The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Eric Delucia (Respondent or Mr. Delucia) violated sections 1012.795(1)(c), (g), or (j), Florida Statutes, and implementing administrative rules, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The Commissioner is the state agent responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding educator certificates. At all times relevant to the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint, Mr. Delucia held Florida Educator's Certificate 915677, covering the areas of English, English for Speakers of Other Languages, Business Education, and Marketing, which is valid through June 30, 2019. At all times relevant to the Amended Administrative Complaint, Mr. Delucia was employed as a language arts teacher in the Broward County School District. Mr. Delucia stored the documents listed in Petitioner's Exhibit P-2 on his computer, as stipulated by the parties. Mr. Delucia was employed at Cooper City High School during the 2011/2012 school year. Ms. Doll was the principal. Principal Doll testified that Mr. Delucia was in the initial stages of a cycle of assistance during that year. He received a memo outlining expectations and concerns, and was observed by several people. Principal Doll indicated she believed that he had deficiencies in instructional planning, classroom management, lesson plan presentation, and lesson plan delivery. However, Principal Doll confirmed that Mr. Delucia's Instructional Practice Score was a 2.954 for the period January 2012 through May 2012 at Cooper City High School, which was within the "effective" range. Principal Doll stated that there were concerns about his performance based on observations that were done earlier that warranted an outside observer, but those observations were not used for the evaluation. He was never placed on a Professional Development Plan while at Cooper City High School. Respondent requested a hardship transfer and was moved to Ramblewood for the following school year. On January 1, 2013, Mr. Delucia was admitted to the hospital following a series of strokes. Respondent received "effective" scores in both the Student Growth and Instructional Practice components, as well as his overall Final Evaluation for the 2012/2013 school year at Ramblewood. Respondent was subsequently on medical leave of absence during the 2013/2014 school year. On July 1, 2014, Ms. Smith became the principal at Ramblewood. On August 11, 2014, Mr. Delucia returned to Ramblewood from medical leave. On August 14, 2014, Principal Smith was inspecting all of the classrooms at Ramblewood to ensure that they were prepared for the first day of school. She felt that Mr. Delucia's classroom was not ready for students, because it needed a little bit of "warmth." On August 28, 2014, Principal Smith conducted a formal evaluation in Mr. Delucia's classroom. She concluded that the lesson had no clear focus and that it was not on the appropriate grade level for the students he was teaching. In early September, there was a complaint that Mr. Delucia was putting up students' grades on a board in his room. However, Mr. Delucia testified that he posted the grades only by student number, not by name. There was no competent evidence to the contrary. On October 30, 2014, in introducing the genre of mythology to his students, Mr. Delucia made the comment that "[t]he gods viewed humans as pets or sexual toys." While not an appropriate comment for middle school students, there was no suggestion that Mr. Delucia elaborated or pursued this statement further, and this incident did not constitute ineffective teaching. There was no evidence that it caused students embarrassment or harmed students' mental health. There was testimony that on October 30, 2014, Mr. Delucia also spent class time explaining that the fact that a Star Wars' character had no father would have been taboo in 1976 and discussing that the episodes of that movie series were released out of the chronological order of the story. While the discussion may have gotten a bit off track, it was not clearly shown that discussion of fiction was unrelated to the concept of mythology, might not have enhanced students' understanding of the topic, or was ineffective teaching. While it was clearly shown that Mr. Delucia made the statement, "These kids have the memories of gnats," it was clear that this was said when no students were present and in defense of his actions in discussing fantasy and fables. On December 2, 2014, Respondent said to a student in an angry and loud voice, "Don't you even piss me off." This warning, given in response to the student's statement that the student did not understand something, was inappropriate in language and tone, harmful to learning, and harmful to the student's mental health. Mr. Delucia's statement that he was not visibly angry or speaking in a loud voice on this occasion is not credited. On December 8, 2014, Mr. Delucia met with Ms. Poindexter, his new peer reviewer. At one point in their conversation, he talked about his former principal, Ms. Doll, referring to her battle with cancer. He stated, "She will kick the bucket soon because she has cancer and no one will care when she is gone." He stated, "She's the devil." Mr. Delucia also referred to his current principal, Ms. Smith, as "the devil." He stated, "My motivation is to destroy her with everything I have" and that he "wished the ground would open up and swallow her." Mr. Delucia also referred to the administrative staff as "assholes" and used multiple profanities, stating, "They do not know who they are messing with, but they will find out soon." Student A.F. testified that he heard Mr. Delucia tell Student C.D. that he should jump off of a bridge with a bungee cord wrapped around his neck; tell Student C.D. that if he was a speed bump, he (Mr. Delucia) would run over him; and tell Student C.D. to kill himself a couple of times. However, Student A.F. provided no detail or context for these alleged statements, some of which seemed to involve an incident involving an entirely different student who he testified was not even in his class. He was not a credible witness. On January 8, 2015, Ms. Sheffield observed Mr. Delucia using a four-page packet to teach punctuation to his seventh- grade language arts class. Ms. Sheffield told Mr. Delucia that this was not really part of the seventh-grade curriculum. Mr. Delucia made a statement to the effect of "these students don't know anything, not even the basics, so we have to start somewhere." There was no allegation that this comment was made in front of the students. From the period August 21, 2014, through December 3, 2014, Mr. Delucia's Instructional Practice Score was 1.916, and he was placed on a 90-day Professional Development Plan. Numerous observations by Dr. Jones and Principal Smith followed through the remainder of the school year. Mr. Delucia's Instructional Practice Score improved slightly, but was still less than effective. On January 12, 2015, Ms. Sheffield noticed that one of the vocabulary words written on Mr. Delucia's board for his students was "retard." Ms. Sheffield said she assumed that Mr. Delucia meant the slang term sometimes used as a noun to refer to persons with mental disabilities. Such use of the term, as a shortened form of the word "retarded," would be offensive and disparaging. Ms. Sheffield said that they talked about the fact that it is not appropriate to use the word "retard" as a noun as a reference to the disabled. She testified that he did not respond. At hearing, Mr. Delucia admitted using "retard" as a vocabulary word, but testified that he included the word as a verb, meaning to slow down or delay. Ms. Sheffield testified she did not hear him speak the term, or say anything about it, and there was no other testimony regarding this event. Mr. Delucia admitted that he often said, "If your writing looks like garbage and smells like garbage, then it is garbage." Ms. Sheffield stated that she told Mr. Delucia he might try to find another way to encourage students to write neatly in their journals that was a more positive comment or allowed students to take pride in their writing. On January 26, 2015, Ms. Sheffield testified that when a student returned late from lunch, Mr. Delucia and the student began arguing. Ms. Sheffield credibly testified that Mr. Delucia screamed at the student, "This isn't going to end up good for you. Just shut up." On February 4, 2015, Student A.W. had come in late to Mr. Delucia's class and was acting out in the back of the classroom. When asked why, her response was that other people also did it. Mr. Delucia responded, "If other people jump off of a bridge, would you jump off a bridge, too?" Student A.W., after a moment of silence, retorted, "Yeah, if you give me a bungee cord." Mr. Delucia replied, "If there is a bungee cord, you should wrap it around your neck before you jump." The class started laughing. Student A.W. replied, "You just told me to kill myself, I am telling the office." Mr. Delucia then asked Student A.W. to leave the classroom. While Student A.W. had a disrespectful attitude, Respondent's caustic comments to her were intentionally made in a spirit of mocking humor to subject Student A.W. to embarrassment in front of the class. A class grade graph prepared during the third quarter of the 2014/2015 school year documented that 68 percent of his students were failing at that time. No similar graph for any other quarter of that year, or for other years, was submitted in evidence. On April 7, 2015, the students in Mr. Delucia's class were supposed to be studying Latin and Greek roots of words, but one student did not have a packet and asked Mr. Delucia for one. After Mr. Delucia handed him the packet, the student said, "There is a footprint on this." Mr. Delucia responded, "Get working on studying or else I will call your father." The student replied, "Please don't." Mr. Delucia then said, "Why, because you don't want to get a footprint on your face?" Ms. Sheffield testified that during her observations, she never saw Mr. Delucia standing up interacting with his students. She said she never saw him deliver a lesson to students. For the 2014/2015 school year, Mr. Delucia's score for the instructional practice component on his evaluation was 2.002, a "needs improvement" rating, while his score for both the deliberate practice/growth plans and student data components was recorded as exactly 3.0. The final evaluation for Mr. Delucia in 2014/2015, computed by combining these unequally weighted scores, was 2.511, an "effective" rating.1/ Mr. Delucia was transferred to Piper High School for the 2015/2016 school year. The administration there did not place Mr. Delucia on a Professional Development Plan. Mr. Delucia has not been subjected to disciplinary action during his time at Piper High School, and he has exhibited positive rapport with his students and colleagues. Mr. Delucia's weighted overall evaluation score for the 2015/2016 school year at Piper High School was 2.831, "effective." Mr. Delucia's demeanor at hearing was defiant. His testimony was sometimes evasive and defensive.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Eric Delucia in violation of section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a), (3)(e), and (5)(e); imposing a fine of $3,000.00; placing him on probation under conditions specified by the Commission for a period of two years; and imposing costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of November, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of November, 2017.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, St. Lucie County School Board (Petitioner or School Board) has just cause to discipline Wendy Portillo's employment based on the conduct alleged in the “Statement of Charges and Petition for One Year Suspension Without Pay and Return to Annual Contract” and the appropriate penalties, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in St. Lucie County, Florida. Petitioner has entered into individual contracts and collective bargaining agreements with the teachers it employs and has adopted rules and policies that control the activities of its teaching professionals. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was a teacher employed by Petitioner pursuant to a professional services contract and assigned to teach kindergarten at Morningside. On May 21, 2008, Respondent was teaching kindergarten in her classroom at Morningside. The door to Respondent’s classroom is across a hall from the door of the school office. Typically, kindergarten students are five or six years old. Student 1, a male, was one of 17 students in Respondent’s class on May 21, 2008. Student 1 was assigned to Respondent’s class in January 2008. Shortly after his placement in her class, Respondent asked Mr. Graff to help her with Student 1 because of Student 1’s behavior. Mr. Graff works in Morningside’s fourth grade alpha class. The alpha program is designed to identify and assist at-risk third grade students who are having difficulties at home or at school. Mr. Graff has the assistance of a full- time counselor and a full-time paraprofessional. Mr. Graff agreed to help with Student 1 as needed. Student 1 came to Mr. Graff’s classroom on approximately 12 occasions between January and May 21, 2008. In mid-February 2008, Respondent requested a Child Study Team for Student 1, which is the first step in determining whether a student meets the eligibility requirements for services from Petitioner’s Exceptional Student Education (ESE) program. This development is part of an on-going process.3 The Child Study Team, of which Respondent was a member, developed strategies designed to redirect Student 1’s behavior. One of the strategies was a reward system utilizing tokens. On May 21, 2008, Respondent’s kindergarten class began at 8:20 a.m. At 9:00 a.m. Respondent’s kindergarten class, including Student 1, went to a performance by the fifth grade that ended at approximately 9:45 a.m. The students returned to Respondent’s classroom at approximately 10:00 a.m. At approximately 10:30 a.m., while she was teaching her class, Respondent observed that Student 1 was off-task and was being disruptive to the other students by flipping crayons at his classmates and crawling under a table. Student 1 pushed up on the table, where other students were trying to work. Respondent attempted to redirect Student 1, but she could not do so. Respondent summoned Officer Black (the school resource officer) to come to her room. Officer Black assisted in getting Student 1 out from under a table and took him to the office. After Officer Black had escorted Student 1 to the school office, Ms. Gascoigne (the assistant principal) counseled Student 1 as to appropriate versus inappropriate behavior. Student 1 told Ms. Gascoigne that he realized what he had done was wrong and that he wanted to say to Respondent that he was sorry. After keeping Student 1 in the office for approximately 15 minutes, Ms. Gascoigne sent Student 1 back to Respondent’s classroom. There was a dispute in the record as to whether Respondent sent a written referral to the office when Officer Black escorted Student 1 to the office at approximately 10:30 a.m. The office did receive a written referral from Respondent on May 21, 2008, pertaining to Student 1’s misbehavior. The inference was that pursuant to School Board Policy 5.33, which pertains to removal of students from a classroom as opposed to a disciplinary referral of a student for misbehaving in class, the office personnel should have detained Student 1 for a longer period of time than 15 minutes if Respondent had sent a written referral with him. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that School Board Policy 5.33 is inapplicable due to Student 1’s level of disruption. Moreover, the greater weight of the evidence established that Ms. Gasciogne did not receive the written referral until the afternoon of May 21, 2008, after the occurrence of the events at issue in this proceeding. When she had Officer Black take Student 1 to the office at approximately 10:30 a.m. on May 21, 2008, Respondent did not ask Ms. Gascoigne or anyone else in the office to detain Student 1 for a particular length of time. When Student 1 returned to her classroom, Respondent was in a meeting area where the students were gathered for group instruction. Respondent asked Student 1 why he had returned to the classroom. Student 1 responded to the effect that Ms. Gascoigne had sent him back. Referring to herself and to the other students in her class, Respondent responded to the effect that, “I don’t know if we are ready to have you back at this time.” After making that statement, Respondent directed Student 1 to join her in front of his classmates. Respondent asked Student 1 why he had done the things he had done earlier that morning. Student 1 shrugged his shoulders. Respondent told Student 1 that shrugging his shoulders was not an answer and that he should use his words. Three or four students began saying things about how Student 1 had behaved. Respondent asked Student 1 to listen to his classmates and asked him how what they were saying made him feel. Referring to herself and to the other students, Respondent stated that she did not think we are ready for you to come back at this time. Respondent then announced that she was going to poll the class as to whether Student 1 could rejoin them. Respondent explained to the class that a poll was like taking a vote. Respondent asked each of Student 1’s classmates to verbally vote yes or no whether Student 1 should remain in the classroom and gave each student the opportunity to explain his or her vote. Respondent tallied the votes on the chalk board. The final vote was 14 for removing Student 1 and two for allowing him to remain.4 Respondent thereafter sent Student 1 back to the office. Respondent made the ultimate decision to exclude Student 1 from her classroom, but in making that decision she considered the votes that had been cast by Student 1’s classmates. The reward system utilizing tokens was in place for Student 1 on May 21, 2008. There was insufficient evidence to establish that Respondent utilized the reward system or any other strategy, including the use of Mr. Graff’s class, that had been developed for Student 1 before sending him to the office on the first occasion or before removing him from her class after the classmates had cast their votes and made statements about his behavior. When Student 1’s mother came to pick Student 1 up from school on the evening of May 21, 2008, she told Respondent that she had embarrassed her son and that he was disabled and autistic. Respondent apologized to Student 1’s mother. Student 1 was with his mother when she made the quoted statement to Respondent and when Respondent apologized. When asked by his mother how he felt, Student 1 said he felt sad. Except for her conduct on the May 21, 2008, incident described above, Respondent has had a positive 12-year career as a teacher at Morningside. Respondent testified that at no time did she intend to harm, embarrass, or do anything negative to the student. Respondent further testified that she did not, at the time think she was hurting anyone. She believed that she could show all of her students that there are consequences to actions and to show that actions may affect others. Respondent testified, credibly, that early childhood education is her “passion” (as she termed it at Transcript, Volume III, page 275, beginning on line 11). Petitioner’s investigative report reflects (beginning on page 13 of Petitioner’s Exhibit B) the following: There is no evidence that Ms. Portillo’s conduct was malicious or intended to cause harm or embarrassment to Student 1. However, there is a question as to whether Ms. Portillo exercised the best professional judgment during the incident under investigation. . . . Immediately following the incident of May 21, 2008, Petitioner prohibited Respondent from returning to Morningside. Petitioner assigned Respondent to the School Board office with pay while Petitioner investigated the matter. On November 14, 2008, Mr. Lannon made his recommendation to the School Board. The recommendation was that Petitioner suspend Respondent for a period of one year dating from the School Board’s final order and that her contract be changed from a Professional Services Contract to an Annual Contract. At its meeting of November 14, 2008, the School Board suspended without pay Respondent’s employment for a period of one year and voted to change her contract from a Professional Services Contract to an Annual Contract should she return to employment with the School Board.5 The greater weight of the credible evidence overwhelmingly established that Respondent’s conduct on May 21, 2008, described above is properly characterized as misconduct as that term is generally understood. As will be discussed below, Petitioner established that Respondent’s conduct on May 21, 2008, violated the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, thereby violating the provisions of subsection (xxix) of School Board Rule 6.301(3)(b), as alleged in paragraph 18 of the Petition. Petitioner established that Respondent’s misconduct on May 21, 2008, violated subsection (xxxi) of School Board Rule 6.301(3)(b) as alleged in paragraph 18 of the Petition by exposing Student 1 and the other students in her class to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. Petitioner established that Respondent utilized an inappropriate method of discipline in removing Student 1 from her class after the class vote, thereby violating subsection (xxxvii) of School Board Rule 6.301(3)(b), as alleged in paragraph 18 of the Petition. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent was abusive or discourteous in violation of subsection (ix) of School Board Rule 6.301(3)(b) as alleged in paragraph 18 of the Petition. Mr. Lannon, Ms. Ranew, Ms. Gascoigne, and Ms. Cully are experienced educators with supervisory responsibilities. Each opined that Respondent had violated the Code of Conduct for the Education Profession and explained the reasons for those opinions. Petitioner established that Respondent failed to exercise the best professional judgment on May 21, 2008, as alleged in paragraph 19a of the Petition. The alleged violation set forth in paragraph 19b will be discussed below. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent’s misconduct was unethical and, consequently, failed to establish the violation alleged in paragraph 19c of the Petition. Petitioner established that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect Student 1 from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student’s mental and/or physical health and/or safety as alleged in paragraph 19d of the Petition. Petitioner established that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect Student 1 from harassment as alleged in paragraph 19(e) of the Petition. Petitioner has charged Respondent with “misconduct in office.” There is a difference between the generally used term “misconduct” and the term “misconduct in office.” The State Board has defined the term “misconduct in office” by Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009(3), as follows: (3) Misconduct in office is defined as a violation of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession as adopted in Rule 6B- 1.001, F.A.C., and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida as adopted in Rule 6B- 1.006, F.A.C., which is so serious as to impair the individual’s effectiveness in the school system. While there can be no meaningful debate as to whether Respondent's conduct should be characterized as “misconduct,” there was a dispute as to whether Respondent’s effectiveness in the school system had been impaired, thereby establishing that Respondent was guilty of “misconduct in office” as alleged in the Petition. This incident received extensive coverage by the local, national, and international press. Locally, Petitioner received a high volume of written communications and telephone calls in response to Respondent’s conduct. Some communications supported Respondent’s conduct while others condoned Respondent’s conduct. The communications condoning Respondent’s conduct far outweighed the responses supporting her conduct.6 Petitioner received requests from parents that Respondent not be allowed to teach their students should she return to class. In addition to the negative publicity and negative communications generated by her conduct, Respondent’s principal has lost confidence in her. Ms. McCully testified as follows in response to questions from Petitioner’s counsel (Transcript, Volume III, beginning at page 371, line 17): Q. After the May 21, 2008, incident involving Ms. Portillo, would you recommend that she be hired as a teacher in your school? A. No, I would not. Q. Why is that? A. Personally, I feel that I would not have that rapport, trust, with her and be able to work with her after this. Dr. Lannon testified as follows in response to questions from Petitioner’s counsel (Transcript, Volume I, beginning at page 106, line1): Q. In your opinion, has Ms. Portillo’s actions on May 21, 2008, resulted in a loss of her effectiveness. A. I believe so. Q. How do you reconcile that with your recommendation that she can go back to work after a one-year suspension without pay? A. I came to that with great pain. I believe that the actions that Ms. Portillo undertook actually rose to the issue of termination. But also, in a sense of fairness, Ms. Portillo is a twelve-year employee who has contributed to the lives and the well-being of children in St. Lucie County. My sense on this was that while there is a price to pay – and I believe that the action of not protecting children is literally the most serious thing we can do in a negative way – that her past career would warrant a second chance, but not in the environment in which she had willfully created these series of steps leading to the involvement of a particular child in what I believe to be an embarrassing and disparaging way and the involvement of the class in a way that we may never know. Q. Did you consider terminating Ms. Portillo? A. I did. Q. And is it my understanding that you’re saying the fact that she had twelve positive years mitigated that decision. A. Yes. That’s exactly correct. Q. And that led you to the recommendation that’s at issue? A. That’s exactly right. On cross-examination, Mr. Lannon testified in response to questions by Respondent’s counsel (Transcript, Volume II, beginning on page 149, line 25): Q: And you’re of the opinion as you sit here today, Mr. Lannon, under no circumstances . . . that you would allow [Respondent] to teach elementary school children in St. Lucie County. I would not put her in pre-K through fifth grade. That’s the definition. So that would be correct. In his testimony at the formal hearing and in his letter of November 3, 2008, Mr. Lannon described the mitigating circumstances he considered in contemplating his recommendation to the School Board. The following, taken from Mr. Lannon’s letter, succinctly states those considerations: I have also considered mitigating circumstances. You have had a long (12 years) and positive career in St. Lucie County Public Schools. Your annual evaluations, conducted by five Principals over 12 years are positive. Behavior of young students, in groups such as classrooms, is often difficult and professionally demanding. The official investigation states “there is NO evidence that Ms. Portillo’s conduct was malicious or intended to cause harm or embarrassment . . . “ [Emphasis in the original.] Except for the conduct at issue in this proceeding, Respondent has been an excellent, dedicated teacher during her 12-year tenure at Morningside. She has spent a considerable amount of her personal time working on an extra-curricular activity named Odyssey of the Mind. Many of the employees at Morningside and parents of former students are supportive of Respondent. As to those employees and parents, Respondent’s reputation remains intact despite the negative publicity regarding the conduct at issue.7 The greater weight of the credible evidence clearly established that Respondent’s conduct on May 21, 2008, has impaired her effectiveness in the system. Petitioner established that Respondent’s conduct on May 21, 2008, constitutes “misconduct in office” within the meaning of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009 and, consequently, constitutes grounds for the suspension of her employment pursuant to Section 1012.33(6)(a), Florida Statutes, which provides, in relevant part, that the employment of a teacher with a professional services contract can be terminated or suspended for just cause, which is defined to include “misconduct in office” as defined by State Board rules. Section 1012.33(4)(b), Florida Statutes, provides, in relevant part, as follows: (b) Any . . . member of the instructional staff . . . may be returned to annual contract status for another 3 years in the discretion of the district school board, at the end of the school year, when a recommendation to that effect is submitted in writing to the district school board on or before April 1 of any school year, giving good and sufficient reasons therefore . . .. In explaining the rationale for his recommendations, Mr. Lannon testified as follows in response to questions from counsel for Respondent as to his recommended disposition of this matter (beginning at Transcript, Volume II, page 133, line 15): Q. What would happen in the one year that would allow her, from the year that you’re recommending that she be suspended to the year that she, if your recommendation is accepted, that she would come back to work for the School Board, what would happen in that year that would change the alleged loss of respect and confidence in her colleagues first? A. It might not. Q. Your same answer would be as it relates to students? A. Yes, sir. Q. And the parents. A. That’s correct. I have no knowledge of how they would feel. Q. So in essence, you’re allowing, you’re recommending that a person that you’re not sure would be respectful [sic] or confident [sic] by teachers, students, parents, and members of the community, you’re recommending that that person still work for the St. Lucie County School Board. A. I’m allowing that the 12 years prior to May 21, 2008, mitigated my thinking that said this person is deserving of another chance at some point in time. Q. And this chance that you’re talking about is not a chance of great risk or harm if I follow your logical conclusion; is that correct. A. If you look at it more fully, you’ll see that I would not allow her to teach at that grade level in an elementary school again. And there is a difference in the ability of students to be able to discern the words of adults as they age. And I’m going to bank on the fact that the quality that Ms. Portillo had previously shown, absent her actions on that day, which I believe to be premeditated and well thought out, even though they were quick, would not occur again. There can be little doubt that Respondent has been traumatized by the negative reactions to her misconduct.8 Respondent and her family have suffered economically as a result of her suspension. Respondent apologized to Student 1’s mother and testified that she is remorseful.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in this Recommended Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order uphold the suspension of Respondent’s employment for a period of one year from November 18, 2008, and provide for the change of her contract status from a Professional Services Contract to an Annual Contract, contingent upon the availability of a position for which Respondent is qualified and certified. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 2009.
Findings Of Fact During the 1983-84 school year, Respondent was an eighth grade student at North Miami Junior High School. Due to academic deficiencies, she would be required to repeat the eighth grade if she remains in the regular program. Petitioner related some 12 incidents of disruptive or rebellious behavior by Respondent over the past two academic years which resulted in disciplinary action. She was also disciplined on at least two occasions for repeated tardiness and unexcused absences. Petitioner has made reasonable efforts to assist Respondent in adjusting to regular junior high school. She was transferred from one class due to disagreements with her teacher and she has received counseling on at least four occasions regarding her behavior problems. Respondent's year-end grades are unsatisfactory in mathematics and language arts, which are both remedial courses. She is thus experiencing serious academic as well as behavior difficulties.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order assigning Celia Lela Benjamin to its opportunity school. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of September, 1983, at Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of September, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Valentine, Esquire 3000 Executive Plaza 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Mrs. Maebelle Bolden Abner 2396 North West 73rd Terrace Miami, Florida 33147 Daniella S. Levine, squire Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc. 149 West Plaza, Suite 210 7900 North West 27 Avenue Miami, Florida 33147 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools School Board of Dade County Lindsey Hopkins Building 1410 North East 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue As to DOAH Case No. 12-2859TTS, whether Rhea Cohen (Respondent), a classroom teacher, committed the acts alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed by Robert Runcie, as Superintendent of the Broward County Schools (Superintendent) and, if so, the discipline that should be imposed against Respondent’s employment. As to DOAH Case No. 13-0704PL, whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed by Pam Stewart, as Commissioner of Education (Commissioner) and, if so, the discipline that should be imposed against Respondent’s teacher’s certificate.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the School Board has been the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Broward County, Florida; and Robert Runcie was Superintendent of Schools. At all times material hereto, the Commissioner has been the head of the state agency responsible for certifying and regulating public school teachers in the State of Florida; and Pam Stewart was the Commissioner. Respondent has been employed by the School Board since 2002 and holds a Professional Services Contract, issued in accordance with section 1012.33(3)(a). During the time relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was an ESE classroom teacher at Crystal Lake. During the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent was employed as an ESE classroom teacher at Atlantic West Elementary School teaching students on the autism spectrum. During that school year, the Education Practices Commission (EPC) reprimanded Respondent for sleeping in class while students were present and for using restraints inappropriately to control or manage autistic and exceptional student education students. The EPC imposed an administrative fine against her in the amount of $500.00. Thereafter, Respondent transferred to Crystal Lake. Respondent taught ESE students at Crystal Lake for the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years. The events at issue in this proceeding occurred during either the 2010-2011 school year or the 2011-2012 school year. Exact dates were available for some of the events, but unavailable for other events. Respondent’s classroom at Crystal Lake for those two school years was divided into two halves, separated by tables and rolling chalkboards that did not form a solid wall. For the 2010-2011 school year, Respondent taught her class of ESE students on one side of the divided classroom and a Ms. Knighton taught on the other side. For the 2011-2012 school year Respondent shared the classroom with Mr. Montalbano. On one side of the classroom was Respondent’s class, consisting of 11 ESE students. On the other side of the room was Mr. Montalbano’s class, consisting of seven ESE students. Mr. Montalbano’s class was smaller because his class functioned at a lower level than Respondent’s class. On October 4, 2011, student J., a non-verbal, wheel chair-bound boy, and student D., a boy with Down’s syndrome, were sitting next to each other in Respondent’s classroom. Student D. did something to irritate student J. Student J. balled up his fist as if to strike student D. Respondent, in front of the entire class, Lisa Phillips (an ESE paraprofessional), and Ms. Sorren, made the following statement: “So is the cripple [student J.] going to beat up the retard [student D.]”./4 Other students in the classroom laughed at student J. and student D. Student J.’s wheelchair is motorized. After making the statement quoted above, Respondent attempted to move student J. into a corner. When student J. moved the wheelchair away from the corner, Respondent unplugged the wheelchair’s battery and made the statement: “Now who has the power. I am in control, not you.” The other students laughed at student J. Respondent then moved student J. to the corner./5 On October 11, 2011, Respondent sent student J. to Mr. Montalbano’s classroom and commented that “he’s too much of a bother.” One day at dismissal, student J. asked Respondent three or four times to be taken to the bathroom. Respondent did not respond to student J. The bus arrived, but the driver refused to accept student J. because of his request to go to the toilet. Mr. Montalbano, who overheard student J.’s requests to Respondent, took over the responsibility for student J. Respondent became frustrated while helping student J. with the computer after student J. got the wires to the headphones tangled. Respondent ripped the headphones out of the back of the computer leaving the male connection in the female end of the computer. In a private discussion with Mr. Montalbano, Respondent referred to student D. as being a “moron.” Respondent sent her 11 students to Mr. Montalbano’s side of the classroom, which housed ten computers. There was a disturbance because one student did not have a computer. Respondent came to Mr. Montalbano’s side of the classroom and told student D. to give up his computer. Student D.’s first language is Bulgarian. When student D. muttered in protest, Respondent yelled at him to express himself in English. When student D. left the computer, his place was quickly taken by another student. Student D. began to cry. Respondent walked back to her side of the classroom, leaving student D. crying in Mr. Montalbano’s side of the classroom. On October 11, 2011, student Mi., an 11 year-old female on the autism spectrum, was playing with a puzzle during free time when she spotted an open computer. Student Mi. left the puzzle pieces out to go to the computer. Respondent noted the puzzle on the table and yelled out, “Who left this puzzle out?” Student Mi. hid under a table in reaction to Respondent’s statement. Respondent came to the table, roughly grabbed student Mi., and pulled her out from under the table. Respondent led student Mi. to the table with the puzzle and yelled in front of the class: “I don’t know what your mother teaches you at home, but you’re a little, spoiled brat and I am not going to clean up after you.” Respondent then took student Mi.’s doll away from her and put her in time out for the remainder of the day, approximately 30 minutes. On another occasion, Respondent had the other members of the class imitate student Mi., after student Mi. had engaged in self-stimulatory behavior. The other students laughed at student Mi. In October 2011, Ms. Hudson discovered Respondent and student Mi. in Mr. Montalbano’s half of the classroom with the lights dimmed. Ms. Hudson thought student Mi. had been crying. Ms. Hudson reported the incident to her principal, but she did not question Respondent, nor did Respondent volunteer to Ms. Hudson an explanation of the circumstances that resulted in Respondent being in the darkened classroom with student Mi. At the formal hearing, Respondent explained that student Mi. had run into traffic while waiting to be transported from school. Respondent testified, credibly, that she was trying to calm down student Mi./6 Ms. Sorren testified, credibly, that during the short time she was in Respondent’s classroom (approximately three school days), she heard Respondent address the students as morons, monkeys, jungle monkeys, and animals. That testimony was consistent with the other testimony as to the language used by Respondent in her classroom. Petitioners established that Respondent repeatedly yelled at her students to “shut up,” described a student’s behavior as being “stupid,” and called at least one student a “brat.” Student Mo., a female on the autism spectrum, was new to Respondent’s class. On an unidentified date, Respondent directed student Mo. to go to timeout. After student Mo. refused to go to timeout, Respondent shoved student Mo. into the timeout area. During the 2010-2011 school year, Respondent became upset with student C., a female, and ordered her out of her classroom. When student C. talked back to Respondent, Respondent threw student C.’s backpack and her shoes over the chalkboard that divided the classroom. Ms. Knighton and her class were in the part of the classroom into which Respondent threw the objects. Student C. became very upset. Respondent became upset with Ma., a male student. Ma. had a snack on his desk. Respondent knocked the snack to the floor and smashed it with her foot. Petitioners established that Respondent engaged in a pattern of misconduct. Respondent’s effectiveness in the school system has been impaired.
Recommendation The following recommendations are based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law: As to Case No. 12-2859TTS, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Broward County, Florida, enter a final order adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order uphold the suspension without pay of Rhea Cohen’s employment and terminate that employment. As to Case No. 13-0704PL, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order suspend Rhea Cohen’s educator’s certificate for a period of five years, to be followed by probation for three years with conditions to be set by the Education Practices Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of July, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of July, 2013.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, as the Commissioner of Education, on behalf of the Education Practices Commission, is the state agency charged with the responsibility of disciplining teachers certified by the State of Florida. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent held a Florida Educator’s Certificate, number 615411, covering the areas of physical education and health education which is valid through June 30, 2003. The juvenile justice system operates a facility for incarcerated minor males located in Okeechobee County, Florida. The facility, named the Eckerd Youth Detention Center (Eckerd), contracts with the Washington County School Program to provide educational services for the minor males. At all times pertinent to the allegations of this case, Respondent was employed by Washington County at Eckerd to teach physical education. On or about April 21, 1994, Respondent used inappropriate language toward an employee at Eckerd. Specifically, Respondent called a disciplinary dean a "nigger." During this heated encounter, which was provoked by Respondent, the dean also used inappropriate language toward Respondent and he was subsequently reprimanded for such conduct. Respondent told another employee at Eckerd that the dean "had a body odor that don’t stop." On another occasion, Respondent was unnecessarily loud in accusing an instructor in the Diversified Career Training (DCT) program of providing contraband to one of the students. This incident occurred in the office of the DCT administrator and, despite efforts to get the Respondent to be quiet, resulted in an inappropriate, public accusation of the painting instructor. During the 1993/94 school year, students complained that Respondent called them inappropriate names such as "crack babies." Two Eckerd employees overheard Respondent’s language and confirmed the allegations made by the students. It is not, however, confirmed that all student allegations were accurate. The students at Eckerd were there due to their serious behavioral problems. Many were aggressive. Some were violent. All were deemed less than credible on occasion. Had they been model students, they would not have been placed at Eckerd. Nevertheless, these students were entitled to the same considerations given to all students governed by state rules. That is, they should not be subject to disparaging remarks. Prior to the 1993/94 school year, Respondent was advised that she needed to improve areas of her performance at Eckerd. Specifically, Respondent was told of a need to maintain appropriate interpersonal relationships and to improve in the evaluation of students. Respondent was also advised that her abrasive and inappropriate vocabulary needed improvement. On March 29, 1994, the administrative staff of the Washington County School Board decided to not re-employ Respondent for the following school year. Notification of this decision was provided to Respondent on March 30, 1994. On May 10, 1994, Respondent was suspended from her duties for the remainder of the school year. Respondent argues that the actions of the school to terminate her employment (and inferentially this action) were in retaliation for Respondent’s claims of violations of various requirements concerning exceptional education students. Respondent suggested that various records were not maintained as required by law. Such argument has not been deemed credible or persuasive. Moreover, Respondent’s complaint with regard to these allegations was resolved in favor of the school system.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order reprimanding Respondent for the violations set forth above, requiring Respondent to take appropriate remedial courses to improve her interpersonal skills, and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of June, 1999, 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 4th day of June, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Department of Education 224-E Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry W. Whitmore, Program Director Professional Practices Services Department of Education Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire Post Office Box 131 701 Mirror Lake Drive Apartment 109 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731-0131 Sallie M. Smith 2605 Chesterfield Drive Fort Pierce, Florida 34982
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, Manatee County School Board, had just cause to terminate Respondent's employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent has been employed as a teacher by the School Board since August 15, 1995. As a member of the School Board's instructional staff, Respondent's employment is subject to Section 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2008),1 which provides that her employment will not be terminated except for just cause. The School Board is a constitutional entity charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within the School District. Exceptional Student Education Exceptional Student Education covers a range of students who have individual needs that must be addressed by a specific plan for education, called an Individual Education Plan. The drafting and maintenance of IEPs is governed by federal and state law. The government may complete audits of district ESE records from time to time, although audits are not completed every year. However, the School District self-reports ESE compliance issues to the government. IEPs are valid for one year and must be rewritten annually, although not necessarily coinciding with the beginning of each school year. Generally, a draft form of the IEP is prepared and taken to an IEP meeting to be reviewed by individuals who are involved with the student's education ("IEP team"), including ESE teachers, regular education teachers, guidance counselors, and parents. Although everyone who is directly involved with the student's education is invited to the IEP meeting, it is not necessary that each individual attend for the IEP to be valid. For instance, if parents or service providers do not attend, the IEP is not invalid. All members of the IEP team attending the IEP meeting are required to sign a signature page indicating their attendance. The parents of the students are legally entitled to two notices of the IEP meeting, the first being at least ten days prior to the meeting. The notice can be written or verbal, but should be documented in the ESE file. Parents may waive their right to ten days' notice of the hearing. One person is assigned as the school's Local Education Agency (LEA). An LEA must be present at all IEP meetings which are required to ensure that ESE guidelines are followed. Students are required to be evaluated by service providers, such as speech-language pathologists, psychologists, social workers, and occupational therapists and to be re-evaluated every three years. The re-evaluation must be completed within three years from the calendar date of the earliest testing completed in the previous evaluation or re-evaluation. Each service provider is expected to review the file and to complete a re-evaluation. However, a re-evaluation is not required if the student's IEP team determines that such re-evaluation is not needed. Furthermore, re-evaluations are not required to draft an IEP. Prior to any testing, evaluation or re-evaluation of a student, the consent of the parent must be obtained. The consent forms are valid for one year after the parent's signature is obtained. Each student receiving ESE services should have a file which includes documentation, such as his/her IEP. Students who have more than one exceptionality (such as speech-language) will often have more than one file housed in the ESE office. Also, students who have been receiving ESE services for a long period of time often require more than one file folder to contain all of the documents. The School District obtains funds from the government based upon the ESE status of the students in the district. Students who receive ESE services are given more funding than students in regular classes. The funding is allocated on a per-student basis, and ESE students receive different levels of funding depending on the classification of their disabilities. In order to qualify for the funds, IEP and other relevant documents must be in compliance with certain guidelines referred to as FTE or "full time equivalent." There are two FTE periods during each school year wherein the ESE files must be compliant in order to obtain funds; the first one is in October and the second one is February. Respondent's Employment at Haile Middle School Respondent has been employed by the School Board as a teacher for 13 years. For the past several years, and at all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was an ESE teacher at Haile. In 2005-2006, after the preceding ESE department chair was transferred to another school, Janet Kerley, principal at Haile, asked Respondent if she would serve as the ESE department chair. Respondent accepted the job and had served continuously as ESE department chair until early February 2008. While serving as ESE chair, Respondent continued to work as an ESE teacher, and her position was designated as such by the School Board. As ESE department chair at Haile, Respondent received a stipend.2 In 2005-2006, when Respondent first became the ESE department chair, her work day was divided evenly between teaching her scheduled ESE classes and ESE department chair duties. Training for ESE Chair Position No special training was provided for Respondent to serve as ESE department chair. The School District assigned an ESE specialist to each secondary school, including Haile. The ESE specialist's role was to provide support to the ESE department chair. However, ESE specialists had no supervisory responsibilities for the ESE department chair. In the 2006-2007 school year, Emma Mileham, the ESE specialist assigned to Haile that year, gave Respondent a checklist titled, "ESE Department Chair Responsibilities." She also distributed "monthly mind joggers," titled, "ESE Teacher Activities." The checklist of the department chair's responsibilities included reviewing ESE files. During the 2007-2008 school year, Amy Lloyd, the ESE specialist assigned to Haile, interacted with Respondent once a week as part of the school's Child Study Team. However, Lloyd did not provide any list of job responsibilities to Respondent. Kerley evaluated Respondent's work performance in the past and found her work to be satisfactory. Prior to the allegations that gave rise to this action, Kerley never perceived deficiencies in Respondent's ability to maintain the ESE files. During Respondent's 13-year tenure as a teacher in the School District, she has consistently received satisfactory evaluations and has never been the subject of a disciplinary matter. Changes Impacting ESE Department in 2007-2008 Jerry Hernandez was appointed as the assistant principal at Haile for the 2007-2008 school year. Kerley designated Hernandez as the school's ESE administrator. As ESE administrator, Hernandez was responsible for ensuring compliance with FTE requirements, implementation of IEPs, and monitoring the ESE department chair. In the 2007-2008 school year, two changes were implemented which impacted the ESE Department at Haile and those working in that area. First, as part of an overall change implemented by the School District, ESE teachers at Haile were required to use a new computer system for creating ESE documents (i.e., IEPs, notices, consent forms, etc.). Second, there were significant changes in job responsibilities of the ESE department chair at Haile implemented at the school level. Computer System Changes Prior to the 2007-2008 school year, Haile was using a software program called Dynamo to assist in the maintenance of ESE files. Dynamo was primarily based upon the use of "hard copies" of relevant documents and was limited to each user's computer. At the end of the 2006-2007 school year, Haile switched from the Dynamo software to a web-based program called the A3 system ("A3"). The main difference between Dynamo and A3 was that A3, as a web-based program, allowed individuals to view relevant documents from any computer by logging into the system. After Haile switched from Dynamo to A3, the teachers and service providers were encouraged to input all previous IEPs drafted in Dynamo into the A3 system. In fact, after the School District switched to the A3 system, there was a "push" by administrators to have all IEPs inputted into A3. To accomplish this, Respondent typed IEPs drafted in Dynamo and those received from other states into the A3 system verbatim, so that teachers and other individuals would have access to the information from their computers. Also, other Haile employees, including ESE teachers Athena Jantzen and Alice Moreland, and speech-language pathologist, Marie Bryant-Jones, input Dynamo IEPs into the A3 system. At the end of the 2006-2007 school year, the speech- language pathologist then assigned to Haile, Bryant-Jones, input goals for each student who received speech services into the A3 system. The next speech-language pathologist was free to revise the goals as she saw fit. The fact that Respondent and ESE teachers were inputting IEPs originally drafted in Dynamo into the A3 system was common knowledge at Haile. The School District provided training in the A3 system for ESE teachers at or near the end of the 2006-2007 school year. Additionally, on March 20, 2007, a district-sponsored one-on-one training was offered to the staff of Haile. Respondent attended that session and the training staff spent that day reviewing and/or explaining the A3 system. The training staff also worked with and helped Respondent input the current IEPs in the A3 system in order "to speed up the process." To start a new IEP in A3, the user is required to click on "Copy IEP" on the computer page. Clicking "Copy IEP" makes an identical copy of the last IEP in the system, including goals and objectives for other information about the student. The dates for the previous IEP remains the same until the user manually changes the date. This copy is a "draft" which becomes the new IEP when the modified or updated information is input into the A3 system. ESE Department Chair Changes in Responsibilities in October 2007 Prior to October 2007, ESE teachers at Haile were responsible for the ESE files of the students they taught, and each ESE teacher drafted the IEPs for their students. In October 2007, Hernandez told Respondent that as the department chair, she was now to assume responsibility for all of the ESE files at Haile. Hernandez explained to Respondent that this change was being made because the ESE teachers had complained to him that they could not, or no longer wanted to, take care of the ESE files and to teach their classes. When Hernandez told Respondent that she was now responsible for maintaining all of the ESE files, Respondent informed Hernandez that she was not happy about that added responsibility. In response, Hernandez told Respondent not to worry about the files, indicating that they (the files) would "take care of themselves." Hernandez than told Respondent that she should concentrate on giving as much support to the teachers as possible. In October 2007, when Hernandez assigned Respondent the responsibility for maintenance of all ESE files, there were approximately 170 ESE files that needed to be maintained in compliance with FTE guidelines. Except for the foregoing, Hernandez never specifically informed Respondent of what her new duties were as ESE department chair. In October 2007, after being given the responsibility for all ESE files, Respondent drafted IEPs into the A3 system for students she did not have in class by getting feedback from the students' teachers and reviewing the students' progress reports. One ESE teacher at Haile, Athena Jantzen, continued to draft some of her own students' IEPs, as Respondent was overloaded with work. Service providers, such as speech-language pathologists and psychologists, were still expected to draft and enter their own goals into the A3 system. If a student received only speech services, the speech-language pathologist was responsible for drafting the student's IEP and maintaining the file. After being assigned the responsibility for all the ESE files, Respondent asked the ESE clerk to print copies of various active IEPs from A3. Respondent requested the copies so that a copy of the student's IEP could be included in each file related to that student. The IEPs and related documents were printed from the A3 system, not photocopied, and reflected a print date of October 17, 2007, on the top of each page. The executed signature pages of the IEP which could not be printed from A3, were not photocopied by the ESE clerk and were not included in each file. After being assigned the responsibility for all the ESE files, Respondent continued to teach her assigned ESE class and perform cafeteria duty on a daily basis. Respondent was also pulled almost weekly from her department chair responsibilities to cover additional classes. Responsibilities Related to ESE Compliance Issues As chairperson for the ESE Department, Respondent was charged with the maintenance and oversight of IEPs. At Haile, the guidance counselor is designated as the school's LEA. At Haile, the registrar was designated by the school administration to set up IEP and revision meetings. The ESE clerk, who worked at Haile one day a week, was assigned to mail out the notices of meetings to the parents. When students enrolled at Haile from another school, the registrar or guidance counselor would inform Respondent if the child required ESE services. Error Reports Respondent received an "error report" from the school's registrar almost weekly. The error report identified potential compliance issues with the ESE files, but did not represent a completely accurate accounting of the files. For example, it would not identify compliance issues, such as a missing signature page for an otherwise valid IEP. Respondent used the error report to ensure that IEPs were timely updated and reviews for re-evaluations were timely initiated. Hernandez, as ESE administrator, received an "error report" about three times a year. Error reports were available to service providers who requested them. These error reports were obtained and used by some service providers to determine when the re-evaluations for which they were responsible were due. Systems to Notify Service Providers of Re-Evaluation Dates While ESE department chair, Respondent used the following three different systems to notify and/or remind service providers when students needed to be re-evaluated: (1) the "white board" system; (2) the "file drawer" system; and (3) the "binder" system. At some point prior to the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent used the "white board" system. Under that system, Respondent listed the names of students whose re-evaluation date was approaching and the due date of the re-evaluation on a "white board" that was located in the ESE office. Respondent updated the "white board" monthly. In the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent used the "file drawer" and "binder" systems to notify service providers of upcoming re-evaluation dates. The "file drawer" system consisted of placing all files that needed to be reviewed and/or files of students who were ready for testing in a file drawer designated and labeled for that specific category. In the case of a file review, Respondent would initiate the file review and then put the ESE file in a drawer labeled, "File Review." The service providers would simply go to the drawer and pull out student files to complete their review. Once the file review was completed and the student was ready for testing, the ESE file would be placed in the re-evaluation and/or evaluation drawer. At the beginning of the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent informed all of the service providers assigned to Haile of the "file drawer" system. Among the service providers Respondent informed about the "file drawer" system were Krista Cournoyer, a school psychologist, and Julia Caldwell, a speech- language pathologist. Respondent specifically explained the use of the file drawers to them, because this was their first year working at Haile. The "file drawer" system is a typical system used by schools in the School District, but schools are not required to use that system. Instead, schools have the option of developing and using any system they choose. Early in the 2007-2008 school year and at all times relevant to this proceeding, the "binder" system was initiated at Haile.3 Under that system, the names of students who required testing and re-evaluations were placed in a binder (notebook) in the ESE office. Respondent and Karen Ciemniecki, the ESE evaluator assigned to Haile, updated the information in the binder. The various service providers could utilize the information in the binder to determine which students they needed to test and/or re-evaluate. Service providers were free to use either the "file drawer" or "binder" system to determine when they were to review a file and re-evaluate a student. In addition to utilizing those systems, the service providers could also obtain an error report which would provide information concerning re-evaluations which were due the following month. Both the "file drawer" and the "binder" systems provided the service providers the means to determine when a review and re-evaluation was due, without the direct assistance of Respondent. During the 2007-2008 school year, several service providers, including Ciemniecki and Caldwell, used the "file drawer" and/or "binder" systems to determine when student file reviews, testing and re-evaluations were to be done. In addition to using the established systems, both Ciemniecki and Caldwell obtained error reports from either Respondent or Haile's registrar. Cournoyer, like the other service providers, was aware of the "file drawer" and "binder" systems and knew how to use them. Nonetheless, Cournoyer believed that the systems were inadequate and did not ensure that she would consistently know when the re-evaluations for which she was responsible were due. Although the systems in place were not perfect, if utilized, they provided a reasonable means to determine when reviews and re-evaluations were due. Moreover, the error reports, if obtained and used, provided an additional source by which service providers could determine about a month in advance when re-evaluations were due. There were times when there were files in the designated file drawer that Cournoyer needed to review. In those instances, Respondent removed those files from the drawer and handed them to Cournoyer, indicating that they needed to be reviewed. Events Leading to Investigation In January 2008, Cournoyer believed that it appeared that she was not completing re-evaluations in a timely manner. Cournoyer also believed that the reason for any delays in completing the re-evaluations was that she did not get all the requisite forms for those re-evaluations until they were overdue. On or about January 31, 2008, Cournoyer was conducting a file review for Student E.A. While reviewing the file, she noticed that an IEP meeting was conducted for this student on January 8, 2008. Upon reviewing the file, Cournoyer had two concerns. First, she had not been invited to that IEP meeting. Second, the documentation in the file indicated that the meeting occurred three weeks before Cournoyer was notified of the need to conduct a file review for this particular student. While reviewing the file of E.A., Cournoyer noticed that the student was receiving services from Caldwell, the speech-language pathologist. She then gave the file to Caldwell who, upon review of the file, noticed that the speech goals were already written on the student's active IEP. Caldwell was concerned that she had not written those goals, as it had been her intent to dismiss the student from speech-language services, and that she had not been invited to the IEP meeting. Caldwell discussed her concerns about the speech goals for E.A. with Respondent, who instructed her to set up a meeting to revise the IEP. Cournoyer shared her concerns about "overdue" re-evaluations in an email to Respondent, but disagreed that there was a system in place that addressed her concerns. Dissatisfied with Respondent's response to her email, Cournoyer then sent an email to members of Haile's Child Study Team, including Lloyd, the ESE specialist. After receiving a response from Lloyd, Cournoyer sent an email about her concerns to the Haile administrators, including Hernandez, and ESE staff on or about February 1, 2008. After receiving Cournoyer's email, Hernandez requested that she provide additional information about her allegations and concerns. In response to that request, Cournoyer provided Hernandez with a list of students and dates of re-evaluations that were overdue. On Sunday, February 3, 2008, Hernandez and Cournoyer met at Haile and reviewed the ESE files. During that review, they found some files that were missing signature pages and that one IEP appeared to have an altered date on a consent form. After conducting a preliminary investigation, Hernandez reported his findings to Principal Kerley who, in turn, contacted the School District's Office of Professional Standards ("OPS"). OPS then initiated an investigation of Respondent and the maintenance and formulation of the ESE files at Haile. Respondent was placed on administrative leave on February 5, 2008, before the February 2008 FTE cut-off date. During that leave, Respondent was prohibited from communicating with School District employees or entering the premises of Haile. Prior to being placed on administrative leave, Respondent was not informed of the allegations against her. The matter was assigned to Debra Horne, a specialist with OPS. After reviewing an email about the case from Hernandez, Horne decided to allow the ESE department to review the ESE files at Haile.4 On February 6, 2008, the ESE team, consisting of all the secondary ESE specialists and the ESE coordinator, Joe Roberts, conducted a preliminary review of the ESE files at Haile for compliance issues. That same day, Roberts memorialized the review team's preliminary findings in an email to the ESE director, Ron Russell. According to the email, the ESE team conducted a two-hour review of the ESE files and found about ten files with problems (i.e., missing signature pages, what appeared to be an altered consent form, and IEPs which appeared to be copied from previous year's IEPs). The email memorializing the findings noted that the ESE office was not organized and that "many folders and confidential information were spread out in varying locations of the office, not in a secured fashion." The email also noted that the team looked for "numerous folders [files] and could not locate them in the filing system."5 On February 29, 2009, Horne met with Roberts and Lloyd to review the ESE files and the ESE team's preliminary findings. Based on the review of the files, the OPS determined that 15 ESE files were non-compliant for FTE (funding) purposes and that another five ESE files had compliance issues that did not affect funding. On March 13, 2008, Horne interviewed Respondent about the findings of the ESE review team. The purpose of the interview, which lasted most of the day, was to allow Dozier the opportunity to offer an explanation of the alleged compliance issues concerning specific ESE files.6 Prior to the March 13, 2008, interview, school officials did not notify Respondent of the allegations or allow her to respond to those changes. After completing the investigation and interviewing Respondent, Horne published her findings in an investigative report. The findings in the OPS investigative report and which are the bases of the charges against Respondent in this case involve the non-compliant ESE files referenced above. Specifically, the investigative report found and determined that: (1) 15 ESE files were non-compliant for FTE or funding purposes; and (2) five ESE files had compliance issues that did not affect funding. As a result of the 15 non-compliant ESE files, the affected students were returned to basic funding, causing a decrease in the overall funds available to the School District. Nevertheless, those identified students were provided with services in accordance with their IEPs. Non-Compliant ESE Files Resulting in Loss of Funds Student A.C. The investigative report found that there was no signature page in the ESE file of A.C. for the April 10, 2007, IEP. Without a properly-executed signature page, the IEP is invalid. Respondent testified credibly that she did not know if she conducted the IEP meeting when the April 10, 2007, IEP was developed, but believed that A.C. may have had more than one file. This belief was based on the fact that A.C.'s primary disability was "language impairment," and A.C. received speech services. Typically, such students had two ESE files, one of which was kept by the speech-language pathologist. The April 10, 2007, IEP meeting was conducted during the previous school year and before Respondent was responsible for the maintenance of all ESE files at Haile. Respondent further testified credibly that she could have and intended to locate the signature page before the FTE window closed. Student J.B. The investigative report found that the ESE file of J.B. did not contain a signature page for the November 6, 2006, IEP. Without a properly executed signature page, the IEP is invalid. The November 6, 2006, IEP meeting was conducted during the previous school year and before Respondent was responsible for the maintenance of all ESE files at Haile. Moreover, there is no evidence that Respondent conducted or was present at this IEP meeting. Respondent testified credibly that she could have and intended to locate the signature page for the November 6, 2006, IEP before the FTE window closed. The investigative report found that a second IEP for J.B. indicated that it was drafted on January 25, 2008, but the registrar was informed it was drafted on October 23, 2007. However, there is nothing in the record to establish that the registrar made such a statement. Student Z.L. The investigative report found that the ESE file of Z.L. did not contain a signature page for the March 19, 2007, IEP. The IEP for Z.L. dated March 19, 2007, was drafted while Z.L. was attending Freedom Elementary School ("Freedom"), and, thus, was drafted by employees of Freedom. This IEP was valid through March 18, 2008. Freedom is a school in the School District, and the IEP developed at that school was apparently put in the A3 system. The March 19, 2007, IEP was printed on October 19, 2007, and was a copy of the IEP from Freedom dated March 19, 2007. Because the IEP printed in October 2007 was a copy of a valid IEP, no signature page was required. No determination was made as to whether the original March 19, 2007, IEP, with the fully executed signature page, was ever sent by Freedom to Haile. The signature page could not be printed from the A3 system. Therefore, unless the original or a photocopy of the fully executed signature page of the March 19, 2007, IEP had been sent to Haile, the school would not have the signature page. Student A.L. The investigative report found that there was no temporary IEP written for A.L. after the student transferred to the School District in September 4, 2007, from an out-of-state school. In September 2007, when A.L. enrolled at Haile, the student had a valid IEP from the out-of-state school district. The out-of-state IEP was for the period March 7, 2007, through March 6, 2008, if the student had remained in that state. Once the student was enrolled, the School District had six months from the student's enrollment date to develop a temporary IEP. Accordingly, a temporary IEP should have been developed on or before March 4, 2008. A temporary IEP was not developed for A.L. prior to or by March 4, 2008, or as of March 13, 2008, when Respondent was interviewed by Ms. Horne. Although the temporary IEP had not been developed prior to Respondent's being placed on leave, steps were being taken to develop the IEP prior to Respondent's being placed on leave. For example, Ciemniecki administered achievement tests to A.L. in late September 2007. Also, Cournoyer was reviewing the student's file and also testing the student. Respondent was placed on leave February 5, 2008, about one month before the temporary IEP was required to be developed. Thus, no conclusion can be reached as to whether Respondent would have taken the necessary steps to ensure that the temporary IEP was developed by March 4, 2008. On the other hand, it is equally apparent that after being placed on leave, Respondent was prevented from and could not take any steps to ensure that a temporary IEP was developed for A.L. Therefore, it can not be concluded that Respondent is responsible for the failure to timely develop a temporary IEP. The credible testimony of Respondent was that she intended to take steps to ensure that an IEP was drafted within six months of A.L.'s enrolling in the School District. An issue was raised regarding what appeared to be inconsistent dates on the Informed Notice and Consent for Evaluation/Re-evaluation ("Informed Notice and Consent") form. That form included spaces in which the following was to be provided: (1) the referral date; (2) the parent's signature, either giving or denying consent for the evaluation; and (3) the date of the signature. The referral date printed or typed on the form is February 26, 2006. The parent's signature, giving consent for the evaluation, was dated September 24, 2007. The concern expressed was that the date of the referral, February 26, 2006, was more than a year and a half prior to A.L. enrolling in the School District. This discrepancy was explained by the credible testimony of Respondent. According to that testimony, the above-referenced consent form was from the Dynamo computer system and had been used to make copies of blank forms to be used. However, the "referral date," February 26, 2006, had been printed or typed on the original form, and that date had been inadvertently left on the form prior to copies of the form being made. Student S.H. The investigative report concluded that S.H.'s IEP dated April 26, 2007, was invalid because it was created at Haile four or five months prior to the student's enrolling in the School District on September 5, 2007.7 The ESE file of S.H. contained a valid IEP dated April 26, 2007, that was drafted while the student was living out-of-state and enrolled in an out-of-state school. That IEP would have been valid through April 25, 2008, had the student remained in the out-of-state school district. In addition to the out-of-state IEP, the ESE file of S.H. also contained another IEP dated April 26, 2007, which indicated that, as of that date, the student was attending Haile. There was also a fully executed signature page for this April 26, 2007, IEP, which had been signed by the parent, Respondent, and six other individuals. In addition to the parent and Respondent, six others signed the signature page of that IEP. Contrary to the allegations, the IEP for S.H. created at Haile was not created on April 26, 2007, four months before the student enrolled in the School District. Respondent testified credibly that she input the data from the out-of-state IEP into the A3 system. However, while inputting information in A3 for the student's new IEP, she neglected to change the IEP plan date from April 26, 2007, to the new IEP plan date. The testimony of Respondent is supported by a careful review of contents of the IEP. For example, the IEP clearly indicates that the student is now enrolled at Haile as a "transfer [student] from out of state."8 The signature page of the Haile IEP also mistakenly shows that the IEP was developed on April 26, 2007. However, the upper right corner of that signature page indicates that the signature page form for S.H.'s Haile IEP was printed from the A3 system at 7:18 a.m., on October 29, 2007, almost two months after S.H. enrolled in the School District. As noted above, only blank signature page forms can be printed from A3. Therefore, the signatures had to be placed on the signature page some time after the form was printed. Respondent's failure to change the plan date of the student's out-of-state IEP to the plan date of the new IEP created at Haile, was due to human error. Student S.R. The investigative report found that S.R.'s ESE file did not contain an IEP, a notice of IEP meeting, or signature page. S.R.'s ESE file contained a valid IEP dated February 8, 2007, drafted while the student was at Gene Witt Elementary ("Witt"), a school in the School District. The IEP was drafted by employees at Witt and was valid through February 7, 2008. The file also contained an IEP with a plan date of February 7, 2008 (the same as the Witt IEP), indicating that the student was attending Haile at the time of the IEP. Respondent testified credibly that she typed the data contained in the Witt IEP, which was in the Dynamo System, into the A3 system so that the data would be available to other teachers. Respondent testified credibly that she had no intent to make it appear that S.R. was attending Haile in February 2007. Respondent further testified credibly that when an individual inputs data into the A3 system, the school that the individual is assigned to automatically "pop[s] up" in A3 as the student's school. The document included in the investigative report that is the basis for discipline against Respondent is a copy of S.R.'s IEP that was created at Witt dated February 8, 2007. That IEP was printed from A3 on October 19, 2007. Because the IEP is a copy of a valid IEP, no signature page was required. Likewise, no notice of the IEP meeting was required. No evidence was presented to establish that the notice and fully executed signature page of the subject IEP were ever received by Haile. Student E.M. The investigative report found that the ESE file of E.M. did not contain a signature page for the April 11, 2007, IEP, and, thus, the IEP was invalid. E.M.'s April 11, 2007, IEP notes that the student's primary exceptionality is "language impaired." During the March 2008 interview, Respondent informed the OPS investigator that she believed E.M., as a language-impaired student, had two ESE files, one of which was maintained by the speech-language pathologist.9 Respondent testified credibly that she could have and intended to locate the signature page or schedule another IEP meeting before the FTE window closed. The April 11, 2007, IEP was drafted during the previous school year and prior to Respondent becoming responsible for the maintenance of all ESE files at Haile. Student M.D. The investigative report found that the ESE file of M.D. did not contain a valid IEP. According to the report, Respondent gave a plan date of November 2, 2007, to the registrar, but failed to create an IEP on that date. On November 2, 2007, a parent conference was called and conducted by Ms. Moreland, a teacher at Haile. Respondent did not attend the parent conference, but about mid-meeting, Moreland went to Respondent's office. Moreland then told Respondent that the team originally intended to remove M.D. from mainstream classes, but during the parent conference decided against it. The November 2, 2007, date may have been incorrectly given to the registrar as the IEP plan date.10 However, the meeting conducted on that date was a parent conference, and unlike IEP plan dates, are not reported to the registrar. It is alleged that the report of the conference and IEP revision sheets were incomplete. However, as a result of the team's decision that M.D. services remain the same (he would remain in mainstream classes), there was no need for the partially completed revision form to be included in M.D.'s ESE file. Thus, Moreland should have discarded that form. M.D.'s ESE file included a valid IEP dated February 8, 2007. This IEP was valid through February 7, 2008. The short-term objectives from M.D.'s 2007 and 2008 IEPs were identical. The latter IEP was dated March 6, 2008, after Respondent was on administrative leave and Jantzen was interim department chair. Student E.R. The investigation found that E.R.'s sixth-grade IEP appeared to be copied "exactly" from the student's fifth-grade IEP. The concern was that the information copied from the fifth-grade IEP to the sixth-grade IEP did not accurately reflect an appropriate measurable annual goal in the area of math. The annual measurable goal on E.R.'s fifth-grade IEP and copied on the student's sixth-grade IEP was that the student "will satisfy fifth grade math requirements." However, during the investigation, it was established that the student was performing above the fifth-grade level in math at Haile. Thus, that previous math goal should have been changed.11 The fifth-grade IEP was developed on December 7, 2006, when E.R. was enrolled at Freedom Elementary School ("Freedom") and remained effective through December 6, 2007. E.R. was enrolled as a sixth-grader at Haile in the 2007-2008 school year. Therefore, the fifth-grade IEP was effective the first few months of E.R.'s sixth-grade year at Haile. Pursuant to the administration's instructions, after E.R. enrolled at Haile, Respondent input the information from the December 2006 IEP into A3.12 Although E.R. was in the sixth grade, the IEP was effective until December 6, 2007. The December 7, 2006, IEP, upon which the OPS refers, was printed on October 19, 2007, and is a copy of the IEP developed at Freedom, except that E.R.'s school and grade had been changed. The student's school was changed from "Freedom" to "Haile" and the current grade was changed from fifth to sixth.13 Respondent testified credibly that she did not know who changed the grade and school on E.R.'s December 2006 IEP. Moreover, no evidence was presented as to who made those changes. However, undoubtedly, on October 19, 2007, E.R. was enrolled at Haile and was in the sixth grade. Respondent testified credibly that in inputting E.R.'s December 7, 2006, IEP, developed at Freedom, into the A3 system, she did not intend to make it appear that E.R.'s December 7, 2006, IEP was developed at Haile. Student C.D. The investigative report found that Respondent gave the registrar an IEP plan date on January 30, 2008, but A3 indicated the meeting was held the following day. Having the IEP meeting on the following day would not necessarily be a violation.14 However, C.D.'s ESE file did not contain a notice of a January 30 or 31, 2008, IEP meeting, an IEP, or a signature page for either of those dates. If a meeting were held on either of those days, a notice of the meeting and a signature page should be in the file. C.D.'s ESE file contained a valid IEP dated February 5, 2007, that was valid through February 4, 2008. Respondent testified that she intended to draft another IEP and hold a meeting before the deadline, which would have brought the file into compliance with the FTE requirements. Notwithstanding Respondent's testimony, there was no indication that an IEP plan meeting had been scheduled on or before February 4, 2008, and that notices of such meeting had been sent to parents and other appropriate individuals. Unless an IEP plan meeting had been scheduled and properly noticed, regardless of Respondent's intent, an IEP could not have been developed on or before the February 5, 2007, IEP expired. Student J.D. The investigative report found that the goals from J.D.'s 2008 IEP are identical to the student's 2007 IEP, which was effective from January 26, 2007, through January 25, 2008, unless and until a new IEP was developed. A new IEP ("2008 IEP") was developed for J.D. on January 14, 2008, and was effective from that date until January 13, 2009. During her March 2008 interview with OPS, Respondent informed Horne that she was taught that the goals of a student who was not meeting with success could be carried over to the next year. Other district employees confirmed that it was common practice to carry over goals from one year to the next. J.D.'s 2007 IEP indicates that Jantzen was the contact person for the IEP and that Respondent was not invited to the IEP meeting. J.D.'s 2008 IEP indicates that Respondent was not invited to the IEP meeting. Jantzen signed the signature page of this IEP as the ESE teacher, and Nosal, Moreland, Edmonson, and J.D.'s parent also signed the page. Jantzen, the current ESE department chair at Haile, testified credibly that a student's goals could be carried over to the next year, if deemed appropriate. According to Jantzen, it would be proper to include a note on the IEP regarding the reason(s) why the goals were carried over. However, there is no indication that Jantzen did so in J.D.'s file. Student M.M. The investigative report found that M.M.'s IEP dated April 4, 2007, did not include an LEA signature. Respondent informed OPS that it was probably an oversight that the LEA failed to sign the signature page. Respondent testified credibly that she would not have held a meeting if an LEA was not present, and it was likely that she anticipated an LEA coming or that the LEA was in attendance, but failed to sign the sheet. Typically, in the School District, the ESE department chair is the designated LEA at his/her respective school. However, at Haile, the school's guidance counselor, not the ESE department chair, is the designated LEA. If and when the guidance counselor at Haile is unavailable to serve as LEA, other individuals at the school, including Respondent, as the ESE department chair, were authorized to act as LEA. The failure to obtain the signature of an LEA at the April 4, 2007, IEP meeting was an oversight. Respondent was at that meeting and signed the signature page as the ESE teacher/evaluator. In the absence of the guidance counselor or another person designated as LEA, Respondent could have signed as LEA in addition to signing as ESE teacher/evaluator. Respondent was not aware that the LEA had not signed the form until she (Respondent) was interviewed by OPS. If Respondent had become aware of the problem prior to being placed on administrative leave, she could have taken one of two steps to correct the situation before the FTE window closed. To correct the omission of the LEA signature, Respondent could have scheduled another IEP meeting if no LEA was present. According to Hernandez, corrective action could have been taken by having the LEA sign off after the meeting, if that person had attended the meeting, but forgot to sign.15 Due to her oversight, Respondent took no corrective action to obtain the signature of an LEA on M.M.'s IEP dated April 4, 2007. As a result of this oversight, the IEP was not compliant for the October 2007 or the February 2008 cut-off date. Student B.R.H. The investigative report found that B.R.H.'s IEP dated March 6, 2007, did not include an LEA signature. The effective period of that IEP was March 6, 2007, through March 5, 2008. Respondent signed the signature page of the March 6, 2007, IEP as the ESE teacher/evaluator. In addition to signing the signature page as the ESE teacher/evaluator, Respondent, as ESE department chair, also could have signed as LEA if the primary LEA representative was not at the meeting. The corrective action discussed in paragraph 148 could also have been taken if the LEA representative attended the meeting, but left without signing the signature page. Respondent was not aware of the omission of the LEA signature until it was called to her attention during the March 13, 2008, OPS interview. Had Respondent been aware of that omission prior to that time, she could have taken appropriate corrective action. Because Respondent was unaware of the situation prior to that time, no corrective action was taken prior to the October 2007 FTE cut-off date. Student J.G. The investigative report determined that the ESE file of J.G. could not be found. Despite that determination, it was not established when this student enrolled at Haile and/or if that student's ESE file was ever delivered to Haile. Moreover, at this proceeding no testimony or evidence was presented as to whether the ESE file was found after Respondent was placed on administrative leave. As ESE department chair, Respondent was responsible for maintaining the ESE files. However, in this instance, it is unknown when, and if, J.G. enrolled in Haile and/or if the student's file was ever delivered to the school. Assuming, though not finding it, that J.G's ESE file was at Haile, no evidence was presented that Respondent intentionally or otherwise concealed the file.16 The credible testimony of Respondent was that she did not conceal J.G.'s ESE file. Student B.M. The investigative report found that B.M.'s ESE file could not be found. It was not established that B.M. was a student at Haile, whether the student enrolled at Haile, or if B.M.'s ESE file was ever delivered to Haile. Also, no evidence was presented at the hearing as to whether the file was found since Respondent was placed on administrative leave. During the March 13, 2008, OPS interview, Respondent informed Horne that she did not know B.M. Also, Respondent testified credibly that she did not know B.M. and never saw B.M.'s ESE file. There was no evidence presented at the hearing that Respondent intentionally concealed the ESE file of B.M. or that the file was ever at Haile. Alleged Deficiencies Not Resulting in Loss of Funds Student E.A. The investigative report found that Respondent falsified an Informed Notice and Consent form for E.A. This finding was based on a comparison of two Informed Notice and Consent forms for E.A. Informed Notice and Consent forms: (1) advise parents that their child has been recommended for an evaluation, re-evaluation and/or file review; (2) indicate the types of assessments that may be used; (3) provide parents the option to either give or deny consent for the evaluation; and (4) provide a signature and date line for parents to complete. Informed Notice and Consent forms also provide spaces for information, such as the student's name, address, school, grade, and teacher's name ("identifying information"). On both of the Informed Notice and Consent forms for E.A., the identifying information had been written in the appropriate spaces, and the parent had signed and indicated that consent was given for the proposed evaluation. The two Informed Notice and Consent forms were different in several ways as set forth below. On the first Informed Notice and Consent form, someone had written in the student's grade as "6." The middle portion of the form, which describes the student's proposal for evaluation, was not completed. Finally, the parent's signature was on the form, but the "date" line next to his/her signature was not completed. On the second Informed Notice and Consent form: in the space for the student's grade, the number "8" was written over what appeared to be a "6," indicating that the student was in eighth grade, not sixth grade; (2) the middle portion relating to the proposal for evaluation had been completed; and (3) the date, April 23, 2007, previously not on the form, was written next to the parent's signature. The finding in the investigative report assumes that the first Informed Notice and Consent form (which was incomplete) was prepared and signed by the parent when E.A. was in the sixth grade, and the form was copied and modified when the student was in eighth grade. Those alleged modifications included changing the student's grade and inserting a date next to the parent's signature. Respondent testified that she may have changed the grade from "6" to "8" on the second form and did not know if she had added the date next to the parent's signature. While Respondent is not sure how the foregoing occurred or who did it, she explained that, with respect to the grade, it was possible that she wrote the "8" over the "6," because the grade had been initially entered incorrectly.17 According to the OPS report, during the March interview, Respondent advised the investigator that the file she (Respondent) was given to review was E.A.'s speech file and not the student's ESE file. Respondent told Horne during that interview that she was "almost certain that there was another consent form." At hearing, Respondent testified credibly that she believed that there was another consent form elsewhere.18 Based on the record, no determination can be made as to when the date next to the parent's signature was written on the Informed Notice and Consent form or who wrote that date.19 Based on the record, no determination can be made as to who or when E.A.'s grade level was changed from "6" to "8" or whether that change was made to correct an error.20 Student L.H. The investigative report found that the Informed Notice and Consent form for L.H. was falsified by Respondent. On the student's Informed Notice of Consent form, the date next to the parent's signature was January 25, 2008. The date of the parents' signature on that form appeared to have been changed to January 25, 2007. The investigative report found that the "8" in the year 2008 appeared to have been written over what seemed to have been a "7" in the year 2007. No evidence was presented to establish who wrote an "8" on the form, indicating that the form was signed by the parents on January 25, 2008. No evidence was presented as to when the parents actually signed the Informed Notice and Consent form. The credible testimony of Respondent was that she did not change the date on the consent form and did not know who had done so. Student B.H. It is alleged that the ESE file of B.H. did not contain a notice of an IEP meeting and should have since the student's current IEP was to expire on February 6, 2008. No evidence was presented to establish that Respondent directed or instructed the ESE assistant or registrar to send out notices of an IEP meeting for B.H. or that the notices were sent out. Respondent testified that she intended to make the file compliant by sending a notice to the parents before the deadline. Despite Respondent's intentions, unless a notice had been sent out prior to February 5, 2008, and unless she took extraordinary measures, the IEP plan meeting could not be convened and no IEP was developed for B.H. on or before February 6, 2008, when the student's IEP expired.21 Student A.T. The investigative report determined that the IEP for A.T. dated October 4, 2007, did not include a signature page. According to the investigative report, during the March 2008, interview with Respondent, the investigator "reviewed the concern for A.T." (no signature page for the October 2007 IEP). The investigator then advised Respondent that the School District could have lost funding, but the problem was caught in time, and an IEP meeting was held to obtain the signatures. Finally, the investigator told Respondent, "Please explain." Respondent answered by telling the investigator that she could not remember. The investigative report makes no mention of Horne providing any file of A.T.'s to Respondent during the above- described discussion. After the allegation related to the missing signature page was made and Respondent was placed on leave, a signature page for A.T.'s October 4, 2007, IEP, which included Respondent's signature, was found.22 Apparently, before the signature page for the October 4, 2007, IEP referenced in paragraph 189 was located and after Respondent was placed on leave, school officials completed two signature pages for that IEP. These signature pages were backdated to correct the "missing signature page" issue. Ultimate Findings The School Board lost funding due to 15 ESE files being non-compliant with applicable statutes and regulations. However, those non-compliant issues were the result of human errors, mistakes, omissions and oversights of those responsible for the files, including, but not limited to, Respondent. The record is void of any evidence that the ESE files' non-compliance issues were the result of Respondent’s committing intentional acts to falsify the ESE records and/or to misrepresent the facts relative to the ESE students. Finally, there is no evidence that the errors, mistakes, and omissions attributed to Respondent resulted from her intentionally or deliberately neglecting her duties and/or refusing to adhere to the directives of supervisors and/or applicable laws, regulations, and School Board policies.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Manatee County School Board, enter a final order: Finding Respondent, Annette D. Dozier, not guilty of the charges alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and Reinstating Respondent with back pay and benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of December, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of December, 2009.
The Issue At issue herein is whether or not the Respondent School Board of Dade County's reassignment of the Petitioner based on an alleged pattern of disruptive behavior in the educational program should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the following relevant facts are found. During September, 1978, Victor John Cecchi was transferred from Miami Springs Junior High School to the Jan Mann Opportunity School North. Charles W. Bales, the principal of Miami Springs Junior High School appeared at the hearing and testified that the Petitioner was transferred based on an extensive pattern of "disruptive behavior in the educational program which deprived other students in the program of the full benefits of the educational system." According to principal Bales, the transfer to the Jan Mann Opportunity School North is one where the Opportunity School provides a more controlled atmosphere, smaller classes, more direct supervision which enables a "problem child" to get the benefits of the Dade County educational program. It is eventually the goal of the Opportunity School to reintegrate the "problem child" back into the regular school system so that he is mainstreamed back into the full academic process. During the period October 4, 1977 through the assignment in September of 1978, Petitioner had been referred to the principal's office 35 times for referrals due to disruptive behavior. Principal Bales testified in detail respecting the various incidences by the Petitioner wherein he had been involved in an extended pattern of disrupting classes, leaving the school campus without permission, engaging in altercations with other students and destroying the personal property of others. During these incidences, petitioner was at times returned to the school campus by truant officers and officers from the Miami Springs Police Department While the Petitioner, through his father, does not dispute the fact that he was referred to the principal`s office based on a pattern of disruptive behavior, Petitioner requested that his son be reconsidered for reassignment back in the normal school program at Miami Springs Junior High School. In this regard, testimony reveals that the Petitioner has attended the Jan Mann Opportunity School for a total of only three days since his reassignment to the center. Testimony reveals further that the school system through its Opportunity School affords "problem or disruptive students" opportunity to reacclimate themselves through the process by attending the Opportunity School which provides a different setting. For example, the classroom setting is very individualistic and the number of students range from eight to twelve. Special vocational programs are offered and the pupil to counselor ratio is greater in the Opportunity School. For these reasons, and based on the fact that the Respondent has afforded Petitioner numerous occasions within which he was allowed to correct his disruptive pattern while attending the Miami Springs Junior High School, I shall recommend that the Respondent's reassignment of him to the Jan Mann Opportunity School be upheld.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the petition filed herein be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of August, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Cecchi 331 Swallow Drive Apartment 17 Miami Springs, Florida 33166 Michael J. Neimand, Esquire Dade County School Board Lindsey Hopkins Building 1410 NE 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33013 JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of August, 1979.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was reassigned to Douglas MacArthur Senior High School- North, an alternative school, on December 16, 1982, because of his unacceptable conduct in Grade 9 at North Miami Junior High School. Petitioner presented evidence of 16 incidents of conduct by Respondent which required disciplinary action in the year preceding his reassignment to the alternative education program. Additionally, his grades in all courses were unsatisfactory at the time of reassignment. Respondent did not accept the alternative school assignment and instead obtained employment at a restaurant. He is now living with his grandmother, Mrs. Helen Wood, who seeks his return to a regular junior high school program. She has discussed this proposal with the principal of Thomas Jefferson Junior High School and he apparently agrees with her. Respondent's evidence established that his family life was difficult and disruptive during the period of his misconduct. His situation has now stabilized and he is responsive to his grandmother's supervision. He should, therefore, be given an opportunity to return to the regular academic program (Grade 9) at Thomas Jefferson Junior High School.
Recommendation In consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order classifying Respondent as a disruptive student, but permitting him to attend the Thomas Jefferson Junior High School in a probationary status. ENTERED this 6th day of May, 1983, at Tallahassee Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Valentine, Esquire 3000 Executive Plaza 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Mrs. Helen Ward 1000 Northwest 153rd Street Miami, Florida 33169 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following pertinent facts are found: Respondent Wieland has been employed with the Broward County school system for approximately twenty-three years. In the school year 1973/74, he held the position of Director of Exceptional Child Education. His immediate superior was the Program Director of Educational Services, Mr. Larry I. Walden, a member of the superintendent's staff. Dr. James R. Fisher served as Director of Psychological Services on Dr. Wieland's Exceptional Child Education staff. During the 1973/74 school year, several rather drastic changes were occurring with regard to the administration of the exceptional child education program. This was the year of decentralization in Broward County, where concepts of authority, decision-making, accountability and responsibility were filtering down to the building or school levels through the various principals. Also, the Florida Educational Financial Program began in that year. This program related to state funding for students based upon a particular weight factor assigned for students in different programs. The cost factors for programs for exceptional students is considerably higher than for basic programs. Beginning with the 1973/74 school year, the actual responsibility for placement of children and implementation of programs resided with the principals of the individual schools. The role of the Exceptional Child Education staff was then reduced to one of consultation, advice and administration. Prior to decentralization, psychological testing was conducted under the direction or supervision of the Exceptional Student Education Department at the Diagnostic Center. With decentralization, testing psychologists became a part of the staff of the area offices and were answerable to their respective area superintendents. With this change, they were repeatedly instructed that their functions were consultative and that they were simply to test students upon receipt of a request from a school's principal. Beginning with the 1973/74 school year, school psychologists, as well as the then Director of Psychological Services, were constantly concerned with the pressures being placed upon them by the school principals and area superintendents to rapidly test and certify students for eligibility in the various exceptional education programs. A count of such eligible students was to be made in October and February of each school year. The results of such counts had a tremendous effect upon the school principal's budget. Many school psychologists felt that students were being placed in programs without sufficient diagnosis or data. This, along with inadequate personnel, was a constant topic of discussion both among school psychologists and at meetings on the staff level. Mr. Walden, respondent's immediate superior, was informed by Dr. Fisher of files containing insufficient data and other procedural irregularities. Mr. Walden also attended some of the staff meetings at which various problems were discussed. No specific problems at Horizon Elementary School were discussed between Fisher and respondent Wieland during the 1973/74 school year. In fact, Dr. Fisher was unaware of any discrepancies or procedural irregularities at Horizon during that year. Conditions did not improve during the 1974/75 school year, according to various school psychologists and the exceptional education staff. They still felt pressure to rapidly identify eligible students for exceptional education programs in order to generate funding and they still felt there was inadequate staffing for psychological services. During this year, Mr. Joel Kieter assumed respondent's position of Director of the Exceptional Education Program and respondent became Coordinator of Special Services, formerly called Psychological Services. Thus, Mr. Kieter was respondent's immediate superior. During this year, Mr. Kieter's office had no direct role in the certification of students for the various exceptional education programs. The 1974 "District Procedures for Providing Special Education for Exceptional Students" specifically provided that: "In the process of decentralization the exceptional student personnel at the district level have been relieved of direct responsibility for administration and instruction. The respon- sibilities of such personnel are now consultative and advisory in nature. The primary responsibility for administration and instruction is at the building level." However, Mr. Kieter's staff did attempt to give guidance to school psychologists and administrative personnel regarding the criteria for placement and the required procedures to be followed. Among the duties of respondent Wieland during the 1974/75 school year was direct responsibility for the Diagnostic Center, which was a repository for some 35,000 to 40,000 student files. School psychologists were instructed to obtain a case number from the Diagnostic Center for all new student files and to send a copy of the completed file to the Center. At one time, they were told that they could retain the folders as long as they thought the case was active. Student files were also to be kept at the student's school and in the area superintendents' offices. Inasmuch as the school psychologists were accountable to the area superintendents, the Center and its staff had no authority and could do little more than request them to promptly forward the files to the Center. At times, staff at the Diagnostic Center would return files for parental consent forms. Numerous staff meetings were held by Director Kieter during the 1974/75 school year. During these meetings, the school psychologists complained of their heavy caseload, the lack of secretarial help and other staff, pressures placed upon them by principals and area superintendents to place children in programs, inappropriate testing and lost or misplaced files. These were general discussions and specific incidents were not related. Dr. James Fisher, who was the team leader for psychologists in the North-Central area, had general discussions with both Dr. Wieland, Director Kieter, and even Mr. Walden concerning the pressure he felt with regard to the rapid testing of children and the inadequacy of data in the files of children who had already been placed. Dr. Fisher expressed to them his fear that emphasis was being placed upon the filling of classes, rather than upon the individual students. During the school year 1975/76, respondent again occupied the position of Coordinator of Special Services and Joel Kieter was again the Director of the Exceptional Education Program. The building principal of the referring school or the school enrolling the student was directly responsible for placement in the appropriate exceptional student program. ("1975 District Procedures for providing special Education for Exceptional Students," p. 199, H(2)(c) and p. 3). The exceptional student education staff was responsible for the determination of eligibility of individual students (p. 3 of the 1975 District Procedures). This determination was to be based upon the report of the testing psychologist. In the first portion of the 1975/76 school year, Director Kieter signed the eligibility determination forms (also referred to as the B-1 form). This responsibility was delegated by Mr. Kieter to respondent Wieland in mid- December, 1975. Prior to this delegation, Mr. Kieter occasionally signatured some B-1 forms without having seen the psychological report. This was done because of a backlog in clerical assistance and processing, and to expedite the procedure. Mr. Kieter was assured by the school psychologists that if the B-1 form had been sent to him for execution, proper testing had been completed, the report was in the process of being written and the data was available. Simultaneous with the time that the authority to sign B-1 forms was delegated to Dr. Wieland, Mr. Kieter issued a memorandum to all school psychologists stating that B-1 forms without the completed psychological report attached thereto would no longer be entertained. In the Fall of 1975, Mr. Fisher communicated with Director Kieter concerning the absence of certain psychological data in the files of some ten to twelve students at Horizon Elementary School. Mr. Kieter instructed Mr. Fisher to make up any deficiencies in those folders. Mr. Kieter also discussed the folders with the principal of Horizon, Mr. Wallsworth. Other than this incidence, Director Kieter was not informed of any specific irregularities or abuses in the exceptional education program at Horizon during the 1975/76 school year. Mr. John Georgacopoulos worked in the Diagnostic Center as a psychometrist from 1969 to 1971, and at Horizon Elementary School as a guidance counselor in the school years 1974/75 and 1975/76. As a guidance counselor, he attended "staffings" or meetings with school psychologists pertaining to the placement of students in the various programs. He was also involved with the testing of students at Horizon. In the school year 1974/75 -- his first year at Horizon -- Mr. Georgacopoulos perceived that there were problems in the running of Horizon's exceptional student program. These problems included the misclassification of students, the placing of students into programs without certification and without proper testing, the nonexistence of programs for which children were certified and mimeographed certifications with the students' name placed thereon at a later time. Mr. Georgacopoulos informed Horizon's principal, Mr. Wallsworth, of these irregularities on numerous occasions during the 1974/75 school year. He also states that he discussed these problems with Mr. Fisher, Director Kieter and respondent Wieland. Both Dr. Wieland and Mr. Kieter denied being informed by Mr. Georgacopoulos of any irregularities at Horizon during the 1974/75 school year. According to Mr. Georgacopoulos, problems at Horizon continued in the 1975/76 school year. These included the misplacement of children, improper or inadequate testing of students, nonexistence of programs, inadequate data in student files and the lifting of signatures onto psychological reports. In March of 1976, Georgacopoulos obtained from Mr. Wallsworth's office a computer printout of students funded for the various exceptional education programs at Horizon. He then checked the files of these students both at the Diagnostic Center and at Horizon and found that many did not have case numbers assigned to them, that many contained inadequate or no data and that, for some students, files did not exist at all either at the school or the Center. In March of 1976, Georgacopoulos went to respondent's office and talked to respondent about the alleged irregularities existing at Horizon. It is difficult to discern from Georgacopoulos' testimony what specifics were related to respondent. It appears that Wieland was informed that children were certified as gifted when no gifted program existed at Horizon, that children were being placed in the wrong programs, that children were being placed without appropriate or adequate testing and that the information in the student files was inadequate. At the time of this discussion, respondent had a difficult time following Georgacopoulos' conversation. He appeared to respondent to ramble and to be upset and confused. Respondent felt that Georgacopoulos simply disagreed with the psychologists' reports as well as the contents of the gifted program. As a result of this conversation, respondent told Georgacopoulos that some information might be in the files at the Diagnostic Center and offered him the opportunity to check these files with the assistance of his staff. Georgacopoulos told respondent that he had discussed these irregularities with Principal Wallsworth. On May 27, 1976, Robert Lieberman, a school psychologist at Horizon, went to respondent's office and told him of irregularities that existed at Horizon. These included the lack of programs for gifted and emotionally disturbed students, the misplacement of certified children, inappropriate "staffing" of children, inappropriate and/or inadequate testing before placement and the pressures placed upon school psychologists to test and place numerous students within a short amount of time. Lieberman was concerned that he would lose his job at Horizon and Respondent told him to try to finish out the school year without sacrificing his professionalism. Dr. Wieland also offered to help him get an interview for a job at the county level. Sometime between May 27th and June 9, 1976, Ms. Queen Sampson, a school psychologist from the area office, talked to respondent and confirmed the statements made by Georgacopoulos and Lieberman. On June 9, 1976, respondent again discussed the irregularities at Horizon with Mr. Georgacopoulos. During this conference, Mr. Georgacopoulos specifically placed the blame upon Principal Wallsworth and he was more emphatic and specific in his allegations concerning the irregularities. He also mentioned the falsification of psychological reports via the "lifting" of signatures, and stated that this had come to his attention in May of 1976. Respondent was aware at this June 9, 1976, meeting that Mr. Georgacopoulos was leaving the Broward County school system. Mr. Georgacopoulos testified that he had discussed specific irregularities at Horizon with Director Joel Kieter during the 1975/76 school year. Mr. Kieter denied that there had been any such discussions and testified that he had never even met Mr. Georgacopoulos prior to June 9, 1976. About an hour after talking to Mr. Georgacopoulos on June 9, 1976, respondent Wieland went to the office of William T. McFatter, Assistant to the Superintendent. He related that Georgacopoulos had made serious allegations against Mr. Wallsworth and asked for McFatter's advice. Mr. McFatter remembers that respondent mentioned the possibility of double funding and the qualification of students for the gifted program at Horizon. McFatter advised respondent to go straight to superintendent Mauer with the allegations. McFatter and respondent then went to the superintendent's office and a brief ten to fifteen minute meeting ensued. This was the last day of the school year for students and the superintendent was quite busy at this time. The possibility of double funding was an explosive issue to the Superintendent and this is the only irregularity he recalls having been mentioned by respondent on June 9, 1976. The superintendent immediately called a Mr. Cox, who deals with pupil accounting, and related to him his concern with double funding of students in the exceptional education program. Mr. McFatter, Mr. Mauer and respondent then went to the office of Mr. Cox and respondent Wieland was assigned the task of determining the existence or nonexistence of double funding. None was found and respondent so reported to Mr. Mauer. Subsequently, respondent and two other persons were assigned the task of auditing the records of the exceptional student program at Horizon. The auditors were unable to verify either the existence or nonexistence of certain records, forms and psychological reports for many students. It was clear that many files were incomplete and there was no evidence that either the gifted or emotionally disturbed programs existed at Horizon. Respondent Wieland explained the delay between the first March 1976, meeting with Mr. Georgacopoulos and his June 9, 1976, report to Mr. McFatter and the Superintendent as follows. Respondent (as well as others) classified Georgacopoulos as a "child advocate," and respondent felt at the March meeting that Georgacopoulos was merely expressing his disagreement with psychological reports and the contents of certain existing programs. During the March meeting, his allegations were general in nature and his discussion of irregularities appeared to ramble and be confusing. Respondent was more concerned with the demeanor of Georgacopoulos than with what he was saying. When Mr. Lieberman related similar and more specific irregularities, which were thereafter confirmed by Queen Sampson, respondent felt that disclosure of Lieberman's and Sampson's statements would be detrimental to their future employment with the school system. Upon confirming that Georgacopoulos was leaving the school system, respondent felt that the charges could be attributed to Georgacopoulos without injury to Lieberman and Sampson. He therefore had another conference with Georgacopoulos on June 9, 1976, and decided to seek advice from the Assistant to the Superintendent, Mr. McFatter. Various other events have transpired since June 9, 1976, concerning Horizon Elementary School exceptional education program irregularities. These include a letter from Mr. Georgacopoulos to the Superintendent, which letter appears to have instigated an investigation by the Security Office or the Internal Affairs Division. Such later events are not deemed relevant to the present charges against respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that respondent be immediately reinstated to his former position and that any back salary be paid to him for the reason that the charges against him were not sustained by the evidence. Respectfully submitted and entered this 3rd day of December, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: School Board of Broward County 1327 S.W. Fourth Street Ft. Lauderdale, Florida John B. Di Chiara DiGiulian, Spellacy, Bernstein, Lyons and Sanders Suite 1500, One Financial Plaza Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33394 Robert M. Curtis Saunders, Curtis, Ginestra & Gore P.O. Drawer 4078 1750 East Sunrise Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33338
