The Issue Whether the Suwannee River Water Management District's (SRWMD's) decision to award the contract contemplated in its Request for Proposals, RFP No. 05/06-036WR, Hydrologic Services and Recorder Station Maintenance (Maintenance Contract), to Hydrologic Data Collection (HDC) is contrary to the agency's governing statutes, the agency's rules or policies, or the proposal specifications.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Hydrogage, Inc. (Hydrogage), is a Florida corporation with its principle place of business located at 2726 Lithia Pinecrest Road, Valrico, Florida 33954. On March 31, 2006, Respondent issued a request for proposals: RFP Number 05/06-036, Hydrologic Services and Recorder Station Maintenance. Petitioner timely submitted its proposal prior to the May 9, 2006, 3:45 p.m. deadline. Two other proposals were also timely submitted: one by HDC and one by Microcom Design, Inc. (Microcom). Petitioner's proposal contained all of the elements requested by RFP 05/06-036WR. SRWMD has a policy that is used when procuring services via competitive procurement, which is labeled as "6.6.4 RFP Other Services (Policy 6.4.4)." That policy provides in pertinent part: 10. A Selection Committee consisting of three members of Senior Management or appropriate alternates shall act as a corporate body to evaluate the proposals, rank the respondents, and select the individual or firm with the best relative ability to perform the services desired. The meeting or meetings in which the selection committee performs the above procedures are public meetings and may be observed by Contractor Respondents. In the case where presentations are required from the entities on the short list, three Selection Members must be present at short list presentations. Beyond this statement, there is no guidance in Policy 6.4.4 concerning how Selection Committees are to evaluate responses to an RFP. Likewise, the RFP at issue provides little guidance beyond the review form itself. The RFP states: Evaluation by District Selection Committee: The District Selection Committee composed of three (3) persons will review the qualifications of respondents and compare the proposals based on the items listed in Exhibit B, "Review Form," in Section 6. This form will be used by the Selection Committee in ranking the proposals. * * * Rejection of Responses: Pursuant to Rule 40B-1.812, Florida Administrative Code, the District reserves the right to reject any and all bids or other proposals submitted in response to District invitation. District also reserves the right to waive any minor deviations in an otherwise valid proposal. Florida Administrative Code Rule 40B-1.812, referenced by the RFP, provides: The District shall reserve the right to reject any and all bids or other proposal submitted in response to District invitation, and such reservation shall be indicated on all advertising and invitations. The District may waive minor irregularities in an otherwise valid bid. A minor irregularity is a variation from the terms and conditions which does not affect the price of the bid, or give the bidder an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders, or does not adversely impact the interest of the District. Variations which are not minor may not be waived. A bidder may not modify bid after opening. Mistakes clearly evident on the face of the bid documents, such as computation errors, may be corrected by the District. The review form in Exhibit B of the RFP lists three categories for evaluation of proposals: 1) "Qualifications and Relevant Experience" (70 possible points); 2) "Financial Considerations" (25 possible points); and 3) "Data Delivery" (5 possible points). A similar review form to the one used for this procurement has been used by past Selection Committees reviewing proposals for the services at issue, with the distinction that the current procurement added a Data Delivery category for ability to use the Hydstra format. Previously, the review form contained only two categories: Qualifications and Relevant Experience (70-75 possible points); and 2) Financial Considerations (25-30 possible points). With one exception, it appears that the Selection Committees considered the qualifications of past bidders corporately consistent with Policy Number 6.6.4. This was not the first time Hydrogage submitted a proposal to perform these services. On several different occasions since 1997, Hydrogage submitted proposals that were accepted as timely and complete, but were not considered the winning proposal. On those occasions Hydrogage routinely requested the proposals submitted by other companies, as well as the review forms completed by the Selection Committees, in order to improve on its proposals for future submittals. The review forms used by past Selection Committees contained some variations but were generally consistent. For the Qualifications and Relevant Experience category, there are six subcategories reflected on the review sheet: proposed staff experience with similar projects; demonstrated understanding of scope of work; ability to perform all tasks in scope of work; references; availability/responsiveness of qualified personnel; and resources/equipment availability. These same subcategories are listed on the current review form. The review form for RFP 96/97-29WR included a listing of the points the Selection Committee could award for each subcategory under Qualifications and Relevant Experience, with the subcategory "proposed staff experience with similar projects" broken down even further according to the type of equipment to be used. For the Financial Considerations category, the lowest cost proposal was awarded the full thirty points, and each remaining proposal was awarded points in proportion to how its cost proposal corresponded to the lowest one. The review forms for RFP 96/97-29WR were signed by all three reviewers. The winning proposal was submitted by Sutron Corp., with Hydrogage placing second. The review form for RFP 99/00-41WR contained the same subcategories under Qualifications and Relevant Experience, but did not break down the points attributable to each subcategory. The review form simply listed the total points available for the entire category. Reviewers on the Selection Committee signed individual review forms, with only one reviewer detailing the points he awarded for each subcategory. The winning proposal was submitted by Sutron Corp., with Hydrogage listed as third. Hydrogage submitted the lowest cost proposal for this RFP, and Sutron Corp. submitted the third lowest. The review form for RFP 02/03-008WR contained the same categories but did not break down the points attributable to each subcategory. Like the review form for 99/00-41WR, it simply listed the total points available. Review forms for this bid were signed by all three reviewers. RFP 02/03-008WR was awarded to Safe Harbor Associates, and Hydrogage's proposal was ranked second. Hydrogage filed a protest to the award and after a hearing before the Water Management District Governing Board, all proposals were rejected and the project was re-bid through RFP 02/03-040WR. As with RFP 02/03-008WR, for 02/03-040WR no detail was provided on the review forms for the points attributable to each subcategory in the Qualifications and Relevant Experience component, and all three Reviewers signed each review form. The project was awarded to HDC, with Hydrogage coming in fourth. Petitioner did not challenge the specifications of the current RFP. Petitioner's representative believed that, consistent with past practice of the District and its rules and policies governing procurement procedures, the proposals would be scored using the same method by each Selection Committee member because they would make their decision as a group and that the financial aspect of the bid would be scored on a proportionate basis based on the relationship to the lowest bid. The budgets submitted by the three proposers under the Financial Considerations category of the current RFP were a) Hydrologic Data Collection - $72,910.00; b) Hydrogage - $81,149.40; and c) Microcom Design, Inc. - $185,241.00. All three Reviewers of the Selection Committee awarded 25 points to HDC for its cost proposal under Financial Considerations. Two of the Reviewers awarded Hydrogage 13 points and the third awarded 22 points. The first two Reviewers awarded zero points and five points, respectively, to Microcom. Unlike HDC, Hydrogage could deliver data in Hydstra format. The ability to do so meant that SRWMD personnel did not have to convert the data received into Hydstra format, which could save the District between $1,500 and $2,000 per year. Both Hydrogage and Microcom received five points from each member of the Selection Committee in the Data Delivery category, whereas HDC could not deliver data in this format and received no points from any member of the Selection Committee. With respect to the current solicitation, the review sheets for each reviewer were signed separately. The reviewers independently considered the proposals submitted and met individually with SRWMD staff to discuss references. The public meeting by the Selection Committee was limited to a tabulation of the scores previously determined by each individual Reviewer. In other words, the Selection Committee did not "act as a corporate body to evaluate the proposals, rank the respondents, and select the individual or firm with the best relative ability to perform the services desired," as required by Policy 6.6.4. Kirk Webster is the Deputy Executive Director of the Department of Water Resources for the SRWMD, and was a member of the Selection Committee. Mr. Webster has worked for the SRWMD since 1976 and has served on several Selection Committees, including those assigned to evaluate 96/97-29WR, 99/00-41WR and 02/03-008WR. Mr. Webster awarded HDC 65 of 75 points for Qualifications and Relevant Experience, and awarded Hydrogage 60 points. Mr. Webster considered the subcategories in this category to be of varying levels of importance, and did not necessarily separate out points for each subcategory. Nor did he deduct points for specified deficiencies in a proposal, but viewed the overall category as a composite. He did not award a perfect score in the Qualifications and Relevant Experience category to any bidder, because in his view there are no perfect companies. With respect to the Financial Considerations category, he awarded HDC the full 25 points available because it submitted the lowest bid. He awarded Hydrogage 22 points: approximately 10 percent fewer points than HDC because its bid was approximately 10 percent higher than HDC's. Based on his prior experience on selection committees, he used a mathematical calculation that was in direct proportion to the bid amounts of the three proposals submitted. Mr. Webster's method of awarding points in the Financial Considerations category was consistent with past practice of the SRWMD. John Dinges, Director of Resource Management for the SRWMD, also served on the Selection Committee. Mr. Dinges previously served on the Selection Committee for 02/03-008WR. He felt that the six subcategories in the Qualifications and Relevant Experience category were factors to consider, but not necessarily entitled to the same point value. If a proposer left a subcategory out of the RFP response, he would have awarded fewer points for the overall category. Mr. Dinges awarded the full 70 points in this category for all three companies. With respect to the Financial Considerations category, Mr. Dinges did not use a proportional method of awarding points as Mr. Webster. Instead, he awarded HDC the full 25 points for the lowest cost proposal. For Hydrogage, he "split the difference" between 0 and 25 and rounded up to thirteen. He awarded 5 points to Microcom, whose financial proposal was over twice as high as either other proposal, because it had submitted a proposal. Because Policy Number 6.4.4 does not specify how to calculate the financial component, Dinges felt that a Reviewer should not look at past practice of the agency but should look at the RFP itself and use his or her own judgment. Carolyn Purdy, the third Reviewer, is the Executive Office Coordinator for the District. Ms. Purdy has been employed by SRWMD for over 30 years and has served on several Selection Committees before this one, including the ones assigned to review proposals for 99/00-41WR and 03/04-40WR. Ms Purdy also awarded all three proposals the 70 points in the Qualifications and Relevant Experience category. In the Financial Considerations category, she awarded HDC 25 points, and like Mr. Dinges, "split the difference" between 0 and 25 and rounded up, awarding 13 points to Hydrogage. She awarded no points to Microcom. When serving on the Selection Committee for 99/00-41WR and 03/04-40WR, she had used the same or a similar method for evaluating the Financial Considerations category as that used by Mr. Webster in this case. She had no real explanation for changing her scoring method, other than that the SRWMD policy gives no criteria for scoring and she thought this was fair. One of the subcategories listed for the Qualifications and Relevant Experience category on the review form was "references." The Selection Committee members reviewed only Policy 6.4.4, the actual RFP and the three proposals submitted by HDC, Hydrogage and Microcom. The individual members did not check references supplied by the companies bidding on the project, but relied on staff to do so. Tom Mirti, the SRWMD's water resources networks program manager and hydrologist, was tasked with checking the references contained in the proposals. Mr. Mirti then met with each member of the Selection Committee to report the results of his reference checks. Hydrogage's proposal contained a section entitled "Client References" listing the names, addresses and telephone numbers for contact people at other water management districts, as well as a summary of the work performed for those districts. In addition, Hydrogage's proposal contained a listing of "Streamgaging/ADCP/Dye Dilution Clients" for the years 2004-2006 under its description of its work experience. Microcom also submitted a list of prior projects with contact information for each. HDC, on the other hand, in a section entitled "References," provided what is better described as a bibliography. It did not submit a list of business references or the names and telephone numbers of any other entities for whom it had performed similar work. The RFP specified that the proposal document must provide "Information on the geographic location of the contractor's firm and staff (resumes and experience on similar projects) that the contractor currently has available to perform the work." Arguably, providing information in response to this requirement would also provide the references that the review form identified as one of the criteria for evaluating the Qualifications and Relevant Experience component of the proposals. HDC's proposal, however, did not list "similar projects." Instead, the proposal relied heavily on the aggregate experience of the staff members identified for the project, referring repeatedly to "over 245 years of stream gaging experience with the USGS and private sector," and stating that it is "currently conducting stream gaging activities at 69 daily discharge stations, 8 periodic discharge stations, 9 acoustic velocity stations, 5 raingage stations and 2 water quality monitor stations in Florida and south Georgia." Clients for this work are not identified. Mr. Webster and Mr. Dinges believed that the term "references" on the review form meant references to other clients for whom a company had performed work. Both agreed that if a proposal left something out that was required, including references, points should be deducted for the deficiency. However, neither deducted points from HDC for not including business references. Ms. Purdy also believed that the response should include references to other agencies for whom the proposer had performed work, but felt that HDC's submission of bibliographical entries was reasonable because the people preparing the response are scientists. More importantly, she felt no need to check business references for HDC because it had worked for the SRWMD in the past and its representatives "do good work." Mr. Dinges and Mr. Webster expressed a similar view. Indeed, Mr. Webster testified that he would rely on the fact that a contractor had worked for the SRWMD in the past, perhaps to the detriment of other companies, if it had done good work. Regardless of the value each Selection Committee member would attribute to references, the RFP and past practices of the Division require that some deduction be made for failing to provide this information. No such deduction was made to HDC's score for this deficiency by any member of the Selection Team. Tom Mirti, the staff person tasked with checking the references, acknowledged that HDC did not submit business references. However, in light of the work HDC had done for the District previously, he decided that he could serve as a reference for HDC. He had in the past given HDC's name to other entities because he liked the quality of its work, and called those to whom he had given HDC's name to confirm that the work HDC had done was satisfactory. The information that Mirti supplied, i.e., serving as a reference himself and contacting other entities regarding HDC, was not information readily available from the response to the RFP itself. Mr. Mirti's actions, while well- intentioned, served to supplement HDC's proposal and provided to HDC an advantage not enjoyed by other bidders. Likewise, the failure to provide references was not an error, such as a computation error, that could or should be corrected by the Division. When the totals for all three reviewers are added up for each proposal, HDC received 280 points, Hydrogage received 263 points, and Microcom received 230 points. If two of the Selection Committee members, consistent with their own prior practice and with the prior practice of the SRWMD, had awarded points in the Financial Considerations category in proportion to the lowest bid, Hydrogage would have received more overall points than any other bidder. Similarly, where a point value for references has been identified in past solicitations, the subcategory was generally awarded 10 points. There is no requirement that 10 points be deducted, but all three Reviewers agreed that some deduction should have been made. If points had been deducted from HDC's score for failure to provide references, its point total may have been lowered so that Hydrogage may have received the highest overall total.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered that rescinds the recommendation that RFP No 05/06-036WR be awarded to Hydrologic Data Collection, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of September, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 13th day of September, 2006.
The Issue The first issue in this case is whether, as the district school board alleges, a teacher called her students "tonto" or stupid, threw books to the ground and forced students to pick them up, and put her feet and shoes in students' faces; if these allegations are proved to be true, than it will be necessary to decide whether the school board has just cause to suspend the teacher for 10 workdays, without pay.
Findings Of Fact The Miami-Dade County School Board ("School Board"), Petitioner in this case, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Miami-Dade County Public School System. As of the final hearing, Respondent Walkyria Dolz ("Dolz") had been a teacher for more than 40 years. Having begun her career in Cuba, Dolz emigrated in 1974 from her native country to the United States, where she continued to teach in New York City and Miami. An employee of the Miami-Dade County Public School System for the preceding 15 years, Dolz worked as a music teacher at Riverside Elementary School during the 2008- 09 school year, which is the period relevant to this case. Dolz did not have a classroom of her own at Riverside. Rather, she traveled from room to room, using a cart to transport books and musical instruments. Dolz visited each class to which she was assigned once per week for one hour. In this way, in a given year, she taught hundreds of Riverside students in grades one through five. In her long career, Dolz had never been the subject of a disciplinary proceeding until this matter began. Indeed, she had been (and as of the hearing continued to be) a respected member of Riverside's teaching staff. Much evidence supports this finding, but the following statement, which was written on May 21, 2009, by Riverside's principal, Sharon López, is instructive: Ms. Dolz has been under my supervision as school principal since December 12, 2002. She has always exhibited professional behavior as a classroom teacher and properly represented Riverside Elementary in all school functions off-campus. Ms. Dolz has met standards for classroom observations since her employment as a music teacher at Riverside Elementary in 1998. The allegations [at issue here] are out of character for Ms. Walkyria Dolz. The alleged misconduct primarily giving rise to this case allegedly occurred in November 2008, in a fifth-grade classroom. Based on the stories of several students, the School Board avers that Dolz: (a) attempted to kick a student in the face; (b) waived a sandal in (or at) another student's face; (c) dropped a book to quiet the students; and (d) called the students "tonto," a Spanish word the School Board contends means "stupid." Dolz consistently has denied having done any of these things and testified to that effect at hearing. The young children who testified against Dolz did not impress the undersigned as being accurate and reliable witnesses. The account of R. S.——who claimed that Dolz silently had approached his desk, removed her sandal (while balancing on one foot), and swung the footwear at his face as he sat there in fear, all without saying a single word during the entire event, which lasted at least three minutes (according to R. S.)——was incredible on its face. While it is not inconceivable that Dolz (or any teacher) could snap in the face of some provocation or incitement, the undersigned can neither believe nor find (on this evidence at any rate) that a veteran teacher with a clean disciplinary record suddenly became a bizarre, zombie-like creature for several minutes out of an otherwise ordinary workday and wordlessly set upon a well-behaved student for no reason. Similarly implausible was A. L.'s testimony about the foregoing alleged incident and another where Dolz supposedly nearly kicked a student named L. J. in the face with her foot, while standing on one leg, because L. J. was not playing his instrument properly. A. L.'s testimony in this regard is rejected not only because Dolz, 67, appeared to be physically incapable of kickboxing a child, but also because the undersigned is skeptical that a teacher who has taught for decades without incident——and who has always behaved professionally except, allegedly, in this one instance——would lose control of herself to such a degree merely because of a student's poor musical performance.1 A third student, A. W., testified that Dolz hit R. S. and L. J. on their arms. The School Board itself did not accept this testimony as credible, and neither does the undersigned. A. W.'s lack of credibility on this significant matter undermined his credibility in general. On balance, Dolz was a more credible witness than R. S., A. L., or A. W. The undersigned accepts her denial of wrongdoing as truthful and finds that, more likely than not, Dolz did not attempt to kick or strike any student. The remaining charges are much less serious. Several children testified that, when the students were talkative or inattentive, Dolz threw a textbook on the floor or a table to make a loud noise, which would get the class's attention. Dolz denies ever having done this. The undersigned finds that the evidence is insufficient to prove that Dolz used a textbook to threaten, embarrass, or humiliate a student, or otherwise in a manner that was objectively unseemly, untoward, or unreasonable under the circumstances. Some children testified that Dolz referred to her students as "tonto," an allegation which she denies. There is conflicting evidence concerning the meaning of the word "tonto" in Spanish. While the word can mean "stupid," as the School Board maintains, it also means "silly," as Dolz points out, and, depending on the context, can be used to suggest that someone is acting like a clown or fooling around. Based solely on the evidence presented, the undersigned cannot find that the Spanish term "tonto" is insulting per se, and the absence of any proof regarding the context in which Dolz allegedly uttered the word precludes a finding that she used it in a hurtful manner, if she used it at all. Determinations of Ultimate Fact The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Dolz is guilty of the offense of misconduct in office as defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009(3).2 The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Dolz is guilty of the offense of unseemly conduct, which is prohibited under School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21.3 The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Dolz is guilty of violating the School Board's Code of Ethics, which is set forth in School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.213.4
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order exonerating Dolz of all charges brought against her in this proceeding and awarding her the back pay, plus benefits if any, which accrued while she served the previously imposed suspension of 10 workdays. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 8th day of January, 2010.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether there is sufficient "just cause" to warrant termination of Respondent's annual contract of employment with the Monroe County School Board.
Findings Of Fact Based on the Findings of Fact and Burke's prior disciplinary record, the undersigned concludes that Burke's chronic misconduct and series of continuing disciplinary problems on February 23, 2015 ( para. 9o.); May 7, 2015 ( para. 9q.); and May 12, 2015 ( para. 9r.), as well as Burke's performance evaluation from April 9, 2015 ( para. 9t.), permitted the School Board to dispense with the progressive discipline steps under the CBA since immediate and\or stronger action was reasonably necessary under Article V, Section 1B. of the CBA, and "just cause" existed for her termination. Burke's unabated misbehavior, even after several sit- downs and fair and repeated warnings, constituted sufficient legal grounds to permit the School Board to omit or skip steps in the progressive discipline process. See, generally, Quiller v. Duval Cnty. Sch. Bd., 171 So. 3d 745 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (concurring opinion, Osterhaus, J.) (The employee's repeated use of profanity and derogatory language, her discipline history, and her failure to modify her conduct warranted skipping steps of the progressive discipline policy.). Quiller was decided the summer of 2015 and provides an analogous set of circumstances. Relevant portions of Judge Osterhaus's concurring opinion are instructive and worth repeating here: By highlighting Ms. Quiller's rhetorical and disciplinary history, the Final Order disputes the Recommended Order's conclusion that "[t]here is no proof that the behavior at issue constitutes [5] 'severe acts of misconduct.'" Though the definition of "more severe acts" in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) was left undefined, the School Board's human resource officer testified at the hearing that the School Board determines appropriate discipline based on how many times an incident has occurred, who the witnesses are, the severity of the incident, the amount of time that has occurred between incidents, and the employee's willingness to modify his or her behavior. Her testimony continued that "some of the most severe conduct" includes instances when an employee has failed to modify his or her more serious behavior after having been warned. In turn, the School Board's conclusion in this case was that Ms. Quiller's repeated use of profanity and derogatory language, her discipline history, and her failure to modify her conduct warranted skipping step three of the progressive discipline policy. So there wasn't "no proof" that Ms. Quiller's behavior constituted "more severe acts of misconduct" for purposes of the CBA, even if the ALJ thought that her acts weren't particularly severe. Deference is due to the School Board's decision with respect to its personnel decisions. Courts [6] have little room to define what constitutes "more severe acts of misconduct" as against those responsible for running the county's schools. See, e.g., Dep't of Prof. Regulation v. Bernal, 531 So. 2d 967, 968 (Fla. 1988) (giving great discretion to boards to determine discipline). Courts will not substitute their judgment "if valid reasons for the board's order exist in the record and reference is made thereto." Id. at 968. To that end, the School Board's identification of Ms. Quiller's bad language, discipline, and failure to modify her behavior probably supports the departure it took from the ALJ's recommended penalty.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Monroe County School Board accept and implement the superintendent's recommendation to terminate Respondent, Sue Burke. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of November, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of November, 2015.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the unlawful employment practice alleged in the Employment Complaint of Discrimination filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (“FCHR”), and, if so, what relief should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Black West-Indian male. Respondent is a political subdivision of the State of Florida responsible for operating the public schools in Broward County. Petitioner obtained a temporary teaching certificate from the Florida Department of Education in 2017. In October 2017, Petitioner was hired by Respondent as a teacher at Walker Elementary School. As a new teacher, Petitioner was a contract employee subject to a probationary period of one school year. During the probationary period, Petitioner could be dismissed without cause or resign without breach of contract. Petitioner worked at Walker Elementary School, where he did not have his own classroom, but worked with special-needs children in different classrooms, until the end of the 2017-2018 school year. There were no teaching positions available at that school for the 2018-2019 school year. In August of 2018, Petitioner was transferred by Respondent to Mirror Lake, where he filled a first-grade teaching vacancy. Andrea Gresham was the team leader for first-grade teachers at Mirror Lake. As a new teacher, Petitioner was assigned a mentor to assist him in acclimating to the duties of his position. In addition to being the team leader for all first-grade teachers at Mirror Lake, Ms. Gresham was also Petitioner’s designated mentor. Petitioner reported for work at Mirror Lake on August 7, 2018. At that time, Ms. Gresham took Petitioner on a tour of the campus. She also provided Petitioner with sample lesson plans and homework for the students. Throughout the week, Petitioner prepared for the first day of school for students with Ms. Gresham’s help. These preparations included Ms. Gresham reviewing procedures related to beginning-of-year testing, student homework, teacher planning, and student dismissal at the end of the school day. It was Ms. Gresham’s habit to keep dated notes relevant to her duties as a mentor and team leader. As a best practice, she regularly met with Principal Veliz to discuss the progress of new teachers. Ms. Gresham kept contemporaneous notes of her interactions with Petitioner and kept Principal Veliz advised of her observations. Ms. Gresham observed that Petitioner was not engaged within the team of first-grade teachers and had a difficult time grasping school procedures despite her attempts to guide him. The typical first-grade student is six years old at the beginning of the school year. Given how young these students are, the protocol at Mirror Lake requires teachers to take extra care to ensure that the students are directed to the correct mode of transportation during dismissal. Ms. Gresham explained the dismissal procedures and emphasized their importance to Petitioner on more than one occasion leading up to the students’ first day of school. Each first-grade student is given a lanyard that is color-coded to correspond to that student’s teacher. Teachers are responsible for writing each child’s mode of transportation, as provided to the teacher by the child’s parents, on his or her lanyard every day. At the end of the school day, the children are sorted by their mode of transportation and escorted by a designated teacher or paraprofessional. The students are categorized as: car riders, bus riders, walkers, or attendees of the on-site after-school program. August 15, 2018, was the first day of the school year for students at Mirror Lake. At the end of the school day, Petitioner, along with all of the other first-grade teachers, was responsible for assisting his students in reporting to the appropriate location for their respective modes of transportation. On August 15, 2018, Petitioner and Ms. Gresham were both assigned to the car-rider group. While Petitioner and Ms. Gresham were in the car-rider pickup area, Ms. Gresham became aware that a student was missing when a visibly upset parent exited his vehicle having learned that his child was not present for pick-up. Ms. Gresham sought help from the school resource officer and other teachers in an effort to locate the missing student. Principal Veliz testified credibly that this was the first and last time a student was unaccounted for at dismissal at Mirror Lake. Ms. Gresham asked to see the transportation log that Petitioner had compiled for his students to determine how the child was supposed to go home and where the mistake may have occurred. In reviewing Petitioner’s transportation log, Ms. Gresham noticed that the log had some children’s names listed under two different modes of transportation for the same day. As a result, Petitioner’s transportation log did not add any clarity to the situation. Meanwhile, teachers continued to search the campus for the missing student and the school resource officer escorted the father of the missing student to the office to speak with Principal Veliz. Once the student dismissal process was complete for the day, Principal Veliz convened a faculty meeting. During the meeting, the faculty learned that a second student from Petitioner’s class was missing. Principal Veliz adjourned the faculty meeting and assembled the team leaders in the office to assist in locating the two missing students. Petitioner returned to his classroom and did not join the effort to locate the missing students. The team leaders proceeded to call private daycares to ask if the missing students may have been transported to such a facility by mistake. Through these phone calls, both of the missing students were located at the same daycare. Thereafter, the children were reunited with their parents. Principal Veliz met with the parents of the children who had been mistakenly sent to the wrong location on August 15, 2018. Principal Veliz personally paid for the daycare center’s charges with respect to one of the students who had been inadvertently sent there. Principal Veliz testified that the parents were upset that their children had been misplaced and that the parents of one of the children requested a transfer to another first-grade teacher. Ms. Gresham had the opportunity to examine the lanyard belonging to one of the students who had gone missing during dismissal. She observed that Petitioner had written on the lanyard that the student was to ride the bus that day, although the parents had previously informed Petitioner that the student was to be picked up by car. In conducting a routine observational visit to Petitioner’s classroom during the first week of school, Principal Veliz observed conditions that she considered of urgent concern with respect to Petitioner’s academic practices and overall classroom management. She observed a lack of structure, including students in Petitioner’s class wandering around the room and playing with pencils as though they were swords without any redirection. Principal Veliz also observed that Petitioner was using obsolete and ineffective teaching methods. Principal Veliz contacted the school district’s employee relations and talent acquisition office to discuss Petitioner’s employment status. Principal Veliz was notified that Petitioner was still within his one-year probationary term, and that his employment could be terminated without a formal hearing or progressive disciplinary measures. Principal Veliz made the decision to terminate Petitioner’s employment prior to the end of his probationary status based on his unsatisfactory performance. Principal Veliz obtained a form letter from the school district’s human resources department, which she modified to fit Petitioner’s circumstances. The letter was dated August 23, 2018. The letter stated that Petitioner’s name would be submitted to the next School Board meeting for termination of employment during a probationary period and that Petitioner could choose to resign in lieu of termination. Petitioner chose not to sign the document. Petitioner’s employment was terminated at the next meeting of the School Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that FCHR enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of October, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRITTANY O. FINKBEINER 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 16th day of October, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed) Rudyard Julius 19101 Northwest 11th Street Pembroke Pines, Florida 33029 (eServed) Michael T. Burke, Esquire Johnson, Anselmo, Murdoch, Burke, Piper & Hochman, P.A. 2455 East Sunrise Boulevard, Suite 1000 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304 (eServed) Cheyenne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed)
The Issue The issue is whether Representative Cary Pigman violated section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, by linking his efforts to obtain legislative funding for the Okeechobee School District ("School District") to retaliate and/or attempt to retaliate against an employee of the School District and; if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Respondent serves as a member of the Florida House of Representatives, District 55, which includes Okeechobee County, Florida. He has served in the position since 2012. Representative Pigman received ethics training when he became a Legislator. On October 16, 2015, Respondent and State Senator Denise Grimsley ("Senator Grimsley") held a Legislative Delegation meeting ("delegation meeting") in Okeechobee County to allow constituents, organizations, and agencies to present legislative requests and share information. Okeechobee County Superintendent Kenneth Kenworthy ("Superintendent Kenworthy") appeared at the Legislative Delegation meeting and requested three items: 1) funding for the lowest 300 schools in reading to add an extra hour a day; 2) accountability and assessment for learning games not calculated; and 3) support for the School District’s application to the Florida Department of Education1/ for approximately 60 million dollars in special facilities funds to build a new Okeechobee high school.2/ Prior to the delegation meeting, Superintendent Kenworthy had asked that his principals attend the meeting if free. Attendance was voluntary. Tracy Downing ("Mrs. Downing"), principal of South Elementary School ("South") in Okeechobee County, attended the meeting at the request of her supervisor, Superintendent Kenworthy, along with other school district representatives. Mrs. Downing invited parents to attend the meeting and one parent attended. Mrs. Downing has 21 years in the education profession and the last 11 years she has been an administrator. She has been the principal at South for two years. Before the delegation meeting started, Representative Pigman went down the rows shaking hands and introducing himself to the attendees. When Respondent got to Mrs. Downing, she introduced herself as Tracy Maxwell, her maiden name instead of Tracy Downing. Mrs. Downing squeezed his hand, continued to hold Representative Pigman’s hand after the handshake for an extended period of time and stared at him making him uncomfortable until he started blinking, and he had to pull away from her grasp. During the meeting, Mrs. Downing directed an obscene gesture at Representative Pigman. She had her middle finger on her face purposely flipping him a bird,3/ which means "f you." Mrs. Downing was angry at Respondent and acted inappropriately because of Respondent’s over yearlong romantic relationship with then Elizabeth Maxwell ("E. Maxwell"), the then-separated wife of Mrs. Downing’s brother, Devin Maxwell ("Maxwell"). At least 10 months of the relationship was public. Maxwell was incarcerated at the time of the delegation meeting and Mrs. Downing believed Respondent was visiting then E. Maxwell at the marital home, "sleeping in [her] brother’s bed," and had moved into her brother’s house. In November 2015, Representative Pigman’s current wife, then E. Maxwell, obtained audio recordings from the jail that had taped conversations of visits between Mrs. Downing and Maxwell. The conversations included discussions regarding the delegation meeting and the education of E. Maxwell and Maxwell’s daughter. After hearing the exchange of the jailhouse recordings, Respondent felt obligated to report Mrs. Downing’s misbehavior to her supervisor, Superintendent Kenworthy, because her conduct reflected negatively on the School District. Respondent felt it was his duty to report the principal’s rudeness and stop such future behaviors. Soon thereafter, E. Maxwell arranged a meeting with Superintendent Kenworthy to report Mrs. Downing’s misbehavior at the delegation meeting and to discuss E. Maxwell’s daughter’s educational progress at South with her aunt, Mrs. Downing, the principal. One scheduled meeting was cancelled when Representative Pigman could not attend. The earliest Superintendent Kenworthy, Representative Pigman and E. Maxwell could meet was December 8, 2015. On December 8, 2015, Representative Pigman and E. Maxwell played portions of the four audio taped jail conversations between Mrs. Downing and Maxwell for Superintendent Kenworthy in his office. The recorded tapes included a conversation regarding the legislative delegation meeting where Mrs. Downing confirmed her inappropriate conduct and bragged to her brother "I gave that man hell" during the legislative hearing. Mrs. Downing detailed the incident to her brother on the recordings. She said that "Pigman was there shaking all the principals hands and when he got to me he said I am Cary Pigman, and I said I am Tracy Maxwell. And, then he blinked rapidly like three four times and I wouldn’t let go of his hand and he pulled his hand out of my hand. Then, when he sat down [for the meeting] I looked at him two hours straight. Every time he would look at me he would blink like he was really uncomfortable. Then, Andy Brewer and I walked out of the courthouse and we stood there and stared him down until he got in his stupid little jeep and drove off with Justin Morgan." On the jailhouse recordings, Mrs. Downing also called Representative Pigman a bastard multiple times. Mrs. Downing further explained to her brother "every time [Respondent] looked at me I-actually, well, I probably shouldn’t say this ” After listening to the audio recordings, Representative Pigman informed Superintendent Kenworthy about Mrs. Downing’s inappropriate conduct during the delegation meeting. Respondent told Superintendent Kenworthy that he could not believe the callous disregard for this district, when he looked at Mrs. Downing in the delegation meeting, she had her middle finger up to her forehead, flipping him off. Respondent expressed his dissatisfaction with Mrs. Downing’s behavior to Superintendent Kenworthy and also questioned whether Mrs. Downing could be the best Okeechobee School District has to offer. Respondent explained to Superintendent Kenworthy the performance of Mrs. Downing in leadership gives me pause. Representative Pigman also said this incident will be in the "back of my mind when thinking about the school district."4/ Neither Respondent nor E. Maxwell mentioned or asked for discipline for Mrs. Downing during the meeting. Respondent believed Maxwell had stopped the previous request for a transfer of E. Maxwell’s daughter to North Elementary School ("North"). Respondent recognized that he was sensitive when it came to incidents related to E. Maxwell's divorce proceedings and decided not to participate in the second part of the meeting. After Respondent was finished expressing his concerns about Mrs. Downing’s conduct, he went in the hallway and left E. Maxwell alone to meet with Superintendent Kenworthy regarding her daughter going to North. After the meeting, Superintendent Kenworthy found out that space was available at North and a zone waiver was granted for E. Maxwell’s daughter. That same day Superintendent Kenworthy contacted E. Maxwell and notified her that space was available at North in fourth grade but not with the teacher she requested. Superintendent Kenworthy was concerned that one of his principals behaved in such a manner as was reported to him by Respondent. On December 9, 2015, Superintendent Kenworthy met with Mrs. Downing and reviewed what had been reported to him from the previous day’s meeting with Respondent and E. Maxwell. Superintendent Kenworthy shared the contents of what he learned from listening to the jailhouse audiotapes of Mrs. Downing talking with her brother. Superintendent Kenworthy also told Mrs. Downing he had concerns about her behavior during the delegation meeting and her following the Respondent after that meeting. Mrs. Downing acknowledged to Superintendent Kenworthy that she was behind Representative Pigman a couple of blocks for a portion of her normal route back to work. Mrs. Downing also admitted her wrongdoings and confessed to Superintendent Kenworthy that she introduced herself as Maxwell, instead of Mrs. Downing, held Representative Pigman’s hand after shaking it until he had to pull it away, and flipped Representative Pigman off when he looked at her in the audience. Mrs. Downing apologized for her behavior and explained to Superintendent Kenworthy that she was extremely upset with the family situation between Respondent, her brother, and her brother’s estranged wife, E. Maxwell. Superintendent Kenworthy informed Mrs. Downing that she was at the delegation meeting representing the district and her public actions displayed were conduct unbecoming a school principal and unprofessional behavior. He also informed her that her public misconduct was what he was addressing, not the interactions with her brother. Superintendent Kenworthy concluded the meeting by informing Mrs. Downing that he would decide what consequences were appropriate for her actions. Mrs. Downing suggested to Superintendent Kenworthy that he should reprimand her. On December 14, 2015, E. Maxwell came in and signed the zone waiver to move her daughter to North. Superintendent Kenworthy continued investigating Mrs. Downing’s conduct from the delegation meeting in order to decide the appropriate discipline. His investigation followed the School District’s procedures when a complaint has been received. Superintendent Kenworthy interviewed Jill Holcomb, who sat next to Mrs. Downing at the delegation meeting, and Andy Brewer, who walked out of the meeting with Mrs. Downing. He also talked to school board members and the school board attorney. On December 17, 2015, Superintendent Kenworthy watched the video of the delegation meeting, but the video only showed the left side of the room and Mrs. Downing sat on the right side during the meeting. That same day, Superintendent Kenworthy met with Mrs. Downing and her husband and explained that he determined that Mrs. Downing violated several district policies with her harassing conduct including: principals of professional conduct; bullying and harassment policy; good moral character requirement; and the code of ethics. During that same meeting, Superintendent Kenworthy requested that Mrs. Downing share anything with him that Representative Pigman had stated that was not true. Mrs. Downing admitted flipping Respondent off but clarified she did not flip him off multiple times. Superintendent Kenworthy explained that the number of times did not make a difference because her behavior was not excused. Mrs. Downing informed Superintendent Kenworthy that she did not realize one obscene gesture in the spur of the moment would lead to something like this. Mrs. Downing and her husband also did not disagree with the district policies Superintendent Kenworthy outlined in the meeting that Mrs. Downing violated by her conduct at the public delegation meeting.5/ Superintendent Kenworthy did not take in consideration who reported Mrs. Downing’s public misconduct when deciding the appropriate discipline. Respondent did not play any role in Superintendent Kenworthy’s decision to discipline Mrs. Downing. Even if it had been a private citizen instead of Respondent who reported Mrs. Downing, Superintendent Kenworthy would have disciplined Mrs. Downing the same. Superintendent Kenworthy offered Mrs. Downing an opportunity to resign from her position or he would move forward with termination. On December 18, 2015, Superintendent Kenworthy spoke to Mrs. Downing again by phone. She indicated "this one moment of indiscretion has caused her a lot" and "she didn’t know why she did it." Mrs. Downing asked the superintendent to consider her 20 years of service to the district and requested a settlement regarding discipline. On December 19, 2015, Mrs. Downing called Superintendent Kenworthy and informed him that she would not be resigning. On or about December 22, 2015, Mrs. Downing filed the instant ethics complaint against Respondent. Superintendent Kenworthy decided that he did not want to publicly air either a principal’s misbehavior or the Maxwells' and Pigmans’ personal issues, and he took into consideration Mrs. Downing’s 20 plus year work history with the district and switched Mrs. Downing’s discipline from termination to a suspension. On December 29, 2015, Superintendent Kenworthy spoke to Mrs. Downing about a settlement and offered her a 10-day suspension without pay for her misconduct at the delegation meeting, which violated the school board rules. Mrs. Downing accepted and served the suspension. She is still employed with the district as a principal. By letter dated January 4, 2016, Superintendent Kenworthy disciplined Mrs. Downing with a 10-day suspension. The suspension without pay letter outlined Mrs. Downing’s actions and School Board violations and stated: [W]hile on duty representing the school district, the manner in which you introduced yourself shook hands to the point an individual became so uncomfortable as to blink extensively later bragged that you gave this person ‘hell’ during the hearing and stared him down, and used your middle finger to flip him off while acting like you were scratching your face constitutes a violation On or about January 22, 2016, Senator Grimsley and Representative Pigman wrote a letter of support to the Office of Educational Facilities at the Florida Department of Education for the new high school. On or about February 9, 2016, Superintendent Kenworthy received a letter from the Pre-Application Review Committee at the Florida Department of Education informing him that the committee convened on December 10, 2015, and reviewed the proposed new high school project. The committee denied the request after determining that the project is not a critical need for Okeechobee County. On September 14, 2016, an Order Finding Probable Cause was issued alleging Respondent violated section 112.313(6).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Ethics enter a final order and Public Report finding that Respondent, Cary Pigman, did not violate section 112.313(6) and dismiss the case. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of March, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY 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 27th day of March, 2017.
The Issue Whether Respondent's employment with Petitioner should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact For approximately seven years, William Mitchell (Respondent) was employed as a custodian with the Monroe County School Board (Petitioner). Until 1997, Respondent worked at night at Horace Bryant Middle School, coming to work around 2:00 p.m. Respondent had very little contact with students during the school day at Horace Bryant Middle School. In or about 1997, Respondent voluntarily transferred to Key West High School and worked during the school day where he had contact with students on a regular basis. As a custodian, Respondent had no responsibility for student discipline at either school. At the time of the hearing Respondent was 53 years of age. He was described by his supervisor at Key West High School as a good employee. Respondent was considered hardworking and gentlemanly. Respondent was not known to be a violent man and had not exhibited any violent or aggressive behavior. Respondent's duties, as custodian at Key West High School, included replenishing the soda can machine and removing the money from the machine in the mornings. In the early part of March 1998, while Respondent was replenishing the machine with sodas, a student, Jerome Simmons,1 took one of the sodas from the machine. Respondent approached Simmons and questioned him regarding the soda, but Simmons denied taking the soda. Respondent believed that Simmons was not telling the truth. The soda was not in Simmons' possession and could not be found. Respondent was aware that it was appropriate for him to report misconduct by a student to the assistant principal or the school resource officer. Respondent reported the incident to the assistant principal, Robert Fletcher. Mr. Fletcher questioned Simmons who again denied taking the soda. Mr. Fletcher determined that nothing could be done because Simmons denied taking the soda and the soda was not in Simmons' possession. Simmons was an eighteen-year-old senior at Key West High School. He was stocky, well built, and muscular, having the appearance of someone who lifts weights. Simmons' tenure at Key West High School had not been without incident. He had been disruptive and been disciplined, which included suspension. John Welsh, an assistant principal, whose responsibilities included discipline of students, was very familiar with Simmons. Mr. Welsh observed, among other things, that Simmons was the kind of person who was likely to get the last word in an argument. A few weeks after the soda incident, on March 23, 1998, Simmons was returning from a meeting with his probation officer at the administrative office of Key West High School when he encountered Respondent who was going to the administrative office to obtain the key for the soda can machine. They were passing one another in a narrow hallway, and Simmons deliberately bumped Respondent; Simmons had sufficient room on his side of the hall to pass Respondent without bumping him. Respondent reacted to the deliberate bump by telling Simmons to look where he was going. Simmons mumbled something unintelligible to Respondent, who continued walking to the administrative office and obtained the key for the soda machine. Even though the assistant principal was located in the administrative office, Respondent did not report the incident. Based upon the last encounter with Simmons, Respondent believed that he needed more than an intentional bump and something mumbled unintelligible by Simmons to demonstrate misconduct by Simmons. After obtaining the key for the soda machine, Respondent proceeded to the soda machine to replenish it with sodas. While Respondent was filling the soda machine, Simmons approached Respondent from the side, staying approximately ten to fifteen feet away from Respondent, and again mumbled something unintelligible. Respondent did not want to stop his work and stated to Simmons that, if Simmons wanted somebody to play with, he'd better go home and play because he (Respondent) had children older than Simmons. Even though Respondent used the term play, Respondent did not believe that Simmons was playing. Respondent did not report this second encounter to the assistant principal or the school resource officer. Respondent again believed that he needed more than what had happened based upon the previous soda incident involving Simmons that he (Respondent) had reported. Simmons walked away from Respondent toward the gym and again mumbled something unintelligible. However, Simmons did clearly say to Respondent, "come on." Respondent followed Simmons in hopes of being able to decipher what Simmons was mumbling in order to report Simmons if Simmons was saying anything inappropriate, as Respondent believed. It was not inappropriate for Respondent to follow Simmons. When Simmons entered the gym, he approached a physical education teacher, Nancy Thiel, and informed her that a janitor wanted to fight him. Very shortly thereafter, Ms. Thiel saw Respondent at the doorway to the gym. Simmons knew that Ms. Thiel was conducting class in the gym because, approximately twenty minutes earlier, she had directed Simmons to leave the gym since he was not in her class. A finding of fact is made that Simmons' remark that a janitor wanted to fight him is untrustworthy and not made under the stress of excitement. Simmons was calm, not appearing excited, and was relaxed when he made the remark. A finding of fact is further made that Simmons made the remark to shield himself from any wrongdoing and to make it appear that Respondent was the aggressor. Ms. Thiel was standing next to Simmons when Respondent came to the doorway to the gym. Respondent appeared calm and relaxed, not angry. Respondent again stated to Simmons that, if Simmons wanted somebody to play with, he'd better go home and play because he (Respondent) had children older than Simmons. Simmons removed his shirt and remarked to Respondent, "You want some of this," and proceeded out of the gym to the walkway where Respondent was standing. Respondent knew when Simmons removed his shirt that he (Simmons) was serious and wanted to fight. Respondent remarked, "Let's go."2 When Respondent realized that Simmons was serious and wanted to fight, Respondent was presented with an opportunity, although of short duration, to remove himself from the confrontation. Respondent failed to leave the immediate area of the confrontation and report the incident to an assistant principal or to a school resource officer. Respondent and Simmons confronted one another. They glared at one another and, almost simultaneously, lunged at one another.3 Simmons grabbed Respondent at the bottom of both Respondent's legs; Respondent lowered his weight so as not to allow Simmons to pick him up and throw him to the ground on the concrete. They wrestled and both of them fell to the ground on the dirt and sand area, avoiding the concrete area, with Simmons landing on top of Respondent and being in control. The struggle was over very quickly. No punches were thrown by either Simmons or Respondent. No criminal charges were filed by either Simmons or Respondent against one another. Petitioner has a policy prohibiting fighting at the workplace. Petitioner's policy does not prevent an employee from acting in self-defense. Moreover, if an employee is defending himself or herself and fighting ensues, the employee would not be terminated for fighting. An employee is considered to have acted in self-defense if a student lunged at the employee and the employee held the student and, while holding the student, both the employee and the student wrestle to the ground. Respondent was not acting in self-defense. When Simmons removed his shirt and remarked whether Respondent wanted some of him, Respondent had an opportunity to remove himself from the confrontation and report the situation to an assistant principal or school resource officer. Instead, Respondent chose to continue with the confrontation which led to physical contact between Simmons and Respondent. According to the principal of Key West High School at the time of the incident, teachers receive training related to student behavior/relations as part of their professional training; and educators must adhere to the Florida Code of Ethics, which, among other things, governs their interaction with students. However, no such training and no information is disseminated to support personnel, such as Respondent, regarding standards of behavior between employees and students. Even though custodians are not licensed or trained educators, custodians, according to the principal, are held to the same level of behavior as educators. Furthermore, according to Petitioner's Director of Support Services, Robert Menendez, all school employees, including custodians, are held to a higher standard. Mr. Menendez also indicated that there is an implied code, which is a common sense approach, that employees do not confront students on school campus and create problems. This higher standard and implied code were not communicated to the custodians, including Respondent, and the custodians did not receive training regarding handling conflicts with students or aggressive students. If an employee is being held to a standard, the employee should be informed of the standard and, if required, receive appropriate training regarding the standard. Where there is an absence of communication or information or an absence of appropriate training regarding the standard, the employee cannot be held to the standard since the employee has no knowledge of the standard or has not received the appropriate training for the standard. However, in the instant case, although the higher standard and implied code were not communicated to Respondent and he did not receive training regarding handling conflicts with students or aggressive students, Respondent knew that he could report misconduct by a student to the assistant principal or school resource officer. Respondent failed to make such a report and, instead, chose to confront Simmons. Consequently, the absence of knowledge of a standard or the absence of training on the standard is of no consequence in the instant case. After an investigation, Mr. Menendez determined that Respondent had violated Petitioner's policy prohibiting fighting at the workplace and recommended to the Superintendent of Monroe County schools that Respondent be terminated from employment with Petitioner. Subsequent to Mr. Menendez's recommendation, a review of the incident was conducted by Petitioner's Director of Human Resources, Michael Wheeler, whose role was that of a hearing officer. Mr. Wheeler reviewed the allegations of misconduct against Respondent. Mr. Wheeler determined, based upon his review, that Respondent had violated Petitioner's policy against fighting at the workplace and recommended Respondent's termination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Monroe County School Board enter a final order sustaining the dismissal of William Mitchell and terminating his employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of July, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 23rd day of July, 1999.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should be terminated from employment for the reasons stated in the Final Disposition - Notice of Dismissal (Notice), dated October 11, 2017.
Findings Of Fact Background The College is a public institution of higher education charged with the responsibility of providing post-secondary education. Currently, there are approximately 33,000 students enrolled at the College. It has eight campuses, including the Tarpon Springs Campus. Seven of the campuses have Provosts, who report to the Senior Vice President of Student Services. The College is overseen by a five-member Board of Trustees (Board), each Trustee appointed by the Governor. In this contentious dispute, the College seeks to terminate Respondent from his position as Provost of the Tarpon Springs Campus, a position he has held since 2014 under an annual Contract for Employment for Administrative Personnel of Community Colleges. The contract has been renewed three times, most recently for a term beginning on July 1, 2017, and ending June 30, 2018. The College, however, can decline to renew his contract for no cause at the end of each term. The annual contract provides that "the Board may suspend or dismiss the Administrator [Provost] for cause pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Florida Statutes and the Board of Trustees' Rules and Colleges Procedures." Also, under Board Rule 6Hx23-2.2012 (rule 23-2.2012), the College can terminate contractual employees for "immorality, misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, drunkenness or conviction of any crime involving moral turpitude." In this case, the College relies upon misconduct in office as the ground for dismissal. The contract requires Respondent to comply with all relevant statutes and rules of the State Board of Education, the State Board of Community Colleges, and the Board of Trustees. He also is required to comply with the terms of any College internal policies and procedures in effect at the time that his first contract became effective, and continuing throughout his term of employment. The position of Provost is a very high-ranking administrative position. The Provost is responsible for overseeing all aspects of student services, which includes student complaints of harassment and discrimination, as well as working in partnership with Academic Deans and the faculty. It is a highly visible position with the College and in the community. The College characterized the position as the "face" of the campus and the Tarpon Springs community. The Provost also serves on various community boards and organizations to represent the views of the College. At the time of Respondent's hire in 2014, the President was Dr. William Law, while Dr. Tonjua Williams served as Senior Vice President, Student Services. Dr. Williams is now the President and the one responsible for making the decision to terminate Respondent's employment, subject to confirmation by a majority of the Trustees. Shortly after his hire in 2014, the College became aware of allegations at his prior employment in Virginia, which involved an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate female employee. Dr. Law directed Dr. Williams to speak with Respondent about the allegations. Respondent acknowledged to her that the allegation was true, and, as a consequence, he was moved from a position on campus to a district office position. Dr. Law decided to give Respondent the opportunity to continue to serve at the College, but the expectations of the College with regard to his personal conduct were made very clear in a memorandum to Respondent from Dr. Williams. It stated in part that "it all boils down to exercising good judgment. Modeling good judgment is highly valued at [the College] and has a significant impact on staff morale, leadership effectiveness and student success." Respondent acknowledged in writing that he received the memorandum. According to the President, this established the expectation that he would always use good judgment in matters concerning the College. During his tenure at the College, Dr. Williams and Respondent had what she characterized as a "great relationship," "a very close working relationship," and one that was "open and transparent." She added "[t]here were no problems with us reaching each other when we needed to speak and talk." The Incident Around 1:30 a.m. on August 21, 2017, a physical altercation between Respondent and a female occurred at her apartment in New Port Richey. Although Respondent is married, the two had been involved in an affair for around two years. The female was not a student or employee of the College. On Thursday, August 31, 2017, Respondent was served with papers requiring him to appear for a hearing in circuit court on a domestic violence injunction involving the female. While attending the hearing on Friday, September 1, 2017, Respondent was arrested by the Pasco County Sheriff's Office and charged with two felonies, one for Burglary - Occupied Dwelling Unarmed (§ 810.02(3)(a), Fla. Stat.), and another for Battery - Commit Domestic Battery by Strangulation (§ 784.041(2)(a), Fla. Stat). Both charges related to the incident that occurred on August 21, 2017. After spending the night in jail, Respondent bonded out on Saturday, September 2, 2017. On October 26, 2017, the charges were dismissed by the State Attorney after he declined to prosecute the matter. Events After the Arrest The College was closed officially for Labor Day weekend on September 2, 3, and 4, 2017. On Tuesday morning, September 5, 2017, Respondent texted Dr. Williams asking, "can we talk privately tomorrow I have a home life situation but I need to converse with you." Respondent knew that Dr. Williams planned to attend a conference at the Tarpon Springs Campus the following day, and he intended to speak with her at that time. Dr. Williams responded "absolutely." Nothing in the text suggests the "home life situation" was related to a legal matter or criminal arrest or that there was any urgency in meeting with her. Nor did it suggest that the subject of the meeting involved something that could potentially affect the College's reputation or his continued employment. In fact, Dr. Williams assumed he wanted to discuss "a personal matter." Due to the threat of Hurricane Irma, then in the Gulf of Mexico and headed towards the state, Dr. Williams did not attend the conference the next day. Also, the College closed officially on September 6, 2017, due to the hurricane and did not reopen officially until September 18, 2017. With the approval of his supervisor, Dr. Rinard, Respondent flew to Maryland, where his wife and children reside. He did not return to Florida until September 13, 2017. During this intervening period, he did not attempt to contact his supervisor or the President regarding his arrest. Even though the College was closed for the hurricane, administrators continued to perform duties and responsibilities related to the safety and security of the College. Dr. Williams conducted at least two conference calls per day via telephone or Skype, where as many as 60 administrators would join in the call to discuss situations on the campuses. Although he was in Maryland much of the time, Respondent joined in the conferences on most, if not all, of those occasions. In fact, on Monday, September 11, 2017, he texted Dr. Williams regarding the situation on the Tarpon Springs campus, which had been conveyed to him by his staff. On September 12, 2017, Respondent texted Dr. Williams and advised he was returning from Maryland. The text stated in part: "I need to speak to you regarding a personal/family matter. I will discuss all in detail with you." Again, it made no reference to his arrest. After he returned to Florida the next day, Respondent and Dr. Williams agreed to meet on September 14, 2017, at a local restaurant. However, the President later informed Respondent that she was unable to make the meeting and needed to reschedule. She attempted to reach him later that day by telephone to reschedule the meeting but was unsuccessful. At that point, she assumed Respondent wished to discuss a personal family matter that did not involve the College. The two exchanged texts again on Sunday, September 17, 2017, but Respondent chose not to mention his arrest. Around noon on September 18, 2017, or 17 days after his arrest, Respondent telephoned Dr. Williams, and, in a 15-minute conversation, he advised her that he had been arrested on September 1, 2017, he was innocent of the charges, and he had retained counsel. He also told Dr. Williams that he was involved in a relationship with a woman that went awry, and the incident was not work-related. Respondent added that he had gone to court on September 1, 2017, to file a restraining order against the female, and he believed he was being scammed.1/ During the call, Dr. Williams told Respondent she needed more details. She specifically asked that he provide a police report with the details of the incident and the name of the victim to verify she was not a student. Dr. Williams also told Respondent that he needed to contact Dr. Rinard, his immediate supervisor, and tell him what had happened. Had Respondent been unable to reach Dr. Williams by telephone on September 18, 2017, his belated efforts to notify the President would be further delayed, as Respondent's first choice was to speak to her one-on-one, or if this was not possible, to discuss the incident by telephone. His actions also raise an inference that he always intended to speak with the President, and not his direct supervisor. Later that same day, September 18, 2017, Respondent spoke with Dr. Rinard by telephone. According to Dr. Rinard, Respondent "informed [him] that he had had an affair, that the woman he had an affair with had pressed charges, he was arrested, that these were all lies, that she was a thief, she had stolen property, [and he] admitted that he was wrong to have had an affair." Dr. Rinard asked Respondent if the incident involved a student or employee or occurred on College property. He was told it did not. He did not provide Dr. Rinard with the name of the victim. The following day, the two again spoke briefly while attending a Board meeting. Respondent asked if he needed anything more in reference to their conversation the previous day and Dr. Rinard answered "no." While at the Board meeting, Respondent spoke privately with a Board member, Trustee Gibbons, and disclosed that he had been arrested. On the evening of September 18, 2017, the President telephoned Respondent and commented that she was looking at the charges on a website. She said she needed more information regarding the incident, but Respondent told her he had no documentation regarding the arrest. During the call, Respondent asked the President to speak with his attorney who could provide any details that she wanted concerning the charges. Although Dr. Williams testified there was no agreement to speak with the attorney, Respondent's criminal attorney, Mr. Theophilopoulos, testified that he understood Dr. Williams had agreed to a conference call around 5:30 p.m. on September 20, 2017, so that he (the attorney) could answer any questions she had. Dr. Williams denies that a conference call was scheduled. Respondent contends otherwise and says he went to his attorney's office and waited for her to call at the scheduled time, and when she did not, they both attempted to call her from his office but were unsuccessful.2/ Whether or not such a call was scheduled, it is undisputed that it never took place. However, Dr. Williams telephoned Respondent around 6:11 p.m. on September 20, 2017, while he was driving home from his attorney's office. The Vice President of Administrative/Business Services & Information Technology, Mr. Miles, participated in the call. Mr. Miles has oversight of the Human Resources Department. During the call, Dr. Williams informed Respondent that he was being placed on administrative leave, with pay and benefits, effective that date. Again, she requested a copy of the police report or details of the incident, as the College needed more information so that it could properly assess the situation. Respondent replied that he had no written reports but his attorney had "new information" regarding the charges. Respondent was told to have his attorney contact the College General Counsel, Ms. Gardner. A few hours after the phone call, Respondent received a memorandum from Dr. Williams via email confirming that he was being placed on administrative leave, with pay and benefits, until further notice. According to Dr. Williams, this would give the College more time to thoroughly review the situation before deciding what action to take. At that time, the College still lacked the name of the victim and detailed information regarding the arrest. On September 20, 2017, Dr. Williams notified three of the five Trustees about the incident and shared with them the information she had gathered up to that point. She also told them she was still "working" on what action to take. Respondent decided to return to Maryland the same evening he was placed on administrative leave. He testified that while driving to Maryland, he received a call from Trustee Gibbons, who told him the Board had voted to not terminate him if he was cleared of the charges. This assertion was not corroborated, and there is no record of any Board meeting at which a vote would have taken place. The Termination Process On September 21, 2017, Dr. Rinard advised Tarpon Springs faculty and staff that Respondent had been placed on administrative leave and that an interim Provost had been appointed. That evening, Dr. Williams and Mr. Miles spoke with Respondent by telephone. They informed him that the College had not yet received information regarding the arrest and instructed Respondent to return his keys. Mr. Miles offered to meet with him to pick up the keys. However, Respondent, who by then was in Maryland, told them he had already mailed his keys to his attorney. The following day, September 22, 2017, through its own investigation, the College was able to obtain a copy of the Pasco County Complaint Affidavit providing additional details regarding the arrest. On Saturday, September 23, 2017, Mr. Miles left a voicemail for Respondent and reminded him that he wanted to meet with him to obtain the keys to College property. Mr. Miles also sent a text, which stated, "Dr. Williams asked me to obtain your work keys so I'm coming today," meaning that he (Mr. Miles) would drive to Respondent's home in Palm Harbor or the campus that day to retrieve the items. In response to Mr. Miles' request, Respondent replied by email that the keys had been sent to his attorney via Federal Express from Maryland. He added that if the College had any further questions, his attorney should be contacted. As of Monday, September 25, 2017, the College had not received any additional information from Respondent or his attorney regarding the arrest, and it had not received Respondent's keys or swipe card. On September 25, 2017, Dr. Williams determined that termination proceedings should begin. The same day, Dr. Rinard issued a memorandum recommending that Respondent be dismissed from employment. The basis for the recommendation was as follows: You have engaged in misconduct by not timely disclosing to the College your arrest and the charges pending against you. You have also engaged in misconduct by not providing the College with documentation related to your arrest and not returning the College's property upon request. You have also engaged in misconduct by not being truthful and forthcoming about the details of your arrest. The memorandum was actually prepared for Dr. Rinard's signature by Mr. Miles, who oversees the Human Resources Department and is also an attorney. According to the memorandum, Respondent's actions violated rule 23-2.2012, which authorizes the College to terminate an administrator for the offense of "misconduct in office." The recommendation also referred to rule 6Hx23-2.19, which outlines the procedure the College must follow when it proposes to terminate an employee. The following day, September 26, 2017, Respondent's attorney emailed the General Counsel asking for directions on where to return the keys and swipe card that were in his possession. She replied that all College property, including any electronic devices or computers, should be delivered to the security desk lobby of the district office in St. Petersburg. On September 28, 2017, five days after Dr. Williams' directive, the keys and swipe card were delivered and secured by the College. The College did not receive Respondent's college- owned laptop and other electronic devices until October 11, 2017. The Predetermination Hearing and Termination After the recommendation to terminate was issued, Respondent requested a predetermination hearing, which is afforded an employee before a decision is made regarding termination. On October 5, 2017, a hearing was conducted by the Senior Vice President of Instructional & Academic Programs, Dr. Anne Cooper, who had the authority to affirm, modify, or reject Dr. Rinard's recommendation. Respondent was accompanied by his attorney at the hearing. At the hearing, Respondent was provided a timeline of events. In response, Respondent presented his own timeline for reporting the arrest, as well as a written statement from the alleged victim in the incident which resulted in his arrest. On October 9, 2017, Dr. Cooper issued a recommendation to the President that Dr. Rinard's decision to terminate Respondent's employment be upheld. The recommendation is found in Petitioner's Exhibit 11. By letter dated October 11, 2017, the President advised Respondent that she was upholding the recommendation for dismissal because Respondent: Failed to timely advise supervisor and college administration of the arrest and nature of the charges; Failed to provide the college with information and requested documentation regarding the arrest and allegations; and Failed to immediately return college property as requested. These grounds differed slightly from those in the memorandum signed by Dr. Rinard on September 25, 2017. Whereas Dr. Rinard's memorandum stated that Respondent had failed to timely inform the College of his arrest and pending charges, Dr. Williams' Notice stated that Respondent had "[f]ailed to timely advise supervisor and college administration of the arrest and nature of the charges." Whereas the memorandum stated that Respondent had failed to provide the college with "documentation related to [his] arrest," the Notice stated that he had "[f]ailed to provide the college with information and requested documentation regarding the arrest and allegations." Finally, whereas the memorandum stated that Respondent had not returned the College's property upon request, the Notice stated that Respondent had "[f]ailed to immediately return college property as requested." Although Respondent contends he is prejudiced because the original charges were modified, the allegations in the memorandum and Notice are substantially the same, and Respondent did not demonstrate how he was prejudiced by the minor changes. No matter which set of charges apply, the College has established that the allegations are true. The College Regulations and Policies Both parties agree there is no specific College regulation that requires employees to immediately notify their supervisor or other College officials after they are arrested and charged with a crime. However, Dr. Williams stated there is an expectation that a high-ranking employee, such as a Provost, should immediately notify his supervisor, within one or two working days, given the repercussions to the College that might arise if and when the charges became public.3/ The College relies on rule 23-2.2012 as the "principal ground for prosecution in this case." That rule allows the College to dismiss an employee under written contract for "misconduct in office." The term is not further defined by rule or statute that is applicable to the College. Because Respondent is not a career service employee, the College cannot rely on procedures applicable to that category of employees. Analysis of Respondent's Conduct At hearing, Respondent characterized the incident as "a personal and private matter" that was unrelated to the College. However, he agreed he had an obligation to tell the President and Dr. Rinard about the incident so that the College would not be blind-sided if the incident became public. He contends he made good-faith efforts to contact Dr. Williams by texting her on several occasions to request a meeting. But none of the texts stated, or even suggested, that he needed to speak with her about a work-related matter or that he had been arrested for two felony charges. Moreover, these efforts evidence the fact that he knew he had an obligation to timely, completely, and candidly report anything that could impact his effectiveness as a Provost or the reputation of the College. He failed to fulfill this obligation. Respondent does not dispute the fact that he made no effort to notify his immediate supervisor, Dr. Rinard, regarding his arrest until Dr. Williams instructed him to do so on September 18, 2017. More than likely, this was because he had very little contact with Dr. Rinard, who had assumed his position in July 2017. On the other hand, he had a much closer relationship with the President, and she is the individual who makes the final decision. According to Respondent, it was important that he discuss the matter one-on-one with the President due to the "nature of the sensitivity of the situation itself, my accuracy of understanding the accusations and the false accusations, which were also racially motivated." After Respondent was unsuccessful in personally speaking with the President on September 6, 2017, he should have immediately disclosed his arrest by telephone. The record shows that he had ample opportunity to report the incident to the President by telephone beginning on the day after he was arrested. His failure to do so exhibits a lack of good judgment and trustworthiness. The delay in reporting the arrest from September 1 until September 18, 2017, was unreasonable in light of all circumstances. As Dr. Williams noted, "there is an expectation of good judgment for Provost and campus leaders, Deans, and others in that role. And you always expect your leaders, you know, [to] protect the Institution and make sure they are aware of what is going on." In the same vein, Mr. Miles pointed out that the College ended up having "to get the information ourselves" after Respondent failed to provide additional information regarding the arrest. This led him to ask whether he could "trust Dr. Bright to give me what I need to do the job that I need to do." He added that it was imperative that the College know "what exposure" it might have and how to "react to the situation" should the incident become public. Dr. Cooper, who conducted the predetermination meeting and is the chief academic officer of the College, testified that the Provost is a high-profile position and the face of the campus in the community. She noted that even though the College was closed for a hurricane, "there were multiple opportunities to report the incident to his direct supervisor, Dr. Rinard, and he failed to do so." She also testified that the incident could have blind-sided the President and Board of Trustees and put "the College in a very poor light in regard to the community." She added that "there was potential for multiple issues associated with not reporting it sooner," and "someone in that high-profile leadership position would know that." She summed it up by saying that even if there was not a specific written policy requiring Respondent to promptly report the incident to his superiors, an obligation to do so "is leadership 101." Besides failing to report the incident for 17 days, the evidence as a whole shows that, once the incident was reported, Respondent was non-responsive, uncooperative, and somewhat evasive in responding to Dr. Williams' direction to provide her additional information regarding the arrest and the name of the victim. The President had legitimate reasons for requesting additional information. Without this information, the College was at risk of having its reputation and credibility damaged. As the President pointed out, she asked for information, and when she did not receive it, this forced her to "go dig [herself] to find information" from another source. This should not be the job of the President. Finally, as previously found, Respondent did not promptly turn in all College keys and equipment, despite being told to do so on numerous occasions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that St. Petersburg College enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment as Provost at the Tarpon Springs Campus. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of April, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 4th day of April, 2018.
