle's use was in question. An investigation of the matter would have proved or disproved the bottle portion of the story. Respondent did not, however, reveal that portion of the allegations to school authorities. Although Respondent may have entertained the misguided notion that he was protecting the victim from embarrassment by not disclosing the full details of the assault, his failure to make school officials aware of the incident and the potential allegation of the bottle demonstrates a failure to fully and honestly conduct himself professionally. Respondent has enjoyed a long, successful, and popular run as a baseball coach in the district. At the end of the day, however, responsibility for the safety and well-being of his team rested with him. That job is unrelated to the success of the team or their desire to play in tournaments. Moreover, school authorities must be able to rely on a coach's veracity to completely and accurately report any incident that may occur during a school-sanctioned event. The stipulated facts of the parties provided: On March 31, 2008, George Young was the head coach for the Sebastian River High School Varsity Baseball team. On March 31, 2008, the Sebastian River High School Varsity Baseball team attended a baseball game in Plantation, Florida. Kevin Browning, Director of Human Resources, investigated allegations of an incident that occurred on March 31, 2008 involving the baseball team. Browning released his Report and Recommendation on June 26, 2008. Young was given a three day suspension, which is the subject of the appeal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Indian River County School Board enter a Final Order sustaining the suspension of Respondent and denying his claim for salary reimbursement. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH 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 29th day of July, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Wilensky, Esquire Dubiner & Wilensky, P.A. 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 325 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-4349 Wayne L. Helsby, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 1477 West Fairbanks Avenue, Suite 100 Winter Park, Florida 32789 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Harry J. La Cava, Ed.D Superintendent Indian River County School Board 1900 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960-3150
The Issue Whether just cause exists to sustain Respondent’s five-day suspension from employment without pay with Petitioner based on the allegations in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a duly-constituted district school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within Miami- Dade County, Florida. Article IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const. Gonzalez started volunteering for the School Board approximately 22 years ago. Eventually, after years of volunteering, Gonzalez was offered a paraprofessional position. Gonzalez worked as a paraprofessional at Sylvania Heights Elementary School (“Sylvania”) for the last seven years. During the 2018-2019 school year, Gonzalez was a pre-kindergarten paraprofessional at Sylvania. Gonzalez’s job duties and responsibilities include, but are not limited to, assisting with the children when needed. At all times relevant to the proceeding, Respondent has been employed by the School Board pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement under the United Teachers of Dade (“UTD”). The incident giving rise to this proceeding occurred August 22, 2019. On August 22, 2019, Gonzalez reported to work early around 7:00 a.m. and went to the Sylvania office to help. She was assigned to morning drop-off duty and instructed to assist the parents and students in the drop-off area. That morning, Gonzalez went to pick up pre-kindergarten children at the north entrance of the school. One pre-kindergarten student was upset and crying when his mother dropped him off at the car line. The student continued to cry as he got out of the car. Gonzalez walked the crying student to drop-off classroom number four, after he got out of the car. As Gonzalez walked the crying student to the classroom, the child continued to cry a lot. Gonzalez dropped off the crying student by forcibly placing him into classroom four with a push, and then continuing to go on to assist with another child. During the drop-off period, Janelle Fernandez-Ramos (“Fernandez- Ramos”), a Sylvania teacher, was in front of classroom twelve looking down the hall and saw Gonzalez drop off the child at classroom four. Fernandez- Ramos believes she saw Gonzalez tug the child by the arm. At the time, she shouted to Gonzalez, “don’t push him,” but Gonzalez did not hear her. That same morning, Barbara Soler (“Soler”), a Sylvania teacher, was standing in the middle of the interior hallway with Gonzalez. Soler was turned away and a foot away from Gonzalez’s left when she placed the crying child in classroom four. Soler heard Fernandez-Ramos scream “don’t push him,” and looked right to see the little boy crying standing in the doorway of classroom four. Soler did not see anything happen between Respondent and the little boy. Soler took the crying student to the end of the hallway. At the time Gonzalez dropped off the student, Damaris Medina (“Medina”) was in the classroom where the crying boy was dropped off. She stood approximately seven feet away facing Gonzalez. Medina clearly observed Gonzalez forcefully shove the crying student into her classroom, and Medina watched Gonzalez proceed on immediately after dropping him off. Later that day, Fernandez-Ramos reported to administration that she thought she saw a pushing incident between Gonzalez and a child. Afterwards, Principal Amor Reyes (“Reyes”) called Gonzalez to the office. Reyes informed Gonzalez that it had been reported that Gonzalez had pushed a child. Gonzalez denied the allegations. Hearing At the final hearing, Gonzalez admitted leaving the crying student in drop-off classroom number four and explained that she left immediately thereafter because she needed to continue helping with another child. Gonzalez credibly testified, “I did nothing.” She explained that she was neither frustrated nor upset that day and did not hear Fernandez-Ramos scream at her. Fernandez-Ramos testified that Gonzalez “tugged the child from the arm into the room.” Fernandez-Ramos explained that it was the beginning of the school day, and it was chaotic in the hallway. She also described the layout and explained that between where she was standing in front of classroom twelve and drop-off classroom four, there was a bathroom and two more classrooms. Fernandez-Ramos testified that she was not sure if she saw Gonzalez push the child because “I was further away; I wasn’t sure if that’s what I really saw.” Medina credibly confirmed and testified that Gonzalez shoved the crying boy into the classroom. Medina testified that her response to the incident was to look back at another teacher to see if she saw it. Medina also explained that she believed Gonzalez was either flustered or frustrated. Medina further testified, “I just think that she didn’t realize maybe the force that she used.” She also testified that the student did not fall and was not injured. She further clarified that once the crying student was in the room, Gonzalez kept going to grab another student. Medina repeated at hearing, “I don’t think she realized it.” Respondent has not been the subject of any prior disciplinary action during her employment by the School Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is Recommended that Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order issuing a reprimand to Respondent and awarding Respondent back pay for five workdays. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: S JUNE C. MCKINNEY Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of February, 2021. Michele Lara Jones, Esquire School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761-1526 Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, respondent, Marion C. Strange, held Florida teacher's certificate No. 296394, covering the areas of Elementary Education, Mental Retardation, and Specific Learning Disabilities. Since at least 1979, she has been employed by the citrus County School Board as a teacher of exceptional students at Crystal River High School. Her teaching duties included keeping complete, current and accurate records on her exceptional students. These record keeping duties are required of the Citrus County School System by federal and state authorities and are necessary for the school system to remain eligible for federal and state funds, which pay the costs of educating exceptional students. Exceptional students are defined by Section 228.041(18), Florida Statutes, as students who have been classified under regulations of the state board of education as unsuited for enrollment in regular classes in public schools or who are unable to be adequately educated in the public schools without the provision of special classes, instruction, facilities or related services. The education of exceptional students is strictly regulated by federal, state and local school board laws and regulations. Exceptional students are taught differently than students in regular public school classes. A basic element in the education of exceptional students is the preparation and maintenance of an Individual Education Plan (IEP) for each exceptional student. IEP's are reviewed on an annual basis and are considered the backbone of the special education process. Respondent, as an exceptional education teacher, was responsible for maintaining an IEP for each of her students. An IEP is necessary to evaluate the students' educational level, to establish short and long-term educational objectives for the student, to develop alternative ways to accomplish the objectives, to provide a systematic method for implementing the objectives, to record the progress of the plan and to establish a means for the school administration to review and control the education of the student. The proper preparation and maintenance of IEP's is a basic responsibility of the special education teacher. Critical to the preparation and maintenance of IEP's is the annual IEP review conference. Under Citrus County School Board regulations and policy, the annual review conference takes place at a meeting where school professionals, with varied areas of expertise, confer, evaluate the student's progress, make recommendations, and decide on the appropriate instructional program for the student. It is a multi-disciplinary "team" approach to managing the student's education program. The annual IEP review conference is mandatory. Failure to hold the conference is a violation of federal, state, and School Board rules and policies; deprives the child of the educational assistance to which he or she is entitled under law; and jeopardizes continued federal and state funding of the School Board's exceptional education program. Respondent was repeatedly instructed, as were all other teachers of exceptional students, that every IEP must be reviewed at least once a year through an IEP review conference. The School Board's Operations Manual requires the following persons to attend and participate in the annual review conference: the exceptional education teacher, a school psychologist, and a parent. At Crystal River High School, the psychologist also acted as the LEA representative, the designated representative of the school board. The Operations Manual states that the following additional people may participate in the annual conference: a guidance counselor, the mainstream classroom teacher, the principal, the student, other individuals invited by the parent, or other supportive personnel. Although not required by the Operations Manual, at Crystal River High School the mainstream teacher and guidance counselor were expected to participate in the annual review conference. The exceptional education teacher is responsible for assuring that the annual IEP review conference is held and documented in the student's IEP records. The exceptional education teacher schedules the conference, invites the required people, and records it. As a means of documenting that the required conference took place, the School Board requires that participants in the conference sign the IEP's. The requirement that attendees sign the appropriate IEP is a requirement made explicit by the Operations Manual, copies of which are given to each teacher, and by instructions at annual training sessions. Exceptional education teachers, including respondent, are well aware of this requirement. Beginning in June, 1980, and continuing through 1983, respondent was frequently cited for record keeping violations. Her supervisor repeatedly asked her to correct numerous errors and omissions in her students' IEP's. In June, 1980, Neil S. Weiss, Coordinator of Exceptional Students Programs for the Citrus County School Board, reviewed respondent's student IEP records. He found discrepancies and sent her a memorandum, dated June 6, 1980, in which he directed her attention to the Operations Manual and correct procedures to follow. On September 23, 1981, Mr. Weiss again reviewed respondent's IEP records, examining, in depth, the records of six students. He found at least five serious problems with those records and discussed them with respondent. On March 3, 1982, Mr. Weiss again reviewed respondent's records and found incomplete IEP forms. Disturbed by her continued record keeping deficiencies, Mr. Weiss wrote a letter, dated March 5, 1982, identifying the errors, explaining the seriousness of her failure to keep adequate records, and offering assistance. He considered this to be a letter of reprimand and treated it as such; it was made a part of her personnel file. On December 10, 1982, Mr. Weiss visited respondent's classroom and, once again, reviewed her exceptional students' folders. After finding substantial problems in more than half of her files, he discussed the matter with her and wrote her a letter, dated December 22, 1982, expressing concern. In his experience, her chronic record keeping failures were unprecedented. Never before had he experienced similar problems with a special education teacher in the Citrus County school system. In his December letter to respondent, Mr. Weiss advised her that her records were deficient and violated state and county rules and procedures. He noted that many of her IEP's had expired, and offered her the in-service training assistance of Patricia Stayments, a former teaching principal who was employed by the School board as a training consultant. He concluded the letter with an explicit warning: "If deficiencies in this area are not corrected by you by April 1, 1983 I may have to recommend that your teaching contract be returned from continuing to annual status." (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 6) This was the first time he had given her a specific deadline for bringing her records into compliance. In January, 1983, at the request of Mr. Weiss, Ms. Stayments approached respondent and offered her assistance. Respondent initially declined the offer but later changed her mind and sought her assistance. Their first meeting took place on February 24, 1983. At that time Ms. Stayments reviewed 27 of respondent's files and found substantial problems in 19 of them. Ms. Stayment documented these deficiencies, in detail, by making handwritten notes. (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 16) The files of numerous special education students either lacked an IEP annual review form, or, if such a form existed, lacked the required signatures of participants. (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 16) At that meeting, and in subsequent meetings on March 1, 2, and 24, 1983, Ms. Stayments discussed these deficiencies with respondent. At their final meeting on March 24, 1983, it appeared to Ms. Stayments that, except for four student folders, respondent had brought her records into compliance. She reported the progress to Mr. Weiss. She failed, however, to detect several discrepancies. Several signatures of annual IEP conference participants, previously noted as missing, were now included on "corrected records," but were back-dated to a time prior to Ms. Stayments' initial meeting with respondent. The previously imposed deadline for bringing respondent's records into compliance was April 1, 1983. On April 11, 1983, Mr. Weiss reviewed the IEP files of Marion Strange to determine compliance. At first, the records appeared to be acceptable. He then noticed that, on one IEP, the signature of Ann Cummins, a school psychologist, was misspelled "Cummings." (Ms. Cummins, had been the LEA representative at the Crystal River High School for the past 4 years. She was the designated representative of the School Board administration at IEP annual conferences.) Mr. Weiss then found other IEP's that had Ms. Cummins' signature misspelled. He then showed the misspelled signatures to Ms. Cummins, who verified that the signatures were false. Mr. Weiss then examined more closely the other IEP's and, after investigation, found numerous instances where signatures of professional personnel were forged, giving the false impression that the records were complete, that the IEP annual conferences were held and attended as required, and that the students were being educated in accordance with local, state, and federal requirements. The forgeries are described below. Respondent's IEP records contain the false signature of Ms. Cummins, as the LEA representative on 14 IEP annual review forms. The signatures were unauthorized. In fact, on the dates when many of the IEP annual conferences supposedly took place, Ms. Cummins was not at Crystal River High School. Many of the signatures were misspelled, "Cummings." (Respondent had earlier sent a routine letter to students' parents in which she made the same mistake in spelling Ms. Cummins' name.) The false signatures were affixed during 1982 and 1983. Several of the signatures were affixed between February 24, 1983, and April 11, 1983, for the apparent purpose of satisfying Ms. Stayments' February 24, 1983, criticism of unsigned or missing IEP review forms. Respondent's IEP annual review records also contain the false and unauthorized signature of George Moonschiene, a math teacher, on the IEP records of John Dubois, one of her exceptional education students. The false signatures indicated that Mr. Moonschiene had attended an annual IEP review conference concerning this student on October 19, 1982. He had not. On February 24, 1983, Ms. Stayments had complained to respondent that this particular student's IEP form had no signatures. By April 11, 1983, the form contained the unauthorized and forged signature of Mr. Moonschiene. Respondent's IEP records also contain the false and unauthorized signature of Gerald Schuman, an English teacher, on the IEP review forms of at least four exceptional education students: James Morrow, Debra Hollis, Greg Burress, and Richard Schaefer. The false signatures indicated that Mr. Schuman, as a mainstream teacher, attended IEP review meetings on these students. In fact, these were not his students and he did not attend any IEP review meetings concerning them. On February 24, 1983, Ms. Stayments had pointed out to respondent deficiencies in the IEP records of each of these students. Respondent's IEP records also contain the false and unauthorized signature of Linda Alexander, a guidance counselor at Crystal River who was expected to participate in IEP annual reviews. Her signature was forged on the IEP review forms for at least five exceptional education students: Debra Hollis, John DuBois, David Lenhard, James Marrow and Ronald Parker. The forged signature indicated that she had attended annual IEP review meetings on these students; she had not. At the February 24, 1983, meeting with respondent, Ms. Stayments pointed out deficiencies in the IEP records of four of these five students. The deficiencies in three of the forms involved missing signatures. John Dubois' IEP review record had no signatures. At least in his case, the forged signature was added between February 24, 1983, and April 11, 1983. Respondent's IEP annual review records for Doran Mulder also contain the forged and unauthorized signature of his parent, Calvin Mulder. The forged signature falsely indicates that Mr. Mulder attended his son's IEP annual review. A handwriting analyst employed by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement compared respondent's handwriting with the forged signatures of Ann Cummins, Jerald Schumann, Linda Alexander, and George Moonschiene. His resulting report was inconclusive: There are some similarities between the known writing of Marion F. [sic] Strange (K-1 thru K-21) and portions of the questioned signatures in the names of "Ann S. Cummings" and "Linda Alexander" on the above mentioned exhibits; however, there are differences present which cannot be reconciled on the basis of the material at hand. Therefore, no definite opinion can be reached with respect to whether or not Marion F. [sic] Strange (K-1 thru K-21) executed any of the questioned signatures on Exhibits Q-1 through Q-21. (Respondent's Exhibit No. 3) The evidence forcefully, and convincingly, supports the inference, now drawn, that respondent either alone or in combination with another--forged the signatures of Ann Cummins, Jerald Schumann, Linda Alexander, George Moonschiene and Calvin Mulder on the IEP annual review forms described above. She forged these signatures to make it appear that these persons had participated in annual IEP review meetings, when they had not; and that the students involved had received IEP reviews in accordance with local, state, and federal law, which they did not. She intended to deceive her supervisors into believing that she was conducting IEP reviews and keeping IEP review forms, as required. These inferences are based on circumstantial evidence which is compelling. No other theory or hypothesis has been posited which is plausible, or even rational. The falsified forms were in respondent's control and it was her duty to see that they were complete and accurate. It was also her duty to arrange for and convene the annual IEP review meetings for her exceptional education students. Her tenure and, conceivable, even her job were in jeopardy because of her seemingly chronic inability to comply with IEP annual review requirements, including record keeping and documentation. She had been formally reprimanded, and placed on a deadline for bringing her records into compliance. As of February 24, 1983, her records were replete with error and omissions; the deadline for compliance was fast approaching, little more than a month away. Under the pressure of these events, she had not only the opportunity but a clear motive to "correct" her records by forging, either alone or in concert with another, the required signatures. Many of the forged signatures were added to the documents between February 24, 1983, and April 11, 1983, when they were discovered by Mr. Weiss. There is no evidence that anyone, other than respondent, had anything to gain from falsifying the records in question. By forging signatures and falsifying important student records, respondent breached the trust which her employer, her students and their parents place din her as a school teacher. She misled her supervisors and deprived some exceptional students of the annual IEP review to which they were lawfully entitled. To this extent, her students were adversely affected by her actions. Her integrity and honesty are now in doubt; her supervisor has lost confidence in her. Her effectiveness as an employee of the School Board has been seriously reduced. She is no longer able to serve effectively as an employee of the Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's continuing contract with the School Board of Citrus County be terminated by the School Board; and That her Florida teacher's certificate No. 296394, be permanently revoked by the Education Practices Commission. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of July, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of July, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Wilson Jerry Foster, Esq. Suite 616 Lewis State Bank Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard S. Fitzpatrick, Esq. 213 N. Apopka Avenue Inverness, Florida 32650 Philip J. Padovano, Esq. Post Office Box 873 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Ralph D. Turlington, Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Donald Griesheimer, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Roger Weaver, Superintendent School Board of Citrus County 1507 W. Main Street Inverness, Florida 32650 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= RALPH D. TURLINGTON, as Commissioner of Education Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 83-2889 MARION C. STRANGE, Respondent. /
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offense(s) charged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and, if so, whether the two-day unpaid suspension imposed by Petitioner should be upheld.
Findings Of Fact The undersigned makes the following findings of relevant and material facts: Petitioner is the duly-constituted school board of Broward County, Florida. It is charged with the duty to provide a public education to the students of Broward County and to establish policies and programs consistent with state law and rules, necessary for the efficient operation and general improvement of the Broward County district school system. Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a physical education teacher at West Broward High School during the 2014- 2015 school year. March 19, 2015, Incident On March 19, 2015, Respondent was teaching a ninth-grade health and physical fitness class known as HOPE, during the seventh period of the school day. March 19, 2015, was the day before the students were going to be released for Spring Break. As was the common practice, many of the students in his class opted to attend a "pep rally" being conducted on campus, which began shortly after his HOPE class started. After the students departed for the "pep rally," approximately 12 students remained in the class under Respondent's supervision. The class remained in session, and Respondent showed the remaining class students an educational video. As the video played, the lights were dimmed. Respondent was at the front of the class sitting behind his desk in a chair that reclined. During the video, one of the students, J.R., observed Respondent leaning back, reclined in his chair with his eyes fully closed. Respondent's chair was turned partially away from the class. J.R.'s desk was approximately 15 to 20 feet from Respondent's desk. J.R. observed Respondent in this posture for close to ten minutes. At some point, J.R. got up from his desk and approached Respondent to hand in some paperwork. While standing directly in front of Respondent's desk, he took a photograph of Respondent in this posture. See Pet. Ex. 5. When J.R. approached Respondent's desk and stood in front of it, Respondent did not wake up, stir, or acknowledge J.R.'s presence or take the papers from him. Notably, J.R. heard Respondent lightly snoring during the time he was asleep.1/ J.R. shared this photograph with several friends on a social media site. One of his friends, J.L., who was also attending the same class, saved the photograph by taking a screen shot of it.2/ While all of this occurred, J.L. was sitting in close proximity to J.R. J.L. also noticed that Respondent was sleeping and reclined in his chair with his eyes closed. During the period of time that Respondent was in this posture and slumber, he was not properly attending to his duties as a teacher and was not properly supervising the students in his class. While it is not necessary to recount in detail, the record reflects that Respondent had been counseled, written up, or warned about not properly supervising or monitoring students in other classes during the years preceding this incident. These various memos and written or verbal warnings constituted sufficient directives or orders by supervisors, the violation(s) of which constituted insubordination. See generally Pet. Ex. 18, composed of multiple subparts and pages. Based on the persuasive and credible evidence, it should have been obvious to Respondent on March 19, 2015, that this type of conduct was strictly prohibited, in violation of School Board rules and regulations, and exposed him to progressively stricter discipline. Sometime later, J.L. met with the assistant principal, Richard Gonzalez, to complain about his grades in Respondent's class. It was during this meeting that Gonzalez was shown the picture that J.R. had taken on March 19, 2015. After conducting an investigation, Gonzalez and the principal, Teresa Hall, met with Respondent and his union representative during a pre-determination meeting to discuss the incident and provide Respondent with an opportunity to respond. Initially, and before being shown the picture, Respondent denied that he had been sleeping in the HOPE class. However, after being shown the picture, Petitioner's Exhibit 5, he asserted that the picture was not in a classroom. He went on to add that it "would not be like me to do that." He lamented that he was going through marital problems and was on medication. He told Hall and Gonzalez that he was embarrassed. Respondent cried during the meeting. He also told Hall and Gonzalez that he had never done this before and could not believe that it happened. He appeared very embarrassed. He told both of them, as he handed back the photograph, "I can't believe this happened." The undersigned concludes that despite the lack of a direct or forthright admission that he had been caught sleeping, Respondent acknowledged through his verbal and physical responses, demeanor, and body language that he had been inattentive, sleeping, and caught in this posture in violation of School Board rules and policies. Further, it is clear that Petitioner's Exhibits 5 and 6 alone show Respondent fully asleep and/or in a very deep state of slumber and clearly inattentive to his duties as a supervising teacher for the HOPE class on March 19, 2015. During the hearing, Respondent was questioned by his attorney about the picture that appeared to show that he was sleeping. He denied closing his eyes. He acknowledged that the picture was of him, but asserted, "I'm not sleeping." Rather, he deflected the point of the inquiry and stated "I've never slept, especially with students in class." Inexplicably, he left it at that and offered no credible explanation concerning what the picture showed or depicted. At some point after this incident, Respondent approached the school resource officer, John Sammarco. They discussed the photo of Respondent taken by J.R. which purportedly showed him sleeping. He asked the officer to talk to the student and have J.R. retract the photograph from the internet and write a statement saying that Respondent was not sleeping. Needless to say, Sammarco refused to assist Respondent in this manner and, instead, immediately reported this meeting to Hall and Gonzalez. Shortly thereafter, Respondent came back to the officer and apologized to him for "putting him [sic] in that position." March 30, 2015, Incident The school principal, Hall, was conducting a routine walk-through of the West Broward High School campus with her assistant principal, Gonzalez. As they passed Respondent's classroom, they noticed that the lights were dimmed. Interested to know what was happening, they entered the class room by using the back door. The classroom was dimly lit and full of students. They walked up the right side of the classroom along the wall from the rear of the classroom. Respondent was seated at his desk, turned away from the class, and facing more in the direction of the video screen that was located at the front of the class. Respondent was leaning back in a relaxed posture and had his cell phone in his hand. He was not facing the class or watching the students. From her vantage point, several feet behind and to the right of Respondent, Hall could see that Respondent was looking at pictures of females on his cell phone and scrolling through them with his finger. He would occasionally glance up at the video being shown on the screen and then glance back down at his cell phone. Hall stood quietly behind Respondent observing this activity for approximately one to two minutes. Respondent never acknowledged her presence, nor did he turn and notice that the school principal was in the room with Gonzalez. Gonzalez was slightly behind Hall. He could also tell that Respondent had his cell phone in his hand, but was not able to see what he was looking at. Nonetheless, Gonzalez confirmed that Respondent did not acknowledge their presence or even appear to know that they were in the classroom.3/ When asked during the administrative hearing about this particular incident, Respondent testified that he knew they were there but that he was not required to acknowledge their presence. He said he did look at his cell phone but does not recall what pictures he was looking at. The pictures may have been from Facebook or some other social media. When asked if it is appropriate to look at social media in a classroom of students, with the school's principal present, he stated that "I did it, but I didn't think nothing of it." Based on the more credible and persuasive evidence, the undersigned finds that Respondent was not aware that Hall and Gonzalez were in the room observing his actions, nor was he properly supervising his students during Hall's visit. Further, these separate incidents on March 19 and 30, 2015, constituted: (1) a lack of proper supervision of his classes; (2) willful neglect of his duties as a teacher; and (3) insubordination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board enter a final order imposing its intended penalty of a two-day, unpaid suspension. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE 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 6th day of December, 2016.
The Issue As to Case 12-2570TTS, whether the Broward County School Board (School Board) has good cause to suspend the employment of Sarena Stewart (Respondent), a classroom teacher, for three days as alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed by the School Board on July 30, 2012. As to Case 12-4137TTS, whether the School Board has good cause to terminate Respondent's employment, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed by the School Board on December 21, 2012.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the School Board has been the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Broward County, Florida. New River is a public school in Broward County, Florida. During the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent was employed as a math teacher at New River pursuant to a professional service contract. Prior to the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent was assigned to teach math at McArthur High School (McArthur). Respondent has been employed by the School Board since 2006. Respondent received satisfactory performance evaluations for each school year of her employment prior to the 2011-2012 school year. During the 2011-2012 school year, Melinda Wessinger was the principal of New River, and Taina Sierra was an assistant principal. Ms. Sierra's administrative responsibilities included oversight of the math department. The 2011-2012 school year was Ms. Wessinger's first year at New River. Ms. Sierra has been at New River for six school years. CASE 12-2570TTS For the 2011-2012 school year, August 22, 2011, was the first day of school for students. Teachers were required to report to work on August 15, 2011, for a week of preplanning. During the preplanning week, teachers attended faculty meetings and readied their classrooms for the coming school year. On August 15, 2011, the work hours for the preplanning week and for the upcoming school year were discussed at a faculty meeting. Also discussed was the sign-in and sign-out requirements for the preplanning week. Teachers were required to sign-in when they arrived at school and sign-out when they left the facility for any reason. On August 16, 2011, Respondent asked for and received permission from Ms. Sierra to leave New River so she could go to McArthur to retrieve certain materials she had left at her former school. Respondent did not follow the sign-out procedure when she left New River. On either August 16 or 17, 2011, Respondent again asked for, and received, permission from Ms. Sierra to leave New River so she could go to McArthur to retrieve other materials. Respondent did not follow the sign-out procedure when she left New River. One day during the preplanning week, Respondent was tardy arriving to school. On August 19, 2011, the last day of preplanning, Ms. Sierra had a conference with Respondent during which Ms. Sierra told Respondent to adhere to the sign-in and sign-out procedures and to arrive at work on time. Ms. Sierra did not consider that conference to be disciplinary. After this conference, Respondent knew, or should have known, New River's leave policies and its sign-out policy. Respondent had ready access to the faculty handbook through a link on the CAB (Communication Across Broward) system. When school started on August 22, 2011, teachers did not have to sign-in when they arrived at school. However, they were required to sign-out if they left school early. The New River faculty handbook contained the following as to signing out before the end of the school day: All personnel must get permission from the grade level assistant principal before leaving campus for any reason. This includes school related in-service, county meetings, school visits, etc. To leave campus for any personal reason, permission must be obtained from an assistant principal in advance. An emergency sign in/out sheet will be available at Office Manager's desk. If you are leaving during the day for personal reasons/doctor's appointments, it is your responsibility to obtain coverage for your classes. Please notify your administrator in the front office, via CBA, the teacher(s) who will cover your classes. The time you take off will be deducted from your accumulated personal sick or personal leave time. On September 16, 2011, Ms. Sierra met with Respondent to discuss complaints from parents and students. Ms. Sierra directed Respondent to cease and desist any inappropriate behavior toward students as a violation of the code of ethics and that she was to treat students with respect at all times. On October 28, 2011, Ms. Sierra had a pre-disciplinary conference with Respondent based on Respondent's continued failure to follow directives, including directives to comply with all processes and procedures regarding class coverage, absences, and embarrassing and/or disparaging students. As a result of that meeting, Ms. Sierra recommended that Respondent be suspended for one day without pay. That recommendation was approved by the School Board on December 6, 2011. Respondent served that one-day suspension without requesting a formal administrative hearing to challenge that action. Article 23 of the CBA pertains to “Leaves,” including sick leave and personal leave. Section A.2 of Article 23 provides that employees shall be granted up to six days each school year for personal reasons. That provision also provides that personal reasons leave shall not be granted on the day preceding or following a holiday. On November 30, 2011, Respondent put in for personal leave beginning on December 14 through 16, 2011. These dates immediately preceded a school holiday (school winter break was December 19 through 30). Ms. Sierra and Ms. Wessinger explained the CBA provision to Respondent and told her that she could not have personal leave. Respondent then explained that she was having a medical procedure performed.1/ They told her to change her leave from personal leave to medical leave. Ms. Sierra and Ms. Wessinger also told her that they needed a doctor's note excusing the absence. There was no particular form required for the doctor's note. On January 3, 2012, Ms. Sierra sent a follow-up email to Respondent informing her that she had not changed the leave request from personal leave to sick leave as she had been directed. Respondent responded that she had changed the leave request and stated that the change could be verified through the School Board's “smartfind” computer program. Respondent's representation to Ms. Sierra was false. Respondent had not changed her leave request.2/ In addition to her planned absences from December 14 through 16, 2011, Respondent called in sick on December 12 and 13, 2011.3/ On these two days, Respondent called into the smartfind system at 8:00 a.m. and 8:21 a.m., respectively. Despite having been repeatedly told to comply with policies and procedures relating to absences, these calls were not in compliance with New River's faculty handbook. A teacher who called in sick after 6:00 a.m. was required to call the substitute coordinator's (Nicole Armstrong) direct line, which gives a caller her voicemail should the coordinator not be at the school or at her desk. Respondent's failure to comply with the call-in procedure resulted in Ms. Armstrong’s having to scramble with very little time to find coverage for Respondent's classes on December 12 and 13, 2011. Teachers at New River are required to leave emergency lesson plans with Ms. Armstrong in case of unplanned absences. Respondent had provided emergency plans earlier in the year, but as of December 12 and 13, 2011, those emergency plans had been used and not replaced. Consequently, there were no emergency plans for December 12 and 13. Moreover, Respondent did not comply with the procedures for leaving lesson plans for planned absences for her absences on December 14 through 16. Prior to January 5, 2012, Respondent had brought in two notes addressing her need to be absent December 12-16, 2011, for medical reasons. Both notes were vague. On January 5, Ms. Wessinger and Ms. Sierrra met with Respondent to discuss with her the need for a clear doctor's note. During this meeting, they repeated that Respondent was to follow all policies, procedures, and directives given by the New River administration. Later that day, Respondent left New River before the end of the school day without following the sign-out policy. Respondent left early to get an acceptable note from her doctor, which she brought in the next day. Notwithstanding her need to obtain a doctor's note, Respondent failed to comply with the directives given her by Ms. Wessinger and Ms. Sierra earlier that day. Thereafter, Ms. Sierra recommended that Respondent be suspended without pay for three days for gross insubordination. That recommendation underpins Case No. 12-2570TTS. CASE 12-4137TTS On January 23, 2012, Respondent confiscated a cell phone from N.D., a male student, during her fifth-period class. Respondent placed the cell phone in her desk drawer with the intention of turning the cell phone in to the office after class. At the end of that class, N.D. removed the cell phone from Respondent’s desk without permission and reported to his sixth-period language arts class taught by Tommy Moore. After the start of sixth period, Respondent realized that the cell phone had been removed from her desk drawer. Respondent went to Mr. Moore’s class. There is a conflict in the evidence as to what occurred next. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that Respondent knocked on the door to Mr. Moore’s classroom. Mr. Moore opened the door for Respondent. Respondent entered the classroom where she remained by the doorway. Respondent tried to get N.D. to come to her, but he refused to do so. Respondent asked N.D. in a loud voice to give her the cell phone. A loud argument broke out between Respondent and N.D. Another male student joined in the argument. Respondent and the students engaged in name calling with the terms “bitch” and “bum” being used. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent used either term. Respondent retrieved the cell phone and left Mr. Moore’s classroom. The argument lasted at least ten minutes and completely disrupted Mr. Moore’s class. Mr. Moore was unable to regain control of his class and was unable to complete the lesson he had started before Respondent came to his classroom. Mr. Moore did not try to stop the argument between Respondent and the two students. N.D. did not appear to be embarrassed or upset because of the argument he had with Respondent. None of the students appeared to be frightened or upset during the argument. After leaving Mr. Moore’s class, Respondent went to a math department meeting chaired by Ms. Stephanie Tegreeny. Ms. Tegreeny had completed her presentation to the other math teachers by the time Respondent arrived. Ms. Tegreeny repeated her presentation for Respondent. After that meeting, Respondent took N.D.’s cell phone to the office. Prior to the start of school on the morning of January 24, 2012, Robin Terrill, a school volunteer, and Mr. Moore were in the media center making copies. Respondent came into the media center and in a loud, rude, and vulgar fashion criticized the school administration. Respondent described the school administration in profane terms, including the “f” word. There was a conflict in the evidence as to whether students overheard Respondent’s rant. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that students were present in an area that they could have overheard Respondent. Later in the morning of January 24, 2012, Mr. Moore contacted Ms. Sierra to inform her of Respondent’s conduct in his classroom the day before. Later that day Ms. Sierra asked Respondent about her conduct in Mr. Moore’s classroom, and she discussed with Respondent what had been reported to her. Prior to the start of school on January 25, 2012, Mr. Moore was walking down the stairs from his classroom to the main level with a student he had been tutoring. Respondent confronted Mr. Moore about his report to the administration of the incident in his classroom on January 23. This confrontation was clearly unwelcomed by Mr. Moore, who testified that he felt “agitated,” “stressed,” and “uncomfortable.” After that meeting on the stairs, Respondent stopped Mr. Moore again to ask what he knew about the administration’s investigation into the incident in his classroom. Mr. Moore thereafter altered his schedule to avoid Respondent. The School Board and the teacher’s union have entered into a CBA applicable to this proceeding. Sections A.1.a. and of Article 18 of the CBA provides for progressive discipline, in part, as follows: Progressive Discipline: Any discipline of an employee shall be for just cause. The parties agree that the concept of just cause embodies the principles of progressive discipline under the circumstances. Disciplinary procedures may include but are not limited to: verbal/written reprimand, suspension, demotion and termination. . . . The School Board’s Policy 4.9 provides certain “Disciplinary Guidelines” and is part of the record of this proceeding as Respondent’s Exhibit 2. Those guidelines are hereby incorporated in this Recommended Order by reference. The School Board’s Policy 5.9 prohibits bullying, which is defined by the policy as follows: “Bullying” means systematically and chronically inflicting physical hurt or psychological distress on one or more students or employees. It is further defined as: unwanted purposeful written, verbal, nonverbal, or physical behavior, including but not limited to any threatening, insulting, or dehumanizing gesture, by an adult or student, that has the potential to create an intimidating, hostile, or offensive educational environment or cause long term damage; cause discomfort or humiliation; or unreasonably interfere with the individual’s school performance or participation, is carried out repeatedly and is often characterized by an imbalance of power. Bullying may involve, but is not limited to: unwanted teasing threatening intimidating stalking cyberstalking cyberbullying physical violence theft sexual, religious, or racial harassment public humiliation destruction of school or personal property social exclusion, including incitement and/or coercion rumor or spreading of falsehoods
Recommendation The following recommendations are based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: As to Case 12-2570TTS, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Broward County, Florida, enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order uphold the suspension without pay of employment of Sarena Stewart for a period of three school days. As to Case 12-4137TTS, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Broward County, Florida, enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order uphold the suspension without pay of employment of Sarena Stewart for a period of 30 school days. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of August, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of August, 2013.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Respondent should be dismissed from employment as a non-instructional employee by the School Board of Lake County based on his arrest on February 26, 1989 for sexual battery on a child 12 years old.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent, Anthony Louis Young, was employed by the Lake County School District as a custodian at Rimes Elementary School. The School Board of Lake County is the agency responsible for the administration of public primary and secondary education in Lake County. Respondent had been employed as custodian at Rimes since 1983. This was a non-instructional position. In addition to his duties as custodian, he also had signed a vandal trailer contract under which he occupied, with his family, free of charge, a house trailer located on the school campus. The trailer and all utilities except telephone were furnished without charge to the Respondent. His obligation was to provide himself with a telephone and to make visual checks of the school buildings from time to time when school was not in session. Mr. Young did not receive any salary under the terms of the trailer contract. On February 13, 1989, Julia Young, Respondent's wife and mother by a different father of Nina Walker, age 12, discovered a pair of bloody underpants belonging to her daughter and became suspicious of the cause. She made an appointment with a doctor at the Public Health Service to have her daughter examined but did not keep it, nor did she provide any urine specimens from her daughter for testing. Finally, on or about February 26, 1989, she asked her daughter about the pants and in response was told, by Nina, that her stepfather, Respondent, had come into her room while Ms. Young was gone and had "messed" with her. Nina did not go into detail at this time, but as a result, that same day Ms. Young called the Sheriff's Office to report Respondent for alleged sexual battery on Nina. She had not discussed the matter with Respondent before making the call. When the Sheriff's Deputies came to her home, she told them the story that Nina had told her about the abuse which had allegedly taken place on a previous date. Ms. Young's report was made to Deputy Pallitto who, upon hearing the story, notified the representative from DHRS and then interviewed Nina. In her statement made to Pallitto, Nina told the following story: Respondent had picked her up at her grandmother's house on February 13, 1989 and taken her home. Instead of dropping her off as he usually did, he came inside, followed her into her room, and began touching her on her breasts and vagina. When Nina stated she would tell her mother, Respondent allegedly said he would tell her that Nina had used profanity. He then reportedly forced her onto the bed and told her to take off her clothes. He went into the living room and put some music on to play and then returned and undressed himself. He put what apparently was a condom on and told Nina to open her legs. He then attempted to insert his penis into her vagina and it hurt. As he was trying to do this, Nina's brother came in the back door and this caused Respondent to get off her and leave the room. Deputy Pallitto asked Nina to write out her statement, which she did. After completing her affidavit, she was taken to a doctor for a physical examination. Based on her oral statement, her affidavit which was consistent therewith, and the conclusion of the doctor that her physical condition was consistent with a penetration of her vagina by something, Respondent was arrested. During the period that Nina was waiting to see the doctor, she was again asked to tell her story and at this point, told much the same story as she had previously told, both orally and in writing. Several days later, on February 28, 1989, Deputy Pallitto was contacted by the Assistant State's Attorney who advised him that earlier that day Nina, along with her mother and grandmother, had come to his office and recanted her previous story. At Pallitto's request, she wrote out another affidavit which, in his opinion, was much more difficult for her to do than had been the original. In her second affidavit, Nina indicated she recanted because Respondent was not guilty of what she had alleged and she did not want to see an innocent man go to prison. In the second affidavit, Nina indicated her first story was a lie and claimed that when she attempted to tell the truth at first, she was pressured to make a statement implicating the Respondent. It was not indicated who "pressured" her. Ms. Williams arrived at Respondent's house trailer while Nina was writing out her original affidavit, and when she read it, found it to be consistent with what she had heard directly from Nina and from her mother. Ms. Williams took Nina to the doctor because she wanted Nina to have a vaginal exam as soon as possible to see if penetration could be determined. After the doctor indicated that Nina's condition was consistent with penetration by something, she took both Nina and Nina's brother and sheltered them for a month. At the end of that period, the boy was returned home, but Nina was sent to stay with an aunt in Ft. Lauderdale at the request of Ms. Young. This was done after Nina had recanted her original accusation, but according to Ms. Williams, this is not at all unusual. Ms. Williams also indicated that Ms. Young had seen love letter type notes written to Respondent by children from the school. These were not presented because, Ms. Young indicates, she tore them up and threw them away. Ms. Williams alleges that Ms. Young indicated in her initial interview that Nina was not the sort of child who would make up stories. In fact, Ms. Williams' investigation, and the testimony of Ms. Witter, one of Nina's teachers who is familiar with Nina's reputation at school, confirms this. At the hearing, however, both Ms. Young and Ms. Walker, the grandmother, indicated Nina is as likely to tell a lie as she is to tell the truth, and though she had not been in disciplinary difficulties at school before, she has been somewhat promiscuous on at least one occasion with a male cousin. The investigator from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services who, investigated this matter filed her report indicating the situation as a "confirmed" case of child abuse. Mr. Young was thereafter notified of this classification by letter and did not take any action to contest it. It is the policy of the School Board not to hire individuals who are charged with child abuse and placed in the abuse registry. Even if found innocent of sexual abuse on a minor, an individual would not be hired for a custodial position. Two weeks after Respondent was arrested, the State's Attorney decided not to prosecute and Respondent was released from jail. On the day of his release, a letter advising him that he had been suspended with pay pending a recommendation for disciplinary dismissal by the Board was delivered to him by Mr. Galbraith, the then Assistant Superintendent. This letter advised Respondent he was entitled to an informal conference after the Superintendent had conducted an investigation into the allegations. The investigation was conducted and Respondent requested an informal conference which was scheduled for March 23, 1989. However, before that conference could take place, the Board was advised of a decision of the 5th District Court Of Appeals which afforded Respondent a due process hearing under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Respondent was so advised and requested the formal hearing, and as a result, the dismissal action was held in abeyance pending the formal hearing. Before the formal hearing could be held, however, Respondent's one year contract with the Board expired and, though he had been rehired almost automatically every year since he started with the Board in 1983, on this occasion, because of the allegations against him, Mr. Wolf, the Principal at Rimes, declined to offer him a contract for the following year. At about the same time, the Board advised him to vacate the trailer he occupied on campus. Consequently, no disciplinary dismissal has ever been executed. Shortly after his release from jail in March, 1989, Mr. Young left the area and secured alternative employment in Orlando. He has never requested that he be reinstated after the charges against him were dropped. His sole contest of the Board's action is the request for hearing on the dismissal action. While working with the Board, Respondent was paid approximately $520.00 every two weeks. On or about April 1, 1989, he secured work with a firm in Orlando and has been making $6.25 an hour working 50 hours per week, with overtime for all hours over 40. Though Respondent previously claimed he did not want his job back, he now claims he does, but in light of his current income and the fact that he is currently working in an area away from the locus of the incident, it is found that his stated desire for reinstatement is not sincere. Once Respondent was arrested his principal, Mr. Wolf, recommended to the Board that he be dismissed. School Board Policy 4.06(1), dealing with non- instructional personnel, provides that a staff member may be discharged during his term of office for "good and sufficient reasons". Both Mr. Wolf and Mr. Galbraith advised Dr. Sanders that under the circumstances of this case, wherein an employee who deals on a regular basis with young children is arrested for an offense which, as here, involves allegations of sexual misconduct with a child, the interests of the children and the school system would be best served by his dismissal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Anthony Louis Young, be awarded back pay for the period from the date the charges against him were dismissed to the end of the 1988 - 1989 school year. RECOMMENDED this 4th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-2620 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to S. 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted in this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: None submitted FOR THE RESPONDENT: Accepted and incorporated herein. & 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 4. & 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6. - 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. 13. & 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15. - 17. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. - 23. Accepted and incorporated herein. 24. & 25. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen W. Johnson, Esquire 100 West Main Street Leesburg, Florida Dr. Thomas E. Sanders, Superintendent The School Board of Lake County, Florida 34749 201 W. Burleigh Blvd. Tavares, Florida 32778 Harry L. Lamb, Jr., Esquire 312 West 1st Street, Suite 605 Sanford Florida 32771 Hon. Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 =================================================================
