The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent had just cause to suspend Petitioner for 30 workdays, without pay.
Findings Of Fact No dispute exists that the School Board is a constitutional entity charged with the duty to operate, control and supervise the public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida. No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, Mr. Boundy was employed full-time with the School Board as a teacher and held a professional service contract. Mr. Boundy had been a teacher with the School Board for 15 years. In his professional career, Mr. Boundy had been a teacher, then had practiced law in the State of Florida for 15 years, and had become a teacher again. No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, Mr. Boundy was assigned to Nautilus Middle School, hereinafter Nautilus, in the Miami-Dade County’s school district. He was assigned to teach science. On September 30, 2005, Mr. Boundy was teaching his science class at Nautilus. He was having problems with one particular student, D. M., who was approximately 14 years of age.1 D. M. had just returned to class from being on indoor suspension, for cutting class. Earlier that day, after having returned from indoor suspension, D. M. had been involved in a physical altercation, a “minor”2 fight, and Mr. Boundy counseled him. At lunch time, another teacher broke-up a fight between D. M. and another student; Mr. Boundy counseled him again. Mr. Boundy determined that the first fight did “not” warrant a “write-up” and that the second fight perhaps “may” have warranted a write-up but that he decided not to do so.3 After lunch, while in Mr. Boundy’s class, D. M. had another fight with a student, which was D. M.’s third fight that day. Mr. Boundy has a policy in his class that, “after three strikes, you’re out,”4 therefore, instead of counseling D. M. again, Mr. Boundy determined that a “write-up” was warranted and that D. M. had to leave his class. Mr. Boundy told D. M. to leave the class and go to the office. Before leaving the class, D. M. began spraying perfume and then walked out into the hallway but did not go the office. Mr. Boundy observed D. M. still outside in the hallway. When Mr. Boundy walked out of his class into the hallway, he observed D. M spraying perfume in the hallway. Mr. Boundy asked D. M. to give the perfume to him (Mr. Boundy). D. M. raised his hand and brought it down as if to strike Mr. Boundy at which time Mr. Boundy grabbed D. M.’s hand and pulled it behind his (D. M.’s) back and told D. M. that he (D. M.) needed to go to the office. The hallway outside of Mr. Boundy’s classroom is equipped with a surveillance camera, which recorded the interaction between Mr. Boundy and D. M. after the contact described above. The surveillance camera does not record as a regular video camera but records as a series of snapshots or still pictures approximately every second, with gaps in between the snapshots; therefore, the surveillance camera fails to reveal completely what happens within a segment of time.5 As a result of the gaps in between snapshots of the surveillance camera, the testimony of witnesses is crucial in determining what happened. While in the hallway, the surveillance camera shows Mr. Boundy’s back to it and D. M. directly in front of him in such close proximity as if their bodies were touching. Mr. Boundy testified that he took D. M. by the arms and was directing him toward the doors leading to the office. Mr. Boundy’s testimony is found to be credible. Subsequently, while also in the hallway, the surveillance camera, in several snapshots, shows Mr. Boundy and D. M. separated, with D. M. facing Mr. Boundy, who testified that D. M. wrestled away from him. The surveillance camera also shows, in one snapshot, Mr. Boundy’s left hand on D. M.’s right shoulder and, in another snapshot, D. M. moving back toward the classroom. Mr. Boundy testified that D. M. was going back to the classroom without his (Mr. Boundy’s) permission. D. M. admitted that he was returning to the classroom without Mr. Boundy’s permission. Mr. Boundy’s testimony is found credible. Further snapshots by the surveillance camera show Mr. Boundy grabbing D. M. by the arms and shoulder area, when D. M. gets close to the classroom, and pushing D. M. down the hallway; and shows some students observing the conduct in the hallway. Also, the snapshots by the surveillance camera show Mr. Boundy and D. M. exiting the exit doors at the stairwell, with Mr. Boundy continuing to hold D. M.’s arms. After they go through the exit doors, the snapshots by the surveillance camera show Mr. Boundy releasing D. M. and watching D. M. go down the stairs. Mr. Boundy testified that he told D. M. to go to the office. D. M. does not deny that Mr. Boundy told him to go to the office at that point. D. M. went to the main office. The school counselor, Amy Magney, talked with D. M., who was loud and appeared to be agitated. Ms. Magney observed marks on D. M.’s arms and the back of his neck, which she described as “very red.” D. M. informed Ms. Magney that Mr. Boundy’s forceful touching had caused the red marks. Ms. Magney took D. M. to the assistant principal, Ms. Gonsky, who observed marks on D. M.’s arms, which were red, and marks on D. M.’s the neck, shoulder area, which Ms. Gonsky described as a “little red.” Mr. Boundy admits, and at no time did he deny, that he grabbed D. M. by the arms and shoulder area. For example, at the Conference for the Record (CFR) held on November 15, 2005, Mr. Boundy admitted that he held D. M.’s arms by the back directing him towards the stairs. A detective of the School Board’s police department reviewed the snapshots by the surveillance camera. From the detective’s observation, he determined that Mr. Boundy did not take any malicious action against D. M.; that D. M. was resisting Mr. Boundy; that, at one point, D. M. made an aggressive action against Mr. Boundy; and that Mr. Boundy was “directing, escorting” D. M. through the exit doors. D. M. testified that Mr. Boundy also grabbed him around the neck. Mr. Boundy denies that he grabbed or touched D. M.’s neck but admits that he grabbed D. M. at the shoulder area. V. V., a student in Mr. Boundy’s class, testified that Mr. Boundy grabbed D. M. by the neck, pushing D. M. out of the classroom. Also, the Conference for the Record (CFR) held on November 15, 2005, indicates that the same student stated that, while Mr. Boundy and D. M. were in the hallway, D. M. swung at Mr. Boundy and struck him in the chest. Mr. Boundy denies that he was struck by D. M. and D. M. denies that he struck Mr. Boundy. V. V.’s testimony is not found to be credible. The snapshots by the surveillance camera do not show Mr. Boundy grabbing or touching D. M.’s neck. Ms. Magney was the first person in the school's office to observe the marks, and when she saw the marks on the back of D. M.’s “neck,” the marks were “very red”; however, when Ms. Gonsky, the second person in the school's office to observe the marks, the marks around the “neck, shoulder area” were a “little red.” Further, D. M. had been in two physical altercations before the incident with Mr. Boundy and the last altercation had occurred at lunch time. Ms. Gonsky’s account of the location of the red marks is not inconsistent with Mr. Boundy’s testimony, regarding the shoulder area. Additionally, when Ms. Gonsky observed the marks at the neck, shoulder area, they were a little red, not red or very red. The undersigned finds Mr. Boundy’s and Ms. Gonsky’s testimony and account more credible regarding the marks being at the shoulder area, not the neck. Furthermore, the undersigned finds that Mr. Boundy grabbed D. M. at the shoulder area and that the marks at the shoulder area were caused by Mr. Boundy and were a little red. No dispute exists that D. M. was being disruptive. Mr. Boundy had counseled D. M. on two occasions that same day for fighting. D. M. had committed a third strike by fighting again in Mr. Boundy's class, and according to Mr. Boundy's classroom policy of which the students were aware, the third strike meant that the student was leaving the classroom and going to the school's office. Mr. Boundy was going to write-up D. M. for the incident but did not do so. Before he could write-up D. M., Mr. Boundy was summoned to the school's office after the administrators in the office observed the marks and heard D. M.'s version of the incident. At the beginning of each school year, the principal of Nautilus, Caridad Figueredo, has an opening meeting, consisting of two days. At the opening meeting, among other things, Ms. Figueredo notifies the Nautilus' faculty that they must comply with the rules of the School Board and the Code of Ethics, and some of the rules are reviewed with the faculty. Further, at the opening meeting, Nautilus' faculty is provided a copy of the Faculty Handbook. Nautilus' faculty signs an acknowledgement that they understand that they are responsible for becoming knowledgeable about the rules and adhering to them. Mr. Boundy signed an acknowledgement and received a copy of the Faculty Handbook. Regarding physical contact, Ms. Figueredo indicates at the opening meeting that the School Board prohibits using physical contact to maintain discipline or to affect a student’s behavior. As a result, at the opening meeting, she informs Nautilus' faculty, and stresses to them, that they should not use physical force or, generally, to come in physical contact with the students. However, as to coming into physical contact with students, an exception is recognized and allowed in the touching of a student by a teacher if the teacher has a rapport with the student and the student has no objection to or approves of the teacher just tapping him or her. That exception is not applicable in the instant case. Nautilus had a 2005-2006 Faculty and Staff Handbook, hereinafter Handbook. The Handbook contained a Progressive Discipline Plan, hereinafter Plan, for teachers to use when they encounter disruptive students. The Plan contained several steps of action, which provided in pertinent part: Step I: Teacher The teacher may handle discipline in the following ways (list not inclusive): Move close to the student – use verbal and/or non-verbal techniques to correct behavior problems * * * Speak with the student on a one-to-one basis * * * Contact parent (verbal and/or written) Hold parent or student/parent conference PLEASE NOTE: Parent contact is REQUIRED before a referral can be made to the administration. Only disciplinary problems involving infractions of the Code of Student Conduct Group III or higher (fighting . . .) may be directly referred to the administration using a case management form. * * * Step IV: Referring Students For Administrative Action Students should be sent directly to the appropriate administrator only when critical incidents occur such as fighting . . . Please use your emergency button to request for[sic] assistance. If a student becomes disruptive and you request removal the administrator will take the appropriate disciplinary action deemed necessary according to the Code of Student Conduct and provide teachers immediate feedback. (emphasis in original) The Handbook also contained a section entitled “Things To Remember When Dealing With A Student,” which provided in pertinent part: 4. DON’T: Snatch things away from students. Become confrontational. Physically block an exit. Argue or get on the student’s level. Shout or put them down. Disrespect them. * * * 6. Use common sense regarding touching students: Be aware that affectionate gestures may be misconstrued. Avoid physical contact of any kind in situations involving you and student (i.e. where there are no witnesses). Additionally, the Handbook contained a section entitled “How to Avoid Legal Complications as an Educator,” which provided in pertinent part: Respect the space of others. Do not place your hands on students. * * * Know the laws, School Board policies and school rules, and follow them. * * * Corporal punishment is prohibited in Miami- Dade County Public Schools. Treat each student with respect. Establish a policy regarding discipline. Distribute the policy to students and parents at the beginning of the year or when the students begin your class. The School Board has established “Procedures for Promoting and Maintaining a Safe Learning Environment,” which provides in pertinent part: Purpose of the Procedures for Promoting and Maintaining a Safe Learning Environment This document, Procedures for Promoting and Maintaining a Safe Learning Environment, is incorporated by reference and is a part of School Board Rule 6Gx13-5D-1.08, Maintenance of Appropriate Student Behavior. It has been prepared to assist school administrators in promoting and maintaining a safe learning environment in the public schools of Miami-Dade County, Florida. These procedures and directions are set forth to guide and promote orderly and productive participation of students in school life and support the achievement of Florida's education goal for school safety and environment, Section 229.591(3)(e), F.S. Student actions and behaviors that can be defined as disruptive and/or threatening must be dealt with according to Florida Statutes, and Florida Board of Education and Miami-Dade County School Board Rules. This manual contains information necessary to assist school administrators in making the most appropriate decisions and taking warranted action in promoting maintaining a safe learning environment. * * * Administrators, counselors, and appropriate staff are expected to become familiar with this document, to review it periodically, and to utilize it according to its inherent purpose -- promoting and maintaining a safe learning environment in the public schools of Miami-Dade County, Florida. As the administration and staff at each school site address the requirements of current Miami- Dade County Public Schools (M-DCPS) guidelines, they should also review modifications of requirements related to school discipline and school safety as established by the Florida Legislature. * * * GUIDELINE #39: REMOVAL OF STUDENT FROM CLASS AND POSSIBLE EXCLUSION OF THE STUDENT BY THE TEACHER CURRENT LAW AND/OR PRACTICE: Florida Statutes and Miami-Dade County School Board Rules allow for teachers to remove a disruptive student from class if the behavior of the student has an adverse effect on the teacher's ability to communicate effectively with students or the ability of the students to learn. Section 232.271, F.S., provides for the right of the teacher to refuse to accept a student back to class who has been removed for disruptive behavior which adversely affects the teacher's ability to communicate effectively with the students or with the ability of the students to learn. Provisions for Exceptional Students: The Placement Review Committee shall refer to the IEP team all exclusion requests for students from exceptional education classes. Temporary Removal from Class 1. The teacher shall have the authority to remove a seriously disruptive student from the classroom. In such cases, the principal or designee shall be notified immediately and the teacher shall be entitled to receive, prior to the student's return to class, a report describing corrective action(s) taken. Guidelines for implementing this provision shall be developed by each Educational Excellence School Advisory Council (EESAC). Code of Student Conduct Infractions The principal or designee will follow the Code of Student Conduct on all disciplinary matters. Only those disciplinary problems which disrupt a teacher's instruction, when the teacher requests the student's permanent removal from class, shall be referred to the Placement Review Committee, if the request is not resolved by the principal. A CFR was held on November 15, 2005. A Summary of the CFR was prepared and provides in pertinent part: [Mr. Boundy was asked]: 'Did you touch the student?' [Mr. Boundy] replied: 'Yes and it will never happen again.' * * * The following directives are herein delineated which were issued to you [Mr. Boundy] during the conference: Adhere to all M-DCPS [Miami-Dade County Public Schools] rules and regulations at all times, specifically School Board Rules [sic] 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties. Adhere to The Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida. Cease and desist from utilizing physical means to effect the behavior of students. * * * During the conference, you [Mr. Boundy] were directed to comply with and were provided copies of the following School Board Rules: 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties 6Gx13-4A-1.213, The Code of Ethics You [Mr. Boundy] were advised of the high esteem in which teachers are held and of the District's [School Board's] concern for any behavior, which adversely affects this level of professionalism. You [Mr. Boundy] were reminded of the prime directive to maintain a safe learning environment for all students and that your actions violated this directive. . . . Further, attached to the Summary of the CFR was "Guideline #9: Corporal Punishment, Current Law and/or Practice, from the Procedures for Promoting and Maintaining a Safe Learning Environment," which provides in pertinent part: GUIDELINE #9: CORPORAL PUNISHMENT CURRENT LAW AND/OR PRACTICE: CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IS PROHIBITED IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS. . . . Corporal punishment is physical force or physical contact applied to the body as punishment. Section 228.041(27), F.S., defines corporal punishment as: . . . the moderate use of physical force or physical contact by a teacher or principal as may be necessary to maintain discipline or to enforce school rule. However, the term 'corporal punishment' does not include the use of such reasonable force by a teacher or principal as may be necessary for self-protection or to protect other students from disruptive students. The use of physical restraint techniques in accordance with the Miami-Dade County School Board Rule 6Gx13-6A-1.331, Procedures for Providing Special Education for Exceptional Students and Article VIII of the Contract Between Miami-Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade is not corporal punishment. Prior to Mr. Boundy’s going into the hallway, to confront D. M., alternative avenues were available to Mr. Boundy for sending D. M. to the school's office without confronting him in the hallway. Nautilus has a protocol that, whenever a teacher is unable to control a disruptive student by using classroom management techniques, the teacher can press a security button, located in the classroom, and a security monitor or an administrator will immediately come to the classroom. The security monitor or administrator will assess the situation and remove the disruptive student. Mr. Boundy failed to use this established protocol. The undersigned does not find credible the testimony given on alternative methods of dealing with D. M., as a disruptive student, in terms of in-school suspension, student mediation, conflict resolution, parent involvement, alternative education, suspension, and expulsion as being applicable to the instant case. These alternatives are available after the student is removed from the classroom to the school's office; they fail to address the immediate removal of the physical presence of a disruptive student from the classroom. The exception to corporal punishment found at Guideline Nos. 9 and 39, regarding the use of physical restraint techniques for situations involving Exceptional Student Education (ESE), is not applicable to the instant case. Mr. Boundy's class was not an ESE class, and D. M. was not an ESE student. Also, the exception to corporal punishment found at Guideline No. 9, regarding situations to protect other students, is not applicable to the instant case. None of the other students in Mr. Boundy's class were in harm's way or needed protection in the hallway outside Mr. Boundy's classroom. However, the exception to corporal punishment in a situation for self-protection, i.e., the protection of Mr. Boundy from D. M., was applicable in the instant case. When D. M. raised his hand and brought it down as if to strike Mr. Boundy, Mr. Boundy grabbed D. M.'s arms and put his (D. M.'s) arms behind his back; at that instant, Mr. Boundy was in need of self-protection and he (Mr. Boundy) acted appropriately. But, the evidence fails to demonstrate that, after Mr. Boundy prevented D. M. from striking him, Mr. Boundy continued to be in need of self-protection. Self-protection failed to continue to exist and failed to exist during the time that Mr. Boundy was directing/escorting D. M. down the hall to the exit doors. The Administrative Director of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards, Gretchen Williams, testified that Mr. Boundy's use of physical contact in the handling of D. M. in the hallway and that the presence of red marks on D. M., exemplified excessive force, which rendered Mr. Boundy's action as a violent act. Further, she testified that Mr. Boundy's conduct was corporal punishment; that his violent act constituted unseemly conduct; and that his violent act was contrary to the School Board's prime directive to maintain a safe learning environment, which constituted unseemly conduct and was conduct unbecoming a School Board employee. Ms. Williams' testimony is found to be credible. Also, the School Board's Administrative Director, Region II, DanySu Pritchett testified that Mr. Boundy's physical force constituted violence in the workplace; and that he failed to maintain the respect and confidence of the student and the value of worth and dignity of the student through the use of physical force. Further, she testified that the failure to use an alternative method of removal by using the emergency call button was poor judgment and constituted conduct unbecoming a School Board employee. Ms. Pritchett's testimony is found to be credible. Additionally, Ms. Figueredo, testified that Mr. Boundy subjected D. M. to unnecessary embarrassment by using physical force in the hallway in front of D. M.'s classmates while Mr. Boundy was directing/escorting D. M. down the hall. Further, Ms. Figueredo testified that, during the hallway incident, Mr. Boundy engaged in corporal punishment, conduct unbecoming an employee of the School Board, unseemly conduct, and poor judgment, and was not a good role model to the students and staff. Ms. Figueredo's testimony is found to be credible. Also, Ms. Figueredo testified that Mr. Boundy's use of poor judgment and failure to use established protocol and to exemplify a good role model to the students and the staff caused Mr. Boundy to lose his effectiveness. Ms. Figueredo's testimony is found to be credible. Pending the investigation of the incident by the School Board, Mr. Boundy was removed from the classroom. He was placed on alternative assignment, i.e., at his home. Due to Mr. Boundy's failure to follow established protocol at Nautilus for the removal of D. M. from the classroom, to the physical force used by Mr. Boundy, to the marks that were a little red and were caused by the physical force, and to the seriousness of the incident, by memorandum dated November 21, 2005, Ms. Figueredo recommended a 30-day suspension for violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties. Ms. Pritchett agreed with the recommendation. By memorandum dated December 1, 2005, the School Board's Region Center II concurred in the recommendation. On February 28, 2006, a meeting was held with Mr. Boundy to address the forthcoming School Board's consideration of the recommendation for a 30-day suspension without pay. Those in attendance included Mr. Boundy, Ms. Williams, Ms. Pritchett, Ms. Figueredo, and a UTD representative, Mr. Molnar. The determination was that Mr. Boundy would be recommended for a 30-day suspension without pay for just cause, including but not limited to "deficient performance of job responsibilities; conduct unbecoming a School Board employee; and violation of State Board Rule 6B-1.001, Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida; and School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties; and 6Gx13-5D-1.07, Corporal Punishment--Prohibited." By letter dated March 1, 2006, Mr. Boundy was notified by the School Board's Assistant Superintendent, among other things, that the School Board's Superintendent would be recommending, at the School Board's meeting scheduled for March 15, 2006, the 30-day suspension without pay for just cause, indicating the violations aforementioned. By letter dated March 16, 2006, the School Board's Assistant Superintendent notified Mr. Boundy, among other things, that the School Board had approved the recommendation and that he was not to report to work at Nautilus from March 16, 2006 through April 26, 2006.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order finding that just cause existed for the 30-day suspension, without pay, from employment of Robert Boundy. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 30th day of April, 2007.
The Issue Whether Maria E. Tuma, a teacher in the Dade County School System, has been grossly insubordinate or has willfully neglected her duties as a teacher so that she should be dismissed from employment by the School Board of Dade County?
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, The School Board of Dade County, is the authority that operates, controls, and supervises all free public schools in the Dade County School District, "[i]n accordance with the provisions of s. (4) (b) of Article IX of the State Constitution ...". Section 230.03(2), F.S. Respondent, Maria E. Tuma has been employed by the School Board of Dade County for 24 years. She presently holds a continuing contract of employment. Since 1983, Ms. Tuma has been employed at Naranja Elementary School, Air Base Elementary School, Palm Lakes Elementary School and Ojus Elementary School. Ms. Tuma possesses many of the talents of a good teacher as evidenced by the myriad awards her art students have won and the numerous commendations for teaching art she has received over the years. But beginning in 1983 with her employment at Naranja and until and through a leave of absence commenced in 1995 while employed at Ojus, Ms. Tuma's employment history has been chronically troubled. Naranja On October 31, 1983, Ms. Maedon Bullard, Principal of Naranja Elementary School issued a notice to Ms. Tuma, who was then employed as an art teacher at the school. The notice reads, in part, A parent brought to my attention that you distributed pocket Bibles to some students this date, October 31. * * * This is in violation of School Board Policy (citations omitted). I urge you to review this policy and to adhere strictly to its contents. THIS IS THE SECOND TIME YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN THIS NOTICE. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. On the same day, October 31, 1983, Mrs. Bullard gave Ms. Tuma a copy of a memorandum with attachment on the subject of "Religion in the Public Schools." Dated October 25, 1977, the memorandum is from Ralph D. Turlington, Commissioner of Education in the State of Florida. The essence of the memorandum is a warning to school districts and teachers not to create an unconstitutional preference for one religion over another. With regard to the distribution of Bibles, the memorandum states, The distribution of free Bibles to children in the public schools tends to impair the rights of children to be free from governmental action which discriminates against the free exercise of religious belief. When in practice only a particular kind of religious literature is in fact distributed, "the school board's use of the school system as a means of distribution amounts to its placing, at least in eyes of children and perhaps their parents, its stamp of approval upon [that version], thus creating an unconstitutional preference for one religion over another." (citations omitted.) Petitioner's Ex. No. 2, p. 4 and 5. The memorandum further indicated that the Commissioner would not condone any violation of the law. Air Base On May 13, 1985, while Ms. Tuma was a teacher at Air Base Elementary School, a conference-on-the-record was held. In addition to others, present were Ms. Tuma and the school's principal, Mr. Turano. The conference was called because of complaints that Ms. Tuma had made statements to a student about praying and having faith. Ms. Tuma was instructed that it is a violation of federal law, school board policy and students' civil rights to engage in religious activity in the classroom. Ms. Tuma was warned that if her religious activity in the classroom continued, she could be cited for gross insubordination and could lose her teacher certification. Ms. Tuma promised to abide by school board policies in the future. Palm Lakes: Religion in the Classroom Again On October 24, 1985, it was reported that Ms. Tuma, then an art teacher at Palm Lakes Elementary School, hit a student on the neck with a pencil and cut a lock of hair with a scissors as discipline for fighting with another student. The complaint was assigned Case No. P-2607 by the Dade County Public School's Special Investigative Unit ("SIU,") and investigated. The investigator for the Special Investigative Unit reached the conclusion that the complaint was substantiated. On October 31, 1985, a complaint conference with Ms. Tuma was conducted by Palm Lakes Principal Steven Lovelass. In addition to the complaint about striking the student with a pencil and cutting his hair, other complaints were discussed at the conference. These included that Ms. Tuma discussed the Bible during class, made references to the devil and made references to her church. On December 4, 1985, Ms. Tuma was asked by her employer to undergo a medical examination to determine her "fitness to properly carry out [her] assigned duties." Petitioner's Ex. No. 8. One week later, Ms. Tuma was evaluated by Charles C. Barton, M.D., a psychiatrist. Dr. Barton reported that Ms. Tuma was religiously preoccupied, suffered from impairment of insight and judgment and recommended intervention and possible medication. On December 23, 1985, Ms. Tuma, on her own initiative, was seen by another psychiatrist, Francisco A. Campos, M.D. She related to Dr. Campos that "she does not feel that she needs to see a psychiatrist, but feels that she has to do it in order for her to keep her job." Petitioner's Ex. No. 10. Dr. Campos found her to be preoccupied with religious material and in need of treatment directed toward improving her ego strength and coping skills. Dr. Campos' written opinion was forwarded to Dr. Patrick Gray, then the Executive Director of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards. In the meantime, on December 10, 1986, a conference-on-the-record was held with Ms. Tuma in the office of the Superintendent for the North Area of Dade County. In attendance were Ms. Tuma; her principal, Mr. Lovelass; Superintendent Marvin Weiner; Ms. Doretha Mingo, Area Director; and Supervisor for the Office of Professional Standards, Mr. James E. Monroe. The conference was held to discuss, among other problems, the report in SIU Case No. P-2607 and Ms. Tuma's "continual acts of refusal to comply with both written and verbal directives to cease and desist from instructing (teaching) your students about your religious beliefs, to include issuing Bibles and other religious materials to your students." Petitioner's Ex. No. 12. On January 28, 1986, the principal at Palm Lakes, Mr. Lovelass, forwarded his recommendation in SIU Case No. P-2607 to the Area Superintendent for the North Area of Dade County. On the bases of the substantiation of the complaint after investigation, and Ms. Tuma's statement at the conference-for- the-record that she could not comply with all of the established School Board rules because of personal and religious views, Mr. Lovelass "strongly" recommended that Ms. Tuma, "be separated from employment with the Dade County Public Schools for [among others] misconduct in office and gross insubordination." Petitioner's Ex. No. 11. On February 4, 1986, a memorandum was written to Ms. Tuma by James E. Monroe, Supervisor for the Office of Professional Standards. The memorandum summarized the conference-on-the-record held the previous December 10. Under the heading "ACTION TO BE TAKEN," Mr. Monroe wrote the following to Ms. Tuma: During the conference Mr. Weiner expressed concern relative to your continual failure to comply with administrative directives. He expressed further concern relative to its adverse impact upon your effectiveness as a classroom teacher as reported, by the principal. Mr. Weiner stated that upon receipt of the principal's recommendation for disciplinary action, he would forward his recommendation to the Superintendent of Schools. You were informed that your future employment would be determined upon a review of the facts presented in this conference. You were also informed that the recommen- dations made by the Principal and Area Super- intendent will be reviewed by the Superinten- dent of Schools; approval of the recommended discipline would necessitate action by The School Board of Dade County, Florida. You were informed of the likelihood of this recommendation being presented to the School Board at its next regularly scheduled meeting. Petitioner's Ex. No. 12. On March 7, 1986, Dr. Gray, Assistant Superintendent for the School Board's Office of Professional Standards, by letter to Ms. Tuma, directed her to cease and desist all proselytizing of religion in the classroom. She was further directed in the letter: not to advise students with regard to powers of the devil or hell; not to read from the Bible, advocate the Bible, advocate membership in her church; and, not to make disparaging remarks against any group of people on the basis of race, religion, sex or national origin. The admonishment was repeated in the letter with a warning in unmistakable terms, "I repeat, you are specifically directed to cease any of the above activities; your failure to do so will be con[si]dered to be misconduct in office and gross insubordination, and will subject you to severe disciplinary action by The School Board of Dade County, Florida." Petitioner's Ex. No. 13. On March 20, 1986, Ms. Tuma received a document under the signature of Mr. Lovelass denominated, "Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement." Petitioner's Ex. No. 14. The deficiencies listed in the document related to non-compliance with School Board rules and policies and provisions of the labor contract that resulted from collective bargaining conducted between the School Board and the teachers' union. Deficiencies also related to non-compliance with published school-site rules and policies consistent with School Board rules and provisions of the contract. The document also provided a prescription or directive. Part of the prescription was for Ms. Tuma to review the Code of Ethics and Principles of Education Profession found in Chapter 6B-1 of the Florida Administrative Code. Another part was to take a "School Law Course," which Ms. Tuma was allowed to take during the summer of 1986. On May 28, 1986, a conference-on-the-record was conducted by Mr. Lovelass with Ms. Tuma to discuss her prescription and employment status. Ms. Tuma was directed to complete the prescription and comply with all directives. Further, she was warned that her upcoming evaluation and recommendation as to future employment were contingent upon "continued professional efforts in remediating all ... prescriptive activities by [the fall of 1986]. In Ms. Tuma's annual evaluation for the 1985/86 school year, her overall summary rating was "unacceptable." In the category of professional responsibility, too, she was rated "unacceptable." Nonetheless, she was recommended for employment to give her the opportunity to remediate her performance deficiencies through completion of the prescription. Due to the unacceptable rating, Ms. Tuma did not receive the step increase in her salary to which she was otherwise entitled. Ultimately, Ms. Tuma was given until October, 1986 to complete the prescription. She was determined in December of 1986 to have done so successfully. In 1989, Nicholas Rinaldi became principal at Palm Lakes. He began to encounter problems with Ms. Tuma in March of 1992. These included distribution of Bibles at school, formation of a secret club of students, solicitation of church membership on school time and intimidation of students. On March 3, 1992, Mr. Rinaldi notified Ms. Tuma of a conference-on- the-record to discuss these problems as well as distribution of a religious letter to a faculty member and inappropriate language to both students and staff. Ms. Tuma responded to the notification with a "Reply of Allegations," dated March 3, 1992. While Ms. Tuma denied or offered explanations for most of the allegations, she admitted giving Bibles to students with their parent's permission. She also admitted giving the letter to a teacher. About this incident, Ms. Tuma wrote in the response that, believing the teacher to be a Christian, she took the liberty to: A. Admonish her, B. Requested prayer for her son to the Pastor and 4 deacons and an elder 'friend' of her, C. I tried to inform some of her friends about the Love of Jesus. But she got real mad at me for: A., B., and C. I asked her to forgive me after I saw that she got mad, but evidently, she hasn't (sic)! In fact one of the 3 Scriptures I wrote in the letter was 'Forgive 70 x's 7" Matthews 18:22 Petitioner's Ex. "B" attached to Deposition of Nicholas Rinaldi, Petitioner's Ex. No. 1. Ms. Tuma's written response concludes, Id. I wish to see the day when we can truly and freely exercise FREEDOM OF RELIGION in our Public Schools. After all it was the Holy Bible the first book used to teach Reading in the Public Schools of America. And we better return to the BASICS or continue to perish! On March 6, 1992, the conference was held with Ms. Tuma, Mr. Rinaldi and Angela Santos, assistant principal, present. Mr. Rinaldi opened the conference with reference to previous violations of Board policy with which Ms. Tuma had been cited. He also quoted from school board officials who had dealt with Ms. Tuma before on similar issues in order to impress upon her that the conference was not dealing with an isolated incident but rather a pattern. Again, Ms. Tuma admitted distributing Bibles and sending the letter with religious references to a faculty member. On March 10, 1992, Mr. Rinaldi issued a summary of the conference-on- the-record in a memorandum to Ms. Tuma. The memorandum recited Mr. Rinaldi's opening of the conference with a review of prior incidents including the complaint conference conducted by Mr. Lovelass in October of 1985 concerning Ms. Tuma's discussion of religion in art class. Ms. Tuma wrote back to Mr. Rinaldi on her copy of his March 10, 1992, memo, "All I said was: 'The devil came to kill, steal & destroy & God came to give us life abundantly.' John 10:10". On March 20, 1992, Mr. Rinaldi provided Ms. Tuma with additional copies of school board rules discussed at the earlier conference. On April 30, 1992, Mr. Rinaldi conducted his second conference-on-the- record with Ms. Tuma to discuss her posting of religious posters on the bulletin boards and doors of her classroom. The previous conferences-on-the-record in February, March and October of 1986, and Mr. Rinaldi's earlier conference that year were discussed with Ms. Tuma as well as a reprimand in October of 1983 for distribution of Bibles. A memorandum summarizing the conference received by Ms. Tuma on May 5, 1992, concluded: In summary, I want to inform you that you have not complied with previous admin- istrative directives to cease all mention of religion at work. Continued violations and noncompliance will result in further disciplinary actions. Exhibit "G," attached to Petitioner's Ex. No. 1. In the meantime, on April 23, 1992, Dr. Joyce Annunziata, Director of the Office Professional Standards for the School Board, notified Ms. Tuma of a conference-on-the-record to be conducted on May 7, 1992, with regard to Ms. Tuma's violations of School Board policies concerning religious references, refusal to participate in a program of assistance, fitness to perform assigned duties, and her future employment status. With regard to the refusal to participate in a program of assistance, Ms. Tuma wrote on her copy of the notice, "Mr. Rinaldi offered it & I told him TWICE I didn't need it! THIS IS FOR PSYCHOLOGIST. I don't need or want to go. I don't believe in them!" Petitioner's Ex. No. 21. The conference was conducted as scheduled. Dr. Annunziata, in conformance with the applicable labor contract that allows the board to obtain a medical evaluation when performance appears to be affected by a teacher's mental health, directed Ms. Tuma to select a physician for an evaluation. Ms. Tuma, despite the directive, refused. On the same date as the conference, May 7, 1992, Ms. Tuma was issued a memorandum from Dr. Gray, Assistant Superintendent, to serve as a written basis, as called for by the applicable labor contract, for a required medical examination. The memorandum directed Ms. Tuma to select a physician from an attached list and to communicate that choice to Dr. Annunziata. Ms. Tuma continued to refuse to select a physician to conduct the evaluation. On June 18, 1992, Mr. Rinaldi conducted a conference-on-the-record to discuss with Ms. Tuma violations of professional responsibilities, noncompliance with directives and her annual evaluation. She was issued a prescription which included reading and summarizing applicable School Board Rules. In her annual evaluation for the 1991-92 school year, Ms. Tuma was rated "unacceptable" overall and in the category of professional responsibilities. As a result, for the second time in her career, she did not receive the salary "step" increase that she was due by virtue of the length of her employment with the School Board. In August of 1992, the School Board contemplated a suspension of Ms. Tuma and initiation of dismissal proceedings against her for gross insubordination and misconduct in office. Instead, at Ms. Tuma's request, the School Board allowed her to take a leave of office without pay from August 26, 1992 through December 30 of the same year to seek medical treatment. The School Board also referred her to the Employee Assistance Program (EAP). This office provides assistance to School Board employees having problems affecting job performance. As a condition of employment, Ms. Tuma was directed to undergo the medical evaluation and participate in a counseling/therapy program monitored by EAP during the leave of absence. In order to return to work she would have to receive medical clearance. She was also advised that upon return to the work site, any recurrence of the previous problems would lead to a termination of employment. On August 11, 1992, a second "Written Basis for Required Medical Examination," was issued to Ms. Tuma by Assistant Superintendent Gray. Ms. Tuma selected Dr. Anastasio Castiello to conduct the evaluation. The evaluation was conducted; no pathology was diagnosed but counseling was recommended by Dr. Castiello. Ms. Tuma's participation in EAP proceeded without incident. Following a delay in seeing Dr. Castiello in December in order to obtain clearance to return to work, Ms. Tuma was seen by Dr. Castiello in January of 1993. Dr. Castiello continued to recommend therapy for Ms. Tuma but he cleared her to return to work. Conditions of employment were attached to Ms. Tuma's return. Her involvement with a program of therapy was to be monitored. She was required to adhere to site directives, policy, prescriptive directives and the Code of Ethics. She was warned again that recurrence of behavior with regard to religion in the classroom would be considered an act of insubordination and would incur discipline. Ms. Tuma was placed at Ojus Elementary effective January 27, 1993. Ojus Failure to Continue Therapy Ms. Tuma finished the 1992/93 school year at Ojus. In June of 1993, it was determined that she had remediated the performance deficiencies listed on her 1991/92 evaluation. On September 22, 1993, however, EAP reported that it had no information that Ms. Tuma was participating in counseling and therapy. Four months later, Dr. Annunziata informed Ms. Tuma in writing that she was not in compliance with the directive that she participate in a program of counseling and therapy. Dr. Annunziata had learned that Ms. Tuma had been to only three sessions during the entire year of 1993. These sessions were with Dr. Stephan Tchividjian. In February of 1994, Dr. Tchividjian wrote Dr. Annunziata. He stated that the last time he had seen Ms. Tuma was in March of 1993. He relayed his opinion that Ms. Tuma needed to continue in therapy for her issues with religion. Ms. Tuma was referred again to the Employee Assistance Program. On March 1, 1994, Dr. Friedman, the principal at Ojus, conducted a conference-on-the-record with Ms. Tuma to discuss noncompliance with a site directive to modify her schedule for a field day and her failure to report when called to the office. Ms. Tuma was advised that her future employment status depended on compliance with school site directives. Once again, she was warned that noncompliance would be considered misconduct in office and insubordination that would subject her to disciplinary action. Personal Communication and Gifts for the Principal Ms. Tuma was also given another directive and a reminder. She was directed not to communicate with Dr. Friedman in writing about any matter unless it was school-related. She was reminded that Dr. Friedman was not allowed to receive gifts that exceed $25 in value. The directive and reminder were given because Dr. Friedman had received from Ms. Tuma numerous gifts as well as invitations to go on vacation and attend functions with her. Dr. Friedman summarized some of the communications and gift-giving as follows: ... Ms. Tuma would write me an inordinate amount of personal letters and cards. I have files of them. She would allege that I had eyes beautiful like Jesus. Gorgeous. She would allege that she wanted to take many photographs of me, that she wanted to do a painting of me and my daughters, that I would have to pose for her to do that. She would take pictures of me, and she would stand in the hallway and look at my pictures. Now that would send off signals to other people. Now she would just shower me with all kinds of gifts. This was just something that was extreme. (Tr. 141.) On March 7, 1994, Dr. Annunziata conducted a conference-on-the-record with Ms. Tuma to discuss her noncompliance with the directive to attend counseling and therapy, her medical fitness to perform assigned duties, and her future employment status. In addition to Dr. Annunziata and Ms. Tuma, Dr. Freidman and Dr. Joseph Burke, the Director of Region II for the School Board, were present. Ms. Tuma was directed to submit to another medical evaluation, this one by Dr. Ronald Bergman. Ms. Tuma complied; the evaluation was performed. Ms. Tuma was also directed to continue her program of counseling and therapy and to keep EAP informed of compliance. From April to September of 1994, contrary to the clear directive the previous March, Ms. Tuma continued to send Dr. Freidman presents and personal communications. For example, in September, Ms. Tuma, while on vacation in Greece, sent Dr. Friedman a post card and a birthday card. The birthday card contains the following hand-written message: May God Himself enlighten you fully & direct your paths. May He be your guide Savior & Friend ... May He bless you and keep you, May He let His face shine upon you & give you Peace - I HOPE you have a VISION of HIM & you can see for your self what I said of your eyes is real ... Let us aim to look like HIM in many of His ways: His Gentle- ness, His kindness & His LOVE! & know that in spite of them and in spite of you SE HAGA POPOLI! Petitioner's Ex. No. 43. "Se haga popoli," is Greek for "I love you a lot." The card is entirely personal in nature and does not relate at all to school matters. Parental Complaints and Continued Refusal of Therapy In October, 1994, Dr. Friedman received the first in a sequence of parental and staff complaints about Ms. Tuma's professional demeanor and negative comments about staff members. Furthermore, on October 4, 1994, Dr. Gray advised Ms. Tuma that she was not in compliance with the directive that she participate in a program of counseling/therapy. She was directed to begin a program of therapy promptly. She was directed again to adhere strictly to all prior directives. On October 7, 1994, Ms. Tuma wrote to Dr. Gray, "I categorically refuse to go to any psychologist because I don't believe in them." Petitioner's Ex. No. 44. On October 18, 1994, Dr. Gray, in response to the October 7 missive, advised Ms. Tuma in writing that her employment was conditioned upon compliance with a program of medical therapy. His letter ended, "If you do not initiate confirmed compliance within ten day of receipt of this letter, your employment is subject to termination." Petitioner's Ex. No. 45. On November 28, 1994, Ms. Tuma began treatment with Dr. Doris Amaya. More Meetings and Conferences On December 8, 1994, an informal meeting was held between Dr. Friedman and Ms. Tuma concerning the taking of attendance in art class, alteration of the children's art work by Ms. Tuma, and the need to treat children's self-esteem with sensitivity. During the meeting, Ms. Tuma called Dr. Friedman a liar. The meeting was memorialized in a memorandum to Dr. Gray from Dr. Friedman, in which Dr. Friedman wrote, Ms. Tuma continues to demonstrate a pattern of flagrant disrespect toward administrative authority. Please advise ... as to what supportive action I may expect from district level as to this accelerating problem. Petitioner' Ex. No. 48. On March 1, 1995, at a parent/teacher conference concerning a grade of "C" Ms. Tuma gave to the child of the parents present, Ms. Tuma was asked to explain the grade when the child had received "A's" and "B's" in all of his other classes. The parents complained to Dr. Friedman that Ms. Tuma advised them that "all of the teachers and faculty at Ojus Elementary School were after her, were against her, and involved in some conspiratorial way. She said that my children's grades were falsely stated as good in their classes when in fact, they were really 'bad' as reflected by her grades." Petitioner's Ex. No. 54, Attachment "C." The complaint went on to relay that the conference ended with Ms. Tuma accusing one of the parents of being in conspiracy with the faculty or being "some type of liar." Id. On March 6, 1995, Dr. Freidman conducted a parent/teacher conference with Ms. Tuma and the parent who had complained about Ms. Tuma's bizarre behavior at his March 1, 1996 conference with her. During this conference, Ms. Tuma again stated that some of the teachers at the school were against her and had given false grades to students while her grade of the student in question was correct. She also called the parent a "liar." On March 8, 1995, another parent/teacher conference of Ms. Tuma's was held in Dr. Freidman's presence. This conference involved a parent different from the conference two days earlier. The complaint in this case was that Ms. Tuma had given a grade to a student based on her conduct rather than her work. It became apparent that Ms. Tuma, indeed, was lowering students' work grades for misconduct. The next day, another a parent/teacher conference was held again with Dr. Freidman present. This conference concerned yet another parent and a third child. The conference was held because the child, an avid art student, was not enjoying Ms. Tuma's class. Again, it became apparent that Ms. Tuma was lowering grades for work due to perceived misconduct. Dr. Freidman apprised Ms. Tuma that this was contrary to School Board policy. In response, Ms. Tuma wrote on a summary of the conference which she was given, "Dr. Freidman has a personal vendetta against me, because I've Blown the Whistle about her & her favourite friends there; Dr. Friedman embraced the Negativism of these parents!" She also wrote, "The councelor (sic) told me: 'Don't be surprised if she: (Friedman); set these parents up in the telephone to say certain things against you." Petitioner's Ex. No. 51. On March 27, 1995, Dr. Freidman conducted a conference-on-the-record with Ms. Tuma to discuss her professional responsibilities, performance to date, and her future employment status. Also discussed were her unprofessional conduct during parent conferences, her noncompliance with the School Board's grading policy, accusations against faculty members, and violations of the Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct in the Education Profession. Ms. Tuma was directed to read the section of the board's rules which indicate that academic and effort grades are independent of conduct grades. The March 1995 Prescription and Outright Refusal to Perform On March 29, 1995, Ms. Tuma was issued a "Record of Observed Deficiencies" with a "Prescription for Performance Improvement" for the category of professional responsibilities. Deficiencies cited in the document included: noncompliance with the grading policies found in School Board rules; violation of Rule 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code, by intentionally making false statements about colleagues to parents and staff; noncompliance with the labor contract; and noncompliance with school site rules and policies. While considerably more detailed, in summary, the plan activities under the prescription required Ms. Tuma to read and familiarize herself with the Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida; read and summarize cited board rules on grading policy; read and summarize the 1994-95 School Improvement Plan Strategy to Improve Conduct; and read a handout related to effective attitudes for teachers and develop a parent involvement plan using guidelines in the handout. Ms. Tuma did not agree that she needed to complete the prescription, felt the prescription was unfair, and refused to make any effort to perform it. On March 30, 1995, Dr. Friedman directed Ms. Tuma to meet the next day to discuss a segment of the prescription. Ms. Tuma advised the principal that she would not attend the meeting. Dr. Friedman told her non-attendance would be gross insubordination. The next day, the day before spring break, Ms. Tuma took a sick leave day. Following the break, more than a week later, Ms. Tuma met with Dr. Friedman. At the meeting, she informed Dr. Friedman that she would not perform the prescription. Dr. Friedman regarded Ms. Tuma's refusal as very serious not only because it constituted, in her view, gross insubordination, but because the incidents leading to the prescription had involved the welfare of Ms. Tuma's students. Dr. Friedman requested that Ms. Tuma be reassigned to another school or that she be dismissed as a teacher. When presented with a document showing an alternative assignment, Ms. Tuma, contrary to district-wide procedure, refused to sign it. Ms. Louise Harms, then director of OPS, conducted a conference-on-the- record with Ms. Tuma to discuss the matters which had occurred at Ojus, including her refusal to perform the prescription, and Dr. Friedman's recommendation that she be dismissed as a teacher. At the conference, Ms. Harms had available to her a fax from Ms. Tuma's attorney advising that Ms. Tuma would not perform the prescription. As the conference got underway, Ms. Tuma reiterated her refusal to follow the prescription. She maintained this position for an extended period of time during the conference which lasted two hours. Present at the conference was Dr. Joseph Burke, Personnel Director of the Dade County Public Schools, and a region director. Toward the end of the conference, Dr. Burke informed Ms. Tuma that it was his recommendation that she be dismissed given her position of refusing to perform the prescription. In response, Ms. Tuma asked what would happen if she were to follow the prescription. The memorandum summarizing the conference shows Dr. Burke's reply to have been: The gross insubordination has occurred. You refused to do the Prescription. We can't change that fact. You are now saying that you are now willing to do what you blatantly refused to do even at the onset of this conference. I have a feeling that your change of mind is directly related to the recommendation for dismissal. Petitioner's Ex. No. 58, p. 12. Ms. Tuma then asked about the possibility of taking a leave of absence. Dr. Burke responded to Ms. Tuma that she would not be able to complete the prescription while on leave and asked her what she was requesting: to remain on faculty at Ojus and perform the prescription or to take leave during which time she would not be allowed to complete it. Ms. Tuma requested leave. The Leave of Absence It was decided that Ms. Tuma's request for leave would be granted from April 17, 1995 through January 29, 1996. Ms. Tuma's evaluation for the 1994/95 school year rated her, for the third time, "unacceptable" both overall and in the category of professional responsibilities. She was not recommended for employment. In July and August of 1995, while on leave, Ms. Tuma wrote to Dr. Friedman despite the directive not to communicate with her personally. While the letters relate marginally to a school-related matter, that is, whether Dr. Friedman should help her return to the school, they are largely personal communications. For example, the July letter states, "I do wish we could go skiing in the winter, snorkel in the summer, go to Greece in the Spring or fall." Petitioner's Ex. No. 63. The letter concludes with a post-script, "Please let me know; don't be so snobbish, hard and un-forgiving: Could we meet you for lunch one day?, me & mom - we'll treat you. Maybe Olive Garden or so ... Please?, then we'll talk a little bit more. Thank you." Id. On August 16, 1995, Dr. Gray met informally with Ms. Tuma and her attorney. In the meantime, Ms. Tuma requested that her leave be terminated and she be allowed to return to Ojus on the upcoming November 6. At the meeting, Ms. Tuma advanced the date of her request to terminate leave to the start of the school year. She said that she was repentant about having refused to perform the prescription and that she would do it once her leave was over in exchange for being allowed to return to work before her leave was scheduled to be up. Ms. Tuma's requests were denied and she was advised that she would be apprised of her status upon completion of review of her records. On September 8, 1995, Ms. Tuma's 1995/96 salary was frozen per denial of a salary step increment. f. School Board's Last Attempt On November 8, 1995, Dr. Gray conducted a conference-on-the-record with Ms. Tuma to discuss her performance assessment to date, her medical fitness to perform full classroom duties, her noncompliance with directives, rules, contract provisions, and her future employment status. At the November 8, 1995 meeting, in a final attempt to save Ms. Tuma her job, Dr. Gray gave her two options: to work as an adult education teacher or to be redirected to a paraprofessional position. Ms. Tuma rejected both options. Suspension and Dismissal Proceedings Having exhausted all avenues of assistance to Ms. Tuma, the School Board, on January 24, 1996, suspended her and initiated these dismissal proceedings for gross insubordination and willful neglect of duties.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the School Board of Dade County, Florida, issue a Final Order sustaining the suspension without pay of Maria E. Tuma and dismissing her as an employee of the School Board of Dade County, Florida, without back pay, for gross insubordination and willful neglect of duties, pursuant to Section 231.36(4), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of October, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 96-0820 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Paragraphs 1-17, 19-62, insofar as material, are accepted. Paragraph 18 is rejected as irrelevant. It is not clear from the evidence that this event was part of Ms. Tuma's pattern of insubordination. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Paragraph 1 is accepted except that Ms. Tuma's insubordination had an effect on her competency. Paragraph 2 is accepted. Paragraph 3 is rejected for containing conclusions of law. Paragraph 4 is rejected with the exception of the last two sentences which are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Octavio J. Visiedo Superintendent Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 403 Miami, Florida 33132 Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Joseph F. Lopez, Esquire 250 Bird Road, Suite 302 Coral Gables, Florida 33146 Ms. Maria E. Tuma 11320 Northwest 58th Place Hialeah, Florida 33012
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Lake County School Board, had just cause to terminate Respondents for the reasons specified in the agency action letters dated April 17, 2018.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Lake County School Board, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Lake County. See Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const.; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Petitioner is authorized to discipline instructional staff and other school employees. See § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Mr. Rosier has been employed at Groveland Elementary School (Groveland) in Lake County, Florida, for three years. During the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years, Mr. Rosier was the Instructional Dean. One of Mr. Rosier’s duties was to assist teachers with students who have behavioral problems and liaison with parents of these students. Mr. Rosier also conducted in- school suspension of students. Mr. Rosier also had a contract supplement to assist with students who were on campus after school hours because they either missed the bus or were not picked up by their parent or guardian on time. Mr. Rosier assisted by keeping the student safe and contacting the emergency contact on file for the student to find a way to get the student home. Ms. Lassen has taught at Groveland for four years. She taught first grade during the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years. Petitioner Lassen is an “inclusion teacher,” meaning her classroom is a combination of students receiving Exceptional Student Education (ESE) services and students with no need for services. Ms. Lassen has no special training in ESE services for children with behavioral challenges. ESE students in her classroom are “push in, pull out,” meaning an exceptional education teacher comes in to work with some of the students in the classroom, and other students are pulled out of the classroom to work with an exceptional education teacher. Ms. Lassen was not happy at Groveland. She enjoyed teaching and was passionate about her students achieving their learning potential. However, she was frustrated by what she saw as a lack of needed services for her ESE students. Ms. Lassen applied for a transfer during the 2016 school year, but the transfer was denied. During the 2017-2018 school year, Ms. Lassen had eleven ESE students in her classroom, four of whom had severe behavioral issues. Some of her students were violent, even trying to harm themselves. She found it stressful to corral children who were throwing things in the classroom, especially at other children, while trying to teach the required lessons. She often found herself dealing with parents who were upset about their ESE child being disciplined for their behaviors, or who were upset about the treatment of their child by an ESE student. To address these concerns, Ms. Lassen frequently met with Mr. Rosier. Toward the end of the 2017-2018 school year--in March 2018 particularly--they met roughly twice a week. The two met once in Mr. Rosier’s office and sometimes in the portable where Mr. Rosier conducted in-school suspension; however, they met most frequently in Ms. Lassen’s classroom. The meetings usually occurred around 4:00 p.m., after students were dismissed at 3:30 p.m. and Mr. Rosier’s after- school responsibilities ended. Ms. Lassen usually left the school between 4:15 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. to pick up her own children from school and daycare and take them to after-school activities. During the meetings, Ms. Lassen discussed with Mr. Rosier the behavioral challenges she faced with students in her classroom, as well as the issues with parents. Mr. Rosier had the responsibility to deal with parents, often conducting parent conferences to address issues arising in the classroom. Ms. Lassen and Mr. Rosier became friends, and occasionally discussed personal matters, in addition to classroom and parent issues. Sometimes Ms. Lassen would become emotional. Mr. Rosier assured her he would work to get the help the students needed. Kimberly Sneed was the Groveland Principal during the 2017-2018 school year. On April 2, 2018, Mr. Sneed entered Ms. Lassen’s classroom shortly after 4:00 p.m. Assistant Principal Joseph Mabry had suggested to Ms. Sneed that she should look into why Mr. Rosier was in Ms. Lassen’s classroom at that time. When Ms. Sneed arrived, she observed that the lights were turned off and the classroom was empty. She walked to the classroom supply closet, inserted her key, and opened the door, which opens inward. Just as she was pushing the door open, Ms. Lassen pulled the door open to exit the closet with her purse and supply bag in hand. Ms. Sneed did not try the closet door handle first to determine whether the closet was locked. She simply inserted the key in the lock and pushed open the door. She testified that she was not certain the closet door was actually locked. The closet light was off when Ms. Lassen opened the closet. Ms. Lassen testified that she had just switched the light off before opening the door to exit the closet. Ms. Sneed turned the light switch on as she entered the closet. Ms. Lassen was surprised to see Ms. Sneed and asked if she could help her find something. Ms. Sneed asked Ms. Lassen why she had been in a dark closet. How Ms. Lassen replied to Ms. Sneed’s question was a disputed issue. Ms. Lassen maintains she said, “Ms. Sneed, you don’t understand, all it was, it was just a kiss, a kiss on the cheek, nothing more.” Ms. Sneed maintains Ms. Lassen said, “We were only kissing, we weren’t doing anything, no sex or nothing.” Ms. Lassen promptly left to pick up her children. Ms. Sneed entered the closet and observed Mr. Rosier standing at the back of the L-shaped closet, with his back to the door. Mr. Rosier was fully clothed, but his shirt was untucked and his glasses were off. Ms. Sneed did not question Mr. Rosier. Instead she quipped sarcastically, “Really, Mr. Rosier? Really?” Mr. Rosier did not turn toward Ms. Sneed or otherwise respond to her immediately. As Ms. Sneed exited the closet and proceeded to leave the classroom, Mr. Rosier called after her and asked if he could talk with her in her office. What else Mr. Rosier said to Ms. Sneed at that time was also a disputed issue. Ms. Sneed testified that Mr. Rosier stated, “I’ll admit we were kissing, and it turned into touching, but nothing else.” Mr. Rosier was not certain what exactly he said, but admitted that he did use the word “kiss.” He testified that everything happened quickly. He was embarrassed and Ms. Sneed was angry. The following day, Ms. Sneed reported the incident to the School Board Employee Relations Supervisor Katherine Falcon. That same day, both Ms. Lassen and Mr. Rosier were interviewed separately by Ms. Falcon. Ms. Falcon drafted an interview questionnaire based solely on her telephone conversation with Ms. Sneed that morning. The questionnaire contained the following seven questions: For the record state your name. What is your current position? How long have you been in your current position? Yesterday, Ms. Sneed found you and another teacher in a locked dark closet. Can you explain? Is this the first time you have engaged in this activity on campus? Did you share any information about this incident with anyone else? Is there anything else you would like to say? Ms. Falcon asked the questions, and David Meyers, Employee Relations Manager, typed Respondents’ answers. Ms. Falcon printed the interview record on site and presented it to each respective Respondent to review and sign. The report states Ms. Lassen’s response to Question 4 as follows: The closet was unlocked. It is always unlocked. I just kissed him. It didn’t go any further. There was no touching or clothing off. Nothing exposed. Nothing like that has ever happened before. Yesterday was more, like a kiss goodbye. I was getting ready to leave and getting my stuff. He was standing by the door. He was standing by my filing cabinet. Nobody ever comes in there during the day. Sneed wanted to know what we were doing in there. We told her we were fooling around a little bit, kissing. Ms. Lassen signed her interview report without asking for clarifications or changes. Ms. Lassen testified that she did not review the interview report before signing, did not understand it to be any form of discipline, and was anxious to return to her classroom because her ESE students do not do well in her absence. At the final hearing, Ms. Lassen denied stating anything about “fooling around a little” with Mr. Rosier. In response to the same question, Mr. Rosier’s report states the following: The closet wasn’t locked. This teacher, Katie Lassen and I have become good friends. Yesterday we caught ourselves being too close, kissing, hugging . . . . We were first in the main classroom. When we began to kiss we went in the closet. There was a knock on the door. It was Ms. Sneed. My clothes were kind of wrangled. Mr. Rosier also signed his interview report without asking for clarifications or changes. At the final hearing, Mr. Rosier denied stating that he and Ms. Lassen were “kissing and hugging” or that “when we began to kiss we went into the closet.” As to his statement that “we caught ourselves becoming too close,” he testified that he meant they had begun discussing personal issues in addition to Ms. Lassen’s concerns with her ESE students. Ms. Lassen and Mr. Rosier testified as follows: they were discussing her concerns about a particular ESE student who was very disruptive and threatened to harm himself. Ms. Lassen was emotional. Ms. Lassen proceeded into the closet to get her things so she could leave to pick up her children and get them to after-school activities. Just inside the closet, Ms. Lassen broke down crying again. Mr. Rosier entered the closet, closing the door behind him (allegedly to keep anyone from seeing Ms. Lassen cry), put his hands on her shoulders and told her to get herself together and not let anyone see her crying when she left the school. She collected herself, thanked him, gave him a hug and they exchanged kisses on the cheek. Respondents’ stories at final hearing were nearly identical, a little too well-rehearsed, and differed too much from the spontaneous statements made at the time of the incident, to be credible. Based on the totality of the evidence, and inferences drawn therefrom, the undersigned finds as follows: Mr. Rosier was consoling Ms. Lassen and the two adults became caught up in the moment, giving in to an attraction born from an initial respectful working relationship. The encounter was brief and there is no credible evidence that Respondents did anything other than kiss each other. Both Respondents regret it and had no intention to continue anything other than a professional relationship. This incident occurred after school hours, sometime between 4:00 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. on April 2, 2018. The only students on campus were at an after-school care program in a different building across campus. No one witnessed Respondents kissing or entering the closet together. Only Ms. Sneed witnessed Respondents emerging from the closet. Both Respondents were terminated effective April 23, 2018. Administrative Charges The school board’s administrative complaints suffer from a lack of specificity. Both employees are charged with “engaging in sexual misconduct on the school campus with another school board employee which is considered Misconduct in Office,” in violation of the Principles of Professional Conduct for Educators (Principles). The administrative complaints do not charge Respondents with any specific date, time, or place of particular conduct which constitutes “sexual misconduct.”2/ Moreover, the School Board introduced no definition of sexual misconduct. The School Board inquired about some specific conduct during the Employee Relations interviews with Respondents. Ms. Falcon asked Respondents about being found together in a “locked dark closet.” The School Board failed to prove that the closet was either locked or dark while Respondents were in the closet. It appears the School Board bases its charge of Misconduct in Office, in part, on an allegation that the Respondents had “engaged in this activity on campus” on dates other than April 2, 2018. When Ms. Sneed went to Ms. Lassen’s room on April 2, 2018, she was acting upon a report that Mr. Rosier went to Ms. Lassen’s room every day at 4:00 p.m. There is no reliable evidence in the record to support a finding to that effect. The report that Mr. Rosier “went to Ms. Lassen’s classroom every day at 4:00,” was hearsay to the 4th degree,3/ without any non-hearsay corroborating evidence. Petitioner did not prove Respondents were ever together in a closet, much less a dark closet, on campus any date other than April 2, 2018. Finally, it appears the School Board bases its charges, in part, on an allegation that Mr. Rosier was not fulfilling his after-school duties because he was spending too much time with Ms. Lassen. To that point, Petitioner introduced testimony that on the Friday after spring break in March, Mr. Rosier was not to be found when the administration had to deal with a student who had either missed the bus or was not picked up on time. Ms. Sneed testified that Mr. Rosier came through the front office, observed the student there with herself and Mr. Mabry, and left through the front office. Ms. Sneed assumed Mr. Rosier had left for the day, but that when she left the school she saw his car in the parking lot. Mr. Rosier recalled that particular day, and testified that, as two administrators were attending to the student, he did not see the need for a third. He chose instead to keep his appointment with Ms. Lassen to discuss her difficult students. Petitioner did not prove that Mr. Rosier neglected either his after-school or any other duties.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Lake County School Board enter a final order dismissing the charges against Respondents Katie Lassen and Alan Rosier, and award back pay and benefits retroactive to April 23, 2018. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 3rd day of August, 2018.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the actions set forth in the Notice of Charge of Misconduct in Office, dated December 18, 2013, and if so, whether these actions constitute just cause for suspension.
Findings Of Fact The Walton County School Board (School Board) is charged with the responsibility to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within the School District of Walton County, Florida. During the 2013-2014 school year, Ms. Harriet Hurley was a teacher at Walton Middle School. Ms. Hurley had earlier been a teacher in Georgia for eight years, had been employed in Walton County Schools in 1984 for a period of three years, and taught in Okaloosa County Schools for five years. She then returned to Walton County Schools where she has been ever since, for a career of over 30 years. In addition to her responsibilities as a teacher at Walton Middle School, Ms. Hurley assists in scheduling parent- teacher conferences for students at Walton Middle School. Ms. Hurley’s responsibilities in scheduling conferences are limited to a coordination function. She is not responsible for addressing the substance of the issues to be addressed in the conferences or becoming involved in attempting to resolve them. Principal Hope never asked Ms. Hurley to assume a role as a guidance counselor. Ms. Hurley is employed by the School Board. As a member of the School Board’s instructional staff, Ms. Hurley’s employment is subject to section 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2013), which provides that her employment will not be suspended or terminated except for “just cause.” As a teacher, Ms. Hurley is required to abide by all Florida Statutes which pertain to teachers, the Code of Ethics and the Principles of Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida, and the Policies and Procedures of the School Board of Walton County, Florida. Ms. Hurley is not the legal guardian of her granddaughter, B.C., who is a student at Walton Middle School. On November 20, 2013, Ms. Hurley’s granddaughter, B.C., approached her in the adult dining area about a group math assignment that was upsetting her. B.C. told Ms. Hurley that she had been told by her sixth-grade math teacher, Ms. Black, that her “high grade was gone” because of the failure of her group to complete a group math assignment. B.C. told Ms. Hurley that she blamed S.A., another student in her group, for their failure to complete the work. Ms. Hurley immediately left the adult dining area with her lunch only partially eaten and went with B.C. back to Ms. Black’s classroom. B.C. had been released for lunch a few minutes before the other students because she was an A/B Honor Roll student, so the other students were still in the classroom when Ms. Hurley arrived there. When Ms. Hurley and B.C. arrived at the classroom, the students were packing up their personal items in preparation for their release for lunch. Ms. Black testified in part: At that time, I think it was because the students leave five minutes early, A/B honor roll students. I don’t really want to go ahead and teach them anything, because they’re missing that opportunity to learn. At that time I get them to pack up and get their things together to leave for lunch. There was a high level of noise in the classroom. Ms. Black, in her first year as a teacher, was at her desk trying to help some students who did not understand something, and was in a verbal altercation with S.A., who was walking away from her. On November 20, 2013, S.A. was not a student in one of Ms. Hurley’s classes. Ms. Hurley addressed S.A., telling him that he should not talk to his teacher that way. Ms. Hurley told S.A. to “come here to me.” She was upset with S.A. and told him that he needed to stop playing around. In a loud and forceful tone of voice, she told him that he was not going to be the cause of a “straight A” student getting a bad grade and that he needed to concentrate on his schoolwork. She told him that she knew his mother, who worked at a KFC-Taco Bell restaurant in Miramar Beach, and that she would talk to his mother if necessary. S.A. denied that his mother worked at KFC, and Ms. Hurley restated that she knew that his mother did. The other students in the class heard Ms. Hurley’s disparagement and public discipline of S.A. The bell rang and Ms. Hurley and the students began to leave the classroom. S.A. was embarrassed and upset by the incident. Due to the fact that the students were already packing up their things to leave, and because Ms. Black had been in a verbal altercation with S.A., the actions of Ms. Hurley in Ms. Black’s class did not disrupt the students’ learning environment. Ms. Hurley’s actions were unnecessary. She might have comforted B.C., and encouraged B.C. and her parents to pursue the issue with Ms. Black. S.A. was not one of Ms. Hurley’s students and at the time she decided to go to Ms. Black’s class Ms. Hurley had not directly witnessed any behavior by S.A. that called for immediate correction. Even had it been appropriate for Respondent herself to take action based upon her granddaughter’s information, there was no emergency which required that Ms. Hurley intrude upon a colleague’s class and loudly berate S.A. in front of other students. She used her institutional privileges as a teacher to gain access to Ms. Black’s classroom in order to assist her granddaughter. As Ms. Black was leaving her classroom, she saw that S.A. was reluctantly moving toward the door and she noticed he was crying. She attempted to comfort him. Ms. Black then reported the incident to Mr. Jason Campbell, Assistant Principal, who was in the student lunch room. A few minutes later, S.A. also approached Mr. Campbell to report his version of the incident. Ms. Hurley returned to her lunch in the adult dining room. When Ms. Black came in to the dining room later, Ms. Hurley apologized to her for coming into her classroom. That evening, Ms. Hurley drove to Miramar Beach and went to dinner at the fast food restaurant where she knew Ms. A. worked. Ms. Hurley was one of Ms. A’s teachers when Ms. A. had been in the seventh grade, and the two were casual acquaintances. Ms. Hurley told Ms. A. what had happened that morning with S.A. and B.C. in their math group. Ms. Hurley told Ms. A. that she had “kind of stepped out and went into grandma mode” and had “gotten onto” (disciplined) S.A. Ms. Hurley relayed that she had told S.A. that she knew his mother and that if he did not improve his conduct, she was going to let his mother know about his behavior. During the course of the conversation, Ms. A. relayed that she was concerned about an incident involving a damaged globe from Mr. Price’s classroom, which was S.A.’s SPEAR classroom (“home room”). The following day, on November 21, 2013, Ms. Hurley removed S.A. from his first-period classroom. Neither Principal Hope nor Vice Principal Campbell authorized Ms. Hurley to remove S.A. from his first-period classroom on November 21, 2013. On November 21, 2013, Ms. Hurley contacted S.A.’s mother on the telephone on her own initiative and without the authority of Principal Hope or Vice Principal Campbell. Ms. Hurley called Ms. A. on the telephone with S.A. present. Ms. Hurley and Ms. A. talked about the incident involving S.A. and the damaged globe from Mr. Price’s classroom. The telephone conversation had barely begun when Mr. Hope, upon learning that Ms. Hurley had gone to S.A.’s classroom and removed him from class, came into Ms. Hurley’s room and took S.A. back to Mr. Hope’s office. While the School Board alleged that Ms. Hurley and Ms. A. discussed the incident that happened in Ms. Black’s classroom the day before, this was not shown by the evidence. The allegation that Ms. Hurley was misusing her institutional privileges by engaging in the phone call may be correct, for Ms. Hurley was not authorized to discuss the substance of parent/teacher conferences, but was instead limited to scheduling responsibilities. The evidence did not show that the phone conversation was conducted for personal gain or advantage to Ms. Hurley, however. The School Board’s further argument that Ms. Hurley’s actions on November 21, 2013, reduced the ability of Principal Hope to efficiently perform his duties is also rejected. Assuming that Principal Hope could even be considered a “colleague” of Ms. Hurley’s, the evidence showed that he was able to efficiently “track down” S.A. with minimal effort. To the extent that Ms. Hurley’s actions on November 21, 2013, exceeded her “job description,” they could be corrected with a simple directive or memorandum, and in the absence of evidence that her actions were taken for her personal gain, they are not a just cause for discipline. Statements were taken from several students in Ms. Black’s math class regarding the incident on November 20th, which vary in detail, but taken as a whole corroborate the findings of fact above regarding the incident on November 20, 2013. No statement was taken from B.C., and neither party called B.C. as a witness at hearing. On December 2, 2013, Ms. Hurley met with Walton Middle School administration to discuss the events of November 20 and November 21, 2013. On December 17, 2013, Principal Tripp Hope issued a letter of reprimand advising Respondent that he would be recommending a 10-day suspension without pay to the Superintendent. On December 18, 2013, the Superintendent notified Respondent of her intention to recommend a 10-day suspension without pay. A Notice of Charge of Misconduct in Office, dated December 18, 2013, notified Respondent of the Petitioner’s intent to suspend her employment for 10 days without pay. (As stipulated by the parties.) Although the Notice of Charge of Misconduct in Office did not explicitly identify all rules that Ms. Hurley was charged with violating, the allegations of more specific rule violations were included in the Letter of Reprimand which was attached to the charge. Ms. Hurley was not prejudiced or hindered in the preparation of her defense by any lack of specificity in the charging documents. Ms. Hurley is substantially affected by the intended action of the School Board to suspend her employment without pay for ten days. The evidence did not show that Ms. Hurley failed to “value” the worth and dignity of every person, the pursuit of truth, devotion to excellence, acquisition of knowledge, or the nurture of democratic citizenship. The evidence did not show that Ms. Hurley did not strive for professional growth or did not “seek” to exercise the best professional judgment or integrity. The evidence did not show that Ms. Hurley did not “strive” to achieve or sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct. The evidence showed that by entering S.A.’s classroom and raising her voice in anger towards him in the presence of other students, Ms. Hurley failed to make reasonable effort to protect S.A. from conditions harmful to his learning or to his mental health. The evidence showed that any required discipline of S.A. should not have been administered by Ms. Hurley and so her actions were unnecessary. Her actions, which reduced S.A. to tears, exposed him to unnecessary embarrassment and disparagement. The evidence showed that in entering another teacher’s classroom to assist her granddaughter by disciplining S.A. when he was not even one of her students, Ms. Hurley used institutional privileges for personal gain or advantage. The evidence did not show that Ms. Hurley lacked integrity, high ideals, or human understanding or that she failed to “maintain or promote” those qualities. The evidence did not show that in entering Ms. Black’s classroom during the final minutes of the class, when the students were already packing up their things and preparing to go to lunch, Ms. Hurley engaged in behavior that disrupted the students’ learning environment. The evidence did not show that Ms. Hurley engaged in behavior that reduced her ability or her colleague’s ability to effectively perform duties. One might speculate as to whether Ms. Black’s ability to maintain control over her class in the future was undermined by Ms. Hurley’s aggressive intrusion, but Ms. Black did not testify that her ability to effectively perform was reduced and this was not otherwise shown. There was similarly no evidence offered to indicate that Ms. Hurley’s own effectiveness was reduced. Her actions were not taken in her own classroom, there was no evidence that she had any of Ms. Black’s students in her classes, or that her own students or the student body generally was even aware of her actions. The actions of Ms. Hurley on November 20, 2013, constitute misconduct in office. Her actions are just cause for suspension of her employment without pay. The School Board witnesses conceded that Ms. Hurley has never received “formal” counseling, and presented no documentary evidence that she had been counseled even informally. The School Board did present credible testimony from Principal Hope and Assistant Principal Campbell that Ms. Hurley had been informally counseled regarding raising her voice with students and for communication with her peers. The actions of Ms. Hurley on November 20, 2013, were not so serious as to justify a ten-day suspension, but do warrant suspension without pay for three calendar days.
The Issue In DOAH Case No. 97-5828, the issue is whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint dated March 24, 1998, and, if so, the penalty which should be imposed. In DOAH Case No. 98-2387, the issue is whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges dated July 30, 1998, and, if so, whether he should be dismissed from employment with the Miami-Dade County School Board.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, is the entity authorized to operate the public schools in the county and to "provide for the appointment, compensation, promotion, suspension, and dismissal of employees" of the school district. Section 4(b), Article IX, Florida Constitution; Section 230.23(4) and (5), Florida Statutes (1997). The Department of Education is the state agency responsible for investigating and prosecuting complaints against teachers holding Florida teachers' certificates for violations of Section 231.28, Florida Statutes. Section 231.262, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Sections 231.261(7)(b) and 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, the Educational Practices Commission is the entity responsible for imposing discipline for any of the violations set forth in Section 231.28(1). Richard V. Powell holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 585010, which covers the subjects of journalism and English- as-a-Second-Language ("ESOL"). His teacher's certificate has an expiration date of June 30, 1999. Mr. Powell was first employed as a teacher with the Miami-Dade County public school system in August 1985. From 1989 through August 1996, Mr. Powell was assigned to Jose Marti Middle School as an ESOL teacher; in August 1996, he was assigned to John F. Kennedy Middle School ("JFK Middle School") as an ESOL teacher; in August 1997, he was given a new assignment as the facilitator of JFK Middle School's School Center for Special Instruction. On November 26, 1997, Mr. Powell was temporarily assigned to the Region II office. At all times material to this proceeding, Mr. Powell was employed by the School Board under a professional service contract. November 1995 incident On the evening of November 19, 1995, at around 10:00 or 10:30 p.m., Mr. Powell was driving his Ford Bronco on Pembroke Road in Broward County, Florida. Mr. Powell's fourteen-year-old son was sitting in the front passenger seat, and he and his father began arguing about his school behavior and progress and about his failure to do his chores around the house. Mr. Powell became angry and punched his son in the mouth with his fist and then pulled the Bronco off the street, into a vacant lot. Mr. Powell got out of the Bronco, walked around the back of the vehicle to the door on the passenger's side, opened the door, and pulled his son out of the vehicle. After the child was outside the vehicle, Mr. Powell punched his son once in the face and, when the child fell to the ground, Mr. Powell kicked him at least once in the ribs. 8/ The child broke away and ran to a convenience store about twenty-five yards from the vacant lot, where a witness to the incident had already called the police. When he arrived at the convenience store, the child was sobbing and holding his side; blood was pouring from his lip. 9/ After the altercation with his son, Mr. Powell was not feeling well and, believing that his son had run the short distance to his home, Mr. Powell drove home. He waited a few minutes for his son and then walked from his home to Pembroke Road. He saw his son, a police car, and an ambulance at the convenience store, and he walked up to the police officers and identified himself as the child's father. Mr. Powell's son was taken to the hospital and treated and released with a split lip and a bruise in the area of his ribs. Mr. Powell was taken to the Pembroke Pines, Florida, police station. Mr. Powell is a diabetic, and, while he was at the police station, he asked to be examined by a doctor because he did not feel well. He was taken to the hospital, where he remained for about an hour. After his release from the hospital, Mr. Powell was arrested and charged with child abuse. On July 29, 1996, after a bench trial on child abuse charges, the court found Mr. Powell guilty but withheld adjudication, sentenced him to six months' probation, and required him to complete a parent counseling course. 10/ Mr. Powell successfully completed the course in December 1996 and was released early from probation on January 8, 1997. In August 1996, Mr. Powell was transferred from Jose Marti Middle School to JFK Middle School, where Raymond Fontana was principal. In a letter dated August 1, 1996, Seth A. Levine, an assistant state attorney in Broward County, Florida, notified the superintendent of the Miami-Dade County public school system that Mr. Powell had been tried on the charge of child abuse, and he advised the superintendent of the resolution of the case. The letter was forwarded to James E. Monroe, who was at the time an Executive Director in the School Board's Office of Professional Standards, who reviewed the letter and transmitted the information contained therein to Mr. Fontana at JFK Middle School and to the state Department of Education Educational Practices Services. Mr. Monroe was not aware of the November 1995 incident involving Mr. Powell and his son until on or about August 14, 1996, when he received the copy of Mr. Levine's letter. In a letter dated October 10, 1996, the Education Practices Services notified Mr. Powell that it had received a complaint against him related to the charges of child abuse, and an investigation was begun which led to the filing of the original Administrative Complaint dated January 21, 1997. The disciplinary action taken against Mr. Powell by the School Board with respect to the child abuse charges consisted of a Site Disposition in the case, which the School Board referred to as Case No. A-17734. In a memorandum to Mr. Powell dated October 15, 1996, Mr. Fontana summarized the substance of a conference which was held on October 15, 1996, with Mr. Powell, Mr. Fontana, and William McCard, an assistant principal at JFK Middle School, in attendance. In the memorandum, Mr. Fontana indicated that "[t]he purpose of the conference was to establish a final disposition through administrative review of the above indicated case." Mr. Fontana further stated: Upon review of all the records and talking with you, it is determined that the incident in question happened in Broward County, no adjudication of guilt was established, and legally the case was closed. However, you have agreed to counseling in order to forestall any future problems. The case in question dealt with your own family member and alleged child abuse. We reviewed my expectations of you in regards to your teaching position at John F. Kennedy Middle School and your professional treatment of all your students. We reviewed the State Code of Ethics guidelines dealing with the same subject. Thus, I am directing you to follow the established State Code of Ethics Rules, School Board Policy, and Site Rules dealing with conduct becoming a teacher and subsequent teaching relationships with students. I feel that this will adequately bring closure to this incident and that in the future your teaching behavior will always be of the highest professional standard. In his annual evaluation for the 1995-1996 school year, Mr. Powell was rated "acceptable" in both classroom performance and in professional responsibility, and he was recommended for continued employment. Likewise, in his annual evaluation for the 1996-1997 school year, Mr. Powell was assessed "acceptable" in both classroom performance and in professional responsibility, and he was recommended for continued employment. This annual evaluation followed a Teacher Assessment and Development System Post-Observation Report completed on April 16, 1997, by Mr. McCard, in which he found that Mr. Powell's performance satisfied every indicator subject to evaluation. 11/ November 1997 incident On November 25, 1997, Mr. Powell was the teacher in charge of the School Center for Special Instruction ("SCSI") at JFK Middle School. The SCSI is an indoor suspension program for children who are being disciplined for behavior violations; SCSI is an alternative to sending these children home for the duration of their suspension. The SCSI class was held in the school cafeteria at JFK Middle School from 9:00 a.m. until the end of the school day at 3:40 p.m. Two sets of double doors provide access to the cafeteria. One set, those on the right, were locked from the outside and not normally used; the students entered and left the cafeteria by the set of doors on the left of the building. At approximately 3:20 p.m. on November 25, 1997, the SCSI students were returning to the cafeteria after cleaning up an area outside the cafeteria. Mr. Powell was outside supervising the students as they returned to the cafeteria, and there was no adult supervising the students who had already moved inside the cafeteria. During this hiatus, a seventh-grade student named M. M. got into an altercation with several other boys in the class whom he suspected of taking his book bag. The boys began pushing and shoving M. M. and encouraging him to fight with one specific boy. M. M. refused to fight; he became angry and upset and left the cafeteria by way of the set of double doors on the right side of the cafeteria. Because he was angry and upset, M. M. pushed the door open quite forcefully. Mr. Powell had had surgery on his right foot the previous day; his foot was in a cast, and he used a cane to assist him in walking. At the time M. M. pushed open the cafeteria door, Mr. Powell was standing outside directly in the path of the door as it opened. M. M. could not see Mr. Powell because there were no windows in the door. As it swung open, the door hit Mr. Powell's injured foot, and Mr. Powell raised his cane and struck M. M. on his right arm. 12/ M. M. ran back inside the cafeteria, in tears. He rushed through the cafeteria and exited through the set of doors on the left side of the cafeteria. He went directly to the office of Sandra Clarke, one of the guidance counselors at JFK Middle School. When he arrived at her office, M. M. was agitated and crying, and he told Ms. Clarke that Mr. Powell had hit him on the arm with his cane. M. M. showed Ms. Clarke the mark on his arm, which was located on the outside of his right arm, midway between his shoulder and his elbow. Ms. Clarke observed that M. M. had a red welt on his arm, and she took him to the office of Patrick Snay, who was at that time the principal of JFK Middle School. Mr. Snay called in Assistant Principal McCard and told him about the allegations M. M. had made against Mr. Powell. Mr. Snay directed Mr. McCard to call the school police and to take statements from the students in the class who witnessed the incident. Mr. McCard took a statement from M. M. and observed the red mark on his arm. A school security guard went into the SCSI class right before school ended for the day and asked that any students who had seen the incident involving Mr. Powell and M. M. stay after school and write a statement telling what they had seen. Several students remained and prepared statements. 13/ Mr. Powell reported for school the next morning but was told to report to the School Board's Region 2 office. Mr. Powell worked at that office for one day, and then, beginning on the Monday after Thanksgiving, he was assigned to work at Highland Oaks Middle School. He worked at that school until he was suspended by the School Board on May 13, 1998. His duties at Highland Oaks Middle School included taking care of disabled students, accompanying them to their classes and to lunch, sitting with them, and taking notes for them, all under the direct supervision of the school's media specialist. At the direction of James Monroe, who was at the time an Executive Director in the School Board's Office of Professional Practices, a personnel investigation was initiated on December 6, 1997, with respect to M. M.'s allegations against Mr. Powell. A preliminary personnel investigation report was submitted on February 13, 1998, in which the investigator concluded that the charge against Mr. Powell was substantiated. A Conference-for-the-Record was held on March 25, 1998, attended by Mr. Snay; John F. Gilbert, Director of Region 2; Ms. Falco, Mr. Powell's union representative; Dr. Monroe; and Mr. Powell. Several issues were discussed during the conference: Mr. Powell was allowed to review a copy of the School Board's investigative report regarding the incident involving M. M., and he was allowed to comment on the report. Mr. Powell denied having hit M. M. and advised the School Board personnel that he knew of an eye witness to the incident who would support his denial. Mr. Powell was also allowed to review a copy of the October 15, 1996, memo to Mr. Powell from Principal Fontana, discussed in paragraph 16, supra, memorializing the discipline imposed with respect to the charges that Mr. Powell had committed child abuse on his son. Dr. Monroe advised Mr. Powell that he had failed to comply with the directives included in that disposition. /14 During the Conference-for-the-Record, Mr. Powell was told that a recommendation would be made to the School Board that his professional services contract not be renewed and that a decision would be made whether to take disciplinary measures against him, which could include suspension or dismissal. In a letter dated April 29, 1998, the Superintendent of Schools recommended to the School Board that Mr. Powell be suspended from his position as a teacher and that dismissal proceedings be initiated against him. The School Board accepted this recommendation on May 13, 1998. On October 29, 1998, Mr. Powell was tried by a jury on the criminal charge of battery arising out of his striking M. M. A number of students testified at the trial, and Mr. Powell was found "not guilty" of the charge. On September 5, 1997, Mr. Powell was honored by the Florida House of Representatives with a Certificate of Appreciation for "his contributions and accomplishments in the National Association of Black Scuba Divers." As a member of that association, Mr. Powell was recognized and commended for his work with the sunken slave ship Henrietta Marie and for his lectures and seminars on the history of this ship. On May 28, 1998, an article about the Certificate of Appreciation appeared in The Miami Times, together with a picture of Mr. Powell and Representative Larcenia Bullard. Nowhere in the certificate or in the news article is Mr. Powell identified as a teacher or former teacher in the Miami-Dade County public schools. Mr. Powell is mentioned and quoted in an article which was published in the South Florida edition of the Sunday Sun Sentinel newspaper on February 1, 1998. The article discussed the celebration of Black History Month by the descendants of slaves who are living in South Florida. Mr. Powell is identified in the article as the person who led members of the National Association of Black Scuba Divers in a dive to the site of the Henrietta Marie. Mr. Powell also gave a lecture on the Henrietta Marie in February 1997 at the Miami-Dade County Community College, as part of a special African-American history course. Summary The evidence presented herein clearly and convincingly establishes that Mr. Powell struck and kicked his son on November 19, 1995, and that he struck M. M. with his cane on November 25, 1997, while carrying out his duties as an SCSI teacher. Mr. Powell's testimony that he did not strike either his son or M. M. is rejected as not persuasive, as is the testimony of those witnesses who testified that Mr. Powell did not strike M. M. The evidence presented is sufficient to establish that Mr. Powell committed an act of gross immorality and of moral turpitude when he dragged his fourteen-year-old son from the passenger seat of his Ford Bronco, struck his son in the face twice, and kicked his son in the ribs at least once, causing him to suffer a split lip and bruised ribs. This act of violence is not only inconsistent with the public conscience, it is an act of serious misconduct which was in flagrant disregard of society's condemnation of violence against children. The seriousness of Mr. Powell's act is only exacerbated by the fact that he acted in anger. Although the evidence establishes that Mr. Powell committed an act of gross immorality, the only evidence offered regarding any notoriety arising from the November 1995 incident and from Mr. Powell's subsequent trial on the charges of child abuse is the testimony of Dr. Monroe. Dr. Monroe's testimony that there "was considerable notoriety via the print and the electronic media of Mr. Powell's action which resulted in his arrest" was not based on his personal knowledge but was based on information he received in August 1996 from an assistant state's attorney in Broward County. Dr. Monroe's testimony is not only hearsay unsupported by any other evidence in the record, it is not credible to prove that Mr. Powell's conduct was sufficiently notorious to cast him or the education profession into public disgrace or disrespect or to impair Mr. Powell's service in the community. Moreover, Mr. Powell presented evidence that, subsequent to the November 1995 incident, he was publicly recognized for his contributions to the community through his work with the slave ship Henrietta Marie. The evidence presented is also sufficient to establish that Mr. Powell committed an act of gross immorality and of moral turpitude with respect to the November 1997 incident involving M. M. When Mr. Powell lashed out at this student and struck him with a cane, albeit after the student pushed a door into his injured foot, he demonstrated a flagrant disregard of public morals and of society's condemnation of violence against children, and he committed an act that betrayed the special trust placed in teachers. However, there was no persuasive evidence presented to establish that Mr. Powell's conduct involving M. M. was sufficiently notorious to expose either Mr. Powell or the education profession to public disgrace or disrespect or that Mr. Powell's service in the community was impaired with respect to the November 1997 incident. The most the evidence demonstrates is that the school received inquiries from parents about the need for their children to give statements regarding the incident, but these inquiries do not rise to the level of notoriety. Furthermore, it would be inappropriate to infer notoriety and public disgrace and disrespect from the fact that Mr. Powell was tried and found not guilty of the charge of battery on M. M. The evidence presented is sufficient to establish that, with respect to the November 1997 incident in which Mr. Powell struck M. M. with his cane, Mr. Powell violated several provisions of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession and of the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida because he did not exercise professional judgment; because he inflicted physical injury on M. M. rather than protecting him from such injury; and because he exposed M. M. to unnecessary embarrassment by striking him and causing him to cry in front of his fellow students in the SCSI class. There was, however, no persuasive direct evidence presented to establish that Mr. Powell's effectiveness as a teacher and an employee of the School Board was diminished as a result of the November 1997 incident. This direct evidence consisted solely of the opinion testimony of Dr. Monroe, which was conclusory and was based exclusively on information he obtained from Mr. Powell's records and from discussions with school administrative personnel charged with monitoring Mr. Powell's conduct and teaching performance. No parents or students or members of the community testified that Mr. Powell's effectiveness as a teacher and as an employee of the School Board was diminished as a result of this incident. Under the circumstances of this case, however, it can be inferred from the record as a whole that Mr. Powell's effectiveness as a School Board employee and as a teacher was seriously diminished as a result of the November 1997 incident. Mr. Powell stuck a student with a cane during school hours, and the incident was witnessed by a number of students, who were asked to testify both in this proceeding and in Mr. Powell's criminal trial. In addition, the allegations against Mr. Powell with respect to the November 1997 incident were of such a serious nature that it was necessary to relieve Mr. Powell of his teaching responsibilities and to transfer him from JFK Middle School to the Region 2 administrative offices and, from there, to another middle school in which his contact with students was closely supervised. Finally, the evidence presented is sufficient to establish that, with respect to the November 1997 incident in which he struck M. M. with his cane, Mr. Powell did not conduct himself in a manner which reflected credit on himself or on the school system, nor did his conduct conform to the highest professional standards.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that In DOAH Case NO. 97-5828, the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Richard V. Powell guilty of violating Section 231.28(1)(c) and (i), Florida Statutes, and revoking his teacher's certificate for a period of two years, followed by three years' probation, subject to reasonable conditions to be determined by the Commission; and In DOAH Case No. 98-2387, the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, enter a final order finding Richard V. Powell guilty of misconduct in office pursuant to Section 231.36(1)(a) and (6)(a), Florida Statutes, and of violating School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21 and 6Gx13-4-1.08 and 4-1.09; sustaining his suspension; and dismissing him from employment as a teacher with the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of October, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 11th day of October, 1999.
